tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18365269138267722072024-03-17T20:03:52.921-07:00Politically-incorrect PoliticsPolitically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.comBlogger135125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-28198718583525203222024-02-09T07:21:00.000-08:002024-02-09T07:21:16.887-08:00Of genocide and Doritos crisps<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3zfoXgubF_v-sVrACE63TeSQbc8szCbminJvGtJQEVneW-aS0-h9WJSPxME3hDhWDAKofep9VydfQHyv13pMPbuQrAC00Xlf7yS5MyrysE66bEQxA11MPtoIsnDGp4jswiPpoJdDcgwQduyppggm0M12cayo0O4dCzRFJnt67JIfFlUDufNaQjzJmkFSx/s849/ICJ%20ODonaghue%20screen%20grab.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="478" data-original-width="849" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3zfoXgubF_v-sVrACE63TeSQbc8szCbminJvGtJQEVneW-aS0-h9WJSPxME3hDhWDAKofep9VydfQHyv13pMPbuQrAC00Xlf7yS5MyrysE66bEQxA11MPtoIsnDGp4jswiPpoJdDcgwQduyppggm0M12cayo0O4dCzRFJnt67JIfFlUDufNaQjzJmkFSx/w400-h225/ICJ%20ODonaghue%20screen%20grab.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">ICJ President Joan E. Donaghue reads the 29-page ruling.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><h3 style="text-align: left;">Arrest the Common Sense – it broke the Common Law!</h3><p>Here’s a quote from James Clavell’s most famous novel:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“The law may upset reason but reason may never upset the law, or our whole society will shred like an old tatami. The law may be used to confound reason, reason must certainly not be used to overthrow the law.”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>Many legal scholars fell in love with this adage. What they apparently failed to notice is that Clavell put these ‘wise words’ in the mouth of Yoshi Toranaga – a wily war lord who only pretended to obey the law, while manipulating it to his advantage to make himself Shogun, absolute ruler of medieval Japan.</p><p>No, to set the law above reason is to invite fanaticism; to apply a law that confounds reason is to perpetrate injustice.</p><p>Laws and the Rule of Law are two of humanity’s most valuable inventions. They can guide us on the road to justice – in the spirit of the biblical injunction צדק צדק תרדף (justice, justice thou shalt pursue).</p><p>But, no matter how valuable, every human invention can be used for good or evil purposes. The domestication of animals improved communications, allowed people to ‘delegate’ back-breaking work, reduced famine and filled our innate desire for companionship; but it also provided more destructive ways to make war – war elephants, cavalry charges and horse-drawn cannon. More recently, the discovery of radioactive materials provided a means to save human beings affected by terrible diseases – but also to kill people by the tens of thousands.</p><p>Laws are no different: they can be wonderful guardians of life, dignity and freedom; but, throughout history, they were often turned into instruments of oppression. Jews suffered from ‘legal’ persecution even more than they did from lawlessness: think the Inquisition, the Dhimmitude, the Nuremberg Laws, the Soviet show trials… And it’s not always because of bad laws; often it’s about good laws that are twisted to promote hatred and perpetrate persecution. Laws against murder have often been employed in blood libel accusations; those against treason were used to condemn Alfred Dreyfus…</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGQ6mTrd7NrG4vGtLFBz2cxeQsJxmpFG8_Cttg0vjyH3vZq0Q16bAVhjQMma-uMfWjSw0BrKfC1IIiEqRlLC4qW_AYAkpl_KOT-cMWjt1imEtjhpG8YNHHySRynZlWI9wFJ8PqyESDrwIyzC9k-n8wPYu0mous4AdGzWu-4OCV9Is1-hHGqFDmcXU0IRmo/s400/Stalin%20trial%2002.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="346" data-original-width="400" height="346" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGQ6mTrd7NrG4vGtLFBz2cxeQsJxmpFG8_Cttg0vjyH3vZq0Q16bAVhjQMma-uMfWjSw0BrKfC1IIiEqRlLC4qW_AYAkpl_KOT-cMWjt1imEtjhpG8YNHHySRynZlWI9wFJ8PqyESDrwIyzC9k-n8wPYu0mous4AdGzWu-4OCV9Is1-hHGqFDmcXU0IRmo/w400-h346/Stalin%20trial%2002.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">One of Stalin's 'tribunals' delivers its verdict in 1937. 17 people were condemned - some to immediate execution, while others were eventually murdered in 'labour camps'. </td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p><br /></p><p>And now an international convention against genocide is being used to reward and succour a genocidal act.</p><p>I blame South Africa’s government, of course. But then, there will always be slimy politicians eager to deflect people’s attention from their own woeful mismanagement – by pointing the finger at issues ‘out there’.</p><p>All South Africa did was to formulate a ridiculous claim – thousands of pathetic litigators <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2011/03/restoring-sanity-to-legal-system-051095"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">do that</span></a> each year. In one such case, a plaintiff who choked on a Dorito crisp sued the supplier, arguing that the product was inherently dangerous. After nine years of costly litigation, the claim was finally rejected by the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania, with one judge referring wryly to</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“the common sense notion that it is necessary to properly chew hard foodstuffs prior to swallowing.”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>Which begs the question: where was the common sense of the judges who allowed that case to proceed and burn through taxpayers’ money for nine tedious years?</p><p>A clever lawyer can argue that Doritos are indeed dangerous – by ‘learnedly demonstrating’ that they (‘prima faciae,’ in certain ‘plausible’ ways and all that jazz) tick boxes in legal definitions of ‘potentially harmful products’. S/he might even bring ‘expert witnesses’ ready to swear that people have indeed choked on crisps… But a judge endowed with common sense will rule that Doritos are as much a ‘choking hazard’ as any other tasty snack.</p><p>Imagine if the judges would, a few days into those nine years of pointless litigation, ordered ‘provisional measures’ – for instance that the supplier must stop producing Doritos, to prevent the ‘plausible risk’ of people choking on them!</p><p>The ICJ judges should have thrown out South Africa’s claim as vexatious; as a politically motivated attempt at ‘legal’ harassment – even more absurd than the Doritos case. That they did not do so is due to a combination of lack of integrity (in the case of some judges) and lack of common sense (for others).</p><p>A barrister friend of mine once quipped that judges are interested in law, not justice. The International Court ‘of Justice’ (ICJ) isn’t different in that respect. It seeks to apply what it sees as ‘the Law’. But it shouldn’t do so mechanically, unthinkingly. Justice may be blind, but it shouldn't be brainless. Judges must deliver it without fear and favour, but with fairness. In the absence of integrity and/or common sense, what they’ll deliver is oppression and injustice.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAwn2RkTGJ74t3c4gRlVKBV7HYh6z2ie6K3j-ASf_emHnnHdueW4GdcnEf_4t73dhoTmReJu4_bd2RbfgTa_vcwEmdIDbflGdEGUip7Ouxy96ITDHywc9OnBLoBxx50Ee5UEvFtS86lU4TA06OhFsdIoNFlJRb4hb3yAsXTSjfgncsqV8TtrL8y1nq-IJR/s1785/Blind_Justice_(2830780815)%20(1).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1785" data-original-width="1636" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAwn2RkTGJ74t3c4gRlVKBV7HYh6z2ie6K3j-ASf_emHnnHdueW4GdcnEf_4t73dhoTmReJu4_bd2RbfgTa_vcwEmdIDbflGdEGUip7Ouxy96ITDHywc9OnBLoBxx50Ee5UEvFtS86lU4TA06OhFsdIoNFlJRb4hb3yAsXTSjfgncsqV8TtrL8y1nq-IJR/s320/Blind_Justice_(2830780815)%20(1).jpg" width="293" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Portrayal of 'Justice': blind, but not batty!</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>True, the ICJ took pains to explain that it wasn’t (yet) making a determination on the actual claim of genocide. But it found the ‘risk’ that Israel may commit genocide ‘plausible’ enough to allow the litigation to continue – and to order ‘provisional measures’ aimed at mitigating that ‘risk’!</p><p>It did so by suspending common sense and engaging – either deliberately or through fanatic adherence to words over facts – in a box-ticking exercise. It’s all in the 29-page long ruling. Which – unlike the thousands of journalists reporting and the millions of people talking about it – I took the time to read. I also spent my precious time reading the five accompanying documents:</p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The Declaration of Judge Xue (China)</li><li>The Dissenting Opinion of Judge Sebutinde (Uganda)</li><li>The Declaration of Judge Bhandari (India)</li><li>The Declaration of Judge Nolte (Germany)</li><li>The Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Barak (Israel)</li></ul><p>They make for an interesting reading! So let’s analyse the judges ‘reasoning’ – such as it is.</p><h3>Apparently clear, clearly apparent</h3><p>The first question that the ruling addresses is that of jurisdiction: does the Court have (at least apparently or ‘prima faciae’) jurisdiction over this case? In order for South Africa to sue Israel, it has to show that there is a <em>“dispute”</em> between the two states <em>“relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention”</em>. But South Africa is thousands of miles away from Israel. What do they have to quarrel about?</p><p>Yet the Court ruled that there was a dispute:</p><blockquote><p></p></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><p><i>“26. The Court notes that South Africa issued public statements . . . in which it expressed its view that . . . Israel’s actions amounted to violations of its obligations under the Genocide Convention.</i></p><p><i>. . .</i></p></blockquote><blockquote><p><i>27. The Court notes that Israel dismissed any accusation of genocide in the context of the conflict in Gaza…”</i></p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>So there you are: South Africa accused and Israel denied, hence there’s a dispute – let’s go to court. According to this ‘logic’, had Israel abstained from denying and just contemptuously held its piece in the face of South Africa’s angry accusations, there would’ve been no dispute and hence no Court jurisdiction over this case. But once Israel denied…</p><p>Absurd, I know; but apparently sufficient for this Court to conclude:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“28. In light of the above, the Court considers that the Parties appear to hold clearly opposite views . . . The Court finds that the above-mentioned elements are sufficient at this stage to establish prima facie the existence of a dispute between the Parties…”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>The judges must’ve thought long and hard whether <em>“the parties appear to hold clearly opposing views”</em>, or rather ‘clearly hold apparently opposing views’!</p><p>Anyway… according to their ‘logic’, if you shout ‘your sister is a whore’ and I respond ‘but I have no sister’ – there’s ‘apparently a clear dispute’ that justifies Court intervention!</p><h3>Innocent until found ‘plausible’</h3><p>But is the Convention even applicable in this case? The Court does not know – it hasn’t even begun to judge the merits of the claim. This ruling isn’t about whether Israel committed genocide – it’s about ‘provisional measures’ to be ordered in the meantime. It’s not even about ‘potentially’ – it’s about ‘plausibly’.</p><p>‘Plausible’ is such a great word! Not even dictionaries agree what it really means. <a href="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/plausible"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Cambridge</span></a> interprets it as</p><blockquote><blockquote><p><i>“seeming likely to be true, or able to be believed.”</i></p></blockquote></blockquote><p>while <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plausible"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Merriam-Webster</span></a> says it means</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often deceptively so.”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>The two are apparently different, but to the Court one thing is clear: in the world of mere ‘plausibility’, there’s no need for evidence:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“30. At the present stage of the proceedings, the Court is not required to ascertain whether any violations of Israel’s obligations under the Genocide Convention have occurred. Such a finding could be made by the Court only at the stage of the examination of the merits of the present case. . . [A]t the stage of . . . provisional measures, the Court’s task is to establish whether the acts and omissions complained of by the applicant appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Genocide Convention.”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>So there you are: if I say that Doritos are a choking hazard, this is enough to take Doritos off the market if, in the learned opinion of the Court, the allegations <em>“appear to be capable of falling within”</em> the provisions of food safety legislation.</p><p>But what’s all this to do with South Africa, anyway? South Africa isn’t ‘at risk’ of genocide at the hands of those horrible Israelis – not even on ‘Planet Plausible’. So what gives South Africa the right to sue or – in legal terms – what is South Africa’s ‘standing’? I may be really disgusted by Donald Trump’s behaviour; but I cannot sue him for defaming E Jean Carroll. He defamed, not me – so I have no ‘standing’. Why does South Africa?</p><p>The Court ruled that, as an international treaty, the Convention is a form of contract, with any country that agreed to be bound by it a ‘party’ to the contract. And so,</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“any State party to the Genocide Convention may invoke the responsibility of another State party, including through the institution of proceedings before the Court…”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>There you are, problem solved. Anyone can sue anyone. There are 152 such ‘parties’ to the Convention – each of them able to bring any of the other 151 before the Court! In total (use <a href="https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/discretemathematics/combinations.php"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">this calculator</span></a> if you don’t believe me) a possible 11,476 lawsuits.</p><p>But, even after granting South Africa ‘standing’, the Court is still left with a major issue: is it even remotely conceivable that Gaza may be subjected to ‘genocide’? Either ‘clearly’, or ‘apparently’ – or both? Even on ‘Planet Plausible’?</p><p>‘Just’ killing people – whether combatants or innocents, whether lawfully or criminally – isn’t genocide. Otherwise every war would be a ‘genocide’.</p><p>Here the box-ticking exercise begins. The Convention defines ‘genocide’ as</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><p><i>“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:</i></p><p><i>(a) Killing members of the group;</i></p><p><i>(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;</i></p><p><i>(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;</i></p><p><i>(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;</i></p><p><i>(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”.</i></p></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>Are Palestinians <em>“a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”</em>? That in itself could be the subject of nine years of debate. ‘Luckily’, we are still on ‘Planet Plausible’, where no evidence is required – it’s all about appearance:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“45. The Palestinians appear to constitute a distinct ‘national, ethnical, racial or religious group’, and hence a protected group…”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>But why does the Convention say <em>“in whole or in part”</em>? Isn’t genocide (as the name implies) an attempt to destroy the entire group? Well, perhaps those who wrote the Convention wanted to prevent ‘defences’ like ‘but I don’t want to kill all the Jews, Your Honour! Just the Zionists…’ I’m just speculating here!</p><p>Still: in previous debates, the Court has already established that wanting to kill just a few people isn’t genocide. It has to be ‘substantial’ (whatever that means):</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“[T]he intent must be to destroy at least a substantial part of the particular group”.</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>So how many Gazans were killed? Again, we don’t need evidence – we just need ‘information,’ whether verified or not:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“While figures relating to the Gaza Strip cannot be independently verified, recent information indicates that 25,700 Palestinians have been killed, over 63,000 injuries have been reported, over 360,000 housing units have been destroyed or partially damaged and approximately 1.7 million persons have been internally displaced…”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>The Court rather deceitfully attributes the <em>“recent information”</em> to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). But, of course, OCHA was merely quoting the ‘health ministry’ run by Hamas. No matter – OCHA found Hamas data ‘plausible’ and the Court of course believes OCHA. After all, the ‘International Court of Justice’, isn’t really a court and has little to do with justice; it is, just like OCHA, an organ of the United Nations. Part and parcel of its structure and mechanisms. One hand washes the other…</p><p>In the process, some of the judges demonstrate not just bias and partiality, but also superficiality and contempt for the facts. In his Declaration (appended to the Court’s ruling), Judge Bhandari writes, inter alia:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“To date, however, more than 25,000 civilians in Gaza have reportedly lost their lives as a result of Israel’s military campaign…”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>Of course, nobody – not even Hamas – claims that <em>“more than 25,000 civilians”</em> have been killed. That would imply that the IDF failed to kill even one Hamas combatant. (They must be fighting shadows in Gaza!) In fact, the numbers published by the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza do not differentiate at all between civilians and combatants – but refer only to the gender and age group (adults or ‘children’) of the victims. (I placed scare quotes around ‘children’, because Hamas’s definition of the term – below the age of 18 – does not unfortunately reflect the organisation’s recruiting practices. There are ‘reportedly’ plenty of 16 and 17 year olds in the ranks of the jidadists).</p><p><em>“[M]ore than 25,000”</em> was, at that time, the total number of Gazan fatalities –civilians <strong>and combatants</strong> – as alleged by Hamas. That a judge sitting on the high and mighty International Court of Justice – no less – and deliberating on such grave allegations could get such a basic fact wrong is shocking. And who knows how many other judges – who did not bother to append a separate Declaration – are equally poorly seized of the facts?</p><p>But even such egregious blunders are irrelevant in the big scheme of things. Because, even if one were to accept at face value the numbers provided by Hamas, it would still be difficult – even for a UN agency – to claim that killing 25,700 people (out of a self-assessed <a href="https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/portals/_pcbs/PressRelease/Press_En_InterPopDay2022E.pdf"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">14.5 million Palestinians</span></a>) is consistent with <em>“intent . . . to destroy at least a substantial part of the particular group”</em>. That’s why the Court resorts to a sleight of hand: It observes that</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“according to United Nations sources, the Palestinian population of the Gaza Strip comprises over 2 million people. Palestinians in the Gaza Strip form a substantial part of the protected group.”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>They do indeed. And if the Israelis were intending to kill all 2 million of them, that would constitute a ‘plausible’ suspicion of genocide. But do they?</p><p>Intent is essential when it comes to genocide. In World War II, the Allies killed at least 5 million Germans, including circa 500,000 civilians killed by British and American airstrikes. The Soviets worked to death another 500,000. But, however <em>“significant”</em> those numbers were, this wasn’t genocide: what the Allies wanted was to win the war and remove the Nazis from power – not to destroy the German people as such.</p><p>In his Separate Opinion, Israeli judge Aharon Barak reminded the Court,</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><p><i>“[t]he drafters of the Genocide Convention clarified in their discussions that</i></p><p><i>‘[t]he infliction of losses, even heavy losses, on the civilian population in the course of operations of war, does not as a rule constitute genocide. In modern war belligerents normally destroy factories, means of communication, public buildings, etc. and the civilian population inevitably suffers more or less severe losses. It would of course be desirable to limit such losses. Various measures might be taken to achieve this end, but this question belongs to the field of the regulation of the conditions of war and not to that of genocide.’”</i></p></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>In other words, the number of casualties is rather irrelevant to the genocide/not genocide debate. It is the intent that matters.</p><h3>Twisting words to twist minds</h3><p>In order to establish ‘plausible’ intent, the Court provided 3 quotes taken from public pronouncements by Israeli politicians. But it did so only after quoting the head of UNRWA, who complained of <em>“dehumanizing language”</em> – as if worried that, without the prior warning, people might not recognise that language as <em>“dehumanising”</em>. In passing, let us note that the head of UNRWA never accused Hamas of dehumanising and genocidal discourse, despite their Covenant overtly calling to the killing of all Jews!</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5yENbICnOfOffqNq4BQNnH2HVxJEQMc7T0aL-eceEY3G2uGfRWghnV6VnL5_bX8jdEq-LDigkJGXQsWBOLY73aGWmnAh96OioSFlcW6qx0-7mRBVFs65m-1U7492HQ6M0mjIl73B71PmGyWYZEqQiGQGSnrd5SrIiNEDkOlV8rYlmRCjCbjWHZPxd2yW4/s3000/52646760069_ca2ee5c0e7_o.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1688" data-original-width="3000" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5yENbICnOfOffqNq4BQNnH2HVxJEQMc7T0aL-eceEY3G2uGfRWghnV6VnL5_bX8jdEq-LDigkJGXQsWBOLY73aGWmnAh96OioSFlcW6qx0-7mRBVFs65m-1U7492HQ6M0mjIl73B71PmGyWYZEqQiGQGSnrd5SrIiNEDkOlV8rYlmRCjCbjWHZPxd2yW4/w400-h225/52646760069_ca2ee5c0e7_o.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Head of UNRWA, Philippe Lazzarini</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>But once again: ICJ is just another UN agency – and so is UNRWA. The head of the latter is, apparently, infallible in the eyes of the ICJ judges – just like the Pope in the eyes of devoted Catholics.</p><p>Later in its ruling, using yet another sleight of hand, the Court refers to <em>“direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip”</em>. This is merely a quote from the Convention (Article III) – but many will interpret those terms as referring to the same Israeli statements, previously referred to as ‘just’ <em>“dehumanising”</em>.</p><p>All three quotes, by the way, are from the days immediately following the 7 October massacre perpetrated by Hamas, so they are suffused with shock and anger. The first (by Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant) was uttered on 10 October. Here is the English transcript, as reproduced by the Court:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“I have released all restraints . . . You saw what we are fighting against. We are fighting human animals. This is the ISIS of Gaza. This is what we are fighting against . . . Gaza won’t return to what it was before. There will be no Hamas. We will eliminate everything. If it doesn’t take one day, it will take a week, it will take weeks or even months, we will reach all places.”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p><em>“[H]uman animals”</em> may sound like dehumanising language. But there is zero evidence that Gallant was referring to <em>“a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”</em>. Quite the opposite: the comparison he makes is with ISIS – a terrorist organisation; emphatically <strong>not</strong> a protected group. He describes the mission as fighting against <em>“the ISIS of Gaza”</em> – a phrase <a href="https://nypost.com/2023/10/10/hamas-is-isis-netanyahu-says-of-terrorist-savages/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">used extensively</span></a> in Israel to refer to Hamas (including the oft-used hashtag <a href="https://www.instagram.com/b.netanyahu/reel/CyQg16psCzV/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">#HamasIsISIS</span></a>). In describing Gaza after the Israeli operation, Gallant says <em>“</em><em>There will be no Hamas”</em>, not ‘there will be no Palestinians’. So how exactly – even on Planet Plausible – is this <em>“direct and public incitement to commit genocide”</em>?</p><p>Israel’s leftist President Yitzhak Herzog is also quoted as saying, on 13 October:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“We are working, operating militarily according to rules of international law. Unequivocally. It is an entire nation out there that is responsible. It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved. It is absolutely not true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’état. But we are at war. We are at war. We are at war. We are defending our homes. We are protecting our homes. That’s the truth. And when a nation protects its home, it fights. And we will fight until we’ll break their backbone.”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>Since the <em>“rules of international law”</em> prohibit the targeting of uninvolved civilians (not to mention genocide!), Mr. Herzog’s expressed commitment to those rules seems to preclude the notion of genocidal intent. True, the Israeli President opines that <em>”an entire</em> [Palestinian] <em>nation . . . is responsible”</em>. But is that really a call to commit genocide? Many people claim that the entire German people bore some level of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_collective_guilt"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">collective responsibility</span></a> (Kollektivschuld) for the Shoah; that they largely accepted – if not actively supported – Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime; that they followed orders rather than standing up for basic morality; that they were aware of the genocide and yet remained largely silent. All that does not mean that random Germans can be killed, let alone that the German people should be destroyed as such. Assigning moral (or even legal) responsibility is one thing; inciting genocide is quite another. As for <em>“breaking their backbone”</em>, who says that refers to <em>“an entire nation”</em> rather than to <em>“that evil regime”</em>, i.e. Hamas?</p><p>The ICJ quote leaves out other comments that Mr. Herzog made with the same occasion. Here’s ITV’s International Affairs Editor Rageh Omar, <a href="https://www.itv.com/news/2023-10-13/israeli-president-says-gazans-could-have-risen-up-to-fight-hamas"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">reporting</span></a> on that press conference:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><p><i>“’… until we break their backbone.’</i></p><p><i>He [President Herzog] acknowledged that many Gazans had nothing to do with Hamas but was adamant that others did.</i></p><p><i>‘I agree there are many innocent Palestinians who don't agree with this, but if you have a missile in your goddamn kitchen and you want to shoot it at me, am I allowed to defend myself. We have to defend ourselves, we have the full right to do so.’"</i></p></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>So Mr. Herzog makes a clear distinction between <em>“many innocent Palestinians”</em> and those who store and launch missiles. The right of self-defence is invoked only against the latter group. Hardly <em>“direct and public incitement to commit genocide”</em>. Or even <em>“dehumanizing language”</em>!</p><p>Finally, the ICJ ruling quotes a tweet by Israel Katz, currently Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. On 13 October 2023, when he was Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, Mr. Katz posted:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“We will fight the terrorist organization Hamas and destroy it. All the civilian population in [G]aza is ordered to leave immediately. We will win. They will not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world.”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>Mr. Katz also draws a clear distinction between <em>“the terrorist organization Hamas”</em> and <em>“the civilian population in [G]aza”</em>. Only the former is to be destroyed, while the latter is ordered to get out of the way. It is pretty clear that the <em>“they” </em>who are supposed to <em>“leave the world”</em> are Hamas – otherwise why make the distinction at all?</p><p>If that’s the ‘best’ that can be found as evidence of <em>“direct and public incitement to commit genocide”</em> by Israeli leaders, it decidedly represents slim pickings.</p><p>And why would the Court ignore the many statements by Israeli leaders making it clear that the target is Hamas, not the population of Gaza as such? Here’s a selection of such statements – but there are many similar ones.</p><p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-not-successful-bid-minimize-gaza-civilian-casualties-netanyahu-says-2023-11-17/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu</span></a>, on 16 November 2023:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>"Any civilian death is a tragedy . . . we're doing everything we can to get the civilians out of harm's way . . . we'll try to finish that job with minimal civilian casualties. That's what we're trying to do: minimal civilian casualties.”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p><a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/gallant-second-stage-of-war-may-last-months-pockets-of-resistance-will-remain/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Defence Minister Yoav Gallant</span></a>, 29 October 2023:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“We are not fighting the Palestinian multitude and the Palestinian people in Gaza.”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p><a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3621107/secretary-of-defense-lloyd-j-austin-iii-joint-press-conference-with-israeli-def/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Defence Minister Yoav Gallant</span></a>, on 18 December 2023:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“[O]ur war against Hamas, the Hamas terrorist organization, is a war — it’s not a war against the people of Gaza. We are fighting a brutal enemy that hides behind civilians.”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p><a href="https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/news/transcripts/israeli-president-isaac-herzog-on-the-israel-hamas-war-and-the-future-of-the-middle-east/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">President Yitzhak Herzog</span></a>, on 19 December 2023:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“One thing is clear: The people of Gaza are not our enemy. The enemy is only Hamas. And we’re fighting Hamas and its partners.”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p><a href="https://x.com/Israel_katz/status/1713170415713947745?s=20"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Minister Israel Katz</span></a> tweeted on 14 October (in Hebrew, translation mine):</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“The purpose of the movement [of civilians] southwards is to prevent the Hamas murderers from using the population as human shields, to save lives and to remove the threat posed by those Nazis.”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>Words can be twisted, statements can be taken out of context, ill-intentions can – if someone is so inclined – be inferred from imprecise language. But real incitement? Here’s an <a href="https://phdn.org/archives/www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/statements.htm"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">example</span></a> of <em>“dehumanising language”</em> and of genuine <em>“direct and public incitement to commit genocide”</em>:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“For us, this [the ‘Jewish problem’] is not a problem you can turn a blind eye to-one to be solved by small concessions. For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever really be eradicated. Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst.”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>Taken verbatim from a speech given by Adolf Hitler in 1920, this is a very relevant example. Not because Israeli leaders should ever be compared to the Nazis, but because this is the type of statement that the authors of the Genocide Convention had in mind when, shortly after the end of World War II, they wanted to prohibit <em>“direct and public incitement to commit genocide”</em>.</p><p>Perhaps sensing that the evidence of <em>“incitement”</em> is embarrassingly thin, the judges resorted to quoting ‘witnesses’:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“53. The Court also takes note of a press release of 16 November 2023, issued by 37 Special Rapporteurs, Independent Experts and members of Working Groups part of the Special Procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council, in which they voiced alarm over ‘discernibly genocidal and dehumanising rhetoric coming from senior Israeli government officials’. In addition, on 27 October 2023, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination observed that it was ‘[h]ighly concerned about the sharp increase in racist hate speech and dehumanization directed at Palestinians since 7 October’.”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>The problem is that these are not witnesses – they are UN employees with <a href="https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/unhrc"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">a long history of anti-Israel bias</span></a>. But even ignoring that bias, it beggars belief that judges would quote non-specific hearsay as ‘evidence’ (however ‘prima faciae’). If ‘s/he said, they said’ were taken to represent evidence, we would all be criminals on our way to prison!</p><p>No wonder that Israeli Judge Aharon Barak – himself a stickler for ‘the Law’ above all else – said that the Court’s ruling was based on <em>“scant evidence”</em>.</p><p>Ugandan Judge Sebutinde stated that <em>“there are . . . no indicators of incitement to commit genocide”</em>.</p><p>Even the German Judge Nolte (who voted in favour of the ruling) was forced to admit that South Africa had not <em>“plausibly shown . . . genocidal intent.”</em></p><h3>We’ve no idea what you’re doing – but make sure you don’t!</h3><p>And yet it’s based on such flimsy non-evidence that the Court decided that the ‘risk of genocide’ to Palestinians in Gaza was ‘plausible’ enough to warrant ‘provisional measures’.</p><p>On the other hand, the Court did refuse to order Israel to cease its military operations in Gaza. Now, this is interesting. Not only did South Africa request such an order (it was first and foremost among its demands); but also the Court acted in contradiction with its own very recent precedent: on 16 March 2022, it ordered Russia to <em>“immediately suspend the military operations . . . in the territory of Ukraine”</em>.</p><p>So if the Court truly believed that the Jewish state was harbouring ‘plausible intent’ to commit genocide in Gaza, how come it allowed it to continue its military operations in that territory? If I genuinely suspected that they are a choking hazard, why on earth would I allow Doritos to continue to be manufactured and sold?</p><p>But, of course, the judges don’t really believe that South Africa’s claims have any merit. They are just going through the motions, immersed in their ‘learned’ box-ticking exercise and practising the suspension of common sense. This was, after all, just a ruling on ‘provisional measures’ with no bearing on the final verdict… In the mind-boggling words of Judge Nolte:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“Even though I do not find it plausible that the [Israeli] military operation is being conducted with genocidal intent, I voted in favour of the measures indicated by the Court.”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>Read: ‘even though there’s no Israeli genocide, I voted to protect the Gazans from the Israeli genocide…’</p><p>But what ‘provisional measures’ did the Court indicate? Besides the request to impose a cessation of Israel’s military operations, South Africa requested the Court to order as follows:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“The Republic of South Africa and the State of Israel shall each, in accordance with their obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to the Palestinian people, take all reasonable measures within their power to prevent genocide.”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>This was a bridge too far even for this court: as proposed, the text would conceivably have given the South Africa an excuse (or even a licence) to intervene militarily in Gaza, in order <em>“to prevent genocide”</em>!</p><p>Instead, the ICJ ordered</p><blockquote><p><i></i></p><blockquote><i>“[t]he State of Israel . . . [to] take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this [Genocide] Convention”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>There are almost as many absurdities as there are words in the sentence above.</p><p>Firstly, the order is addressed to <em>“[t]he State of Israel”</em>. But states (or nations) are abstract constructs. States don’t make decisions – governments and leaders do. Quite obviously, states as such cannot harbour intent, such as <em>“intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”</em>.</p><p>And what the hell does it mean to <em>“take all measures within its power to prevent the commission”</em> of genocide? As we have seen from the definition included in the Convention, genocides don’t just ‘happen’, they are perpetrated. Killing people – even killing a lot of people – isn’t genocide, unless the killing is perpetrated with a particular intent. Either the government of the State of Israel harbours such intent (in which case it should be ordered to abandon it or not to implement it in practice), or it doesn’t – in which case whom and how is it supposed to <em>“prevent”</em>? Indeed, given the way in which the ICJ order is worded, the Israeli government might interpret it as an injunction to continue to fight Hamas, in order to prevent that terror organisation from committing <em>“all acts within the scope of Article II of this [Genocide] Convention”</em>.</p><p>But what if we interpret the order as saying (albeit in an exceedingly vague, convoluted and imprecise manner) ‘Government of Israel, you are hereby ordered not to commit genocide in Gaza’? Put like this, such order may sound quite stern; but it goes no farther than the legal obligations that Israel had anyway – prior to and independent of the ICJ order; obligations that Israeli leaders do not contest at all.</p><p>As Judge Sebutinde wrote:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“In my view, the First [provisional] measure obligating Israel to ‘take all measures within its power . . .’ effectively mirrors the obligation already incumbent upon Israel . . . and is therefore redundant.”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>In fact, 5 out of the 6 ‘provisional measures’ prescribed by the ICJ fall in the same category of redundant injunctions: they ‘order’ Israel to do what it is in any case legally obliged to do. That’s like issuing a court order to the Doritos supplier to ‘take all measures within its power to prevent the sale of products that contravene the Food Safety Bill’.</p><h3>Ordering the unreasonable</h3><p>But there’s more: extreme as it was, the South African proposal referred to <em>“all reasonable measures within their power”</em>. In its lack of wisdom, the ICJ decided to do one better: the judges took away the term <em>“reasonable”</em> and left just <em>“all measures within its power”</em>. This enables someone to argue that Israel must do absolutely everything in its power – however extreme, disproportionate and unreasonable.</p><p>Say Hamas were shooting rockets into Israel from within a residential building; Israel would presumably have to send its soldiers on a bayonet charge in order to remove the threat. After all, a bayonet charge is definitely <em>“within its power”</em>, while bombing the building risks</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“(a) killing members of the group,”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>something that Israel has been ordered not to do. But even a bayonet charge may not satisfy the judges, as it won’t completely eliminate that risk – let alone the risk of</p><blockquote><p><i></i></p><blockquote><i>“(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to the members of the group;”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>So perhaps Israel is obliged to do nothing at all in such a case. Doing nothing is, arguably, <em>“within its power”</em> and presents no risk of genocide. Well, not against the Palestinians, anyway!</p><p>Three of the ICJ judges are native English speakers. Don’t they understand that the antonym of ‘reasonable’ is… ‘unreasonable’??</p><p>As for the 6<sup>th</sup> ‘provisional measure’ (the only one that isn’t superfluous by definition), the Court ordered Israel to</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order”.</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>And to do so <em>“within one month”</em> (rather than within one week, as South Africa requested).</p><p>We know what the Court intends to do with that report:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“The report so provided shall then be communicated to South Africa, which shall be given the opportunity to submit to the Court its comments thereon.”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>But we also know (and so should the Court) what South Africa’s comments will be. After all, South Africa wanted the ICJ to order Israel to <em>“immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza”</em>. So, unless Israel offered to do exactly that (despite not having been ordered to), South Africa will surely argue that Israel’s <em>“measures” </em>are insufficient – that they do not completely <em>“prevent”</em> genocide. And how exactly will the Court assess what really is <em>“all measures within its power”</em> etc. etc. – and what isn’t? Will the Court (which lacks any military expertise) end up dictating specifically what should be done in the field and how – and thus in effect put itself in charge of IDF operations? Even more importantly: exactly how is all this relevant to the issue of intent – which is the crux of the matter when it comes to genocide?</p><p>Some – including Israelis and Diaspora Jews – have tried to find consolation in the following paragraph of the ICJ ruling:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“85. The Court deems it necessary to emphasize that all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip are bound by international humanitarian law. It is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack in Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>In my opinion, rather than improving, this paragraph makes the ruling – if it were possible – even more outrageous.</p><p>The paragraph has no place in a case of genocide – it is a transparent political attempt to ‘demonstrate’ even-handedness. To ‘call’ for the release of hostages is the language of empty diplomacy, not of law. If the Court wanted to deliver a meaningful gesture, then it should have joined Judge Sebutinde, who remarked, with thin irony:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>“In its Request for provisional measures, South Africa emphasised that both Parties to these proceedings have a duty to act in accordance with their obligations under the Genocide Convention . . . leaving one wondering what positive contribution the Applicant could make towards defusing the ongoing conflict there. During the oral proceedings in the present case, it was brought to the attention of the Court that South Africa, and in particular certain organs of government, have enjoyed and continue to enjoy a cordial relationship with the leadership of Hamas. If that is the case, then one would encourage South Africa as a party to these proceedings and to the Genocide Convention, to use whatever influence they might wield, to try and persuade Hamas to immediately and unconditionally release the remaining hostages, as a good will gesture. I have no doubt that such a gesture of good will would go a very long way in defusing the current conflict in Gaza.”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>I would add (with plenty of Zionist irony and zero expectations) that the UN, including the ICJ, views Gaza as part of the State of Palestine. So – having expressed ‘grave concern’ for the Israeli hostages – shouldn’t the Court order the State of Palestine to <em>“take all measures in its power”</em> to bring about their release? For starters, how about indicting the leaders of Hamas for an obvious war crime perpetrated – in theory at least – under the jurisdiction of the State of Palestine?</p><h3>Stupidity has consequences</h3><p>So let me summarise: the International Court of Justice’s failure to recognise South Africa’s application as vexatious, politically motivated and fundamentally without merits will ensure that this ‘legal’ circus will now perform for years, abusing public money, misusing resources, poisoning international relations and distracting attention from genuine issues.</p><p>The ‘provisional measures’ ordered by the Court are not just unnecessary, but pointless and irrational.</p><p>Unfortunately, however, this is not all. By their failure to apply common sense, their blind dive into legalistic detail at the expense of assessing the bigger picture and (in some cases at least) their lack of integrity, the judges have produced a series of severely deleterious consequences. I will analyse some of them below – not necessarily in the order of gravity.</p><p>Firstly, this harms the reputation of the Court – such as it is. The ICJ has no enforcement power (both <a href="https://www.icj-cij.org/case/70"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">USA</span></a> and <a href="https://www.icj-cij.org/case/182"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Russia</span></a> have already treated its rulings with contempt) and relies entirely on reputation to lend it any sort of influence.</p><p>Secondly (and more importantly), by ‘playing along’ with South Africa’s charade, the judges trivialised the notion of genocide (aptly called ‘crime of crimes’) and made a mockery of one of the most important international agreements arising from the inferno of World War II. Their ruling –now elevated to the rank of ‘existing jurisprudence’ – guarantees that the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and similar agreements will increasingly be abused. They will more and more become political tools, instruments of ‘lawfare’, additional ways for dictators, corrupt governments and rogue regimes to harass other nations. Expect an inflation of ‘genocides’ and other specious accusations that (since the Court has set the bar of ‘plausibility’ so low) will now have to be examined and will produce a flurry of devalued ‘provisional measures’ and ‘rulings’ that – increasingly – nobody will give a damn about.</p><p>Thirdly, such frivolous ‘judicial’ process will surely discourage states from joining the Genocide Convention – and other international instruments. Currently, 153 states are members of the Convention, while <a href="https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide-convention.shtml"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">41 UN members states are not</span></a>. But among the member states, many (including USA, Russia and China) have joined with reservations and objections. Many of these reservations (including one submitted by USA) deny ICJ jurisdiction – unless expressly accepted by the member state in question. Israel signed the Convention (with no reservations) in August 1949 – almost immediately after the end of its War of Independence and much earlier than the UK (1970) and USA (1988). But knowing what they know now, what conceivable Israeli government would voluntarily put itself under ICJ jurisdiction? Would Israel (and other countries) sign existing and future treaties, knowing that they can be used maliciously, to ‘legally’ harass them?</p><p>Fourthly, far from bringing about peace and understanding, accepting such tendentious claims serves only to sow discord among states and nations. The ICJ procedure allows states to ‘<a href="https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-14/ty-article/.premium/germany-announces-decision-to-intervene-on-israels-behalf-in-icj-case/0000018d-0787-dd07-a7df-cfff1f090000"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">intervene</span></a>’ in favour of one side or the other – which of course results in the creation of acrimonious, bitterly opposed ‘coalitions’. In one case, no less than 32 different countries ‘intervened’ in such a dispute. More worryingly, this is likely to make peace between Israelis and Palestinians even more unlikely. As Judge Sebutinde opined, <em>“the dispute between the State of Israel and the people of Palestine is essentially and historically a political one, calling for a diplomatic or negotiated settlement”</em> – rather than a legal dispute to be resolved in court. We are looking now at years of litigation, during which the Palestinian leadership would pretend at least to believe Israel guilty of genocide. How is that leadership then expected to ‘sell’ to their own people making concessions to ‘perpetrators of genocide’?</p><h3>From ‘never again’ to ‘again and again’</h3><p>But I left the saddest and most upsetting consequence for last. Think about it: why genocide? This is a rarely used accusation. In fact, in 75 years the Convention has only been legally invoked only twice before:</p><ul><li>In 1993, Bosnia-Herzegovina sued Yugoslavia for alleged genocide perpetrated against its Muslim (Bosniak) population. More than 30,000 Bosniak civilians had been killed (out of a population of circa 1.8 million). Bosniaks represented more than 80% of the total number of civilians killed in that war. Yet the ICJ ruled that no genocide had been perpetrated – except in one particular instance: the massacre of Srebrenica.</li><li>In 2019, the African state of Gambia sued Myanmar, alleging that the latter committed genocide against its Muslim Rohingya population. Circa 25,000 had been killed and 750,000 fled to Bangladesh. The case is still being tried.</li></ul><p>Needless to say, a lot of other mass atrocities – which many claim were genocide – took place in those 75 year. One can point for instance at Indonesia (1965-1966, at least 500,000 deaths), Bangladesh (1971, at least 300,000), Cambodia (1975-1979, at least 1.5 million), Guatemala (1981-1983, c. 166,000), East Timor (1975-1983, at least 100,000), Rwanda (1994, at least 500,000), Ethiopia (ongoing), Sudan (ongoing), China/Xinjiang (ongoing)…</p><p>In the Middle East alone, genocide is alleged to have taken place in that period against Kurds, Marsh Arabs, Christians, Yazidis, Shabaks and Turkmens.</p><p>None of those instances (some of which continued for years or are still ongoing) was brought before the ICJ – although some countries ‘<a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/uk-acknowledges-yazidi-genocide-by-daesh-islamic-state/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">recognised</span></a>’ those atrocities as genocide. So we are entitled to ask – why Israel? What makes the conflict in Gaza (only 100 days after it was started by the rulers of that territory) different? Why is the Jewish state only the 3<sup>rd</sup> country in 75 years to be formally accused of this ‘crime of crimes’ – and dragged before the international court?</p><p>Accusations of war crimes against Israel are not a new thing. Nor are a host of other allegations: massacres, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, land grab, etc. etc. But let’s be clear: genocide is not ‘more of the same’ – it is (or should be) in a category of its own. The most well-known genocide in history is the Shoah – the systematic, industrial-style extermination of the Jewish population of Europe. The term itself was coined by a Jew (Raphael Lemkin) in 1944 – as a generic category for the Shoah, for what Churchill initially called <em>“a crime without a name”</em>.</p><p>That, a few decades later, the Jewish state (‘the Jew among nations’) finds itself accused that that exact crime is not by chance; it’s symptomatic.</p><p>Israeli psychiatrist Zvi Rex once remarked:</p><blockquote><p><i></i></p><blockquote><i>"The Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz.”</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>But, of course, it wasn’t just the Germans and not just at Auschwitz. To paraphrase Rex, the world has never forgiven the Jews for the Shoah. It seeks to assuage pangs of conscience by discovering new ‘reasons’ to hate the Jews. German social psychologist Peter Schönbach called this ‘push back’ against feelings of guilt ‘<a href="https://jcpa.org/article/secondary-anti-semitism-from-hard-core-to-soft-core-denial-of-the-shoah/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">secondary antisemitism</span>’</a>.</p><p>Most European and America Jews are shocked by the current ‘sudden eruption’ of antisemitism. They did not personally experience such intense hostility in the past, so they view it as a new phenomenon. But nothing is farther from the truth. Of course, after the Shoah it became less acceptable to manifest overt antisemitism in the street. But antisemitic ideation continued in ‘scholarly’ circles, under the excuse of ‘academic research’ and academic freedom. It grew and fermented in that fertile environment, before first seeping and then bursting out in the open.</p><p>The crudest form of secondary antisemitism is Holocaust denial. It is still very much ‘out there’, but more ‘subtle’ varieties have been developed. In both ‘über-progressive’ and far right circles, there is widespread universalisation, trivialisation and banalisation of the Shoah. As early as 1949, German philosopher Martin Heidegger was <a href="https://policycommons.net/artifacts/2040220/whitewashing-antisemitism-by-dr-manfred-gerstenfeld-executive-summary/2792663/">comparing</a> <em>“the production of corpses in gas chambers and extermination camps”</em> with… modern agriculture.</p><p>While such far-fetched ‘metaphors’ may be relatively rare, it has become commonplace to refer to the Shoah as ‘just another’ genocide – and even to imply that it is surpassed in importance by other historic phenomena: the <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-14876-9_10"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Atlantic slave trade</span></a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2013.821229"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">the colonial oppression</span></a>, <a href="https://socialistworker.co.uk/features/capitalism-and-the-holocaust/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">capitalist exploitation</span></a>, <a href="https://time.com/5684505/ghetto-word-history/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">anti-black racism in USA</span></a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-time-to-talk-about-gay-reparations-and-how-they-can-rectify-past-persecutions-of-lgbtq-people-162086"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">homo- or transphobia</span></a>, etc.</p><p>Reflecting precisely this tendency, in 2011 Jeremy Corbyn (at the time a Labour Party backbencher, but later elected to lead that party) <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/corbyn-called-for-uks-holocaust-memorial-day-to-be-renamed/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">submitted a proposal</span></a> to change the name of Holocaust Memorial Day to <em>“Genocide Memorial Day – Never Again For Anyone,”</em> to reflect that <em>“Nazism targeted not only Jewish [people]”</em>.</p><p>But the ultimate form of secondary antisemitism is ‘<a href="https://fathomjournal.org/holocaust-inversion-and-contemporary-antisemitism/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Holocaust inversion</span></a>’. If one can claim that Jews are now the ones committing genocide – then feelings of guilt are no longer required. Quite the opposite – one can signal one’s virtue by fighting (at no risk to life or limb) against the ‘Zionists’ (portrayed as the new Nazis) and in defence of the Palestinians – the new ‘Jews’.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoB_UdLlBOiqEPw4vRI0a_PY1QZbyW-DE8dvEuYldDYc9zvdPhrdgm12SKYhqEeyJUOczdB780S-VB2WWpxuRJaTq30oW09WUbP4fueTm4DXSu8a7ANV0XOAfquzR9efJx__R8C-YgZb5wIYotMVnDASToTeB1hGg4FvoubTaw0rbHmmWCLkLJg4tX_zn-/s1346/Screenshot_20240209_150052_X.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1346" data-original-width="1080" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoB_UdLlBOiqEPw4vRI0a_PY1QZbyW-DE8dvEuYldDYc9zvdPhrdgm12SKYhqEeyJUOczdB780S-VB2WWpxuRJaTq30oW09WUbP4fueTm4DXSu8a7ANV0XOAfquzR9efJx__R8C-YgZb5wIYotMVnDASToTeB1hGg4FvoubTaw0rbHmmWCLkLJg4tX_zn-/w321-h400/Screenshot_20240209_150052_X.jpg" width="321" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The post above has been 'liked' by almost 10,000 X (formerly Twitter) accounts.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p><br /></p><p>In hard-left and hard-right circles, accusations of genocide against Israel are nothing new. But South Africa’s ICJ application is meant to give it a ‘seal of approval’ and bring this ‘perfected’ version of secondary antisemitism into the mainstream. In this context, it does not matter if, 5 or 7 years from now, the Court will acquit the Jewish state. No, the damage was done the moment the judges agreed to try the case – the minute they declared that accusation ‘plausible’. Future historians will look at 26 January as a watershed moment.</p><p>On the eve of Holocaust Memorial Day, the International Court of Justice legitimised Holocaust inversion. ‘Never again’ was used to promote ‘<a href="https://nypost.com/2023/11/01/news/hamas-official-vows-to-repeat-israel-attacks-again-and-again-until-its-destroyed/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">again and again</span></a>’.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfurZk7DY0xtQCTrXhNEpQwmWG3lPJPkM9-qoRXQcL2xQRzdlicmD4dhoC3Rc7MIWuCl3Tevj3nRp8h9Je1ObpC8i64SN9-88lwap1GICdIExfmTsqlq0pBK-AaIywyiY_N9T_JrD2Sq8RYuV758OLkbPOh3vMn09xwq9G9MQWmvM9mQ51eKmDBxxcG17I/s849/Again%20and%20again.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="478" data-original-width="849" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfurZk7DY0xtQCTrXhNEpQwmWG3lPJPkM9-qoRXQcL2xQRzdlicmD4dhoC3Rc7MIWuCl3Tevj3nRp8h9Je1ObpC8i64SN9-88lwap1GICdIExfmTsqlq0pBK-AaIywyiY_N9T_JrD2Sq8RYuV758OLkbPOh3vMn09xwq9G9MQWmvM9mQ51eKmDBxxcG17I/w400-h225/Again%20and%20again.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ghazi Hamad (a senior leader of Hamas) says that the latter will strike <i>"again and again"</i>, until Israel is <i>"removed"</i></td></tr></tbody></table>Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com0London, UK51.5072178 -0.127586223.196983963821154 -35.2838362 79.817451636178845 35.0286638tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-53179810616746198782023-12-21T08:33:00.000-08:002023-12-21T08:33:28.561-08:00Ben & Benjamin<p>On a Sunday afternoon a few years ago, I found myself in a
West Midlands town, delivering a presentation on the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict in front of the local CLP (Constituency Labour Party). Towards the end of my presentation, there was
a sudden commotion at the back of the room: Labour’s candidate for MP of that
constituency had arrived. A big man in an
elegant suit rendered incongruous by everybody else’s informal, decidedly working-class
attire. A few people jumped to help him
to a seat and he was introduced to me as a former British Army officer recently
retired and on his way to becoming a great political leader.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I ended my presentation and spent the next twenty minutes or
so answering questions from the audience – most of them genuine and courteously
posed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then the candidate MP produced a
pointed little cough, indicating that he was now going to speak.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The room went quiet as the Big Man intoned in
a low, confident voice, heavy with self-importance: <i>“I’ll tell you how this
type of conflict should be dealt with.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
served in Northern Ireland.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What you
have here is basically one race of people living in the same place, speaking
the same language – but fighting because of religion…”</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>“But”</i>, I tried to object, <i>“Israelis
and Palestinians don’t speak the same language.”</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>“Don’t interrupt me!”</i> he growled.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>“I’m not talking about differences in
accent. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My point is – you are one people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You need to negotiate and find a way to respect
each other’s religion. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Build trust and
learn to get along with each other.”</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He continued for a couple of minutes in the same vein, before ending
with the punchline.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>“I’ll tell you a
joke that shows how stupid these conflicts are.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>A Jewish person had business in Belfast.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>On the way from the airport, the cab driver asks him whether he’s a Catholic
or a Protestant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The man says he’s
Jewish.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘Yeah,’ says the cabbie, ‘but
are you a Catholic Jew or a Protestant Jew?’”</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The audience laughed merrily and, before I
could respond, the Big Man declared that he had another meeting to attend.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Everybody else headed for the local pub.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I was reminded of all this when I read a recent article penned
by Rt Hon Ben Wallace MP. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A former
captain in the British Army (i.e. <a href="https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/our-people/ranks/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">second-in-command
of a sub-unit of up to 120 soldiers</span></a>), Wallace served as Defence Secretary
under Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Entitled
‘Netanyahu’s tactics are weakening Israel’, his article accuses Israel’s Prime
Minister of presiding over <i>“a killing rage”</i>, to cover his <i>“shame . .
. for not foreseeing the October 7 attacks”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Netanyahu’s actions, declares Rt Hon Wallace,
<i>“are radicalising Muslim youth across the globe”</i>.<o:p></o:p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgK7sjIaKvaOIs8dEZNf5rT00nz3Fw5bG7J-4eG_x5_G0Mk1muPq5AUnBiu_Z6_DHNb_avaelGRnhvzj4Wuf2etJOM7tZCjIRdoeKhbUQVI9QgTXXuzW6vGI8xhli9_4awUECPPW3jGTcD6EZCbsEJL8lNXPiznVSofKc1jFqcfXTwNrtMyAMsGQ9i5tOF4/s5095/Ben_Wallace_Official_Cabinet_Portrait,_September_2022_(cropped).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="5095" data-original-width="3824" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgK7sjIaKvaOIs8dEZNf5rT00nz3Fw5bG7J-4eG_x5_G0Mk1muPq5AUnBiu_Z6_DHNb_avaelGRnhvzj4Wuf2etJOM7tZCjIRdoeKhbUQVI9QgTXXuzW6vGI8xhli9_4awUECPPW3jGTcD6EZCbsEJL8lNXPiznVSofKc1jFqcfXTwNrtMyAMsGQ9i5tOF4/w300-h400/Ben_Wallace_Official_Cabinet_Portrait,_September_2022_(cropped).jpg" width="300" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Rt Hon Ben Wallace MP</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p class="MsoNormal">In passing, let us remember that Rt Hon Wallace was Minister
of State for Security (i.e., <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/minister-of-state-minister-for-security-at-the-home-office"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">in
charge of counter-terrorism</span></a>) at the time of the Manchester Arena
bombing. Not exactly the kind of
spotless pulpit from whence to preach about other people’s shame and failures!</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A government’s most basic job is providing national security.
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Clearly, on this occasion the government
of Israel failed in that task.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And, as
Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu bears ultimate responsibility.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As usual, Israelis rallied under attack; one
does not change leadership in the middle of a war.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But Netanyahu’s days in power will be coming
to an end soon.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So I have no desire to defend Netanyahu, who – to put it
elegantly – screwed up royally.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But I
feel that in this article ‘Netanyahu’ is code for ‘Israel’, just like ‘Zionists’
is so often for ‘Jews’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t know
what Mr. Wallace’s experience is in the UK government, but in Israel Prime
Ministers does not make personal decisions on war and peace. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is a security cabinet, a full cabinet, a
parliamentary coalition, the Attorney General and the Supreme Court…<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are also military leaders who typically
rose ‘a bit’ higher than the rank of captain, who possess actual combat
experience and who have been known to speak their minds forcefully on matters
of strategy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What ‘informs’ Rt Hon Wallace’s analysis is… you got it: his
experience in Northern Ireland.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
article begins with the following statement:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“There isn’t a single
soldier who served in Northern Ireland who didn’t curse, at one time, the
events of Bloody Sunday under his breath. The hours spent in the bogs of South
Armagh, or the back streets of West Belfast were testament to a conflict that
had been ignited by the events on that day in 1972.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It mentions Northern Ireland also in the concluding
paragraph:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“The path to peace, just
like in Northern Ireland, means we have to keep trying and do all we can to
marginalise the extremes. With the Oslo accords we came close to realising a
two-state solution. Now is the time to re-energise that process.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For non-British readers: in a series of incidents on ‘Bloody
Sunday’ (30 January 1972), units of the British army opened fire at Catholic
protesters (none of whom was armed) in the Northern Irish city of
Derry/Londonderry, killing 14 and injuring at least 15 others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These days, pretty much everybody accepts that
there was no justification for the shootings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>However, no British soldier has ever been jailed; only one soldier has
been prosecuted – the case started in 2019 (47 years after the event) and is
still ongoing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In between, the two paragraphs reproduced above, there are
additional Northern Ireland references.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Such as:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Northern Ireland
internment taught us that a disproportionate response by the state can serve as
a terrorist organisation’s best recruiting sergeant. For many, watching the
events in Gaza unfold each day makes us more and more uncomfortable.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">These UK/Northern Ireland vs. Israel/Gaza comparisons are based
on a ‘logic’ that escapes me.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
understand that this is the only conflict Ben Wallace has personal experience
of.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>True, the Irish Republican Army and
its various offshoots carried out many terrorist attacks, including against
civilians in England.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But at no point
did it invade England with thousands of terrorists; at no point did it lay to
waste entire villages by torturing, murdering, raping and taking hostage
thousands of innocents.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, the Northern
Irish conflict was – very, very clearly – about who should rule Northern
Ireland; <b><u>not</u></b> whether England had a right to exist.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Troubles, of course, were not <i>“ignited by the events
on that day in 1972”</i>; they <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/The-Troubles-Northern-Ireland-history"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">started
in the late 1960s</span></a>, and the conflict’s roots go way deeper than that.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Nor can I see how the outcome of the Northern Irish conflict
can be used to support Mr. Wallace’s conclusions with regard to the
Israeli-Palestinian one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Last time I
looked, ‘UK’ stood for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There was never any <i>“two-state
solution”</i> in Northern Ireland: that ‘country’ is still firmly UK sovereign
territory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The British Army never
withdrew from there; nor did it evacuate the hundreds of thousands of
Protestants who – let’s face it – are descendants of English and Scottish ‘illegal
settlers’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What Northern Ireland has these
days is merely ‘devolution’, i.e. a form of limited autonomy under the Northern
Ireland Executive (called this way to avoid any implication that it may be a ‘government’).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Security and foreign relations are the
exclusive domain of the UK government – which can also, if needed, suspend the
Executive and assume direct rule…<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As for
the Catholics of Northern Ireland: despite being numerically the majority, they
have to share power with the Protestant ‘settlers’ in a <a href="https://education.niassembly.gov.uk/post-16/snapshots-devolution/belfastgood-friday-agreement/power-sharing"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">consociational
system</span></a> designed to preclude decisions that do not command cross-community
support.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Am I forgetting something?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Oh yes – the IRA <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ira-completes-disarmament/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">agreed to disarm</span></a>…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Comparisons are a funny thing: one can find certain similarities
even between a city bus and a concert hall (they both have seats, etc.) – if one
is so disposed; but experience in riding a bus doesn’t exactly teach one how to
conduct a symphony.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The inanity of Wallace’s comparisons is matched only by the
man’s intellectual dishonesty.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As UK
Secretary of State for the Defence, the Rt Hon <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ira-completes-disarmament/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">justified</span></a> Turkey’s
2019 attack on the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In a NATO meeting, he opined:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>"Turkey needs to do
what it sometimes has to do to defend itself."</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The problem is that the SDF did not invade Turkey and never
contested Turkey’s right to exist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With
the exception of Turkey, no country considers SDF a terrorist
organisation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Quite the opposite, the
SDF <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/23/isis-defeated-us-backed-syrian-democratic-forces-announce"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">cooperated
with the US and UK forces</span></a> in their fight against the ‘Islamic State’ – and lost
many fighters in the process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>SDF’s
anti-Islamist character is obvious also from the fact that is the only Middle
Eastern army – other than the IDF – to incorporate <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/15/daughters-of-kobani-review-female-kurdish-fighters-isis/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">a
large number of women</span></a>, including in senior and combat positions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So how exactly did the SDF threaten Turkey
and precisely what justified the latter’s ‘defensive’ cross-border assault,
which used NATO weaponry to kill and maim <a href="https://anfenglish.com/rojava-syria/sdf-balance-sheet-of-war-and-resistance-for-2019-40551"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">a
large number of civilians</span></a>?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What
bothered Turkey was that the SDF included a large proportion of Kurdish
fighters – a fact that might have provided not just pride, but also aspirations
to independence among Turkey’s own long-oppressed Kurdish minority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nothing bothered Ben Wallace – for whom this was
perhaps an opportunity to secure Turkey’s support in his <a href="https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230605-sunak-lauds-uk-defence-chief-amid-nato-speculation"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">quest
to become NATO’s next Secretary General</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As for Wallace’s accusation that Netanyahu’s (or Israel’s) <i>“actions
are radicalising Muslim youth across the globe”</i> – I struggle to make up my
mind: is it utterly stupid, or just disingenuous?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Surely someone who’s been in charge of UK’s
Defence Department knows that there were radical Islamists long before Netanyahu
became Prime Minister; and even before there was a State of Israel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From 7/7 to Manchester Arena to London Bridge
and Borough Market, the UK experienced plenty of Islamist violence having
little connection to Israel and a lot to do with UK’s own military actions in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria – as well as with a track record of colonialism,
racism and imperial oppression.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ben
Wallace was already a ‘Rt Hon’ at the time when <a href="https://www.nber.org/digest/jun16/where-are-isiss-foreign-fighters-coming"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">tens
of thousands of Muslims</span></a> from 85-odd countries travelled – no, not to ‘Palestine’
or to Gaza, but to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They included <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/reality-check/2015/dec/11/donald-trump-needs-check-facts-british-muslims-isis"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">circa
750</span></a> British Muslims.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Research by Tahir Abbas, Chair of Radicalisation Studies at
Leiden University in the Hague, Netherlands, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14782804.2023.2204421#:~:text=Since%20the%201980s,of%20radical%20ideas.">revealed</a>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Since the 1980s,
radicalisation has been a characteristic of the Muslim experience in Britain.
It is the belief that social and political grievances, as well as a sense of
being unsupported, contribute to the appeal of radical ideas.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAjmfVl_kU6a212GjSArn23tfsp-WvTNisQuCn9UwuDaDlhlan_pTkTeHUkEviwESoELJ9in7X7HqftUiy-D-U1kqWCS6vcF7dgsQyFJlR2oUiWX_b6L4wSdS3VMsU7T6JU_GKiwgrwRGa2m-4y7avfo3XIhBnV2qn53mSzyHjJH_0e_AduS5MzUDYQEc6/s600/shariah.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="372" data-original-width="600" height="248" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAjmfVl_kU6a212GjSArn23tfsp-WvTNisQuCn9UwuDaDlhlan_pTkTeHUkEviwESoELJ9in7X7HqftUiy-D-U1kqWCS6vcF7dgsQyFJlR2oUiWX_b6L4wSdS3VMsU7T6JU_GKiwgrwRGa2m-4y7avfo3XIhBnV2qn53mSzyHjJH_0e_AduS5MzUDYQEc6/w400-h248/shariah.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Radicalisation (no doubt caused by Israel) on the streets of London...</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p class="MsoNormal">Still, the Rt Hon’s contention deserves a bit of close
scrutiny. Notice that, despite the recurring
waves of Palestinian atrocities and the broad manifestations of antisemitism
that they trigger – including in Mr. Wallace’s own country – he is not worried
about the radicalisation of Jewish youth.
Subliminally, he does not expect Jews to perpetrate acts of terrorism –
or to riot on the streets of London; but he is obviously worried about Muslim
radicalisation. The question is – why? Are Muslims more prone to
radicalisation? Are British Muslims more
loyal to their coreligionists in Gaza than they are to their non-Muslim conationals
in the UK?</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Do video clips – however horrible – really generate
radicalisation?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or is it radicalisation –
itself caused by hate ideologies – that generates video clips and other propaganda
tools (placards, slogans, Der Sturmer-like caricatures, speeches by fiery
preachers and articles by stupid politicians) designed to propagate that
hatred?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Two millennia of humiliation, discrimination and persecution
failed to produce Jewish terrorists. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even
Auschwitz – think huge piles of emaciated corpses being bulldozed into a
shallow mass graves – did not ‘radicalise’ Jews into murdering, torturing and
raping random Germans.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">By assuming – based on no evidence other than ‘data’
supplied by a terror outfit – that Israel went on <i>“a killing spree”,</i>
Wallace has revealed his own Judeophobic prejudice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Is that accompanied (as it often is in the West) by Islamophobic bias, causing
him to imagine ‘radical Muslim youth’ hiding under his bed?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or does Ben Wallace – as former Secretary of
State for Defence – know something we don’t about the extent to which Islamist
propaganda has already been allowed to pump hatred into the hearts of defenceless
youngsters?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A government’s most basic job is providing national security.
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just like a captain’s epaulets, the
letters ‘Rt Hon’ are not there just for ornament; they symbolise a task, a
responsibility.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One that was discharged
admirably by Winston; but not by Neville Chamberlain.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If you think Islamist radicalisation is a threat, Wallace ol’
chap, then the answer is not appeasement – it’s deradicalisation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now be a lamb and do something about it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Otherwise, one day we will all say that you
failed in that duty – just as abysmally as Netanyahu did!<o:p></o:p></p>Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-33679439743674227012023-11-10T06:57:00.018-08:002023-11-10T09:18:44.269-08:00How not to save Gaza's innocents<p>It bears repeating: Hamas murdered 1,000 Israeli civilians in cold blood, often in gruesome ways; scores were raped; hundreds kidnapped; 200,000 displaced, millions forced to spend their days and nights in bomb shelters. A whole month has now passed since the inhuman 7 October massacre. The world spent most of that time talking not about the slaughter <b>of Israelis</b>, but about Palestinians killed <b>by Israelis</b>. So much does the world care about innocent victims (meaning of course Palestinians killed by Israelis), that lots of people are already clamouring for a ceasefire.</p><p>Of course, there <b>was</b> a ceasefire before 7 October – one that Hamas violated without even the pretence of a provocation. Those calling for a ceasefire claim that they want to stop the killing of innocents in Gaza. That this would also allow Hamas to murder more innocents in Israel (as they <a href="https://nypost.com/2023/11/01/news/hamas-official-vows-to-repeat-israel-attacks-again-and-again-until-its-destroyed/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">promised to do</span></a>) – is no concern of theirs. The Jews can take care of their own – and they’re not that innocent, anyway. The good people of the world must take care of Palestinians – who are <b>always</b> innocent!</p><p>We do not know how many genuine innocents have actually lost their lives in Gaza. The only available casualty numbers are those released by Gaza's health ministry, which is staffed and controlled by Hamas. Only fanatics, idiots and those fatally naïve believe such ‘reports’; and most of the mainstream media, of course. Jews shedding innocent blood (callously, if not deliberately) is something plenty of people have no problem believing, however fishy the source of information.</p><p>But, while Hamas <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/20/al-ahli-arab-hospital-gaza-blast-explosion-us-intelligence-report-death-toll-estimate"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">has already been caught inflating casualty numbers</span></a>, we must assume that some of those killed in Gaza are indeed innocent civilians – because innocent civilians <a href="https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc14904.doc.htm">a<span style="color: #2b00fe;">re always killed in wars</span></a>; however inadvertently and however much civilised armies strive to avoid it.</p><p>And it’s not just those killed or maimed. War takes a terrible toll also on those innocents that survive it: they undergo all kinds of hardship – from fear to physical deprivation, from malnutrition to lack of medical care.</p><p>The question is, then: how can that toll on innocents be minimised? Most pundits – and even lots of Western politicians – appear to suffer from a curious case of 'blinkeritis': whenever they look for solutions, they only see Israel. Israel is the only key to peacemaking; and certainly to the deliverance of innocents in Gaza. Get Israel to stop fighting Hamas (which is what they really mean by ‘ceasefire’); or get them to fight in a way that does not harm civilians (how to do that – nobody explains); or at least get them to stop for long ‘humanitarian pauses’ (no matter that they’d allow Hamas terrorists to rest, re-arm and re-supply – i.e. would end up costing more Israeli lives).</p><p>Even US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has been afflicted with blinkeritis: he travelled all the way to Israel to <a href="https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-and-israeli-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu-after-their-meeting-2/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">teach</span></a> the country’s leaders that</p><p></p><blockquote><i>"Israel has the right – indeed, the obligation – to defend itself and to ensure that this never happens again."</i></blockquote><p></p><p>This was no doubt an eye-opener for the members of the Israeli government and of the Israeli army. Mr. Blinken did not mention Israel’s right – indeed, the obligation – to bury her dead. That, apparently, is obvious.</p><p>Lip service was, however, soon followed by lecture: Blinken explained to the Israelis that</p><blockquote><p><i>"how Israel does this</i> [i.e., defend itself] <i>matters."</i></p></blockquote><p>He urged them to</p><blockquote><p><i>"take every possible precaution to avoid harming civilians."</i></p></blockquote><p>No doubt, Israeli generals have a lot to learn from Mr. Blinken. After all, the US (and UK) quite frequently took <em>“every possible precaution”</em>. For instance in 2016-2017, when bombing ISIS out of Mosul: it was only thanks to taking <em>“every possible precaution”</em> that <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/32bc687b-1385-401b-a60a-7320848ceb16"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">a mere 10,000 civilians were killed</span></a>. (WARNING: Zionist irony!)</p><p>Though, in fairness, Mr. Blinken was not Secretary of State at the time. No, he was only Deputy Secretary of State. And his boss Joe Biden was not President of the United States – just Vice President.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieej7ZmN-JX269igNImXFvkskFLBrp5Ipa_FEiqR5LEsK9tY45EuJxWxhI6bGNdsOIyY-Benke-I6bD2umPtny71-Gv_nyx_7-AlMTAiF_NSv83cphw4B5WINdvr8ZOVDL7_VC_Wb2ukznzRnWU_ubvMEvRTvCtD60GiIfTl2GLi1Pz8vHqp_P8mmd-CXf/s800/Secretary_Blinken_Arrives_in_Riyadh_01_(cropped).jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieej7ZmN-JX269igNImXFvkskFLBrp5Ipa_FEiqR5LEsK9tY45EuJxWxhI6bGNdsOIyY-Benke-I6bD2umPtny71-Gv_nyx_7-AlMTAiF_NSv83cphw4B5WINdvr8ZOVDL7_VC_Wb2ukznzRnWU_ubvMEvRTvCtD60GiIfTl2GLi1Pz8vHqp_P8mmd-CXf/w400-h266/Secretary_Blinken_Arrives_in_Riyadh_01_(cropped).jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Western politicians seem to find it much easier to preach to Israel, than to remonstrate with Arab dictators.</td></tr></tbody></table><p>The Israelis must have listened with a lot of interest to Mr. Blinken’s valuable lesson, because they do try to do things. For instance, they told Gaza’s civilians to move to the Strip’s southern half – while the IDF deals with Hamas in the north. That is a brilliant idea (no doubt Mr. Biden thought of it himself), but it suffers from some small flaws. Such as the fact that Hamas is present in the south, as well as the north and that it likes to launch rockets from there, as well; which inevitably means that – occasionally at least, Israel strikes the south, too. Israelis, as we know, have this inexplicable aversion to rockets pummelling their towns and cities.</p><p>But, once they travel from north to south, why would Gazans stop at the border and not cross over into Egypt? After all, that’s what civilians tend to do in times of war: they flee from the bombs, the rockets and the hardship – and do not stop until they’re out of the harm’s way. Which wouldn’t normally mean south Gaza, for the reasons mentioned above.</p><p>During Syria’s civil war, <a href="https://www.unrefugees.org/news/syria-refugee-crisis-explained/#:~:text=After%20over%20a%20decade%20of,homes%20in%20search%20of%20safety."><span style="color: #2b00fe;">some 7 million people fled the country</span></a> – mostly to neighbouring Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. From there, many found their way to other, more hospitable shores. As did many Ukrainians who fled the ravages of war in their country and were offered asylum in the West.</p><p>In fact, one would be hard put to remember a war in which civilians didn’t cross borders in search of refuge. Except, that is, the wars between Israel and Gaza.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkXVq7d2wBOhnMK6d2Xk_cZCuJg944PfFPLgVve6uvUKXkQEE-tZPvj89Lm019Y5_KABpIAg7iKbqW-BqbGECs8EYAmVEa2cbwI5efFqn6oEjHSCcaIW5DOYPcbI0XRvk9xTZD2i7GhrUBQgC7ETjMDsX1Ewdabgg1oFYMZPGydiJpsoSFzgwHDf4N-7O0/s1200/Gaza_Strip_map.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="984" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkXVq7d2wBOhnMK6d2Xk_cZCuJg944PfFPLgVve6uvUKXkQEE-tZPvj89Lm019Y5_KABpIAg7iKbqW-BqbGECs8EYAmVEa2cbwI5efFqn6oEjHSCcaIW5DOYPcbI0XRvk9xTZD2i7GhrUBQgC7ETjMDsX1Ewdabgg1oFYMZPGydiJpsoSFzgwHDf4N-7O0/w525-h640/Gaza_Strip_map.png" width="525" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Since 7 October, Egypt has closed its border with Gaza (including the Rafah crossing) to civilians seeking refuge.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>A superficial observer would say that Gazans cannot cross into Egypt because Egypt won’t allow them: since 7 October, that country’s border with Gaza <a href="https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/15/people-cant-flee-and-aid-cant-enter-as-egypt-keeps-gaza-border-closed"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">has been closed</span></a> tighter than a gnat’s chuff. But a more profound analyst should wonder why is it that the West – the same West that preaches to Israel and gushes torrents of ‘humanitarian concern’ for Gaza’s civilians – does not pressure Egypt into opening its border to provide a safe haven for those innocents?</p><p>It's not that the West lacks leverage: the US alone props up Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s Egypt to the tune of <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us-allows-much-egypt-military-aid-despite-human-rights-concerns-2023-09-14/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">$1.3 billion a year in military aid</span></a> – despite that dictatorial regime’s <a href="https://freedomhouse.org/country/egypt"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">awful record of human rights</span> <span style="color: #2b00fe;">violations</span></a>. There are also hundreds of millions of dollars in economic aid, both from the US and <a href="https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/european-neighbourhood-policy/countries-region/egypt_en"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">from the European Union</span></a>. But Western ‘leaders’ are just too cowardly to mess up with Arab dictators; much easier to preach to Jews on how to behave humanely.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBv2IoO3nqxtOM_9JSBah-VwVXD5Q2j3vVdCkHggPin-FpQWdi2yRcCz9iiV080nCdYTd0Kz1K6AucU3DB-o4FY0og7dLw0KVyHXUGPG3q4NnPN5H9RYSDY1tti66Xe3nCz-UBjK3bwugpFD6IdsKmmWtg6mpv1CPn6zmJIpZGjBeQUDWmCmKIM3j2QP7L/s2048/President_Abdel_Fattah_Al-Sisi_of_Egypt_speaking_at_the_UK-Africa_Investment_Summit_(49413821551).jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1415" data-original-width="2048" height="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBv2IoO3nqxtOM_9JSBah-VwVXD5Q2j3vVdCkHggPin-FpQWdi2yRcCz9iiV080nCdYTd0Kz1K6AucU3DB-o4FY0og7dLw0KVyHXUGPG3q4NnPN5H9RYSDY1tti66Xe3nCz-UBjK3bwugpFD6IdsKmmWtg6mpv1CPn6zmJIpZGjBeQUDWmCmKIM3j2QP7L/w400-h276/President_Abdel_Fattah_Al-Sisi_of_Egypt_speaking_at_the_UK-Africa_Investment_Summit_(49413821551).jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">It is hard to assess the exact value of the Western aid to Egypt, because that aid takes many forms. But we do know that it's massive.</td></tr></tbody></table><p>So there is no pressure on Sisi to open that border. The Egyptian authorities started – as Arab governments always do – by blaming Israel. They claimed that Israel bombed ‘in the vicinity of’ the Gazan side of the crossing, making it ‘unsafe’. Yet it proved safe enough to send humanitarian aid (hundreds of lorries of it) through it into Gaza; just not safe enough to allow people out. And then it magically <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-evacuees-continue-move-through-rafah-crossing-after-re-opening-2023-11-07/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">became suitable</span></a> also for the latter purpose – as long as those getting out of Gaza had foreign passports!</p><p>When these excuses <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67133675"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">failed to persuade even the BBC</span></a>, Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry stated that allowing Gaza’s innocents into the Sinai Peninsula would be unfair to Egypt:</p><blockquote><p><i>"It's not a matter of transferring the responsibility to Egypt – it is a matter of maintaining the safety and well-being of Gazans on their own territory."</i></p></blockquote><p>But how exactly does one do that, while also waging a war against a terror organisation intent on denying Israelis safety and well-being on <strong>their</strong> own territory? Mr. Shoukry did not feel he had to provide an answer to that question – and the BBC felt no urge to ask it.</p><p>Nor did the BBC ask what <em>“responsibility”</em> was Egypt so concerned about; after all, Palestinians – alone among all the world’s many refugees – are endowed with <a href="https://www.unrwa.org/">t<span style="color: #2b00fe;">heir own dedicated UN aid agency</span></a> and the West (much more than the Arab ‘brethren’) underwrites that aid, in Gaza and elsewhere, to the tune of <a href="https://www.unrwa.org/donor_resource"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">$1.75 billion</span></a> a year. Given that the cost of living in Egypt is quite low (the minimum monthly wage is <a href="https://rawateb.org/egypt/Salaries/minimum-wages"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">below $100</span></a>), a fraction of that huge amount would feed many a Gazan refugee.</p><p>Mr. Shukri’s boss, Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly, took an even more adamant stance. Asked why Egypt won’t open the Rafah crossing and allow civilians from Gaza to take refuge, he forcefully stated:</p><blockquote><p><i>"We are prepared to sacrifice millions of lives to ensure that no one encroaches upon our territory."</i></p></blockquote><p>Again, no journalist asked exactly how admitting refugees suddenly becomes an encroachment upon Egyptian territory; and why a country that vociferously clamours to end the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza is willing so flippantly to sacrifice <em>“millions of </em>[presumably Palestinian]<em> lives”</em>.</p><p>And then we heard from President Sisi, the man (and it’s always a man, never a woman!) who actually makes decisions in Egypt. He <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/13/middleeast/egypt-rafah-crossing-gaza-palestinians-mime-intl/index.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">said</span></a>, in no uncertain terms, that there's a limit to how much Egypt cares about Palestinian lives (that, as we all know, is Israel’s job!):</p><blockquote><p><i>"Of course we sympathize. But be careful, while we sympathize, we must always be using our minds in order to reach peace and safety in a manner that doesn’t cost us much…"</i></p></blockquote><p> Arab dictators are rarely asked difficult questions – a journalist brave enough to do that may never get another interview and might never be allowed to enter the country. So, as Sisi slammed Egypt’s gates shut in the face of putative Gazan refugees, only naives expected the Western media – concerned as it is about Gazans’ safety and welfare – to harshly criticise that callous act.</p><p>On the contrary: Western media outlets fell over each other to ‘explain’ Egypt’s position. The <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67133675"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">BBC</span></a> did so on 17 October; so did its Canadian counterpart, the <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/gaza-egypt-rafah-crossing-1.6999574"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">CBC</span></a>. Just a couple of days later, <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/13/middleeast/egypt-rafah-crossing-gaza-palestinians-mime-intl/index.html"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">CNN</span></a> toed the line as well, with an article entitled “<em>The last remaining exit for Gazans is through Egypt. Here’s why Cairo is reluctant to open it”</em>. Too busy bashing Israel for all her cardinal sins, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/02/why-egypt-has-not-fully-opened-its-gaza-border-for-fleeing-palestinians"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">The Guardian</span></a> got onto the topic only on 2 November. <a href="https://time.com/6324766/rafah-border-crossing-gaza-egypt-israel/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Time Magazine</span></a>, the <a href="https://www.voanews.com/a/egypt-wary-of-opening-gaza-border-to-palestinian-refugees/7318041.html"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">VOA</span></a>, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/10/16/1206061259/gaza-s-border-with-egypt-is-closed-why-wont-egypt-let-palestinians-in"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">NPR</span></a>… they all carried articles on this subject. And they all sounded strangely sympathetic to Sisi’s decision. ‘Strangely,’ because the same journalists declare – at least five times a day, and in sound bytes that get shriller and shriller – their deep distress at the loss of innocent lives in Gaza.</p><p>Incidentally, the same media outlets also tend to argue that Western countries are legally bound to take in any and all refugees that reach their territory – and keep them for however long it takes; usually forever.</p><p>So, if Germany (population 83 million) must take <a href="https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/10/11/germany-struggles-to-find-housing-for-more-than-one-million-refugees"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">2.2 million refugees</span></a> from Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine, with the German taxpayer <a href="https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/10/11/germany-struggles-to-find-housing-for-more-than-one-million-refugees"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">footing that bill</span></a>, why isn’t that same ‘international law’ applicable to Egypt (population 110 million) vis-à-vis Gazan refugees, their Arab brethren? Especially since the ‘international community’ (read: mostly the West) would in any case pay for it?</p><p>Almost <a href="https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/221026/dq221026a-eng.htm"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">a quarter</span></a> of Canada’s population of 38 million is made up of immigrants born outside the country. Still, the CBC tends to harshly <span style="color: #2b00fe;"><a href="https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1960063043857?fbclid=IwAR3HISNNee2M2k9s72RtkfAAnidNlr_Fe3jVWglE-Q8pGgGam2n0Y2LtNlI"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">criticise</span></a> </span>the country’s government, whenever it seems reluctant (or just too slow) to admit more.</p><p>Yet <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/gaza-egypt-rafah-crossing-1.6999574"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">when it comes to Egypt</span></a>, the outlet is much more ‘forgiving’:</p><p></p><blockquote><i>"Egypt already hosts 300,000 UN-registered refugees from dozens of countries and has seen an additional 317,000 arrive since conflict broke out in its southern neighbour Sudan earlier this year, so the government may have concerns about hosting a large number of newly displaced people from Gaza for an ‘indefinite’ period of time…"</i></blockquote><p>Except that Egypt does very little <i>“hosting”</i> for those hundreds of thousands of refugees. They are cared for by <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/eg/about-us/refugee-context-in-egypt" target="_blank"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">international organisations</span></a> and <a href="https://caritas-egypt.org/en/project/refugees-alex/#:~:text=Caritas%20enhances%20access%20to%20basic,governorates%20along%20Egypt's%20north%20coast." target="_blank"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">charities</span></a>, which spend a lot of (mostly) Western money in Egypt. A lot, though – granted – <span style="color: #2b00fe;">much less per capita</span> than they spend on Palestinian refugees…</p><p></p><p>Still, that concern is shared by academics (but only when it comes to Egypt and Palestinian refugees). Prof. Constanza Musu from Ottawa University, for instance, is quoted by CBC worrying about the immense difficulty of taking in refugees:</p><blockquote><p><i>"You need to set up camps and those camps have to be provided with water, with sanitation and with health care, food and, eventually, children have to go to school."</i></p></blockquote><p>That may be true. But it is also true that there’s a lot of money already budgeted for providing Gazans “<em>with water, with sanitation and with health care, food and</em> [with education]<em>”</em>. And I have a nagging suspicion that even camps that are not quite up to Prof. Musu’s standards would be a lot better than staying in Gaza right now.</p><p>The Herculean task that Prof. Musu seems to allude to has been performed a few times before. Turkey, for instance, took in many millions of Syrian refugees – <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/tr/en/refugees-and-asylum-seekers-in-turkey"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">almost 4 million</span></a> are still in the country. Even the impoverished (practically <a href="https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/lebanon-goes-bankrupt-deputy-prime-minister/2554688"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">bankrupt</span></a>) Lebanon hosts no less than <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/07/05/lebanon-armed-forces-summarily-deporting-syrians#:~:text=Lebanon%20hosts%20more%20than%20an,per%20capita%20in%20the%20world."><span style="color: #2b00fe;">1.5 million</span></a> refugees from neighbouring Syria; and Lebanon’s entire population numbers just 5.6 million!</p><p>Prof. Musu also sympathises with Egypt’s security concerns. The CBC reminds us about Hamas:</p><blockquote><p><i>“The Egyptian government considers it a a [sic!] terrorist organization and it's also an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is outlawed in Egypt.</i></p><p><i>Many Palestinians don't have proper travel documents, Musu says, making it difficult to verify identities and prevent Hamas fighters from hiding among fleeing civilians and then operating out of the Sinai Peninsula, where Egypt has fought other Islamist groups, including ISIS, for years."</i></p></blockquote><p>But it’s OK to call for a ceasefire, which would leave the same terrorist organisation in power in Gaza??</p><p>As for Gazan refugees not having <i>“proper travel documents”</i>: is that really unusual, Prof. Musu? Speaking about Syrian asylum seekers, the Norwegian Refugee Council <a href="https://www.nrc.no/news/2017/january/syrian-refugees-documentation-crisis/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">says</span></a>:</p><blockquote><p><i>"70% of refugees lack basic identity documents."</i></p></blockquote><p>Syria, as we remember, is one of the countries where ISIS operated. Yet I doubt very much that Prof. Musu would be so accommodating, if Norway (or, for that matter, Canada) were to refuse Syrians asylum because ISIS <i>"fighters"</i> might be <i>"hiding among fleeing civilians"</i>!</p><p>In fact, while Gazans may not always have <i>“proper travel documents”</i>, those that present a high security risk are well-known to Israel’s intelligence services. And those services would no doubt cooperate: even more than Egypt, Israel wouldn’t want Hamas operatives to escape her just retribution by becoming ‘refugees’.</p><p>But the reasons Egypt won’t open its gates to refugees from Gaza are not financial, nor are they security concerns; they are political. The journalists know that – some of them even reported it, though once again with generous doses of ‘understanding’.</p><p>Sisi <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/13/middleeast/egypt-rafah-crossing-gaza-palestinians-mime-intl/index.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">said it</span></a> himself, in no uncertain terms, as reported by the CNN:</p><p><i></i></p><blockquote><i>"There is a danger . . . a danger so big because it means an end to this [Palestinian] cause… It is important that [Gaza’s] people remain standing and on their land."</i></blockquote><p></p><p>Jordan’s King Abdullah spoke in a similar vein.</p><p>In other words, Arab leaders – who perpetuated the refugee problem when they by-and-large refused to naturalise Palestinian Arabs in the host countries (even those born in those countries for 3-4 generations) – are now apprehensive that that problem may be solved not at Israel’s expense. Hence, they brazenly declare their determination to fight for 'the Palestinian cause' to the last Palestinian (see <em>“millions of lives”</em>). Gaza’s children are not just used as human shields by Hamas; they are also mere pawns in a ruthless political game.</p><p>Unlike Syrians, Afghanis, Libyans or Ukrainians, Palestinians must not be allowed to escape; they must not be offered asylum – lest that should harm 'the Palestinian cause'. Read: the godsend distraction that <span style="font-family: "pt serif", serif; font-size: 16px;">– for a century now </span><span style="font-family: "pt serif", serif; font-size: 16px;">–</span><span style="font-family: "pt serif", serif; font-size: 16px;"> has channeled Arab frustrations away from the thrones of absolute kings and from the lavish armchairs of no-less-absolute presidents. A 'cause' that increasingly allows people in the West to wear their antisemitism as a badge of honour, rather than a stigma of shame.</span></p><p>The only place where the Arab leaders (and many 'pro-Palestinian' Westerners) <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-18/egypt-rejects-any-attempt-to-move-gaza-palestinians-to-sinai?leadSource=uverify%20wall"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">would have the Arab Palestinians displaced</span></a> is… Jewish Israel. Of course, they know it ain’t going to happen: if nothing else (and there’s a lot else!) there’s little chance that Gazans would accept bread and water in the Jewish state; and – at this time more than ever before – any contact between these two populations would end up in friction and bloodshed, however ‘humanitarian’ the intentions.</p><p>Egypt remains the only country that can immediately save Gaza’s innocents, simply by letting them enter the sparsely populated Sinai. But Egypt refuses to.</p><p>This should come as no surprise, of course. If dictators truly cared about people’s lives and welfare, they wouldn’t oppress their own populations.</p><p>Israeli leaders, of course, value the peace with Egypt – cold as it may be. They cannot openly criticise Sisi.</p><p>But that Western politicians make no effort to pressure – or even bribe – the Egyptian dictator; that Western journalists, academics and charity workers justify his inhumane position, rather than exposing it; that they demand the impossible from Israel, while not even frowning at Egypt; all this shows is the abysmal, disgusting hypocrisy that these people wallow in. One day, history will judge them and condemn them as frauds lacking in empathy, in ethics and in character. For now, Israel should firmly close her ears to such ‘critics’ bereft of moral compass. Two-faced sinners make poor virtue preachers.</p>Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-42402772913293693102023-03-22T11:25:00.005-07:002023-03-22T11:37:58.310-07:00How judicious is Israel's judicial reform?<h2 style="text-align: left;"> Fair disclosure</h2><h2><o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">In a recent <a href="https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/israel-elections-2022-what-the-diaspora-should-know/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">article</span></a>,
I expressed appreciation for Benjamin Netanyahu’s past achievements as Prime
Minister of the State of Israel– even if not support for his present
policies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I also stated:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“As for the ‘Religious
Zionism’ extremists, I have nothing but contempt for them: their way isn’t my
way and their Zionism is a very far cry from mine.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I reiterate this here to give all readers a fair chance of
correctly interpreting my position.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s
a forlorn hope, I know: despite candidly <a href="https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/left-right-and-centre-uk-parliamentary-elections-2015/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">revealing</span></a>
my political credo, I’ve recently been called ‘a right winger’ – after being
accused in the past of being ‘woke’…<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well,
if you want to stick a label on my forehead, then please yourself. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As long as you don’t also try to tape my mouth
shut, that is.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>Of hawks and doves<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">As I’m sure you heard ad nauseam by now, Israel has a new
government, one that the BBC (and others) <span style="color: #2b00fe;"><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-63942616"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">called</span></a>
</span>‘Israel’s most right wing ever’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s
worth explaining that the terms ‘left wing’ and ‘right wing’ are often misused
in the Israeli context (even when they are not employed as mere insults or
accusations).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Israelis rarely argue
about abortion rights; or even LGBT rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We seldom debate the wisdom of nationalising the railways.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather, Israeli politics is shaped by the
existential conflict the country is trapped in.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thus, the political spectrum runs from ‘hawks’ (whom not
just the BBC, but most Israelis, too, loosely refer to as ‘right wing’) to
‘doves’ (commonly referred to as ‘left wing’).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The ‘hawks’ place security issues at the top of their concerns; they may
or may not be ‘right wing’ in the true sense of the term – i.e. from a social,
economic and cultural point of view.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
‘doves’ are those who prioritise achieving peace – whether they also identify
with a ‘working class agenda’ or not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And
it’s not like the ‘hawks’ don’t want peace, or the ‘doves’ don’t want security:
like Jabotinsky (whose writings most never read), the former believe that peace
can only be the product of security – it would come when the enemy loses all
hope of ever defeating us; while the latter see security as possible only as a
result of peace achieved through negotiations and compromise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, as usual, the argument is about the
route to be taken – rather than the final destination. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Needless to say, most Israelis position
themselves somewhere in the middle, their ratio of hawkishness versus
dovishness influenced by events and, in turn, largely determining their
electoral choices.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But the Israeli political spectrum is two-dimensional, with a
second axis describing the degree of religious observance and ranging from the
very observant (Jews and Muslims) to complete atheists – with most Israelis somewhere
in-between.<o:p></o:p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOJ9_X4S4VpommRhnLWODjvsfArpjDprY4E9if2PR5QNASQyyezCslMtIKzv-8d2Yb4jpdRHGqeP1zfI4CF9rPzxq2v4pgJu8PtEophR1u-FlWbPGQZRne2fiIY3fr6MauqJS9tZ3kPD5_UHgYLKNtZmEZ9HR6qIzk0YMESB2Tusy9AEps_S_Bz3Oxgw/s4334/Israel%20elections%202021.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2489" data-original-width="4334" height="368" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOJ9_X4S4VpommRhnLWODjvsfArpjDprY4E9if2PR5QNASQyyezCslMtIKzv-8d2Yb4jpdRHGqeP1zfI4CF9rPzxq2v4pgJu8PtEophR1u-FlWbPGQZRne2fiIY3fr6MauqJS9tZ3kPD5_UHgYLKNtZmEZ9HR6qIzk0YMESB2Tusy9AEps_S_Bz3Oxgw/w640-h368/Israel%20elections%202021.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Israel’s political map should not be reduced to the simplistic left-wing vs. right-wing dichotomy. </td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<h2>The Bibi syndrome<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">All that, however, describes the past and most likely the
future – rather than the present: in the last couple of years or so, that
multi-dimensional map of Israeli politics coalesced into just two factions: the
anti- and the pro-Netanyahu camps.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A
virtual brick wall was built between the two, primarily by the ‘anti’ parties’
vow not to form a coalition with a Netanyahu-led Likud.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ostensibly at least, this is because he is
currently being tried on corruption charges; though the real reasons may spill
beyond moral rectitude: Netanyahu (who has been Prime Minister longer than Tony
Blair!) has accumulated an impressive list of political and personal enemies;
some (e.g. Avigdor Lieberman, Naftali Bennet or Gideon Saar) clearly resent the
man more than the politician – and not just because of the alleged corruption.<o:p></o:p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAk2ozXsuNSF3h8s3BLfvu0UtG4CA-Qxu1J9b_msz8YzQit8MV6E6vHfzzqro61rOf3aX9hXos59ijEH9uOVfESGbNvZu55qFL7SXG1-4kHxP5D2jkp3LdWSTHFudVxJfZYeKHLYxaNw2qv0r0R6PBT4QbfJ4Vv4RNKdN4wrcQoxxq8rlwJxpIphpb1g/s4410/Israel%20elections%202022.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2483" data-original-width="4410" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAk2ozXsuNSF3h8s3BLfvu0UtG4CA-Qxu1J9b_msz8YzQit8MV6E6vHfzzqro61rOf3aX9hXos59ijEH9uOVfESGbNvZu55qFL7SXG1-4kHxP5D2jkp3LdWSTHFudVxJfZYeKHLYxaNw2qv0r0R6PBT4QbfJ4Vv4RNKdN4wrcQoxxq8rlwJxpIphpb1g/w640-h360/Israel%20elections%202022.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">There’s a new dichotomy operating here. </td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The combination of Netanyahu’s stubborn desire to stay in
power and the opposition’s uncompromising Bibi-boycott is what saddled the
country with multiple elections in two years and – ultimately – with the likes
of Smotrich and Ben Gvir as highfalutin ministers and irreplaceable components
in the only possible coalition.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Netanyahu is certainly guilty of wilfully closing his
nostrils to the stench of racism and general extremism emanating from
‘Religious Zionism’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But there’s enough
guilt to go around: I think the leaders of opposition parties (especially Benny
Gantz and Yair Lapid) were wrong to place their political considerations and/or
moral purity (take your pick) above the interests of the country; they should
have accepted the judgment of the electorate, while awaiting the verdict of the
court.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After all, when higher interests
of the state demanded it, even the famous-for-his-integrity Yitzhak Rabin
appointed as minister a man under investigation for corruption.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>The end of the world<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">But the above is just historical introduction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Israel has a government – one legally
constituted, legally governing and therefore (whether one likes it or not) legitimate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And my topic today is the judicial reform promoted
by that government; also known (justifiably) as the ‘judicial overhaul’, but
also called ‘regime change’, ‘coup’, and ‘the end of Israeli democracy’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have not heard it referred to as ‘the end
of the world’ yet – but I expect to any time now.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The current proposal was initially presented by Justice
Minister Yariv Levin (from the Likud party) and – as I’m sure you all know – was
immediately met with a huge wave of criticism and acerbic opposition by
everybody and her dog, too: from former generals to company CEOs, from Jeremy
Corbyn to US rabbis and from Jewish Labour Movement to Goldman Sachs.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Given the rather selective treatment of both traditional and
social media, a few things may be less well-known.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For instance, that Yariv Levin is himself a
lawyer – one respected enough to have been elected Deputy Chairman of Israel’s
Bar Association.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You may have heard the accusation that the reform is only
being pushed as part of a plot to stop Netanyahu’s trial and somehow exempt him
from just punishment for his (as yet unproven) crimes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those pushing such conspiracy theories don’t
usually bother to explain how this would work, given that the reform proposals
in no way affect the trial; nor do they mention that Levin has been calling for
such reforms for at least the past decade.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In fact, long before the corruption allegations against Netanyahu ever
surfaced, there have been several attempts to reform the judiciary; some kicked
into the long grass by… the Prime Minister himself.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ0RkmFVR1qkkaA6w4-Zt7JgBf4yaTf_WFTfgZI9Op_N2Gr9a3KkCTaCIb79N2ka8v16pIA0mSMMIKzs2rF_J9BKISPLLeX2MwxPb29rO4AzevBdiMqP6VjIgFWtFsCqGdLMAskXsijD0opkkcxZaPkx83WRnCv_-pz40cnlPSX487gFwVFBUNjTtZ6w/s3000/The_swearing_in_ceremony_of_Chief_Justice,_Justice_Miriam_Naor,_(3)%20(1).jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1997" data-original-width="3000" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ0RkmFVR1qkkaA6w4-Zt7JgBf4yaTf_WFTfgZI9Op_N2Gr9a3KkCTaCIb79N2ka8v16pIA0mSMMIKzs2rF_J9BKISPLLeX2MwxPb29rO4AzevBdiMqP6VjIgFWtFsCqGdLMAskXsijD0opkkcxZaPkx83WRnCv_-pz40cnlPSX487gFwVFBUNjTtZ6w/w400-h266/The_swearing_in_ceremony_of_Chief_Justice,_Justice_Miriam_Naor,_(3)%20(1).jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">2015: the then President, Prime Minister and Supreme Justices. Not everybody is smiling…</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">But why ‘reform’ anything, in the first place?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What’s wrong with the judiciary?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Drowned in the concert of shouting is the
simple fact (which nobody seriously disputes) that Israel’s Supreme Court is
the most ‘activist’ in the free world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That’s not to say that its rulings are wrong, but that its purview is
incredibly broad: in the view of Israel’s Supreme Court, anything and
everything can be debated and decided in court.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That’s not how other High Courts do things: The Supreme
Court of the United Kingdom, for instance, recognises certain issues as
‘non-justiciable’ – generally meaning that they are political or ethical rather
than legal and should therefore be resolved in the political arena and not in a
court of law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Recent rulings of the UK
Supreme Court include the – by now famous – statement:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“judicial review is not,
and should not be regarded as, politics by another means.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Many would argue that <i>“politics by another means”</i> is
exactly what the ‘hyper-activism’ of the Supreme Court of Israel boils down
to.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such concerns have been raised not
just by ‘right-wing’ politicians; and not just by politicians in general, but
by very respected legal experts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Including <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20101215020112/http:/christianactionforisrael.org/isreport/septoct00/landau.html"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Moshe
Landau</span></a>, former Israel Supreme Court President; <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/60919/enlightened-despot"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Richard A.
Posner</span></a>, judge US Court of Appeals, Senior Lecturer University of Chicago
Law School; <a href="https://www.jpost.com/opinion/op-ed-contributors/on-the-road-to-recovery-from-israels-legal-revolution"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Prof.
Daniel Friedman</span></a>, former Dean, Faculty of Law at the University of Tel Aviv;
<a href="https://www.israelhayom.com/2023/02/05/the-high-court-is-turning-itself-into-a-second-government/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Prof.
Yoav Dotan</span></a>, former Dean, Faculty of Law at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem;
and, famously, <a href="https://hamishpat.colman.ac.il/?p=793"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Prof. Ruth
Gavison</span></a>, Professor of Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, recipient
of the Israel Prize.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I say ‘famously’
because Prof. Gavison was not just an internationally-recognised and
highly-respected expert in human rights, but one politically aligned with the
very ‘dovish’ Meretz party.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>The Deri syndrome<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">One of the most recent decisions of the Supreme Court was <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/netanyahu-fire-minister-ordered-by-top-israeli-court-confidant-says-2023-01-22/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">ordering
Prime Minister Netanyahu</span></a> to sack Interior Minister Aryeh Deri (leader of
the Shas party), as a result of the latter’s criminal record.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There’s quite a bit of ‘Zionist irony’ in
this, given that the whole ‘activism’ issue may be said to have started with a
younger Deri – some three decades ago!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Here’s a slightly dramatized version of those events:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It’s June 1992.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Labour leader Yitzhak Rabin just won the elections, gaining no less than
44 mandates in the 120-seat Israeli parliament (the Knesset).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To cobble together the required parliamentary
majority (at least 61), by July he establishes a coalition with the very
‘dovish’ Meretz party and with the Haredi (‘Godfearing’ or very religious)
Shas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In terms of Israeli political
arithmetic, the calculation is 44 + 12 + 6, giving Rabin a thin 62-seat
majority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As part of the quid-pro-quo,
Rabin appoints Shas leader Aryeh Deri as… Interior Minister (the man really
likes that job – what can I tell you?!)<o:p></o:p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-qZDJ53_WLjOdUuDz3gmBOj_LdjmSAIm8A1Z2Ltz07oK9g3S3lZ4My1VTXMjveE1kkOh0axRk08gKPr9VJnKb3VAZOVk4J7GrXjydamoSaNpfJXKaY6HiLHCyuzPnSxu0An_FzKiDo6tQnd2bSIxC1-jWMHycwunhaAzVpeNvbO9Uc4zADPx3SDGAIQ/s4096/Herzliya_Conference_2016_1177.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2731" data-original-width="4096" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-qZDJ53_WLjOdUuDz3gmBOj_LdjmSAIm8A1Z2Ltz07oK9g3S3lZ4My1VTXMjveE1kkOh0axRk08gKPr9VJnKb3VAZOVk4J7GrXjydamoSaNpfJXKaY6HiLHCyuzPnSxu0An_FzKiDo6tQnd2bSIxC1-jWMHycwunhaAzVpeNvbO9Uc4zADPx3SDGAIQ/w400-h266/Herzliya_Conference_2016_1177.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Aryeh Deri in 2017, with then Leader of the Opposition (and current President of Israel) Yitzhak Herzog.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But some things never change: Deri was at the time under
investigation on corruption allegations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>One hot day in August 1993, Attorney General Yosef Harish knocks at
Rabin’s door: ‘Yitzhak,’ he addresses him in typical Israeli fashion, ‘you’ve
gotta fire Deri’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘Really?’ says Rabin,
‘is this the law?’<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘Well,’ replies
Harish, ‘the law says that you cannot have a minister who’s been indicted for
such offences.’<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘Ok,’ says Rabin,
breathing with relief.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘But he hasn’t
been indicted yet, he’s just under investigation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Once he is indicted, I’ll fire him, no
worries.’<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘No,’ insists Harish.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘We’ve been informed that he will certainly
be indicted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘So at this point, I think
you need to fire him immediately. For him to remain a minister would be
contrary to the principles of law and government’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘Listen,’ pleads Rabin, ‘if I fire him, I’ll
lose my parliamentary majority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
government will fall.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And let me tell
you something,’ (he lowers his voice) ‘we are involved with these secret
negotiations with the PLO in Oslo…<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s
a great opportunity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I really-really
don’t want the government to fall now…’<o:p></o:p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5vR7zLNkAFYVZZ4D13ApJixP9zX5V9V1H7K0UqfpGfnaJQzxJU7sC0gXnEfWe5UGzTB3hlVsMZNbwanApcCAZ0-iidlsA_kZ7JaOZtYRJXR5CzgpdedeM9jBi2CpnSZ1wHjI3FvNX6JZ2U0SsGvojsf5H5hE0EmtQzxi5qCHYz62DdEo06TjXhq3H4g/s2676/Flickr_-_Israel_Defense_Forces_-_Life_of_Lt._Gen._Yitzhak_Rabin,_7th_IDF_Chief_of_Staff_(cropped).jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2676" data-original-width="2048" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5vR7zLNkAFYVZZ4D13ApJixP9zX5V9V1H7K0UqfpGfnaJQzxJU7sC0gXnEfWe5UGzTB3hlVsMZNbwanApcCAZ0-iidlsA_kZ7JaOZtYRJXR5CzgpdedeM9jBi2CpnSZ1wHjI3FvNX6JZ2U0SsGvojsf5H5hE0EmtQzxi5qCHYz62DdEo06TjXhq3H4g/w306-h400/Flickr_-_Israel_Defense_Forces_-_Life_of_Lt._Gen._Yitzhak_Rabin,_7th_IDF_Chief_of_Staff_(cropped).jpg" width="306" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The late Yitzhak Rabin</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It didn’t help Rabin: somebody complained to the Supreme
Court.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And a panel of 5 judges ruled
that he must sack Deri right away.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
grounds for that decision make interesting reading: the Court agreed that,
going by the letter of the law, Deri could stay on until indicted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, given that the indictment was a
certainty, rather than an eventuality, the judges ruled that it would have been
‘extremely unreasonable’ for Rabin to wait until it actually happened.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Rabin did not attempt to use the Oslo peace process to get the
Court to give his government a break.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But, even if he tried, it’s very unlikely that the ruling would have
been different.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Judges (especially
Supreme Judges) inhabit an ivory tower unpolluted by accountability.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not theirs is the responsibility to make
peace or bring people a better life.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In September, Deri resigned his ministerial position –
taking Shas out of the coalition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also
in September, the Oslo Accords were signed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>As negotiations with the PLO were taking place on the practical
implementation and further expansion of the Accords, Rabin’s became a minority
government, relying for its survival on the outside backing of anti-Zionist,
PLO-supporting Arab parties.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-3-decades-of-deris-legal-troubles-now-see-israeli-judicial-independence-at-risk/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">quote</span></a>
Haviv Rettig Gur, arguably Israel’s best political journalist:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“It was a moment that
would cast a pall over the entire peace process, at least in right-wing memory.
The highly symbolic Jewish majority for Oslo was lost with Shas’s departure.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But let’s come back to Attorney General Yosef Harish and
examine his role in this kerfuffle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In
the UK, Attorney General is a quasi-ministerial post: like any minister, s/he
is appointed by the Prime Minister, can be sacked at any time by the Prime
Minister – in short s/he serves at the pleasure of the Prime Minister.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not so in Israel, where Attorney Generals are
utterly independent; not only don’t they have to do what the Prime Minister
tells them to do – the opposite is generally the case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 1993, Rabin told Harish that he had
resolved to keep Deri as minister until he was actually indicted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He asked the Attorney General to defend that
position in court.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘No way!’ said
Harish.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘I think you need to fire Deri
immediately – and that’s exactly what I’ll tell the court.’<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘Fine!’ said a slightly annoyed Rabin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘I’ll get another lawyer to defend my
case.’<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the Supreme Court ruled that
Rabin was not entitled to another lawyer: the Government of Israel could only
be represented by the Attorney General of Israel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One of the judges that produced this ruling
(Aharon Barak – a famously ‘militant’ Justice) argued that the question was not
why wasn’t the government’s position defended in Court; rather, he explained,
the better question was how dare the government adopt a position contrary to
the opinion of the Attorney General?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>(That ruling is by now a well-established precedent: the views of the
Prime Minister or those of Israeli ministers are not defended in court unless
the Attorney General agrees with those positions.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>The other revolution<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">The 1993 ruling was one of the first shots of what Aharon
Barak himself <a href="https://www.daat.ac.il/daat/ezrachut/english/hillel.htm"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">called</span></a>
a <i>“constitutional revolution”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Soon
elevated to the position of Supreme Court President, Aharon Barak <a href="https://www.daat.ac.il/daat/ezrachut/english/hillel.htm"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">declared</span></a>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“There are no areas in
life which are outside of law.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And, on the other hand:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Where there is no judge,
there is no law."</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What grew out of the above philosophy was a new,
ultra-interventionist judicial doctrine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I wouldn’t call it ‘a coup’; but it was definitely a novel
constitutional regime – one never tried before in Israel and never applied
since – except in Israel.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Unlike politicians, judges are not held to declare (let
alone defend) their policies in parliamentary speeches, or in televised
interviews.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their intentions are
explained in thick treatises – the likes of which most people never read.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, as Israel underwent that judicial refo…
err… <i>“constitutional revolution,”</i> there were no mass demonstrations; no
passionate protests; and certainly no ‘well-intentioned’ international
interventions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But that does not mean that everybody agreed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Among the first to notice and be alarmed by
the new regime was Prof. Ruth Gavison.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An
avowed leftist and staunch defender of human rights, she would have been no
friend of Yariv Levin – let alone of Smotrich or Ben Gvir.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, on legal grounds – as she explained in
respectful terms in a series of articles – she profoundly disagreed with the
stance of the Supreme Court.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According
to the adversarial and due process principles governing legal procedures, a
court of law must hear both sides of the argument; hence, she stated, there was
a fundamental flaw in not allowing the government to defend its case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In addition, Prof. Gavison argued that the
Court should limit its interventions to legal issues; straying too far into
political ones, she worried, would undermine its prestige and sap people’s
trust in it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Her warning was to prove
prophetic: over the past two decades, as the Court’s new interventionism became
increasingly visible, the proportion of Israelis declaring trust in the Supreme
Court <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/israelis-deeply-split-on-courts-and-rights-but-united-in-gloom-distrust-poll/">slipped</a>
steadily.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Currently only c. 40% of
Israelis express trust in that institution.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Because of her criticism (however courteously expressed), Ruth
Gavison became Israel’s greatest legal mind never to serve on the country’s
Supreme Court.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When her name was put
forward for nomination, Chief Justice Aharon Barak blocked her candidacy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And he made no secret why he was doing it: in
a public speech, he <a href="https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3167751,00.html"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">explained</span></a>
that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“</i>[her]<i> agenda doesn’t fit
and isn’t appropriate for the Supreme Court.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<h2>“Let them judge the people at all times…”<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">But how can one man (even the Chief Justice) block someone’s
candidacy?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, in Israel he can: the
composition of the Judicial Selection Committee all but guarantees that the
Chief Justice can veto anyone s/he doesn’t fancy and makes it likely that he
could muster a majority of 6 vs. 3 in the 9-member committee.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s precisely why a previous government
raised the majority needed to appoint a Supreme Justice to 7.<o:p></o:p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9bVAqiONc8ZYCZaUj7sUGG4bWwJGZIx308o48fCPdzeVq190It8Jk_ZjmYSra7bf1dpUZyDZm-g-aDppjQvwCSnxm3S3i2m3k05aMGbqluv8WnNZ_6XVtLOKIlxxGIVkQVPxHWKh3BFG-_8dVR3x4r2z7zTvv0d7v9WdidTjAMWmy-xnbhGk3Ok67pw/s540/Ruth_gavizon.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="315" data-original-width="540" height="234" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9bVAqiONc8ZYCZaUj7sUGG4bWwJGZIx308o48fCPdzeVq190It8Jk_ZjmYSra7bf1dpUZyDZm-g-aDppjQvwCSnxm3S3i2m3k05aMGbqluv8WnNZ_6XVtLOKIlxxGIVkQVPxHWKh3BFG-_8dVR3x4r2z7zTvv0d7v9WdidTjAMWmy-xnbhGk3Ok67pw/w400-h234/Ruth_gavizon.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The late Prof. Ruth Gavizon, arguably Israel’s greatest legal scholar never to serve as Supreme Justice.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrnqRooQeZU_x0Vuqpg8CLukDVgJFeYkAb2RsujHWQ09DmYtQvcqivsRzzWNhYAdMavneFeEa57s6UO8_gmZJoUxMtvMCfWzpQ7goHKbZNne9qPZkZPHK6HV53wGnFDOMZqIcfMKFfS0qjiRJLIk0N0BFlEhIWvu_MyHdkLILIPb53BlCRJzJy1TDtSQ/s552/AHARON_BARAK-1.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="552" data-original-width="370" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrnqRooQeZU_x0Vuqpg8CLukDVgJFeYkAb2RsujHWQ09DmYtQvcqivsRzzWNhYAdMavneFeEa57s6UO8_gmZJoUxMtvMCfWzpQ7goHKbZNne9qPZkZPHK6HV53wGnFDOMZqIcfMKFfS0qjiRJLIk0N0BFlEhIWvu_MyHdkLILIPb53BlCRJzJy1TDtSQ/w268-h400/AHARON_BARAK-1.jpg" width="268" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Chief Justice Aharon Barak blocked Prof. Gavison’s candidature, because he did not like her positions on justiciability and court activism.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Changing the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee
is one of the items on the current government’s judicial reform agenda.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The new composition proposed would
potentially (i.e., if everybody votes as they’re expected to) grant the
governing coalition a majority of 5 vs. 4.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But how are Supreme Justices appointed in other
democracies?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, there is no pattern –
the exact procedures vary from one country to another.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet even a cursory look should persuade
anyone that, in the vast majority of cases, the dominant role in appointing
Supreme Justices is held by the Executive (the Government or part thereof), the
Legislature (the national parliament or part thereof), or a combination of the
two.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the United States, Supreme
Justices are appointed by the President (Executive) and approved by the Senate
(Legislature).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Canada and Australia,
Supreme Judges are appointed by the Prime Minister (Executive), with various
bodies and personalities being endowed with advisory influence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Belgium and the Netherlands, they are
selected by the cabinet (Executive) from a list provided by the Parliament
(Legislature).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Denmark, Sweden and
Norway, Supreme Judges are appointed by the government (Executive) after
receiving non-binding recommendations from an advisory committee – itself
appointed by the government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You get the
picture…<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>A kingdom for a constitution<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">Humanity has gradually developed a democratic structure
which – like any stable stool stands on three legs (or three Separate Powers): the
Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>A.k.a. the Parliament, the Government and the Courts of Law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The existence of three hubs of authority is
meant among other things to provide checks (in particular) on the power of the
Executive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is <a href="https://constitution-unit.com/2023/01/19/checks-and-balances-what-are-they-and-why-do-they-matter/#:~:text=Checks%20are%20the%20mechanisms%20which,represented%20in%20the%20democratic%20process."><span style="color: #2b00fe;">important</span></a>
to properly calibrate these checks – to ensure that they are sufficiently
strong to prevent excesses, while at the same time flexible enough to avoid
gridlock and allow the Government to steer the societal ship.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The oft-used expression ‘checks and balances’
hints at the fact that the process is both delicate and dynamic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The system works according to a set of rules
set out in the state’s Constitution.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But do all democracies have a Constitution?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How about the UK?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is there a Constitution of the United
Kingdom?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes it does, <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/#:~:text=Parliamentary%20sovereignty%20and%20the%20UK%20constitution&text=It%20may%20not%20exist%20in,partly%20written%20and%20wholly%20uncodified'."><span style="color: #2b00fe;">according</span></a>
to the official website of the Parliament, the UK most certainly has a
Constitution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The parliamentary
information hub goes on to explain:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><i>“People often refer to the
UK having an 'unwritten constitution' but that's not strictly true. It may not
exist in a single text, like in the USA or Germany, but large parts of it are
written down, much of it in the laws passed in Parliament - known as statute
law.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><i>Therefore, the UK
constitution is often described as 'partly written and wholly uncodified'.
(Uncodified means that the UK does not have a single, written constitution.)”</i></p></blockquote><p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sweden also does not have a document entitled ‘the
Constitution’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But again, the official
website of the country’s parliament (the Riksdag) <a href="https://www.riksdagen.se/en/how-the-riksdag-works/democracy/the-constitution/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">states</span></a>
that:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“The Swedish Constitution
consists of four fundamental laws: the Instrument of Government, the Act of
Succession, the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of
Expression. In addition to the fundamental laws, Sweden has a Riksdag Act. This
has a unique status in between constitutional and ordinary law.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But here’s a more interesting question: does Israel have a
Constitution?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After all, Israel is
different, isn’t it?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Still, the official website of the Knesset <a href="https://knesset.gov.il/constitution/ConstMJewishState.htm"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">says</span></a> that
the country does have a Constitution:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Israel's Jewish and
democratic values are both grounded in its existing constitutional documents.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It goes on to list those <i>“constitutional documents”</i>:
the Declaration of Independence and the so-called Basic Laws (of which there
are currently 13).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is even a
stopgap in the statutes:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>"Where a court, faced
with a legal question requiring decision, finds no answer to it in statute law
or case law or by analogy, it shall decide it in light of the principles of
freedom, justice, equity and peace of Israel's heritage."</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(For those readers unaccustomed to the vagaries of Israeli
websites, the expression ‘Israel’s heritage’ is a clumsy translation of the
Hebrew <span dir="RTL" face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="HE" style="mso-ansi-language: RO; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">מורשת ישראל</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> (a better translation being ‘Jewish
tradition’) – to wit <span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">the Torah, the
Prophets, the Talmud, etc.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some may point out that in Israel (unlike in Sweden) many of
the Basic Laws can be modified at any time, with a simple parliamentary
majority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that’s not unique, either:
the UK Parliament has similar powers.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>Judicial review<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">So now we know that – praise be to G-d – the United Kingdom
has a Constitution and so does Israel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But what does that Constitution say?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>For instance: can the Judiciary (the Courts of Law) overrule the
Legislature (the Parliament)?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/#:~:text=Parliamentary%20sovereignty%20is%20a%20principle,that%20future%20Parliaments%20cannot%20change."><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Not</span></a>
in the UK:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Parliamentary sovereignty
is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal
authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts
cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future
Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part
of the UK constitution.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Netherlands_2008?lang=en"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Nor</span></a>
in the Netherlands:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“The constitutionality of
Acts of Parliament and treaties shall not be reviewed by the courts.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In USA, the exact opposite is <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">true</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“The complex role of the
Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate
legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment,
conflict with the Constitution.”</i></blockquote><span style="font-style: normal;"><o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The passage above describes the US Supreme Court’s power to
strike down not just legislation, but also <i>“executive actions”</i> such as
Presidential Orders.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it also establishes
the grounds on which the Court can base such decisions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Much as they may wish to, the Supreme
Justices cannot say ‘President Trump, we herewith strike down your Order, coz
it’s really, really stupid!’<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No, they
can only issue such a decision by showing that the legislation or the executive
action violates the Constitution, that it is ‘unconstitutional’.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It should also be noted that, while the US Supreme Court can
strike down laws that violate the Constitution, it cannot overturn or amend the
Constitution itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is beyond its
purview.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Back to the UK: while the UK Supreme Court cannot invalidate
laws passed by the Parliament, it can (and does) overturn government decisions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In 2019, the United Kingdom was tearing itself apart over
Brexit. Desperate to end the gridlock, then Prime Minister Boris Johnson
decided to use a strange procedure and ‘prorogue’ (suspend) the
Parliament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His decision was, however, <a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/decision-of-the-supreme-court-on-the-prorogation-of-parliament/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">nullified</span></a>
by the Supreme Court.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But what were the
grounds for that decision?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Court did
not opine that Mr. Johnson’s decision was undemocratic, unethical, unreasonable
or damaging per se.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No, the Justices
found that the decision was contrary to the existing laws – it was
‘unlawful’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Judges are entitled to
interpret the law, not to substitute their opinions or moral judgments for
those of the Executive.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Even so, some (and I’m still talking about the UK, not about
Israel!) <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51474169"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">criticised</span></a>
the Court’s decision:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Ministers argued that the
UK's highest court was essentially involving itself in political matters.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVd2peVYRsn67SHIcxvWC9CDp5Zl2w3AbAdkZNDYK-GSX7qBPz70TrwLo45-zBKIOejvb3R_QQmLW_Dx3LnEJNLq0t0bqp4LZEkLvwGuplmYD2s1COCQtbt4ZqEk0_G5Augc77nf62nwHexy85Wt3If3x10HIZGSFww1FeGAJa-zxLdSCEFQPI4tSDAw/s2072/Official_portrait_of_Mr_Geoffrey_Cox_crop_2.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2072" data-original-width="1554" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVd2peVYRsn67SHIcxvWC9CDp5Zl2w3AbAdkZNDYK-GSX7qBPz70TrwLo45-zBKIOejvb3R_QQmLW_Dx3LnEJNLq0t0bqp4LZEkLvwGuplmYD2s1COCQtbt4ZqEk0_G5Augc77nf62nwHexy85Wt3If3x10HIZGSFww1FeGAJa-zxLdSCEFQPI4tSDAw/w300-h400/Official_portrait_of_Mr_Geoffrey_Cox_crop_2.jpg" width="300" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">In 2019, UK Attorney General Geoffrey Cox accused the countruy’s Supreme Court of usurping the prerogatives of the elected Parliament.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">Attorney General Geoffrey Cox accused the Court of
overstepping the mark, of intruding into the political arena and of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“usurping Parliament over
key decisions.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That, I stress again, was the Attorney General of the United
Kingdom; not of Israel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Israel is
different…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The BBC noted that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“The Conservative
manifesto promised to review the relationship between the executive, Parliament
and the courts, including whether the process of judicial review, in which
people challenge government decisions in court, is being abused for political
ends.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Quite unlike the programme of the new Israeli government,
then!<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>Israel is different<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">But let’s not forget that Israel is different.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An outfit called Israel Religious Action
Center (established by Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism), warns that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Israel's democracy is
fragile.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“the new government </i>[…]<i>
proposed bills that will dramatically weaken the Supreme Court and thus pose a
radical, unprecedented, and dangerous change to Israel’s system of government.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some may find that warning a bit overstated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After all, if the <i>“proposed bills”</i>
pass as currently drafted (an unlikely eventuality, as I shall explain a bit
later), Israel’s Supreme Court would still retain powers that are superior to
those of UK’s highest court – though not as extensive as those of the US
counterpart.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But – again – Israel is different.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How so?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We get a <a href="https://en.idi.org.il/articles/47482"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">learned
explanation</span></a> from Prof. Amichai Cohen, from Ono Academic College.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Firstly, Prof. Cohen addresses <o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“the power of the
legislative and executive branches in Israel’s democracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To a large extent, Israeli political culture
merged the power of these two branches. The fact that the heads of Knesset
factions who form the coalition also serve as senior members of the government,
means government decisions drive a significant portion of the Knesset’s
activities.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I hear what Prof. Cohen is saying.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I just don’t understand how the situation he
describes makes Israel different from – say – the UK.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The leader of the Tory party currently serves
as Prime Minister – which is by all accounts a <i>“senior member of the
government”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When the UK had a
coalition government, the heads of both parties served as <i>“senior member of
the government”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And in the UK –
even more than in Israel – the government drives the Parliament
activities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, His Majesty’s
Government has the prerogative of setting the Parliament’s agenda.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This model is found in many other
democracies.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">True, this isn’t the only model.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>USA, for instance, currently has a Democratic
administration, and a Senate with a Democratic majority, while the House of
Representatives has a Republican majority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But that’s not a rule: it is not uncommon for the same party to win the
presidential elections, as well as having a majority in both parliamentary
chambers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In addition, in the US the
Vice president (an Executive position) presides over Senate debates and is
entitled to cast the deciding vote in case of a tie.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I wonder what Prof. Cohen would say if the
Israeli Deputy Prime Minister were endowed with the same very important power?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If the Israeli executive holds so much power, then how does
Prof. Cohen explain that the government is so often voted out by the Knesset
before the end of its legal term – something that is almost impossible in the
US and very difficult in the UK?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But that’s not Prof. Cohen’s only argument.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While admitting that the Israeli Supreme
Court currently has powers that are unheard of elsewhere, he justifies that by
explaining that other democracies have one or more ‘other checks and balances’
in addition to the national constitutional court.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some may, for instance, have a bicameral
parliament; others – a President with executive powers; a federal government;
regional elections; or they may submit to the authority of a supra-national
court, such as the European Court of Human Rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Israel, on the other hand – claims Prof.
Cohen – only has one set of breaks: the Supreme Court.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hence, the danger posed by weakening it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Prof. Cohen’s observations are obviously correct – various
democracies work in various ways.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But
it’s hard to understand why a bicameral parliament changes the equation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As we’ve seen, both chambers can (and often
are) dominated by the ruling party.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And how exactly is a President with executive powers ‘checks
and balances on the power of the Executive?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>S/he <b><u>is</u></b> the Executive!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The United Kingdom has regional elections and a federal
government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But how does that bring
additional ‘checks and balances’?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In
2016, Scotland voted to Remain; the Scottish government and parliament were
dead set against Brexit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But did that
check Westminster’s power to effect Brexit?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Obviously, if a democratic country submits to the rulings of
an international court, that does indeed represent additional checks and
balances (at least, with respect to some issues, as these courts don’t get
involved in every issue). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But not all
democracies submit to such courts; and a few that do submit (at least in
theory) have rather chequered ‘democratic’ credentials; see for instance
Turkey, or Russia prior to its invasion of Ukraine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hungary and Poland remain affiliated with the
European Court of Human Rights – which did not check the power of those
governments to implement judiciary reforms…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One issue with Prof. Cohen’s article is that it is so
recent: published on 23 January 2023, after the new Israeli government published
its reform proposals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It feels a bit
like post-rationalisation of a pre-determined opposition to those reforms; an
attempt to seek differences, rather than determine whether there are
differences – and their relevance.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We get a less well-argued – but perhaps more honest – view
from <a href="https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/israel-is-not-new-zealand/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">an
article</span></a> written by Prof. Alon Tal, who is Professor of Public Policy at Tel
Aviv University.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s entitled <i>“Note
to Rothman: Israel is not New Zealand”</i> and, as the title suggests, it is
rhetoric, rather than academic – relying (I suspect) much more on Prof. Tal’s
political opinions as a former Member of the Knesset, than on his research
expertise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Prof. Tal admits that, just
like in the UK<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“New Zealand’s courts have
never been authorized to conduct judicial review about the constitutionality of
its parliament’s laws.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgq8QsGwCQjX7F339AvBwwtyeQl6qdGnFRkgOuiK1dr2tvdKz_KRXrzihcIcxnd11RKeWuOHvV_hBecrQ8tZ7vKZoLSM1mD3qKWSBJ22RwTQup1qx0OshJUhxld2Nnt_NhIdg683vLJ8u359E0Vq5xXhGsIApS2tdCCeyC7S8JeoyT3yhG4xRlxbMUieA/s1200/Alon_Tal_2021_cropped.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1173" data-original-width="1200" height="313" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgq8QsGwCQjX7F339AvBwwtyeQl6qdGnFRkgOuiK1dr2tvdKz_KRXrzihcIcxnd11RKeWuOHvV_hBecrQ8tZ7vKZoLSM1mD3qKWSBJ22RwTQup1qx0OshJUhxld2Nnt_NhIdg683vLJ8u359E0Vq5xXhGsIApS2tdCCeyC7S8JeoyT3yhG4xRlxbMUieA/s320/Alon_Tal_2021_cropped.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Prof. Alon Tal, who thinks that <i>“Israel is different.”</i> Among other things, it lacks the <i>“Anglo civility”</i> that characterises New Zealand…</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">So why is Israel different from New Zealand?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Prof. Tal largely rehashes the same points described
earlier.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that’s before adding his
‘original’ contribution.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“I believe that the
differences [between Israel and New Zealand] run even deeper, reflecting
fundamental cultural disparities.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So what <i>“cultural disparities”</i> are those?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Prof. Tal (who spent some time in New
Zealand) waxes lyric:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“I always like to think
that the relatively gentle and ingenuous New Zealand political culture reflects
the country’s unique ecological circumstances. Anyone who visits New Zealand is
immediately struck by the ‘ecological naiveté’ of birds who happily fly right
up to humans to get a closer look. This curious behavior is explained by the
historic lack of natural predators. From time immemorial, there simply were no
indigenous mammals on the remote island. New Zealand’s domestic political
system also evolved in a world without political predators and national
enemies. This is manifested in a decided civil and consensual political
culture.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It’s a touching picture, it really is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Too bad it is based on a very un-academic
amount of wishful thinking.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>True, owing
to its geographic isolation, there are very few native mammals in New
Zealand.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But there are birds of prey
that don’t exhibit much <i>“ecological naiveté”</i> when it comes to securing
food.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And there is definitely a species
of very dangerous mammals: one sometimes referred to by the Latin name Homo
Sapiens!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is the predatory Sapiens
that hunted most of the islands native large birds to complete extinction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Only the bones of the Moa birds (actually 9
different species) can still be found, spread all over the islands.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I guess they exhibited a bit too much <i>“ecological
naiveté”</i>!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Maori – the local Homo
Sapiens – were often engaged in tribal wars, before being themselves
subjugated, partially displaced and partially exterminated by the European
Sapiens invaders.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So much for <i>“the
historic lack of natural predators”</i> that manifests itself “<i>in a decided
civil and consensual political culture.”</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>One of the parties comprising the country’s <i>“gentle and ingenuous”</i>
political culture calls itself ‘New Zealand First’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Strongly nationalist and populist, ‘New
Zealand First’ opposes immigration and ‘special treatment’ for the native Maori
population…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All this seems to have escaped Prof. Tal’s investigative
skills.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His article hails New Zealand’s <i>“relative
societal homogeneity”</i> and the <i>“pervasive Anglo civility”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> Stupid me </span>– I thought that diversity was a good thing, when all along it was <i>“relative societal homogeneity”</i> that we should be after!</p><p class="MsoNormal">Anyway, I guess the country’s Human Rights Commission
did not read Prof. Tal’s ground-breaking research.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because a 2021 <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/439123/racism-against-migrants-prevalent-in-new-zealand-report-finds"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">report</span></a>
makes no mention of ‘scientific’ terms like <i>“pervasive Anglo civility”</i>; it does contain the following
conclusion:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Racism is prevalent in
Aotearoa New Zealand: Participants’ experiences of racism consisted of
institutional, personally mediated and internalised racism across all levels of
wellbeing: civic engagement and governance, health, housing, employment,
society and social connections, education and the justice system. Findings
emphasised that the ongoing impact of historical and contemporary racism toward
Māori remained embedded within colonial systems and institutions </i>[…]<span style="font-style: italic; mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>The impacts of racism are extensive and span
across all aspects of wellbeing…”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Prof. Tal’s <i>“Note to Rothman”</i> is symptomatic of a
certain frame of mind which I can only describe as a form of internalised
racism: a mentality that tends to view Israelis as uncivilised, uncouth,
unenlightened and generally inferior – in particular to ‘Europeans’ or ‘Anglos’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, I’d say that this tells us more
about Prof. Tal than it does about either Israelis or New Zealanders…<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>Democracy – what’s that?<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">Before we bury the Israeli democracy – why don’t we spend a
moment trying to understand the nature of that beast?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the term as<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote><p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><i>“government by the people;
especially: rule of the majority”</i><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Of course, nowhere does the people govern directly; they govern through its representatives, who are selected through free and fair
elections.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One can understand,
therefore, why in the British system the Parliament rules supreme.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The party (or parties) having a majority in
the parliament form(s) the government – the Executive that ‘rules’.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But, of course, that dictionary definition is incomplete.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would define democracy as follows:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Democracy is a system of
governance seeking to balance the will of the majority with the legitimate
interests of minorities.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If one agrees with that definition, it follows that no
democracy is perfect, because who’s to say how a perfect balance looks
like?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Democracy – like every aspect of
life – is messy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But genuine and
perpetual attempt to maintain that balance is what sets democracy apart from
tyranny.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>Checks and balances<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">With that definition in mind, I’d argue that Israel has
strong checks and balances – stronger than many other democracies.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some of those checks and balances derive from the
proportional representation: in Israel, every party (as long as it gets at
least 3.25% of the votes) is allocated a number of seats in the Knesset in
proportion to the percentage of the popular vote it received.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So a party that received 10% of the votes
should have 12 seats in the 120-strong Knesset.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Since parties often represent the interest of minorities (ethnic,
religious, or just minorities of opinion), this system gives those minorities a
voice and often a strong political influence.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Compare the Israeli proportional elections with the
constituency-based, ‘first past the post’ UK system.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the latest UK legislative elections
(2019), circa 12% of the cast votes went to the the Liberal Democrats.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With a proportional system, the LibDems
would’ve won no less than 75 seats in the House of Commons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The entire map of British politics would’ve
been different; in all likelihood, Brexit would not have happened.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But with the ‘first past the post’ system,
the LibDems only won 11 seats – a tiny and largely impotent minority in the
650-strong Commons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The UK system
favours large, mainstream parties; it is, in practice, a two-party system.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The proportional system favours smaller
parties; a multitude of voices and opinions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The proportional system means that every Israeli government
is based on a coalition of parties.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
‘forces’ a certain pluralism of opinions, ideologies and world views: for
instance, it ‘forces’ religious and secular people to sit together and
accommodate each other – otherwise they won’t stay in power.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In coalitions, small factions are often cast as
‘kingmakers’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This gives minorities
disproportionate power.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It may be
frustrating – but it also acts as a built-in defence against tyranny of the majority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Are you outraged that someone like Ben Gvir was
‘kingmaker’ in the current coalition?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fine,
but did you also scream bloody murder when Mansour Abbas was cast in the same
role after the previous elections?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
latter is the leader of an even smaller party (just 4 members of Knesset).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And it’s an Islamist party: from the point of
view of homophobia and misogyny, Mansour Abbas is probably worse than Ben Gvir.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Coalitions are inherently unstable: there are perpetual
conflicts within the government and among the parliamentary factions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Concessions and accommodation are the only
means to keep the government going.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And
when important issues come to the table and accommodation becomes too difficult
– the government falls and the issues are taken back to the people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Israel has more elections than most other
democracies; and not just because of the last couple of years – it’s always
been like that: between 1980 and 2010, Israelis voted in 10 elections; the
British only had 7.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What’s more, Israel has a very politically-active population
and a very engaged electorate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Between
1980 and 2010, the Israeli average turnout was 72%; the UK one just 68%.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even comparing the last 5 elections gives
Israel an advantage: despite being called to vote every few months, on average
70% of adult Israelis turned out to vote; in the UK, that average was just 66%.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The combination of more frequent elections and a more
engaged electorate results in more accountability for the political class.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We sometime forget that it is the electorate
that constitutes the ultimate check on the power of the executive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is the electorate – not the Supreme Court,
that sets the final limits to power: it’s the voters that send a government
home and bring up a new one.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In Israel, the opposition (even a small faction) can force a
vote of non-confidence, which has the potential of bringing the government
down.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the UK, it is only the Leader
of the Opposition that can demand such a vote; and, although by tradition the
government accepts that challenge – by law it does not have to.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the UK (and in the US, and in other democracies), it is
almost impossible to change a government – once elected.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not so in Israel, where people get more
frequently a say.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Israel has a State Comptroller with extremely broad
investigative powers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It has
considerable resources that are outside the government’s control.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The State Comptroller employs hundreds of
people (lawyers, accountants, surveyors, etc.) whose only job is to investigate
and find flaws in how power is exercised.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Israel has some of the toughest, strictest law enforcement
agencies in the world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Look of the list
of powerful people that have been investigated, tried and convicted:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>1 x President of Israel</li><li>1 x Prime Minister of Israel (+ 1 indicted)</li><li>11 x Ministers</li><li>2 x Chief Rabbis</li><li>17 MKs<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: -18pt;"> </span></li></ul><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>Is it (as antisemites would say) that Israelis are
‘naturally’ more corrupt?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or is it that
Israel’s law enforcement is tough and fearless?<br /><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Last, but not least Israel has a free and extremely
influential media.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Israeli Fourth
Estate is truly a fourth power hub.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Israelis are addicted to news.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In
Israel, a successful journalist can become Prime Minister – how else has Yair
Lapid climbed to that lofty post?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How
did Shelly Yachimovich and Merav Michaeli become leaders of the Labour
Party?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But a good journalist does not
have to become a politician to have great influence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Journalists feature consistently among
Israel’s most prominent people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many are
household names, celebrities eliciting instant recognition; they wield power
and influence – to the point where the current Prime Minister is accused not of
taking bribe, but of bribing a media mogul for a ‘kinder’ news coverage…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Israel-bashers like Yachad and New Israel Fund constantly find
fault with Israel’s democracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And in
support of their claims that the country has become less democratic, they…
quote articles from the Israeli press!!!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What’s more: while these outfits pursue their obsessive interest
in the Jewish state, they never compare Israel’s democratic processes with what’s
happening in their own country.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let me
do it for them: in Israel, the media is so powerful, that the country’s longest
serving Prime Minister is accused of bribing the owner of one of the major news
outlets, in a bid to ‘buy’ kinder coverage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>While in the UK, the Chairman of BBC (the country’s most powerful media outfit
and one of the world’s most influential news organisations) is appointed by the
sitting Prime Minister; in a recent case, not before he ‘<a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/bbc-chair-made-errors-judgement-over-boris-johnson-loan-lawmakers-say-2023-02-12/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">facilitated</span></a>’
a hefty loan for the said Prime Minister…<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Imagine – just imagine – what the likes of Yachad and No… err… New
Israel Fund would say if Mr. Netanyahu could exercise the same prerogative as
Mr. Johnson (appointing the head of the country’s main media organisation) –
let alone doing it after receiving a ‘loan’ courtesy of the latter!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Israel, the media is so powerful that it's
the Prime Minister who’s suspected of bribing it, rather than the other way
around.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And Israel’s democracy is fragile??<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>Who’s ‘fragile’?<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">If Israel’s democracy is so fragile, how do you explain its uninterrupted
survival in one of the world’s roughest, most unfree regions?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In its modern embodiment, the State of Israel
is just 75 years old.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But they’ve been very
tough years, marred by existential threats, by war, terrorism, boycotts and
unfair ‘criticism’ – certainly more hardship than was thrown at any other free
country.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As a result of that, the army (a conscripted army) is very
popular in Israel: opinion polls <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/annual-poll-publics-faith-in-institutions-satisfaction-in-state-of-country-dire/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">consistently
show</span></a> that the IDF gets by far more support than any other state institution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Israel is – among so many other things – often
accused of ‘militarism’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet in those 75
years, Israelis have experienced a total of… 0 (zero!) military coups.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There hasn’t even been an attempt; or a plot;
not even close!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Israel’s ‘critics’ will no doubt claim that this is a low threshold
by which to judge a democracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But is
it, really?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since 1948, Turkey (a NATO
member and EU candidate) has seen 5 coups and coup attempts – the latest as
recently as 2016.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Greece (a full member
of both NATo and EU) has experienced 3; Cyprus (another EU member) has seen 2;
Italy 1 or two, depending on who you ask; Japan – 2; Portugal – 2; Spain – 3 (not
counting a 1985 conspiracy and the 2017 suppression of the Catalan attempt at independence).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In 1981, armed military units took over a democratic Parliament;
representatives were held at gunpoint.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But that wasn’t the Knesset – the Israeli parliament; it was the Spanish
Congress of Deputies.<o:p></o:p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_McZnAl0agP0vfM15gDFih8z_W7odHKWyOknc4p5toH68NBOd1yIWDjX2nxvoqoh-YOar3QmIrD71sOeh8HSVkOAOlOX_uelCt4W3lrVNGFd_jlPhZXbZnXm--4m4hRHuVuRudAsr_j_vnPp0N4StUNsogeHhbtUD13f0AVm4Jre_TiSiwP9J8PGXEQ/s1600/23-F_Golpe_de_Estado.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="901" data-original-width="1600" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_McZnAl0agP0vfM15gDFih8z_W7odHKWyOknc4p5toH68NBOd1yIWDjX2nxvoqoh-YOar3QmIrD71sOeh8HSVkOAOlOX_uelCt4W3lrVNGFd_jlPhZXbZnXm--4m4hRHuVuRudAsr_j_vnPp0N4StUNsogeHhbtUD13f0AVm4Jre_TiSiwP9J8PGXEQ/w640-h360/23-F_Golpe_de_Estado.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Spain, 1981: a group of officers take over the parliament. </td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In 2019, a democratic parliament was ‘<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/sep/24/boris-johnsons-suspension-of-parliament-unlawful-supreme-court-rules-prorogue"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">prorogued</span></a>’
or ‘suspended’: sent home, shoved out of the way of the Executive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that wasn’t the Knesset, either.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In 2021, another democratic parliament was <a href="https://time.com/5927132/donald-trump-mob-capitol-chaos/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">taken over</span></a>
by an unruly mob.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, again, it was <b><u>not</u></b>
the Israeli Knesset.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And Israel’s democracy is fragile??<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No party leader in the history of the State of Israel has won
more elections (or been more time in power) than Benjamin Netanyahu.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet when he lost the elections (at least
twice so far in his long career), he went home.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He didn’t like it – what politician does – but he peacefully relinquished
power and headed for the opposition.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And Israel’s democracy is fragile??<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No, it wasn’t the Supreme Court that stopped Israeli
generals from grabbing power; and it wasn’t justices that ousted Netanyahu.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Democracy exists not because it’s legislated
(what dictators give a damn about the rule of law?), but because everybody
understands that people would put up with nothing less.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That’s why there is freedom of press and freedom of
expression in Israel – although neither was ever inscribed in any law. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s why human dignity was respected in
Israel – long before there ever was a Basic Law about it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No, laws – however ‘progressive’ – don’t create democracy; it’s
democracy that makes good laws.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No, it is not the Supreme Court that defends democracy; it’s
democracy that establishes courts of law and gives them prerogatives.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Of course we need checks on the power of the Executive; but
if the Executive is so bent on doing injustice (as some would have us believe
is Israel’s current government) then no Supreme Court will stop it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After all, judges can be arrested – or worse.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A couple of weeks ago, during a Q&A session, I came
across a lady who was really frightened of what an ‘unbridled’ Israeli government
might do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She described a dystopian situation,
with Israeli women segregated by law and denied equal rights…<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Her fear was genuine and I felt for her; but
it was also illogical in the extreme.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>How exactly are these laws to be adopted?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The current coalition has 64 members of
Knesset (a thin majority of 4) – most of them secular Jews, many of them
women.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Speaker of the Knesset
(himself a coalition MK) is an openly gay man.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Are all these MKs going to vote in favour of laws oppressing women, just
because they can??<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let me be blunt: those who say that ‘Israel’s democracy is
fragile’ are demonstrably wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those
who keep claiming that <i>“Israel is different”</i> and who suspect its
government of hatching the most malignant plots simply internalise age-old antisemitic
beliefs – that Jews are always different; that they are up to no good.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No, Israel is not different; it is a democratic, liberal
country – because its people will have it no other way.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No, even if the reforms were all implemented as currently proposed,
Israel will <b><u>not</u></b> become substantially different from other free
countries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No, women and LGBT won’t lose
their equal rights, nor will Arabs or secular Jews; and people will still be
able to send the government home and bring up a new one.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>The non-constructive way<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">But, of course, the proposals will <b><u>not</u></b> be
implemented as currently proposed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those
familiar with the Knesset’s legislative routes know only too well that they amount,
ultimately, to negotiation processes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Bills are drafted as opening positions in those negotiations.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And, in fact, the coalition has offered, has <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/judicial-shakeup-architects-invite-opposition-heads-to-meeting-at-presidents-office/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">almost
pleaded</span></a> for negotiations; it even made <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/pressured-to-compromise-coalition-debates-new-proposal-for-judicial-appointments/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">small
concessions</span></a> ahead of any negotiations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The opposition responded that it would only negotiate if the current
legislative process is completely stopped.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But stopping it would act as a disincentive to reaching an agreement:
why would the opposition concede anything, when it can just keep things as they
are while ‘negotiating’ forever and a day?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Taking a leaf off the PLO’s book, the opposition seems
content to reject ‘softened’ coalition proposals without any counter-offer.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Don’t get me wrong: I’d
like to see this government replaced by a more moderate coalition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But this isn’t the way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The current opposition’s refusal to negotiate,
its obstinate decision to waste weeks on end, while the proposed reform slowly
moves through the Knesset – all these smells of ill will; it all looks like a
cynical attempt to scuttle the government, rather than an honest, genuine effort
to do what’s best for the country – to find a workable compromise.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">I don’t for a moment
blame the protestors: the vast majority are good people, albeit naïve and unnecessarily
frightened.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But I do question the
sincerity and intentions of the prophets of doom – all those ‘leaders’ making
deliberately catastrophic, panic-creating predictions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fear does not become a good counsellor, merely
because it is employed by the left.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By
all means argue your case; criticise the proposals; propose something
else.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But don’t act as if it’s the end
of the world; don’t push naïve people to block motorways, to ‘refuse’ their
army duty or to <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/police-rescue-sara-netanyahu-as-protesters-accost-her-at-tel-aviv-hair-salon/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">harass</span></a>
politicians’ spouses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such scorched-earth
political tactics will ultimately blow in your faces.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">And, controversial as
this may be, I am going to criticise also the President, Yitzhak Herzog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That he is trying to help is nothing but
worthy of praise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That he is coaxing coalition
and opposition leaders to meet up is wonderful.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But talk of ‘civil war’ is wrong and counterproductive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And presidential proposals for possible
compromises should be skilfully floated in closed meetings – not promoted on
prime-time TV.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">And I have to say that I’m
disappointed also with the content of those proposals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No, not because they favour one side or the
other (I don’t care that much about this), but because they don’t seem to be
properly thought through.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Take for instance Mr.
Herzog’s proposal for the judge-appointing committee.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The problem with the current composition of
that committee is that the sitting Chief Justice has – in practice, not in law –
a veto on new appointments. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr. Herzog
proposed a change in that composition: the Chief Justice would still be a member,
as would two other judges.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They would be
joined by 4 representatives of the coalition (3 ministers and 1 MK), 2 of the
opposition (2 MKs from 2 different parties) and 2 representatives of the public
whose appointment would require the agreement of the Justice Minister and the
Chief Justice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So a total of 11 members,
with at least 7 votes in favour needed to appoint a Supreme Judge.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">But, assuming that (as was
generally the case in the past), the 2 judges would vote in agreement with the
Chief Justice, the latter would still have a practical veto.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After all, the two opposition MKs are very
unlikely to support a candidate proposed by the government and opposed by the Chief
Justice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So the proposed change does not…
change much at all.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Or take one other
presidential proposal: that legislating Basic Laws (i.e. constitutional
provisions) would require a majority of two thirds (80 out of the 120 Members
of the Knesset).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Given Israel’s proportional
representation and the consequential government by coalitions, this would make
it practically impossible to legislate Basic Laws.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather than encouraging progress towards a
more complete Constitution, this freezes the country for the foreseeable future
in a sort of constitutional limbo.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2>The politicisation of everything<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">As we have seen, in most
democracies the Executive has an overwhelming influence on the selection of judges.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In most democracies, government’s legal
advisers are appointed by ministers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But
opponents say that in Israel this would lead to the ‘politicisation’ of the
courts (especially the Supreme Court) and of the legal process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Israel is different…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">In truth, keeping the
Supreme Court out of politics may be a very worthy objective; but it seems to
me that that particular ship has long sailed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>When the Supreme Court rules that a certain government decision is ‘unreasonable’
(as opposed to ‘unlawful’, ‘unconstitutional’, tainted by undue interests or procedurally
faulty) – isn’t that political?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">When Israel’s General
Attorney <a href="https://www.ynetnews.com/article/sjjvot6cs"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">bars the Prime
Minister</span></a> from having any say in the proposed reform – even while bearing
ultimate responsibility for its consequences – is that ‘reasonable’?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Is it reasonable to <a href="https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/benjamin-netanyahu/netanyahu-barred-from-using-donations-to-fund-bribery-legal-defense-573589"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">prevent
a defendant</span></a> (even a defendant who is Prime Minister) from raising money to
fund his legal defence?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">The truth is that it is
extremely difficult – if not utterly impossible – to prevent the ‘politicisation’
of anything.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Human beings are social
animals – they have political preferences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Pretending that judges don’t hold such preferences (or they don’t, unless
or until they are appointed by politicians) is living in denial.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That such political preferences may at times (even
inadvertently) cloud a judge’s legal assessments is an obvious truth – and also
a worry.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">All democracies recognise
this problem; but various democracies deal with this issue in various ways.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the US, Supreme
Justices are appointed by the sitting President and confirmed by the Senate;
this doesn’t make the judges apolitical – but it is hoped that, over time, the Court’s
political makeup will more or less resemble that of the electorate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the UK, the conundrum is resolved by
making the Court subservient to the Parliament and interpreting justiciability in
a narrow, ‘non-activist’ way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Other
democracies simply rely on the judges (who are appointed by ruling politicians)
to place their professional integrity above political impulses.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">None of the solutions
above is of course perfect; but then, what is?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Then, there are those who
claim another type of ‘politicisation’: if a certain politician (say, the
Justice Minister) has the main role in appointing a particular judge, won’t it
mean that the judge would forever be indebted to that politician?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And therefore ‘in his/her pocket’ and likely
to issue biased court rulings?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Well, this may be a
worry, too.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Except that it ignores human
nature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, the judge may feel ‘grateful’
– though s/he is likely to feel deserving of that appointment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But once appointed, Israeli judges serve
until retirement – they can be dismissed only in the most extreme cases. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So how long would that ‘gratitude’ be felt –
and how far would a professional jurist go to show ‘gratitude’ to a past ‘benefactor’?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">To find answers to these
questions, we only have to look at the example of former Attorney General
Avichai Mandelblit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A lifetime member of
the Likud Party, Mandelblit had a close relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu –
dating back to the former’s military career.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It was Netanyahu who first appointed him Cabinet Secretary in 2013 and
who, in February 2016, manoeuvred to make him Attorney General.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet by July 2016, he was leading a review
into allegations concerning Netanyahu and by January 2017 was approving the
Prime Minister’s formal questioning by the police.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Finally, in 2019 Mandelblit indicted his former
friend and ‘benefactor’ on charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust…<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So much for ‘gratitude’!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2>Is a reform needed?<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">But what’s wrong with the
current system, in the first place?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do
we need a change?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If asked these days,
the opposition would probably answer in the negative: after all, the current
system ties – at least to some extent – the hands of the government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But in the past, many prominent members of
the current opposition had held quite different views.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, opinion polls consistently show that
a majority of Israelis believe that the current system needs to be
changed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The disagreement is over the
nature and extent of the changes.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Still, a dear and
respected friend came up with this very good question: <i>“Do we need to do it
now?”</i> she asked. <i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Is this our
most pressing priority?”<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">My answer to that
excellent question is ‘No, not necessarily’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>On the other hand, not being <i>“the most pressing priority”</i> isn’t a
good reason not to do something.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Prioritising
is a good thing, but every government wants to govern, not reduced to fighting
fires.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">For me, the most
compelling reason to change things is that the current situation works –
counter-intuitively, I know – as a bulwark against good, truly progressive
legislation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It has inadvertently created
a disincentive to genuine progress.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">As mentioned, from its
very establishment in 1948, the State of Israel aspired to be a democratic
country, with free and fair elections, freedoms and respect for the rights of
minorities and the individual. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These principles
found expression in the Declaration of Independence and were implemented in
practice, but were not explicitly anchored in law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 1992, however, the Knesset legislated The Basic
Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, which explicitly protected human life, body and
dignity, property, personal liberty and privacy, as well as regulating the right
to enter and exit the country.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">The legislators that enacted
the law intended it to be followed by others of the kind, so that together they
would form a Bill of Rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that
never happened.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, consecutive governments
(both left and right wing) avoided the issue like fire.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the main reason was the new Supreme Court
‘activism’ – led and promoted by Chief Justice Aharon Barak.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Under its militant
President, the Court chose to ‘interpret’ the Basic Law in the broadest
conceivable way (and occasionally in ways that may border the
inconceivable).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It ‘read’ into the Law ‘rights’
that were never written in it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
allowed people and organisations to sue based on vague, unheard of
generalisations of the term ‘dignity’; and not just people who could claim that
their dignity was affected (i.e., those who – in legal terms – had ‘standing’),
but anyone who wished to sue.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">The Attorney General and
the legal advisors (themselves partisans of the Court’s ‘activism’ doctrine)
refused to oppose this tendency; in fact, they used the law to ‘pre-empt’ laws
and government actions from even getting their day in court.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The inflation of ‘rights’ and ‘liberties’ became
a huge constrain on the ability to govern, even in matters of national
security.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">To give just one example:
in the early 2000s, Israel was reeling from an unprecedented wave of Palestinian
terrorism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather dishonestly dubbed ‘the
Second Intifada’ (it was nothing like the First), it consisted of suicide
bombings and other attacks targeting random Israelis in restaurant, cafés, buses,
shops and markets…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">In response, the
government took a series of steps, culminating with the building of a security
barrier restricting the access of Palestinians to Israel proper and to most
Israeli ‘settlements’ beyond the Green Line.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But there was one easy way for any Palestinian to gain access to every
place in Israel: by marrying and Israeli citizen (usually, of course, and Arab
Israeli).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A few of these spouses became
involved in perpetrating acts of terrorism.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">In response, the
Government initiated new legislation, which barred future Palestinian spouses
from settling in Israel, except in humanitarian cases.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This was passed by the Knesset as an
amendment to the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">To many, it may seem
reasonable to prevent the entry of enemy nationals into the State of Israel –
especially given the risk of terrorism activity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the new legislation was swiftly referred
to debate by the Supreme Court.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Supreme
Justices, of course, are not accountable for the security and general welfare of
Israel’s citizens; that responsibility belongs to the government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So they – the Judges – can afford to make
decisions based on highfalutin ‘principles’, as if the Green Line were the
border between Finland and Sweden.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">The Court read the Human
Dignity and Liberty Law and ‘discovered’ that there was a <i>“right to family
life”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I say ‘discovered’, because such
right is nowhere mentioned in the law. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet 7 out of 11 judges sitting on this panel (including
Chief Justice Aharon Barak) opined that such right was <i>“a derivative of
human dignity”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not just that, but
apparently the Palestinians’ <i>“right to family life”</i> could only be fulfilled
by moving to Israel to join their spouses – rather than the spouses joining
them in the West Bank.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">To make the law more ‘palatable’
to the Supreme Court (and thus achieve the Judges’ grudging acceptance of this
security measure), the Knesset had to considerably dilute it and also limit it
in time. The prohibition of settling in Israel with their spouses was thus
limited to younger Palestinian (men under the age of 35 and women under the age
of 25) – who are statistically more likely to engage in acts of terrorism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In addition, the law’s validity was limited
to one year; in practice meaning that the Government had to humbly go to Court on
a yearly basis and ‘demonstrate’ all over again that the impingement on
Palestinian dignity was still ‘proportionate,’ in view of the risk to Jewish
life and limb.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Even that did not quite satisfy
the Judges; they accepted the law with a majority of 6 vs. 5, but one of the 6 (Edmond
E. Levy) <a href="https://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/opinions/adalah-legal-center-arab-minority-rights-israel-v-minister-interior"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">added</span></a>
in his ruling the following thinly veiled threat:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;"><i>“if changes are not made, the law will be unlikely to satisfy judicial
scrutiny in the future.”</i></span></blockquote><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;"><o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">The elected
parliamentarians were thus put on notice that they better change their policies
– or else; the only problem being that this harsh warning was delivered not by
the people (i.e. the electorate), but by an unelected judge.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">It may be interesting, in
passing, to mention also the identity of the petitioner in this case: the outfit
that sued Israel’s Interior Ministry is called ‘Adalah’ and purports to defend
the rights of the country’s Arab minority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>As part of this ‘defence’, Adalah (which is <a href="https://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/8268"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">funded</span></a> among others by New
Israel Fund) has <a href="https://www.adalah.org/en/law/index"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">compiled</span></a> a ‘Database
of Discriminatory Laws in Israel’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To give
just one example: Adalah <a href="https://www.adalah.org/en/law/view/540"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">identifies</span></a>
the ‘Flag and Emblem Law’ (adopted in 1949) as discriminatory towards Arab
Israelis, because it<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;"><i>“</i>[a]<i>dopts the flag of the First Zionist Congress and the Zionist Movement,
a combination of a prayer shawl and the Shield of David, as the official flag
of Israel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The emblem of the State of
Israel is a candelabrum, one of the symbols of the Temple era in Jewish
history.”</i></span></blockquote><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;"><o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">I mention this here,
because the Board of Deputies of British Jews may wish to submit a similar
complaint: after all, the UK flag includes the Cross of St. George.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Which, given its Christian connotations, is
certainly discriminatory, not just towards Jews, but also Muslims, Hindus,
Sikhs, Buddhists and Zoroastrians!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Jokes aside: the Court’s
tendency to ‘creatively’ interpret the concept of human dignity had a chilling
effect on the propensity of Israeli ministers and parliamentarians to advance
additional human rights legislation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>After all, if the concept of human dignity can be used as ‘source’ for a
‘right’ of enemy nationals to settle in Israel, God only knows what ‘rights’
might pop up from the woodwork if – say – the concept of equality before law
was also inscribed in a Basic Law? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Propped
by New Israel Fund donations, Adalah would probably claim that achieving ‘equality’
demands that the population of Gaza be provided with Iron Dome batteries…<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or (as a few anti-Israel politicians have <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-representatives-voted-against-funding-israel-iron-dome-1632385"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">already
demanded</span></a>) that Israel be prevented from acquiring them in the first place.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">It is, of course, the
role of judges to interpret the law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But
‘interpreting’ should mean deriving the meaning originally envisaged by the
legislators – not using one’s own imagination. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sure, I understand the judges’ temptation to
pull mightily at the ends of existing laws, in an effort to cover genuine or perceived
gaps in Israel’s constitution. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But in so
doing, they encroach on the prerogative of the Legislature; they arrogate themselves
the power to decide not just what is legal, but what is moral and good – a
power that (both legally and morally) does not belong to them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">And it’s not just the
effect on legislators – but on all of us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Laws should be seen as rigid by definition; when they are made elastic,
overly-dependent on interpretation, they tend to lose their authority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s why we have laws in the first place –
rather than just judges to assess what’s right or wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">There is also something
counter-productive in the hyperinflation of ‘human rights’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We have, as we’ve seen, a ‘right to family
life’ – which some insist is a ‘human right’ that cannot be denied even to the
most inhumane criminals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We have
economic rights, employment rights, rights to education, rights of free
movement, rights of asylum and many, many others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am not saying that they are unimportant or
that they should not exist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But perhaps
it is unwise to place them in the same category as ‘natural rights’ such as the
right to life, the right of self defence or property rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is a reason why the Seven Noahide Laws
and the Ten Commandments sit above the 613 mitzvot…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">The lady doth protest too much, methinks!<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">It goes without saying
that, in a democracy, people have the right to protest: to demonstrate, to
carry placards, to make speeches and chant slogans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But when I hear people talking about ‘peaceful
protest’ (or even ‘non-violent protest’) I don’t quite understand what they
mean.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Surely if it were violent or
warlike it wouldn’t be a protest – but something else?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">The misconception appears
to be that everything is legal, as long as it’s ‘non-violent’ – as in <i>“we
were arrested, despite not bashing anyone’s head in!”</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">That’s nonsense: blocking
trains or motorways may not be violent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But it isn’t legal, either.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
interferes with people’s lives, causes economic loss and may even result in
loss of life and limb.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">But <i>“hey”</i>, I hear you
saying, <i>“what about the suffragettes?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Didn’t they break the law of the land – in order to improve it?”</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They certainly did!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But those promoting this ‘argument’ forget an
essential ‘detail’: the suffragettes did not live in a democracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Like the American colonists, they engaged in
unlawful protest because they were denied lawful representation in the ruling institutions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">In a dictatorship, the ‘law’
is just an instrument of oppression and breaking it (even resorting to violence
under certain circumstances) may be the only way to assert one’s rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not so in a democracy, which offers legal
avenues to right any wrongs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Democracy offers
the opportunity of persuasion; tyranny does not – it is based on coercion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">That’s why I would
welcome an insurrection that took control of the Iranian Majlis; but I
condemned the 6 January 2020 assault against the US Congress.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The two things are fundamentally different.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">But who can protest
Israel’s judicial reform – or even Israel’s government?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The short answer is, simply, anyone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am <b><u>not</u></b> suggesting that any
legal protest should be restricted – let alone prohibited.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If anyone does suggest that, they’ll find in
me a stubborn adversary.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">But I am also entitled to
express opinions about protesters – or at least about some of them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Israelis, especially
those actually living in Israel, have every right to demonstrate, to protest,
to scream and shout.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s their country
and they can use the right to protest to promote their political views and try
to persuade their countrymen.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">I question why would
Israelis living in the UK want to demonstrate in front of their Embassy?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They may, but why would they?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If one truly believes (as they say they do)
that the proposed reforms are wrong and that this government should be brought
down before it causes irreparable damage – <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>then they should persuade Israeli voters, not British
Jews or Brits in general.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How is
protesting in front of the Embassy in any way constructive?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does anyone really believe that Israeli
politicians (or any politicians, for that matter) will change their minds
because people who don’t vote don’t like them?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">If this is a way to vent
your frustration, then vent away…<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But if
– as some have implied – the intention is to ‘bring international pressure on
the government’, then I find that objective antidemocratic, immoral and just
plain wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Decisions that affect
Israelis should be made by Israelis – i.e. people who live in Israel, pay taxes
in Israel and put their asses on the line in Israel. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Brits have no more business telling Israelis
how to run their country than Israelis have to ‘put pressure on the [UK]
government’ on issues like Brexit or Scottish independence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That includes British Jews, who are very
welcome to put pressure on the Government of Israel – once they make aliyah;
not before, however, and certainly not unless.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifM2e2b281zzNaoBTfK_Sh_f-KyKHphzVce7r2W-zGxMeSAktvKOnwbpz4Ltq72L8Ft01S7PBbLNBLOvwsc7XaZ_xDXTDQGGnojheci5Wa3AJxNIr65lMouAy9cuh-6pOCZbi9Rv16JFPy-NhxYIFbSu2bZbqxuZk2t63BxNKcFlQR6coYI45XJJdLYw/s1281/IMG_0324.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1281" data-original-width="1125" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifM2e2b281zzNaoBTfK_Sh_f-KyKHphzVce7r2W-zGxMeSAktvKOnwbpz4Ltq72L8Ft01S7PBbLNBLOvwsc7XaZ_xDXTDQGGnojheci5Wa3AJxNIr65lMouAy9cuh-6pOCZbi9Rv16JFPy-NhxYIFbSu2bZbqxuZk2t63BxNKcFlQR6coYI45XJJdLYw/w351-h400/IMG_0324.jpg" width="351" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Israel’s Embassy is by far the most ‘demonstrated against’ diplomatic mission in London. It’s usually the likes of Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Friends of Al-Aqsa that stage those protests…</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuK-V7Go9tu5CqOc1hluGcgC3jmxkFRqz4QB8Pu-5hDszOify9DGhnAUJjio-A0YITjZaLuWvCIUJFM0JcN-b3zTqLQDTkSbJFvFTYq9ASclF0xa0yYJEvMZ0k4Tavu9Ol-Lkv7Iz4Hv4fVl6lp7atIu3461mkluyedt8ishwvizXqzU2bwC7QKQrfMQ/s1579/IMG_0325.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1579" data-original-width="1125" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuK-V7Go9tu5CqOc1hluGcgC3jmxkFRqz4QB8Pu-5hDszOify9DGhnAUJjio-A0YITjZaLuWvCIUJFM0JcN-b3zTqLQDTkSbJFvFTYq9ASclF0xa0yYJEvMZ0k4Tavu9Ol-Lkv7Iz4Hv4fVl6lp7atIu3461mkluyedt8ishwvizXqzU2bwC7QKQrfMQ/w285-h400/IMG_0325.jpg" width="285" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Officially at least, Yachad says that they do not support BDS. But they do seem to oppose those who oppose it… The group also claims to be pro-Israel.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;"><br /></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">The attempt to involve
the Diaspora in what is – or should be – an Israeli political debate is… I’d
like to write ‘misguided’; but I fear that those who perpetrate it know exactly
what they are doing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So I’m going to call
it pernicious instead harmful to Israel, destructive for the Diaspora, toxic
for the relationship between the two – and utterly unethical.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">If you ‘<a href="https://choosedemocracy.org.uk/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">choose democracy in Israel</span></a>’ by…
denying Israelis their democratic choice, then you choose only crass hypocrisy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And if you ‘protest’ by breaking the law in the
name of the rule of law – then you lost not just my vote – but my respect, too.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-17935028754558865562022-11-06T17:17:00.004-08:002022-12-28T03:35:45.262-08:00Israel elections 2022: what the Diaspora should know<p>Israel’s latest elections appear to have broken the prolonged stalemate between the two ‘blocs’. I don’t mean ‘left’ and ‘right’ – terms that make very little sense in the current Israeli political context; I don’t even mean ‘doves’ and ‘hawks’; no, I mean the anti-Netanyahu and pro-Netanyahu camps – that’s the only accurate way to describe the two political tendencies that participated in the latest electoral contest. Were it not for Netanyahu and his legal ‘tzores’, Israel would have had a stable government, without the need for those unprecedented five national elections between April 2019 and November 2022.</p><p>While there’s many a slip twixt election results and a coalition government, the victory certainly belongs to the pro-Netanyahu bloc, which garnered 64 seats of the 120 available in Israel’s unicameral parliament – the Knesset. The anti-Netanyahu bloc won only 51 seats, with the remainder of 5 occupied by the majority-Arab Hadash-Ta’al party – which adopted its usual ‘plague-on-both-their-houses’ strategy (read: they ruled out joining any governing coalition with ‘the Zionists’).</p><p>Most Israelis were not surprised; but the results sent a huge tremor in the ranks of the self-described ‘progressives’. And not just because they signalled the almost complete demise of what some insist on calling ‘the Israeli left’ (that is, Meretz and the Labour Party); but even more so, because of the rise of Religious Zionism, the ‘far-right’ or ‘hawkish’ alliance.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Fair disclosure</h2><p>Had I participated in these elections, my vote would have gone to National Unity – Benny Gantz’s party. No, not because of the (rather naff) name; nor because I like its leader – though I think he is a decent guy. Finally, not because I don’t like Netanyahu. Though I’ve never been a great supporter, I do think that Netanyahu has, by and large, been a good leader. Even his most bitter adversaries cannot deny that he has presided over a period of economic growth and prosperity; that he has pursued Israel’s vital interests without engaging in adventurous military conflicts in places like Syria and Lebanon – let alone Iran; that he has somehow managed to expand Israel’s diplomatic reach beyond what many thought possible. His adversaries will attribute those achievements to luck or circumstance; but if one manages to stay lucky for 12 straight years as Prime Minister of Israel – I for one will nevertheless applaud!</p><p>True, Netanyahu hasn’t made peace with the Palestinians. But if this is the only measure of success, then all Israeli leaders have been failures – so why single out Netanyahu?</p><p>Many accuse Netanyahu of dishonesty. It is true that, in his political dealings, he often broke promises and told lies. But politics is not a business for the faint-hearted; and if we were to crucify all disingenuous politicians – there’d be a lot of hammering in the great halls of many a parliament. As for his purported corruption – that must be assessed in a court of law; and that’s all I have to say about it.</p><p>So if Netanyahu is such a great guy – you ask – why would you not vote for him? Well, mainly because he has been in power too long. Israel needs some new blood at the helm; and she isn’t getting it, because nothing grows well in the shadow of a big tree. And yes, also because, in his quest for power, Netanyahu has now made some unsavoury alliances. For all those reasons, Israel must – sooner or later – wean herself from Netanyahu, just as she did in the past from Ben Gurion.</p><p>Still, I am not particularly worried about Netanyahu winning again: he is 73 and – unless he has the grace to draw a line himself at a propitious time – nature and a few political vultures will at some point do it for him.</p><p>As for the ‘Religious Zionism’ extremists, I have nothing but contempt for them: their way isn’t my way and their Zionism is a very far cry from mine.</p><p>Still, I don’t share the ‘gewalt’ atmosphere that some (especially in the Diaspora) dishonestly create around these elections, and that others naively ingurgitate – hook, sink and proverbial liner.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">A bit of history</h2><p>For many, the major ‘item’ in these elections is the meteoric rise of Religious Zionism: led by the ‘far-right enfant terrible’ Bezalel Smotrich and including Itamar Ben Gvir – an extremist and former disciple of Meir Kahane – Religious Zionism more than doubled its parliamentary footprint; it won 14 out of the 120 Knesset seats, becoming the 3rd largest political group.</p><p>It is worth examining the history of this party: its first embodiment was T’kuma (Revival), a small splinter of the National Religious Party (known in Israel mostly by its Hebrew acronym – Mafdal). The latter was formed as early as 1956 and initially leaned left, operating its own trade union and cooperating in coalition governments with the Labour Party. It increasingly turned right, mainly in reaction to what it perceived as the Labour’s neglect and lack of interest in Jewish faith and tradition. The founders of T’kuma left Mafdal in 1998, over its perceived ‘softness’. Between 1999 and 2013 it survived by forming, breaking and reforming alliances with other small parties on the ‘right’ fringe of Israeli politics. Bereft of real power and influence, the leaders of T’kuma were reduced to attempting to gain some measure of notoriety through political stunts and outrageous statements. They featured often in the reports of foreign journalists intent on showing extremism in Israel; but most Israelis dismissed them as irrelevant, big-mouth non-entities.</p><p>In 2014, the Knesset approved a bill which increased the threshold for entering the parliament from 2% to 3.25% of the votes – meaning that the smallest possible political group represented in the Knesset was 4 members.</p><p>The brilliant Israeli political analyst Haviv Rettig Gur <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-threshold-of-political-pain-how-a-tiny-reform-radicalized-israeli-politics/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">described</span></a> the move:</p><p></p><blockquote><p><i>"The reform passed in the Knesset relatively easily. Its purpose, as articulated by the bill’s sponsors at the time, was to reduce the government’s dependence on tiny, marginal factions and thus increase stability and governability.</i></p><p><i>There are too many parties jostling around in the Knesset, went the argument. Prime ministers must satisfy as many as half a dozen – in the case of the outgoing government, eight! – separate factions to keep the government alive. A dozen factions might negotiate over any piece of legislation. This complexity and dependence on small parties warped decision-making and was a major source of political instability. Simple governance had been rendered nigh impossible by the sheer messiness of it all."</i></p></blockquote><p> At the time, most Israeli political analysts either applauded the move as ‘a step in the right direction’ or dismissed it as cosmetic tinkering, demanding more radical changes.</p><p>It was opposed, of course, by the small parties that were likely to be left out of the parliament.</p><p>The Arab parties saw the move as directed against them – as they tended to win between 2% and 4% of the votes; they lost no time in calling it yet another ‘racist’ measure aimed at denying Arab Israelis their political rights. But the increase in threshold was seen as affecting the Jewish far-right even more – those small parties generally won below 3%. Hence, T’kuma and others on the fringe right called it ‘anti-democratic’ at the time.</p><p>The prospect of getting rid of the small far-right parties (and, possibly, to attract more votes from the Arab sector) caused many ‘progresives’ to support the bill.</p><p>Haviv Rettig Gur reminds us:</p><p></p><blockquote><i>"President Isaac Herzog, then a senior Labor party lawmaker, had proposed an even steeper increase to 5% a few years earlier."</i></blockquote><p> The increase in parliamentary threshold from 2% to 3.25% should forever be studied as a textbook example of how the Law of Unintended Consequences works in politics.</p><p>In the years to come, some of the measure’s fiercest critics were to benefit from it – while some of its supporters would suffer.</p><p>The 3.25% hurdle would force more of the small parties to merge or at least form temporary, pre-election alliances. Thus, the Arab parties (who had so vehemently denounced the higher threshold) formed the ‘Joint List’ – which won 13 seats in September 2019 and 15 in March 2020, becoming Israel’s 3rd largest party. Conversely, in 2022 the Jewish left (which had mostly supported the bill) failed to unite, which left the hard-left (Meretz) out in the rain, while the more moderate Labour narrowly scraped in, with just 3.69% of the vote.</p><p>Ever the wily political operator, Netanyahu understood the significance of the increased threshold: since parties gaining less than 3.25% would not get any seats in the Knesset, fragmentation in the ‘pro-Netanyahu’ camp risked wasting votes and thus pushing his putative coalition below the minimum required majority of 61 in the 120-large parliament.</p><p>In 2021, he engineered an alliance between T’kuma (which had meanwhile been renamed ‘National Union’ and was already led by Bezalel Smotrich) and two other tiny parties: Ben Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Strength) and the anti-gay No’am. Netanyahu assessed (correctly, most analysts would say) that in the absence of such a pact both Otzma Yehudit and No’am would fail to pass the electoral threshold, thus wasting votes for his camp. Otzma Yehudit was generally seen as the weaker partner in the alliance, which is why Ben Gvir was placed not on the second place (after Smotrich), but only on the third.</p><p>As it happened, the new alliances (dubbed ‘Religious Zionism’) won only some 5% of the votes, resulting in 6 Knesset seats. As we know, Netanyahu failed to cobble together a coalition, while his opponents from hard-right to hard-left) managed to rise above their huge ideological differences and form a – however feeble – governing coalition.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">From irrelevance to ‘victory’</h2><p>So what caused Religious Zionism to more than double its electoral strength between March 2021 and November 2022 – from 5.12% to 10.83% of the votes, or from 6 to 14 mandates? It was certainly not its legislative achievements: the party was in opposition and (apart from fiery speeches and annoying stunts) contributed absolutely nothing.</p><p>Some – both in Israel and abroad – are eager to ‘explain’ the party’s success so as to show Israelis in the worst possible light.</p><p>Esawi Frej (an Arab Israeli politician representing the hard-left Meretz party in the Knesset and Minister of Regional Cooperation in the outgoing government) tweeted:</p><p></p><blockquote><i>"14 mandates to Ben Gvir is 14 mandates to hatred of Arabs. The 3rd largest party is racist, Kahanist, violent… it doesn’t want me or my children here. It’s no longer a slippery slope. It’s the abyss itself."</i></blockquote><p></p><p>Frej’s post was written in Hebrew, but the text was translated and gleefully re-tweeted in English by Yachad, a self-described ‘progressive’ British Jewish outfit whose raison d’être is ‘criticising’ Israel.</p><p>But why would ‘hatred of Arabs’ (assuming that’s what impelled people to vote for Religious Zionism) rise from 5% to almost 11% of the population in just a few months? And how is ‘hatred of Arabs’ consistent with the quasi-general support for the Abraham Accords, including masses of Israelis eager to visit and do business with some of the newly-accessible Arab countries?</p><p>In reality (as I’m sure both Esawi Frej and Yachad know, but choose not to say), the rise of Religious Zionism is the result of a ‘perfect storm’, consisting mainly of two factors.</p><p>Firstly, in May 2021 Israelis experienced yet another mini-war with Gaza. Denied participation in the Palestinian elections (it was widely expected to win them, which is why Palestinian Authority President and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas ‘postponed them sine die), Hamas decided to bolster its credentials as ‘the’ defender of Palestinians by launching a rocket assault on Israel. This in itself would not have been so traumatic: it happened quite a few times before.</p><p>But something completely new happened this time: massive riots by Arab citizens of Israel, randomly targeting Jews and Jewish property. The riots were particularly violent in the ‘mixed towns’ (i.e. places where Jews and Arabs live together, such as Lod, Ramle and Acco). In those places, the riots resembled pogroms, with bands of young Arabs attacking passing Jews (two were killed and several others injured), throwing rocks at cars and setting fire to Jewish houses, cars and synagogues. What’s more, many testified that some local Arab citizens, while not participating themselves in the violence, pointed out Jewish homes and cars to the rioters, who proceeded to attack or burn them. The Arab riots (and the Jewish ‘counter-riots’ that soon followed) continued for a whole week, forcing the government to impose a state of emergency.</p><p>To complete the grim ‘score line’ of this episode of violence: the Arab rioters set 112 Jewish homes, 10 synagogues and 849 cars on fire (as well as an Arab house, which they mistook for being inhabited by Jews). 386 Jewish homes were looted and another 673 damaged. There were more than 5,000 recorded instances of stone-throwing against Jews. On the Arab side, 13 homes and 13 cars were burned by rioting Jews and there were 41 recorded incidents of stone-throwing.</p><p>It is hard to exaggerate the traumatic effect of these riots. Imagine cowering in your home with your family, while rioters are already burning houses and cars a few blocks away; imagine driving home from work one evening, your car pounded with large rocks from both sides of the road, while large mobs appear to be baying for your blood. While only a small percentage of the Israeli population directly experienced the riots, practically all others watched them on television, or on videos circulating on social media. Israelis have a keen sense of history and the images of Jews experiencing pogroms in their own country were devastating.</p><p>Timing is of the essence here, too: the riots started in the evening of 10 May 2021, almost at the same time as 150 rockets were launched from Gaza at random targets in Israel. They continued while Israel was pounded with hundreds of additional missiles.</p><p>To make matters worse, once the riots died down, (on 18 May 2021) Arab Israeli politicians declared a general strike – in support of their ‘brothers’ in the West Bank and Gaza. This may be a ‘symbolic’ act; but hundreds of thousands of Israeli Jews saw their Arab colleagues refusing to come to work (in hospitals, schools, factories and offices), in the midst of a war, in ‘solidarity’ with the enemy. The strike pulled the rug from under the feet of those (among them the Israeli left) who preached coexistence and insisted that the riots involved only an unrepresentative, violent minority. Conversely, it bolstered the far-right propaganda, seemingly vindicating their portrayal of Arab Israelis as a ‘fifth column’ ready to act in concert with the country’s existential enemies. There were Arab voices that publicly condemned the riots; but the general strike drowned them down or rendered them meaningless.</p><p>Many of the votes for Religious Zionism are, no doubt, a reaction to the May 2021 riots and to the general strike that followed. But another factor contributed, as well.</p><p>Those who, like me, follow the meanders of Israeli politics would have noticed a significant absence in the 2022 elections: that of Yamina (Rightwards), the party led by Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked. In the March 2021 elections, Yamina won 7 seats. Although ideologically to the right of Netanyahu’s Likud, Yamina decided to side with the anti-Netanyahu bloc. It thus enabled that bloc to form a wide governing coalition, including Labour, the hard-left Meretz and the Islamist Arab party Ra’am. Naftali Bennett initially headed that coalition, as Prime Minister; he later kept his promise and stepped down to enable Yair Lapid (leader of the centrist Yesh Atid/There’s a Future) to assume the premiership, as part of a ‘rotation’ agreement.</p><p>But many in Yamina’s right-wing constituency took a dim view of this alignment with the left, seeing it as a ‘crossing of the lines’ and a betrayal of the mandate that the voters gave that party. So strong was that backlash, that Bennett decided not to run in 2022. His decision was vindicated when the party of his political partner Ayelet Shaked failed to even come close to the electoral threshold.</p><p>Betrayed once and not about to be fooled again, Yamina’s voters (typically religious people leaning right) looked around for a political home. But, given that Netanyahu had orchestrated an alliance of the small right-wing parties, the pickings were slim. Some no doubt chose to vote for the religious Mizrakhi Shas, which would explain that party’s rise from 9 seats in 2021 to 11 in 2022; but many more chose Religious Zionism – not necessarily because of its extremism, but because it was the only party left that represented the two aspects that ‘talked to’ these voters: religion and nationalism.</p><p>Esawi Frej is wrong – and he knows it: it is not ‘hatred of Arabs’ that propelled Religious Zionism to its apparent prominence. Many of those who voted for this party did so not because of its extremism, but despite it – in reaction to events that that party neither triggered nor engineered – but simply profited from.</p><p>Of course, I’m no naïve: there is, unfortunately, little love lost (and quite a lot of rancour, actually) between Arabs and Jews in Israel. Frej is no doubt right that Ben Gvir would rather he and his children did not live in Israel. I suspect that Frej would also prefer ‘the Zionists’ not to have ‘settled’ in ‘Palestine’ in the first place. Fortunately, neither Ben Gvir nor Frej has any choice in the matter: both communities are there to stay and must find a way to satisfy one’s aspirations without impinging too much on the other’s.</p><p>But while many Israeli Jews feel some degree of hostility, fear and mistrust towards their Arab countrymen – that isn’t (as the likes of Yachad want us to believe) ‘racism’. It is not a conviction that Arabs are racially inferior that’s behind most Israeli Jews’ attitude. Rather, this is the ‘normal’ resentment caused by 100 years of a conflict beseeched by existential threats and fears, by abominable acts of violence, by denial of humanity, aspirations and history and by outlandish accusations of ‘Nazism’ and ‘apartheid’.</p><p>That hostility is akin to the one felt by Brits towards Germans in World War I; not to that propagated by Nazis against Jews in World War II. There’s an ocean of difference between the two; and those who try to merge them into one problem are either blatantly dishonest, or something is seriously wrong with their moral compass.</p><p>While not constituting ‘racism’ and while being understandable in the context of the conflict, the rancour between the two communities remains a bad thing. We (Jews and Arabs) must strive to rise above it; we must fight those (from either side) who seek to exacerbate it.</p><p>I’m an optimist: given how deep, long and hurtful this conflict has been, the levels of hostility are actually surprisingly low. It might be disturbing to see Arab rioters on the rampage in a Jewish neighbourhood – and Jews ‘responding’ with violence against other, uninvolved Arabs. But, despite everything, the two communities soon returned to ‘normal’: working in the same hospitals, schools, factories and offices; interacting in a civil – if not very warm and cuddly – manner. Compare that with what’s happened just a short distance away, in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria; or even in Egypt; and, in the past, in Jordan – and more recently in Iran…</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Gewalt – racists on board!</h2><p>Of course, that does not mean that Smotrich and (especially) Ben Gvir – and some of their supporters – aren’t racists. I believe they are. But they learned to dissimulate it, to moderate it just enough to allow them to squeeze below the standard of proof required by law. Ben Gvir claims that he has no desire to expel Arabs for being Arabs, but only those who are ‘disloyal’ – meaning they engage in or support acts of violence or subversion against the state. Personally, I doubt he is sincere about that; but in a democracy we cannot stop people from running because of what we suspect they actually think; but only because of what they say and do. That’s why Ben Gvir (unlike his former mentor Kahane) was declared ‘kosher’ to run. As the Israeli expression goes, he may be ‘kosher, but stinks’.</p><p>But, if this is the situation, should we not be terribly worried? I mean, Ben Gvir may soon be Public Security Minister – in charge of the national police!</p><p>So maybe the likes of Yachad are right to ‘demand action’ from the Diaspora – to ‘save Israel from the Israelis’? Maybe the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council and other bombastically named Jewish ‘leadership’ bodies are right to express ‘grave concerns’?</p><p>Well, I think the Diaspora ‘armchair activists’ are all wrong. I think they talk through their arses, have no genuine understanding of Israel, her history and her politics and, if anything, only do harm.</p><p>Some people have short memories: we’ve actually seen this film before. When the tough-talking Menachem Begin became not just minister but Prime Minister, many warned of an impending catastrophe. After all, Begin was a former leader of the Irgun – seen as a terrorist organisation in Britain and elsewhere. The same Irgun which perpetrated the bombing of the King David hotel (which, however, ‘happened’ to be the headquarter of the British Army); the organisation that captured two British sergeants and hanged them in retaliation to the hanging of its own captured operatives; the organisation that attacked Deir Yassin.</p><p>Begin had been a promoter of ‘Greater Israel’ – including not just the West Bank, but territories on the eastern side of the Jordan River, if and when they were captured (or ‘liberated’). Yet Begin was the Prime Minister that relinquished 100% of the Sinai peninsula (which constituted some 70% of the territory under Israeli control) in return for a ‘cold peace’ with Egypt. In the process, he even uprooted Jewish ‘settlers’ – something that ‘the experts’ assessed he’d never do. Prime Minister Begin (for whom even uttering the term ‘Palestinian’ was anathema) became the first Israeli leader to accept the idea of ‘autonomy’ for the Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza.</p><p>Some people never learn. So, when Ariel Sharon became first Minister of Foreign Affairs and then Prime Minister, we were treated to the same predictions of impending doom. After all, as a military commander Sharon became famous for his ultra-aggressive actions – sometimes in open defiance of orders. As a politician, he became a major promoter of settlement activity in the West Bank and Gaza. As Minister of Defence, he presided over the war in Lebanon, which ended with expelling the PLO ‘troops’ far from Israel’s borders – but also with the massacres at Sabra and Shatila.</p><p>Yet Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was the Israeli leader who unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. In the process, this ‘darling’ of the ‘settlement movement’ evacuated (forcibly when necessary) every Jewish ‘settler’ from that territory – and (as a sign of further intentions) also from 4 West Bank ‘settlements’. The ‘extremist’ Ariel Sharon suffered a stroke and became permanently incapacitated before putting in practice <a href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/sharon-was-about-to-leave-two-thirds-of-the-west-bank"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">his intentions</span></a> to extricate Israel, one way or another, out of most of the West Bank.</p><p>There was also a certain Avigdor Lieberman. He, too, had the reputation of being a ‘meshugener’ – an unreliable hothead. Among other things, it was reported that he opined that, in the event of a war with Egypt, Israel should bomb the Aswan Dam. No more and no less! His intemperate outbursts directed at members of the Knesset from the Arab parties were (in)famous – and so were his threats directed at anyone who, in his view, incited terror against the State of Israel. No wonder that his 2016 appointment as Minister of Defence caused trepidation. Yet Avigdor Lieberman did not start wars and did not get involved in any military adventure. In fact, his major contribution as Defence Minister was… coming down very assertively in favour of equal rights for LGBT soldiers.</p><p>In fact, Israel’s short modern history is replete with ‘colourful’ characters who talked wildly but acted with surprising restraint and prudence. And on the few occasions that a real extremist came out of the woodwork – such as Meir Kahane in the 1980s – the Israeli political body spit it out.</p><p>“Hold on a minute” – I hear you say. “Netanyahu needs Religious Zionism in order to form a coalition and, then, to remain in power. They have him by the short and curlies!”</p><p>Well, it’s true – at least apparently. Netanyahu seems intent on forming a coalition with Religious Zionism and the two Haredi parties – Shas and United Torah Judaism. But ‘seems’ may be the operative word in the sentence above. He may do what everybody expects him to do – or he may surprise us all. After all – unlike after the previous four rounds of elections, he now has a clear path to majority. That, paradoxically, may open a range of possibilities – and few are as adept at playing the political game as Bibi the Fox.</p><p>But, even if he does proceed along the obvious route to power, how likely is Netanyahu to – in practice – relinquish some of that power to the likes of Smotrich and Ben Gvir? True, he needs them; but, in reality, no more than they need him. They may be extremists – but stupid they’re not: when the inebriating fumes of victory disperse, they will realise (if they haven’t already) that their success is the result of a very peculiar set of circumstances, one very unlikely to occur again. The next round of elections is likely to see them cut down to size again. In particular if they are seen to have inflicted yet another round of elections on the people of Israel – after just a few months. And you can bet your bottom shekel that Netanyahu will make sure they are seen in that light.</p><p>That there is no love lost between Netanyahu and either Smotrich or Ben Gvir is the world’s worst kept secret. Netanyahu has stated in the past that Ben Gvir is not ministerial material. And while, for obvious reasons, he has recently changed that particular tune, no one believes he also changed his mind; least of all Ben Gvir. In the midst of the recent elections campaign, a recording surfaced – and the entire country could hear Smotrich disparaging Netanyahu in stark, even vulgar terms. The entire country could hear – including of course Netanyahu himself.</p><p>In fact, Netanyahu has already started to put Religious Zionism in its place. Several times during the campaign, he made it clear that the major ministries (Finance, Foreign Affairs, Defence) will be under Likud’s control. More recently – and in response to vague ‘plans’ by Religious Zionism to ban LGBT pride events – Netanyahu made it clear that his government will not allow any worsening in LGBT rights, including no limitations on pride parades. The Israeli media <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-signal-to-religious-zionism-netanyahu-vows-no-change-to-lgbt-status-quo/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">referred</span></a> to those signals coming from Netanyahu’s office as “slapping down [his] far-right partners”.</p><p>One does not win multiple elections in Israel without learning a trick or two. If, drunk on their lucky electoral success, Ben Gvir and Smotrich pick a fight with Netanyahu… well, that conflict can only see one winner. Netanyahu – who has seen off much worthier opponents – will chew them both for breakfast</p><p>Let’s not forget: Bezalel Smotrich has been a minister before – he held the Transport portfolio between June 2019 and May 2020. But – whether he learned some restraint himself or whether because Netanyahu kept him on a short lead – his short stint as minister was utterly unremarkable.</p><p>But, let’s leave aside Netanyahu and his great talents or utter lack of scruples – choose one according to your inclination. Let’s, instead, look at Israel’s track record. In her 74 years of modern existence, the country has faced tremendous, unparalleled challenges – military, economical, political and social.</p><p>Haters will hate, Cassandras will forever prophesise impending doom, and for some people the glass is always half-empty. But, despite all those challenges, Israel is today not just undefeated militarily, but economically successful, democratic and generally flourishing. This young country is ranked 19th in the world by Human Development Index – on a par with mighty Japan and higher than France, Italy and Spain; 12th in the world by life expectancy – higher than Sweden, Norway, France and Canada (UK is 29th, USA 46th); the International Monetary Fund predicts that between 2021 and 2027 the Israeli economy will grow at an average annual rate of almost 4.5% – one of the highest in OECD.</p><p>Yet some in the Diaspora never seem to see this; or if they do see it, they don’t quite believe it; or if they do believe it – they see disaster looming just around the corner. Why? Is it really Israel’s fault? Or is it the diaspora spirit – forever fearful, forever uncertain, forever plagued by guilt?</p><p><br /></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXHv-g0FbQA1DInNxrjQBEdo5JvQZVwVlbaDOmAmcO54E1Qt0KplFcJuBPyYwYm-Zu4WWI1e39aZ5SH3rn44HtAtnD7rEtEekPRIriuqyM7RqrbjYLLfjI7XueLG9eD8rpIzkJMFi6n0v4dVfXBkbUUqR80aqKAAKzunAPq_5Ns3bfb8L-wgDLr56T8w/s1665/Our%20worst%20fears.jpeg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1665" data-original-width="1284" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXHv-g0FbQA1DInNxrjQBEdo5JvQZVwVlbaDOmAmcO54E1Qt0KplFcJuBPyYwYm-Zu4WWI1e39aZ5SH3rn44HtAtnD7rEtEekPRIriuqyM7RqrbjYLLfjI7XueLG9eD8rpIzkJMFi6n0v4dVfXBkbUUqR80aqKAAKzunAPq_5Ns3bfb8L-wgDLr56T8w/w309-h400/Our%20worst%20fears.jpeg" width="309" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Not the rising antisemitism, nor the rampant assimilation...<br />Are these really <i>"our worst fears"</i>?</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>It’s time for this worried Diaspora to chill and learn a bit of optimism. Why not start with that great Hebrew expression:</p><p>!יהיה בסדר (It’ll be fine!)</p><p>Have a little faith, folks!</p><p></p>Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-68321479182317706532022-08-12T09:05:00.002-07:002022-08-18T00:46:56.746-07:00Harping About Hebron<p>One of the most outrageous, blood-boiling aspects of ‘modern’ political culture is the shocking levels of intellectual dishonesty found among people who claim moral high ground as ‘campaigners for human rights’.</p><p>I’ve <a href="https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/breaking-the-silent/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">written</span></a> before about the Israeli group that calls itself ‘Breaking the Silence’. Let me remind you, in just one sentence:</p><blockquote><p><i>“Fair disclosure: I despise Breaking the Silence. It’s not that they hold opinions that are very different from mine; frankly [sigh], a lot of people hold opinions very different from mine! Much as I disagree with them, these BtS chaps are entitled to their opinion; they are even entitled to promote those opinions and try to persuade others. But the way they go about it is, in my view, thoroughly anti-democratic and intellectually dishonest.”</i></p></blockquote><p>I’ve also <a href="https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/yachad-airbnb-and-a-new-untogetherness/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">written</span></a> (and not in very complimentary terms, either) about the British group which calls itself ‘Yachad’:</p><blockquote><p><i>“In Hebrew, Yachad means ‘together’. Nice name; but the reality is, these days, that Yachad is ‘together’ with those who target Jews – and only Jews – for boycott.”</i></p></blockquote><p>The two groups – Breaking the Silence and Yachad – have been working together for years. And one of the main areas of collaboration is taking British Jews on indoctrination tours – especially to the city of Hebron, in the West Bank.</p><p>Why Hebron? Not because, as Yachad dishonestly claims, it’s <em>“a microcosm of occupation”</em>. Quite the opposite: rather than being ‘typical’ – as Yachad and BtS would like people to think – Hebron is the worst place in the West Bank. That’s because <a href="https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/baruch-goldstein/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">some of the most extreme Israelis</span></a> live in close proximity to <a href="https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/convicted-murderer-of-six-israelis-elected-as-palestinian-mayor-of-hebron-490664"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">some of the most extreme Palestinians</span></a>. Agreements have been implemented, which have by-and-large pacified the area and saved lives. But those same agreements give duplicitous groups like Yachad and BtS an opportunity to bash Israel.</p><h3>The advert</h3><p>So, if that’s been going on for a while, why am I writing about it now? Well, because after the latest such tour, BtS and Yachad have managed to get some free advertising (I am not convinced that it was indeed free; i.e. that no money or other benefits changed hands; but let’s assume it was) from the pages of Jewish News – a British Jewish outlet associated with Times of Israel. The author is a certain Lee Harpin and his article is entitled <em>“We must fix this for the settlers, soldiers and the Palestinians”.</em></p><p>So that’s why I write about this now: to take apart this disingenuous piece of anti-Israel propaganda and wipe the floor with it. Sure, people have the right to criticise my country; but, if they do it with ill-will, duplicity or dishonesty, I have the right to expose those rather unpleasant traits.</p><p>The first thing I asked myself as I started to read Mr. Harpin’s piece was: who exactly is ‘we’? If Harpin were an Israeli citizen writing in Hebrew for an Israeli audience (for instance for Ha’aretz, who may be willing to have him), all would be clear and legitimate. Israelis (read: people who live, pay taxes, vote and put their arses on the line in Israel) have every right to express opinions and try to persuade other Israelis that theirs are the best opinions in town. But Mr. Harpin isn’t Israeli; he writes in English for a British audience – i.e. people who live, pay taxes and vote in the United Kingdom. If they are the ’we’, then it’s entirely unclear why <em>“we must fix”</em> anything at all more than 2,000 miles away from where <em>“we”</em> live.</p><p>The article’s strapline is no less ‘interesting’:</p><blockquote><p><i>“Controversial Israeli group Breaking The Silence attracts increasing numbers of diaspora Jews onto its 'occupation tour' in West Bank cities like Hebron.”</i></p></blockquote><p>And below, still in bold typeface:</p><blockquote><p><i>“Israeli human rights groups such as Breaking The Silence (BTS) are reporting an increase in bookings from diaspora Jews for ‘occupation tours’ of West Bank cities like Hebron to witness for themselves the situation faced by Palestinians.”</i></p></blockquote><p>And again, this time in the body of the article, coming from Danielle Bett, a Yachad spokesperson:</p><blockquote><p><i>“More and more diaspora Jews are visiting the West Bank…”</i></p></blockquote><p>Well, methinks thou dost protest too much, Mr. Harpin: much as I scoured the rest of the article, I could find no clue what the reported <em>“increase in bookings”</em> was. Which is ‘a bit’ odd: self-respecting journalists don’t write vague statements bereft of any substance.</p><p>And what exactly is the term of reference for that <em>“increase”</em>? If it’s 2020 or 2021, then Mr. Harpin must be, technically-speaking, correct – and ethically-speaking beyond contempt. It’s obvious that, if we compare 2022 with the pandemic years, there was a sharp increase in all travel; not just in <em>“occupation tours” </em>to <em>“West Bank cities”</em>, but also in tourism to Timbuktu and Phnom Penh…</p><p>And how many Diaspora Jews is <em>“more and more”</em>? From 8 to 10 – now that’s a whopping 25% growth; but it would be utterly misleading to report <em>“an increase”</em> based on such insignificant numbers...</p><p>Let me be clear: I am very suspicious of journalists (or ‘journalists’) who write in this manner: without numbers to support them, such statements amount to subliminal adverts dressed up as ‘news’ and unethically ‘fed’ to the unsuspecting reader.</p><h3>Journalism?</h3><p><br /></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="" class="wp-image-1016238 size-full" height="400" src="https://static.timesofisrael.com/blogs/uploads/2022/08/IMG_9346.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="364" /></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;">If one disagrees with Lee Harpin and criticises his views, one is a 'reactionary'. Well, I'm going to call those in his camp (including Yachad and BtS) 'the harpins'. No, not 'an eye for an eye', just contempt for contempt.</span><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p><br /></p> <p>But let’s go back to Mr. Harpin’s latest ‘journalistic’ contribution:</p><p>He begins by giving a broad platform to the BtS ‘tour guide’. That’s Amir Ziv, the group’s so-called ‘Pedagogy Coordinator’ (‘pedagogy’ sounds so much better than ‘propaganda’ or ‘brainwashing’, doesn’t it? But it is also indicative of a certain attitude…)</p><p>After being so vague about the alleged <em>“increase in bookings”</em>, Harpin suddenly decides to be amazingly precise when reciting Amir’s ‘credentials’:</p><blockquote><p><i>“</i>[He]<i> had served three years in the IDF, with the 50th battalion of the Nahal Brigade in Hebron and Gaza”.</i></p></blockquote><p>Such military track record may sound impressive to Diaspora Jews with no experience of army service. But most Israelis would shrug: millions of them served in the IDF – the males typically for three years. Of course, Amir did not spend three years in Hebron and Gaza – that’s just Harpin’s journalistic sleight of hand; no Israeli soldier did: garrisoning and anti-terror activity in the West Bank is just a relatively small part of IDF’s mission. Like so many Israelis, I also served in Hebron (and Nablus, and Ramallah and a handful of other ‘nice’ places). In total, I spent there many months, including as a reservist, at the height of the intifada. I have quite a few stories to tell – but they’re not the kind of stories Breaking the Silence or Yachad are interested in; they’ll never publish<strong> my</strong> testimony, nor will they invite <strong>me</strong> to guide their tours.</p><p>So, a word of warning: yes, Amir Ziv served in the IDF, like most Jewish Israelis; but no, that does not mean ‘he knows what he’s talking about’. Amir is an outlier; listen to any of his comrades and you’ll hear a completely different story.</p><p>Anyone who ever listened to a Breaking the Silence presentation knows how one-sided their tales are. But Lee Harpin wants us to believe that dear ol’s Amir gives a balanced, sane account, which also highlights Israeli suffering:</p><blockquote><p><i>“Standing beside a memorial plaque in downtown Hebron to Gadi and Dina Levi – a couple expecting the birth of their first child, who were killed by a Palestinian terrorist wearing a bomb while they were on their way to pray at the nearby Cave of the Patriarchs in 2003 – Amir opened up about the impact of violence, having recently become the father of a baby girl.</i></p><p><i>Recalling another Palestinian sniper attack in the same area, which killed a young child, he said: ‘Each death, each attack, each time you see violence… it pushed me further away into the realisation we need to fix this. It won’t stop on its own, we have to end it, for the settlers, and soldiers who come here, and for the Palestinians.’”</i></p></blockquote><p>You got that? All Amir wants you to do is to help everybody: ‘settlers’, soldiers and Palestinians. And how can <em>“we”</em> do that? Why, by bashing Israel, of course!</p><p>Imagine that, after the Manchester Arena bombing, a British political advocacy group told a group of Israeli tourists that they must apply pressure on the British government in order <em>“to fix this”</em> for the benefit of all: innocent kids attending a concert, police, Muslims... I dare say that the vast majority of Brits (including most British Muslims) would take a rather dim view of such ‘human rights advocacy’.</p><p>But this is all just the beginning. Next, Amir goes on to describe what, in his enlightened opinion, are the two things <em>“we need to keep in the back of our mind about Hebron”</em>: 1) the 1929 massacre and 2) the Goldstein massacre.</p><p>The juxtaposition of the two events is an attempt to hoodwink people into believing that they are similar. Of course, they were both criminal, disgusting acts. But otherwise, they had nothing in common.</p><h3>The pogrom</h3><p>The 1929 Hebron Massacre was a pogrom perpetrated by large mobs of Arabs against the local Jewish community – a community that lived in the city for centuries, alongside their Arab neighbours. Organised in groups of hundreds of men armed with swords, axes and knives, the Arab rioters attacked Jewish houses, synagogues and businesses, murdering and pillaging. They were joined by some Arab policemen. Two local rabbis noted, however, that there were also a score of Arab families who saved Jews by offering them shelter in their homes.</p><p>But the only one who actually confronted the murderers and tried to stop them was British Superintendent Raymond Cafferata, the commander of the local police force. Here's part of his testimony:</p><blockquote><p><i>“On hearing screams in a room, I went up a sort of tunnel passage and saw an Arab in the act of cutting off a child's head with a sword. He had already hit him and was having another cut, but on seeing me he tried to aim the stroke at me, but missed; he was practically on the muzzle of my rifle. I shot him low in the groin. Behind him was a Jewish woman smothered in blood with a man I recognized as a police constable named Issa Sheriff from Jaffa. He was standing over the woman with a dagger in his hand. He saw me and bolted into a room close by and tried to shut me out-shouting in Arabic, ‘Your Honor, I am a policeman.’ </i>[…]<i> I got into the room and shot him.”</i></p></blockquote><p>A British inquiry later established:</p><blockquote><p><i>“About 9 o'clock on the morning of the 24th of August, Arabs in Hebron made a most ferocious attack on the Jewish ghetto and on isolated Jewish houses lying outside the crowded quarters of the town. More than 60 Jews – including many women and children – were murdered and more than 50 were wounded. This savage attack, of which no condemnation could be too severe, was accompanied by wanton destruction and looting. Jewish synagogues were desecrated, a Jewish hospital, which had provided treatment for Arabs, was attacked and ransacked, and only the exceptional personal courage displayed by Mr. Cafferata – the one British Police Officer in the town – prevented the outbreak from developing into a general massacre of the Jews in Hebron.”</i></p></blockquote><p>The British authorities imposed a fine on the entire city of Hebron. Sheik Taleb Markah, a member of the local Arab Executive Committee, was found guilty of inciting the riots – and imprisoned for two years. But not before the British judges <a href="https://www.jta.org/archive/sheik-takes-stand-in-own-defense-in-trial-for-instigating-hebron-massacre"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">had to take over the cross-examination</span></a> of the accused – noting that the Arab prosecutor had no interest in... prosecuting.</p><p>The Hebron pogrom was part of the August 1929 anti-Jewish riots, which were incited by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and his Supreme Muslim Council. They cost the lives of 133 Jews.</p><p>Back to Mr. Harpin’s article, which – after providing a brief description of the massacre, notes that:</p><blockquote><p><i>“For the British Mandate, the massacre was confirmation that Jewish existence in Hebron should be brought to an end. The Jews were removed from the area, and placed to begin with in refugee camps.”</i></p></blockquote><p>In other words: problem – Jews are massacred by Arabs; solution – ethnically cleanse the Jews!</p><p>I wonder if Lee Harpin would write with such royal equanimity if Israel were to apply the same kind of ‘conflict resolution’ methodology?</p><p>But there’s more than mere equanimity there: kicking the Jews out of Hebron (and the West Bank, and East Jerusalem) is precisely the ‘solution’ advocated by the likes of Yachad and BtS; as well as by Fatah, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad of Palestine.</p><h3>The ‘Jewish’ terrorist</h3><p>Now let’s turn our attention to ‘the second thing’ – the event that Amir Ziv tries to ‘sell’ people as a sort of ‘counterbalance’ to the Hebron pogrom.</p><p>On 25 February 1994, a ‘man’ called Baruch Goldstein entered an area of Hebron’s Cave of the Patriarchs employed as a mosque. He opened fire and murdered 29 Palestinians, before being overpowered and killed himself.</p><p>Baruch Goldstein mass-murdered innocent, unarmed, defenceless people. So why do I claim that his horrific act and the 1929 massacre have nothing in common?</p><p>Because – however disgusting – Goldstein’s terrorist attack was the act of one individual. An act condemned in no uncertain terms by the vast majority of the Jewish population in Israel and the Diaspora – and by the entirety of Israel’s political class.</p><p>In the aftermath of the crime, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin telephoned Yasser Arafat to express condolences and his disgust for the <em>"loathsome, criminal act of murder"</em>. In a Knesset speech, he addressed Goldstein and any of his ilk thus:</p><blockquote><p><i>“You are not part of the community of Israel... You are not part of the national democratic camp which we all belong to in this house, and many of the people despise you. You are not partners in the Zionist enterprise. You are a foreign implant. You are an errant weed. Sensible Judaism spits you out. You placed yourself outside the wall of Jewish law ... We say to this horrible man and those like him: you are a shame on Zionism and an embarrassment to Judaism."</i></p></blockquote><p>Then Leader of the Opposition Benjamin Netanyahu also unequivocally condemned Goldstein’s act (no ifs, no buts), calling it a <em>“despicable crime”</em>.</p><p>The Yesha Council (the political representatives of Israeli ‘settlers’) called the act <em>"not Jewish, not human"</em>.</p><p>The Israeli government immediately outlawed Kach, the organisation to which Goldstein belonged. Several of its members were placed in administrative detention.</p><p>The government also appointed a commission of inquiry headed by then president of the Supreme Court, Judge Meir Shamgar. While describing the massacre as <em>“a base and murderous act, in which innocent people bending in prayer to their maker were killed,"</em> the commission found that Goldstein had planned and perpetrated the massacre alone, not telling anyone about his intentions.</p><p>The religious establishment in Israel condemned the act with disgust. The Sephardi Chief Rabbi was the first to suggest that Goldstein should be buried outside the cemetery, saying:</p><blockquote><p><i>"I am simply ashamed that a Jew carried out such a villainous and irresponsible act"</i></p></blockquote><p>In condemning the act, Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau used the expression ‘khilul HaShem’ <em>"a desecration of God's name".</em></p><p>Rabbi Yehuda Amital of Gush Etzion (an area of Jewish settlement in the West Bank) said Goldstein had <em>"besmirched the Jewish nation and the Torah"</em>.</p><h3>The indoctrination tour continues</h3><p>Far be it from me to try and excuse in any way the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. Like the vast majority of Israelis, I was absolutely shocked by it and am ashamed that a Jew could do something this evil. I’ll seek no excuse and countenance no forgiveness for the murderer. May he rot in hell!</p><p>But an individual act, however horrific, does not belong in the same category as massacres perpetrated by multitudes. Especially when the former was condemned in the harshest possible terms by anyone of any consequence in Israel – while the latter was, on the contrary, incited by the Palestinian leadership of the time, and never condemned by the current leaders.</p><p>To present the two crimes as similar or equivalent shows, at best, lack of moral compass; and at worst, an intention to deceive.</p><p>In describing the Goldstein massacre, Mr. Harpin somehow ‘forgets’ to mention that it was met with wall-to-wall condemnation in Israel; instead, he merely says that it was <em>“condemned globally by Jewish leaders”</em>. Why? I suspect this is because Mr. Harpin (like BtS and like Yachad) is intent on portraying Israel as violent, callous, even racist.</p><p>That’s why, while ignoring those many condemnations, he decides to focus on ‘stories’ that are selected for their anti-Israel propaganda value:</p><blockquote><p><i>“On the day of our visit, last month, we counted 64 stones placed on Goldstein’s grave, some almost certainly by visitors earlier that day, who clearly wanted to pay their respects to him.</i></p><p><i>‘He gave his life for the people of Israel, its Torah and land,’ state the Hebrew words on his tomb.”</i></p></blockquote><p>Unsuspecting youngsters brought on these indoctrination tours may be fooled into believing that there’s lots of support and approval in Israel for Goldstein and his murderous act. But there isn’t: as demonstrated in opinion polls, the vast majority of Israelis were disgusted by Goldstein’s unconscionable act.</p><p>The harpins’ ‘spiel’ is to highlight the rare exception and pretend it’s the rule. There is, of course, no reason whatsoever to believe that the 64 stones (or <em>“some”</em> of them) were placed there <em>“almost certainly by visitors earlier that day”</em>. Nothing, in fact, could be less certain: these ‘visitation stones’ tend to accumulate in time – perhaps for years. As for the inscription – shameful as I find it – it was worded and paid for by Goldstein’s family and friends; not by the Israeli state, the Israeli government or the Israeli people.</p><p>It's true that there are conspiracy theories according to which Goldstein did what he did to prevent a terror attack only he knew about. It’s also, unfortunately, true that there are a few extremists who – as extremists do – believe in those theories; but to suggest that they’re more than a tiny fringe of nutters despised by the vast majority of Israelis is a form of libel.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="" class="size-full wp-image-1016214" height="225" src="https://static.timesofisrael.com/blogs/uploads/2022/08/Demolishing-Goldstein-grave.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;">In accordance with the law forbidding the construction of monuments dedicated to terrorists, the Israeli police demolished the shrine built by Goldstein's family and supporters.</span></td></tr></tbody></table><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="" class="size-full wp-image-1016215" height="267" src="https://static.timesofisrael.com/blogs/uploads/2022/08/Goldstein-grave.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;">What was left, in the middle of nowhere, is just the grave itself and the funeral stone, which according to Jewish tradition should never be disturbed. The group around the grave is, by the way, another indoctrination tour, run by B'tselem. It is possible that Breaking the Silence, Yachad, B'tselem et al. bring more 'tourists' to the site than Goldstein's few supporters!</span><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Even more important than what Harpin chooses to write is what he disingenuously chooses to hide: Goldstein’s forlorn grave sits outside any Jewish cemetery. His family and his few supporters wanted to bury him in Hebron’s old Jewish Cemetery; they were denied. They then built around the grave what amounted to a shrine: a small plaza paved with flagstones, complete with decorative lanterns, a few benches, etc. But the Israeli parliament (the Knesset) adopted a law prohibiting monuments to terrorists. The law was enforced by demolishing the entire structure, except the grave itself and the funeral stone – which in Jewish tradition cannot be disturbed. </p><p>Compare this with the Palestinian Authority, which celebrates terrorists as ‘martyrs’ and names streets and schools after them; and which pays pensions to their families. Needless to say, this little ‘detail’ is never part of Amir Ziv’s ‘balanced’ presentations – nor apparently did it merit a mention in Lee Harpin’s hatchet job.</p><h3>We are NOT all Kahane!</h3><p>But – hold on – doesn’t Israel do the same? After all, Lee Harpin informs us that</p><blockquote><p><i>“Earlier on our tour we had stopped in Kahane Park, named after Rabbi Meir Kahane, the ultra-nationalist politician who co-founded the Jewish Defence League, who served a term in the Knesset before being convicted of terrorism, and was assassinated in 1990.”</i></p></blockquote><p>Firstly – much as I abhor the man – Meir Kahane was never convicted of actually committing an act of terrorism; though he was indeed convicted in the US (and given a 5-year suspended prison sentence, as well as a $5,000 fine) for conspiring to manufacture explosives. I mention this only to highlight Harpin’s inaccurate ‘journalistic’ style. Whatever he was found guilty of, Kahane was a racist and should not be lionised.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="" class="size-full wp-image-1016231" height="229" src="https://static.timesofisrael.com/blogs/uploads/2022/08/Pשרל-Kשישמק.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="640" /></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;">I've even searched for the 'famous' Kahane Park on the Kiryat Arba Council website. No trace of it...</span><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p>But here’s the catch: try googling “Kahane Park, Kiryat Arba”; all you'll find is a tweet by... Yachad; and a couple of pictures uploaded by similar organisations. Better still, go to Google Maps and search for a place called Kahane Park, Kiryat Arba. You'll be taken, instead, to the Cave of the Patriarchs/Al-Ibrahimi Mosque. Now search for any other park, including in the West Bank ‘settlements’. Try for instance the Ze’ev Jabotinsky Park in Ariel; or the Hazon Yosef Park in Betar Illit – both very easy to find, as are dozens of others. You can even find a park in Kiryat Arba<span style="font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span style="font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 16px;">– it's called Technology Park. </span>Yet you will not find a ‘Kahane Park’ either in Kiryat Arba or anywhere else in Israel. Officially – and insofar as most Israelis are concerned – it does not exist.</p><p>Of course, the town of Kiryat Arba does indeed have a park; and local extremists do indeed call it ‘Kahane Park’. But that’s where the facts end and the malicious insinuations of Lee Harpin/Yachad/Breaking the Silence take over.</p><p>Here’s the truth: there are people in Israel who admire Meir Kahane and think he was a great man. They tend to be the same people who think Baruch Goldstein was a misunderstood hero. How many of those nutters are there? Well, we know that, in the 1984 elections, Kahane managed to attract a whooping… 1% of the votes. Fast forward 36 years: in 2020, his disciple Itamar Ben Gvir garnered 0.4%. It’s true that this is still almost 20,000 nutters; but it’s also true that – despite all the harping – the extreme right in Israel gets much less popular support than it does <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36130006"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">in several European countries</span></a>. Even after a century of conflict!</p><p>The vast majority of Israelis do <strong>not</strong> commemorate Meir Kahane. The harpins' focus on a tiny extremist fringe is deliberately misleading. It aims to create a false image. It's a lie.</p><h3>Bad, bad Israel! Bad, bad Jewish schools!</h3><p>But let’s go back to Lee Harpin’s text:</p><blockquote><p><i>“Under the 1997 Oslo agreement, signed by Israel and PLO, Hebron was divided into two areas: H1 and H2. Responsibility for security and civilian matters in H1 – where most of the Palestinian residents of Hebron live (about 115,000 at the time, now about 166,000) – was formally handed over to the Palestinian Authority as was done in all other West Bank cities.</i></p><p><i>As for H2, Israel retained responsibility for security matters there, and the Palestinian Authority received authority only for civilian matters relating to local Palestinians. About 32,000 Palestinians and 800 settlers now live in H2.”</i></p></blockquote><p>The Oslo Agreement was, of course, concluded in 1993, not 1997. The Taba Agreement (sometimes called Oslo II) – in 1995. Both were signed by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat and neither dealt specifically with Hebron. What was concluded in 1997 was the Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron. Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t seen as your typical land-for-peace type of guy, but he was the Israeli prime minister who negotiated that particular agreement – by which Israel relinquished control over the vast majority of the city, handing it over to Arafat. In return, the latter solemnly promised (again) to rid the Palestinian National Charter of all the passages that denied Israel’s right to exist; to fight terror and prevent violence; to prohibit incitement and hostile propaganda; to combat systematically and effectively terrorist organisations and infrastructure; to apprehend, prosecute and punish terrorists; to confiscate all illegal firearms… Needless to say, Israel (under the ‘hawk’ Netanyahu) withdrew from every inch of H1; the Palestinian Authority (under Arafat and his successor Abbas) broke every one of its commitments above. But you won’t hear about that at all from the likes of Harpin, Yachad and BtS!</p><p>No, the harpins of this world aren’t really interested in agreements and law – unless as a cudgel to beat Israel with. They’re interested in ‘human stories’ – provided those make Israel look bad.</p><blockquote><p><i>“In the city centre we speak with Mohamed Fakhore, a Palestinian business student in his 20s, about life in Hebron under Israeli military control.</i></p><p><i>‘We want the world to know what is happening here,’ he says. ‘I will be arrested if I step there,’ he says, pointing to the floor five metres in front of him. ‘I have been arrested for this one time before.’</i></p><p><i>It is heartbreaking to realise Fakhore cannot continue walking alongside us. Strict separation rules mean as a Palestinian is not [sic!] allowed to walk on the same road we all can.</i></p><p><i>Later, in one [sic!] the few Palestinian souvenir shops still open in downtown Hebron, an elderly store owner, who pours us all coffee, explains that his own wife is unable to visit him at work as a result of the separation policy in operation.</i></p><p><i>It is, he says, a ‘humiliating’ situation.”</i></p></blockquote><p>It is mindboggling that the harpins can pretend to want ‘two states’ – but also declare it <em>“heartbreaking”</em> when a border is enforced, separating Israeli-controlled areas from Palestinian-controlled ones. No, these are not <em>“strict separation rules”</em>, but the provisions of an agreement signed between the parties – with the purpose of reducing friction and disentangling Israel from Palestinian lives.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwkPgae8uTk7-d-EaD-fjoWO8L7Wfy3uW1PPio5EnS5YYFRxHNlaYayYuWjv8uLE0nGPfP5aDrdkAyI1oZxCCMnXcNlm8IlgV0mjldDJSWJVnT-9CB-LQRa_zkkMBw9wVw3EG5NjJsEQwX6bjJP9F_Y9OUw4TE1XMF7alAN_ZURR_7QbRZBvhYS4Y-ag/s960/Fakhore%20Tel%20Aviv.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="960" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwkPgae8uTk7-d-EaD-fjoWO8L7Wfy3uW1PPio5EnS5YYFRxHNlaYayYuWjv8uLE0nGPfP5aDrdkAyI1oZxCCMnXcNlm8IlgV0mjldDJSWJVnT-9CB-LQRa_zkkMBw9wVw3EG5NjJsEQwX6bjJP9F_Y9OUw4TE1XMF7alAN_ZURR_7QbRZBvhYS4Y-ag/w400-h300/Fakhore%20Tel%20Aviv.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Apparently the 'strict separation rules' that Lee Harpin complains about aren't quite so strict: here is Mohamed Fakhore having a fun day in Tel Aviv-Jaffa.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>It is also no doubt <em>“heartbreaking”</em> that the shop owner’s wife cannot visit him at work on the Israeli side of the city; but I wonder: can Jews own and operate businesses in the Palestinian part of Hebron?</p><p>Incidentally, Israeli right-wing extremists also don’t like the partition of the city: they’d like to roam freely through all Hebron and cause mischief. Extremists of all tinges – unite!</p><p>But, while imperfect, inaesthetic and a rich topic of hostile propaganda by Harpin/Yachad/BtS, the Hebron Agreement does what it was meant to do: it saves lives and allows the two communities to run their affairs independently – as much as possible in the difficult circumstances created by conflict, violence and the accompanying mistrust. Don't take it from me --ask the Mayor of Hebron. His Message (published in Arabic and <a href="http://www.hebron-city.ps/page.aspx?id=1HBTM1a800424273a1HBTM1"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">English</span></a> on the municipal website) contains of course the obligatory anti-Israel rant. But ultimately it says:</p><blockquote><p><i>"Since 1996, the city has witnessed several dramatic developments after the numerous decades of continuous Israeli occupation. Due to the Oslo agreement and the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority, the city was liberated and able to embrace a form of security and calm environment. These agreements allowed the Municipal Council to develop a comprehensive management development plan, accompanied by a strategic plan, for the reception of the twenty-first century. Indeed, the Hebron Municipality office, through its own efforts and the support of many friends and partners from around the world implemented a multitude of infrastructure projects, which has had a major impact in promoting domestic and foreign investments in the city. Additionally, it is crucial to achieving the revitalization of the boom in the economic, commercial, industrial, agricultural and urban life."</i></p></blockquote><p>You won't hear that from Harpin; or from BtS, or from Yachad!</p><p>Instead, Harpin’s hatchet job ends with the usual indoctrination ‘spiel’ that BtS and Yachad dish out to unsuspecting, naïve Western kids: there are more IDF soldiers than ‘settlers’ in Hebron (as if Palestinian terror and violence did not exist); an interview with some extremists who ‘want it all’ because ‘it was promised to Abraham’ – as if this is why the vast majority of Israelis want the IDF to stay in Judea & Samaria.</p><p>Finally, Harpin gives the floor back to Amir Ziv, who utters the following outrageous lie:</p><blockquote><p><i>“The bottom line is the Palestinian Authority has the freedom to do what we allow it to do.”</i></p></blockquote><p>Among other egregious acts, in recent years the Palestinian Authority <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-files-war-crimes-complaint-against-israel-at-icc/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">complained</span></a> to the International Criminal Court (in blatant breach of its obligations under international agreements it signed), alleging that the IDF committed ‘war crimes’ and ‘crimes against humanity’. Is that something that <em>“we”</em> would allow – if we had the power to stop? Would we allow PA’s ‘<a href="https://emetonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Pay4Slay_Fact-Sheet-FINAL.pdf"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">pay-for-slay</span>’</a> policy – wages paid to convicted terrorists and subsidies to the families of suicide bombers? Would we allow the despicable <a href="https://www.impact-se.org/reports-2/palestinian-territories/palestinian-authority/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">indoctrination to hate and violence</span></a> that goes on in Palestinian Authority schools?</p><p>Let me give you just a couple of examples of this latter phenomenon – arguably the biggest obstacle to peace.</p><p>The Year 5 Arabic Language textbook used in Palestinian Authority schools teaches the following:</p><blockquote><p><i>“Our Palestinian history is brimming with names of martyrs who have given their lives to the homeland, including the martyr Dalal al-Mughrabi. Her struggle portrays challenge and heroism, making her memory immortal in our hearts and minds. The text in our hands speaks about one side of her struggle.”</i></p></blockquote><p>Touching; except that Dalal al-Mughrabi (a member of Arafat’s Fatah movement) took part in the 1978 Coastal Road Massacre. 11 Palestinian and Lebanese terrorists landed on Israel’s Mediterranean shore near Tel Aviv. The ‘heroic’ Dalal started the day by murdering an unarmed Israeli woman she happened to find on the beach. She and her mates then proceeded to murder another 38 Israelis (all but one unarmed, uninvolved civilians), including 13 children.</p><p>The Islamic Education textbook for the same age group teaches that the Western Wall (which it calls Al-Buraq Wall)</p><blockquote><p><i>“is part of the western wall of Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the al-Aqsa Mosque, including the Wall, are Palestinian land and an exclusive right of the Muslims.”</i></p></blockquote><p>Coming back to Dalal Al-Mughrabi: in 2017, the (not very Israel-loving) Belgian government <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/belgium-halts-pa-education-funding-after-school-named-for-terrorist/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">had to freeze funding</span></a> to the Palestinian Authority when it discovered that an elementary school for girls they funded in the West Bank was named after that 'martyr'. Nothing like giving little girls a true hero to emulate, huh?</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="" class="wp-image-1016223 size-full" height="250" src="https://static.timesofisrael.com/blogs/uploads/2022/08/dalal-640x400-1.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;">The logo of the Dalal Al-Mughrabi Elementary School for Girls shows her stylised photo superimposed on the map of 'Palestine,' including Israel. The message is clear...</span></td></tr></tbody></table><p>By the way, the school is located in Bayt Awwa, just a few minutes away from Hebron. But I don't suppose Amir Ziv includes it in his indoctrination tours. Though it may be a brilliant opportunity to wax lyrical about what <em>"we must fix"</em>! </p><p>The harpins, of course, are not at all concerned about all this. Quite the opposite: what really bothers them is</p><blockquote><p><i>“the one-dimensional pro-Israel teaching </i>[in]<i> Jewish secondary school</i>[s]<i>.”</i></p></blockquote><p>Hmmm… Really? Do Jewish secondary schools in the UK lionise Baruch Goldstein, calling him a martyr and a hero and encouraging the students to keep his memory immortal in their hearts and minds? Do Jewish secondary schools in the UK teach that Al-Aqsa is <em>“an exclusive right of”</em> the Jews? Is there, somewhere in the UK (or the entire world, for that matter, a school named after Baruch Goldstein??</p><h3>'Intellectual' child abuse</h3><p>I left the worst for last: arguably the only truly heartbreaking aspect of Lee Harpin’s screech is when he decides to bring his daughter Ruby into it. Presumably, she is bothered by the fact that her <em>“social media is flooded with ‘Free Palestine’ propaganda”</em>, so she <em>“insisted”</em> to go on that BtS/Yachad indoctrination tour.</p><p>Except that, just a couple of paragraphs further on, we find Ruby and her ‘delightful’ dad attending a <em>“Palestine demo”</em>; that is, one of those ‘protests’ at which slogans like ‘Free, free Palestine!’ and ‘From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free!’ are par for the course; and where one so often finds flags and symbols of terror organisations alongside antisemitic banners and slogans, some amounting to overt calls for genocide and ethnic cleansing.</p><p>As history teaches us, young people are particularly vulnerable to brainwashing and indoctrination. I’m afraid that youngsters like Ruby belong in the same category as the Palestinian students: both are cynically being used as political cannon fodder by unscrupulous adults with an ideological axe to grind. If we are ever to stop the bloodshed and make peace, then children and youngsters – both Jewish and Arab – must be protected from this form of 'intellectual' molestation.</p>Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-62116524398328010002022-05-20T23:47:00.001-07:002022-05-23T06:30:04.815-07:00And the Wooden Spoon goes to…<p>As usually while driving, I was listening to LBC (yes, I
know: I’m a sad, sad person!) In truth,
I had rather switched off from the annoying chatter and was focusing on driving
– when I suddenly heard the words <i>“former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn”</i>. And indeed, Corbyn’s voice started to unpleasantly
scratch my eardrums, as he muddled through his usual ‘spiel’. It was immediately after the latest local
elections and the author of Labour’s most catastrophic electoral defeat in 84
years proceeded to ‘analyse’ the results and volunteer his opinions. I could almost hear Starmer’s groan and Johnson’s
merriment. Like a bad smell, some people
just don’t go away!</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A few days later, also on LBC, I noticed that Tony Blair was
still around, as well: to Starmer’s sheer despair he, too, was volunteering his
advice!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I was reminded about all that, when I recently read <a href="https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jewish-anti-zionists-holders-of-the-wooden-spoon/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">an
article</span></a> by Vivian Wineman.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Like the
two men above, Mr. Wineman is also a ‘has been’ – though one of much less
consequence in the big scheme of things: he was, once upon a time, President of
the Board of Deputies of British Jews.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No, don’t feel sorry for me: even a sad person like me does
not follow the ruminations of Vivian Wineman.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>A friend brought his article to my attention, by posting a link to it on
Facebook, under the comment:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote><p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><i>“I’m quite ashamed of my
Past President. This piece is truly appalling.”</i><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">This piqued my curiosity and I proceeded to read Mr. Wineman’s
contribution, entitled <i>“Jewish Anti-Zionists Holders of the Wooden Spoon?”</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not all my readers are British, so I feel I
should explain: the Wooden Spoon is a symbol of failure – it is mockingly
awarded to the side that finishes last in the Six Nations rugby tournament.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But don’t let that fool you: the key part of Mr. Wineman’s
title is… the question mark at its end.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">True, he jokingly says that he decided to write about Jewish
anti-Zionists because<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“I and my family have
always been attracted by losers…”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(He should’ve told us that <b>before</b> being elected President
of the Board!)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In reality, however, his article reads to me (and to quite a
few other people I consulted) conspicuously like an attempt to whitewash (or ‘rehabilitate’,
or perhaps legitimise) Jewish anti-Zionism.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Why would he do that?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Well, Mr. Wineman was always a ‘progressive’; no, not in terms of shul affiliation,
but of political inclination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He chaired
far-left outfits like Peace Now and New Israel Fund and is currently, I
believe, an ardent sympathiser of Yachad – a group of activists claiming to be ‘pro-Israel’,
but whose only aim seems to be turning British Jews from supporters of the
Jewish state into harsh ‘critics’ thereof.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As an aside: it has always been my observation that the only
thing ‘progressive’ about far-leftists is their progressive antipathy towards
Israel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As an example, take Peter
Beinart: once upon a time, he used to call himself a Zionist, albeit of the ‘liberal’
variety.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since then, he has ‘progressed’
to non-Zionism, before becoming an ardent anti-Zionist keen on <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-populism/a-liberal-zionists-move-to-the-left-on-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">dismantling
the Jewish state</span></a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yachad (who also
used to call themselves ‘liberal Zionists’ – albeit not in recent times of
course) have not gone so far yet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(At
least not overtly – they’d be shunned by the entire British Jewish community if
they did; though their <a href="https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/from-the-river-to-the-sea-yachad/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">'spirited
defence'</span></a> of the slogan ‘From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free’
seems to betray their true feelings.)<o:p></o:p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivXEYeKJY0wZqsDNHua0F5_TFLsWlxNpYIJ_d7VFSexDF2zou9v8J5VHc-KJ8GtKjdboVV2GbZmrKfd1rbtS4uhkOaXU-x94iYJcjwAUUaJHHkYxtMHE_WSFuNdAZTsBDHq0NdTOnVFkbkUAXtLu-hWlBJzsJ-FBUs3jANIMOPfeEGzBaMnMoWbCNuXw/s2016/IMG_9021.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1512" data-original-width="2016" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivXEYeKJY0wZqsDNHua0F5_TFLsWlxNpYIJ_d7VFSexDF2zou9v8J5VHc-KJ8GtKjdboVV2GbZmrKfd1rbtS4uhkOaXU-x94iYJcjwAUUaJHHkYxtMHE_WSFuNdAZTsBDHq0NdTOnVFkbkUAXtLu-hWlBJzsJ-FBUs3jANIMOPfeEGzBaMnMoWbCNuXw/w400-h300/IMG_9021.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Yachad and New Israel Fund 'celebrated' Israel's 74th Independence Day by... more 'criticism' of the Jewish state. Now, I'm no expert in physiognomy, but it seems to me that the face in the left bottom corner is Mr. Wineman's. What do you think?</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One of the fundamental errors of judgment that such ‘progressives’
make is to imagine that, by dropping early 20<sup>th</sup> century anti-Zionists
into the conversation, they can somehow legitimise the current ones.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is, of course, ludicrous.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 1917, one could still legitimately (albeit
wrongly in hindsight) argue against what was still a project in relative infancy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Should a Jewish state be constituted sometime
in the future – or better not?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Today,
the State of Israel exists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not
just a tangible reality, but the home of the world’s largest, youngest and
healthiest Jewish community.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Contemporary
anti-Zionists do not debate the merits of a future project; they propose to
dismantle an existing, sovereign state (and only one!).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are at best indifferent and at worst
hostile to the fate of that community.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But let’s go back to Mr. Wineman and his treatment of
anti-Zionist Jews.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He starts by stating
the obvious (though he rather tendentiously downgrades it to <i>“generally
accepted”</i>):<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Zionism has swept the
board inside the Jewish community...”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I find myself forced to agree, for once, with Mr.
Wineman.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not because the fact is <i>“generally
accepted”</i>, but because it is well-documented: every opinion poll ever
undertaken shows that, for the vast majority of British Jews, Israel is a major
(and often the major) component of their Jewish identity.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Mr. Wineman goes on to say that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“If a member of the Board
of Deputies of British Jews, for instance, were to stand up at a meeting and
say that he does not believe in God, eats ham on Yom Kippur and thinks the
Bible contains nothing but bubba mayses- old wives </i>[sic!]<i> tails </i>[sic!]<i>,
there would be distaste maybe, but nothing further and certainly, no calls for
expulsion. If our mischievous deputy were to stand up the next month and
declare that he did not believe that there should be a State of Israel or even
only that he was a supporter of BDS against it, there would be immediate calls
for his censure or expulsion.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Is this, as Mr. Wineman would probably claim, an example of
how Zionism <i>“has swept the board”</i>?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It sounds rather like a complaint to me.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In fact, the different treatment of the two ‘transgressions’
in Wineman’s ‘example’ is entirely understandable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Renowned researcher and Zionist activist
David Collier put it much better than I could:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“One </i>[rejecting God, eating pork]<i> is a personal
choice that affects only him – and the other </i>[anti-Zionism]<i>
harms the well-being of millions of Jews living in the Jewish state.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Perhaps subconsciously, Wineman (who was once educated in a
yeshivah) used the English words <i>“censure”</i> and <i>“expulsion”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They may be taken as translations of the old
Hebrew terms <i>kherem</i> <span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL" face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="HE" style="mso-ansi-language: RO; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(חרם)</span>and <i>niddui</i><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL" face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="HE" style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span>(נדוי)<i> </i></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>,
which are part of the Jewish law and were used in pre and post-exilic
Judaism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">These ‘sanctions’ were originally conceived not as punishment for the
transgressing individual (such punishment was expected to come from God, rather
than from people), but as a prophylactic measure, aimed at protecting the
community from the dire consequences of the transgression and from its harmful proliferation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">After conceding that
Zionism is widely embraced by Jews, Wineman goes on to claim that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“It was not always so.
Just over a century ago in the years leading up to the Balfour Declaration
antizionists were in control of the leading streams of British Jewry; the ultra
orthodox </i>[sic!]<i>, the mainstream orthodox </i>[sic!]<i>, Reform Judaism and Liberal
Judaism.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">In passing: if Wineman
wanted to list <i>“the leading streams…”</i> in <i>“the years leading up…”</i>,
it seems to me that he should have capitalised ‘Orthodox’, just as he did with ‘Reform’
and ‘Liberal’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is not me supporting
orthodoxy, but orthography!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr. Wineman
may also wish to make up his mind whether he wishes to refer to anti-Zionists
(as he did in the title), or do away with the hyphen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Consistency in presentation might eventually
result in logical arguments – one never knows!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">More importantly, though:
isn’t <i>“in control of”</i> a rather weird (and, I’d suggest, dishonest)
argument to make?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why not just say (as others
try to claim sometimes) ‘the majority of Jews opposed Zionism’?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because, as Wineman knows (and, I suspect,
tries to hide), that simply would not be true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We only need to read the following <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/a51c6c5e-bf16-11e7-9836-b25f8adaa111"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">personal
account</span></a> by historian Simon Schama.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Describing
British Jewry’s reaction to the Balfour Declaration, Schama writes:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><i>“</i>[W]<i>hen the document was made public by the Zionist Federation,
my father saw </i>[…]<i> singing and dancing
erupt in the streets of the East End, from Mile End to Whitechapel. Something
propitious, something providential, had happened, but also something against
the odds.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;">[…]<i><o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><i>That East End street party
— ‘a kosher knees-up’, Dad called it, lots of fried fish, cake and shouting —
was all instinct and no thought, but then sometimes instincts are the real
story. Arthur remembered the ‘Hatikvah’ being sung outside a synagogue close to
the family house. A month later the same song brought the crowd to their feet
in the Royal Opera House. My father stood outside amid a huge throng beside
sacks of the next day’s cabbages.”</i></p></blockquote><p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">But that’s not the story
that Mr. Wineman favours.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, he
writes<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“They also dominated the
Jewish establishment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While often
supporting Jewish settlement in Israel they were opposed to any attempt to
create a political entity for them there.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">The ‘they’ in the passage
above refers to anti-Zionists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the
word that troubles me is ‘also’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What else,
did the anti-Zionists dominate?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They <b>were</b>
part of the establishment, while the Jewish masses by-and-large supported
Zionism.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Here’s Schama again,
still writing about his father:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><i>“He knew all about the
Jewish opposition: anti-Zionists, the grandees of the Anglo-Jewish Association
and the Conjoint Committee — Claude Montefiore and those Rothschilds, Leopold
in particular — who were on the wrong side of the argument. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He was especially horrified by the public
accusation of Edwin Montagu, one of the two Jewish members of the Cabinet (the
other was the pro-Zionist Herbert Samuel), that the Balfour Declaration was
tantamount to being anti-Semitic, since in Montagu’s eyes it presupposed
divided loyalties, especially heinous during the war. Others among the anti-Zionist
lobby felt the same way, in particular the historian Lucien Wolf, who had
actually been questioned about his true nationality by a policeman in 1915 and
never quite got over it.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><i>For my father, the
defensiveness of the anti-Zionists was a symptom of the gulf dividing West End
Jews from East End Jews. The declaration’s 67 words, he thought, could be
boiled down to one — the word “home”, bayit. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was all very well for the likes of Edwin
Montagu to complain that their indivisible sense of a British home was now
vulnerable to charges of divided allegiance, but Montagu’s home was manorial:
avenues of oak and elm, game birds flushed from the bracken, dropping to Home
Counties guns.”</i></p></blockquote><p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><i><o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">And here is Wineman,
still talking about anti-Zionists:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Their writings, though
unsuccessful in the long term, were of high quality. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An outstanding member was Edwin Montagu PC,
Secretary of State for India and the third Jew to reach cabinet office in this
country.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Isn’t it sad to see a ‘progressive’
like Mr. Wineman trying to ‘sell’ the selfish machinations of a few ‘Jewish
barons’ and community makhers who – then, just like today – ran contrary to
what the masses wanted?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Edwin Montagu’s stubborn opposition
to the Balfour Declaration is well known.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But the reason his efforts (and those of others like him) were <i>“</i></span><i>unsuccessful”</i>
(not just <i>“in the long term”</i>, but then and there) is that British
politicians like Balfour and Lloyd George knew very well that those
anti-Zionists were utterly unrepresentative, that they spoke only for a tiny
number of privileged Jews.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, Balfour
understood that Zionism was being embraced by the Jewish masses – and not just
in Britain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Speaking at a meeting of the
War Cabinet in October 1917, he opined that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“The vast majority of Jews
in Russia and America, as, indeed, all over the world, now appeared to be
favourable to Zionism.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">I’d say it’s ironic that a
Conservative politician like Balfour was attuned to the aspirations of the <i>“vast
majority of Jews”</i>, while a century later a ‘progressive’ like Mr. Wineman
is still more concerned with what <i>“the establishment”</i> wanted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But then, another ‘progressive’ once said that
Zionists like me just don’t get English irony…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">I don’t know much about
Mr. Wineman’s grasp of English irony (though I don’t suspect him of
Zionism).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But as for the rigour of his
research… his article causes me great concerns in that respect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because, even if we were to ignore the popular
feeling, the picture of Jewish establishment’s attitude to Zionism is itself much
more complex than the one he paints.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">It is not true that that <i>“establishment”</i>
(or the leadership of the British Jewish community) was uniformly opposed to
Zionism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some were – such as Mr. Wineman’s
distant predecessor, Board of Deputies President David Lindo Alexander.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Others, however (such as Chief Rabbi Joseph
Hertz) were dedicated supporters of Zionism.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">In May 1917, Lindo
Alexander published a <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20121004113952/http:/cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0003991.txt"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">letter</span></a>
in the Times, which attacked the main tenets of Zionism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He admitted (and how could he deny it) that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“The Holy Land is
necessarily of profound and undying interest for all Jews, as the cradle of their
religion, the main theatre of Bible history, and the site of its sacred
memorials.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not, however, as a mere
shrine or place of pilgrimage that they regard the country.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since the dawn of their political
emancipation in Europe the Jews have made rehabilitation of the Jewish
community in the Holy Land one of their chief cares, and they have always
cherished the hope that the result of their labours would be the regeneration
on Palestinian soil of a Jewish community worthy of the great memories and of
the environment, and a source of spiritual inspiration to the whole of Jewry.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">But then<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Meanwhile the committee
have learnt from the published statements of the Zionist leaders in this
country that they now favour a much larger scheme of an essentially political
character.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">And what was wrong with
that <i>“scheme”</i>?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, Lindo
Alexander went on to explain that Jews do not regard themselves as a people and
have no national aspirations; they see themselves as just <i>“a religious
community”</i>, on a par <i>“with their fellow citizens of other creeds”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Though in fairness he did assign that opinion
not to Jews in general, but only to <i>“</i>[e]<i>mancipated Jews”</i> – which we
might probably translate in today’s parlance as ‘progressives’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Plus ça change…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">So far, the story of
Lindo Alexander and his letter would seem to support Mr. Wineman’s
contentions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But only if we ignore the
end of that story: just a few days later, the Times published a rebuttal penned
by Chief Rabbi Joseph Hertz.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hertz
dismissed the opinions of Lindo Alexander and of his ‘sponsor’ and co-signatory
Claude Montefiore as unrepresentative of and inconsistent with<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“the views held by
Anglo-Jewry as a whole or by the Jewries of the overseas dominions.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">And not just the Chief
Rabbi: on 17 June 1917, Lindo Alexander’s letter was formally condemned by the
Board of Deputies; he was forced to resign.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>So much for Mr. Wineman’s assertion that <i>“immediate calls for </i>[…]<i>
censure or expulsion”</i> of anti-Zionists are a relatively new phenomenon at
the Board!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">And so much for his contention
that <i>“</i></span><i>the Jewish establishment”</i> was <i>“dominated”</i> by
anti-Zionists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, Mr. Wineman’s sole
‘example’ of Jewish anti-Zionist (Edwin Montagu) cannot really be said to have
been part of <i>“the Jewish establishment”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>As a Member of Parliament and Minister, he was certainly part of the
British establishment – but his interest in Jewish community affairs (insofar
as those affairs did not impinge on his own) is questionable.<span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">But let’s move on: still
speaking about Jewish anti-Zionists (or on their behalf?), Mr. Wineman says:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“On a practical level they
saw Zionism as stimulus to antisemitism and as an obstacle to their great
project of emancipation.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">While admitting that they
were wrong on both accounts, Wineman still informs us that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“The decades following the
Balfour Declaration saw the rise of the most frightful antisemitism the world
has ever seen. It would be very hard, however, to attribute this to Zionism.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Now, this is a very
misleading way to put it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If I said, for
instance, ‘The years after Mr. Wineman’s Presidency of the Board of Deputies
saw the rise of the most frightful antisemitism’ – many an unsuspecting reader
may understand, whatever the other protestations, that one event led to the
other.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">No, it would not be <i>“very
hard”</i> to attribute the rise in antisemitism to Zionism – it would be impossible
for any researcher endowed with intellectual honesty. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, the opposite has been argued: that
the rise in antisemitism (especially in Europe and parts of the Muslim world) lent
Zionism credibility as the solution to ‘the Jewish problem’.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Let me mention just a few
‘milestones’ that preceded the 1917 Balfour Declaration:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">In 1840, the blood libel is employed against the Jews of Damascus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some community leaders are tortured to death.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The survivors are eventually exonerated, but the
population nevertheless perpetrates several pogroms.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">In 1882, another blood libel case is launched in Hungary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The accused Jews are eventually acquitted,
but the effects of the resulting antisemitic propaganda linger and fester.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">In 1894 (i.e. 3 years <b>before</b> the First Zionist Congress) Captain
Alfred Dreyfus is convicted of treason, after an inquiry and trial with strong
antisemitic undertones.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">In 1909, the British Vice Consul in Mosul remarks:<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><!--[if !supportLists]--><p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“The attitude of the
Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves,
whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their
place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Between 1821 and 1906, hundreds of pogroms were perpetrated throughout
Jewish-inhabited areas of the Russian Empire.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Thousands of Jews were murdered – alongside rapes and other atrocities.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">In 1910, another blood libel incident takes place in Shiraz, Iran.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the ensuing pogrom, 12 Jews are murdered,
50 are injured and the entire Jewish quarter is pillaged.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><!--[if !supportLists]--><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">It is these occurrences of
pre-1917 <i>“frightful antisemitism”</i> (especially the pogroms in Eastern
Europe) that explain the apparently contradictory position of anti-Zionists
like Lindo Alexander.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As Wineman himself
hints (and as the Times letter proves), they supported the return of Jews to
the Holy Land; they only opposed self-determination for those Jews.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why this ‘nuanced’ stance?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because of the pogroms and the antisemitic
policies of the Russian tsars, Jews were fleeing Eastern Europe in large
numbers – and many sought to take refuge in Britain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That migration resulted in fast increase of Britain’s
Jewish population: from 65,000 in 1880 to 300,000 in 1914. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Despite their sanctimonious protestations, the
anti-Zionist Jews cared little about the Arab population of Palestine; their major
concern was a potential rise in British antisemitism, one they feared might be ‘caused’
by a continued massive immigration of ‘unemancipated’ (ahem!) Eastern European Jews.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sending those Jews to Palestine was a good
solution insofar as it kept them away from Britain; but not if they built a ‘Jewish
Home’: that might imply that the Jewish barons were not ‘at home’ in Britain.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">After the misleading passage
analysed above, Mr. Wineman proceeds to… argue back-and-forth with himself:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“It would be very hard,
however, to attribute this to Zionism. Although the ultra orthodox anti
Zionists do blame the Zionists and even specific Zionist leaders for the
holocaust this argument is not taken seriously outside their circles. Among the
lurid accusations made against Jews dual loyalty did not figure very
prominently. The antisemitic charge was not that the jews had a loyalty to an
emerging political entity in the Middle East but that they had aspirations for
world government.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Needless to say, only a
tiny, extreme minority of Charedi anti-Zionists blame Zionists for the Shoah.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By the way, I use the term ‘Charedi’ </span><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL" face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="HE" style="mso-ansi-language: RO; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span>(חרדי)</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span lang="HE" style="mso-bidi-language: HE;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>
</span><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">because that’s how they choose to
call themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t think that
people (especially ‘progressives’ and even more so former Presidents of the
Board!) should presume to label communities by names that are – at best –
judgmental: let us remember that ultra-Orthodox (even when it’s spelled correctly)
includes an element of censure; it means ‘extremely’ or ‘excessively’ Orthodox
and that’s not how the people in question view themselves.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Otherwise, the muddled
prose above is only remarkable by its careless presentation. After writing alternatively
‘anti-Zionists’ and ‘antizionists’, Mr. Wineman now decided to call them ‘anti
Zionists’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jews also become ‘jews’ in
the space of one sentence…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">As a Yachad sympathiser
(or active supporter?) Mr. Wineman simply cannot resist squeezing in a swipe at
Israel – even in an article that purports to discuss pre-1917 attitudes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He sets the scene rather sententiously:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Political rights are a
human entitlement, enshrined in numerous international conventions, not a gift
from a merciful government for which the recipients must be duly grateful.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">He then goes on to
accuse:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Ironically the one
democratic country where this does not apply is the State of Israel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Arabs within Israel’s pre 1967 borders are
full citizens automatically in accordance with Israel’s admirable constitution,
but Arabs beyond those borders are not.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">This goes to show that it’s
not just English irony that I don’t get – but some people’s logic, too.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>See, I always thought that no democratic country
awards its citizenship en-masse to people beyond its borders.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Especially to people who are legally and
practically in a state of conflict with that country.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Critics of Israel like to pretend that award
of citizenship is a universal requirement for people who are ‘controlled’ or ‘occupied’
by the country in question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that
requirement is made out of whole cloth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In fact, while Mr. Wineman’s own country ‘controlled’ or ‘occupied’ for
long periods of time people in places like Iraq and Afghanistan – it did not
offer them British citizenship.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">I suspect that Mr.
Wineman recognised the weakness of his own argument.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s probably why he decided to suddenly
change tack, by focusing on East Jerusalem.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Which, according to Israeli law at least, is within – rather than beyond—the
country’s borders.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Even in East Jerusalem,
where Israel has claimed full sovereignty ever since 1967, Palestinians are not
automatically entitled to citizenship.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Technically speaking, Mr.
Wineman is right.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Logically speaking, his
description of the situation is ‘a bit’ simplistic – not to say economical with
the truth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 1967, Arab residents of
Jerusalem were citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan – a country at war
with Israel. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Automatically granting them
Israeli citizenship would have resulted in an unreasonable situation, in which
citizens of an enemy country can elect and be elected to the Parliament (and in
principle become members of the government, etc.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">The problem with ‘progressive’
critics of Israel is not that they demand that Israel adopts the most liberal measures
ever encountered – and even go far beyond those; it is that they require Israel
to do so in the midst of an existential conflict, in complete disregard of its collective
safety and the principles of self-defence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In the mind of ‘critics’ like Yachad and Mr. Wineman, Israel ‘must’ grant
Arabs citizenship – even if that would endanger the safety and welfare of her
existing citizenry.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Instead of such suicidal
acts, Israel opted for a reasonable solution, which sought to balance the
rights of Jerusalemite Arabs with those of her extant nationals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>East Jerusalem Palestinians were
automatically given the status of permanent residents </span><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL" face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="HE" style="mso-ansi-language: RO; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span>(תושב
קבע)</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Contrary to Mr. Wineman’s claim, this status confers – rather than
denies – political rights: permanent residents are entitled to elect and be
elected in local elections (including for the position of prestigious and
powerful position of Mayor of Jerusalem).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Permanent residents have the same civic and social rights as Israeli
citizens, including among many other things education, healthcare, income
support, unemployment benefits…<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The main
difference is that, unlike citizens, permanent residents cannot elect or be
elected to the Israeli Parliament.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Permanent residency is
not something Israel invented for the benefit of East Jerusalem Palestinians; it
is a legal status practiced by most democratic countries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I should know: my legal status in the UK is
that of a permanent resident.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I can vote
in local elections, but not in national ones.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>My resident status will be cancelled if I live in another country for more
than two years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am eligible to apply
for British citizenship (having lived here for more than five years), but the
granting of citizenship is conditional upon fulfilling a whole raft of
requirements including passing a test for knowledge of the English language, an
additional test for familiarity with ‘British customs and traditions’ and
proving I am ‘of good character’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As for
the latter requirement, the Home Office <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/998195/Guide_AN_final.pdf"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">warns</span></a>
as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“To be of good character
you should have shown respect for the rights and freedoms of the UK, observe
its laws and fulfilled your duties and obligations as a resident of the UK. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Checks will be carried out to ensure that the
information you give is correct.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">If I apply for British
citizenship and my application is approved, I would be granted that citizenship
– provided I take the <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/258235/oathofallegiance.pdf"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Oath
of Allegiance to the Queen or the Pledge of Loyalty to the state</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">As it happens, I choose
not to apply for British citizenship.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
feel it would be somewhat dishonest – a travesty: while I like and respect the
country, I do not identify as British.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">East Jerusalem Palestinians
are also entitled to apply for Israeli citizenship.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The <a href="https://lawoffice.org.il/en/israeli-citizenship-for-residents-of-east-jerusalem/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">requirements
are similar</span></a>, though understandably in practice the ‘good character’ part places much
more focus on security-related activity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">The PLO considers applying
for Israeli citizenship an act of national treason; Hamas probably views it as
apostasy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet in recent years an increasing
number of Jerusalemite Arabs <a href="https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2022/01/palestinians-seek-israeli-citizenship-jerusalem"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">are
applying</span></a> and being granted citizenship.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I don’t blame them; nor do I blame the ones that choose not to – it is a
personal choice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But nor should
sanctimonious hypocrites (ensconced in their soft armchairs in North London) blame
Israel for doing only ‘the next best thing’ under very difficult circumstances.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Then, there’s another point
of logic: officially at least, Yachad (and, I can only presume, sympathisers
like Mr. Wineman) still support the two-state solution, while also <a href="https://yachad.org.uk/yachad-statement-on-david-camerons-comments-on-east-jerusalem/#.Yoe_--jTVPY"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">claiming</span></a>
that such solution would only be possible with a Palestinian capital in East
Jerusalem.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If that is indeed the desired
outcome, why, then, would the inhabitants of the future Palestinian capital be
created Israeli citizens??<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">I’m afraid I saved the
worst for last: in his back-and-forth ‘debate’ on whether Zionism was <i>“a stimulus</i>
[to] <i>the most frightful antisemitism”</i>, Mr. Wineman manages to casually sneak
in the following vile sentence:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“The Zionists did not
provoke German antisemitism and were able to work with the Nazis on one aim
they both shared,- [sic!] to get Jews
out of Germany.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Sure, we all know about
the Transfer Agreement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that
Zionists ‘shared one aim’ with the Nazis is a sordid, foul claim.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Nazis wanted to ‘purify’ the ‘Aryan race’
by getting rid of the Jews, while despoiling them in the process; the Zionists
wanted to save the German Jews – whom no other country wanted (not even Britain
at the time).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This wasn’t selling one’s
soul to the Devil, but making a deal (even) with the Devil to save souls.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">In theory at least, one
can be an anti-Zionist without accusing Zionists of ‘sharing aims’ with the Nazis;
in practice, it seems that anti-Zionism always ends up in antisemitism – if it
does not originate in it to start with.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That
a former President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews should stoop to accusations
proffered by the likes of Ken Livingstone and Sergey Lavrov is a matter of
immense sadness and deep shame.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIN1LqfxcE3m3IEu_toE3nIMTHM6CHwOaRt_-p5tzu92yxU3DfZpBy_ebkP9gw64H0ihz7aMdZb54HQihKhr7UaP_j887FGs05ffU0bQkG9slHF7hNw0v5dHmh_JjeNyVbk1zO8O5t3lDLONVZbh3yh3_oMtWWWZaYcotWx1vREbntYqgkNxaV6H9bGg/s1555/5451746855_8f7d8fec16_h.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1166" data-original-width="1555" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIN1LqfxcE3m3IEu_toE3nIMTHM6CHwOaRt_-p5tzu92yxU3DfZpBy_ebkP9gw64H0ihz7aMdZb54HQihKhr7UaP_j887FGs05ffU0bQkG9slHF7hNw0v5dHmh_JjeNyVbk1zO8O5t3lDLONVZbh3yh3_oMtWWWZaYcotWx1vREbntYqgkNxaV6H9bGg/w400-h300/5451746855_8f7d8fec16_h.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;"><br /></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">A <b>former</b> President
cannot, unfortunately, be censored and expelled.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All we can do is to symbolically award him
the ultimate Wooden Spoon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My granddad would
have said, face covered with his huge hands: !</span><span dir="RTL" face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="HE" style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">וואָס אַ בושה</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span lang="HE" style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE;">– What a shame!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As, I suspect, would
his.</span><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-38415663242714703622022-05-16T23:48:00.001-07:002022-05-21T01:04:31.695-07:00Russia & Ukraine: The smartened-up story – Chapter V<p>My Russia-Ukraine series of articles is approaching its
conclusion. So let’s summarise:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the <span style="color: #2b00fe;"><a href="https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/russia-ukraine-the-smartened-up-story-chapter-i/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">first</span></a>
</span>article, I delved into the history of this conflict, debunking a few myths and
underscoring its ethnic character.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The <span style="color: #2b00fe;"><a href="https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/russia-ukraine-the-smartened-up-story-chapter-ii/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">second</span></a>
</span>chapter moves the limelight to more recent times, following the ethnic conflict
in its ‘modern’ development.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the <a href="https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/russia-ukraine-the-smartened-up-story-chapter-iii/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">third</span></a>
article, I dealt primarily with the Western actions (or lack thereof) – before
and after the Russian aggression.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The <a href="https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/russia-ukraine-the-smartened-up-story-chapter-iv/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">fourth</span></a>
article in the series seeks to tear through the waves of propaganda and sloppy
journalism and describe the political and military situation based on
facts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I spent the last part of that
article analysing the grim consequences for the world at large.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Throughout those articles, I have maintained that, while in
the current conflict Russia is by far the main culprit, in the bigger picture
nobody comes out smelling of roses: not just Putin and his collaborators, but
also Ukrainian and Western leaders.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Their actions – myopic, cowardly, insincere, often irrational and always
inconsistent – brought about this dangerous situation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I <a href="https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/russia-ukraine-the-smartened-up-story-chapter-i/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">started
this series</span></a> with a confession: as a Jew who reads and lives history, I have
very little sympathy for either Russia or Ukraine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I feel very sorry for the (many) innocents
caught up in this awful war; but, in regards to the conflict itself, I do not
place myself in the corner of either country.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So in this (last) article of the series, I’d like to close
the loop by focusing on Jews.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘Why,’ I
hear you asking – ‘what’s all this to do with Jews??’<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, I share your confusion; but,
unfortunately, for some people everything is (or should be) about Jews.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Take for instance the Iranian-British journalist Christiane
Amanpour – made famous (some would say infamous) by her long career as anchor
for the US networks CNN and PBS.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On
March 1, she interviewed William Cohen, a former US Defence Secretary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Despite his name, Mr. Cohen isn’t Jewish – in
fact he is a practicing Christian; though I wonder how many among Ms.
Amanpour’s audience know that.<o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxyRqWHQM1SOom4mSFn62n9uZU5r7R1KgDuy6_QaDnqb_SpAVrQVk6g2Mx3CsoT2d7_B2XChF50Cwm9GTO0GC7G0Hd-0Wn0MPvE0YLM02liU_M6bMhr9174AY-PYf41QuZO7H17OIyOh9oPISlcWxlyswdQatROMd3Nn622JNhwPP38BbrBWe1witpLA/s1100/amanpour%20cohen.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1091" data-original-width="1100" height="396" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxyRqWHQM1SOom4mSFn62n9uZU5r7R1KgDuy6_QaDnqb_SpAVrQVk6g2Mx3CsoT2d7_B2XChF50Cwm9GTO0GC7G0Hd-0Wn0MPvE0YLM02liU_M6bMhr9174AY-PYf41QuZO7H17OIyOh9oPISlcWxlyswdQatROMd3Nn622JNhwPP38BbrBWe1witpLA/w400-h396/amanpour%20cohen.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal">At some point, Mr. Cohen raised the spectre of a potential
nuclear war:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“It will be radioactive
dust, it will be spread all over Russia, Europe, the United States and China as
well.<span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span></span>Which is one reason I have suggested, Christiane, that there has
to be some kind of outside intervention. Countries like China, India Israel
have to give counsel and send the signal to Russia that — I’m hearing all the
activity in the background, it’s a little disorienting, but they have to send
the signal that they’re prepared to take action, to cut off certain
relationships with Russia. Israel is in a position to do that. So is China. And
China has to understand that if this thing does deteriorate and we’re on the
edge of potentially nuclear weapons and war, then we’re all at risk at that
point. The planet is at risk…”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ms. Amanpour is known as a rather acerbic critic of Israel; this
was all the opportunity she needed to focus on the Jewish state:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“But you just mentioned
Israel and you've obviously named all the nuclear states. You mentioned India…
Israel is a nuclear state. But Israel is also a US ally and did not support the
United States-backed resolution in the Security Council.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In fact, Cohen <i>“obviously” </i>had not named <i>“all the
nuclear states”</i>; he’d simply listed three countries he thought might have
some influence on Putin. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Placing tiny
Israel in the same category as China and India was weird to start with.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, rather than remarking on that, Ms.
Amanpour decided to dismiss India, not to bother at all with China and,
instead, direct her ire against the one Jewish state.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And, to boot, to ‘enhance’ the truth a tad: of
course, Israel isn’t a member of the UN Security Council – and as such cannot <i>“support”</i>
(or indeed oppose) any resolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What Israel
declined to do was co-sponsor the US draft resolution – an utterly symbolic act;
and, in fact, a symbolic draft: nobody expected it to actually become a
resolution, as Russia and China have the power of veto in the UN Security Council.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When the matter was brought before the UN
General Assembly, Israel co-sponsored and voted in favour of the US-backed
Resolution ES-11/1.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Interestingly enough, the draft of the above resolution –
citing Israel as co-sponsor – was issued on March 1<sup>st</sup>, raising the
possibility that Ms. Amanpour knew (or should have known) about it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whether she knew or not, she continued the
interview by asking William Cohen:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“I mean, can you even understand
why Israel has not gone precisely for the reasons you have said to read Putin
the riot act?”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To a rational person of medium intelligence, the idea of
Israel (c. 20,000 square kilometers, population 10 million, GDP $400 billion) ‘reading
the riot act’ to the autocratic President of Russia (17 million sq. km,
population 145 million, GDP $1,500 billion) would seem ludicrous.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A rational person of medium intelligence may
have pointed out that other US allies (including NATO member Turkey, as well as
India, Qatar, UAE, etc.) were even less keen than Israel to <i>“read Putin the
riot act”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the same rational
person of average IQ may have pointed out that – given that the mighty USA and the
27country-strong European Union had already <i>“read Putin the riot act”</i> and
made no impression on him—there was nothing to gain from any Israeli
remonstration.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But no rational person of medium intelligence was present
during that interview.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, Mr.
Cohen responded, as he knew was expected of him:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Well, I can say that I'm
disappointed… err… deeply disappointed that they had not supported the United
States and what we're seeking to do.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But even in his mind something must have seemed not quite
right, because he then went on to observe that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“I also understand that
they find themselves in something of a conflict of interest. They've been able
to take out certain Syrian targets with the Russians turning a blind eye. So,
they've been cultivating a relationship with Russia in order to protect their
security interests.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In other words, even Mr. Cohen understood that – oh, horror –
Israel prioritised its security interests over a ‘demonstrative gesture’ that
was just as unlikely to move Putin as it was to satisfy Amanpour.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Following the interview, Ms. Amanpour tweeted:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Israel is a close ally of
the US, yet has not supported the US over Ukraine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘I’m deeply disappointed that they have not
supported the United States,’ says former US Defence Secretary William
Cohen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘They do have to make a decision here.’”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which, if I’m to use a British understatement, was a rather
skewed and tendentious ‘summary’ of what Cohen had said.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ms. Amanpour is hardly the only Western journalist taking
the opportunity to have a pop at the Jewish state.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also, on Twitter, British broadcaster Andrew
Neil (I struggle to recall who he works for these days) remarked:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Israel fails to stand up
for Ukraine. Reluctant to impose sanctions on Russia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Still allowing flights from Russia but ended
visa-free travel for Ukrainians. Stayed silent after Russian airstrike near
Babi Yar memorial, where German Nazis killed tens of thousands of Jews in WW2.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Mr. Neil is partially right: Israel – like the vast majority
of countries in the world – did not impose sanctions on Russia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Israel – like the vast majority of countries –
<i>“still”</i> allows flights from Russia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Israel – unlike the vast majority of countries in the world – has more
than a million reasons to allow flights to and from Russia: that’s the number
of Israelis who originate from that country; many still have relatives there,
whom – Andrew Neil permitting – they wish to see.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is also true that, since so many Ukrainian wish to seek
asylum abroad, Israel has cancelled the visa-free regime for Ukrainian citizens
– and replaced it with a regime of entry permits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But Andrew Neil’s criticism would sound less hypocritical
if his own country allowed Ukrainians to enter without a visa.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, of course, the UK does <a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/move-to-the-uk-if-youre-from-ukraine#before-you-travel-to-the-uk"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">no
such thing</span></a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, <a href="https://visitukraine.today/blog/319/israel-will-grant-entry-permits-to-family-members-of-ukrainians-with-work-visa"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">just
like Israel</span></a>, the UK <a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/apply-for-a-ukraine-family-scheme-visa"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">prioritises</span></a>
visas for Ukrainians that already have relatives in the country.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that’s where the similarities stop.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because by the end of April 2022, Israel (population
10 million) had admitted 35,000 Ukrainian refugees; the United Kingdom (population
67 million) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Ukrainian_refugee_crisis#:~:text=The%20United%20Nations%20High%20Commissioner,country%20was%20over%206.1%20million."><span style="color: #2b00fe;">took
on 27,000</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In fact, even the very hostile Human Rights Watch <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/05/10/israel-welcomes-ukrainian-refugees-why-cant-it-do-same-palestinians-married"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">was
forced to admit</span></a> that Israel <i>“unrolled the welcome mat to thousands of
Ukrainians”</i> – though of course it used that ‘praise’ to bash the Jewish
state for… not doing the same with Palestinian refugees (i.e., people who do
not flee a current war, but whose grandfathers or great-grandfathers fled one
74 years ago!)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As for Mr. Neil’s accusation that Israel <i>“</i>[s]<i>tayed
silent”</i> on the Babi Yar issue, that criticism isn’t hypocritical – but undeniably,
demonstrably <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-jewish-officials-denounce-russian-strike-that-hit-babi-yar-memorial-complex/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">wrong</span></a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Oh, let me do away with these annoying
British understatements: that claim by Andrew Neil was a naked, indefensible,
malignant and shameful lie.<o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOPsf0T-fBn11x1L1xpfhCwfzYrufScNR0nL7gMuChu02eozuNY_QSUFAY8cpy8MC5KAenuBhNLW_iNoGyHvISXuvUjsTAVrxsMV3p0741Cy7wOCI9IKqeUFN6KXYLn5ZDyEJlT2CICKaphw20z1oFOxqkTIBFJDap01clyvn5lCsZWBQFxgsZgjLlFw/s1074/Andrew%20Neil%20Emma%20Picken.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1074" data-original-width="983" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOPsf0T-fBn11x1L1xpfhCwfzYrufScNR0nL7gMuChu02eozuNY_QSUFAY8cpy8MC5KAenuBhNLW_iNoGyHvISXuvUjsTAVrxsMV3p0741Cy7wOCI9IKqeUFN6KXYLn5ZDyEJlT2CICKaphw20z1oFOxqkTIBFJDap01clyvn5lCsZWBQFxgsZgjLlFw/w366-h400/Andrew%20Neil%20Emma%20Picken.jpg" width="366" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But let’s leave the details of this or that accusation. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is a bigger issue here; one well-articulated
by an Israeli journalist – Jerusalem Post’s Lahav Harkov:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“I’ve said it before and I’ll
say it again: The fact that so many mainstream journalists are fixated on
Israel in a conflict that is not about Israel is creepy and they should really
examine why they’re doing it.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So why do they do it?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Even in the oh-so creative spheres of social media, people have struggled
to come up with an ‘acceptable’ explanation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Some (like the Twitter user below, who calls himself ‘Reinhold Riebuhr’),
came up with some ‘interesting’ explanations:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Zelensky being one of the
very few if any Jewish heads of state outside Israel, and Russia’s claim that
the purpose of the war is ‘denazification’, might have something to do with why
people are surprised Israel hasn’t been more critical of Russia.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now, since Nazis started a world war (not just war against
Jews), one would think that claims of ‘denazification’ should concern a few
other countries, not just Israel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As for
Zelensky being Jewish… how exactly is this justification for focusing on
Israel??<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Zelensky may be Jewish – but he
certainly isn’t Israeli; he is a Ukrainian citizen, a Ukrainian patriot, some
may say even a Ukrainian nationalist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If
Rishi Sunak ever becomes Prime Minister of the United Kingdom – are people
going to focus on India??<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In some parts of the world, people do not feel the need to
hide their feelings behind sophisticated ‘explanations’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While being <span style="color: #2b00fe;"><a href="https://www.memri.org/tv/yemen-houthi-political-council-member-ukraine-war-jewish-president-evil-weaken-russia" target="_blank">interviewed</a> </span>by a Lebanese TV
station, a certain Mohammed Ali Al-Houthi (a leader of the Houthi insurgency in
Yemen) opined:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“I think that what
happened to Ukraine is the result of the evil-doing of the Jews.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is proof that, when a Jew is the leader
of a country, it results in war.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the
president of Ukraine was someone else, rather than that Jew, perhaps they would
not have ended up in war.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Lebanese host, by the way, made no attempt to disabuse
Mr. Al-Houthi of those notions – she just moved on to more controversial
positions…<o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguYbQVG7Som9VemWNEbYllwJV6Bks72BjO5mUepkL7OtJ27jPlh4KOAp6wSDzDnxpP0Q3sd5zIVpfCnOTaJU4gLz-eU0BK-Zlq5Goon2TeNBzB0Mk3-qf32Yqd2ycf6u1Qwz5SdIxC8xIQ-hDwsXVyN03YJ5Cl4K_NrOMgcAN0M0NcUs3ZR44fE0TNUw/s1093/Houthy.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1093" data-original-width="1014" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguYbQVG7Som9VemWNEbYllwJV6Bks72BjO5mUepkL7OtJ27jPlh4KOAp6wSDzDnxpP0Q3sd5zIVpfCnOTaJU4gLz-eU0BK-Zlq5Goon2TeNBzB0Mk3-qf32Yqd2ycf6u1Qwz5SdIxC8xIQ-hDwsXVyN03YJ5Cl4K_NrOMgcAN0M0NcUs3ZR44fE0TNUw/w371-h400/Houthy.png" width="371" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And not just in the Middle East.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dmytro Kuleba is Ukraine’s Foreign Affairs
Minister.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Back at the beginning of
March, he noticed (or someone noticed for him) that the Israeli airline El Al
still had, on its website, a button marker ‘Mir’ – in this case referring to a
Russian credit card clearance system.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Ukraine’s top diplomat proceeded to tweet as follows:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“While the world sanctions
Russia for its barbaric atrocities in Ukraine, some prefer to make money soaked
in Ukrainian blood.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here is @EL_AL_ISRAEL
accepting payments in Russian banking system ‘Mir’ designed to avoid
sanctions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Immoral and a blow to
Ukrainian-Israeli relations.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">An Ukrainian accusing Jews of dealing in blood isn’t very
diplomatic or conducive of good <i>“Ukrainian-Israeli relations”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If he had any brains – let alone any shame –
Mr. Kuleba could have voiced his outrage in other terms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fortunately, someone at El Al is much more
patient than I am. S/he tweeted:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“EL AL has blocked the use
of the Mir credit card as of February 28.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">February 28 was, let’s remember, just 4 days after the start
of the Russian invasion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>El Al’s
representative also reminded His Excellency the Foreign Minister that the
airline had already flown<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“hundreds of tons of
humanitarian and medical equipment for Ukraine and evacuated orphans and
refugees to bring them to safety in Israel.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">El Al’s clarification was important – not because it forced Mr.
Kuleba to offer a resentful apology, alongside a few words of cold gratitude; but
because it gave us an opportunity to learn that Ukraine’s Foreign Minister isn’t
just an insensitive jerk, but actually an idiot!<o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0_MhpI9FoviaDKB5yefBmupmJ85bBHmHXYdfM1o_cEnSQFZK8pOR_c5Me0fsTKjBRNqC_zdoZxiO4NuKDwcGyod6twe3Cmvj_JY1vTgbQwsxgCCdBQjqtL6TCL7E4TTrKcxH0kQ-4vYvIrFZePvoKHnWLI9o3qNscfpq460IWKQlrg8oIk4rQRpbn4A/s1378/Kuleba.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="989" data-original-width="1378" height="288" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0_MhpI9FoviaDKB5yefBmupmJ85bBHmHXYdfM1o_cEnSQFZK8pOR_c5Me0fsTKjBRNqC_zdoZxiO4NuKDwcGyod6twe3Cmvj_JY1vTgbQwsxgCCdBQjqtL6TCL7E4TTrKcxH0kQ-4vYvIrFZePvoKHnWLI9o3qNscfpq460IWKQlrg8oIk4rQRpbn4A/w400-h288/Kuleba.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Clearly, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov could not
allow his Ukrainian counterpart to hog all the glory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So he soon came up with his own contribution:
in an effort to ‘explain’ how a country with a Jewish president could still be ‘ruled
by Nazis’, Lavrov <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-adolf-hitler-had-jewish-origins-claims-russian-minister-in-rant-12603989"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">opined</span></a>,
in an interview with Italian media:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>"So what if Zelenskyy
is Jewish? The fact does not negate the Nazi elements in Ukraine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hitler also had Jewish origins, so it doesn't
mean anything. Some of the worst antisemites are Jews."</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0Af80DSMr_MUv5CWklQozkxVkwDdr-Z9J2Li38kaeP_MElTQibCbmlZqDVoDftdyKwqoMfx4r-PxcejqxCG4qEn4wKh3Ujdqk-d8WsZqUSvwpW8PBvt8ZlAkGs-GULLfMc96EUN9jVjgoEeedqvIewlLRiBAmd6LBq1zjoUUIcSiJQDpw6IgtDBDUyw/s640/Lavrov.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="640" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0Af80DSMr_MUv5CWklQozkxVkwDdr-Z9J2Li38kaeP_MElTQibCbmlZqDVoDftdyKwqoMfx4r-PxcejqxCG4qEn4wKh3Ujdqk-d8WsZqUSvwpW8PBvt8ZlAkGs-GULLfMc96EUN9jVjgoEeedqvIewlLRiBAmd6LBq1zjoUUIcSiJQDpw6IgtDBDUyw/w400-h225/Lavrov.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #505050; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: start;">Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">No doubt in order to avoid being accused by Andrew Neil of ‘staying
silent’, Israel’s Foreign Minister Yair Lapid reacted:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Foreign Minister Lavrov’s
remarks are both an unforgivable and outrageous statement as well as a terrible
historical error. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jews did not murder
themselves in the Holocaust. The lowest level of racism against Jews is to
accuse Jews themselves of antisemitism.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yair Lapid is the son of a Holocaust survivor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that did not prevent Mr. Lavrov from delivering
to him a history lesson about that rather painful historical event – a lesson
whose only purpose was to ‘demonstrate’ that Jews can be and were Nazi
collaborators.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The oh-so-erudite Russian
diplomat even conjured the exact names of a handful of Jews who ‘betrayed’ their
<i>“fellow compatriots”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Unfortunately, Mr. Lavrov omitted to mention that those Jews had perpetrated
their ‘betrayal’ under threat of terrible torture and death not just to
themselves, but to their entire family…<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Which is more than can be said about tens of thousands of Russian and
Ukrainian collaborators!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Apparently, Putin <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/05/israel-says-putin-apologised-for-foreign-ministers-hitler-remarks"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">apologised</span></a>
for his Foreign Minister’s words.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Though
the apology – such as it may have been – was uttered in a private phone
conversation; apparently, Russian good manners do not require the actual
perpetrator to offer a public apology for a public insult.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nor is blatant antisemitism a sacking offence
– in Russia or elsewhere.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Of course, antisemitism does not have to be blatant – even when
it’s pervasive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Early in the conflict,
Israel’s Prime Minister Naftali Bennett spent a lot of time, effort and
political capital trying to mediate and put an end to the bloodshed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An observant Jews, he even broke the
prohibition of travelling on Sabbath – on 5 March he <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/israeli-pm-bennett-meets-putin-moscow-discuss-ukraine-crisis-2022-03-05/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">flew
to Moscow</span></a> and met Putin, in an attempt to mediate an end to hostilities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fact was reported by pretty much every
major Western media outlet, including in the UK.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even the hostile <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/mar/05/russia-ukraine-war-latest-news-nato-gives-green-light-to-bombing-with-lack-of-no-fly-zone-says-zelenskiy?page=with:block-6223cbba8f0872dfc8c96ad5#block-6223cbba8f0872dfc8c96ad5"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Guardian</span></a>
gave it a cursory mention, while the no-less-unfriendly Financial Times published
<a href="https://www.ft.com/content/3d714d13-7c90-4430-8df2-8670301cdb1b">an
<span style="color: #2b00fe;">entire article</span></a> on Bennett’s exploits – and later named him as <i>“the
primary international mediator on the talks”</i>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There was one notable exception from this broad coverage:
the British Broadcasting Corporation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>First, the Beeb (which reports every little scuffle taking place in
Israel, especially if it makes the Jewish state look bad) ignored the whole
thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although on 9 March it did <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c207p54mdq3t/turkey?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=622889c6980bea49f4b7bb9e%26Turkey%27s%20Erdogan%20hoping%20to%20broker%20a%20ceasefire%262022-03-09T11%3A57%3A17.838Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:967bb04c-6d14-4b0d-ac16-8e2c7e031bdd&pinned_post_asset_id=622889c6980bea49f4b7bb9e&pinned_post_type=share">report</a>
on the mediation efforts of another international actor – Turkish dictator
Recep Tayyip Erdogan.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Any news editor worth her salt will tell you that, in this day
and age, ‘5 hours later’ often means ‘too late. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet it was 5 days later (on 10 March) that the
BBC first told its audience about the Israeli mediation attempts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Still, it is worth analysing this piece (signed
by BBC’s Middle East Correspondent Tom Bateman); it should serve as a textbook
example of unethical journalism.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Mr. Bateman’s report starts by dramatically ‘breaking the
news’:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Early in the morning, as
Russia's isolation grew, a jet took off from Tel Aviv bound for Moscow. It
happened in secret, carrying a VIP delegation. The plane touched down with a
reverse thrust: a hot blast into Moscow's dawn while Russia was being frozen
out by the West.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Mr. Bateman’s ‘cloak and dagger’ tone was, to put it very mildly,
misplaced: no, the visit did not happen <i>“in secret”</i>; as mentioned, it
was reported the same day by the Israeli, British and international media.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As for the rest of the paragraph it attempts
to create the impression that Bennett’s flight to Moscow was some sort of ‘breach
of solidarity’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s not ‘misplaced’, or
even misleading, but a shameless and malevolent lie.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The media had been quasi-unanimous in
reporting that Bennett’s attempt at mediation was undertaken <a href="https://www.thejc.com/news/world/israeli-pm-in-moscow-for-crisis-talks-with-putin-over-ukraine-5vVN07819KqsxMoayJv2XE"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">at
the behest of Ukraine’s President Zelensky</span></a> and <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/israeli-pm-bennett-meets-putin-moscow-discuss-ukraine-crisis-2022-03-05/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">in
coordination with USA, Germany and France</span></a>. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, on 8 March (i.e., 2 days before Bateman’s
malicious allegations were published), Zelensky <a href="https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-700668"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">thanked Bennett for
those efforts</span></a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A fact that was
eminently familiar to the BBC ‘journalist’ – because… he reported it – albeit hidden
at the end of his otherwise critical article!<o:p></o:p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj63coieXKCSDW8_0Ih5wrCCWON_mMTNa8CobtK_FQ-uxCdyaljA0u92ytAJEg3PJZg5hVUCP55Rm-rjTrxHrdfrwVHtuPUDen2tmXPGtMmIXBCnAhygDiSuyEJCX50RdMbMRqDbjkgBNrpXAcEAbdVMRL3ve1prHfJpD1-D_rvKB3xkb30II1SkEdQ_g/s1500/Tom%20bateman.jpeg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="1500" height="134" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj63coieXKCSDW8_0Ih5wrCCWON_mMTNa8CobtK_FQ-uxCdyaljA0u92ytAJEg3PJZg5hVUCP55Rm-rjTrxHrdfrwVHtuPUDen2tmXPGtMmIXBCnAhygDiSuyEJCX50RdMbMRqDbjkgBNrpXAcEAbdVMRL3ve1prHfJpD1-D_rvKB3xkb30II1SkEdQ_g/w400-h134/Tom%20bateman.jpeg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #505050; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: start;">No, this is not Clint Eastwood. Just Tom Bateman, BBC’s Middle East Correspondent, striking a ‘heroic’ pose.</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p class="MsoNormal">The BBC’s Middle East correspondent also tried to suggest
that Bennett’s visit had some sort of selfish motivations:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“There are some immediate
concerns for the Israelis. There are at least a quarter of a million Jews in
Ukraine, eligible to make Israel their home under its ‘Law of Return’."</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Israel, of course, cares deeply about the fate of Ukrainian
Jews.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But only a very ‘creative’ BBC journalist
could suggest that the reason for Bennett’s meeting with Putin was… what,
exactly?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To ask the Russian dictator to suspend
his invasion, to allow Ukrainian Jews <i>“to make Israel their home”</i>?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">After accusing Bennett of ‘breaking the ranks’ and questioning
the ‘purity’ of his motives, Mr. Bateman went on to suggest that his efforts
are, actually, bereft of any value:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“It's unlikely Israel can
play mediator in the usual sense of a powerful arbiter that tries to entice
each party into concessions. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would
have to be more of a message carrier, shuttling between unequal sides. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some question the value of such an attempt.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would be interested to know: who are those <i>“some”</i>
that Mr. Bateman referred to in the above passage?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The leader of Hamas?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or is this just to typical cowardly
subterfuge of an unethical ‘journalist’ who attributes his own opinion to
others in order to disguise them as ‘news’?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And I’d love to know where Mr. Bateman found that <i>“usual sense”</i>
of the term ‘mediator’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not in any
dictionary I know!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Cambridge Dictionary
provides us with what its authors see as <i>“the usual sense”</i> of the word:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“a person who tries to end
a disagreement by helping the two sides to talk about and agree on a solution.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Nothing about <i>“a powerful arbiter”</i>, then!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, ‘mediation’ is very different from
arbitration – as Mr. Bateman could have learned if he paid a bit more attention
in high school; or, failing that, if he bothered to <a href="https://adric.ca/ufaqs/what-is-the-difference-between-mediation-and-arbitration/#:~:text=A%20mediator%20does%20not%20decide,must%20sign%20an%20arbitration%20agreement."><span style="color: #2b00fe;">google</span></a>
the terms:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><i>“A mediator helps parties
negotiate a settlement that will satisfy all the parties. A mediator does not
decide a dispute.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><i>An arbitrator functions
more like a judge, deciding the outcome of a dispute based on evidence and law
presented in an arbitration. Arbitration is binding, and the outcome can be
enforced like a court order. Parties must agree to arbitrate and must sign an
arbitration agreement.”</i></p></blockquote><p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But wait for the punch line. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Writes Mr. Bateman:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Many in Arab countries,
having <a name="_Hlk103699764">lived the aftershocks of American and British
invasions</a>, condemn the West for what they see as its double standards over
Ukraine. Palestinians point to Western backing for Ukrainian resistance and
celebration of its leaders and ask: What about us? Israeli critics of this
argument have been very vocal too, saying there is no equivalence between the
two conflicts.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now, I know a bit of Middle Eastern history.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, much as I strain my memory, I can think
of just one Arab country where <i>“many </i>[…]<i> lived the aftershocks of
American and British invasions”</i> (and are still alive to tell Mr. Bateman
about it).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That country is Iraq.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, whatever one thinks of the American and
British invasion of Iraq, the comparison is more than far-fetched.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And <i>“aftershocks of American and British
invasions”</i> is a very ‘creative’ euphemism for terrorist attacks perpetrated
by some Iraqis against other Iraqis!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As for the Palestinians… I don’t know about ‘alternative
history’ or indeed alternative universes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In this universe, Israel never invaded a sovereign state ruled by Palestinian
Arabs; quite the opposite: the sovereign State of Israel was repeatedly invaded
by Arab armies claiming to support the Palestinians.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So how does one call the type of hostility that causes a BBC
‘journalist’ to find ‘negatives’ in an attempt to put an end to war and
bloodshed – simply because that attempt was undertaken by Jews or the Jewish
state?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Along with <a href="https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/antisemitism/spelling-antisemitism"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">the
vast majority of people of good will</span></a>, I call it antisemitism; the BBC <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-61228552"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">insists</span></a> that
it should be spelled ‘anti-Semitism’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Its experts have presumably determined that the term isn't just another name for Jew-hating, but denotes opposition to 'Semitism'!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But the BBC isn’t alone in being eager to bash and very
reluctant to utter praise for the Jewish state.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Think of all the politicians who are so quick to condemn Israel –
including those (like Emmanuel Macron, Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer) who declare
themselves ‘friends’. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All these ‘leaders’
shed crocodile tears for the Ukrainian victims – yet none of them so much as
tweeted a word of praise when Israel’s Prime Minister broke one of Judaism’s
strictest commandments to try and save lives.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Think about outfits like Yachad and New Israel Fund: to gain
a modicum of acceptance, these groups pretend to be ‘pro-Israel’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet – while quick to bash the Jewish state
for every real or imaginary misdeed – they couldn’t find it in their hardened
hearts to utter a good word in this case.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The closest Yachad got to doing so was by retweeting <a href="https://twitter.com/anshelpfeffer/status/1500149912893366274?s=21&t=nqpOIZxu9qKH4nQ8_5WRGw">a
post</a> that called Bennet’s peace-making effort <i>“a bizarre turn of events”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Bizarre indeed!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As for New Israel Fund, they did not even deign to mention
Bennett’s flight to Moscow.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, on 7
March Daniel Sokatch, their California-based CEO, published <a href="https://www.nif.org/blog/ukraine-russia-lessons-in-courage/">an article</a>
that indirectly accused Israel of <i>“neutrality </i>[which]<i> is immoral and
dangerous”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘Pro-Israel’ indeed!<o:p></o:p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiF61s4tyb88yLSkMPXr0vgLoYEAPt87kt0VG0856vSxXvxezhjE2xlfhXVjHAimErCHosDB3OC3WUwxCAIqnc9SP_GIFZBTYdEfiGuNZvoq0PuWlYLtYSfBZykYk-sHX49G0bBwSngAaBR7CNbkpm2vnGjMQq5FKYiBPGNd9rLlE6nCk-cWgp8TJiE6A/s499/Daniel_Sokatch.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="373" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiF61s4tyb88yLSkMPXr0vgLoYEAPt87kt0VG0856vSxXvxezhjE2xlfhXVjHAimErCHosDB3OC3WUwxCAIqnc9SP_GIFZBTYdEfiGuNZvoq0PuWlYLtYSfBZykYk-sHX49G0bBwSngAaBR7CNbkpm2vnGjMQq5FKYiBPGNd9rLlE6nCk-cWgp8TJiE6A/w299-h400/Daniel_Sokatch.png" width="299" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #505050; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: start;">Daniel Sokatch, CEO of New Israel Fund. based in sunny… no, not Israel. San Francisco.</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">None of those ‘pro-Israel’ activist outfits as much as
lifted a finger to try and rebut the many Israel-haters for whom the war in
Ukraine was just another opportunity to bash the Jewish state.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>None of them, for instance, criticised Labour
MP Julie Elliott, who tried to cast democratic Israel in the role of the Russian
villain:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“The Palestinians are
looking to us to speak and act in the same terms. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We sanctioned Russia over Crimea, and we are
now likely to impose more sanctions, with which I wholeheartedly agree, yet
Palestinians ask why we do nothing to end Israel’s occupation.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Never mind that Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza in a
defensive war – not in a war of unprovoked aggression; never mind that Israel
has repeatedly offered to withdraw from the vast majority of those territories
in return for peace; never mind that <i>“the Palestinians”</i> (read: the
unelected, undemocratic and terrorism-supporting Palestinian ‘leadership’)
rejected all those offers; never mind that there are fewer similarities between
the two conflicts than between Ms. Elliott and Joseph Stalin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>“We”</i> still have <i>“to speak and act
in the same terms”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ms. Elliott
heard about the Russian aggression against Ukraine; and her operative conclusion
is… <i>“we”</i> have to sanction Israel!<o:p></o:p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgPywPYDMpPkoXEWWclnd0MYtMauHb9mIjeWTkvGP8oCl7jSeG9fQSO2-Q63-b0rL32O3UZyyZkQvhGqJV67U8AD3SxVhsxZe-VLXOTUBsc-ubVgErHX8QpunMJolq_nizb6xOxx-SghO6tDMDvPZjzVi4fDQv-OHCqRk7-b6CIvfEWBtWywgCL8FanQ/s2868/Official_portrait_of_Julie_Elliott%20(1).jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2868" data-original-width="2048" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgPywPYDMpPkoXEWWclnd0MYtMauHb9mIjeWTkvGP8oCl7jSeG9fQSO2-Q63-b0rL32O3UZyyZkQvhGqJV67U8AD3SxVhsxZe-VLXOTUBsc-ubVgErHX8QpunMJolq_nizb6xOxx-SghO6tDMDvPZjzVi4fDQv-OHCqRk7-b6CIvfEWBtWywgCL8FanQ/w286-h400/Official_portrait_of_Julie_Elliott%20(1).jpg" width="286" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #505050; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: start;">Do it with a smile: UK Labour Party MP Julie Elliott</span></td></tr></tbody></table><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And that’s the point: in the minds of many people, anything
and everything bad is about Jews.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nothing
new about that – it’s been going on forever.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Your cow is dying?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Jews must’ve
poisoned the well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Your child was – God forbid
– murdered, or just missing?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I bet the
Jews kidnapped him to use his blood in some monstruous ritual.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Throughout this series of articles, I’ve been arguing that,
while in the current military conflict Russia is the aggressor – in the bigger
picture nobody comes out smelling of roses: certainly not Putin and his
accomplices, but also not the Ukrainian and Western leaders.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because of their actions (or lack thereof), the
entire humanity finds itself living in a more dangerous place.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This conflict is very bad news.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Except for the antisemites, of course: for them, it’s
yet another opportunity to satisfy their obsession.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And it really does not matter if they weep
for Ukraine or root for Putin: they can condemn Jewish oligarchs, blame
Zelinsky-the-Jew or – best of all – bash the Jewish state.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or all of the above, of course.<o:p></o:p></p>Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-87027039844506309312022-04-28T09:01:00.000-07:002022-04-28T09:01:12.859-07:00Russia & Ukraine: The smartened-up story – Chapter IV<p> I’ve said in the previous <a href="https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/russia-ukraine-the-smartened-up-story-chapter-iii/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">chapters</span></a> and I’ll mention it again: in the current war Russia (and only Russia) is the guilty party. But that’s no reason for Western politicians and mainstream media to treat us as if we’re all simple-minded, unable to grasp complexity or nuance and incapable of telling reality from wishful thinking.</p><p>In this series of articles, I fight the groupthink; I attempt to expose the dumbed-down narrative that’s being fed to us and smarten it up. I trust my fellow human beings: <span style="font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 16px;">we are able to cope with the stark, unadulterated, unvarnished reality; </span>treat us like intelligent adults.</p><p>In this chapter, I will focus on Russia’s political position, on the military situation on the ground, on probable outcomes and on the indirect (but no less grave) consequences likely to result from Putin’s aggression and from the Western response to it.</p><h3>Pariah</h3><p>Listening to Western politicians and media outlets, one may be forgiven for thinking that Russia is on the brink of collapse: isolated politically, undermined economically and defeated militarily.</p><p>Speaking on <a href="https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/cameron-putin-needs-to-get-the-message-hes-made-russia-a-pariah-state/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">LBC</span></a>, former Prime Minister David Cameron told Putin</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>"</i>[You]<i> turned your country into a pariah state and we're going to treat you that way."</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p><em>“Pariah”</em>? You’d think that Mr. Cameron would have learned to be careful with his assessments, after getting the mood of his own people so wrong in the runup to the Brexit referendum!</p><p>The <a href="https://go.skimresources.com/?id=55199X1529169&isjs=1&jv=15.2.4-stackpath&sref=https%3A%2F%2Fmetro.co.uk%2F2022%2F03%2F12%2Fukraine-putin-could-be-deposed-in-kremlin-coup-ex-minister-claims-16262922%2F&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetimes.co.uk%2Farticle%2Fputin-is-risking-a-kremlin-coup-says-ex-russian-minister-70vvtnmkz&xs=1&xtz=-60&xuuid=ef2a195f916f67fedf516ed4bebf4624&xjsf=other_click__auxclick%20%5B2%5D"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Times of London</span></a> interviewed former Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev, who opined that Putin might be deposed by a coup:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>"With Putin, I very much expect there to be resistance growing and discontent growing that will be resolved one way or another."</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>Well, everything is possible, of course. But the problem with Mr. Kozyrev’s opinions about what’s may happen in Russia is that… he’s been living in Miami for donkey’s years now.</p><p>The (however unpleasant) reality is that Putin enjoys popular support in Russia. A recent opinion poll showed that his approval ratio rose to no less than 83% in March 2022. While we cannot guarantee the veracity of this result, the poll was conducted by Levada Center; which, in the words of <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2022-03-31/putins-support-strong-in-russia-amid-ukraine-war-poll"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">USA Today</span></a>, is</p><blockquote><blockquote><p><i>"widely considered among the only credible pollsters operating in Russia."</i></p></blockquote></blockquote><p>People in the West may struggle to grasp that kind of result, when it comes to a man who restricted freedoms at home and initiated a war abroad. But admiration and even love for strong leaders is very much part of the Russian culture. And, on the other hand, Putin – who has a tight grip on the media – controls the flow of information and the public narrative.</p><p>There is, of course, social media. But, it’s not so simple. To start with, only 30% of Russians are on Facebook – as opposed to 66% in the UK; for Twitter the numbers are 11% in Russia and circa 60% in the UK. But it’s not just that: even when they do use social media, Russians tend to use it… in the Russian language (only circa 5% of Russians speak English). But what also needs to be realised is how social media actually works: unless you are looking for something specific, chances are that platforms like Facebook and Twitter will mostly show you posts that more or less align with your own opinions. This is how their algorithms work: they seek to identify your ‘interests’, then show you mostly posts that chime in with those ‘interests’. The chances of ‘learning the truth’ from social media aren’t actually great – unless one makes a determined effort to find a variety of points of view.</p><p>In fact, the reality that Putin enjoys popular support in his own country is well-known among Western leaders – though few of them care to admit it. Well, they may hide the truth from us, but fortunately not all of them dare to lie to their own parliament. Questioned in the US Congress, Air Force Gen. Tod Wolters (who is in charge of the U.S. European Command) <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2022-03-30/putin-gambled-on-russians-support-for-war-in-ukraine-now-he-faces-a-new-front-at-home"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">said</span></a> that popular support in Russia was a major factor in Putin’s decision to go to war.</p><p>The Western press has been quick to notice <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/24/we-dont-want-this-russians-react-to-the-ukraine-invasion"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">anti-war protests</span></a> which took place in several Russian cities. Well, that’s great – but only until one reads that the largest such protest (in Moscow’s Pushkin Square) is reported – by the same Western media – to have numbered 2,000 people. Compare that with the more than 750,000 people (as estimated by the Met Police) who, in 2003, demonstrated in London against the war in Iraq.</p><p>Well, Putin may be popular at home, but Russia is internationally isolated – right? Err… so it would seem – if you get your information from Western politicians and West-centric media. But let’s broaden our view a bit.</p><p>True, a clear majority of UN members voted in the General Assembly to ‘deplore’ the Russian aggression. But talk is cheap, ‘deplore’ isn’t a particularly strong term in diplomatic parlance – and votes in the General Assembly don’t count for much.</p><p>When it comes to adopting sanctions against Russia, things look a lot different. Of course, the European Union enacted such sanctions as a bloc – and so did 5 countries: USA, Canada, UK, Japan and Australia. And… that’s all, folks! Sure, you may say, but the US is the world’s largest economy; it’s not just one more country. True – but not necessarily relevant. The US may be the top dog when it comes to economic output; but in 2021 it <a href="https://www.worldstopexports.com/russias-top-import-partners/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">accounted</span></a> for just 3.6% of Russia’s exports. The UK (despite the bad blood between the two countries, caused by nefarious Russian activities on British territory) accounted for 4.5% and Japan for 2.2%. In fact, those large economies were worth – in terms of Russian exports – less than Belarus (4.6%) and Kazakhstan (3.8%). Admittedly, the EU was the destination of a whopping 30% of Russian exports. But, as we know, that’s mostly coal, oil and gas, which continue to be supplied from Russia. From the point of view of Russia’s international trade, the most important country is by far China (14% of exports and more than 20% of imports).</p><p>Nether China nor India (another populous country with a large economy) have any intention of sanctioning Russia. And that’s true of every other country in Asia (except Japan), as well as the entire Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.</p><p>In fact, given that besides the European Union, only five non-EU countries have adopted any sanctions against Russia, Putin might argue that it is the former that’s isolated!</p><h3>Mighty Bear or paper tiger?</h3><p>But – I hear you say – things will no doubt change. More countries will surely join in; the Russians themselves might decide to get rid of Putin. After all, as we learn from the Western media and from our very reliable leaders, Putin’s army is getting a right beating at the hands of Ukrainian forces. In fact, writing for Al-Jazeera, Justin Bronk determined that</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>"Russia has effectively admitted defeat In </i>[sic!]<i> Ukraine."</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>You heard that, folks? The Russian Bear is actually a paper tiger! Justin Bronk, by the way, is Senior Research Fellow in Military Sciences at the Royal United Services Institute in London (ironically the acronym they use is RUSI). Well, if a Senior Military Scientist working for something with ‘Royal’ in its name said it – it must be true! Especially since RUSI is an independent charity, which assures us on its <a href="https://rusi.org/about/support-rusi/funding"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">website</span></a>:</p><blockquote><blockquote><p><i>"The Institute receives no core government funding."</i></p></blockquote></blockquote><p>Now, one of my many issues is that I like to verify things that are given to me as 'fact'. That’s why I had a look at their list of ‘Supporters’ (charities are supposed to disclose lists of major donors). In the highest category – called ‘Over £1,000,000’ – I was surprised (no, not really!) to find a certain outfit called ‘European Commission’. In another category (more modestly described as ‘£200,000 to £499,999’), one finds some other renowned philanthropists: United States Department of State, [UK] Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Canada Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Plus, incidentally, Qatar Ministry of Foreign Affairs – which might explain why Mr. Bronk published his article in Al Jazeera, of all places.</p><p>Just as an aside: one of Mr. Bronk’s previous Al-Jazeera contributions dealt with Iran’s ballistic missiles – which, Mr. Bronk broadly dismissed as</p><blockquote><p><i></i></p><blockquote><i>"potentially dangerous but not decisive or hugely effective."</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p><a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/3/9/irans-missiles-how-big-a-threat-to-regional-rivals"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">That article</span></a> was published on 9 March 2016. That is, I’m sure, a mere coincidence: nothing to do with the fact that, on 8 and 9 March 2016, Iran <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/09/middleeast/iran-missile-test/index.html"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">test-fired a whole series of long range ballistic missiles</span></a> (some of whom have been marked with good wishes written in Hebrew – such as ‘Israel must be wiped off the face of the Earth’). Nothing to do with the fact that these missile tests were 'a bit' embarrassing for the Obama administration, coming as they did shortly after the ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action’ (JCPOA – i.e. the agreement that removed sanctions and gave Iran access to some $100 billion of previously frozen funds) started its much awaited implementation period. Though I seem to remember then Vice President Joe Biden rather <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/world/middleeast/irans-revolutionary-guards-stage-second-day-of-missile-tests.html"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">struggled</span></a> to explain why such a ‘Comprehensive’ Plan of Action did nothing to prevent Iran from developing and testing what is essentially a nuclear bomb delivery system!</p><p>So, now that we’ve established his superb credentials, let’s go back to Mr. Bronk’s article on Russia admitting defeat in Ukraine. The article gleefully announces that</p><blockquote><blockquote><p><i>"the Russian army has taken extremely heavy losses; between 7,000 and 15,000 personnel killed and more than 2,000 vehicles visually confirmed as destroyed or captured."</i></p></blockquote></blockquote><p><em>“</em>[B]<em>etween 7,000 to 15,000”</em> is of course quite a wide range. And anyone who served in the army (any army!) knows that ‘visually confirmed’ is the military equivalent of ‘take with a grain of salt’. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (<a href="https://www.iiss.org/publications/the-military-balance/the-military-balance-2021"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">IISS</span></a>), Russia has more than 1,000,000 regular soldiers under arms, plus 2,000,000 reservists. Its military budget is 4.3% of GDP – double the proportion UK spends. The Russians have circa 13,000 tanks (the largest such arsenal of any army in the world) and hundreds of thousands of military vehicles, of which circa 36,000 armoured ones.</p><p>Now, I am <strong>not</strong> claiming for a moment that the Russians did not sustain losses – even such that other countries might call ‘heavy losses’ (though to describe a few thousand fatalities as <em>“extremely heavy losses”</em> in the context of the Russian army is indicative – to put it mildly – of a ‘slight’ penchant for exaggeration!) For whatever it’s worth, by the way, BBC News Russian <a href="https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-61003964"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">claims</span></a> to have documented the death of 1,083 Russian servicemen. This is based on the panegyrics published in local newspapers and on locally issued lists of ‘fallen heroes’. If Mr. Bronk’s <em>“between 7,000 to 15,000”</em> is right, then it means that the BBC missed 6,000 to 14,000 obituaries. Or perhaps those soldiers did not have any relatives and were not considered heroes...</p><p>Anyway, what we are not told (you’d struggle to find such information in the Western press) is the extent of losses on the Ukrainian side. The Russians <a href="https://tass.com/defense/1438729?utm_source=en.wikipedia.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=en.wikipedia.org&utm_referrer=en.wikipedia.org"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">claimed</span></a> (on 16 April) to have killed 23,367 Ukrainian troops. On the very same day, President Zelenskyy <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/15/politics/tapper-zelensky-interview-cnntv/index.html"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">estimated</span></a> Ukrainian military fatalities at 2,500 to 3,000 troops, while judging Russia’s losses to be 19,000 to 20,000.</p><p>Me… gee… I just don’t know. But I know one thing: ‘Truth is the first casualty of war’. Or, as Samuel Johnson more poetically put it:</p><blockquote><blockquote><p><i>"Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages."</i></p></blockquote></blockquote><p>Since many of those involved in this conflict aren’t particularly famous for their love of truth in the first place, it behoves us to reign in our credulity, lest we become hapless foot soldiers in their propaganda war.</p><p>It’s not just the losses. We are told that Russia has already suffered a defeat and 'had to' reassess its war aims. For instance, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby claimed, already at the end of March:</p><blockquote><blockquote><p><i>"</i>[T]<i>hey failed to take Kyiv. Which we believe was a key objective. And again, you just have to look at what they were doing in those early days. They wanted Kyiv. And they didn’t get it."</i></p></blockquote></blockquote><p>True, the Russians <em>“didn’t get”</em> Kyiv – although they half-encircled the city, reaching within a few miles of it. But it does not follow that they <em>“wanted”</em> it. Before starting his ‘special operation’, Putin and his collaborators issued lots of tough-sounding, threatening statements. That’s to be expected when a dictator decides to go to war. Some of those statements may have been psychological war; others were no doubt meant to sow confusion and mess up the Ukrainian troops’ disposition. Who knows? One thing is clear: taking those statements at face value is incredibly naïve.</p><p>Did Putin want to conquer the entire Ukraine? I doubt it. Conquering a country of that size is of course possible – Hitler conquered Poland in just six weeks. But, as the Russians still remember from the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, conquering and controlling are two different things.</p><p>Like everybody else, I cannot read Putin’s mind. But, as someone who spent his youth under a dictatorial regime, I can try to guess the ‘logic’ behind his actions.</p><p>I suggest that, ideally, Putin would’ve wanted to replicate in Ukraine the model that works so well for him in the case of Belarus and Kazakhstan: to wit, an authoritarian regime closely allied with Russia, while maintaining (at least in theory) the national independence, with all its nominal attributes: a flag, an anthem and separate votes at the UN.</p><p>Assuming my guess above is accurate, would Putin have wanted to conquer Kyiv? Doubtful, I say. Firstly, where he really wanted to take a city, take he did (see the case of Mariupol), even against desperate Ukrainian resistance. Secondly, taking a city of the size of Kyiv (c. 6 times larger than Mariupol) would have involved heavy Russian losses. His army’s advantages (in terms of manpower, equipment, firepower, air superiority) come into play in open terrain, not in close-quarter street combat. And any regime he would’ve installed in Kyiv under occupation would’ve been irredeemably tainted in the eyes of most Ukrainians.</p><p>In the West, the narrative is that the Russian army was stopped in its tracks by resolute Ukrainian resistance, combined with its own logistical mishaps. But how credible is this narrative? Kyiv is well-served by roads and railroad and it is relatively close to Ukraine’s border with Russia’s ally Belarus. The supply lines are neither long nor difficult and Russia has, of course, plenty of petrol to fuel its tanks. Videos circulated, apparently <a href="https://www.rferl.org/a/russian-soldiers-loot-ukraine/31732450.html"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">showing</span></a> Russian soldiers looting Ukrainian shops and plundering food. This was taken to mean that they were hungry. But anyone who, like me, has lived for any length of time on army (any army) rations, will tell you that those taste – at best – somewhere between bland and disgusting. No, soldiers plunder civilian shops not necessarily because they lack food; what they lack is 'just’ discipline and ethics.</p><p>As for Ukrainian resistance: assuming that Putin really wanted to take Ukraine’s capital, encountering such challenge should have caused him to bring in additional reinforcements (Russia has, as we know, plenty of additional manpower and materiel). But this has not happened. Are we to believe that the Russian dictator gave up so easily?</p><p>Why, then, the initial advance on Kyiv? My guess is that Putin was simply applying maximum pressure, hoping to see either a Ukrainian-led coup or the country’s current government agreeing to make extensive concessions.</p><p>Neither scenario materialised – his bluff clearly did not work. But to describe this as ‘defeat’ is ‘a bit’ premature. The fact of the matter is that all the fighting takes place inside Ukraine – not in Russia. While it is, as mentioned, doubtful that the Russians really wanted to take Kyiv and Kharkiv (Ukraine’s second-largest city, situated very close to the Russian border), Putin has secured a much more useful objective: a sizable land corridor linking Russia to the Crimean Peninsula. Apart from facilitating logistics, this turns the Sea of Azov into an inner Russian lake. It allows the Russian navy to blockade not just the Ukrainian Black Sea ports, but – in case of need – also the Georgian ones. Last but by no means least, it goes a long way towards reversing what Putin sees as a NATO encroachment via the Black Sea shores of its members Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania. In any conventional conflict between Russia and NATO, the Black Sea may become a main theatre of operations – and potentially Russia’s soft underbelly.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYRt7Qlq8-LhtNmo18FK4tEmecVHft36UjV80e1171ToTC3nRAwBNufCslZZaF95aBtSVi2uPEg6Vh0gkk3br2EuE2G6_Uu0weZ5THTwikxxwtsevqFcKO4dlIEyrDzWI2vC295hhH2BG7s_SVSw4i2mZQatw28Od_vQ5QXjTaIx8IIkx3PjWrQry0Fw/s1196/Russia-Ukraine%20military%2061.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="680" data-original-width="1196" height="364" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYRt7Qlq8-LhtNmo18FK4tEmecVHft36UjV80e1171ToTC3nRAwBNufCslZZaF95aBtSVi2uPEg6Vh0gkk3br2EuE2G6_Uu0weZ5THTwikxxwtsevqFcKO4dlIEyrDzWI2vC295hhH2BG7s_SVSw4i2mZQatw28Od_vQ5QXjTaIx8IIkx3PjWrQry0Fw/w640-h364/Russia-Ukraine%20military%2061.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;">Pink represents Ukrainian territory taken by the Russian army. The latter appears to have initiated a pincer movement from south from Izyum and north of Mariupol and Berdyansk. This threatens Ukrainian supply lines and, if completed, may cut off Ukrainian forces engaged in combat on the Donbas front.</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>After reaching Crimea via Mariupol, the Russian army continued to push west along the seashore, threatening the important port and industrial cities of Kherson and Odessa. Taking those cities would cut off Ukraine from the Black Sea, leaving the country landlocked; and would establish a land link with the largely Russian-speaking breakaway Republic of <a href="https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20200205-celebrating-a-nation-that-doesnt-exist"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Transnistria</span></a>, which seceded from Moldova and is being ‘supported’ by a contingent of Russian troops. Whether Putin actually wants to take Kherson and Odessa remains to be seen. But what the southern push certainly does is to broaden Russia’s tactical options.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPmJhTzVpNV4rEifZfg-Oz-TRXiEJSDDWdEzvkS4Z7fUU0B80qJV94z5UCBTBSRMofzY-9bn9zwKmuZ9Tc5S5_3FM8CEqRmPYXSO7dhCueKCd-wfhaUpNfz1FlznCR_XfSDpVCkDExiyTr5v7uYndGOigvfaLqw08uISDMrV_YjtpPFMeXW_Yw4BDhwA/s3120/Transnistria%20Black%20Sea%2005.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1949" data-original-width="3120" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPmJhTzVpNV4rEifZfg-Oz-TRXiEJSDDWdEzvkS4Z7fUU0B80qJV94z5UCBTBSRMofzY-9bn9zwKmuZ9Tc5S5_3FM8CEqRmPYXSO7dhCueKCd-wfhaUpNfz1FlznCR_XfSDpVCkDExiyTr5v7uYndGOigvfaLqw08uISDMrV_YjtpPFMeXW_Yw4BDhwA/w640-h400/Transnistria%20Black%20Sea%2005.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;">The yellow-green area represents Ukrainian territory occupied by the Russian army (approximatively). The red arrows are estimated directions of Russian offensive. The thin red strip to the East of Moldova represents the breakaway 'Republic of Transnistria' (recognised internationally as part of Moldova and 'supported' by Russian troops). The two 'republics' carved out of Georgia are also represented.</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div></div><p>The Russians have also conquered considerable Ukrainian territory in Ukraine’s east and north. Very importantly, they have reached the town of Izyum, circa 100 km deep inside Ukraine. This may be the key to taking the entire Donbas. The Russians are currently pushing west along the entire Donbas front, thus engaging a large proportion of the Ukrainian army. But simultaneously they threaten to encircle those Ukrainian units through a pincer movement south of Izyum and north of Mariupol.</p><p>Speaking about the latter city: we are told about the heroic Ukrainian resistance and about the horrific plight of civilians caught in a city under siege. What is less frequently explained is that the city is, for all practical purposes, under Russian control – and has been so for a while now. A few hundred Ukrainian soldiers still holding on in an ever-decreasing area – in the ruins of the Mariupol’s industrial area – may be symbolic and heart-warming for many Ukrainians; but in stark military terms it is of no real consequence.</p><h3>So what’s the end game?</h3><p>So, while in the West the story is overwhelmingly one of Russian military incompetence and defeat, I fear that in reality Putin is doggedly pursuing his goals. Nor do I believe that his goals have fundamentally changed – he has just accepted that they will take longer to achieve.</p><p>Assume, for the moment, that Russia conquers and – international recognition be damned – holds on to Donbas (or large parts of it), as well as other parts of Ukraine. Assume, also, that at that point Putin stops the offensive and declares victory (despite Western assertions to the contrary, it would not be difficult for him to ‘sell’ that victory to the Russian people – after all he’d have the new territories as ‘evidence’).</p><p>What will happen then? Ukraine’s economy is in tatters. The World Bank expects (or, more accurately, expected early in April) the country’s GDP to <a href="https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/10/russian-invasion-to-shrink-ukraine-economy-by-45-percent-this-year"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">shrink by 45%</span></a>. So just $88 billion – down from circa $160 billion last year (but that forecast assumes that most of the Donbas will still be Ukrainian…) Repairing the infrastructure is (so far!) expected to cost $63 billion. Millions of Ukrainians took refuge in the West – and the best and brightest among them are unlikely to return any time soon to their ravaged country.</p><p>It’s easy to provide weapons to Ukraine in the midst of an aggression against it – especially as the weapons don’t cost much, as they come from old, existing stocks. But who will support Ukraine economically in the years to come? Who will supply the coal, oil and gas needed to keep Ukrainian from freezing next winter – and many winters after that? Who will provide the money needed to rebuild the country and its economy? After two years of devastating pandemic, the West faces grave economic difficulties of its own. But without massive and sustained economic aid, Ukraine will gradually fall under the sway of its larger and stronger neighbour, just as surely as Belarus and Kazakhstan.</p><h3>Dire consequences</h3><p>This isn’t just about Ukraine, unfortunately. Putin’s aggression – and the paltry Western reaction to it – have made the entire world a much more dangerous place.</p><p>First and foremost, there is China. China which is <a href="https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-modernizing-military"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">arming at a tremendous pace</span></a>. China, which is <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/protect-the-party-chinas-growing-influence-in-the-developing-world/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">expanding</span></a> its international reach and influence, alongside its economic might. China, which is <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/mind-your-own-business-china-threatens-the-uk-over-hong-kong-11756324"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">becoming more and more assertive</span></a> in its relationship with the West.</p><p>What does China get out of this? Firstly, an extremely valuable ally (Russia) – and one that is likely (because of the Western sanctions) to become increasingly dependent on its economic and political support.</p><p>Secondly, China had an opportunity to gauge the West’s determination – and found it lacking. Given that the Western governments showed zero willingness to intervene militarily in Ukraine (a European country) – how likely are they to make such a move when China attacks Taiwan?</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_XStlnca0JGN_9U9o0oD_GnSq8nLvMcnpAu-9nK7U8xWM3-iVastvBkatM6YP2fUgSA-JQgX-Q-oGpohCp2PDbUhkvTViMnb1eex5xfhZQZRTlKzfO7c5Ko89ROGIc-Y1Ms60JNKjjxIOxC5cFFr0JFKm9k0ZYyAFbKKScpmHcSnWzNS5MsESguQ3qg/s1000/China%20Taiwan.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="616" data-original-width="1000" height="394" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_XStlnca0JGN_9U9o0oD_GnSq8nLvMcnpAu-9nK7U8xWM3-iVastvBkatM6YP2fUgSA-JQgX-Q-oGpohCp2PDbUhkvTViMnb1eex5xfhZQZRTlKzfO7c5Ko89ROGIc-Y1Ms60JNKjjxIOxC5cFFr0JFKm9k0ZYyAFbKKScpmHcSnWzNS5MsESguQ3qg/w640-h394/China%20Taiwan.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;">China (red) and Taiwan (the blue island to the south-east of China). China considers Taiwan part of its sovereign territory and has openly declared its intention to reunite it with the mainland at an unspecified time in the future.</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div><br /></div><div></div><p>Thirdly, China had the opportunity to see in practice the value of economic dependence: the West was rendered impotent not just by its lack of appetite for conflict, but also by its dependence on Russian exports of fuel. But, while the Western leaders belatedly try to reduce that dependence (a gargantuan task in itself), their economies rely more and more on Chinese exports and Chinese money.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSl9TFEChRrc1OCBoq4QJ73gKW7BKQQMOXkTNaGuUBH0wLpjKe5xYI6_oo3ANHeXTYpNQMoRdWX32NdCxRvWkEhnzvZ41Z8dqhCqDyKTYOdlMEKNFbA-dR2yPVNft3SKUz72dqlVwbYkWXyNZHjLl9NMKKokaqdtBHKroJZFpjs2H0kXqjGcrtIAvJEA/s1001/China_Military_Budget_2012.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="974" data-original-width="1001" height="622" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSl9TFEChRrc1OCBoq4QJ73gKW7BKQQMOXkTNaGuUBH0wLpjKe5xYI6_oo3ANHeXTYpNQMoRdWX32NdCxRvWkEhnzvZ41Z8dqhCqDyKTYOdlMEKNFbA-dR2yPVNft3SKUz72dqlVwbYkWXyNZHjLl9NMKKokaqdtBHKroJZFpjs2H0kXqjGcrtIAvJEA/w640-h622/China_Military_Budget_2012.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;">China's officially-available military budget. In 2022, its military expenditure is expected to reach c. $230 billion. Which means that it almost doubled in the past 10 years.</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div><br /></div><div>China is already the main exporter to Europe; it’s share of EU imports of goods <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=China-EU_-_international_trade_in_goods_statistics#:~:text=China%20was%20the%20largest%20exporter,in%20the%20world%20in%202020.&text=In%202021%2C%20China%20was%20the,of%20goods%20(22.4%20%25)."><span style="color: #2b00fe;">will soon reach 25%</span></a>. While Western economies (like sail ships drifting entirely at the mercy of ‘market winds’) increasingly focus on services, China is building itself as the Global Manufacturer.</div><p>We in the West live in an increasingly sophisticated world: everything – our power plants, our roads and railways – and certainly our military – is based on computers. And what’s the problem with that? Well, let me tell you: I am typing this on a Chinese-manufactured keyboard; I format it with the help of a Chinese-manufactured mouse. My laptop was assembled in USA from components made mostly in Taiwan. And I rely increasingly on my iPhone – manufactured in China, of course.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7LudrPeK1wsGUkHuVxyCBwq71Mm8xvBZaAQoHlak0gdK4HTNjBygdMVNOQYwZ0V6sZTlhezsfrTl1nYXWJJJl_FNe3Klu2fkADA6lTKjy8dF3ZRTdJVzczUu9bjMclyFX04q0tGH_GbK7JGgvjOCQzWnNAvJUhTcfBFO3RGd3IFS_IZgBAgKhVDOI1w/s1652/EU%20USA%20CHINA%20comp%20GDP%20by%20sector.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="992" data-original-width="1652" height="384" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7LudrPeK1wsGUkHuVxyCBwq71Mm8xvBZaAQoHlak0gdK4HTNjBygdMVNOQYwZ0V6sZTlhezsfrTl1nYXWJJJl_FNe3Klu2fkADA6lTKjy8dF3ZRTdJVzczUu9bjMclyFX04q0tGH_GbK7JGgvjOCQzWnNAvJUhTcfBFO3RGd3IFS_IZgBAgKhVDOI1w/w640-h384/EU%20USA%20CHINA%20comp%20GDP%20by%20sector.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div></div><p>Now remember what Putin got away with – just because Europe buys about a third of its fossil fuels from Russia. How will we ever be able to confront Chinese aggression? Or is ‘It won’t happen’ our ultimate strategy?</p><p>And it’s not just China; there are many – enemies and unreliable friends – who will look at the Russia-Ukraine-West kerfuffle and draw conclusions.</p><p>Take Iran, for instance. Or, more precisely, take the Ayatollah that sits at the top of the Islamic Republic. He has seen at least two Middle Eastern leaders toppled and killed in a rather brutal, dishonourable way: Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein tried to get nuclear weapons – but was stopped first by <a href="https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2021/06/07/40-years-ago-israel-bombed-an-iraqi-nuclear-reactor-how-it-changed-the-world.html"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">an Israeli raid</span></a> and eventually gave up that quest. He ended up hiding in a dark, smelly underground hole, from which he was pulled out and ultimately hanged. Unlike him, Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi ‘listened to the voice of reason’: he agreed to <a href="https://www.judithmiller.com/502/how-gadhafi-lost-his-groove"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">stop and dismantle its nuclear programme</span></a>, as well as give up chemical and biological weapons. He was eventually defeated, captured and killed by a mob – including by being rectally assaulted with sharp objects…</p><p>If your conclusion is that all dictators end badly – think again. There is at least one who is, perhaps, much worse than both Saddam and Gaddafi: I’m talking about North Korea’s own Kim Jong-un. He is, however, very much alive and kicking; in fact, he is arguably untouchable –because, unlike the two Middle Eastern dictators mentioned before, he was neither stopped, nor listened to reason, but went on and obtained nuclear weapons.</p><p>And then there’s Ukraine. Which has nothing to do with any of the dictators I mentioned – except insofar as it had and gave up nuclear weapons. Had it controlled those weapons today, would Putin have attacked it?</p><p>Now place yourself in the tight shoes and wide robes of the Iranian Ayatollah and think: what can you learn from all this?</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS9sEi6yyAxSclpKrCwjFhedrFa_FkopRJxGBPQclLHIZ9ZWuBnuMWZzOqoqyE35lhJ-2HWF3AHQ_JyRBSGTckBWpXrDm50LUDwouE6EupFJ4nNGV7UaM0d3_herErUVxLTJ3-qjbDKqoUuBzJQr0OAIWzU97n2lVeTyArDBpeto9bH9jy1fZcCS0x9Q/s753/Khorramshahr_Missile_(2).jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="532" data-original-width="753" height="452" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS9sEi6yyAxSclpKrCwjFhedrFa_FkopRJxGBPQclLHIZ9ZWuBnuMWZzOqoqyE35lhJ-2HWF3AHQ_JyRBSGTckBWpXrDm50LUDwouE6EupFJ4nNGV7UaM0d3_herErUVxLTJ3-qjbDKqoUuBzJQr0OAIWzU97n2lVeTyArDBpeto9bH9jy1fZcCS0x9Q/w640-h452/Khorramshahr_Missile_(2).jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;">An Iranian Khorramshahr ballistic missile (range: c. 2,000 km)</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div><br /></div><div></div><p>And it’s not just the Ayatollah, but every jihadi terrorist out there. Make no mistake: the next Osama bin Laden, the next Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – they are all emboldened by this.</p><p>In international relations there are many steadfast enemies, but few reliable friends. If you’re an ally of the US (think, for instance, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan), what will you make of what’s happening to Ukraine these days? We are not talking about countries that share ‘values’ with the West, but regimes that see (or saw, at least) interest in an alliance with mighty Uncle Sam. But an uncle that abandons one nephew might also abandon the next one in his hour of need. The US ‘nephews’ are increasingly unsettled and might be ready to exchange their old uncle for another, with a more reliable ‘nepotism’ policy.</p><p>Again, put yourself in the shoes of these Middle Eastern ‘kings’, ‘emirs’ and ‘presidents’. On one hand, there’s Russia: it stuck to its ally, Syria’s Bashar Assad, through thick and thin – even after the latter butchered Syrians by the thousand, including with chemical weapons. Putin unerringly saved Assad’s bacon, not in the least by direct military intervention. On the other hand, there’s the West: one does not have to go back as far as Vietnam or bring up Jimmy Carter and the Shah of Iran – there are more recent examples. Obama dropped Mubarak like a hot potato, then tried to ‘make nice’ to an Islamist. It was the Egyptian dictator’s sheer luck – not the protection of his ‘ally’ – that spared him a fate similar to that of Saddam or Gaddafi. The West abandoned its ‘ally’ Georgia when it got in trouble with Putin. And now it’s done pretty much the same with Ukraine. To be an ally of the West is to be constantly preached to – just look at the constant stream of ‘criticism’ that democratic Israel is getting – but not necessarily get help and support when needed. The West is gentle on its enemies and tough on its friends. Or, as Henry Kissinger more forcefully put it,</p><p></p><blockquote><i>"it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."</i></blockquote><p></p><p>Don’t get me wrong: it’s not that I want the West to give up its values and, like Russia and China do, warmly embrace every bloody dictator who promises to be ‘on our side’. No, quite the opposite. But what is needed is consistency and dependability. By all means choose your friends and allies carefully; but then stand by them. Zigzagging between supporting friends and appeasing enemies will take you nowhere.</p><p> </p><p>***</p><p><strong>In the next (and probably last) instalment of this series, I will focus on Jews. What (if any) are the current and potential consequences of this conflict on the Jewish people and the Jewish state? Watch this space.</strong></p>Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-68289528402270573192022-04-20T09:45:00.001-07:002022-04-20T09:45:58.635-07:00Russia & Ukraine: the smartened-up story – Chapter III<p>As mentioned in the <a href="https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/russia-ukraine-the-smartened-up-story-chapter-ii/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">previous chapters</span></a> of this series, we are witnessing a worrying phenomenon: a type of groupthink – engendered by Western politicians and mainstream media who promote a simplistic, monochromatic version of reality. The fact that in the current conflagration Russia (and only Russia) is the aggressor should not be used to cover up grave errors committed by other parties (in particular Ukrainian and Western leaders), which paved the way to the present situation. These errors need to be teased out and analysed – not in order to justify Russia’s invasion, but to learn and derive conclusions for the future.</p><p>In this series of articles, I attempt to do just that: expose the dumbed-down narrative; and present a smartened-up account, in all its polychromatic intricacy.</p><p>In this episode, we will have a hard look at the Western response to Russia’s aggression: what was that response in practice (that is, beneath the layers of demagoguery and verbal ornaments)? How does that response measure in relation to the West’s moral and legal obligations?</p><h3>‘Not engaged in the conflict’</h3><p>On 7 December 2021, when Russian troops were being marshalled on Ukraine’s borders, US President Biden had a video call with Putin. The subsequent White House <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/12/07/readout-of-president-bidens-video-call-with-president-vladimir-putin-of-russia/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">communiqué</span></a> makes for some interesting reading:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>"President Biden voiced the deep concerns of the United States and our European Allies about Russia’s escalation of forces surrounding Ukraine and made clear that the U.S. and our Allies would respond with strong economic and other measures in the event of military escalation."</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>What the docile mainstream media heard (and <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2021-12-07/u-s-threatens-extreme-sanctions-if-russia-invades-ukraine"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">reported</span></a>) was a threat of ‘extreme’ sanctions. In reality, however, Putin would have interpreted Biden’s ‘threat’ of <em>“economic and other measures”</em> as a pledge not to intervene militarily. That Russia would have to deal with economic sanctions was already obvious – and repeating that threat was a sign of weakness, not strength. From Putin’s point of view, the ‘threat of sanctions’ was nothing but green light to proceed, with no fear of direct military confrontation with the US or with NATO.</p><p>Yet on 22 February (i.e., two days before the Russian invasion began) Biden made this crystal-clear, as if to remove the last shred of a doubt in Putin’s mind:</p><blockquote><blockquote><p><i>"Our forces are not and will not be engaged in the conflict."</i></p></blockquote></blockquote><p>Biden wasn’t the only one that provided Putin with all the reassurance he needed. European and NATO leaders went out of their way to let Putin know that they won’t intervene militarily. For instance, on 4 February 2022, NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoana <a href="https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/talking-europe/20220204-nato-will-not-get-involved-militarily-in-ukraine-alliance-s-deputy-secretary-general"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">declared</span></a>:</p><blockquote><blockquote><p>"NATO will not get involved militarily in Ukraine.</p></blockquote></blockquote><p>And why wouldn’t it? As politicians and <a href="https://inews.co.uk/news/world/ukraine-why-no-one-helping-nato-russia-invasion-response-member-countries-1483199"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">the servile media</span></a> hastened to explain, that’s because Ukraine wasn’t a member of NATO.</p><p></p><blockquote><p>"<i>The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) said it condemned ‘in the strongest possible terms’ Russia’s attack on Ukraine, but it has not sent any troops to Ukraine.</i></p><p><i>This is because Ukraine is not a member of the Nato alliance, meaning it is not obligated to launch an armed attack against Russia to protect Ukraine.”</i></p></blockquote><p></p><p>This was, to put it mildly, sand thrown in the public’s eyes, as well as turning the reality upside-down: after all, the only reason why Ukraine was not a NATO member was because NATO did not accept her membership – so that it wouldn’t have to defend her in the event of attack. And, as already mentioned, NATO has in the past intervened militarily in non-member countries (like Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia).</p><p>In reality, it wasn’t the West ‘threatening’ Putin. It was Putin threatening the West: he ominously <span style="color: #2b00fe;"><a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10545641/Putins-gives-chilling-warning-West-early-morning-TV-broadcast.html"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">warned</span></a> </span>unspecified countries not to interfere in Ukraine:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>"If you do, you will face consequences greater than any you have faced in history."</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>So, while our media was dutifully reporting the Western threats of ‘extreme sanctions’, it was the West that backed off, frightened of a possible clash with Russia.</p><p>Technically (or ‘legally’) NATO was not obliged to intervene. Morally… now that’s a different story. What is the point of talking about ‘<a href="https://fedtrust.co.uk/the-future-of-the-multilateral-rule-based-international-order/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">rules-based international order</span></a>’, if those rules are not enforced (or are not consistently enforced)? The phrase is then not just emptied of any meaning; it becomes a fraud, a way to ‘trick’ countries like Ukraine with false pretences – and then abandon them to their bitter fate.</p><p>But if NATO can at least hide its cowardice behind technicalities, that meagre excuse isn’t available to the US (nor, arguably, to the UK). Let me explain why:</p><p>In 1991, when Ukraine won its independence, it was hosting on its territory the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world. These were nuclear bombs and missiles, which had been placed there as part of the Soviet Army’s ‘nuclear deterrent’. Ukraine (already traumatised by the Chernobyl nuclear disaster) did not want those weapons; Russia did.</p><p>So, through a series of trilateral agreements signed between 1994 and 2009, USA and Russia jointly guaranteed Ukraine’s security, territorial integrity and political independence – in return for the country’s renunciation to nuclear weapons, all of which were ‘returned’ to Russia. Let there be no doubt: these were international agreements (a.k.a. ‘legal obligations’ to those who believe in ‘international law’). And at least one of those agreements was also signed by the UK.</p><p>Russia has, of course, cynically violated those guarantees. But USA (and, arguably, the UK as well) also failed to fulfil their side of the bargain. They did <strong>not</strong> defend Ukraine’s security, territorial integrity and political independence – as they had committed to.</p><p>Hold on, I hear you saying – but we enacted ‘extreme sanctions’ against Russia! Didn’t we?</p><p>Well, firstly sanctions (however ‘extreme’) are not what the term ‘guarantee’ is supposed to mean. Guarantees are meant to provide defence against aggression, not to punish the aggressor post-factum. But no one expected sanctions – or the threat thereof – to stop Putin’s aggression. In fact, sanctions (much, much harsher than those imposed on Russia) failed to deter the likes of North Korea, Iran and Syria – countries considerably smaller and poorer than Russia.</p><p>And how ‘extreme’ are the sanctions imposed on Russia, anyway? Take for instance the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/eu-excludes-seven-russian-banks-swift-official-journal-2022-03-02/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">expulsion of seven Russian banks</span></a> from the SWIFT international payment system – which was ‘sold’ to us as a harsh form of economic punishment. Sure, such ban could have caused Russian companies a few headaches; but the key word in that announcement is ‘seven’. There are no fewer than 330 banks operating in Russia. Now imagine that several large British banks were thrown out of SWIFT. Rather than transferring money via Barclays (banned from SWIFT), I’d have to open an account with – say – Starling or Metro Bank (still in SWIFT). I’d use that account for the international transfers, then execute a domestic transfer to Barclays. Sure, I might be paying a bit more in bank fees, to account for that domestic transfer and for maintaining an additional account… But this is really a mild inconvenience – not an ‘extreme sanction’.</p><p>So why weren’t all Russian banks sanctioned? To answer this, we need to look at the recent trajectory of the Russian currency – the Rouble.</p><p>Back in February and the beginning of March, the Western media was <a href="https://fortune.com/2022/03/15/russian-ruble-expert-opinion-invasion-ukraine-continues/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">gleefully announcing</span></a> the fast depreciation of Russia’s currency. On 16 February (i.e. before the invasion), 1 Euro was worth circa 85 roubles; on 15 March (after sanctions were imposed), it was 145 roubles. But what we were not told is that, since then, the Russian currency has recovered: by 8 April, it had bounced back to pre-sanctions levels: 86 roubles per Euro.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNVcIYGk0LuO8WvOVyxbo3ULnWZ9-VkurChVZ6Otznmw2BdRtU6Curpggpe1gIMdGDgofZVc7WdHArVS0LyfGE-sv_wt0wRscYGKA91U1PhVh-tqEauCVhjYai4qdcKfmIfOGz1DsAULOaYdIOmN8PKjZo9z8tBTeJ4cuSsCTHaNkpCtqeIGh97rkxbQ/s752/Eur-Rub.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="452" data-original-width="752" height="384" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNVcIYGk0LuO8WvOVyxbo3ULnWZ9-VkurChVZ6Otznmw2BdRtU6Curpggpe1gIMdGDgofZVc7WdHArVS0LyfGE-sv_wt0wRscYGKA91U1PhVh-tqEauCVhjYai4qdcKfmIfOGz1DsAULOaYdIOmN8PKjZo9z8tBTeJ4cuSsCTHaNkpCtqeIGh97rkxbQ/w640-h384/Eur-Rub.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Russian rouble bounced back, despite all those 'extreme sanctions'.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>So what caused this swift recovery? On 31 March, Putin <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/31/putin-indicates-he-may-turn-off-gas-supplies-to-europe-overnight-russia-roubles"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">issued a decree</span></a>, requiring ‘unfriendly countries’ (no prizes for guessing which countries he meant) to pay… in Russian roubles, if they wish to buy Russian gas.</p><p>And they do wish to! Russian natural gas accounts for one third of the EU consumption – but that’s an average across the entire Union; in countries like Germany and Italy, it is a considerably higher proportion. And it’s not just gas: Russia is the source of <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/how-dependent-is-germany-russian-gas-2022-03-08/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">34% of Germany’s crude oil and 53% of hard coal</span></a> (used in power generation, but also to make steel).</p><p>Also on 31 March, Western mainstream media <a href="https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220331-france-germany-reject-putin-demands-for-gas-payments-in-roubles-as-blackmail"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">carried</span></a> statements by Europe’s political leaders, rejecting the Russian demand:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>"Germany and France rejected Vladimir Putin's demand that foreign purchasers of Russian gas pay in roubles as an unacceptable breach of contract, adding that the manoeuver amounted to ‘blackmail’."</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>But, interestingly, the whole issue has since disappeared from the news. We are not being told what actually happened: are we still paying in Euros? Or has Europe accepted the <em>“blackmail”</em> and now pays in Russian roubles? The latter would result in a rise in the parity of the Russian currency versus the euro. So which is it? Well, have a look at the rouble’s ‘miraculous’ recovery and take a guess!</p><p>I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry: whatever the currency, we know that, while talking of ‘extreme sanctions’, Europe continues to buy Russian coal, oil and (especially) gas, to the tune of <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/1/what-is-behind-putin-payment-demand"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">hundreds of millions of Euros a day</span></a>. It has no choice, as our ‘wise’ leaders failed to find alternative sources – even after Russia’s annexation of Crimea, even after the Donbas war.</p><p>This, of course, makes a mockery of the ‘extreme sanctions’; what’s more, paying in roubles would force Europe to deal with Russia’s Central Bank – in contravention of their own sanctions!</p><p>Of course, the West has sanctioned Putin personally – as well as several of his close associates, such as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Any assets that Putin may hold in the West (for instance, money in Western banks) have been confiscated. Yay! Except that… we are not told what those confiscated assets are. We aren’t even told what is their total worth. I suggest that may be because… their total worth is zero. Come on! Putin may be many things – but dumb he ain’t. Why would he keep money in Western banks (or any other assets in the West), when he’s been told many times that there will be sanctions?</p><h3>‘Collective punishment’ and ‘the sins of the fathers’</h3><p>But at least we grabbed some assets from the ‘Russian oligarchs’: a yacht here, a private jet there, a mansion in London…</p><p>Well, I’m sure the oligarchs themselves do not like that. But I’m also pretty sure Putin does not give a damn. But, hold on: the Independent <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/sanctions-russian-oligarchs-b2033073.html"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">informs</span></a> us that</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>"The drastic sanctions on Russian oligarchs are designed to put maximum pressure on Putin."</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>Seldom have I heard something so blatantly stupid. It is not Putin who is beholden to the oligarchs – but the other way around. Those oligarchs made their money (or so we are told) because of favours bestowed on them by Putin and members of his regime. And, however many yachts, planes and mansions we grab in the West, the bulk of their assets (such as shares in Oil & Gas, petrochemical and metallurgic companies) are in Russia. Their families are typically there, as well. In Russia – read: subject to Putin’s decrees; which, let me tell you, are ‘a bit’ more effective than Western sanctions!</p><p>And I don’t just question the effectiveness of sanctioning oligarchs – I doubt its morality, as well. Sure, it may be that these oligarchs are indeed awful people. BBC’s Panorama programme implied that much, when talking about Roman Abramovich and accusing him of making his money through bribes, Mafia-style threats and other unpleasant methods. That may indeed be so. But I thought we in the West enjoyed something wonderful called ‘Rule of Law’? According to which people are not punished unless/until proven guilty? And, furthermore, according to which that guilt (or lack thereof) is determined in a court of law – read: not by the government, not by the public and not even by the BBC? Any ‘oligarch’ (indeed, any person) suspected of committing an offence should stand trial.</p><p>As for whether these ‘oligarchs’ are moral people – isn’t it a bit late to question their ethics, years after they (and their billions) were welcomed with open arms by the UK and other European countries? Isn’t it a bit strange that Western leaders only developed such exacting moral standards once Putin attacked Ukraine?</p><p>In addition to his Israeli citizenship, Abramovich is also a national of Portugal <span style="font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 16px;">–</span><span style="font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 16px;"> a EU member country. It is that latter citizenship that allowed him to continue to live in the UK, even after Brexit. He obtained</span> by claiming some Sephardic ancestry, in accordance with the Portuguese laws, which offer naturalisation to descendants of Sephardi Jews. The law requires those claims to be assessed by experts (who are, of course, themselves Jews). And so, on 12 March, the BBC gleefully <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60724509" style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">reported</span></a> that one such expert – Rabbi Daniel Litvak (rabbi of the Jewish community in the Portuguese city of Porto)</p><blockquote><p><i></i></p><blockquote><i>"was detained on Thursday as part of an investigation into how citizenship had been granted."</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>Nobody thought of questioning Abramovich's Portuguese-ness before. It is surely a mere coincidence that a challenge was mounted in March 2022, soon after Russia started its invasion of Ukraine!</p><p>Rabbi Litvak (and the leaders of his community) deny any wrongdoing and claim that Abramovich’s ancestry was assessed in the usual way, according to criteria</p><blockquote><blockquote><p><i>"accepted by successive [Portuguese] governments."</i></p></blockquote></blockquote><p>Interestingly enough, we were never told what came out of that inquiry. But we know that Abramovich has not been stripped of his Portuguese nationality. Instead, the Portuguese law has been ‘<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/16/portugal-nationality-by-descent-law-roman-abramovich-citizenship"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">tightened</span></a>’: instead of just showing Sephardi ancestry, applicants will now have to prove ‘effective connection to Portugal’. Which (in passing be said) may be a bit difficult, given the more than 500 years that passed since the expulsion of Jews from that country!</p><p>Of course, I am not inclined to shed many tears for ‘oligarchs’ – I’m sure they’ll be fine. But will we? I am rather concerned that the campaign to ‘persecute’ (but not prosecute) the ‘oligarchs’ is nothing but a set of populist measures designed not to help Ukraine, but to appeal to base instincts such as envy and – in the case of certain ‘oligarchs’ with Jewish names and Premier League associations – antisemitism.</p><p>There are also immediate practical consequences – in addition to the moral concerns: the rule of law doesn’t just protect our freedoms; it also attracts investment into the West. Investors from places like China, South America, Africa and the Middle East have traditionally been happy to spend money in the UK, in the knowledge that their property will not be confiscated willy-nilly, without due process. That money, which creates jobs and fuels our prosperity, may now dry out.</p><p>But if sanctioning ‘oligarchs’ on the basis of suspicions and allegations is ethically and pragmatically problematic, it is the sanctioning of Russian leaders’ families that really reeks of moral bankruptcy.</p><p>A <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61005388"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">BBC article</span></a> dated 6 April 2022 announces the sanctioning of Putin’s two daughters and of the daughter of Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov. The article merits a bit of analysis, as it is, in my humble opinion, nothing short of disgusting. It says that</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><p><i>"[t]he measures follow new revelations of atrocities by Russian troops in Ukraine, including images of bodies of civilians scattered on the streets of Bucha, near the capital Kyiv.</i></p><p>[…]</p><p><i>“Referring to the Bucha murders, US President Joe Biden said on Wednesday: ‘There's nothing less happening than major war crimes.’</i></p><p><i>‘Responsible nations have to come together to hold these perpetrators accountable,’ Mr Biden added.</i></p><p><i>The US said that Mr Putin's daughters, Katerina Vladimirovna Tikhonova and Maria Vladimirovna Vorontsova, were being put under sanctions ‘for being the adult children of Putin, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked’."</i></p></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>So how are Putin’s daughters linked to the Bucha massacre? They are not in any way, of course; it is incredibly, outrageously misleading for BBC to play with words and string sentences in a way designed to imply that they are. This kind of subliminal manipulation should be repugnant when perpetrated by any media outlet; let alone one that is funded by the public and – as such – is expected to inform the public with due accuracy and impartiality.</p><p>But, unethical journalism aside, how about the ‘explanation’ that Putin’s daughters are sanctioned <em>“for being the adult children of Putin”</em>? I always thought that children don’t get to choose their parents – has someone in the US discovered that they do??</p><p>Later in the article, the BBC again quotes official US sources listing the ‘crimes’ of Putin’s daughters:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>"The [US] announcement described Ms Tikhonova as ‘a tech executive whose work supports the GoR [Russian government] and defense industry’."</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>Her sister, Ms Vorontsova, it went on, ‘leads state-funded programs that have received billions of dollars from the Kremlin toward genetics research and are personally overseen by Putin’".</p><p>Katerina Vladimirovna Tikhonova (Putin’s elder daughter, aged 37) is a <a href="https://fortune.com/2022/04/08/who-are-putins-daughters-sanctions-ukraine/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">mathematician</span></a>. How exactly her work <em>“supports the GoR </em>[Russian government]<em> and defense industry”</em> is unclear – especially since no other scientists (not even those working in Russia’s extensive nuclear programme) have been sanctioned.</p><p>As for Maria Vladimirovna Vorontsova (36), she is a doctor and medical researcher, specialising in genetics and endocrinology. It may well be that Putin takes special interest in her research and that, as part of that interest, her programmes are abundantly funded. But there is nothing to indicate that those programmes have any sort of military dimension.</p><p>In fact, the next part of the article presents yet another ‘reason’ for the sanctions:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><p><i>"Asked why the US was targeting Mr Putin's daughters, a senior Biden administration official said the US thought they could be in control of some of their father's assets.</i></p><p><i>‘We have reason to believe that Putin, and many of his cronies, and the oligarchs, hide their wealth, hide their assets, with family members that place their assets and their wealth in the US financial system, and also many other parts of the world,’ the official said.</i></p><p><i>‘We believe that many of Putin's assets are hidden with family members, and that's why we're targeting them’."</i></p></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p><em>“The US thought…”</em>? <em>“We have reason to believe…”</em>? Since when have we taken to sanctioning individuals on the basis of ‘beliefs’ and mere suspicions??</p><p>Not to mention that the article presents – in the space of just a few sentences – three different ‘reasons’ for the sanctions. The ‘journalists’ who wrote it seem totally unconcerned and not inclined to challenge the contradictory character of those US announcements.</p><p>And just as unquestionably, the UK <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/08/putin-daughters-sanctions-asset-travel-ban-uk"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">joined</span></a> in those ‘family’ sanctions – just a couple of days later.</p><p>As I was writing this, the All-England Club (organiser of the Wimbledon tennis tournament) <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/apr/20/wimbledon-russian-and-belarusian-players-ban-ukraine-invasion-tennis"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">announced</span></a> that it will ban Russian and Belarusian players. The AEC justified discriminating against sportsmen and sportswomen on the sole basis of their nationality by stating that</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>"in the circumstances of such unjustified and unprecedented military aggression, it would be unacceptable for the Russian regime to derive any benefits from the involvement of Russian or Belarusian players with the Championships."</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>That sounds very assertive. But just what <em>"benefits"</em> is Putin going to get from World #2 Daniil Medvedev playing at Wimbledon? Is he going to get credit for the latter's famously accurate serve??</p><p>The oh-so-wise Sports Minister Nigel Huddleston wanted Russian players to denounce Putin's regime as a pre-condition for participation. And, just in case you didn't get it, this is the Sports Minister of the United Kingdom – not of Russia, China or Burma!</p><p>We must start telling our dear leaders that this is patently wrong. Individuals should <strong>not</strong> be discriminated because of their country of origin, or because of their opinions. There is no such thing as 'crime of opinion'. Mr. Huddleston may think he fights the Putins of this world: in fact, he is becoming one.</p><h3>No-fly and what might fly</h3><p>One of the keenest Ukrainian demands was the institution of a no-fly zone over Ukraine (or parts thereof). NATO (and the various Western leaders) flatly refused that Ukrainian request. As British Prime Minister Boris Johnson <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/boris-johnson-ukraine-nato-russian-prime-minister-no-fly-zone-b985386.html"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">explained</span></a>:</p><blockquote><blockquote><p><i>"When it comes to a no-fly zone in the skies above Ukraine, we have to accept the reality of that involves shooting down Russian planes…it’s simply not on the agenda of any Nato country."</i></p></blockquote></blockquote><p>That much is true, especially if the putative no-fly zone covered the entire Ukrainian territory or a considerable portion thereof. In fact, the ‘official’ Ukrainian demand (as expressed by President Zelenskyy and some of his entourage) had precisely that purpose: to draw NATO into the conflict via the creation of ‘incidents’ between Russian and NATO combat planes.</p><p>But who says that the no-fly zone has to be extensive? And who said it needed to be enforced by NATO planes? Why not designate a relatively small area in Western Ukraine (say from Chernivtsi to Lviv) as a refuge area, policed from the air and on the ground by contingents from neutral countries? Closed to the movement of military equipment and personnel (with the exception of those belonging to the Neutral Police Force) but provided with international humanitarian aid the Refuge Area should be designed as a safe haven for refugees fleeing the ravages of war in Ukraine’s other regions. After all, what is a point of (to use that worn-out slogan) ‘opening our borders to Ukrainian refugees’? Why expect war-battered, fleeing refugees (or those who are willing and able to) to cross borders and potentially travel as far as the UK – rather than secure a safe area for them and provide them with a decent life in their own country, amongst a population they feel connected to?</p><p>Of course, Putin might not agree to all this – though I don’t see much downside from his point of view. But why not try? If you’re US President Biden, UK Prime Minister Johnson, French President Macron or German Kanzler Scholz, why not make a formal proposal to that effect? Is it perhaps that building up public hostility by exposing Russian war crimes is politically more useful than actually helping civilians survive?</p><h3>Avoiding World War III</h3><p>But let’s come back to the initial response – to the repeated Western statements that NATO won’t get involved.</p><p>‘It’s easy to criticise,’ I hear you saying. ‘But what do you want us to do – start World War III?’</p><p>No, I don’t really want that. But excessive Western timidity does nothing to avoid that terrible outcome; it made it more likely. Showing fear never appeases a bully – it emboldens him. Those who are not streetwise enough to understand that fact, should at least learn it from history:</p><p>In a bid to create a ‘buffer zone’ against future German aggression, the Treaty of Versailles (which formally ended World War I) declared Germany’s western-most region – the Rhineland – a demilitarised zone. German military equipment and personnel were banned from that area. Yet on 8 March 1936, Hitler ordered 20,000 German soldiers to march into the Rheinland. This was a blatant violation of the peace treaty. Documents from the Nazi archives clearly show that at the time the Wehrmacht was still unprepared for war. Warned by his generals, Hitler was apprehensive – he very nearly ordered the German soldiers to pull back from the Rheinland when it was reported that the French soldiers were gathering at the border with Germany.</p><p>But it soon became clear that the French and British governments had no intention to enforce the Versailles treaty, they meekly acquiesced in its violation. Had they confronted Hitler at that point, they might have prevented the war that was to start three and a half years later. In the words of <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fpFbuCKOLKwC&pg=PT578&lpg=PT578&dq=%E2%80%9Cin+March+1936+the+two+Western+democracies,+were+given+their+last+chance+to+halt,+without+the+risk+of+a+serious+war,+the+rise+of+a+militarized,+aggressive,+totalitarian+Germany+and,+in+fact+%E2%80%93+as+we+have+seen+Hitler+admitting+%E2%80%93+bring+the+Nazi+dictator+and+his+regime+tumbling+down.+They+let+the+chance+slip.%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=gvVYGZJLIy&sig=ACfU3U0lPCNcKMyCcxqAUMi4AABKk2Kfog&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE1vnCs6D3AhXNSsAKHa6wCJMQ6AF6BAgDEAM#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9Cin%20March%201936%20the%20two%20Western%20democracies%2C%20were%20given%20their%20last%20chance%20to%20halt%2C%20without%20the%20risk%20of%20a%20serious%20war%2C%20the%20rise%20of%20a%20militarized%2C%20aggressive%2C%20totalitarian%20Germany%20and%2C%20in%20fact%20%E2%80%93%20as%20we%20have%20seen%20Hitler%20admitting%20%E2%80%93%20bring%20the%20Nazi%20dictator%20and%20his%20regime%20tumbling%20down.%20They%20let%20the%20chance%20slip.%E2%80%9D&f=false"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">American author William L. Shirer</span></a>:</p><blockquote><blockquote><p><i>"... in March 1936 the two Western democracies, were given their last chance to halt, without the risk of a serious war, the rise of a militarized, aggressive, totalitarian Germany and, in fact – as we have seen Hitler admitting – bring the Nazi dictator and his regime tumbling down. They let the chance slip."</i></p></blockquote></blockquote><p>Almost exactly two years after the remilitarisation of Rhineland, Hitler manoeuvred Austria into ‘joining’ Nazi Germany. Again, France and Britain did not react, because (as British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain declared):</p><blockquote><blockquote><p><i>"The hard fact is that nothing could have arrested what has actually happened </i>[in Austria]<i> unless this country and other countries had been prepared to use force."</i></p></blockquote></blockquote><p>Which, they clearly were not prepared to do. What wonderful reassurance for the ever-more-confident Führer!</p><p>No wonder that the next crisis arrived just a few months later – in September the same year (1938)! Rather than defending Czechoslovakia, as they had committed to do, the British and French leaders gave Hitler green light (through the Munich Agreement) to take over a significant portion of that country. He, of course, went on and occupied the whole lot. Many historians agree that, had Britain and France stood firm at that point – Hitler might not have attacked Czechoslovakia or may have been defeated if he did: the German army was still not fully prepared for war, while the Czechs’ smaller but well-equipped army was ready for combat and entrenched in fortified positions. The Nazi Germany (which at the time still did not yet have access to the resources of an entire continent) would have had to fight on two fronts.</p><p>Instead, upon arrival back to England, Chamberlain infamously waved the Munich Agreement as an achievement and boasted that he had attained <em>“peace for our time”</em>. But <em>“our time”</em> was to last exactly 11 months: on 1 September 1939, Hitler (this time in cahoots with Stalin) attacked Poland. What followed was 6 years of devastating war. Even then, Nazi Germany and its allies were defeated only at the cost of huge human and material sacrifices.</p><p>Despite their good intentions, appeasers like Chamberlain did not avoid the war. All they achieved was to make war more likely – and ultimately conduct it from a less favourable position.</p><p>As mentioned before, Putin is no Hitler. But that does not mean that we cannot draw some conclusions from the events that preceded World War II. Those who do not learn from historical errors, tend to repeat them.</p><p>The West has already stood by when Russia attacked Georgia; it allowed Putin to grab Georgian territory (via the old tactic of creating the ‘independent republics’ of Abkhazia and South Ossetia), as well as subvert Georgia’s political trajectory.</p><p>The West once again stood by (with only the economic and political equivalent of frowning) while Russia gobbled up Crimea and parts of the Donbas.</p><p>It should be remembered that Russia also supports militarily the ‘independent republic’ of Transnistria – which all other countries view as part of the territory of Moldova.</p><p>And now, ‘extreme sanctions’ and political posturing notwithstanding, the West is standing by once more, in practical terms allowing Putin freedom of action in Ukraine.</p><p>So one needs to ask: what next? At which point do we draw the line? And will we be in a better or worse position – when we finally are forced to confront the bully?</p><p>US and NATO should never have provided Putin with reassurance that they will not intervene militarily in Ukraine. Quite the opposite: they should have stressed the US (and by extension NATO’s) legal status as guarantor of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and political independence – while at the same time admitting that there are issues related to borders and the status of minorities, which need to be resolved through negotiations and accommodation. Rather than insisting that joining NATO is ‘ultimately a Ukrainian decision’ (it is not, otherwise the country would already be a member of the alliance) the West should have indicated that this is one more issue to be included in the negotiations.</p><p>And, of course, the West should show (and not just to Russia) better preparedness to defend itself and its values. Reasonable military budgets being a simple but effective way to demonstrate such preparedness. If two thirds of NATO member states can’t be bothered to spend 2% of their GDP on self-defence – what does that tell a potential aggressor?</p><p>The Romans had a saying: 'Si vis pacem, para bellum'. There is only one way to avoid war: by showing willingness to fight it and capacity to win it – alongside desire for peaceful solutions and flexibility to find them. This isn’t a game for the faint-hearted – but it’s the only game in town.</p><p>***</p><p><strong>In the next instalment of our saga, we will focus on probable outcomes and consequences (direct and indirect, immediate and remote) of this conflict.</strong></p><p><br /></p>Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-58580888379555407772022-04-17T13:03:00.002-07:002022-04-18T06:02:05.592-07:00Russia & Ukraine: the smartened-up story – Chapter II<p> In the <a href="https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/russia-ukraine-the-smartened-up-story-chapter-i/">first chapter of this series</a>, I argued that (on one hand) nothing mitigates Russia’s aggression against Ukraine; on the other hand, We The Public (especially in the West) are being fed a shallow, overly simplistic version of reality, which – while correctly identifying Russia and its leader as the main culprits – seeks to whitewash the many and grave errors committed by Ukrainian and Western leaders.</p><p>In this series of articles, I attempt to expose the dumbed-down story; and present a smartened-up account, in all its nuances and intricacy.</p><h3>No paragon of virtue</h3><p>In the current conflict, Ukraine is unequivocally the victim of Russian aggression. But that does not mean we should take as gospel the picture drawn by Western governments and mainstream media. To quote the <a href="https://www.cato.org/commentary/whitewashing-ukraines-corruption"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Cato Institute</span></a>:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>"Statements from U.S. and other Western officials, as well as pervasive accounts in the news media, have created a stunningly misleading image of Ukraine. There has been a concerted effort to portray the country not only as a victim of brutal Russian aggression, but as a plucky and noble bulwark of freedom and democracy. The conventional narrative would have us believe that Ukraine is an Eastern European version of Denmark."</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>Ukraine may be (hopefully will be!) on its way to embrace liberal democracy. But, make no mistake, it is a long way from that lofty ideal.</p><p>The <a href="https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">2022 report</span></a> published by the Freedom House classes Ukraine as ‘Partly free’, with a score of 61 out of a possible 100. Here’s the Cato Institute again:</p><blockquote><p><i></i></p><blockquote><i>"Interestingly, Hungary—which has been a target of vitriolic criticism among progressives in the West because of Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s conservative social policy—ranks eight points higher than Ukraine, which is the recipient of uncritical praise from the same Western ideological factions."</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>Israel, by the way (whom some of the same “progressives” accuse of nothing less than apartheid!), is ranked as ‘Free’ with a score of 76.</p><p><br /></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTjSnpJYcIgU8kML945tmk0S7eKXwJltfja23GthAFKA2WfnTlsZEmkP-F7yqPfdDTDBHn7mOpcpe5hFP01dPEa1siltQqgmB03XbKzegvvP90dBqZaaKL6QXUU4Fk4VW8ITZFzUnpi1g99Kh0a4W3UFsdTNMHep_rbjdBkDv630u09v_09u6013qHKQ/s1280/Freedom%20in%20the%20world%202020.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="657" data-original-width="1280" height="328" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTjSnpJYcIgU8kML945tmk0S7eKXwJltfja23GthAFKA2WfnTlsZEmkP-F7yqPfdDTDBHn7mOpcpe5hFP01dPEa1siltQqgmB03XbKzegvvP90dBqZaaKL6QXUU4Fk4VW8ITZFzUnpi1g99Kh0a4W3UFsdTNMHep_rbjdBkDv630u09v_09u6013qHKQ/w640-h328/Freedom%20in%20the%20world%202020.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Map published by Freedom House (2020). Ukraine appears in yellow (partly free). So does EU member Hungary. Israel appears in green (free).</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>In its <a href="https://images.transparencycdn.org/images/CPI2021_Report_EN-web.pdf"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">2021 Corruption Perceptions Index</span></a>, Transparency International awarded Ukraine a score of 32 – the lowest among European countries with the sole exception of Russia, which scored even lower (29). Despite the well-publicised corruption scandals involving former Prime Minister Netanyahu, Israel (59) scored considerably better – in fact above many EU member states.</p><h3>Ethnic strife</h3><p>Since gaining independence in 1991, Ukraine’s political scene has been characterised by a struggle between the East and West of the country. By way of simplification, the East is largely Russian-speaking (as are parts of the South) and tends to elect politicians favouring increased ‘friendship’ with Russia; the Western half of the country largely speaks Ukrainian, is suspicious of Russia and inclines to a closer relationship with the (global) West.</p><p>The struggle came to a head in 2010, with the election as President of Ukraine of Viktor Yanukovych. An ethnic Russian, Yanukovych defeated Yulia Tymoshenko by 49% to 45%, a result made possible primarily by voters in the Donbas and other regions with large ethnic Russian population. International observers <a href="https://www.oscepa.org/en/news-a-media/press-releases/press-2010/international-observers-say-ukrainian-election-was-free-and-fair"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">declared</span></a> the elections ‘free and fair’ (but then, what do they know…) Tymoshenko alleged extensive vote rigging and – while ultimately withdrawing her legal challenge – refused to accept Yanukovych as the legitimate winner. She was soon accused of various misdeeds in a series of ‘anti-corruption’ legal cases and received a seven-year prison sentence.</p><p>All this did not deter the West from continuing to court Ukraine, dangling before it the coveted prize of close political and economic partnership, as well as, eventually, membership of NATO and the European Union. Political convenience trumps moral principles.</p><p>Except that, although initially favourably disposed (at least apparently) to that courtship, in December 2013 Yanukovych ultimately refused to sign the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement – a document committing the parties to increased economic and political integration and meant to pave the way towards Ukraine’s accession to full EU membership. Instead, he surprised everybody by opening negotiations towards a ‘strategic partnership treaty’ with Russia. Many smelled a rat: Putin had applied months of economic and political pressure, urging Ukraine to ditch its EU-related plans and join instead a customs union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. On the other hand, Yanukovych appeared to operate within the letter of the Ukrainian law – as the country’s constitution places the President in charge of negotiating and signing international treaties…</p><p>However technically legal, Yanukovych’s decision was followed by mass protests (later dubbed the ‘Euromaidan’ Revolution or the Revolution of Dignity), which descended into extreme violence and actual street fights between militants and police. In January-February 2014, those clashes resulted in the death of more than 120 people (108 protesters, 13 police officers) and the wounding of a further 1,800.</p><p>Under pressure and following mediation by the EU and Russia, Yanukovych signed an Agreement on the Settlement of the Political Crisis with the leaders of Parliamentary opposition. He agreed to a curtailment of presidential power, new presidential elections by the end of the year and withdrawal of security forces from central Kyiv. In return, the opposition promised to cease any violent protest and surrender the weapons. But while the police did withdraw, various armed groups refused to comply with the agreement and threatened to storm the presidential compound and the Parliament. European politicians spoke in general terms 'against the violence', but they stopped short of condemning what was, in reality, a violation of the agreement they themselves mediated.</p><p>Yanukovych fled to Russia and was subsequently deposed by the Ukrainian parliament – though in a manner technically inconsistent with the impeachment process prescribed by the constitution. He was eventually tried in absentia, found guilty of high treason and sentenced to 13 years in prison.</p><p>A new government was installed, which swiftly rolled back much of Yanukovych’s legacy. All civil servants who served under the former president (up to one million people) were excluded from public office. Again, these excesses did not result in the firm Western condemnations that we would expect, given our leaders’ much vaunted moral principles and democratic credentials.</p><p>Yanukovych’s departure may have brought about restored order in Kyiv. But in Eastern and Southern Ukraine (and in other heavily Russian-speaking areas, such as Kharkiv) there were pro-Russian protests, which occasionally clashed with anti-Russian ones. Several people were killed in sporadic bouts of violence. In places (e.g. in the city of Luhansk), the pro-Russian protesters occupied public buildings and replaced the Ukrainian flag with the Russian one. The violence soon intensified to civil war levels, with increasing use of heavy weaponry.</p><p>It is difficult to assess the extent to which these protests were native, rather than encouraged or even orchestrated by Russia. I any case, Russia eagerly took advantage of them.</p><p>In March 2014, the de-facto leader of Crimea (not recognised by Kyiv) invited Putin to ‘assist with peace-keeping’. The outcome is well-known: following a referendum (deemed illegal by Kyiv) Crimea was (re)annexed by Russia.</p><p>Putin attempted to follow a similar pattern in the Donbas, but there the Ukrainian resistance was more intense. Using a strategy already tried and tested in places like Georgia and Moldova, Russia carved out two ‘republics’ (Donetsk People’s Republic, Luhansk People’s Republic) out of Ukrainian territory and used them as bases for further operations.</p><p>The West refused to recognise either the annexation of Crimea or the ‘independence’ declared by the two republics. Economic and political sanctions were applied against Russia – even while the European Union continued to eagerly buy Russian coal, oil and gas (making no real effort to wean itself from the dependence on those Russian products).</p><p>On the other hand, Ukraine’s plans of acceding to full EU membership were not allowed to progress and the country was not admitted in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).</p><p>In other words, the West did what it does best: backed off when bullied, while pretending to be tough; and kicked the can down the road, in the forlorn hope that things will resolve themselves, rather than getting worse.</p><h3>Nationalism, ultra-nationalism and neo-Nazism</h3><p>One of Putin’s claims against Ukraine is the ‘Nazi’ nature of its government. Indeed, the Russian dictator has made public his intention to ‘de-Nazify’ the country. In the West, such claims are dismissed as ludicrous. Often, the only ‘argument’ cited against this claim is that Ukraine’s president Zelenskyy is Jewish.</p><p>Of course, irrespective of Zelenskyy's ethnicity, Putin’s claim is indeed ludicrous. He has not sent the Russian Army into Ukraine to fight Nazism. But that does not mean, unfortunately, that he has not been offered grounds on which to build that spurious narrative.</p><p>Ukrainian nationalism was significant as a historical factor during World War II, when it tended to collaborate with the Nazis against the Soviet Union. Harshly repressed by the latter during and after the war, it resurfaced with a vengeance once Ukraine gained its independence in 1991. Many of the policies implemented by the Ukrainian state since then (such as the legislation on the use of Ukrainian, rather than the Russian language) can be described as nationalist.</p><p>Unlike many self-described ‘progressives’, I do not think that nationalism (moderate nationalism, that is) is necessarily something to be frowned upon. I understand the desire to close ranks, to strengthen the national identity, in particular when it is perceived to be under existential attack.</p><p>But ‘est modus in rebus’: while I find moderate nationalism benign and often beneficial, I’ll have no truck with the extreme, xenophobic, exclusionary version of the phenomenon. And in Ukraine, the two often not just coexisted, but collaborated; and, what’s more, extreme nationalistic factions were often included in and embraced by the state apparatus.</p><p>This was only exacerbated by Russia’s intervention in Ukraine’s internal ethno-linguistic conflict. The armed conflict gave already existing far-right groups not just impetus, a popular role and access to weaponry – but also direct and often enthusiastic support from the state. It transformed groups of extreme political activists into armed militias.</p><p>Arguably the most famous of them is the Azov Battalion. It was <a href="https://khpg.org/en/1414100027"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">founded by Andriy Biletsky</span></a> – a far-right militant with a very chequered past. He is reported to have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/13/ukraine-far-right-national-militia-takes-law-into-own-hands-neo-nazi-links"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">said</span></a>, in 2010 that Ukraine’s national mission was to:</p><blockquote><p></p><blockquote><i>"lead the white races of the world in a final crusade </i>[…]<i> against Semite-led Untermenschen."</i></blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>Biletsky has meanwhile toned down his rhetoric and now denies that he ever said that. But few believe that he really changed his views. In 2006, he assumed the leadership of the far-right organisation ‘Patriot of Ukraine’ – which many analysts view as a fascist, neo-Nazi group. Suffice to say that it was formed by former members of the Social-National Party (!), who decided to leave it as it had become too moderate…</p><p><br /></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiH3_lbTZsQ8v5q_1KUzzlHOsxL-BvolkmQqQK99-_5e7leOb7KL-xU2BMY7Ja37d2-TpyZ_2hNXdQZKeLf70A0T8t5DEP268o643y0B76Z--MbIYRCVTGJQ75Hxg7i6hq_5ho0dWdFfJmggJTv-kt8NW1E_1XoQG2XHKFCle9GDJwnbdmcII3OVSnAyQ/s3000/2Flag_of_the_Battalion_Azov.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2000" data-original-width="3000" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiH3_lbTZsQ8v5q_1KUzzlHOsxL-BvolkmQqQK99-_5e7leOb7KL-xU2BMY7Ja37d2-TpyZ_2hNXdQZKeLf70A0T8t5DEP268o643y0B76Z--MbIYRCVTGJQ75Hxg7i6hq_5ho0dWdFfJmggJTv-kt8NW1E_1XoQG2XHKFCle9GDJwnbdmcII3OVSnAyQ/w640-h426/2Flag_of_the_Battalion_Azov.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Flag of the Azov Battalion. The black symbol is called Wolfsangel. The Anti-Defamation League lists it as a hate and neo-Nazi symbol. The round white symbol (referred to as Schwartze Sonne or Black Sun) was used by the German Nazis.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>In 2015, a drill sergeant called Alex boasted (in an interview with <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220302192506/https:/www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/03/10/ukraine-azov-brigade-nazis-abuses-separatists/24664937/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">USA today</span></a>) that <em>“no more than half”</em> of his comrades were neo-Nazis – including himself. He was, however, contradicted by the brigade spokesperson, who said that a more accurate proportion of neo-Nazis was ‘just’ 10-20%.</p><p>And here’s the problem: the battalion (later developed into a regiment) was integrated into the Ukrainian security forces (as a National Guard unit). Which means that neo-Nazis (whether 10%, 20% or 50%) are being paid a salary by the Ukrainian state.</p><p>Again: this in no way justifies the Russian invasion. But there is something else that isn’t justified: the complete silence of Western politicians (as well as most pundits and ‘human rights activists) when faced with the ultra-nationalist and neo-Nazi tendencies tolerated (and occasionally embraced) by the Ukrainian governments, especially since 2014. The same ‘progressives’ that brazenly accuse Israel of ‘Judaizing Jerusalem’ seem utterly and eerily uninterested by the overt ‘Ukrainisation’ of a country where 30% of the citizens speak Russian as their mother tongue.</p><div class="mceTemp"> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQw-CUBvstbTXEgEYMEgK74mTss8vGLV9F6nlr0Gyv0PrJj173zLhRUkU1LnczZFjdGIeukLVAi7aI7oSgY1NmLpZLubL3V7zMb1H9lnPYbe4D8o_HPhH6_OobKHuQ65pOfv0bJ4xyHD_yPKrDA8OHpiXyNJ5_sWPioDTKAf5ydtpdASK8CpohN2vBMw/s3525/Languages%20tweet.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2467" data-original-width="3525" height="448" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQw-CUBvstbTXEgEYMEgK74mTss8vGLV9F6nlr0Gyv0PrJj173zLhRUkU1LnczZFjdGIeukLVAi7aI7oSgY1NmLpZLubL3V7zMb1H9lnPYbe4D8o_HPhH6_OobKHuQ65pOfv0bJ4xyHD_yPKrDA8OHpiXyNJ5_sWPioDTKAf5ydtpdASK8CpohN2vBMw/w640-h448/Languages%20tweet.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /></div><div class="mceTemp"><br /></div><div class="mceTemp"><h3>NATO</h3><p>Yet another Putin complaint concerns Ukraine’s potential joining of NATO. He sees the alliance’s expansion into Eastern Europe as constituting a direct threat to Russia.</p><p>That NATO expanded in the general direction of Russia is a fact. Initially made up of North American and Western European countries (hence the ‘North Atlantic’ name), NATO was joined by Greece and Turkey in the midst of the Cod War. The latter shared a border with the Soviet Union. But after the demise of the USSR, NATO absorbed within its ranks the former ‘socialist’ countries of Eastern Europe: Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in 1999; Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and the Baltic countries in 2004; Albania and Croatia in 2009, Montenegro in 2017 and, finally, North Macedonia in 2020.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiT210Ep0ZeQFuHyVGfhMdoxRgkmU21UkpK58DBYUF8b0C9KXJbA_GkOw51qimuY3q-8iUN_3TzYrD14G8cXPZI76mqY9RfH6PAmtddfCAqpLCjFisVYO-uXHSbyfZiB0HfbkXqJ_75_b3b-rXeY1q_wiwZdUmmUTF684fcIibGjWdhz5LM6Rnw9smxIQ/s2658/NATO%20map.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2301" data-original-width="2658" height="554" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiT210Ep0ZeQFuHyVGfhMdoxRgkmU21UkpK58DBYUF8b0C9KXJbA_GkOw51qimuY3q-8iUN_3TzYrD14G8cXPZI76mqY9RfH6PAmtddfCAqpLCjFisVYO-uXHSbyfZiB0HfbkXqJ_75_b3b-rXeY1q_wiwZdUmmUTF684fcIibGjWdhz5LM6Rnw9smxIQ/w640-h554/NATO%20map.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">NATO was conceived as a military alliance against a potential Soviet aggression. But it expand eastwards even after the Soviet Union broke up. How does NATO look, when seen from Moscow?</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>NATO declares itself a defensive pact. But this is unlikely to allay Putin’s concerns. And not without reason: the alliance fought in former Yugoslavia and in Afghanistan, for instance – despite the fact that neither country attacked one of its members.</p><p>It is also true that USA would likewise not react very well, were Mexico to join a hostile military alliance. The US certainly wasn’t cool with Cuba installing Soviet weaponry.</p><p>With all that in mind, one must question the wisdom of NATO’s expansion eastwards, at a time when the Cold War had already been won. It isn’t unreasonable for a Russian leader to ask why NATO chose to consistently expand in one direction only: towards the Russian border. What remains unreasonable, of course, is the military aggression as a means to resolve this situation. Invasion is no way to make friends.</p><p>***</p><p><strong>In the next episode of our Ukrainian saga, we will focus on the West’s response to Russia’s aggression. Was it really, as we are being told, a brave-but-sensible reaction? Was it in conformity with the West’s international obligations (or, to use that worn-out cliché, ‘international law’)?</strong></p></div>Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-32747174064978352112022-04-14T16:46:00.007-07:002022-04-14T16:54:07.917-07:00Russia & Ukraine: the smartened-up story - Chapter I<h3 style="text-align: left;"> Introduction</h3><p>‘Two Jews – three opinions!’ Jews are often described as opinionated and argumentative. Our ‘classic’ celebrities – from Abraham to Baal Shem Tov, to Tevie The Milkman – are known to have argued even with The Almighty Himself. Does the Torah not call us the People of Israel – meaning the people that ‘struggles [even] with God’? And what is the Talmud – if not a bunch of rabbis arguing with each other and with themselves? Few things are more Jewish than questioning the ‘obvious’, challenging ‘received wisdom’ and killing sacred cows.</p><p>I guess that’s why I feel a bit uneasy these days. As I write this, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is already well into its second month. And, no matter what mainstream news outlet you choose to follow – be it European or American – you hear the exact same story: Putin is the Devil Incarnate; the Ukrainians are martyrs and their government nothing short of heroic; they are not just fighting the Russians, but also winning. As for the West, our oh-so-civilised leaders are all perched on the peak of Moral High Ground, from whence they attempt to selflessly help Ukraine without starting World War III. To find a different story, one would have to listen to fringe, discredited far-left or far-right conspiracy theorists, or else venture into the realm of controversial, attention-seeking academics.</p><p>I abhor both the above categories. And, as someone who grew up in the long shadow of the Soviet Union, I harbour deep rancour towards anyone who’s ever been a KGB officer – let alone any who wish to once again ride roughshod over their people and over their neighbours. No, invading Ukraine did not make Putin a criminal – he’s been one all along. And yes, Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is inexcusable – full stop.</p><p>But something else I abhor is groupthink. And, while I love sand under my bare feet, I hate it when it’s thrown in my eyes.</p><p>Because there is a different story – a more complex story – to be told; not to justify Putin (he is, as mentioned, well beyond that), but to point out that nobody comes out of this smelling of roses. Certainly not our sanctimonious, holier-than-thou leaders.</p><p>In this series of articles, I will attempt to do just that: expose the dumbed-down version of reality that is being fed to us; and propose a smartened-up account, complete with nuance and complexity.</p><h3>Fair disclosure</h3><p>Historically speaking, Jews have few reasons to feel warmth towards either Russia or Ukraine. Russian tsars and Ukrainian Cossacks figure prominently even in our oh-so crowded Hall of Infamy. Pogroms were not just instigated by the leaders, but also enthusiastically pursued by ordinary Russians and Ukrainians – including in the 20<sup>th</sup> century. Many Ukrainians collaborated with the Nazis, including in the persecution and murder of Jews.</p><p>By the way, the Babi Yar memorial should not be turned into a political football. It’s good to hear politicians condemning the Russians for bombing in the proximity of the Babi Yar memorial; but their outrage would look a lot more genuine, had they also protested when that same memorial was subjected to Ukrainian vandalism (at least <a href="https://khpg.org/en/1443479556"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">6 times in 2015 alone</span></a>!) And, much as I resent the Russian bombs in March 2022, I can’t forget that, in September 1941, it was Ukrainian cudgels that ushered Jews on their way to the Nazi massacre.</p><p>And what about the relentless harassment and forced assimilation of Jews in the Soviet Union (which encompassed both Russia and Ukraine)? That was but a different type of genocide.</p><p>No, it’s not just ‘ancient history’. Modern-day Ukrainian coins and banknotes proudly display the effigy of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, whose hordes perpetrated untold atrocities against the local Jews. Stepan Bandera (a virulent antisemite and Nazi collaborator) is nowadays celebrated as ‘national hero’ in Ukraine…</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpVZNoKMLbdNrWp_JyexgK4uQKlPP-M7bcfiy2ql3Dg6gKCMDCNXHe7Q1ACnokoYRmGSyCic9J7wZc1nfwk5yR8Qu5esQP2Vdg-PVVHSUEqBKOrdf_uOFuIwjnYQbSV6wdftcFF03UN1DAX7J4ZZyIHS4y_75FJ_dRRLmvEn6Fa92v-K8pB69B-Bz22g/s3000/Bohdan_Khmelnytsky_Monument,_Sofievskaya_square_at_sunset._Kiev,_Ukraine,_Eastern_Europe.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="3000" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpVZNoKMLbdNrWp_JyexgK4uQKlPP-M7bcfiy2ql3Dg6gKCMDCNXHe7Q1ACnokoYRmGSyCic9J7wZc1nfwk5yR8Qu5esQP2Vdg-PVVHSUEqBKOrdf_uOFuIwjnYQbSV6wdftcFF03UN1DAX7J4ZZyIHS4y_75FJ_dRRLmvEn6Fa92v-K8pB69B-Bz22g/w640-h320/Bohdan_Khmelnytsky_Monument,_Sofievskaya_square_at_sunset._Kiev,_Ukraine,_Eastern_Europe.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The statue of Bohdan Khmelnytsky adorns the centre of Kyiv. <br />His Cossacks murdered, pillaged and raped a valley of tears through Ukrainian Jewry.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>So, I confess: I do not regard either Russia or Ukraine with particular sympathy. While in the current military conflict Russia is clearly the aggressor and Ukraine the victim – in general neither side is populated by angels…</p><h3>Frankenstein</h3><p>Subduing the enemy may end a war; but to bring peace, enmity itself must be vanquished.</p><p>World War I victors imposed on Germany terms amounting not just to national humiliation, but also to economic pauperisation. This short-sighted policy catalysed the Nazi phenomenon.</p><p>The Allies did not repeat the same mistake after World War II. Quite the opposite: the ruined Germany (or more precisely, its Western part) became a major beneficiary of the Marshall Plan, which helped transform it into today’s paragon of economic prosperity and (not unrelatedly) of liberal democracy. But, of course, it was neither wisdom nor generosity-in-triumph that drove that strategy. The goal was not to bring peace, but to rebuild Germany as an asset for war – the ensuing Cold War.</p><p>A war that the West won – hands down. The Soviet Union didn't just lose control over the ‘Socialist’ bloc; the Empire of Evil itself broke down into its component ‘republics,’ releasing them to become independent states. What’s more, all those new nation states immediately shed any ‘socialist’ illusions and sought to embrace capitalism with gusto. So far, so peachy… But the transition from pauper Marxism to market economy was never going to be an easy one. And, rather than instituting a new version of the Marshall Plan aimed at helping their fellow human beings in their hour of need, the (by then much richer, but just as selfish and dumb) West abandoned them to their own devices. Which ‘devices’ happened to be abject poverty, misery and humiliation. Generals became taxi drivers; scholars sought to make a living as janitors. People struggled to achieve that basic dignity of a roof over their head and a loaf of bread on their table. Russia in the 1990s resembled Germany in the 1920s.</p><p>Putin is an awful man – but Hitler he ain’t. Still, his rise to power was based on some of the same economic and psychological phenomena. Make no mistake: we stupidly, mindlessly, obliviously midwifed this monster.</p><h3>Ancient history…</h3><p>Putin’s claims that <em>“</em><a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/2020/07/01/there-is-no-ukraine-fact-checking-the-kremlins-version-of-ukrainian-history/"><em><span style="color: #2b00fe;">there is no Ukraine</span></em></a><em>”</em> both sound and are ridiculous. But it’s important to understand his thinking, based as it is on a twisted historical perspective. The key to that is his <a href="http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20603"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">other claim</span></a>, that <em>“</em>[Ukraine’s capital city] <em>Kiev is the mother of Russian cities”</em>. Historically speaking, there is a kernel of truth in the latter claim: what may be considered a predecessor of the Russian state did start in Kyiv, or in the city that Russians call Kiev. Even the ethnonym Rus (which gave its name to the modern country) appears to have been born there.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCWClXMISe0muKBbO3J_Gdz1ynIe-kTMKHm5acldVFNCamhw6ZLiMSll_c5IBSr22aBDS9T9u1qPtCImUnernbJMr5yYRbc3BxfKemELrlJeI-uWapWS_QN5bfvLesHEs_mNdpxd06hHbCYiRtRW0xgqgPhK2Ui1WbYULF5J-PGWZKIJeqE4sum2A3mw/s1384/Kievan_Rus_en.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1368" data-original-width="1384" height="632" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCWClXMISe0muKBbO3J_Gdz1ynIe-kTMKHm5acldVFNCamhw6ZLiMSll_c5IBSr22aBDS9T9u1qPtCImUnernbJMr5yYRbc3BxfKemELrlJeI-uWapWS_QN5bfvLesHEs_mNdpxd06hHbCYiRtRW0xgqgPhK2Ui1WbYULF5J-PGWZKIJeqE4sum2A3mw/w640-h632/Kievan_Rus_en.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Kievan Rus, c. 11th century</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>But what Putin seems to forget is the ‘small detail’ of a whole millennium that passed since then. If that gives Russia a claim on Ukraine as ‘part of Russia’ – then it is high time for Greece to reclaim most of the territory of modern-day Turkey. After all, Istanbul (then called Constantinople) was the capital of a Greek-speaking empire, before its conquest by Turks in mid-15<sup>th</sup> century!</p><p>And no, don’t be tempted by facile (but false!) analogies with Jews reclaiming Jerusalem and Eretz Israel: Russians really have no need to ‘return’ to Kiev; far from being stateless and perpetual refugees, they have a state of their own: it happens to be the largest country on earth! And, unlike Palestine in the 19<sup>th</sup> and early 20<sup>th</sup> century, Ukraine is actually a state – recognised as such by all other countries (including Russia, at least initially!) – and home to a people with a well-developed sense of national identity. Putin’s goal is not the reconstitution of old Kievan Rus; it is Russia’s aggrandizement at the expense of another legitimate nation state. This is imperialism par excellence – the very opposite of national emancipation.</p><p>Ukraine is a state and Ukrainians are a separate nation (with their own national culture, language, etc.). As such, they are endowed with the natural right to national self-determination. They have every right to choose (as they did) to exercise that right by establishing, maintaining and developing their own nation state – rather than becoming part of a revived Russian empire or of a pan-Slavic supra-national entity.</p><h3>… and modern boundaries</h3><p>But, while the right to self-determination in a separate nation state should nowadays be set in stone, it does not follow that the borders of that state should also be. One of the things that leads to wars (or to longer and bloodier wars) is the newly found Western insistence that borders are sacrosanct. That may be true of (some, but not all!) European borders: those that developed 'naturally' through centuries. But, throughout Africa, Asia and the Middle East, state borders are often artificial contraptions drawn by Europeans on colonial maps. These may be ‘international’ borders – but inter-national they aren't: empires tend to ignore demography in favour of geography.</p><p>The borders of modern-day Ukraine (as recognised by us in the West) are those of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic – as they were in 1991, when the Soviet Union disintegrated. But those borders (initially and arbitrarily drawn by the Bolsheviks in 1922) had moved repeatedly. Both before and after World War II, territories gained by the Soviet Union from Romania, Hungary and Poland were incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic – simply because it was convenient to do so. Crimea (annexed in 1783 by the Russian Empire) was transferred by decree from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 – despite the fact that only about 1 in 5 inhabitants was Ukrainian.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKx92S86vJTytDeDRYrgTaohmN7NLBaOBiniEpyVOjSD9iZfJwOYPTGACIBn5k_EC4VUET_vqCCits7cQDga8EGufjKBp67Oxk8Or-UEaEEabauwCur7Cnayj6ec-f_tawuJ5g6vFRDlm-BMAqYdap7AtSIXbyeFnZW-sZzOalNr6RN6bldWOGY647Tg/s1881/Simplified_historical_map_of_Ukrainian_borders_1654-2014.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1266" data-original-width="1881" height="430" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKx92S86vJTytDeDRYrgTaohmN7NLBaOBiniEpyVOjSD9iZfJwOYPTGACIBn5k_EC4VUET_vqCCits7cQDga8EGufjKBp67Oxk8Or-UEaEEabauwCur7Cnayj6ec-f_tawuJ5g6vFRDlm-BMAqYdap7AtSIXbyeFnZW-sZzOalNr6RN6bldWOGY647Tg/w640-h430/Simplified_historical_map_of_Ukrainian_borders_1654-2014.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">'Immutable' boundaries</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>Needless to say, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was not an independent state. Nominally an autonomous entity within a federal country, it was in fact nothing more than a province, part and parcel of a hyper-centralised state run from Moscow. The Soviet leaders paid very little attention to its borders – because in practice they meant little.</p><p>Soviet policies (based as they were on the Communist principles of proletariat supremacy), resulted among other things in the forced industrialisation of Ukraine – traditionally a largely agrarian territory. This was especially true – and for obvious reasons – of the ‘Donbas’ region (Donbas being an abbreviation of ‘Donets River Coal Basin’). The rapid industrialisation and bespoke government policies attracted large numbers of Russian miners and other workers, who settled in the area (and who, if they happened to do the same in a different part of the world, would have been dubbed “illegal settlers”).</p><p>On the other hand, brutal Soviet policies caused an enormous, murderous famine, which killed circa 4 million people (primarily Ukrainian peasants) between 1932 and 1933.</p><p>Moscow continued to encourage Russian settlement and acculturation in Ukraine (as they did in all other Soviet ‘republics’) until the rise to power of Gorbachev in 1985.</p><p>All these historical developments are relevant to our discussion insofar as they changed the demographic makeup of the population, causing a considerable increase in the proportion of ethnic Russians (while the previous annexations of territory brought in Romanian, Hungarian, Polish and Tatar minorities).</p><p>Some may find it tempting to conclude that – since this was done without the consent of the Ukrainian people (and arguably against its national interests) – the trend should now be reversed. But two wrongs don’t make a right: one does not make up for historic wrongs by visiting injustice upon the heads of innocents. Whether they descend from ‘settlers’ or from residents of gerrymandered territories, the ethnic Russian inhabitants of Ukraine are in no way responsible for policies (however unjust) enacted before they were even born.</p><p>Still: in politics, just like in physics, every action causes a reaction. Upon gaining its independence in 1991, Ukraine found itself ‘saddled’ with a large Russian minority, plus a significant layer of ‘Russicised’ population. The reaction was a more-or-less overt policy of Ukrainisation: the preferential promotion of the Ukrainian language and culture – primarily in opposition to their Russian counterparts. And the process only accelerated with the rise to power of Putin and his policies – which were (not without justification) perceived as an existential threat to Ukrainian peoplehood, let alone self-determination.</p><p>An ever-more-restrictive string of laws regulated the use of language, in practice all-but-excluding Russian from education, from the media and from much of the public sphere, despite it being the mother tongue of 1 in 3 Ukrainian citizens.</p><p>Imagine, for a moment, that Israel would outlaw Arabic in schools – thus forcing the children of her ethnic Arab citizens to learn Maths, Physics and Geography in Hebrew. I say ‘imagine’, but in fact the outrage that such measures would generate is hard to fathom. Yet ‘for some reason’ (ahem!) no such outrage was manifest in the case of Ukraine. Very few of our politicians and distinguished members of the media profession even cared to comment. Let alone rage.</p><p>But many an ethnic Russian did rage. If Russian is your mother tongue (even more so, if it was the language of your parents and grandparents) you want your children to be taught in that language; you want them to absorb, cherish and further develop the Russian culture – not the Ukrainian one. And while those feeling may be pervasive, it’s always easier to act on them in areas where ethnic Russians are a large minority, or even a majority.</p><p>This was the case in the Donbas. A 1994 referendum asked a series of ‘constitutional’ questions. Should Russian be a second official language in Ukraine? Should it be the language of administration in the Donbas region? Should Ukraine be a federal state (i.e., should the Donbas be autonomous)? Circa 90% of the population of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions voted in favour. But their vote was ignored by the central government.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4rC3AiJSKENUqpP3WI3ujPm4f5UzXHUd_HPjMWaLuoTviDFhJVqgtAJXNRmzB86NUVY6zEhezmJjiuwdAFaZwI-DwfWh1miWNUIEF1y44CTzwIutILUTrLnOTUF9C5E0MYcfkjqEE2u7aBBExFOWNvDlw1kDhzqBXswlLoyOWEJ-IQVzHcqcP7x32tQ/s1200/Donbas.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="807" data-original-width="1200" height="430" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4rC3AiJSKENUqpP3WI3ujPm4f5UzXHUd_HPjMWaLuoTviDFhJVqgtAJXNRmzB86NUVY6zEhezmJjiuwdAFaZwI-DwfWh1miWNUIEF1y44CTzwIutILUTrLnOTUF9C5E0MYcfkjqEE2u7aBBExFOWNvDlw1kDhzqBXswlLoyOWEJ-IQVzHcqcP7x32tQ/w640-h430/Donbas.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ukraine and the Donbas</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>Cohabitation of two ethnic groups is somewhat similar to that of two individuals. It can only be successful through mutual accommodation. A desideratum that is made no easier by the intervention of one side’s relatives – in this case Russia. Not even when that intervention is well-meaning – and Russia’s certainly was not.</p><p>A reasonable solution to unsuccessful cohabitation is separation. But that would have meant that (Heaven forfend!) borders would need to change. That the Donbas inhabitants would be allowed to decide, in a referendum, whether they wished to continue to be part of Ukraine – or go their own separate way.</p><p>The Scots, of course, were given just such an opportunity in 2014. But the Catalans were not – nor are Basques or the Corsicans, to give just a few examples. It seems that many in the ‘civilised’ West have yet to learn the difference between democracy and tyranny of the majority.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhC0LHpi-V1ILCEqlQS1Vumu2u4l0iyift8spNUoe_0gXnCiQEUrRb7qiDpFkPef3W4nex9j-VhxVG36sniNaIXJa6GEy1emnjyZV7qrlpqqBd437RkV-lByWXwS-fCdBSpBvYX5eE8_iGoVZpF-A4_R-zTT-fUgUKrIjo4lRWGjCTDz7-K8staSW_KLA/s712/Corsica%20protest2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="401" data-original-width="712" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhC0LHpi-V1ILCEqlQS1Vumu2u4l0iyift8spNUoe_0gXnCiQEUrRb7qiDpFkPef3W4nex9j-VhxVG36sniNaIXJa6GEy1emnjyZV7qrlpqqBd437RkV-lByWXwS-fCdBSpBvYX5eE8_iGoVZpF-A4_R-zTT-fUgUKrIjo4lRWGjCTDz7-K8staSW_KLA/w640-h360/Corsica%20protest2.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Corsican protesters calling for independence from France</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>As for Ukraine and its large Russian minority: rather than preaching accommodation or amicable divorce, the West chose to support forced cohabitation – something that, as we know, is never conducive of harmony and happiness. And, following cues from the West, the Ukrainian government placed the alleged ‘immutability’ of borders above the sanctity of peace.</p><p>Not that this provides any sort of justification for Putin’s past and current aggressions. It’s a naïve person indeed that believes the man is animated by love for his ‘oppressed’ Russian brothers – rather than using them as a convenient excuse. But, conversely, Putin’s malevolence should not render us blind to the grave errors of judgment committed by both Ukraine and the West.</p><p>***</p><p><strong>In the next instalment of our story, we will analyse the political repercussions of this ethnic tension. Or, in other words, how East and West came together to make a bad situation worse.</strong></p>Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-17068967403207875982022-01-28T11:12:00.003-08:002022-01-28T17:06:02.744-08:00J’accuse: the BBC is institutionally antisemitic<h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">A crime of sandwich</span></h2><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">This happened a few years ago: I was attending Limmud – the Jewish learning event that takes place in the UK every year around Christmas time. I was listening to a (not terribly articulate) speaker – a former BBC Jerusalem correspondent. After a perfunctory introduction, he launched into what he referred to as the inhuman treatment of Palestinians. <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“It was during the holy month of Ramadan,”</em> he waxed lyrical, <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“when Muslims fast all day long and eat only after sunset. I was traveling in the West Bank and reached this check post, where perhaps 200 Palestinians were queuing to enter Israel. And there”</em> – the ex-reporter’s tone heralded the story’s punch line – <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“was this young Israeli soldier. He was eating a sandwich! Imagine all those hungry Palestinians and this soldier deliberately baiting, mocking them by eating a sandwich in public!”</em></span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Once he finished his rather prolix talk, I raised my hand and asked a simple question: <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“How do you know that soldier was doing it deliberately? Did you ask him?”</em> The former BBC correspondent looked dumbstruck, as if the very suggestion was outrageous. <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“I didn’t have to,“</em> he finally said after many moments of embarrassing silence. <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“It was absolutely clear to me. Why else would he do something like that?”</em></span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Well, why indeed? Why would a 19-year-old soldier on boring guard duty do something as unusual as… eating a sandwich? Could it be that he had no idea that it was Ramadan? Maybe he had never experienced a whole month of daily fast and did not realize he was bothering anyone? Perhaps he was famished and just did not care?</span></p><div id="gpt-passback" style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 26px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><div id="google_ads_iframe_/3933714/TOI_Video/TOI_VideoPlayer_Test_0__container__" style="border: 0pt none; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"></div></div><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 30px 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Out of the dozens of more benign interpretations, the ex-BBC man had ‘instinctively’ chosen the most malevolent one. Would the same explanation have popped into his mind if the soldier had been British? Or indeed Palestinian? The entire psychology of racism rests on subliminal prejudice, on the casual assumption of evil; the ideology of hatred comes later.</span></p><h2 style="border: 0px; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 20px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 26px; margin: 26px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">BBC’s Jewish problem</h2><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">This wasn’t a singular case. BBC journalists, editors and managers have long been accused of such casual but consistent anti-Israel bias. One BBC reporter couldn’t even describe a ceremony at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial without adding dog-whistle <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/24/former-bbc-executives-criticise-orla-guerin-holocaust-report" rel="noopener" style="border: 0px; color: #3b8bea; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">allegations</a> about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Many have claimed that this type of deep-seated hostility against the Jewish state was but a manifestation of subliminal antisemitic prejudice. And, certainly in recent years, BBC journalists have provided ample evidence to support that thesis. Remember <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2906539/Calls-BBC-reporter-resign-told-daughter-Holocaust-survivors-Paris-Palestinians-suffer-hugely-Jewish-hands-well.html" rel="noopener" style="border: 0px; color: #3b8bea; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">the reporter</a> who, in an interview dedicated to Islamist terror attacks in France, felt compelled to tell a frightened Jewish woman that <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well”</em>? How about Middle East Editor<a href="https://twitter.com/BowenBBC/status/1393476763938865152?s=20" rel="noopener" style="border: 0px; color: #3b8bea; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank"> Jeremy Bowen</a>, who publicly opined that <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“[e]very Jew, and every gentile [sic!]”</em> should read an article claiming that <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“racism, hate and violence are Jewish values, too”</em>? And how about BBC's <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34237219" rel="noopener" style="border: 0px; color: #3b8bea; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">insistence</a> that Judaism’s holiest site is <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“Al-Aqsa Mosque”</em> or <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“Al-Aqsa Mosque Complex”</em> (which, the BBC tells us, is <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“also revered by Jews”</em>)? What about the ‘debate’ on whether Jews count as an<a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/bbc-debate-on-whether-jews-are-an-ethnic-minority-group-sparks-outrage/" rel="noopener" style="border: 0px; color: #3b8bea; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank"> ethnic minority</a>?</span></p><h2 style="border: 0px; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 20px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 26px; margin: 26px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">The last straw</h2><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">On 29 November 2021, a bus organized by Chabad took a group of Jewish children to a Hanukkah party. According to the testimony of Rabbi Shneor Glitsenstein, the group’s leader,</span></p><blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">“at Oxford Street we got out on the sidewalk and danced to Hanukkah music. A few minutes in, approximately three young Middle Eastern men began playing Arabic music from their phones and dancing next to us. They quickly became aggressive, and began making profane gestures and yelling ‘Free Palestine!'”</span></p></blockquote><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">I<span>n order to defuse the situation, the Jewish group returned to the bus, at which point the attackers proceeded to assault the vehicle: they shouted profanities, threw projectiles, spat on the windows, banged them with their fists and shoes, and kicked the doors. They also managed to perform a Nazi salute, before the bus finally moved away.</span></span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">One of the passengers managed to capture part of the attack on video, filmed on a smartphone from inside the bus. Enough evidence for the London Metropolitan Police to open an investigation and treat the incident as a hate crime.</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">The short clip was posted and widely circulated on social media. News about the incident soon found its way also to the mainstream media (for instance <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/01/chilling-video-shows-men-perform-nazi-salutes-jewish-teenagers/" rel="noopener" style="border: 0px; color: #3b8bea; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">The Telegraph</a> and <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/jewish-oxford-street-metropolitan-police-community-security-trust-police-b969474.html" rel="noopener" style="border: 0px; color: #3b8bea; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">The Evening Standard</a> on 1 December).</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">The BBC reported the incident only on 2 December, in an article entitled <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“Oxford Street: Men filmed spitting at Jewish people on bus,”</em> which was published on its News website and mobile app. Later on the same day, BBC TV One broadcast a report as part of its London news bulletin.</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Unlike the Telegraph, the BBC chose not to report that the attackers shouted (among other things) <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“Free Palestine”</em>. Unlike the Telegraph and Evening Standard, both BBC ‘contributions’ called the attack an <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“alleged anti-Semitic incident”</em>. And, again unlike the Telegraph and Evening Standard, both BBC ‘contributions’ claimed that</span></p><blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">“some racial slurs about Muslims can also be heard from inside the bus.”</span></em></p></blockquote><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">The BBC did not provide a source or any evidence supporting that statement of fact (i.e. not allegation).</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">In response to a deluge of complaints, the BBC admitted that <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“some racial slurs about Muslims”</em> was inaccurate and replaced it with <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“a slur about Muslims”</em>.</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Ultimately, the complaints were referred to the Executive Complaints Unit (ECU), BBC’s ‘highest court’ of complaints. The ECU has now published <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/oxford-street" rel="noopener" style="border: 0px; color: #3b8bea; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">its report</a>, which by-and-large exonerates the BBC of any wrongdoing. So let us read and analyse that report together.</span></p><h2 style="border: 0px; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 20px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 26px; margin: 26px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">The Report</h2><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Firstly, a general (but, I suggest, very pertinent) remark: the BBC is not a regular media outlet. It is a public institution, funded through a universal and compulsory poll tax euphemistically called ‘the license fee’. Anyone residing in the UK must pay ‘the license fee’, whether one avails oneself of BBC services or not. Failure to pay ‘the license fee’ isn’t treated as a mere debt, but as a criminal offense.</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Whether this arrangement is fair and appropriate in a 21<span style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">st</span> century democracy and market economy is an interesting topic, but one not immediately relevant to our discussion. What is relevant is that, in return for a colossal amount of<a href="https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/bbc-licence-fee-receipts-expenditure/#:~:text=BBC%20current%20expenditure%20was%20%C2%A3,up%20again%20in%202022%2D23." rel="noopener" style="border: 0px; color: #3b8bea; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank"> money</a> (circa £3.5 billion a year), the Corporation is required to act in the public interest and adhere to the principles of openness, transparency and accountability. The public (i.e. the Corporation’s owners) has the right to demand from the BBC a much higher standard of quality and ethics than that expected from commercial media outlets: those, after all, are not funded from the public purse, but survive by selling their services to willing buyers.</span></p><p style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #333333;">Secondly, let me make a procedural remark: as required, the BBC has a set </span><span style="color: #3b8bea;"><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/sites/default/files/2020-06/BBC_Complaints_Framework.pdf">code of practice</a></span><span style="color: #333333;">, according to which complaints are considered in 3 stages, with ECU being the 3</span><span style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">rd</span><span style="color: #333333;"> and final one. Members of the public cannot bring their complaints directly to the attention of the ECU, they need to patiently wait for rulings at the lower stages (a process that can take many weeks and sometimes months). Even then, the ECU is not required to consider their complaints, it can choose not to. But such rules are for plebs; the BBC, which made those rules, feels free to unmake them when convenient. In this case, Director-General Tim Davie did away with the procedure and ordered that all complaints related to the Oxford Street incident should be dealt with directly by the ECU. The more junior BBC personnel (i.e. those likely to naively let the truth get in the way) were thus carefully neutralized. In the touching words of the Report:</span></span></p><blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">“In the light of the deeply-felt concerns expressed by senior leaders in the Jewish community and others, the Director-General in his role as Editor-in Chief [sic!] instructed the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit to investigate the complaints as a matter of urgency.”</span></p></blockquote><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">The Report also declares that</span></p><blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">“The ECU, though part of the BBC, is independent of programme-makers, and is tasked with judging complaints about BBC output against the requirements of the BBC’s editorial standards, as expressed in the Editorial Guidelines.”</span></p></blockquote><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">And what does <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“independent of programme-makers”</em> actually mean? As Editor-in-Chief, Tim Davie is ultimately responsible for all the content published by the BBC. But as Director-General, he is also the boss of the ECU…</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">As we have seen, Mr. Davie has already bent the rules to put ECU directly in charge of these complaints. If he actually gave a rat’s about <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“the deeply-felt concerns expressed by senior leaders in the Jewish community and others,”</em> he could have bent them a bit further and entrusted the investigation to a truly independent inquiry committee. But let’s not be naïve!</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Well, since the investigation was performed by the ECU, what exactly did they investigate? The Report tells us that:</span></p><blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">“In reaching our finding we have watched and read the relevant output, watched and listened to an enhanced audio version of the disputed recording, examined the editorial processes which led to the inclusion of the claim about an anti-Muslim slur in both the online and broadcast items, and considered the BBC’s subsequent decision to stand by its reporting. We have also considered the two reports commissioned by the Board of Deputies, along with the result of a separate check carried out on behalf of the BBC.”</span></p></blockquote><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Let us remember: <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“the relevant output” </em>consisted of a 500-word article and a brief television segment; the <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“disputed recording”</em> had a total duration of 58 seconds; and the <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“editorial processes” </em>all took place in the course of one day. I’d say that most of us, in our professional lives, would be expected to accomplish that volume of reading, watching and considering in a couple of hours, not a couple of months. Especially when instructed to <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“investigate</em> […] <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">as a matter of urgency”</em>!! But superior intellects (the likes of which obviously inhabit the Executive Complaints Unit) cannot, should not be held to mere human standards...</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">But let’s continue to investigate the ECU investigation: one thing people complained about was that the BBC reported the (actual) racist attack against Jews as <i>“alleged”</i>, while presenting the (alleged) slur by the Jews as fact. The ECU Report explains that… well, it’s the bloody lawyers’ fault!</span></p><blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">“the terminology was used on the basis of legal advice taken by the programme-makers, and was by no means unusual in reporting matters under police investigation which may fall to be decided by the courts, and where not all the facts have been established.”</span></p></blockquote><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">The only problem with that explanation is that… it fails to explain anything. Because, as the BBC News article stated</span></p><blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">“The Met Police has said the incident will be looked at ‘in its entirety’”.</span></p></blockquote><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">That sentence was placed immediately after the report on the anti-Muslim slur, clearly implying that, at least in BBC’s view, that slur was part and parcel of the ‘entirety’ under police investigation (and, like anything <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“under police investigation”</em>, liable <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“to be decided by the courts”</em>).</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">As for the facts, clearly all of them hadn’t yet been established.</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Why, then, the difference in BBC reporting?</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">In reality, claims the ECU, the BBC report actually favoured the Jews, because</span></p><blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">“the anti-Muslim slur claim […] was contextualised in the online item in a way the statements about the behaviour of those outside the bus were not, by the inclusion of a quote from one of the students on the bus, in which she denied hearing any such insults from her fellow-passengers.”</span></p></blockquote><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">All true, of course. But there is a slightly deeper context to the BBC contextualization (or lack thereof): the victim of the antisemitic attack spoke to the BBC, while the perpetrators were nowhere to be found – for rather obvious reasons! This wasn't the BBC providing 'context'; no, it was the simple fact that one allegation was denied; the other wasn't.</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">The Report then addresses another part of the complaint: referring to ‘the slur,’ the (not very articulate!) BBC TV reporter’s stated that</span></p><blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">“It’s not clear at the moment for the person which said that what role this may have played in the incident.”</span></p></blockquote><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">This, many complained, is tantamount to suggesting that ‘the slur’ provoked the entire incident – i.e. blaming the attack on its Jewish victims.</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Not so, found the ECU. It</span></p><blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">“did not accept that either item lacked impartiality in the senses complained of, or that the charges of victim-blaming or false equivalence are warranted.”</span></p></blockquote><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">And why? The ECU provided three reasons:</span></p><ol style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; list-style-image: initial; list-style-position: initial; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 20px; vertical-align: baseline;"><li style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">The TV item was unscripted, so <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“</em><em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">the reporter’s intended meaning was not expressed with complete clarity.”</em></span></li><li style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“he did not assert that the slur had played a role”</em> and</span></li><li style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“</em><em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">the reference came towards the end of a piece in which the overriding focus had been on the behaviour of those outside the bus.”</em></span></li></ol><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Well, why was the item unscripted? This was not a case of hastily broadcasting from the site of a recent crime. According to ECU’s own findings, the BBC had learned about the incident the day before; it had even managed to publish an article about it hours before the TV segment was aired. The reporter had ample time to prepare a script, or at least carefully think through what he was going to say.</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">As for whether the reporter ‘asserted’ or not… one would think that journalists (who make a living from writing and speaking) would treat words with a bit more respect. Nobody said that the reporter ‘asserted’ anything; but he certainly suggested that 'the anti-Muslim slur' did play a role in the incident. If I said <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“It’s not clear <span style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><u>whether</u></span> X played a role in Y,”</em> a reasonable person would understand that there is about a 50:50 chance of X having played a role in Y; we just don’t know. But if I say <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“It’s not clear <span style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><u>what role</u></span> X played in Y,”</em> then the suggestion is that it <span style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">did</span> play a role, the extent and/or nature of which is still unknown.</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">But why would anyone (let alone a BBC journalist) believe that ‘the slur’ (even if there was one) played any role? After all, 'the slur' is supposed to have been captured in the video, which was taken <span style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">after</span> the attack had already started. And could the attackers standing outside the bus really hear ‘the slur’ uttered inside the vehicle, at a volume level that makes it barely audible in the video taken inside?? If the BBC reporter genuinely believed what he said, I suggest that he should not be working for the BBC; his skills set makes him a great fit for a cute village periodical like The Fordwich Roar!</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">As for the flimsy excuse that the statement about ‘the role of the slur’ <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“came </em><em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">towards the end of </em>[the]<em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> piece,” </em>many a journalist (though probably not those working for the BBC or indeed The Fordwich Roar) will tell you that the end is more important and memorable than the beginning; it’s the end where one usually finds ‘the punch line’ of a story.</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">But let’s go on: was the BBC justified in reporting (as fact!) ‘a slur’ that somebody at the BBC – and, at that point, at least, <span style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">only at the BBC</span> – thought s/he heard in a blurry, noisy and indistinct amateur video? Yes, it was justified, says the ECU. Why? Because of:</span></p><ol style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; list-style-image: initial; list-style-position: initial; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 20px; vertical-align: baseline;"><li style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“</em><em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">an unusually high level of consultation among colleagues about the content of the recording”</em>. Including <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“at least seven members of BBC London news staff and a senior editor in network news, all of whom agreed that the phrase ‘Dirty Muslims’ could be heard”</em>.</span></li><li style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“a WhatsApp exchange with the CST </em>[the Community Security Trust]<em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">”</em></span></li></ol><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">The first justification begs the question: what was the reason for that “<em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">unusually high level of consultation”</em>? If ‘the slur’ had been clear, surely there would have been no reason for <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“at least seven members of BBC London news staff and a senior editor in network news” </em>to be consulted. And if it was unclear enough to require seven different people to be asked, should the BBC not have consulted an expert, before publishing what amounts to a grave accusation of racism against a group of children and their adult supervisors?</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><span>‘But we did ask an expert’ appears to be the ECU’s claim. ‘We asked the CST’. Except that the CST expertise in this matter consists entirely of them… being Jewish. Apparently, in the minds of the ECU grandees, </span>all <span>Jews think the same and know things about each other. Hence, for the BBC the CST had 'inside knowledge', even though they are not (and never claimed to be) either linguists or sound engineers…</span></span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">It is also interesting to analyse the details of ECU’s claim involving the CST. The Report says that</span></p><blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">“The claim was put by the reporter in the television item to the representative of the CST with whom he had been dealing, who replied (in a WhatsApp exchange which the ECU has seen) in terms which the BBC took as confirmation that the phrase in question had been spoken and, in the ECU’s judgement, it was entirely reasonable to take them in that sense.“</span></p></blockquote><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">In other words, nobody at the CST provided any confirmation; they provided ‘something’ that the BBC took (or chose to take) as confirmation… Notwithstanding the fact that the CST (which had not been present during the incident) clearly had no way to know whether <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“the phrase in question had been spoken”</em> or not.</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">It is interesting (not to say ‘revealing’) that the ECU chooses not to quote the supposed <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“confirmation”</em> in its report, though they quote many other things. The public (which pays the inflated salaries of the BBC bosses sitting on the ECU) has no way to assess how reasonable it was for the BBC to take that alleged CST message as <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“confirmation”</em>. The public, of course, must not be allowed to question <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“ECU’s judgement”</em>.</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">On its part, the CST strenuously denies that it gave any such <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“confirmation”</em>. It tweeted:</span></p><blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">“CST completely rejects the claim in today’s BBC report that CST confirmed to the BBC on 2nd December that an anti-Muslim phrase had been spoken on the Chabad bus that was attacked on Oxford Street.<br />CST was not asked for any such confirmation by the BBC and was in no position to provide any confirmation: we had no prior knowledge of the allegation and had not sought to confirm it with any of the witnesses or victims at that point.<br />Instead, a BBC journalist who had already been in contact with CST over the incident phoned to tell us that (a) an anti-Muslim slur was audible and (b) the BBC was going to include it in their report. He was definite on both points.<br />CST replied in a WhatsApp to argue that the alleged slur, even if true, was irrelevant to the dynamic of how the incident occurred and should not be reported. We were in no position to confirm (or not) whether the now much-disputed phrase in question had been spoken.<br />The BBC’s claim is therefore a completely misleading representation of the exchanges between the BBC and CST on that day. CST informed the BBC of this before today’s report was published but they have gone ahead anyway. Their behaviour is appalling and deeply damaging.”</span></p></blockquote><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">It does not take too much imagination to put 1 + 1 together. A BBC journo phoned the CST and told them something like: ‘We’ve discovered that the Jews inside the bus uttered anti-Muslim slurs. What do you guys have to say about that? Just to give you the heads-up, we’re going to include this in our report tonight’. ‘I’ll get back to you,’ must’ve said the unsettled CST person. S/he was faced with a dire choice: s/he was unable to distinguish any such slur in the recording; but was the BBC, with its superior technical capabilities, right? If so, denying it (a denial that the BBC would have reported, alongside the ‘lack of condemnation’) would have hurt CST’s status and credibility. So our CST person sends a WhatsApp message saying something like ‘Look, we condemn any kind of racism. But, even if such slur was uttered, it’s irrelevant. By then, the antisemitic incident was already ongoing. Reporting the slur would only serve to create a false equivalence between the attack and the slur that came afterwards.’</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">‘Aha,’ said the BBC reporter, ‘so they confirm my scoop! I’d better call The Fordwich Roar and tell’em I’m not accepting their offer just yet.’</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">No, it does not take too much imagination to reconstruct all this. But it does take a bit of honesty – a merchandise that is, it seems to me, in short supply among BBC ‘executives’.</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">But what the ECU did not investigate is even more revealing than what they did. After all, the video was undeniable evidence of an antisemitic attack. What’s more, it completely corroborated the testimony of Tamara Cohen (one of the victims of the attack, who was quoted in the BBC News article). So why did someone at the BBC think that, instead of trying to understand the shouts by the attackers (including the shout of ‘Free Palestine,’ which the BBC chose not to report), efforts should be made to gather what the Jewish victims said inside the bus? And who was that ‘someone at the BBC’?</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Well, we can quite easily answer at least the latter question. Because the correction paragraph added by the BBC to the original article says the following</span></p><blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">“Correction 3 December: During the editing process a line was added to this article reporting that racial slurs about Muslims could be heard inside the bus. This line has been amended to make clear that “a slur about Muslims” could be heard.”</span></p></blockquote><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">So the initial writer penned an article describing the attack, but not any slur – an article similar to others that had already been published by The Telegraph and the Evening Standard. It is <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“during the editing process”</em> (i.e., by the editor in charge) that the libellous statement was added. In other words, this wasn’t the initiative of a lowly BBC journo; it was the editor that harbored the prejudice; the editor who thought ‘I bet these Jews did something or other to provoke this. Play it again – and this time forget those silly Muslim boys. Let’s listen to what the Jews were saying in that bus…’</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><span>The ECU, of course, did not challenge this. As if seeking ‘evidence’ that incriminates the victims is common BBC practice – rather than something they </span>only <span>do when Jews are involved!</span></span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Instead, the ECU Report turned to what they refer to as</span></p><blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">“the third question, about whether the BBC has been right to continue to defend the statements in its reports about an anti-Muslim slur as accurate and not requiring amendment.”</span></p></blockquote><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">We thus learn that the BBC has made big efforts to prove that they were right all along.</span></p><blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">“the mobile phone recording has been listened to by a number of senior members of BBC News management (and a member of staff with a working knowledge of Hebrew), and discussed with the BBC’s Jerusalem Bureau with input from native Hebrew-speakers there (though with inconclusive results…)”</span></p></blockquote><p style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #333333;">So inconclusive, in fact, that the BBC decided to… employ a firm of translators. Presumably, the translators understand Hebrew better than native Hebrew speakers who live in Israel and speak the language every day. E</span><span style="color: #333333;"><span>mploying a firm of translators costs money, but the BBC has £3.5 billion of our money to spend… And, after all, it is easier to get ‘the correct result’ when one pays for the job… Though, </span></span><span style="color: #333333;"><span>ultimately</span></span><span style="color: #333333;"><span>, the BBC did not quite get everything they wanted: while 3 of the translators ‘construed the phrase’ as ‘Dirty Muslims’, a 4</span></span><span style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">th</span><span style="color: #333333;"> one described what s/he heard as the Hebrew version of ‘Call someone, it’s urgent’ (i.e., the same phrase identified by a Professor of Linguistics and a team of digital forensic and data security specialists consulted by the Board of Deputies of British Jews).</span></span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">This invites a few questions:</span></p><ol style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; list-style-image: initial; list-style-position: initial; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 20px; vertical-align: baseline;"><li style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Which firm of translators was this, who were the translators themselves and on what basis were they selected? Were those translators aware of the various 'interpretations' of the phrase, or was their work untainted by such prior knowledge? Since the public paid for their work, isn’t the public entitled to know??</span></li><li style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">If the claim is that the phrase was ‘Dirty Muslims’ spoken in English, what makes a Hebrew translator’s opinion any more relevant than that of any other English speaker?</span></li><li style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">While the Hebrew for ‘call someone’ (tikrá lemíshehu) may be said to have a (very, very vague) phonetic resemblance to ‘Dirty Muslims’, the entire phrase (call someone, it’s urgent/tikrá lemíshehu, ze dahoof) includes two additional words. Did those translators who thought they hear ‘Dirty Muslims’ identify the next two words spoken? If those were not identified (or if they were, but they don't fit into the 'Dirty Muslims' version, then that very much weakens the credibility of that version.</span></li></ol><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><span>But there is a bigger issue here – one that the ECU has, of course, chosen to ignore. Employing translators to 'interpret' what was said is <span style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">not</span> common journalistic practice. W</span>hen facts need investigating, t<span>he first journalistic instinct is… to ask questions; to interview people. Especially eye witnesses. In fact, the BBC did interview one such eye witness – a certain Tamara Cohen. Who stated that</span></span></p><blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">“she did not hear anyone saying anything provocative to the group of men gathered outside the vehicle.”</span></p></blockquote><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">The ECU simply ignored that; after all, Tamara Cohen is clearly Jewish. So ‘she would say that, wouldn’t she’?</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">There is also the testimony of Rabbi Shneor Glitsenstein, who denied having heard any slur.</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Has anyone at the BBC tried to interview the good rabbi? Has anyone tried to identify additional eyewitnesses (through the rabbi, through Tamara Cohen, or by just asking around)? Knowing that this was an activity organised by Chabad and knowing the names of at least two participants, surely it cannot be too difficult to find others? Yet no such attempts are described in the ECU Report – so we can only assume that they did not take place. The question is: why? Is it because the BBC reporters, editors and managers thought that interviewing more Jews isn’t going to reveal anything – after all 'they all stick together and lie through their teeth'?</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">How does the ECU justify discounting not just the opinion of experts consulted by the Board of Deputies, but also the testimony of eyewitnesses – the two that spoke out and the others that could have done if approached by the BBC?</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Instead of asking questions about that most basic journalistic practice (ask questions, interview eyewitnesses), the ECU Report plunges into the realm of philosophy, by recycling and somewhat twisting a side remark made by a Professor of Linguistics (the one consulted by the Board of Deputies). In his report, the Professor had mentioned the concept of ‘Apollonian tendency’ – a term that seeks to describe the natural propensity of the human mind to seek order and meaning in apparently senseless information. Thus, the suggestion is that, when human beings hear something they cannot clearly understand (e.g. in a foreign language) they seek to interpret it based on prior information and perhaps sheer imagination. The ECU attempts to use this concept to claim that it</span></p><blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">“had encountered cases where the same audio material can genuinely be construed in entirely different senses by different listeners. The interpretation arrived at may well depend on cues which the listener is unaware of having received and, once arrived at, may be very difficult to controvert.”</span></p></blockquote><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">This is clearly a fine example of intellectual contortionism – except that the intellectual part is rather faulty. <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“The interpretation arrived at”</em> may indeed depend <em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“on cues which the listener is unaware of having received”</em>. But in this case, what were – even with hindsight – the cues that led the BBC to ‘hear’ a slur coming from a bus full of Jewish kids?</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">What the ECU chooses not to say is that, more often than not, it is not cues that drive human beings to misinterpret things in a particular way; rather, it is preconceptions and prejudices. If I hear people whispering behind my back and cannot clearly make out what they are saying, the ‘Apollonian tendency’ may cause me to ‘hear’ that they slander me – particularly if those whispering are people I dislike or mistrust; if, however, they are friends or people I like, I may ‘hear’ that they are organizing a surprise party for my birthday…</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><span>Even if we assume (as the ECU wants us to) </span>that <span>this is a case of ‘Apollonian tendency’ on both sides, it remains the case that BBC journalists, editors and managers subliminally chose to ‘hear’ an anti-Muslim slur uttered by Jews. What does that tell us about the preconceptions and prejudices harbored by those journalists, editors and managers?</span></span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">And there is another point worth making here. ‘Apollonian tendency’ is precisely that: a tendency, an impulse. As human beings we should be capable of reigning in such impulses, of tempering them, of challenging and vanquishing them with the tools of decency, fairness and ethics. Those tools include the notion of ‘benefit of the doubt’. When sitting on a jury, for instance, we may experience a subliminal dislike or mistrust towards the defendant. Perhaps the shape of his face subliminally reminds us of someone who once wronged us; perhaps her mannerisms bring up some other unpleasant memory... But we should be instructed – not just by the judge, but by our own conscience and sense of justice – to pay attention to the evidence, not to our own impressions, prejudices and preconceptions: the defendant (any defendant) should be seen as innocent until/unless proven otherwise.</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">In the case at hand, the only certainty was that there was doubt: this is why there was “<em style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">an unusually high level of consultation among” </em>BBC reporters and editors. Yet they decided not to give the benefit of the doubt. What exactly, if not anti-Jewish prejudice, outweighed the presumption of innocence in the minds of those BBC employees? Stripped to the bare bones, this is the same <a href="https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/publications/cjm/article/implicit-racial-bias-and-anatomy-institutional-racism" rel="noopener" style="border: 0px; color: #3b8bea; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">implicit racial bias</a> that causes an American police officer to reach for his gun when encountering a young black man with some indistinct object in his hand…</span></p><h2 style="border: 0px; clear: both; color: #333333; font-size: 20px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 26px; margin: 26px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Institutional racism</span></h2><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">I do not for a moment believe that everyone at the BBC harbours antisemitic prejudice; or even that most BBC journalists do.</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">A <a href="https://cst.org.uk/public/data/file/7/4/JPR.2017.Antisemitism%20in%20contemporary%20Great%20Britain.pdf" rel="noopener" style="border: 0px; color: #3b8bea; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">relatively recent study</a> found that nearly 1 in 3 Britons believes in at least one antisemitic trope (that does not make 1 in 3 Brits antisemitic; human opinions and behaviors are not binary but distributed along a spectrum).</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">It is likely that the BBC (with its 22,000 employees) isn’t very different in that respect from the British society at large. But human communities and institutions are more than the sum of their parts. Those 22,000 are bound together by that complex glue we sometimes call ‘culture’.</span></p><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Sir William Macpherson provided us with the best definition of institutional racism. It isn’t about numbers – but culture, attitudes, behaviors:</span></p><blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">“The collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour that amount to discrimination through prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.”</span></p></blockquote><p style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Tim Davie and his Executive Complaints Unit should read this definition. Then read it again. Then, if they have a dram of decency, they’ll hopefully bow their heads in shame. Because they allowed prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping to taint processes, attitudes and behavior; because they allowed the cancer of institutional racism to spread at the British Broadcasting Corporation. And the result is not just that a small ethnic community has been highhandedly, contemptuously discriminated against; even worse: by abusing its privileged position, the BBC has rendered such discrimination acceptable in the wider society. The BBC caused damage that will be extremely difficult to undo.</span></p>Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-32031735301246888022021-09-26T14:34:00.001-07:002021-09-26T14:34:19.819-07:00‘Zionists’ teach Zionism<h2 style="text-align: left;">‘Imagine’</h2><p>Imagine a classroom full of 8-year-olds. They study a subject called ‘National and Social Upbringing’. They’re told to open the textbook (printed in 2019) at page 29, which summarises, in just two bullet points, what they have just learned:</p><blockquote><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><i>Jerusalem is an Arab city built by our Arab forefathers thousands of years ago.</i></li><li><i>Jerusalem is a holy city for Muslims and Christians.</i></li></ul></blockquote><p>In the next classroom, 10-year-old kids are taught Islamic Education. At page 63, the textbook (also printed in 2019) tells them that</p><blockquote><i>Al Buraq Wall is part of the western wall of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Muslims alone have absolute right to it.</i></blockquote><p>‘Al-Buraq Wall’ is what Israelis call the Western Wall. It used to be called the ‘Wailing Wall’, because it’s there that – for almost two millennia – Jews used to express their sorrow at the loss of the Temple. But the kids can be forgiven for not knowing that, because Jews are conspicuously absent from their textbooks – until they suddenly appear in the 20th century, first as ‘immigrants’ and then as conquerors, land thieves and blood-thirsty monsters.</p><p>A couple of pages further, the same Islamic Education textbook informs the kids that the liberation of Al-Aqsa Mosque is the duty of the entire Nation of Islam; that – as Muslims – they, the kids, must <i>“sacrifice”</i> for its liberation. The Mosque, is of course forever under attack: the Social Studies textbook for Year 7 claims that, as early as 1969,</p><blockquote><i>the Zionists set the Al-Aqsa Mosque on fire.</i></blockquote>Imagine other textbooks, also used in this school: an Arabic Language textbook for 10-year-olds expressing profound admiration for Dalal al-Mughrabi – a terrorist responsible for the death of 38 Israeli civilians, 13 of them children; arithmetics are taught by adding up numbers of “martyrs”. Physics – by studying the mechanics of slingshots used by heroic youths<p></p><blockquote><i>to confront the soldiers of the Zionist Occupation and defend themselves from their treacherous bullets.</i></blockquote><p></p><p>I wrote ‘imagine’ – but this is no imaginary school. No, it’s typical of the ‘<a href="https://www.impact-se.org/wp-content/uploads/PA-New-Curriculum_1-11-Examples_Updated.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">education system</span></a>’ controlled by the Palestinian Authority. The vast majority of Palestinian children in the West Bank attend such schools. As for the kids of Gaza, they have the ‘benefit’ of a Hamas-designed curriculum. The same Hamas that produced an animation <a href="https://www.algemeiner.com/2014/05/06/for-israel-independence-day-hamas-hatikvah-parody-video-shows-jews-forced-onto-ships-to-germany-video/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">propaganda movie</span></a> showing Israeli Jews being forced to board ships under the rifles of victorious Muslim fighters.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Problem and solution</h2><p>Anyone who dreams of peace between Jews and Arabs will be driven to despair by such ‘education’. How can Palestinian children be expected to make peace one day with those who they’ve been brainwashed into seeing as murderous monsters, as aliens with no rights and no connection to the land they are constantly ‘trying to steal’? You’d think that none should be more exercised by this ‘education’ than the self-appointed ‘peace and human rights activists’.</p><p>Yet, if we are to judge by a recent opinion piece published in the Jewish Chronicle, the real, pressing problem rests not with Palestinian schools in Gaza and the West Bank, but with Jewish schools in the UK. The issue, opines Sabrina Miller, is that these latter schools don’t</p><p></p><blockquote><i>acknowledge the Palestinian narrative in any meaningful way.</i></blockquote><p></p><p>The problem – she claims – is that these Jewish schools don’t allow their students to engage with <i>“Israel-sceptic organisations from an early age”</i>.</p><p>That’s why, says Ms. Miller, Jewish youth is unprepared to resist the anti-Israel onslaught they will experience as students on UK university campuses. That’s why</p><p></p><blockquote><i>many university students, frustrated with the mainstream community’s approach to Israel, abandon Zionism entirely.</i></blockquote><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCXPVcwbd8zzoY6WjMab8dRw97HNIc2kF0XWHLArTiLcQ9Vu3At3uYFY5BH1cVOhz7oUu32V6auRK_g8M2987NkPP4OeeryXbCJkONtqnLrryqyyPk0OSrXiTs10Bt6DVjw0cwG-e5OKJc/s1411/Screenshot+2021-09-25+at+17.29.54.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1411" data-original-width="1125" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCXPVcwbd8zzoY6WjMab8dRw97HNIc2kF0XWHLArTiLcQ9Vu3At3uYFY5BH1cVOhz7oUu32V6auRK_g8M2987NkPP4OeeryXbCJkONtqnLrryqyyPk0OSrXiTs10Bt6DVjw0cwG-e5OKJc/w319-h400/Screenshot+2021-09-25+at+17.29.54.png" width="319" /></a></div><br /><p>Let Yachad (one of these <i>“Israel-sceptic organisations”</i>) ‘school’ Jewish children about ‘the conflict’ <i>“from an early age”</i>, says Ms. Miller, and they’ll become better advocates for Israel and lifelong Zionists.</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">But why?</h2><p>Ms. Miller is, of course, entitled to her opinion. And she’s not entirely wrong. It is true that many British Jewish students feel unprepared for the ‘anti-Zionist’ venom they face on campus. It is true that, faced with the most outlandish accusations, some are shocked to the point where they feel helpless.</p><p>But why should they have to face that venom – and be prepared for it? Do students of Pakistani descent face a backlash caused by the often unsavory acts of the Government of Pakistan? Are British students of Indian descent required to either defend or condemn Narendra Modi? Why is there, in British universities, such an obsessive focus on a conflict thousands of miles away? One of the many conflicts in today’s world and – in objective terms – by no means the gravest or the bloodiest? Why were there – at a conference of the British Labour Party – a thousand times more Palestinian flags than Russian, Chinese, Indian, American and British flags, taken together?</p><p>So why does Ms. Miller place the onus on Jews and on Jewish schools – i.e. on the victims and their education? One does not combat domestic abuse by teaching women and girls krav maga; it is the abusers that need to learn a lesson. If Ms. Miller saw black people being lambasted by racists, would her solution be that schools teach BAME people more biology, the better to confront their detractors, who accuse them of being racially inferior?</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">‘Palestinian narrative’</h2><p>But even if Jewish schools wanted to teach <i>“the Palestinian narrative”</i> – what exactly is that narrative? As the West Bank textbooks prove, Palestinians don’t live in a democratic, liberal society. Neither the ‘moderate’ Palestinian Authority, nor Hamas (the local branch of Muslim Brotherhood) tolerate a free press, freedom of speech, freedom of public debate… They <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-57593740" target="_blank"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">brook no dissent</span></a>; quite the opposite – both Hamas and the PA actively encourage and reinforce societal taboos that tightly constrain speech and severely punish ‘unorthodox’ expression. What is <i>“the Palestinian narrative”</i>, then – other than whatever these two dictatorial regimes decide that ‘the masses’ should know, believe and say? The PLO Negotiations Affair Department unabashedly declare <a href="https://www.nad.ps/en/history" target="_blank"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">on their website</span></a> that Jews are <i>“immigrants</i> [who] <i>colonize Palestine at the expense of our rights and aspirations”</i>. Is this<i> “the Palestinian narrative”</i> that we ‘must’ teach to our children <i>“from an early age”</i>? Should we also school them in the ravings of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane – just for balance? Even better: should we teach Mein Kampf in Jewish schools – lest our young people feel ill-equipped to fight fascism and antisemitism?</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Is your house flooded? You clearly need more water!</h2><p>But Ms. Miller’s reference to <i>“the Palestinian narrative”</i> may really be just an intellectually dishonest euphemism. What she truly seems to imply is that Jewish youth are not sufficiently exposed to <i>“criticism of Israel”</i>. Are they not, really?? Anyone familiar with the British media knows that, whenever the word ‘Israel’ is uttered (and it is uttered a lot!), it is usually followed by criticism – varying in nature from unfairly harsh to downright outrageous. These days, the BBC can’t even do an interview with a Holocaust survivor without <a href="https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/bbc-orla-guerin-yad-vashem/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">mentioning</span></a> the <i>“occupied Palestinian territories”</i>!</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimZm7ctuiz0vlYyXoR7c73RmUmIlNqtPEFDbtEYOkGv0UVW3v2ciEvclY9rs3r4na7gGd8EqEUAyl4hefR2oOVYelwYCswiNXD2ML5INpkrdDX8pQxWMIhMh3DSzo8WZvLsKcDAwUj7gR9/s561/Jeremy+Bowen+tweet+every+jew.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="561" data-original-width="511" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimZm7ctuiz0vlYyXoR7c73RmUmIlNqtPEFDbtEYOkGv0UVW3v2ciEvclY9rs3r4na7gGd8EqEUAyl4hefR2oOVYelwYCswiNXD2ML5INpkrdDX8pQxWMIhMh3DSzo8WZvLsKcDAwUj7gR9/w364-h400/Jeremy+Bowen+tweet+every+jew.png" width="364" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">BBC’s Middle East Editor urges Jews and gentiles to explore the dark side of Judaism.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>Even the Jewish media is replete with views of ‘Palestinian supporters’: within days of Ms. Miller’s opinion piece, the Jewish Chronicle published an article by British-Palestinian Layla Moran MP – in which she called for boycotting <i>“the illegal settlements”</i>. For those still naïve about ‘liberal’ (or Liberal) vocabulary, <i>“the”</i> in <i>“the illegal settlements”</i> stands for ‘Israeli’. After all, there’s nothing illegal about Han Chinese settlers in Tibet and Xinjiang, Moroccan settlers in Western Sahara, Turkish settlers in Cyprus, etc., etc., etc. Is there??</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicbYGlPQIgGMToehQeOKLgOaT3L3PsdZ2kAr2cIMHIbn747qfeOG9TBSTnwLU0irApHgPkKyZWfHbidTnD8OHRDxheg21oqCNp5bJWINQPdmxTllTgYd6lcKr_yfQ0MuLFPqJFx2Q6HBR9/s1508/IMG_8266.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1508" data-original-width="1125" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicbYGlPQIgGMToehQeOKLgOaT3L3PsdZ2kAr2cIMHIbn747qfeOG9TBSTnwLU0irApHgPkKyZWfHbidTnD8OHRDxheg21oqCNp5bJWINQPdmxTllTgYd6lcKr_yfQ0MuLFPqJFx2Q6HBR9/w299-h400/IMG_8266.jpg" width="299" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Yachad applauded Layla Moran's article, which calls for boycott against Israeli settlements.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>As for the social media – to which youngsters, Jews and Gentiles alike, tend to be addicted – there the ‘criticism’ is neither unfair nor outrageous, but most often berserk.</p><p>During the latest Gaza-Israel bout of violence, my girlfriend’s children (16 and 18-year-olds) were both bombarded with horrific anti-Israel comments on Instagram…</p><p>But apparently that’s not enough. What our youngsters really need is… a bit of Yachad ‘education about the conflict’.</p><p>Ms. Miller refers to Yachad as <i>“a Zionist anti-occupation movement”</i>. On Twitter, Yachad itself professes to be <i>“pro-Israel”</i>. Well, let me tell you: both descriptions are… how should I put it in polite British terms… ‘a bit’ misleading. Yachad has mostly ceased describing itself as Zionist – probably because the term is soooo ‘divisive’. As for <i>“pro-Israel”</i>… I just ploughed through Yachad’s 100 most recent Twitter posts: there are exactly 0 (zero) posts praising the Jewish state, or defending her from her many detractors. In fact, the most recent tweets endorsed Layla Moran’s call for ‘illegal settlement boycott’ and urged everybody to ‘move beyond’ being ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ Israel…</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">And more ‘water’ is what they’re getting!</h2><p>Ms. Miller reports with chagrin that</p><p></p><blockquote><i>Petitions have been circulated by parents trying to ban Yachad […] from Jewish secondary schools. The claim made by those that started the petition is that “Yachad is hostile to Israel”.</i></blockquote><p></p><p>Firstly, note that the initial <i>“</i>[p]<i>etitions”</i> surreptitiously became just one <i>“petition”</i> – in the space of just a few insincere words. As far as I’m concerned, Ms. Miller is lying: I am only aware of one <i>“petition”</i> (actually, a complaint to JCoSS – the Jewish Community Secondary School); I was involved in writing it, so I know very well that it did <b>not </b>ask to <i>“ban”</i> Yachad, but to balance its views with those held by other organisations and by the (Zionist) majority of British Jewry. I.e. to implement the school’s own declared policy of ‘pluralism’ and ‘diversity of opinion’. And to uphold the <a href="http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/acts/1996-education-act.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">law of the land</span></a>, which prohibits (Art. 406 (1)(b))</p><p></p><blockquote><i>the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school.</i></blockquote><p></p><p>and requires (Art. 407)</p><p></p><blockquote><i>that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils </i>[…]<i> they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.</i></blockquote><p></p><p>As for Yachad being <i>“hostile to Israel”</i> – let me just say that it routinely lobbies the British government to put pressure on the Jewish state, to force her to do things that the vast majority of Israelis believe to be detrimental to their safety and wellbeing.</p><p>And yet, Ms. Miller again deceives her readers by implying that Yachad is not ‘educating’ in Jewish schools. In reality (and, in my view, in violation of the law), Yachad has unmatched involvement in the ‘education about the conflict’ in at least certain Jewish schools. Here’s what their 2020 Annual Report says:</p><p></p><blockquote><i>In January and February 2020, we completed six-part courses for both year 12 and year 13 at JCoSS, with over 30 students participating </i>[…]<i> we also delivered sessions for years 7, 8 and 9 at JCoSS, meeting with over 75 students.</i></blockquote><p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwGoY_nTxCl9E-x-5R_5dv3I3iIYG56PuRhrUD8g_N-CNVYANmXOQyTA8eD9_QBI2n7c11Beu6-Jg8Udebrz8_B9cWKdx46zwdCA2WS5auhCIcgF7T1Lr_vvVegp6se87nDfxozdvEPn5u/s2546/Political+activists+educators.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1235" data-original-width="2546" height="310" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwGoY_nTxCl9E-x-5R_5dv3I3iIYG56PuRhrUD8g_N-CNVYANmXOQyTA8eD9_QBI2n7c11Beu6-Jg8Udebrz8_B9cWKdx46zwdCA2WS5auhCIcgF7T1Lr_vvVegp6se87nDfxozdvEPn5u/w640-h310/Political+activists+educators.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Yachad: political activists and ‘educators’</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>And it is not just JCoSS: as previous annual reports make it clear, Yachad (a political lobby, let’s remember!) is ‘educating’ several other Jewish schools, as well as some non-Jewish ones.</p><p>Perhaps Ms Miller’s objection is that Year 7 (11-12 year olds) isn’t sufficiently <i>“early age”</i> to</p><p></p><blockquote><i>acknowledge the Palestinian narrative in any meaningful way.</i></blockquote><p></p><p>Perhaps we should send Yachad to deliver some ‘National and Social Upbringing’ in kindergartens. After all, the Palestinians are applying that early-age indoctri… err… ‘education’ method so very successfully!</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Houston, we have a problem!</h2><p>But Ms. Miller assures us that Yachad’s ‘education’ is precisely what’s needed to turn Jewish youngsters into staunch Zionists, able to hold their own on campus.</p><p>Except that evidence shows that the exact opposite is true. Ms. Miller herself is a case in point: having now finally become aware of <i>“the Palestinian narrative”</i> and gained <i>“sympathy for the Palestinian people”</i>, one would expect Ms. Miller to be a passionate defender of Israel. I therefore undertook an excursion to her Twitter timeline, in search for posts in which she defends the Jewish state against her detractors and combats the many lies that are said about her. Well, I can only say that I returned from that hopeful excursion with empty hands and a sad heart…</p><p>Here’s a bit of intellectual honesty – coming from unusual quarters: Sara Hirschhorn identifies herself as a ‘liberal Zionist’; for years, she partnered with Yachad, for instance speaking together at community events. But she is also an academic, trained to recognise and analyse reality as it is. While speaking to a group of Jewish 14 to 18 years olds she was shocked to discover that they were (<a href="https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-liberal-zionists-we-lost-the-kids-1.5455153" target="_blank"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">in her own words</span></a>)</p><p></p><blockquote><i>ashamed to be associated with Zionism.</i></blockquote><p></p><p>Contrary to what Yachad and Ms. Miller would probably claim, Dr. Hirschhorn found that</p><p></p><blockquote><i>It’s not the settlements, or the occupation. It’s the idea itself. </i>[…]<i> the group did not cite the occupation or the settlements as responsible for their distancing — for them, it went far deeper, to the very premise of a self-defining State of the Jews, back to 1948.</i></blockquote><p></p><p>No, it’s none of Israel’s purported ‘sins’, but</p><p></p><blockquote><i>the post-modernist relativism they’ve grown up within.</i></blockquote><p></p><p>The type of relativism – I’d say – that suggests that schools should teach ‘narratives’, rather than history; that opinion matters more than evidence and that there are no facts, just ‘views’.</p><p>And who is to blame for what many a Jew would describe as a catastrophe? Here Dr. Hirschhorn’s honesty manages to shine through her ideological convictions. Talking to her fellow ‘liberal Zionists’, she resorts to a Hebrew term from Jewish Day of Atonement liturgy (<i>“Ashamnu”</i> – we are guilty) to summarise her findings:</p><p></p><blockquote><i>My conclusion? “Ashamnu.” We </i>[liberal Zionists] <i>must atone , for we have failed an entire generation.</i></blockquote><p></p><p>She unequivocally assigns the youngster’s estrangement to practices that Yachad and similar ‘liberal’ outfits have been engaging in for years: that of always presenting Israel in harshly negative tones – 100% ‘criticism’, 0% praise.</p><p></p><blockquote><i>Above all, we can’t only catalogue the (many) shortcomings — we must constantly and convincingly express what still makes us proud — in spite of it all — in the State of Israel today. If we can’t do that in a selfie, a tweet, a Facebook post, an op-ed or a face-to-face discussion, we must take a hard look at how we have not only failed ourselves, but our future.</i></blockquote><p></p><p>Dr. Hirschhorn is hardly the only one to ring the alarm bell. So <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-jewish-leader-anti-semitism-worse-than-ever-since-wwii-yet-were-ignoring-it/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">did</span></a> Jonathan Goldstein, head of the Jewish Leadership Council:</p><p></p><blockquote><i>Probably the single largest issue that we have to address now is the disengagement of our youth from </i>[…] <i>core Jewish values and from its association with Israel. </i>[…]<i> We’ve allowed our own youth to be detached from Israel. We’ve lost the narrative of the nation state. We’ve lost the Zionist narrative. </i>[…]<i> We have to accept that we have a major problem globally and we have to take it on.</i></blockquote><p></p><p>Note that Mr. Goldstein does not just diagnose estrangement from Israel – but also from Jewishness in general. The two, as many a study has shown, go hand-in-hand.</p><p>In fact, Ms. Miller herself admits that</p><p></p><blockquote><i>many university students </i>[…]<i> abandon Zionism entirely.</i></blockquote><p></p><p>Yet she chooses to blame <i>“the mainstream </i>[Jewish] <i>community”</i> and her ‘solution’ is… more Yachad!</p><p>Well, Ms. Miller was clearly right to choose journalism as a career. That’s a profession in which, admittedly, one can do a lot of harm; but one at least does not get sued for malpractice. Had she chosen medicine, I imagine her passionately prescribing a bout of chesty cough as a salutary remedy for Covid!</p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Gewalt, Yid’n! What do we do?</h2><p>The solution should be obvious even to ‘liberal Zionists’ like Dr. Hirschhorn, as long as – like her – they’re honest:</p><p></p><blockquote><i>We need to reinterpret Zionism as national liberation, while teaching what our tradition offers about moral and political responsibility.</i></blockquote><p></p><p>Of course, that wouldn’t be <i>“reinterpretation”</i> – it would be a return to the term’s true meaning. Zionism has always been a national emancipation movement – which is why, in its modern embodiment, it appeared in a place and time replete with other such movements.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFfbBbLmuEZakApGDNQ3g1a-QW0fULrPt7XjkcEw9ieqMXTZ9jNOVfN5kT8TIKXSiwrMAPum0_O03QzL6mFVdUHHktLeqXh-8qxxHpvfAF79m4_ZtEM5HThYmGZRjJHtx_j62W4eEELwfA/s731/National+liberation+movements.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="731" data-original-width="673" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFfbBbLmuEZakApGDNQ3g1a-QW0fULrPt7XjkcEw9ieqMXTZ9jNOVfN5kT8TIKXSiwrMAPum0_O03QzL6mFVdUHHktLeqXh-8qxxHpvfAF79m4_ZtEM5HThYmGZRjJHtx_j62W4eEELwfA/s320/National+liberation+movements.png" width="295" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #505050; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: start;">A few of the world’s national liberation movements and the approximate year of their beginning.</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>Our young people do not need to be taught <i>“the Palestinian narrative”</i> – or any ‘narrative’. They need to be taught their people’s history. Including Zionism, Israel and their history.</p><p>Do we do this? Let’s listen to Ms. Miller:</p><p></p><blockquote>[F]<i>rankly, the ‘Israel education’ I received (if I can even call it an education) was appalling. In Year 12 we watched Entebbe the movie, had one lecture on the War of Independence and another on Theodore Herzl.</i></blockquote><p></p><p>Most Jewish parents send their children to Jewish schools simply because they want them to continue to be Jews. Zionism should be an essential part of teaching them Jewishness – if nothing else, because without proud, unequivocal Zionism, they (or their own children) will not remain Jews. If concepts like ‘nation’ and ‘nation state’ are ‘old school’, religion is something that belongs in the Middle Ages and ‘multiculturalism’ is the only alternative to Nazism – what, then, is the meaning of being a Jew? For Yachad activists, Jewishness is a variety of socialism ‘decorated’ with the occasional Hebrew term and the odd ritual twisted out of context and meaning. But most Jews don’t want to be socialists and most socialists don’t really like Jews.</p><p>It follows that it is not Yachad who should be ‘in charge’ of ‘educating about the conflict’ – it should be people or organisations that are proudly, unequivocally Zionist. Yachad activists are entitled to their opinions and – as long as they find enough rich donors to fund their socialism – can ply their ideological merchandise like everybody else, in the free market of ideas.</p><p>That does not mean that we must teach myths or ‘beautify’ Zionism in any way. It does not need beautifying. National emancipation movements are necessary and – overall – good, progressive, desirable phenomena. They fulfil essentially-human aspirations such as freedom and meaning to life. But they are not – and never have been – perfect, faultless, ‘sans peur et sans reproche’. They all caused great elation and also much pain. They all reached for the skies with hands that were sometimes tainted with blood. It is only when Jews are involved that some people tend to focus unduly on the imperfections that plague every human endeavour; when they attempt to turn vicissitudes of history into all-encompassing moral indictments. It is only with Jews that some people want to visit the sins of the fathers on the sons; and to turn back the clock of history in the name of a ‘justice’ never before heard of, let alone practiced.</p><p>Indians proudly celebrate their independence – and so they should. That that independence also involved bloodshed, displacement and suffering is well-known. That fact shouldn’t be denied or concealed; nor should it be thrown in Indians’ faces at every opportunity; nor should it be used to contest the legitimacy of their country, or their right to enjoy it in peace and develop it as they see fit.</p><p>No, we should not (nor do we need to) teach a Zionist ‘narrative’; the truth, with its spots of bright light and oppressive darkness, with its beautiful aspirations and its harsh realities – the naked truth should be good enough.</p><p>What our young people need to hear is that truth, neither beautified nor maliciously twisted, but placed in its true context. Every nation on the face of the earth has done things it should not be proud of; Jews, too – though perhaps less than most. Yet every nation is proud of its heritage, its history, its culture, its homeland; Jews certainly should be – perhaps more than most.</p>Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-68666652023463705232021-08-21T03:34:00.005-07:002021-08-23T02:53:43.706-07:00Afghanistan revisited: what should have happened<p>Much has already been said and written about the US and UK
withdrawal from Afghanistan – and that country’s takeover by the Taliban. That doesn’t mean however that we, the public,
are well-informed: our journalists, pundits and politicians tend to utter the
same platitudes, lazily following each other like sheep. We’re left to row through oceans of inane
phraseology, with nary an island of insight.
Yet the Afghanistan ‘story’ is full of meaning and pregnant with lessons
for the future.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">First things first: some of the ‘arguments’ used by
politicians and political activists to justify, alleviate criticism and displace
the blame are so dishonest, so blatantly hypocritical, that they should make us all
gag.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Speaking in UK’s House of Commons, former British Prime
Minister Theresa May <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-08-18/debates/A86142BD-A204-4BC8-BBC0-ACA7BAD7E9F0/Afghanistan#contribution-12F953D5-39CF-476B-904A-87CB2BF78551"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">claimed</span></a>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“What President Biden has
done is to uphold a decision made by President Trump. It was a unilateral
decision of President Trump to do a deal with the Taliban that led to this
withdrawal.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now come oooon, Right Honourable May – who do you think
you’re kidding?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As if undoing every <i>“unilateral
decision of President Trump”</i> were not the Biden Administration’s #1 policy thrust!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No wonder that this ‘defence’ was delivered (with little
conviction and a cracking voice) by a lame duck ‘former’; I bet no one else
wanted that thankless job!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But even Theresa May's speech could not make the US Administration look more
foolish than it already did.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not after
its top diplomats, assertive leaders and ‘intelligence’ tsars had assured us
all that Taliban was utterly incapable of defeating the Afghan army.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And not after its ambassador to the ‘United’
Nations <a href="https://twitter.com/hillelneuer/status/1427823288206729222?s=11"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">uttered
the following memorable words</span></a>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“We have expressed in no
uncertain terms here at the United Nations, through a very strongly-worded
press statement from the Security Council, that we expect the Taliban to
respect human rights, including the rights of women and girls; we have also
indicated that they have to be respectful of humanitarian law…”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I leave it to you, dear reader, to determine whether, hit
with such <i>“strongly-worded press statement”</i>, the Taliban leaders are
currently a) cowering in fear; b) spending sleepless nights under the weight of
such clearly-stated US expectations; or c) laughing their turbans off.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But, while the decision makers and their representatives
covered themselves in abject ridicule, few of their critics came out smelling
of roses, either. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Adjectives like ‘shameful’ and ‘chaotic’ are among the
mildest used by such critics to characterise the withdrawal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are, no doubt, richly deserved.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet let us start with the more mildly worded
– though no less incisive – comment posted on Twitter by Israeli journalist
Haviv Rettig Gur:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;"></span></p><blockquote><i>"O America. It isn't the withdrawal itself that shocks. That makes some
sense. But the speed, callousness and incompetence are harder to swallow, the
human desperation you leave in your wake, the way 20 years of
institution-building don't seem to have built any institutions."</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">It’s not that I argue
with the disappointment (if not sheer pain) expressed by Rettig Gur – who grew
up in America.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What I question is the
underlying belief that this sort of withdrawal can be performed in some
idealised, dignified manner.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A belief that
is desperately, ludicrously naïve.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Find
me – in the entire history of warfare – one example of unilateral withdrawal executed
with the proper décor!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The British
abandonment of the Palestine Mandate?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The French withdrawal from Algeria, the US departure from Vietnam, the
Israeli retreat from South Lebanon, their ‘disengagement’ from Gaza?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They were all done with speed, callousness
and – at least in the eyes of the bystanders – with incompetence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Were all those military and civilian leaders truly
incompetent?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hardly: like kicking the
stool at a hanging, the unilateral removal of armed forces simply cannot be
done ‘sensitively’ and ‘at a measured pace’, no matter how ‘competent’ the
executioner or the commanders in charge.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Former British
Conservative Leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-08-18/debates/A86142BD-A204-4BC8-BBC0-ACA7BAD7E9F0/Afghanistan#contribution-25289A9F-2895-4221-8A73-BF9E3BD922C0"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">echoed</span></a>
Rettig Gur’s idea, albeit in a less elegiac tone and, may I say, in a more
hypocritical style:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;"></span></p><blockquote><i>“The chaotic, ghastly departure, the way that people were falling off
aircraft in their determination to get away, and the helicopters shipping
people out, say terrible things about the values that we hold and those we wish
to protect. This is a shame on all of us, not just America, but also the whole
of NATO and here for us in this House.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Values, Sir Iain?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Valuuuues??<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Let’s be just a little bit honest, for a change: neither the US, nor the
UK, nor any of the other NATO allies that sent troops to Afghanistan did so to protect
‘values’; God knows they don’t intervene militarily whenever/wherever women and
girls (or indeed men and non-binary human beings) endure abysmal
oppression.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No, politicians like Sir
Iain sent soldiers to Afghanistan to protect their own citizens and their own countries’
interests.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And now they’re withdrawing
the military, because they judge – rightly or wrongly – that it’s in their
interest to do so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nothing necessarily
wrong with that; but please: don’t give me ‘values’!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Arguably the most
frequently employed expression, during that entire pointless House of Commons
‘debate’ was <i>“the Afghan people”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It was uttered no less than 41 times – used and abused by every single speaker.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One would think that the Taliban is a band of
Martians freshly descended from an alien spaceship – not an Islamist
organisation reflecting the views of a sizable minority of that people!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And I employ the term ‘minority’ with a
twinge: I may be too optimistic in using it!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">The almost religious
solemnity with which the MPs talked about <i>“the Afghan people”</i> was matched
only by the enormity of that lie: because there simply is no such
‘people’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The <b>population of
Afghanistan</b> (yes, that’s a more honest way to put it) consists of a
multitude of ethnic groups, themselves divided into numerous tribes and
clans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The largest of these groups – the
Pashtuns – constitute anywhere between 38% and 48% of the population; they also
make up the vast majority of Taliban cadre.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Even the term ‘Taliban’ comes from the Pashtu language: it means ‘students’
– presumably not of humanities, but of Islamic doctrine in their own extreme
interpretation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">The old term
‘Afghanistan’ used to mean ‘land of the Pashtuns’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it was ‘borrowed’ by British colonialists
to describe a much larger, artificial ‘country’ – one designed to serve as
stage for the ‘Great Game’ between them and Russian interests.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" id="id_d3a4_b685_867e_3f26" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikplDGuIDJxRceKHihOw4kfGOYSgVXCx0w6rBmA0vbIoPaMYlUwJHDki6SaqfjcG3CesemTsR7czYTnARuQm1-zbTZcmr-sIMlV8qNJF6TORqNByiOXDNdQfDRD6Nbz5IcCr4VcsCckrzG/s2048/3447px-Afghanistan_ethnic_groups_2005.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1283" data-original-width="2048" height="400" id="id_a727_5fc6_df8f_ba01" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikplDGuIDJxRceKHihOw4kfGOYSgVXCx0w6rBmA0vbIoPaMYlUwJHDki6SaqfjcG3CesemTsR7czYTnARuQm1-zbTZcmr-sIMlV8qNJF6TORqNByiOXDNdQfDRD6Nbz5IcCr4VcsCckrzG/w640-h400/3447px-Afghanistan_ethnic_groups_2005.jpg" style="height: auto; width: 640px;" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ethnic map of Afghanistan (CIA, 2005)</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;"><br /></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">The second-largest ethnic
group (the Tajiks) are the ones that constituted the Northern Alliance – the outfit supported by
the US after their 2001 invasion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">True, both the Taliban
and the Northern Alliance later tried – with only moderate success – to expand
their influence beyond their ethnic fiefdom; but the various (and fickle)
coalitions thus constituted do not change the general picture: this is an
ethnic conflict – with superimposed ideological and religious issues.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">While both Pashtuns and
Tajiks are Sunni Muslims, the third-largest ethnic group (the Hazara) belong to
the Shia branch of Islam.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Oppressed for
centuries, they now constitute the ‘natural’ vehicle of influence for
neighbouring Iran.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many Hazara men were
recruited to fight in Syria in the ranks of the so-called ‘pro-Iranian militias’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That – the ayatollahs’ regime made clear to
these men – was the price for their families being allowed to live in relative
safety in Iran.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To each their own
‘asylum policy’, I guess!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">It’s not that I ignore
the ideological aspects of the conflict.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Taliban is one of the most extreme proponents of the (already extreme) Islamist
ideology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it is the ethnic aspect
that enables and enhances their thrust.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>To many a Pashtun tribesman, Taliban aren’t just mujahideen, not just
Muslim holy warriors; they are, primarily perhaps, defenders of the Pashtun way of life, perceived as threatened by
internal and external foes.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Arguably (and rather incongruously) the one pundit
who came close to understanding Afghanistan was Peter Beinart.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It seems that good ol’ Peter can actually
employ reason – when he takes his mind away from his pathological antipathy for
the Jewish state!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unfortunately, even on
those rare occasions, he ultimately does not allow reason to win: like the sea waves on a rocky
shore, his bursts of rationality soon break upon rigid ideological walls.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">At some point, Beinart <a href="https://peterbeinart.substack.com/p/when-will-americans-learn-that-other"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">comes
close to delivering</span></a> the one valid diagnosis for what happened in
Afghanistan:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>"</i>[B]<i>ecause the US underestimated nationalism’s power, it underestimated the
Taliban, as it had once underestimated the Vietcong."</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">But the nationalism he
sees is ‘Afghan’, rather than Pashtun: pseudo-liberals like Beinart simply
cannot bring themselves to acknowledge (let alone accept) ethnic particularism –
even when it stares them in the face or hits them on the head with a cudgel.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">And then comes the hypocrisy
– and the racism of low expectations: Beinart treats ‘Afghan nationalism’ with the
mental shrug one reserves for immovable facts; even while he bashes ‘US
nationalism’ as the cause of all evils.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Typical
pseudo-liberal attitude: ‘Third World’ or ‘brown’ nationalism is OK, or at
least it’s something we must accept as given; ‘Western’ or ‘white’ nationalism
is always criminal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> This is most obvious in their approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: f</span>or Beinart and his
ilk, Palestinian nationalism is something we must tiptoe around, if not enthusiastically support,
encourage and admire; Jewish nationalism (and especially its ultimate
embodiment – the Jewish state) is by definition reprehensible.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">The same weird 'logic' applies to Afghanistan: even though ‘nationalism’
is to be found on both sides, it is always one side that bears the blame; one
side that should know better:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;"></span></p><blockquote><p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><i>"The US invaded Afghanistan both because it was blinded by its own nationalism
after September 11 and because it was blind to the nationalism of the people
whose country it conquered. </i>[…]<i><o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;"><i>Americans must learn that people in foreign countries are just as doggedly,
fervently, and even self-destructively, nationalistic as we are ourselves."</i></span></p></blockquote><p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;"></span><o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Of course, Beinart’s Taliban/Vietcong
parallel is hardly original: numerous pundits compared the US debacle in Afghanistan
with that older one in Vietnam.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And as
hinted before, there are other similar examples.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would be easy to conclude, therefore, that
military intervention in a foreign country is always doomed to failure; that it
should never even be attempted.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">But those who these days (hypocritically, in hindsight, and with a political agenda) push that conclusion willfully ignore another relatively recent (and successful) intervention: that in the
former Yugoslavia.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">True, the NATO
intervention in that Balkanic country was plagued by hiccups and blunders: some
500 civilians were inadvertently killed in aerial bombardments; tens of
thousands of homes were destroyed, alongside schools and cultural
monuments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>US bombs even hit China’s
embassy in Belgrade, killing 3 Chinese journalists and bringing the two world
powers to the brink of war.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And NATO ‘boots
on the ground’ failed to prevent massacres such as the one in Srebrenica.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Yet in the big picture,
that military intervention was a success (if not an unmitigated one): it
ultimately was key to ending the civil war, the killing, the rapes, the massacres.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It helped deliver sustainable peace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just 17 years after Srebrenica, Serbia
applied to join the European Union – a project signifying the end of any irredentist
aspirations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">There are similarities
between Afghanistan and Yugoslavia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For
starters, the latter was also inhabited by a number of ethnic groups.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Like in Afghanistan and elsewhere, the ethnic
divide was exacerbated (and perhaps even born of) religious rifts. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I say ‘rifts’ advisedly: these were not just doctrinal
differences, but deep resentments rooted in centuries of conflict involving Serbs
(Eastern Orthodox Christians), Croats (Romano-Catholic Christians), Bosniaks
and Kosova Albanians (both Muslim).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" id="id_ec2e_92bb_9c91_ab3b" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiK-u6c4-yGqzYvrBIvnSYKOkjdYY51G3Lc5oFMGp8YI6I1xs9jPDxHXyoYZpSggM33597yfleDblBWGjHAFz33F68I7bVHAZakInc6fUw0R8rMgyOZBamjnal691GlaoC29bCQhghszPQw/s859/Yugoslavia+ethnic+map.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="859" data-original-width="850" height="640" id="id_260f_9b7c_5290_30ba" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiK-u6c4-yGqzYvrBIvnSYKOkjdYY51G3Lc5oFMGp8YI6I1xs9jPDxHXyoYZpSggM33597yfleDblBWGjHAFz33F68I7bVHAZakInc6fUw0R8rMgyOZBamjnal691GlaoC29bCQhghszPQw/w634-h640/Yugoslavia+ethnic+map.jpg" style="height: auto; width: 634px;" width="634" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ethnic map of Yugoslavia</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;"><br /></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Yet ‘Yugoslavia’ is at
peace and moving steadily towards freedom, while Afghanistan is headed in the
opposite direction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">The hint is in the
question: ‘Yugoslavia’ is no more.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That
artificial country split into nation states.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Tall fences make good neighbours: Western interventionists understood
that fences (or borders) were needed to deliver peace and progress to the battered people of
‘multi-ethnic’, ‘multi-faith’ Yugoslavia; they helped erect those fences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Afghanistan (as in Iraq, Syria, Libya,
etc.) they did the exact opposite: they allied themselves with those who – for very
ignoble reasons – wanted to forcibly keep different ethnic groups ‘together,’ within
the irrelevant and oppressive borders of a false state.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">‘Nation building’ isn’t the same as building cars: it’s not a mass manufacturing process, but one that occurs
spontaneously (when it occurs at all), over centuries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And that’s true not just in Afghanistan and
not just among ‘brown people’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These
days, one may move freely between the Nertherlands and Germany.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, 64 years after the formation of the
European Community and almost 3 decades after it morphed into a ‘Union’, the
Dutch still see themselves different from the Deutsch.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For most of them, those two letters (the ‘e’
and the ‘s’) matter considerably more than the other two – the ones in ‘EU’.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Yugoslavia is no
more.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nor are Czechoslovakia, the Soviet
Union or the Ottoman Empire.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But
Afghanistan is still there; as are (in theory at least) Iraq, Syria, Libya,
etc.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are there because foreign
interests and their local allies willed it – not because the
people wanted it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And there is nothing
peaceful, or liberal, or benevolent, or positive in that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>People should be allowed (nay, they should be
encouraged) to live within borders that they draw themselves; within borders that
reflect their ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural identities.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Human beings are not herd
animals – they are social ones.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What
makes human beings into mankind is the delicate balance of individualism and
social behaviour, of competition and cooperation, of particularism and
universalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Which is why extreme
ethnic particularism (xenophobia, racism, hatred of ‘the Other’) are to be
unreservedly condemned.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But so should be extreme universalism (which I call uniformism) of the type that attempts to iron
out or subvert identity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Nations and nation states
are expressions of that fine balance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They are the optimal vehicles for competition and cooperation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They afford a global metastable equilibrium,
a potential of relative peace vastly superior to the alternatives: tribal
societies on one side, global empires on the other…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Crucially, they enable not
‘just’ peace and stability, but human development and progress: fuelled by the
same two engines (cooperation and competition) and blooming in the myriad of
flavours we call ‘cultures’.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Successful countries are invariably
nation states: neither ‘ethnically pure’ nor ‘multicultural,’ but endowed with character;
far from monochromatic, but homogeneous enough to engender the social cohesion
and communal solidarity we call ‘identity’; open and tolerant, but espousing a specific
cultural flavour, a unique contribution to humanity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">When the likes of Peter
Beinart (or, indeed, the likes of Bernie Sanders) rant against ‘nationalism’,
they also reject what I call patriotism: the ‘nationalism’ that has nothing to
do with hatred of the Other and everything to do with love of one’s own; the ‘nationalism’
that produces not wars, but peaceful, creative competition; that does not
destroy, but builds one-of-a-kind tiles in the colourful mosaic we call ‘mankind’.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">One of the paradoxes of
pseudo-liberals’ vision is that they worship diversity in theory – but seek to
destroy it in practice. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is nothing
liberal in an ideology that oppresses identity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There never was.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-language: HE;">Peter Beinart often claims
that his views are informed by ‘Jewish values’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Perhaps they are; but, it seems to me, he owes those values to Herod, not to
Hillel.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-87145805766782001382021-03-06T10:14:00.001-08:002021-03-12T10:14:47.626-08:00Explaining Yiddishkeit… in Arabic!A few recent events have, once again, brought to the fore questions that have preoccupied people for (at least) the last couple of centuries: Who is a Jew? And who (or what) are the Jews?<br /><br />Let me try to distil the significance of each of those events.
<h3 style="line-height: 19.5pt; margin: 19.5pt 0cm 13.5pt; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 15pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">A kingdom of priests</span></b></h3>
A few days ago, Israel’s High Court of Justice issued <a href="https://www.blogger.com/u/1/#"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">a breakthrough decision</span></a>: converts to Judaism, it said (even those ‘fast-tracked’ through non-Orthodox conversion processes — Reform and Conservative/Masorti) are Jews. It would seem that Jews are, therefore, a religion. After all, that’s what ‘conversion’ means — changing one’s faith. But here’s the catch: why has the High Court waded in what appears to be a religious issue, a matter for rabbis to debate? Because in Israel there are legal consequences: Jews — not Israeli citizens, but Jews wherever they come from — are covered by the provisions of the Law of Return: they are entitled almost automatically to reside in Israel and (if they so desire) to become Israeli citizens. <br /><br />But what does religion have to do with the right of residence? Or with citizenship? Try explaining this to a Westerner and you’ll get — at best — a funny look. This brings me to the second recent event.
<h3 style="line-height: 19.5pt; margin: 19.5pt 0cm 13.5pt; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 15pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">A majority of that minority…</span></b></h3>
On March 1, 2021, A BBC programme called ‘Politics Live’ asked a panel made up of four non-Jews to debate whether Jews should count as an ethnic minority. The only Jew who participated (as a guest) was outraged that the question was even asked; so were the vast majority of British Jews who heard about this ‘debate’. On the other hand, a lot of non-Jews (including the programme’s hapless editor <a href="https://www.blogger.com/u/1/#"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Rob Burley</span></a>) found the whole notion baffling. After all, the Jews (in their minds, at least) are white-skinned; their eyes are straight in their faces — and not slanted like those of Asians. How, then, can they possibly be ‘an ethnic minority’? And, even assuming they are a separate ethnicity, despite their similarity to white Brits in all but hard-to-perceive details, how come one can ‘convert’ to being a Jew at the say-so of a religious conclave? Can one ‘convert’ to being black, brown or Asian?<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22.5pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; vertical-align: baseline;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlQJS9OvAIH5QeBm0kagJefLXTIUaKP-DBSufSZDYiYQdGSOSdEbEwb_wtSSpJmCR5WVSYaG0spvxW1Q98xLIqv-UCERm-0leBe1Al081c7DIRuOYTuL2aYyPjzlxn_nvXd2w41lTTHoRZ/s1280/should+Jews+count+as+ethnic+minority.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlQJS9OvAIH5QeBm0kagJefLXTIUaKP-DBSufSZDYiYQdGSOSdEbEwb_wtSSpJmCR5WVSYaG0spvxW1Q98xLIqv-UCERm-0leBe1Al081c7DIRuOYTuL2aYyPjzlxn_nvXd2w41lTTHoRZ/w400-h225/should+Jews+count+as+ethnic+minority.png" width="400" /></a></div><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span><p></p>
<h3 style="line-height: 19.5pt; margin: 19.5pt 0cm 13.5pt; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 15pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Sociopathic Political Sociology</span></b> </h3>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22.5pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; vertical-align: baseline;"></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfyh0kKHHU6ogNkRO4h_sWTGtzw0LV2M_faZz2WsAwrskrjVhZgsqMSHkJTaGro73GyIRMsxM2J2_gi6NUEFarCLBLK3k6U8CaesrgCjCxNTDrWkS_zXOxN4IFkWHvpU4O7woDVs9n5Woa/s810/Prof-David-Miller-a-screenshot-from-the-Zoom-call.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="539" data-original-width="810" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfyh0kKHHU6ogNkRO4h_sWTGtzw0LV2M_faZz2WsAwrskrjVhZgsqMSHkJTaGro73GyIRMsxM2J2_gi6NUEFarCLBLK3k6U8CaesrgCjCxNTDrWkS_zXOxN4IFkWHvpU4O7woDVs9n5Woa/w400-h266/Prof-David-Miller-a-screenshot-from-the-Zoom-call.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Bristol University's Prof. David Miller</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><br /></span><p></p>Only a few days earlier, a Bristol University professor of Political Sociology had <a href="https://www.blogger.com/u/1/#"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">produced a rant</span></a> against the Uni’s Jewish Society, accusing them of being <i>“political pawns by a violent, racist foreign regime engaged in ethnic cleansing”</i>. A.k.a. Israel — ‘the Jewish state’. This outraged those students, along with the vast majority of British Jews. Who — yes — are ‘British’, but also ‘Jews’; yes, their country is Britain, to which they are eminently loyal, though most of them are really fond of ‘the Jewish state’. Confusing? Wait, that’s not all!
<h3 style="line-height: 19.5pt; margin: 19.5pt 0cm 13.5pt; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 15pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Come, curse me Jacob…</span></b></h3>
A Jewish comedian of national fame (and by ‘national’ I mean in Britain, but mostly among British Jews) just published a book complaining about anti-Jewish racism — including those who claim that they don’t mind Jews, they only really hate the Jewish state. Well, to make things slightly clearer, the Jewish comedian solemnly declared in his book that he doesn’t give a rat’s about the Jewish state! He even echoed some of those he had just complained about — by cursing ‘Fuck Israel!’ Which in itself drew the ire of those British Jews — the vast majority, <a href="https://www.blogger.com/u/1/#"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">according to opinion polls</span></a> — who care a lot about the Jewish state; to the point of seeing it as an essential pillar of their Jewish identity…<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22.5pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; vertical-align: baseline;"></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_qGPJgIvjBMBQr6DY7aiEMvRq9EmWmdkmW67HByQCxc3xrQhJfIXD8D2M2VKshqwZTxjASiaxt3bmc1P7ry-Q0I3aviCbrSZUff54gxKSANQ96sRpzat4kv-QjaPz48J652gJOhkc4X14/s1381/Baddiel.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1381" data-original-width="1029" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_qGPJgIvjBMBQr6DY7aiEMvRq9EmWmdkmW67HByQCxc3xrQhJfIXD8D2M2VKshqwZTxjASiaxt3bmc1P7ry-Q0I3aviCbrSZUff54gxKSANQ96sRpzat4kv-QjaPz48J652gJOhkc4X14/w298-h400/Baddiel.jpg" width="298" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">David Baddiel</td></tr></tbody></table><p></p><h3 style="line-height: 19.5pt; margin: 19.5pt 0cm 13.5pt; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 15pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Their own country</span></b></h3>
I’m talking about recent events — but in truth this isn’t new: the Torah talks about ‘Am Yisrael’ — the People of Israel. A ‘people’ then, an ethnicity. Yes, but woe unto the People of Israel if it were to worship other Gods… So a religion, after all? <br /><br />Around 1650, a certain <a href="https://www.blogger.com/u/1/#"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Manasseh ben Israel</span></a> was writing honey-tongued letters to Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell, pleading for him to remove the interdiction and allow Jews to once again live on the Island of Britain. A Sephardi Jew, Manasseh was born Manoel Dias Soeiro, scion to a family of ‘Marranos’ (Jews who had been forced to convert to Christianity, but secretly continued to cling to Judaism). Having fled their native Portugal to escape the Inquisition, the family found refuge in Amsterdam, in the Low Countries, where they could, at the time, overtly practice their religion and attempt to help other exiled Jews. Yet when Manasseh — appealing to Cromwell’s humane feelings — described Jews as ‘banished from their own country’, he made it clear that he did not mean Portugal or Spain, but the Land of Israel; the land these Jews longed for was not the one they had to leave a few years earlier, but the one they lost many centuries before Manasseh was even born… Odd, ‘innit? Well, there you have it — the third dimension of Jewish identity: not just peoplehood and religion, but a strange longing for a country lost some time, somewhere. <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22.5pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; vertical-align: baseline;"></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilfiPJMY0GPzUaYkzjKFiyKFTXIIs7A8KIfV4fh0IS_wZ06B8JCDOuiuo31qb_HLMl20O2b3rk1ExQ46dTMAmpbVHN121lzrHrBvHe-5lPUZeWQqImq2_mbZOUZDSVpTSLtcPgzY9P1VUc/s480/manasse-ben-israel-samuel-5dffd4-300x480.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="300" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilfiPJMY0GPzUaYkzjKFiyKFTXIIs7A8KIfV4fh0IS_wZ06B8JCDOuiuo31qb_HLMl20O2b3rk1ExQ46dTMAmpbVHN121lzrHrBvHe-5lPUZeWQqImq2_mbZOUZDSVpTSLtcPgzY9P1VUc/w250-h400/manasse-ben-israel-samuel-5dffd4-300x480.jpg" width="250" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Manasseh ben Israel</td></tr></tbody></table><span style="color: #333333;"> </span><p></p>
But why did I drag poor ol’ Manasseh ben Israel into all this? Well, he happens to be the main architect of the ‘return’ of Jews to England, some four centuries after the 1290 exile. One could even call him the founder of the modern British Jewish community…
<h3 style="line-height: 19.5pt; margin: 19.5pt 0cm 13.5pt; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 15pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Trial and Error</span></b></h3>
It’s not that Jews did not experiment with their identity. In the 19th century Germany, some Jews established the Reform Movement, which initially tried to do away with ethnicity, while maintaining the element of faith. Those Jews declared themselves ‘<a href="https://www.blogger.com/u/1/#"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Germans of Mosaic faith</span></a>’. ‘Their own country’ was definitely Germany — and none other. <br /><br />Also in the 19th century, but to the east of Germany (in Lithuania, Poland and Russia), another group of Jews established a secular Jewish movement, the Bund. The Bundists had no interest in religion, but they somehow envisaged Jewishness as a type of distinct cultural ethnicity within the socialist <a href="https://www.blogger.com/u/1/#"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">brotherhood of peoples</span></a>. <br /><br />Neither group faired very well, however. The Reform Jews may have viewed themselves and each other as ‘Germans of Mosaic faith’; but the ‘real Germans’ still viewed them as… Jews — and murdered them along with their Orthodox brethren. <br /><br />As for the Bundists, they lived as socialists but died as Jews: those who escaped the Shoa’h met their bitter fate during Stalin’s purges. Only a handful survived — and at the cost of selling their souls to the devil: they became the infamous ‘Yevsektsiya’, Stalin’s tiny group of Jewish enablers. <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22.5pt; margin-bottom: 22.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;"></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZvyRiHthRQY2PhG8sqlt-0dtvXENaQd63GRezOc6852b6E9qAh0vFDokAKbz8RVQnRlbbWjBiTYotH3jeGLZMnt3tbxFtO8iTs_W_W_YtGbUtnwRszMhqGH7uXxwZmIo-Iq6Keh7F6nBC/s640/640px-Polish_Bund_50_year_anniversary_celebration_15_November_1947.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="357" data-original-width="640" height="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZvyRiHthRQY2PhG8sqlt-0dtvXENaQd63GRezOc6852b6E9qAh0vFDokAKbz8RVQnRlbbWjBiTYotH3jeGLZMnt3tbxFtO8iTs_W_W_YtGbUtnwRszMhqGH7uXxwZmIo-Iq6Keh7F6nBC/w400-h223/640px-Polish_Bund_50_year_anniversary_celebration_15_November_1947.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Bundists in Poland</td></tr></tbody></table><br />While the Reforms chose religion and the Bundists cultural ethnicity, they both jettisoned the third aspect — ‘their own country’. But there was another movement that started (or at least got its name and fame) in the 19th century: the Zionists. Like the Bundists, initially the Zionists had no interest in religion; unlike both Bundists and Reforms, they were only really interested in ‘their own country’. This is ironic, given that these days roughly half of that country is made up of religious or ‘traditional’ Jews, a fifth of non-Jews and the balance of Jews who preach the importance of close ties with the Diaspora. Go figure!<br />
<h3 style="line-height: 19.5pt; margin: 19.5pt 0cm 13.5pt; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 15pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Traduttore, traditore: translating
identity</span></b></h3>
Here’s some more Zionist irony: I believe that the most serious contribution to the understanding of these concepts (Jews, Jewishness, Jewish identity) has just been made… by an Arab. <br /><br />I must admit I never before heard about Hussein Aboubakr Mansour. On Twitter, he introduces himself as
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22.5pt; margin-bottom: 22.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;"><i><span style="color: #525252; font-family: "inherit",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"></span></i></p><blockquote><i><span style="color: #525252; font-family: "inherit",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">"A freedom-loving Egyptian dissident
and American citizen."</span></i></blockquote><i><span style="color: #525252; font-family: "inherit",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></i><p></p>
Also on Twitter, on 2 March 2021, he opined:
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22.5pt; margin-bottom: 22.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;"><i><span style="color: #525252; font-family: "inherit",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"></span></i></p><blockquote><i><span style="color: #525252; font-family: "inherit",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">"I’m not Jewish but I want to throw my
ring in the hat of the question of Jewish identity that a lot of people are
fighting about. Is it a race? A religion? An ethnicity? Can we say Arab Jew? I
see a lot of people fighting without being knowledgeable or humble enough to
simply say ‘Idk’ [I don’t know]. Judaism is a unique Middle Eastern structure.
Modern Western languages simply don’t have the analytical tools adequate to
explain it. Judaism will never comfortably map on notions </span><span style="color: #525252; font-family: "inherit",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">expressed in the
English words of ‘religion, race, civilization, etc.’ Thats my opinion."</span></i></blockquote><i><span style="color: #525252; font-family: "inherit",serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p style="font-size: 13.5pt;"></o:p></span></i><p></p>
<br /><br />And a very astute, insightful opinion it is, too! Languages (words, sentences, verbal descriptions) are mirrors that reflect reality; but, like any imperfect mirror, a language can also deform, rendering an inaccurate, false image. Modern Western languages developed to express contemporary Western concepts, attitudes and realities; why do we expect them to accurately describe centuries-old Middle Eastern idiosyncrasies? <br /><br />Even within that broad family of ‘Western’ (i.e. European) languages, there are significant differences. Most native speakers of the English language would understand the term ‘nationality’ as meaning something similar to ‘citizenship’. French speakers would probably feel the same about the term ‘nationalité’. But, for instance, in Russian (and other Eastern European languages), ‘natsionalnost’ (национальность) should really be translated ‘ethnicity’. It is fundamentally different from the concept of ‘citizenship’ — in Russian ‘grazhdanstvo’ (гражданство). Asked what his ‘natsionalnost’ is (and assuming s/he wanted to respond candidly), a Jew living in Russia would respond ‘Jewish’, rather than ‘Russian’. S/he would of course say that his/her ‘grazhdanstvo’ is ‘Russian’. The former refers to ‘tribal’ identity; the latter — to legal status. <br /><br />Although in recent times the German concepts of ‘Nationalität’ and ‘Staatsbürgerschaft’ (citizenship) have often been used interchangeably, as their equivalents are in English or French, many native German speakers would perceive a difference between the two terms: the accurate English translation of the former is, I feel, ‘national origin,’ referring either to ethnicity (‘tribal’ identity) or, more often, to the country of one’s birth — irrespective of current citizenship status. <br /><br />Back to English: the concepts of ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ are vague and not very well understood – as the above-mentioned BBC programme abundantly demonstrated. <br /><br />Such terms change meaning with the passing of time: a century ago, ‘a race’ would’ve been understood to mean a people or an ethnicity. British Jews (and Jews in general) would definitely be seen as ‘a race’; they would not be subsumed into the ‘British race’. But these days the concept of ‘race’ most often refers to predominant physical characteristics such as skin colour or the shape of one’s eyes. <br /><br />Even there, things are less than crystal-clear. People who originate on the Indian subcontinent tend to have dark skin colour (but not as dark as ‘black’ people), as well as other specific physical particularities. But they are seldom referred to as a separate ‘race’ these days. <br /><br />Most Westerners view Jews these days as just a (rather weird) variety of ‘white people’; not a ‘race’ onto themselves. Nonetheless, they would call antisemitism or Islamophobia ‘forms of racism’, despite the fact that neither Jews nor Muslims are seen as ‘races’. Did I manage to confuse you completely, folks? Wait, there’s more! <br /><br />What about ‘ethnicity’? What does that mean, actually? Jews (who come in many shades and shapes) would often refer to themselves as an ethnicity or, just as the Torah does, as ‘a people’. But they are also part of numerous ‘nations’. <br /><br />When casually asked about their identity, many (most?) British Jews would say they’re ‘British’. A few times, when discussing this with friends and acquaintances, I commented that they don’t usually say they’re ‘English’. “It’s the same,” they typically react, as an afterthought. “Sure, I’m English”. But, of course, while ‘British’ and ‘English’ may be <i>“the same”</i> for a member of the dominant majority, I very much doubt that a Scot or a Welsh person would see things this way! <br /><br />Nor is this type of identity embraced uniformly across the Jewish world. I am told that in Sweden, for instance, a Jew who marries out is said to have ‘married a Swede,’ notwithstanding the fact that the Jew him/herself is the proud holder of a Swedish passport. I remember well a similar attitude from my youth in Eastern Europe. <br /><br />That’s, by the way, not an exclusive Jewish phenomenon: an ethnic Finn born in Sweden for many generations would most often say s/he is ‘from Sweden’ — rather than ‘Swedish’; members of the ethnic Magyar (Hungarian) minorities would most often say they are ‘from Romania’ or ‘from Slovakia’, rather than ‘Romanian’ or ‘Slovak’; and Arab Israelis would often describe themselves as ‘Arabs (or Palestinians), citizens of Israel’ — rather than ‘Israelis’. <br /><br />Things change as we move along the time-space continuum. Once upon a time, the West defined itself as ‘Christendom’ — a moniker that bundled together religious, territorial and cultural identity. It had a somewhat equivalent term for Jews (albeit, of course, less sympathetic in tone and usage): Jewry in English, Judentum in German. Few people use these terms anymore; fewer still understand their complex meaning. <br /><br />But let’s go back to Hussein Aboubakr Mansour. I would suggest, that his own sense of identity (an Egyptian Arab, now a US citizen) is what produced his astute remarks. Arabs are (speaking as an outsider) people who belong to a broadly-defined Arab culture — some define it as a nation — one of whose main expressions is the use of the Arab language. Development of a more clearly contoured Arab identity was actively discouraged for centuries, first by the Ottoman rulers, then by Western colonialism and finally by local despots keen on keeping their fat arses on the gilded thrones of arbitrarily-delineated fiefs. Since it gained autonomy — from the Ottomans and from the Western colonial powers — earlier than other Arab countries, Egypt boasts a more mature identity. (Geography and historic legacy also helped.) <br /><br />If language remains a major identifier of ‘the Arab World’, it isn’t a very straightforward one. An Egyptian like Mr. Mansour will be, most likely, a speaker of the Egyptian (Masri) dialect. Should he want to have a conversation with a Palestinian or a Syrian (i.e. a speaker of the Levantine, a.k.a. Syrian or ‘Shami’ dialect of Arabic), they might understand each other, with some difficulty — perhaps like a Spaniard attempting to talk with a Portuguese-speaking Brazilian. If, however, he wanted to speak with a Moroccan (a speaker of the N. African — Maghrebi — dialect), he may experience a degree of difficulty similar to a German trying to communicate with a non-German speaking Dutch person. Assuming they are both educated people, Mr. Mansour and his Moroccan friend should be able to communicate better by using the literary or ‘Modern Standard’ Arabic — a language they would both have learned in school. MSA is often referred to as الفصحى (Al-Fusha or Eloquent Arabic); it is much closer to Classical Arabic, the language of the Qur’an. <br /><br />Another Arab ‘identity glue’ is religion — Islam. But that’s also far from straightforward: there are Christian Arabs, too; there are plenty of non-Arab Muslims; and, as we know, there are several different Muslim denominations. <br /><br />Not to mention that Arabs live in more than 20 different countries, each having (or trying to develop) its own national identity. <br /><br />My point is that Arab identity is also very complex — which may have helped Mr. Mansour grasp the intricacies of Jewish identity. <br /><br />Since it originated also in the Middle East, the Arabic tongue copes much better — in comparison with European languages — with dual or multi-faceted aspects of identity. There are, for instance, at least three different ways to convey the concept of ‘nation’ or ‘national’ in Arabic: <br /><br /><i>Qawm </i>(قوم) comes from the word for ‘mother’ (umm). It refers to a relationship of mutual solidarity (identity) between people who are not necessarily bound to a particular geographic territory. It is to a certain extent (though not exactly) what we try to convey by saying ‘ethnicity’ in English. There is even a religious connection: a related word is Ummah (الأمة) — that’s what one calls the ‘nation’ of Islam, the global collectivity of Muslims; the Islamic equivalent of ‘Christendom’, if you wish. <br /><br /><i>Watan </i>(وطن), on the other hand, has a strong territorial meaning: it has to do with home or homeland. <br /><br />And then there is <i>balad </i>(بلد), which also has a strong territorial dimension, but has to do with the place (country, area or perhaps village) a person was born in. Just to show how rich the Arabic language is, ‘balad’ is also translated in English as ‘homeland’. <br /><br />So Arabs can say ‘nation’ or ‘national’ in three different ways and convey slightly different meanings, somewhat distinct, nuanced aspects of their identity. This may be particularly poignant for someone like Hussein Aboubakr Mansour: a US citizen born in Egypt. With two places that are ‘homeland’ — only in different ways — which would be ‘his own country’, I wonder? That’s, perhaps, why he gets Jews… <br /><br />Among Westerners, there are at least as many anti-Arab racists as there are antisemites. But, with the exception of the far-right fringe, anti-Arab animus is much more rarely expressed in public. After all, the wokeocracy has already made up its collective, narrow mind that, ‘unlike Jews,’ Arabs are indeed an ‘ethnic minority’; they are ‘people of colour’ and therefore oppressed by definition. <br /><br />So, look… it sounds counter-intuitive, I know; but perhaps what we need to do is this: let’s all petition the Beeb, so that next time those conceited, closed-minded, arrogant and Western-centric people ask what Jewishness is, they interview Hussein Aboubakr Mansour. He gets it! And, as an Arab, they’ll at least listen and feign respect for his opinion…
<p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p></p>Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-23170787499349208522021-01-10T12:53:00.006-08:002021-01-10T12:53:58.878-08:00Trumping common sense<p>On Wednesday, there was a riot on the Capitol Hill. A violent mob broke their way inside the
building, causing elected legislators to scatter and hide.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It was a shameful, disgusting event.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sure, people are free to protest and
demonstrate, though such tools are best employed by those who are <b>not</b> in
power. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is pathetic – to say the least
– to see the US President calling for a demonstration; and it is irresponsible
for him to use language that sounds like dog whistle for mischief.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is a fundamental guarantee for our safety and freedom:
the rule of law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the rule of law is
based on one key principle: that the state has the absolute monopoly on the use
of coercive force.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I can condone the use of violence (certain levels of violence,
directed at certain targets, in certain limited circumstances) against tyrannical
regimes opposed to the rule of law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
recognise the right to resort to violence in legitimate defence situations,
where the rule of law does not provide effective protection. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But – outside these exceptions – violence is a
crime, not a form of protest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And a
crime is a crime is a crime, irrespective of who commits it – whether supporters
of Donald Trump, whether activists of Antifa or ‘Extinction Rebellion’
militants.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘Protesting’ means carrying
placards, waving flags and shouting slogans – <b>not</b> breaking windows and smashing
furniture; and <b>most certainly not</b> threatening or hurting people.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What happened at the Capitol in Washington DC was a violent
riot, not a ‘protest’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And whoever incited
it – let alone participated in it – committed a crime.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They should be apprehended, investigated,
tried in a court of law and, if found guilty, punished in accordance with the
law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And that goes for everybody – from the
President of the United States to the most humble janitor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The rule of law is only the rule of law if applied
equally to everybody.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4_NFdN_dIs3xVBf50TSPm4qsz8vNJvnCt8UjH-DXEswOiqxAfH0CqL7tCVuPn9hbaNN6666zfVt6DXsTxmYEanYwm36FabeFllnsefmDx_gDLBUH3FsvSoMFLnZKCngu0J9X50paHyhAU/s899/Blind_Justice_%25282830780815%2529.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="899" data-original-width="824" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4_NFdN_dIs3xVBf50TSPm4qsz8vNJvnCt8UjH-DXEswOiqxAfH0CqL7tCVuPn9hbaNN6666zfVt6DXsTxmYEanYwm36FabeFllnsefmDx_gDLBUH3FsvSoMFLnZKCngu0J9X50paHyhAU/w366-h400/Blind_Justice_%25282830780815%2529.jpg" width="366" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Blind Justice</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p></p>
<h4 style="text-align: left;">Keep cool and believe in democracy</h4><h1><o:p></o:p></h1>
<p class="MsoNormal">Violence is always disgusting – even more so when committed
in the name of perceived ‘justice’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s
even more appalling when this occurs in the very home of democracy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But while we uphold the rule of law and decry violations
thereof, we must also – to use a rather irreverential American phrase – keep our
pants on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Responding to violence with hysteria
is not smart, not helpful – and often not honest, either.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We should keep things in proportion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s more than the mainstream media did, on
this occasion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Writing in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/06/trump-mob-storm-capitol-washington-coup-attempt"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">the
Guardian</span></a>, for instance, columnist Rebecca Solnit lamented:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“On Wednesday, a coup
attempt was led by the president of the United States.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A similarly hysterical tone was stricken by some
politicians.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here’s <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2021/01/unforgettable-quotes-from-political-leaders-on-a-day-that-will-live-in-infamy/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Sen.
Elizabeth Warren</span></a>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“The violence at the
Capitol today was an attempted coup and act of insurrection egged on by a
corrupt President to overthrow our democracy.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That’s ‘a bit’ of an exaggeration, I’d say.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A <b>coup</b> is an organised, deliberate
attempt to seize power.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It typically involves
military units or other security forces, who intend to take control of the
centres of power in the state: the government, legislature, courts and means of
communication.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An <b>insurrection</b> is
a mass uprising.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Neither nouns
accurately (or honestly) describe what happened on Capitol Hill.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Anyone viewing the footage with an open mind
will see it for what it was :a riot; a mob of a few hundred people, with neither
leadership nor clear intentions or purpose.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>A riot which – were it not for the lax security and the unpreparedness of
the police – would have ended in an hour or so, with a few minor injuries at
most.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Compare Wednesday’s events with <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/23/newsid_2518000/2518825.stm"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">a
<b>real</b> attempted coup</span></a> – even one poorly organised and executed: in
1981, a Spanish general (and supporter of the former militarist dictator
Franco) rebelled against the country’s fledgling democracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The rebels started by declaring a state of
emergency in one of the provinces.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Tanks
were brought into the streets; the radio and TV stations were taken over by
rebel army detachments; and a group of 200 soldiers stormed the country’s
parliament, taking about 350 MPs hostage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The rebels eventually surrendered, but only when confronted by loyalist army
units.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdK5AXmvzDecOhsraVu3nkAvWuob6azatvq6BHi96wm67MssTdSBO0neT-uWsRfFx3cgBlE8qH3fom7LVY3df7QmHCMA33Z1Ptjt2CmPLeOlagJ1LOaBBvpuDNDknihMfWP6mnLCTG7Uez/s1280/5.16_Coup_Park_Chung-hee.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="883" data-original-width="1280" height="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdK5AXmvzDecOhsraVu3nkAvWuob6azatvq6BHi96wm67MssTdSBO0neT-uWsRfFx3cgBlE8qH3fom7LVY3df7QmHCMA33Z1Ptjt2CmPLeOlagJ1LOaBBvpuDNDknihMfWP6mnLCTG7Uez/w400-h276/5.16_Coup_Park_Chung-hee.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Coup d'etat in South Korea, 1961</td></tr></tbody></table><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><p class="MsoNormal"></p><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">On Wednesday in Washington DC, lives (perhaps even the lives
of elected parliamentarians) were recklessly put at risk; but, histrionic statements
notwithstanding, democracy was never in danger.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Let us remember that, more than once in the country’s history, US
democracy easily survived even the assassination of a President.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">In fact, if the riot (and its dismal outcome) proved anything
– it demonstrated the strength of that democracy: once the violence became
apparent, hardly anyone of any consequence expressed support for it; Republican
governors, senators and representatives condemned it; a few members of the
cabinet resigned in protest; and ultimately Trump himself called to <i>“remain
peaceful</i> […] <i>respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue”</i>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">The riot deserves unreserved condemnation; but I’m afraid
that those turning their eyes to the skies and decrying it as a ‘<a href="https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1346922471232925698?s=20"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">direct attack
on democracy</span></a>’ do so mostly out of dishonest political interest, rather than
genuine concern.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">While the media and a rather <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55568613"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">phoney-sounding chorus
of Western leaders</span></a> were focused on the annoying, but ultimately
inconsequential events in Washington DC, a <b>real</b> and much more
significant attack on democracy was taking place unhindered and largely un-condemned:
the Hong Kong police conducted <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2021/01/08/hong-kong-pro-democracy-mass-arrests-coren-pkg-intl-ldn-vpx.cnn"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">mass
arrests of former -pro-democracy lawmakers and other political activists</span></a>
critical of the People’s Republic and its increasingly oppressive rule over
Hong Kong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These individuals are accused
of ‘subverting state power’ and – in accordance with the latest ‘security’
legislation, may be extradited to the famously tender love and care of the
government in Beijing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">Let’s get things straight, folks: the USA will remain a
democracy – I promise you; as for Hong Kong…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<h4 style="text-align: left;">Something is rotten in the state of Denmark</h4><h1 style="text-align: left;"><o:p></o:p></h1>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">That’s not to say that all is well in USA – far from
it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What we see is a divided, polarised
society.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And, contrary to what some
pundits would want us to believe, this is not all Trump’s doing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, the processes that gradually led to
this situation have been at work for decades. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And – like in most broken up families – both sides
are equally to blame.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">I am a liberal at heart.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I crave a kinder, juster society; one that encourages competition, but does
not allow the powerful to ride roughshod upon the weak. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A place that offers everybody equal
opportunities – though not necessarily equal outcomes.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">But let me make a confession: I am 100% in favour of
evolution and 0% for revolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sure,
we need to change things; but not every change is for the better.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s why the ‘progressives’ who call for
change are no more and no less legitimate than the ‘conservatives’ who challenge
it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In my view, to make real, genuine
progress, a society needs to balance the two impulses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Checks and balances are essential for a
democracy not just to function, but also to evolve.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">Most people are political moderates.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, increasingly, it feels like the agenda has
been hijacked by the political extremes: on one side the supremacists who would
take us back to a dark, best forgotten past; on the other, a wokeocracy intent
on dragging us, volens-nolens, to a weird, undesirable future.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">The extremes are, by definition, militant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But we, the ponderous, mostly silent and
often apathetic majority, do ourselves no favours when we get caught up in
their immoderate polemic.<o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKP1EchtwZg00_PPDf0-rt6oD06lkZzIlD6UAQl5z5QzWCTpewrpzsBZQ30LPmwj737gtPlgCY7dPpvlMN9bEzCv3FALrrpls57J9VsByZSyhIPLDTdOY12LSf_3oKYKVOPmWTOuVOfA0k/s512/Polarisation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="290" data-original-width="512" height="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKP1EchtwZg00_PPDf0-rt6oD06lkZzIlD6UAQl5z5QzWCTpewrpzsBZQ30LPmwj737gtPlgCY7dPpvlMN9bEzCv3FALrrpls57J9VsByZSyhIPLDTdOY12LSf_3oKYKVOPmWTOuVOfA0k/w400-h226/Polarisation.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">Let’s watch our language – it is important.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let’s handle carefully our social fabric –
lest we tear it apart.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The language of
political campaigns is one thing; but we, who aren’t politicians, should
disagree without delegitimising.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">I watched – with concern – the riot at the Capitol.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But I experienced real heartbreak when the
unthinking, sheep-like media called the rioters ‘Trump supporters’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What a mistake!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Beyond dishonest spin, the US has had fair,
free elections.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>More than 74 million
people have voted for Donald Trump; but how many of them broke into the
Capitol?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Describing criminal offenders
as ‘Trump supporters’ is delegitimising language; it generates (or entrenches
and exacerbates) a sense of alienation, of being held in contempt and
dismissed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Intolerance breeds
intolerance; bigotry creates more bigotry.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">Contrary to the cliché, 74 million people can be wrong (so
can 81 million).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But dismissing them en-masse
as Neanderthals is the <b>real</b> threat to democracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Beyond a thin layer of extremists, their concerns
are legitimate; their intentions untainted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>No, they do <b>not</b> wish to kneel on any black neck; nor do they want
to be called rednecks, or ‘white nationalists’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Let’s take colours out of our political lexicon, shall we? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let’s be colour-blind.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">Democracy works by debate and persuasion; it’s the
dictatorship that uses dictates and coercion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">By all means disagree with them, if you wish; but listen
with respect and empathy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Don’t treat them
with disdain: overconfidence is the mark of the stupid.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">By all means persuade them, if you can; but don’t try to bully
them into compliance with your own views; don’t attempt to impose your own
political correctness on them – that shows weakness, not strength.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">Joe Biden, congratulations: you’ve won the elections; come
20 January, you will be the new (and the only) President of the United
States.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You’re even likely to have a sympathetic,
relatively supportive Congress.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But you
and your administration would do well to seek to understand the 74 million.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On 3 November 2020, they were still ‘Trump
supporters’; on 20 January 2021, they should be nothing but fellow Americans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Accept them and they will accept you.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div>Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-73078150561668180222021-01-07T09:15:00.000-08:002021-01-07T09:15:24.737-08:00There's no vaccine against ineptitude<p>In April 2020, I wrote an article accusing political leaders
in Europe and USA of <a href="http://www.pol-inc-pol.com/2020/04/epidem-ideology-how-political-dogma.html"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">prioritising
ideology over epidemiology</span></a> – of callously sacrificing lives not just to
Covid-19 but, needlessly, to the Moloch of partisan dogma.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What happened since then can be adequately described with
just one word: ineptitude.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On the positive side -- one societal engine did fire up:
science delivered a solution – it did so assuredly, in just a few short months.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It developed vaccines, tested them on tens of
thousands of people and found them to work better than anticipated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All our esteemed leaders have to do now is make
sure those vaccines are manufactured, distributed and administered with rocket
speed, as befits a once-in-a-century emergency.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For once, money is no object: in the UK, <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13075674/second-lockdown-1-8billion-each-day/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">each
day of lockdown costs nearly £2 billion</span></a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That’s 10% of the entire <a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn00724/#:~:text=In%202018%2F19%2C%20NHS%20England,population%20and%20needs%2Dbased%20formula."><span style="color: #2b00fe;">annual
NHS budget</span></a>, gone to the drain every goddam week!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And that’s before one factors in the long
term and indirect effects of the economic slump…<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Oh, and there’s also the small detail of
1,000 people currently dying of Covid every day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So any conceivable expenditure needed to
shorten the ordeal is, almost by definition, justified – not just financially,
but in moral terms, too!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And yet, in more than 3 weeks of ‘vaccination drive’ (i.e.,
by 6 January 2021), the UK managed to give the first jab (i.e. to ‘half-vaccinate’)
to a paltry <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55553072"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">1.3 million
people</span></a>; that’s just 10% of what the government itself defined as the ‘top
priority’ group – those over 70, people with severe clinical vulnerabilities,
as well as frontline health and social care staff. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is just 2% of the population.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On average, just over 56,000 vaccines were given every day
in the UK – the world’s fifth-largest economy, boasting almost <a href="https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/nhs-delivery-and-workforce/pressures/pressures-in-general-practice#:~:text=In%20February%202020%2C%20there%20were,that%20period%20(on%20average)."><span style="color: #2b00fe;">7,000</span></a>
GP surgeries, staffed by circa <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2393"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">45,000</span></a> doctors and <a href="https://www.england.nhs.uk/2019/05/thousands-more-gp-staff-recruited-across-england/#:~:text=Nurses%3A%20There%20were%2016%2C483%20FTE,%C2%A312%20billion%20a%20year."><span style="color: #2b00fe;">16,000
nurses</span></a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In Israel (the world’s 30<sup>th</sup>-largest economy, where
vaccinations started a week later than in the UK), circa <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-55556714?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=5ff5870e1c994e02e348cd08%26Israel%20leads%20in%20vaccination%20rates%20-%20but%20is%20%27not%20out%20of%20the%20woods%20yet%27%262021-01-06T10%3A52%3A07%2B00%3A00&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:c89eec82-e584-453a-a4b6-20dc28790d80&pinned_post_asset_id=5ff5870e1c994e02e348cd08&pinned_post_type=share"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">1.5
million people</span></a> already got the first jab.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That’s 50% of those over 60 (plus most clinically vulnerable, as well as
frontline health and social care staff ) and almost 17% of the entire population.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The country’s GP surgeries are staffed by <a href="https://www.health.gov.il/PublicationsFiles/FamilyHealth_2018.pdf"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">c.
5,000 doctors</span></a>…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The European Union is <a href="https://www.euronews.com/2021/01/03/coronavirus-which-european-country-is-fastest-at-rolling-out-the-vaccine"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">performing
even more poorly</span></a>: just 250,000 jabs in Germany and 150,000 in Italy – two countries
with strong healthcare assets and capable pharmaceutical industry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As for France (population 67 million), it is
yet to achieve 500 jabs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No, this is not
a typo: I mean 500; not 500,000!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So what’s the problem?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Well, the problem is that… nobody seems to know what the problem
is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our ‘leaders’ are unable or
unwilling to deliver plans and time schedules – beyond ‘targets’ for mid-February
and (at a stretch) March.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What’s more,
the media seems utterly unable to extract or surmise such information.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The <span style="color: #2b00fe;"><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03370-6"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Nature</span></a> </span>Magazine blames
the shortage on vaccine production capacity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The <span style="color: #2b00fe;"><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55488724"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">BBC</span></a> </span>cites
three hindrances:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="margin-left: 79.2pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"></span></span></p><blockquote><p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="margin-left: 79.2pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><i><span style="font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>“a <a name="_Hlk60909900">global
shortage of glass vials </a>to package up the vaccines<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="margin-left: 79.2pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>long waits for safety
checks<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="margin-left: 79.2pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>the process of ensuring
there are enough vaccinators”</i></p></blockquote><p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="margin-left: 79.2pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><i><o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A <i>“global shortage of glass vials”</i>?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Really??<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>For those who don’t know, glass is manufactured starting from that very
rare, precious raw material: sand.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Seriously: which of those <i>“hindrances” </i>came (or
should have come) as a surprise?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From
the beginning of this pandemic, we were told that vaccines are being developed;
that they would be the ultimate key to regaining our freedom, our wellbeing,
our normality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is in the nature of
vaccines that they need to be manufactured, packaged in glass vials, tested and
administered by injection.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why, then, was
additional manufacturing and testing capacity not built?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How long does it take to make and install a
glass vial line?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>9 months is usually
enough time to bring to the world a new life; surely it should have been enough
to build additional production capacity, to expand batch testing facilities; and
to train an army of ‘vaccinators’ (most people who can drive a car can also be
trained to administer a jab).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Surely, given
the huge stakes, this could and should have been accomplished by now –
irrespective of effort and expense?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As for <i>“ensuring there are enough vaccinators”</i>: we certainly
could train Amazon delivery drivers to give jabs; but fortunately we may not
have to.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thousands of recently retired
doctors and nurses have volunteered to act as vaccinators.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unfortunately, as the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55516277"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">BBC informs</span></a> us in a surreally
casual article, they were told that they cannot… unless and until they take a
few refresher courses on such essential topics like ‘Conflict resolution, Level
1’, ‘Preventing radicalisation, Level 1’, ‘Equality, Diversity and Human
rights, Level 1’, ‘Data security awareness, Level 1’ and ‘Fire safety, Level 1’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Children aren’t being vaccinated – but that
does not absolve the would-be vaccinators from the strict requirement to study ‘Safeguarding
children, Level 2’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fortunately, courses
like ‘Astronomy for dummies’ or ‘Advanced rocket-building’ are not required.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If you think this takes stupidity to new records, wait –
this isn’t all; it’s not even the most mind-boggling blunder.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are, we know, two vaccines approved by the US Food and
Drug Administration – a serious, reliable institution – as well as by its EU counterpart.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am talking about the Pfizer/BioNTech and
Moderna products: both tested on tens of thousands of people; both exhibiting
efficacies around 95%.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Granted, neither is available in sufficient quantities for
the entire UK population.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, hey: this
isn’t ‘business as usual’, right?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s
war! <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So the UK government should buy,
rent, steal or requisition all available vaccine production capacity it can get
its hands on; it should urgently seek a licence agreement with Pfizer and/or Moderna,
enabling the requisitioned facilities to manufacture those companies’ approved,
efficacious products.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Instead, the government is idiotically backing and betting
on the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine – which has so far only been approved in the
UK and India.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why only in the UK and
India?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because it’s safe, but…err… not
very good.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The information on the efficacy of this vaccine has been
manipulated and dressed up in pompous media articles. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So some of you, dear readers, may be confused.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let me clarify, using <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32623-4/fulltext"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">published,
peer reviewed scientific data</span></a>: in clinical trials, the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine
was administered to c. 12,000 individuals (a similar number received a dummy
shot, a placebo).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Circa 9,000 of those 12,000
received two identical doses of vaccine, 28 days apart.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let’s call this the I (identical)
cohort.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, due to a mistake (!!!),
2,741 individuals were given only half of the first dose, followed by the full second
dose 28 days later.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let’s call this the
D (‘different’) cohort.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The vaccine
efficacy in the I cohort was just 62%; in the D cohort, the efficacy was
calculated (and published) as 90%.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>However, this is utterly unreliable, deceptive data: the D cohort was
too small and did not include enough old and vulnerable people – so in reality
the ‘90%’ is just a number with no scientific relevance, published by the
company merely for commercial purposes, to muddy the waters and hide an unpleasant
truth: that their product is considerably poorer than those of the competitors’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, because the D cohort was so
inadequate, the British and Indian regulators have only approved the I regimen,
the one with 62% efficacy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, merely because the AstraZeneca product was ‘invented
here’, the UK government will condemn most of us to receive a vaccine that is
just 62% efficacious, rather than one with 94% or 95% efficacy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This means that more of us will needlessly catch
the disease – even after being vaccinated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Some of us might be left suffering of various complications – the so-called
‘<a href="https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/coronavirus-and-your-health/long-covid"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">long
Covid</span></a>’; some of us might even unnecessarily die – we simply don’t know.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But that’s not all!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There isn’t enough production capacity for the AstraZeneca vaccine,
either.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s only manufactured… you guessed
it: in the UK and India.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, in order to
‘spread’ the paltry inventory as thinly as possible, the government now decided
to ‘invent’ a new vaccine regimen: to give the second jab up to 12 weeks after
the first – triple the interval recommended by the manufacturer and assessed in
the clinical trials.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since this regimen <b>has
never been tested</b> (not on 9,000 people, not on 2,700, not even on one
individual!) it is impossible to know – beyond the level of ‘educated guess’ – what
its efficacy will be. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Logically,
however, it should be lower – if nothing else, because the virus will have 3
times longer to attack people in-between the two doses.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let’s be clear here: had a doctor decided to give one individual
the two doses 30 (rather than 28 ) days apart, that doctor would have been
severely sanctioned.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>S/he would have
been suspended and may have been unable to ever practice again.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, through a decision supported by… err… theoretical
assumptions, most of us will be subjected to what amounts to a mass ‘medical’ experiment
– to a vaccine regimen never tried before.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And it’s not just the government and the few not-very-successful
scientists turned ‘advisers’. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
opposition, while valiantly nitpicking at details, completely ignores the big
picture.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According to the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-55571230"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">BBC</span></a>, Leader of the
Labour Party Keir Starmer<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“says the government needs
to ensure vaccination centres and GP surgeries have better information about
how much vaccine they will be given for the rollout of the Oxford-AstraZeneca
jabs to go smoothly.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As for the devolved administrations, they are more concerned
with petty, childish manifestations of ‘autonomy’ from Westminster (the Welsh
lockdown was called a ‘<a href="https://gov.wales/national-coronavirus-fire-break-to-be-introduced-in-wales-on-friday"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">firebreak</span></a>’,
which obviously is something utterly different from the English ‘<a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12713075/what-is-circuit-breaker-lockdown/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">circuit
breaker</span></a>’!) than with ensuring the welfare of their nations.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In consequence, the most fateful decisions have never been properly
scrutinised (let alone challenged) in Parliament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As for the legal system… none of those
passionate activists who were so keen to attack Brexit-related decisions ever
bothered to take this one to court; proving once and for all that ideology
matters to them more than the lives of their countrymen.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And then there’s the stupid, sheep-like media.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They will ask the Prime Ministers ‘harsh’
questions like ‘why did you announce the school closures only on Wednesday,
when you knew about the problem on Tuesday?’<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They’ll swoop like blood-thirsty vultures on some political adviser that
broke lockdown rules.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But they seem
idiotically oblivious to the things that really matter.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes, I blame the government. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But no, it’s not just the executive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What we are experiencing is a complete failure
of the British political system – lock, stock and gossipy tabloids.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But… let us face it: We The People are also to blame.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No, I’m not calling anyone to ‘take the
Westminster’; but we <b>should</b> be protesting – peacefully but determinedly –
and demanding a reckoning.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we don’t
do that, then we deserve what we’ll be getting: a shoddy vaccination programme –
delivered slowly, ineptly and expensively by a subpar ‘leadership’.<o:p></o:p></p>Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-5403638915385161352020-12-22T10:05:00.000-08:002020-12-22T10:05:46.202-08:00I’m NOT a ‘Reform Jew’<p>To some of my friends, this may sound strange. After all, I am a paid-up member of a Reform
shul. Before moving to London, I’ve even been
on the Executive Committee of a Reform Jewish community. But, no, I am <b>not</b> a Reform Jew – I’m
just a Jew. A member of the Jewish
people and a practiser of Judaism (albeit not a very observant one). For reasons related to personal
relationships, I occasionally attend services in a Chabad shul. For Yom Kippur services, I go to a ‘United’ shul
close to where I live. I attended Masorti
services as well – and liked them very much.
This sounds like a lot of shuls – I know; ironically, I’m not much of a
shul goer: in Israel, the only service I ever attended was Kol Nidre…</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Of course, I’m aware that there are some differences in
doctrine between these denominations – besides variations in the way they
worship.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But similarities far outstrip differences.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yet there are people – in all denominations – that choose
(for reasons that I consider neither noble nor legitimate) to focus on the
differences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And to try and widen them
as much as possible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s wrong, in my
view.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But, lately, there is something else, as well: a propensity,
by some ‘spiritual leaders’ to turn their Jewish communities into political
movements – in all but name.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s not
just wrong – it’s a recipe for disaster.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It probably started with the term ‘Progressive Judaism’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I resent the term ‘progressive’ – and not
just when it is applied to religion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
is inherently arrogant: if you call yourself ‘progressive’, the implication is
that anyone who disagrees with you is a caveman.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not a very good way to make friends, I’d say!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It continued with the enthronement of ‘social justice’ as
the Number One Precept of Judaism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sure,
seeking justice (<span dir="RTL" face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="HE" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">צדק, צדק תרדוף</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>) is a perennial
Judaic quest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sure, building a juster,
kinder, better society should be seen as part of that quest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But I have two issues with the way this is
implemented in practice.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Firstly, there is more than one valid interpretation of ‘social
justice’ and of how a juster, kinder, better society should look like.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The choice of one ‘true path’ has nothing to
do with Judaism, ‘Progressive’ or otherwise; it has everything to do with
politics.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Secondly, turning the quest for ‘social justice’ into Judaism’s
main, definitional value is – bluntly put – intellectually dishonest.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sure, in the second paragraph of Aleynu we urge the Creator<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>to perfect </i>[or repair]<i> the world under God’s leadership,
so that all mortals will invoke you. </i>[translation
mine]</blockquote><span style="font-style: normal;"><o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But does this one verse make <i>tikkun olam</i> (improving
or repairing the world) the overriding, defining precept of Judaism?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those who claim so wilfully ignore the first
paragraph of the same prayer, which enjoins Jews to praise God<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>for making us unlike other
nations and positioning us unlike other tribes; for granting us a different
role and destiny. </i>[translation mine]</blockquote><span style="font-style: normal;"><o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Contrary to what some would like to read into this one
prayer, the universalism of the second paragraph is balanced by the
particularism/exceptionalism of the first.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But it’s not just about interpreting the texts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The quest for justice is a moral imperative –
and as such is found also in Christianity and Islam, as well as in many a non-religious
ideological movement.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And that’s precisely the point: those who worship ‘tikkun
olam’ wish to reduce Judaism (and indeed Jewishness) to a political creed – a form
of ‘socialism’ sprinkled with a few Hebrew phrases.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Socialism is a legitimate ideology; but to declare it The
One True Ideology isn’t Judaism; in fact it is a form of intolerance, of
bigotry.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Enter ‘spiritual leaders’ like former ‘Senior Rabbi’ Laura
Janner-Klausner.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Last year, soon after
the latest British elections (December 2019), I listened to a presentation in
which Rabbi Janner-Klausner talked about the Reform Movement and its
priorities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Antisemitism (especially the
Labour Party antisemitism, arguably the British Jewry’s main topic of concern over
the past few years) was conspicuously absent from her talk.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, during the Q&A session, I asked: what
was the Reform Movement’s position vis-à-vis Labour Party antisemitism?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She clearly did not like the question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She started by stating that she was a proud
member of the Labour Party and ‘had made no secret of that’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then she rather sternly advised that ‘we must
choose our words carefully’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Antisemitism may be present in certain parts of the Labour Party
leadership, she declared, but we should not imply that the entire party had a
problem.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I admit I did not like Rabbi Janner-Klausner, even before
that exchange.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But her ‘answer’ really shocked
me.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Did she not feel the concern, the worry,
the pain and humiliation felt by so many British Jews?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why did she choose to rise to the defence of
the Labour Party, rather than – as a rabbi should – leading and protecting her
own community?<o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8cVmn_uJpnegRm9cMRJJc7FF7iB5oFDkIV7HsmEjKUnSVGhD38SjNGsn-DwrrjWC3YxbgjfxCwKhmkCW6pckd-lCGgl-woSCbZUtijf9YiBH3PkCWVJSRFXhB7vdaGlxbGonEHtTsy48h/s598/Laura+Janner+Klausner+elitist.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="464" data-original-width="598" height="310" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8cVmn_uJpnegRm9cMRJJc7FF7iB5oFDkIV7HsmEjKUnSVGhD38SjNGsn-DwrrjWC3YxbgjfxCwKhmkCW6pckd-lCGgl-woSCbZUtijf9YiBH3PkCWVJSRFXhB7vdaGlxbGonEHtTsy48h/w400-h310/Laura+Janner+Klausner+elitist.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Needless to say, since then the EHRC has proven Rabbi Laura
wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It identified the problem not
just as an issue of leadership, but as one of Labour Party <i>“culture”</i>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Leaders (spiritual or otherwise) have responsibilities –first
and foremost being to… well, to behave responsibly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Should the ‘Senior Rabbi’ of the Reform
Movement identify herself with a political party?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I see this as fundamentally unwise; to put it
bluntly – as irresponsible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course, a
rabbi can have political opinions, like everybody else.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But should s/he formally join a political
party and declare that fact publicly?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Some roles should remain apolitical; even Keir Starmer did not flaunt
his political affiliation – while acting as Director of Public
Prosecutions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When it comes to a ‘Senior
Rabbi’, it’s not just about protecting the credibility of the role; it’s also the
responsibility of not involving the Community unwisely and unnecessarily in
political squabbles.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But hasn’t Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis done something similar,
by declaring publicly that Jeremy Corbyn (then Leader of the Labour Party) was <i>“unfit
for high office”</i>?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t think so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rabbi Mirvis did not express a political preference;
he did not declare support for (let alone membership of) the Conservative
Party.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No, he simply rose – as rabbis
did for centuries – in support of his community; giving voice to its concerns
and fears.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So did Reform rabbis like
Andrea Zanardo and Jonathan Romain.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Publicly identifying with a political party, movement or
ideology is the wrong thing for a religious leader to do.<o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqlglYEmG9chs9EUmUFl6v4_EQbfuu2cOYA4cQXGCkI58HdMOYOi6X8mQeFPW1Xpoi_iOK3I5htWWzZFs1NE6ZjF-76-FNlJQekL0frS26wgdgxl7BG1vzar-grkuL-6wxaVXYqPcPFM5t/s912/Laura+Janner+Klausner+Hotovely.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="912" data-original-width="808" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqlglYEmG9chs9EUmUFl6v4_EQbfuu2cOYA4cQXGCkI58HdMOYOi6X8mQeFPW1Xpoi_iOK3I5htWWzZFs1NE6ZjF-76-FNlJQekL0frS26wgdgxl7BG1vzar-grkuL-6wxaVXYqPcPFM5t/w355-h400/Laura+Janner+Klausner+Hotovely.png" width="355" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is, I’d strongly opine, politics – not religion – that drives
Rabbi Laura’s attitude towards the Jewish state.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In June this year, even before Tzipi Hotovely (Israel’s new Ambassador
to the UK) even made it to the country, Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner <a href="https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/senior-figures-challenge-incoming-israeli-envoy-tzipi-hotovely-1.500770"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">publicly
announced</span></a> that <o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Ambassador-designate
Hotovely has views as a politician which are in very strong contrast to the
views of Reform Judaism.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Until then, I had no idea that Reform Judaism had
political views!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I joined a religious
denomination; when I became a member of a Reform shul, I wasn’t made aware that
I needed to subscribe to any particular politics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nor was I told that by joining the shul I was
somehow empowering the Senior Rabbi to make political statements in my name.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the same article, Rabbi Laura proceeded to very strongly
advise the Ambassador to <i>“set aside”</i> her views.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How ironic: here’s a rabbi telling a
politician not to express political views!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Hotovely might have responded by asking the good rabbi to refrain from
expressing opinions on matters of faith.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But, jokes aside, this is so ludicrous – it’s not even
funny.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One does not have to like
Hotovely or her opinions; I certainly disagree with many of them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But she isn’t the ambassador of the British
Reform Movement; or even the ambassador of the British Jewish community.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She is the envoy of the State of Israel – a sovereign
state.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why should her political views be
in any way aligned with those of Reform Judaism (or, to be more precise, with those
of its Senior Rabbi)?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And why should a rabbi – Senior or otherwise – object to a
Jew (let alone an ambassador) expressing her opinions?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Isn’t this what the entire Talmud is – a bunch
of opinionated Jews having an argument?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What
happened to ‘these and also those are words of the Living God’? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What about ‘argument for the sake of heaven’
and all that jazz??<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thankfully, as I write this, Ms. Janner-Klausner is no
longer Senior Rabbi, having gone to pursue what I’m sure are more suitable
endeavours.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps as a result of her
departure, the Reform Judaism’s powers that be adopted a somewhat wiser approach:
they actually met the Ambassador and had a conversation, rather than bashing
her and her political views 'in absentia'.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yet somehow the politicising influence of Laura Janner-Klausner
seems to linger on, like a bad smell.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The ‘<a href="https://www.reformjudaism.org.uk/category/news/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">News</span></a>’ section
of the website still reads like that of a political movement – with a running
commentary (on behalf of ‘Reform Judaism’) on many an utterly secular decision
by the Government of Israel.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And, while probably milder than anything the former Senior
Rabbi would have written, the <a href="https://www.reformjudaism.org.uk/reform-jews-set-out-progressive-values-to-israeli-ambassador/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">statement released after meeting the Ambassador</span></a> still
rings distinctly unpleasant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It opens by
declaring:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Reform Judaism hosted
Israeli Ambassador to the UK Tzipi Hotovely for a Hannukah candle lighting
ceremony to set out our progressive values.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One would have hoped that British Jews needed no a special
reason to invite a recently arrived Israeli Jew to a Hannukah candle lighting
ceremony.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, if a reason had to be
mentioned, perhaps ‘getting to know each other’ or even ‘exchanging opinions’
would have sounded less arrogant, cold and hostile.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The statement then went on to tick all the obligatory
political boxes, including<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“the Israeli occupation of
the Palestinian territories and human rights for the Palestinian people”.</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Not much time spent on pleasantries and small talk, then!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Apparently, the Ambassador did not respond by
bringing up similarly controversial Diaspora issues, such as the galloping
assimilation and the young people’s estrangement from Judaism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I guess that’s why she’s a diplomat!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Next, the statement quotes a certain Amit Handelsman,
Director of Community Partnership, who sounds as if he did Hotovely a huge favour
by even talking to her:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“While we acknowledge our
differences of opinion, Reform Judaism has started a conversation with
Ambassador Hotovely to ensure she understands the progressive Zionist values we
hold.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hotovely probably thought ‘What a condescending prick’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or such equivalent terms that an observant
Jewish woman might use on such occasions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Mr. Handelsman then goes on to say<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“We are proud to be a
critical friend of Israel and hope to be able to continue to have robust and
honest conversations with the Israeli Embassy…”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There’s something profoundly wrong with this: why should
anyone be <i>“proud to be a critical friend”</i>?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sure, friends may criticise each other’s
actions or positions,; nothing wrong with that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But they don’t <b>set out</b> to be critical.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you wanna be my friend, I’d hope you are
proud of that fact – proud to be my friend; you can criticise me when you feel
you need to.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But if you’re proud to be
my <b>critical </b>friend; if you hope to have <i>“robust and honest”</i>
(rather than friendly and pleasant) conversations – then I think you’re no
friend at all.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Mr. Handelsman then issued what sounds like a new
Declaration of Faith:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Reform Judaism remains
guided by our key values and principles of peace, democracy, equality, human
rights and pluralism.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Are these, I ask, the <i>“key values”</i> of a religious
community (especially one with ‘Judaism’ in its name)?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or those of a political movement?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How about the continuity of the Jewish
people?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is that also a key value and
principle of Reform Judaism?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Finally, Mr. Handelsman put icing on this rather disgusting cake,
by stating<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“We work closely and in
partnership with our brothers and sisters in the Israeli Reform Movement to
create a better and just Israel for all its inhabitants.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And I thought, dear Amit, that all Israeli Jews were <i>“our
brothers and sisters”</i>??<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No, I am definitely <b>not</b> that kind of ‘Reform Jew’ –
not one of Mr. Handelsman’s <i>“brothers and sisters”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Me, I’m just a Jew – and a proud member of the
<i>“all</i> […]<i> inhabitants”</i> category.<o:p></o:p></p>Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-33671677841146630852020-12-13T08:22:00.005-08:002020-12-17T07:16:08.075-08:00Is there a future for the Labour Movement?<p> </p><h2 style="text-align: left;">The Movement</h2><h2><o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">I don’t care what your pet ideology is, dear reader – if
indeed you care to have one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you are
intellectually honest, you have to recognise the great services that the Labour
Movement rendered to society as a whole – to us all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we work 40 hours a week or less; if we are
less in danger to die or be maimed for life as a result of unsafe work
conditions; if we expect to be treated with dignity at work and take home a
decent wage – we owe all this to the men and women who, starting sometime in
the 19<sup>th</sup> century, fought – often at great peril and disadvantage to
themselves – to achieve these things and others, for all of us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The first trade unionists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We owe them a huge debt of gratitude.<o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgE3kbPKUvrdhRPM2JRrIgcEs71oyhVzgYGIISZaAoF51vCDsaCcWODf7O-Tms0BqXBEXNfY2LICCMphULXIu7aWu50EHyr_6ZyGJqpsVujSjFB1HwPJiaqerHvByRR_yB51MzP_HCTlYXr/s1450/Strike.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1036" data-original-width="1450" height="286" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgE3kbPKUvrdhRPM2JRrIgcEs71oyhVzgYGIISZaAoF51vCDsaCcWODf7O-Tms0BqXBEXNfY2LICCMphULXIu7aWu50EHyr_6ZyGJqpsVujSjFB1HwPJiaqerHvByRR_yB51MzP_HCTlYXr/w400-h286/Strike.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal">But at some point (also in the 19<sup>th</sup> century), the
Movement split. It might not have been
so obvious at the time, but part of the movement retained its initial purpose –
to win a better life for workers; another part concluded that that task could
not be achieved without ‘taking power’, without ‘defeating the Bosses’. One part of the Movement chose evolution; the
other revolution. While both may have
talked about class struggle, one interpreted the term as ‘quest for justice’;
the other – as ‘war’.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The former served as inspiration for the social-democratic
parties that have contributed to building the liberal democracy we currently
enjoy in the UK and the free world in general; the latter brought us Communism,
Stalinism and the gulag.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One raised the
oppressed – the other raised new oppressors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>As one Jewish smart-ass said, 2,000 years ago: <i>“by their
fruits ye shall know them”</i>.<o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_18iAH5KlvT8lTdDyS_k3DLZTQojJRugrPqY-2cHMUlgucNUID2ktlgaq_Niw10fvv4aqW0SKOgn6-8XiVh6Wn3-q6pMWpImTFOpAuKu3JG9TIu2ZZlGBgWiaVEC88tZLtRcEglf-5J51/s1200/Gulag.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="675" data-original-width="1200" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_18iAH5KlvT8lTdDyS_k3DLZTQojJRugrPqY-2cHMUlgucNUID2ktlgaq_Niw10fvv4aqW0SKOgn6-8XiVh6Wn3-q6pMWpImTFOpAuKu3JG9TIu2ZZlGBgWiaVEC88tZLtRcEglf-5J51/w400-h225/Gulag.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal">This article is not a pro-Labour spiel – not even from a
‘Blairite’ perspective. Nor is it a rant against Labour. The Labour Movement has done great things in the past; but it does not mean that we
should forever support it, or support anything that calls itself ‘Labour’,
‘social-democrat’ or ‘socialist’. It
also does not mean we shouldn’t. Political movements change. In the US, the
Republican Party was once a driving force for the Abolitionist Movement. These days, most people identify it with
social conservatism.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we wish to continue to enjoy liberal democracy (and we do; we’d
be fools not to), it behoves us to weigh every political strain not for what it
did yesteryear, but for what it has to offer today, tomorrow and the day after.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For this reason, while taking stock of the
past, this article wants to look into the future.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>The Report<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thursday, 29 October 2020, UK’s Equality and Human Rights
Commission (EHRC) published its <a href="https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/investigation-into-antisemitism-in-the-labour-party.pdf">report</a>
entitled <i>“Investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s a long (130 pages) document, written in
a cool, detached, formal language.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If
you cannot be bothered to read it all, here’s the concise but accurate summary
produced by my brilliant friend Ged Ornstein:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 43.2pt; margin-right: 43.1pt; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 43.1pt 6pt 43.2pt; text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 43.2pt; margin-right: 43.1pt; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 43.1pt 6pt 43.2pt; text-align: left;"><i>The
EHRC found that the Labour Party had:<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 79.2pt; margin-right: 43.1pt; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 43.1pt 6pt 79.2pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>Acted unlawfully in that
agents of the LP had used antisemitic tropes and had suggested that complaints
of antisemitism were fake or smears.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 79.2pt; margin-right: 43.1pt; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 43.1pt 6pt 79.2pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>Breached the Equality Act
2010 by acts of indirect discrimination relating to political interference
(i.e. the leadership interfered in the disciplinary processes) and a lack of
adequate training.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 79.2pt; margin-right: 43.1pt; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 43.1pt 6pt 79.2pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>An opaque and inefficient
complaints mechanism;<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 79.2pt; margin-right: 43.1pt; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 43.1pt 6pt 79.2pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>An inadequate training
programme with regards to antisemitism;<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 79.2pt; margin-right: 43.1pt; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 43.1pt 6pt 79.2pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>Disregarded abusive social
media content.</i></p></blockquote><p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 79.2pt; margin-right: 43.1pt; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 43.1pt 6pt 79.2pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><i><o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The EHRC is a statutory body endowed with legal powers and
concerned primarily with breaches of the Equality Act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it also recognises that racism is more
than a law infringement; it is a violation of the moral values that form the
foundation of a liberal, democratic society.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In the words of the report:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>"…tackling antisemitism
isn’t just about procedures. It is also about making sure that the Labour Party
has a culture that clearly reflects its zero tolerance of antisemitism and
indeed of all forms of discrimination."</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And, in that respect, the Commission found<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>"a culture within the Party
which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could
be seen to accept it."</i></blockquote><i><o:p></o:p></i><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">While Ged’s five points are damning from a legal point of
view, I would argue that the ‘culture’ problem is even more troubling.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Clearly, I’m not the only one who thinks this
is the case: the term ‘culture’ appears no less than 11 times in the EHRC
report, usually accompanied by a strong recommendation for the current culture
to be changed.<o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvGy7TCw1TJ36RVg8mARSOF_hreN2bKt-BSM2tmnbtfcPdLXmSvB3Hgap6dQzwJ5PWtzpntLvELPvnbUbGYMVqslx4Mk16pF7hCdvw4U5MFuxrjLSaHbauQTHJj0-HxxvhZPYbm4W8SErm/s283/front-cover-investigation-into-antisemitism-in-the-labour-party.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="283" data-original-width="200" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvGy7TCw1TJ36RVg8mARSOF_hreN2bKt-BSM2tmnbtfcPdLXmSvB3Hgap6dQzwJ5PWtzpntLvELPvnbUbGYMVqslx4Mk16pF7hCdvw4U5MFuxrjLSaHbauQTHJj0-HxxvhZPYbm4W8SErm/w226-h320/front-cover-investigation-into-antisemitism-in-the-labour-party.jpg" width="226" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Strangely, the ‘culture’ problem has gone almost entirely
unnoticed by the army of journalists, pundits and political activists that
presumed to ‘interpret’ the report.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet
I would argue that it is its most important (and most troubling) finding.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Firstly, it takes a large number of individuals to create ‘a
culture’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Which means that – if not
antisemitism itself – the propensity to ignore or accept anti-Jewish racism
resides in the hearts and minds of many a Labour Party member and
supporter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A failure of leadership may
be the reason why this ‘culture’ was allowed to strike roots and fester; but
that does not mean that merely changing the leadership gets rid of the
‘culture’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The old saying ‘a fish rots
from the head down’ does not imply that cutting off the head eliminates the
rot, once it’s been allowed to affect the body.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Secondly, correcting procedures and designing suitable
complaints mechanisms is eminently feasible; but (as we all know) changing the
hearts and minds of many individuals is not easily achieved, even with good,
determined leadership.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we needed (more) proof of this ‘cultural’ problem – and of
the fact that it persists unhindered – it was supplied in spades in the immediate
aftermath of the report publication.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And I am not just talking about Jeremy Corbyn’s reaction, or
the ‘solidarity’ he received – not only from prominent members of the Labour
Party and of the Unions, but also from numerous ‘ordinary’ members and
supporters.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Speaking as a panellist on BBC’s programme ‘Questions time’,
American-British playwright Bonnie Greer first waxed lyrical about ‘trauma’ and
declared that antisemitism in the Labour Party ‘makes her sick’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Touching indeed – except that she went on to
say:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>"I’m a Labour voter, I will
always vote Labour, I became a citizen so I could vote Labour, I will always
vote for the Labour Party as I think it is the best coalition of the left for
this country."</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Well, if the Labour Party is guilty of illegal acts of
racial harassment and discrimination; if, through its ‘sickening’ behaviour it
caused ‘trauma’ to an entire community – how can anyone promise to ‘always’,
unconditionally vote for it?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How can one
see it as <i>“the best </i>[…]<i> for this country”</i>? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Isn’t this a most revealing display of the
‘culture’ referred to by the EHRC?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A
‘culture’ which, to put it very mildly, accepts antisemitism (but certainly not
other forms of bigotry) as a rather minor issue, something that – at a pinch –
one can put up with, in view of the grander aspirations, of ‘what’s best for
the country’?<o:p></o:p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5PY9qsBCCwYKYJlrav4EzHb4CEPRoxvtMqIpmKKH0aTiUhqwsL8Pa-mSfcbwrkvrqH01GuOd8rwQvq0QOmAVxbj9Heij85TYGPBMViRI-inYPKfU4xbho4PUfrJd2Blf-1R-ZB1E32l7U/s2048/bonnie-greer-question-time.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1365" data-original-width="2048" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5PY9qsBCCwYKYJlrav4EzHb4CEPRoxvtMqIpmKKH0aTiUhqwsL8Pa-mSfcbwrkvrqH01GuOd8rwQvq0QOmAVxbj9Heij85TYGPBMViRI-inYPKfU4xbho4PUfrJd2Blf-1R-ZB1E32l7U/w400-h266/bonnie-greer-question-time.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Bonnie Greer: <i>"I'll always vote Labour"</i></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p class="MsoNormal">As if to demonstrate the callousness and immense hypocrisy
of that position, Ms. Greer later proceeded to accuse Donald Trump of racism
and to ask rhetorically:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>"How can anyone vote for a
man with that kind of thing?"</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Herein lies the ‘culture’ problem: not just, as some may
think, in the antisemitic acts or words of a <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6087783/Jeremy-Corbyn-said-British-Zionists-no-sense-English-irony.html"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Jeremy
Corbyn</span></a>, <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/ken-livingstone-claims-of-anti-semitism-against-labour-party-lies-and-smears/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Ken
Livingston</span></a> or <a href="https://antisemitism.org/politics/labour/chris-williamson/"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Chris
Williamson</span></a>; but, I strongly suggest, in the failure of people like
Bonnie Greer – usually so very sensitive to even ‘subtle’ manifestations
of racism – to recognise anti-Jewish racism for what it is: the oldest, most
obstinate and arguably most harmful form of racial intolerance.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In and of itself, changing the Labour leadership and the
party procedure books won’t get rid of antisemitism – any more than
promulgating the Equality Act (in and of itself) got rid of anti-black
prejudice.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<h2>The Problem<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">To even attempt to find a solution to this painful issue,
one has to try and understand the roots of the problem: why is it that people
who define themselves as ‘anti-racists’ have a weird blind spot (if not a
tendency to harbour it themselves) when it comes to antisemitism?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why is it that people whose entire world view
is built around social justice fail to recognise injustice?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And why is it that those whose fundamental
yearning is to eliminate oppression end up tolerating or even practicing it
against Jews?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here’s a thing: this isn’t just a problem of psychology –
but of ideology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Cambridge
Dictionary defines ‘ideology’ as<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>"a set of beliefs or
principles, especially one on which a political system, party, or organization
is based."</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The same dictionary defines the term ‘religion’ as<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>"the belief in and worship
of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship."</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Both ‘ideology’ and ‘religion’ are sets (or systems) of
beliefs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In effect, an ideology is
nothing but a God-less religion – a religion in which God is replaced by some
other ‘absolute principle’, by some sort of Kantian <a name="_Hlk55288082">‘categorical
imperative’</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Depending on the
ideology, such imperative may range from ‘social justice’ to ‘purity of race’;
the point is that we are talking about convictions based on faith – however
much the believers tend to see them as absolute and self-evident.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Just as there are degrees of religiosity, there are also
degrees of ideological zeal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is,
in that sense, a form of ‘ideological fundamentalism’, the secular equivalent
of religious fundamentalism.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Religious fundamentalism consists of a rigid, binary social taxonomy
(‘believers’ vs. ‘non-believers’ or ‘pagans’) that forms the basis for a type
of supremacism (the former are inherently and unquestionably superior to the
latter).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ideological fundamentalism is
very similar – think Marx’s lionisation of ‘the working class’ and demonisation
of ‘the bourgeoisie’, or the Corbynite ‘socialists’ raging against ‘Tory scum’ and
‘Blairites’.<o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdqyFrbyEVyzZGCeC5QK_WNHKzTUeypsWFByWpRyP9J-zHuNWyETiMjfzq27ggK41V08C2sjrSNUCD45NWgviUDJjDT01lpTaxw3oQKFBQ7CF99WDf7oos35jxdncnb3d7U6VzAdhbiVYm/s554/Heaven+or+hell.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="380" data-original-width="554" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdqyFrbyEVyzZGCeC5QK_WNHKzTUeypsWFByWpRyP9J-zHuNWyETiMjfzq27ggK41V08C2sjrSNUCD45NWgviUDJjDT01lpTaxw3oQKFBQ7CF99WDf7oos35jxdncnb3d7U6VzAdhbiVYm/s320/Heaven+or+hell.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal">Of course, social taxonomy is not the exclusive realm of
fundamentalists. We are all in the habit
of classifying people, of neatly arranging them in categories. This is how the human brain works. But, while we happily resort to
simplification and generalisation to try and extract some order out of chaos,
most of us realise that human beings are complex: one can be a dog lover and a thief; a loving father and a ruthless terrorist; a charity worker and a rapist. But, for the fundamentalist, such complexity cannot
be allowed to exist; reality must be reduced to black and white: one must be
either good or bad; ‘with us’ or ‘against us’; ‘oppressed’ or ‘oppressor’;
pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian. ‘To be
supported’ or ‘to be opposed’. In the
fundamentalist world view, these categories are existentially opposed,
absolute, immovable, one-dimensional and definitional.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here's an example from John Rees – a former leading member
of the Socialist Workers Party and co-founder of the Stop the War Coalition:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>"Socialists should
unconditionally stand with the oppressed against the oppressor, even if the
people who run the oppressed country are undemocratic and persecute minorities,
like Saddam Hussein."</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Saddam Hussein may have murdered (en-masse, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">using chemical
weapons</span></a>) tens of thousands of innocent people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But in the eyes of Rees, his faith,
nationality, skin colour and political adversaries place him firmly in the
ranks of ‘the Good’, the ‘anti-imperialists’ deserving of ‘unconditional’
support.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If Rees’s <i>“unconditionally
support”</i> does not bring to your mind Bonnie Greer’s <i>“I will always vote
Labour”</i>, then you’re missing the point here.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<h2>The Jews<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">Historically, fundamentalists (whether religious or secular)
tended to ‘have a problem’ with Jews.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And not surprisingly: in a world divided between ‘us’ and ‘them,’ the
Jew – the quintessential ‘Other’ – typically ends up on the wrong side of that
divide.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The antisemitism in the Labour Party isn’t a ‘stand-alone’
phenomenon; it did not appear out of nothing, just because Jeremy Corbyn waved
a magic wand.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is part of something much
bigger: a fundamentalist world view.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That is the root cause of the ‘culture’ that the EHRC was referring
to.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One cannot ‘cure’ fundamentalism of
antisemitism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Contrary to popular
belief, antisemitism is not an externality, a virus infecting an otherwise
healthy organism; it is part of the very DNA of fundamentalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is integral to that world view.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> '</span>Tackling’ antisemitism without dealing with
the fundamentalism is like trying to cure cancer by prescribing pain killers.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">‘Dealing with antisemitism’ should not be reduced to
‘dealing with complaints of antisemitism’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That would do very little to eliminate the <i>“culture”</i> EHRC
referred to.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And ‘dealing with the
problem’ should not be reduced to ‘dealing with antisemitism’.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The problem is what I called ‘ideological fundamentalism’ –
a form of political extremism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Antisemitism is just one of the manifestations of that
fundamentalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, you’ll find
that it’s been a manifestation of every type of European political extremism –
for centuries.<o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiUgULkfM4laNgn13h9oLl_C843K380kWoDviOiop8QYrty-OaOeTN85q0Wj8zy3YuRulkwmDrCwNJp_u5PNM1jQapGjO0HUwfnFWGHZ_k8hLeKAIoxHT7fmYq6v1OmP9X59S220TtFBO3/s256/Antisemitism+Execution_of_Mariana_de_Carabajal.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="256" data-original-width="200" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiUgULkfM4laNgn13h9oLl_C843K380kWoDviOiop8QYrty-OaOeTN85q0Wj8zy3YuRulkwmDrCwNJp_u5PNM1jQapGjO0HUwfnFWGHZ_k8hLeKAIoxHT7fmYq6v1OmP9X59S220TtFBO3/w313-h400/Antisemitism+Execution_of_Mariana_de_Carabajal.jpg" width="313" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal">Assuming he really wants to ‘tackle’ antisemitism, Keir
Starmer will not be able to do it by tinkering with disciplinary procedures or
by suspending a few individuals. Or even
by suspending <i>“thousands and thousands”</i>, as his Deputy <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/labour-antisemitism-angela-rayner-warns-thousands-and-thousands-of-members-could-be-suspended-12146173"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">threatened</span></a>.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<h2>The Current Leader<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which brings me to Starmer himself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since he became leader (Leader?) his attitude
and speeches in relation to antisemitism seem flawless.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He says the right things; he sacked Rebecca
Long-Bailey for a sin that would, if anything, have gained her praise from the
previous leadership; why, he even took the whip from Corbyn himself!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And yet, one wonders how come this decisive,
‘zero-tolerance’ Starmer sat next to Corbyn – in his Shadow Cabinet, no less –
for nigh on five years, with only occasional, very mild and vague
criticism?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How come he cheered him
on?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How come he campaigned for people to
vote for a party with a culture of antisemitism?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For Corbyn as Prime Minister?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Starmer claims that he voiced his criticism
more firmly ‘inside’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps he did –
but is that enough?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How was Sir Keir’s attitude
different than that of a John Rees or Bonnie Greer?<o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrQEn97nf3e269NcjluPFqsirO3h4kbwIhq8JP_bkEsb6DV1OgTwvZQtn_otzKlP_H1c0U1Q7UXe8K3Iq4XrN8jcbw2dz9r45iHkOlhXyuhf2QCZZv_VslVzm1WrRqE90lFV3dt6q0UCuB/s710/keircorbyn_rvazav.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="355" data-original-width="710" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrQEn97nf3e269NcjluPFqsirO3h4kbwIhq8JP_bkEsb6DV1OgTwvZQtn_otzKlP_H1c0U1Q7UXe8K3Iq4XrN8jcbw2dz9r45iHkOlhXyuhf2QCZZv_VslVzm1WrRqE90lFV3dt6q0UCuB/w400-h200/keircorbyn_rvazav.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What is it that Sir Keir Starmer really believes in?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the race to become Leader of the Party, he
declared himself a hard leftist through-and-through; a man that would ‘unite’
the Party.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now he says he wants to clean
and cure it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He even revealed – but only
once Corbyn resigned – that his wife was Jewish.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Many a member of the Labour Party left in disgust – some at
the cost of their career; others stayed and fought valiantly – suffering stress
and abuse as a consequence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Starmer
stayed, kept his mouth shut – and benefited.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I respect and trust <b>them</b>; I don’t – <b>him</b>.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<h2>The Former Leader<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">But Starmer suspended Corbyn, you’ll say.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the eyes of many a battered, worried Jew,
suspending Corbyn turned Starmer into a modern-day King Ahasuerus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But let’s get our wits about us and reason:
is <b>this</b> what we want?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sure,
Corbyn was toxic; he was definitely part of the problem; but is he <b>the</b>
problem?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Would a Labour Party led by –
for instance – John McDonnell be better for Jews?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Will the ‘culture’ problem magically
disappear if Corbyn does?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In reality, Corbyn’s suspension was counter-productive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In a sense, it vindicated his claim, his
narrative: that in the Labour Party antisemitism should be seen as a problem of
a few individuals; to be solved by disciplining them and moving on.<o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOH7nXVUlkgTQ81kutL-rjgUlVhOTYmXwuM2eQxLLLSLg6N6I1Y89Nb44aJlKO9C5t1Z4Yn3pFplw2RMfwkc_GHSVbF-9XBcBHvwM2FlySweU5AMCDES0sDuwn5344Fg47cZVwhYyC_Hgq/s300/Corbyn+support.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="180" data-original-width="300" height="192" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOH7nXVUlkgTQ81kutL-rjgUlVhOTYmXwuM2eQxLLLSLg6N6I1Y89Nb44aJlKO9C5t1Z4Yn3pFplw2RMfwkc_GHSVbF-9XBcBHvwM2FlySweU5AMCDES0sDuwn5344Fg47cZVwhYyC_Hgq/w320-h192/Corbyn+support.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal">I’m not suggesting Jews should rejoice that Corbyn has been
reinstated: this once again acted as a distraction, taking the focus away from
the real issue. But, at least, his
reinstatement has spared us a more dire scenario: that of his ‘due process’
under an improved, future complaints procedure.
That was a prospect that, I’m sure, the ever-contrarian Corbyn really
relished. Imagine a group of
‘independent’ non-Jewish officials looking for ‘hard evidence’ to ‘determine’
whether what Corbyn did was or was not antisemitism. If it was up to white people to determine
what is or is not anti-Black racism, we would still be using the n-word!</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<h2>The Leadership in general<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">In a democracy, leaders are elected.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But how are they selected?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After all, We The People can only vote for
the candidates that the parties put in front of us.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now, if you own a business or you work in one, you know how
people are recruited and how they are promoted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>You would never take someone who just finished school and appoint him or
her as – say – Director of Sales.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No,
not even if s/he spent a couple of years working as a barista at Costa Coffee.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You would not appoint as CEO someone
that has not (at the very least!) successfully managed a department.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Why, then, would you want to have as Prime Minister someone
(like Corbyn or Starmer) who never-ever served as Minister?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sure, in his time Corbyn ‘managed’ many a
political demonstration.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Starmer was a human
rights barrister and Director of Public Prosecutions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But how relevant are these skills to the role
of Prime Minister?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Deputy Labour Leader Angela Rayner left school at 16 and
trained as a social worker.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She became
involved in the Unison trade union and gradually rose in the Party
hierarchy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Don’t get me wrong: I tip my hat to her
willingness to help others; I respect her determination to make a honest living
for her and her children; I value her interest in politics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She seems like a decent person; but will <b>that</b>
make her a decent minister?<o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqR9bRDrXErj5QZnG5maVuLapMhKAIkI4qribuhvsLMx-Nrlq1EHS2E9hLpEC101w-SdOkoMfL-fxyIlc3WzmwyBobc0GEi715WmBU42fEUWSloUChvpcFEPf2EriSHcjciBRf1GTFLAJB/s1366/Angela+Rayner.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="1366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqR9bRDrXErj5QZnG5maVuLapMhKAIkI4qribuhvsLMx-Nrlq1EHS2E9hLpEC101w-SdOkoMfL-fxyIlc3WzmwyBobc0GEi715WmBU42fEUWSloUChvpcFEPf2EriSHcjciBRf1GTFLAJB/s320/Angela+Rayner.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal">I have nothing against political activism; but if that’s
what you did in University; if that was your main occupation throughout your
life, we have to ask: what do you really know about what the rest of us are
doing? If you never managed a corner
shop, what makes you able to run a country?</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<h2>The Future<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some take it as given that the Labour Party (as the
political arm of the Labour Movement) will always exist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s an illusion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Voters trust pragmatic leaders, not
ideological ones; people who seek solutions in the reality around them, not in
the Little Red Book.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Israel, the
Labour Party has practically disappeared – mainly because it stuck to slogans, ideas and ‘ideals’ that voters saw as disconnected from reality.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If you think that this could never happen in the UK – think
again.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not just the colossal 2019 Labour
defeat.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although seemingly not as
decisive, the 2017 one was ominous: Labour fought those elections against a Conservative Party in disarray; against a fumbling government led by a
well-meaning but pathologically charmless Prime Minister, who voted Remain but
was put in charge of implementing Brexit…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So what should Labour do?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Well, this is ‘Politically-incorrect Politics’ – but I’m afraid I do not
have any original solution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just some
good ol' advice.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If you want to govern the country, put in place capable
leaders with a good track record.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s
about skills and experience, not just good intentions.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGASbQu_00tJdeg5rYIcLPkav9j8KUGvS5gbOAPAqeixWNYKvLH5iGwTjMMJaGhGPMKmlVfGDhOKndqwdgzYnN4u-nppHFuv8_5d2GwCIeaIDC-IR1qHezmmQnFS7oEauxGfY8u69nW5oN/s480/Labour+Palestinian+flags.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="480" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGASbQu_00tJdeg5rYIcLPkav9j8KUGvS5gbOAPAqeixWNYKvLH5iGwTjMMJaGhGPMKmlVfGDhOKndqwdgzYnN4u-nppHFuv8_5d2GwCIeaIDC-IR1qHezmmQnFS7oEauxGfY8u69nW5oN/w400-h300/Labour+Palestinian+flags.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal">If you want to wave Palestinian flags – go be Prime Minister
of Palestine. We want someone who at least cares about the UK.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And then, understand that, if one wishes to govern a
democracy, one has to appeal to a majority of the people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Which – look at any statistics of political
inclinations – means appealing to the moderate centre.<o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigz5qbmAdgQ1pu0-5FL9wD90h0B4CxuHi0IWVUgmOcqQt-AXvui245gVVyrCqlp_orsYrfAdU8RsPkuHS1sO7NFFpDKG1sqVTkUwH9c-sp6t-Y9Ds4YWzUWJ4Wr3vJQL1x5yPu0Scqo1yg/s1011/left+right.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="652" data-original-width="1011" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigz5qbmAdgQ1pu0-5FL9wD90h0B4CxuHi0IWVUgmOcqQt-AXvui245gVVyrCqlp_orsYrfAdU8RsPkuHS1sO7NFFpDKG1sqVTkUwH9c-sp6t-Y9Ds4YWzUWJ4Wr3vJQL1x5yPu0Scqo1yg/w621-h400/left+right.jpg" width="621" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If you talk about ‘radical policies’, we understand that you
want to experiment; to gamble with our lives and our livelihoods; and those of
our children. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We’ll have none of that,
thank you!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Go try your ‘radical ideas’
elsewhere.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Maybe in Palestine?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If they work there, we’ll consider them here. See ya!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sure, we want a better life. A juster, more caring society. Only we don't want no revolution. Every revolution that's ever been ended up butchering us -- or sending us to war, to butcher each other. Far-left 'revolutionaries' do not belong in the Labour Party
any more than neo-Nazis belong in the Conservative Party.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You were stupid enough to let them in?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now find a way to get rid of them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If what you’re selling is Communist Party dressed up as ‘Labour’
– we’re not buying.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes, we heard that Marx and Trotsky were very smart people. But look around and smell the coffee: if we wanted someone who sings from the hymn sheet, we’d elect the village priest. No, thank you: we need pragmatic leaders, not consumers of theoretical scripture.</p><p class="MsoNormal">You know, you have a problem: while your fundamentalists
keep ranting about ‘Tory scum’, the Conservative Party has moved increasingly
to the centre, ‘crowding’ Labour out of its traditional positions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We The People understand this, do you?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just look at the current government, with its
record number of ethnic minority ministers – including the senior posts of
Chancellor and Home Secretary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just look
at its reaction to the pandemic – no, not the fumbling about rules, lockdowns
and tiers, but the financial benefits it dished out to employees and small business owners.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just look at its environment-related pledges,
or the worship-like praise of the NHS…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You, Labour guys, have your work cut out for you. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On one hand, you have to be (or at least
appear to be) moderate; we ain’t voting for no nutters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the other hand, you’ve gotta find a way to
differentiate yourselves from an increasingly centrist (in practice, if not in
ideology) Tory Party.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘The Government
should have done more’ is a rather feeble criticism, because it implies that what was
done was good.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You wanna govern again? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Start by proving you can mount a sensible
Opposition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because – in the UK, just
like in Israel – democracy needs one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Best of luck to you!<o:p></o:p></p>Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-63277628514902292562020-12-09T13:14:00.009-08:002020-12-09T13:20:31.575-08:00The real 'oven-ready' deal<p> As I write this, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson is on his
way to Brussels, there to meet EU Commission President Ursula von der
Leyen. The two ‘principals’ are supposed
to do their darndest to undo the plonter in the bilateral negotiations and find
a ‘creative’ compromise towards a deal.
This is the latest move in an intricate dance that – everybody knows –
will only end when it <b>absolutely</b> needs to.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the run-up to this ‘crucial meeting’, the two sides did
what they do best: jockeyed for positions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>As for us, the public, we are being told (by countless journalists and
politicians) that the negotiations now boiled down to resolving three issues:</p>
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">-<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>EU fishing quotas in UK
waters;</li><li><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">-<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">;
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>‘Level playing field’ rules;</li><li><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">-<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>Who/what will police the
deal.</li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is the same story: whichever paper you read, whichever
channel you tune into, you’ll read or hear journalists and politicians parroting
what they heard from others – adding to it only their own ideological slant and
their sense of self-importance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most of
these journalists and politicians don’t know what they’re talking about; the
others are just lying to us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The truth
is that these ‘issues’ are either unimportant or very easy to solve.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are (or can be, given the political
will) non-issues.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here is why.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h1>The fishy issue<o:p></o:p></h1>
<p class="MsoNormal">As long as UK was a member state (and in the transition
period following Brexit) EU fishing rules – the so-called ‘Common Fisheries
Policy – applied.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This sets quotas for
each member state and per each species of fish.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Currently, it allows both British and EU boats to fish in British waters
– up to the set quota.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In practice, this
means that EU boats catch much more fish in UK waters than British boats catch
in EU waters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Come 1 January 2021 and in
the absence of a deal, the UK could in principle keep all the fish for itself
and not allow anyone else access to what is, legally speaking, a national
resource.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This would negatively affect EU
fishermen, especially those from neighbouring countries: France, Belgium, Netherlands,
Denmark…<o:p></o:p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiacTSaNK9FyHKN7MAihKmvhRc9FnpOGOSUi12tsT1NdSUAc0NCvqyMFKax7rCDj1skYU8Je_DfJXbpbDd303sG7Gk5uXGiZA5BEVfJSEri6pZs1ECoJJXe4NJvd2D_68RZKZpcdFpt5Ald/s2048/boris+fish.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1536" data-original-width="2048" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiacTSaNK9FyHKN7MAihKmvhRc9FnpOGOSUi12tsT1NdSUAc0NCvqyMFKax7rCDj1skYU8Je_DfJXbpbDd303sG7Gk5uXGiZA5BEVfJSEri6pZs1ECoJJXe4NJvd2D_68RZKZpcdFpt5Ald/w400-h300/boris+fish.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Nah, those fish cannot be saved. They'll go into the pan...</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p class="MsoNormal">That much is true. But,
when the <a href="https://www.economist.com/britain/2020/07/23/how-fisheries-could-sink-a-brexit-trade-deal"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Economist</span></a>
calls the issue <i>“political dynamite,”</i> that’s bollocks; when French
President Emmanuel Macron <span style="color: #2b00fe;"><a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1366939/brexit-news-emmanuel-macron-fishing-uk-eu-trade-deal-latest-no-deal-brexit-update"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">threatens</span></a>
</span>to scupper the deal over the percentage of fish available to the EU – that is
posturing.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For both EU and UK, fishing is a minor economic issue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We are talking truly ridiculous numbers: the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/15/uk-fishermen-may-not-win-waters-back-after-brexit-eu-memo-reveals"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">total
value of fish caught by EU boats in UK waters</span></a> is somewhere around <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">$</span>0.6
billion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For comparison, EU’s total economic
output is estimated at $18,000 billion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In other words, we are talking about 0.0033% of EU’s ‘GDP’!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In terms of <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/publications/pcp_en.pdf">employment</a>,
fishing provides a means of livelihood for just under 100,000 EU ‘nationals’. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is almost 0.05% of the entire EU
workforce, but only a small fraction of those fishermen ply their trade in British
waters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Measured in FTE (Full-Time
Equivalents), France boasts an ‘army’ of 6,623 fishermen – some of whom may
even vote for Macron, provided he displays enough Gallic belligerency on their
behalf...<o:p></o:p></p>
<h1>‘Level playing field’<o:p></o:p></h1>
<p class="MsoNormal">If fishing is <i>“political dynamite,”</i> this one’s the equivalent
of a nuclear bomb.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Currently, British
and EU regulation is practically the same, ensuring that British and European
countries can compete fairly in both markets.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Come 1 January 2021, the UK would, in principle, be able to change the
rules, reducing the costs and/or boosting the profitability of British firms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The British government may reduce environment
protection obligations; it may improve productivity by forcing employees to
work longer hours; it may reduce consumer protection standards; it may even
decide to subsidise certain industries.<o:p></o:p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyZbbQ2gwSbZ11jo5oelM-s8m-3hGVcXRLLsFVEvnoUo3Ufh1xPAgJ4Im4iXNc1x89cJEBzkZryH78MLJ-APp1WCQwmHtCWcVWeA0OxLkZ4HldN_3kO40bWveEhJ3stDprGiAfJYFkGT16/s445/Playing-Field.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="239" data-original-width="445" height="215" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyZbbQ2gwSbZ11jo5oelM-s8m-3hGVcXRLLsFVEvnoUo3Ufh1xPAgJ4Im4iXNc1x89cJEBzkZryH78MLJ-APp1WCQwmHtCWcVWeA0OxLkZ4HldN_3kO40bWveEhJ3stDprGiAfJYFkGT16/w400-h215/Playing-Field.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">We must ensure a level playing field forever!</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p class="MsoNormal">Let’s say that British and European firms both make a
particular widget, which is currently priced at €100 per widget. To manufacture it, companies have to buy Raw Material
– also manufactured in the EU and costing €50 per widget. Raw material is also available from Chinese suppliers
at €30
per widget, but such Raw Material contravenes EU’s strict environmental
policies and is hence verboten in Europe.
Post-Brexit, however, the British government can in principle decide
that the environmental issue isn’t that important, or that it can be mitigated. If it allows them to buy Chinese Raw
Material, British firms would be able to undercut EU companies, potentially pushing
them out of the market.</p><p class="MsoNormal">It’s not just about China; in fact, the EU more worried
about potential supply of cheaper products from the US.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The European powers that be have worked for
decades to keep certain US industries out of the common market – not because they
are more littering, but because they are more efficient and can therefore supply
cheaper products.</p><p class="MsoNormal">EU’s proposed ‘solution’ to this was that the UK pledges to use
the same rules as the EU.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that would
make a mockery of Brexit and would constitutes a particularly painful form of political
suicide for any Conservative government.</p><p class="MsoNormal">The British concession was the so-called ‘non-regression’: as
part of the deal, the UK would pledge not to lower the regulatory requirements
below the current levels – which are aligned with those of the EU.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But European politicians were quick to point
out that the EU constantly raises its standards.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So accepting merely ‘non-regression’ may, in
the future, still result in a competitive advantage for British firms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the words of German Chancellor Angela
Merkel:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“We need to have a level
playing field not only for today, but for tomorrow, and the day after that. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Otherwise the result will be unfair terms of
competition, which we cannot impose upon our businesses.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Mrs. Merkel’s ‘<a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/angela-merkel-prepared-for-boris-johnson-to-insist-on-conditions-we-cannot-accept-scsr5ppw5"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">offer</span></a>’
was that the deal should include provisions allowing the EU, in the event of ‘unfair’
British regulation, an ‘automatic right’ to retaliate – for instance by
curtailing access to certain markets for British goods and services.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, beyond being unpalatable to any ‘sovereign’
British government, such provisions would be exceedingly complex to design and
implement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What constitutes an ‘unfair’
change in regulation?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Who will determine
what is or isn’t ‘unfair’ as opposed to just ‘different’?</p><p class="MsoNormal">This seems like an insoluble conundrum.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, an Irish politician called it an
attempt to <i>“square the circle”</i>.</p><p class="MsoNormal">But it’s all just smoke and mirrors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is a very straightforward solution: rather
than attempting to be restrictive or prescriptive in terms of ‘level playing
field’, the deal should simply allow either side to unconditionally terminate
the agreement (in its totality, not partially), with – say – one year
notice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This means that, if it feels
that the agreement does it more harm than good (for instance, that British
firms are enjoying an unfair advantage and are therefore undermining the ‘health’
of the single market), the EU would be able to bail out long before that
vaunted single market sustains significant damage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The one year transition period would allow
government agencies and companies to adapt to the new reality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And, if the agreement is terminated, we would
all be no better and no worse than with no deal in the first place. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the risk of termination would be – I dare
say – exceedingly small: the two parties would be more likely to negotiate away
small hiccups and weigh eventual drawbacks against broader advantages.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What’s more, any issues would be assessed for
their real impact – rather than for the imagined future risks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From afar, the shadow of an anthill can often
be mistaken for a steep mountain!</p><p class="MsoNormal">An unconditional right of termination would ensure that this
will always be a relationship between two willing partners; it would defuse the
suspicion that it may at some point turn into an unhappy catholic marriage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And this brings me to the next ‘major area of
disagreement’…</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<h1>Who/what would police the deal<o:p></o:p></h1>
<p class="MsoNormal">What happens if one of the signatories believes that the
other has violated the terms of the deal?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Who is going to interpret what’s been agreed – and make a determination
as to what constitutes ‘the terms’?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The EU wanted its own ‘Court of Justice’ to make those
determinations. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘Keep dreaming!’
responded the Brits.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are, of course, solutions – international treaties
often include complex clauses designing bespoke processes of conflict
resolution.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But here’s the thing: international treaties are extremely difficult
(and often impossible) to enforce.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If
you want an example, look no further than the ‘transition deal’ between EU and
UK.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The ink has hardly managed to dry on
those pieces of paper, before the UK government introduced a bill aimed at ‘clarifying’
its obligations and ‘protecting the UK’ from ‘extreme EU interpretations’ of
what’s been agreed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Government officials
have serenely admitted that the draft bill <a href="https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/internal-market-bill-breaks-international-law"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">violated
international law</span></a>, albeit only in a <i>“specific and limited way”</i>
(rather than in a general and unbounded manner, presumably!)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This may sound unpleasant to certain hypocrites and wishful
thinkers; but the reality is that a sovereign state cannot – except in the most
extreme circumstances – be forced to comply with ‘international law’, or with
treaties it signed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So the best – nay, the only – guarantee that an agreement
will be complied with is making sure that it is and remains in the best
interest of its signatories.<o:p></o:p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpZUqc9qHPfOqBv-_CscnJB7Asq6pTxd0j0cH4V3M8GXmx5sVUprHV3eKI2UHw96EI34uk3JyCcuNDqTdLiSUe2p9x8pvP6RQe20sA3ri0rYjzMkUV4ezVNXpUuIQoaD2sPkwmmPYcF8zj/s300/the-law-of-the-jungle-300x300.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="300" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpZUqc9qHPfOqBv-_CscnJB7Asq6pTxd0j0cH4V3M8GXmx5sVUprHV3eKI2UHw96EI34uk3JyCcuNDqTdLiSUe2p9x8pvP6RQe20sA3ri0rYjzMkUV4ezVNXpUuIQoaD2sPkwmmPYcF8zj/w400-h400/the-law-of-the-jungle-300x300.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Luckily, he is protected by International Law...</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">An unconditional termination clause would make ‘policing the
deal’ and ‘conflict resolution processes’ superfluous.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is catholic marriages that account for the
most acrimonious divorces – just ask Henry VIII!<o:p></o:p></p>
<h1>So why are they fighting?<o:p></o:p></h1>
<p class="MsoNormal">But, if the ‘major areas of disagreement’ are actually non-issues,
why this prolonged, painful ‘process’?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Why the rancour, the recriminations, the bitterness?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To understand this, one has to appreciate that the European
Union has long ceased to be about economics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In the 1975 referendum, the UK voted to enter the Common <b>Market </b>–
an economic bloc; in 2016 it voted to leave the European <b>Union</b> – a political
project.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Consequently, the conflict between the UK and EU isn’t about
the economy, as we are being led to believe; it is about ideology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nothing exemplifies this better than a recent
Twitter-facilitated ‘conversation’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On 2
December 2020, UK Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial
Strategy Alok Sharma posted:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><i>“The UK was the first
country to sign a deal with Pfizer/BioNTech - now we will be the first to
deploy their vaccine<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><i>To everyone involved in
this breakthrough: thank you<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><i>In years to come, we will
remember this moment as the day the UK led humanity’s charge against this
disease”</i></p></blockquote><p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’m no fan of the Rt. Honourable Sharma; one can dispute the
taste he displayed in an official tweet that sounded like the boastful cheering
of a football fan.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that’s not what
he was criticised for.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No, Mr. Sharma’s
tweet was criticised for being nationalistic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Within 3 hours (which is warp speed in diplomatic terms), a certain
Andreas Michaelis, Germany’s Ambassador to the Court of St. James, weighed in –
also on Twitter:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Why is it so difficult to
recognize this important step forward as a great international effort and
success. I really don't think this is a national story. In spite of the German
company BioNTech having made a crucial contribution this is European and transatlantic.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Listen to the music: the German envoy wasn’t objecting because
Mr. Sharma omitted to give credit to the vaccine’s ‘German connection’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No, he was annoyed by Sharma’s expression of
national pride.<o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghyeb7uMc0I4NNl11CSgUz-VVLlB2770-Z4O-dbJnfO0Tzhl6tGu2fXGHDmKNPYhYB7HamXSj3fHdiRnK2kmhqcbd8tmI2XcFG1BzxGL-_vjrAGJM1nY7mLzyTXawMehTQsBj7as2uyIfQ/s1586/Screenshot+2020-12-09+at+20.55.26.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1586" data-original-width="1125" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghyeb7uMc0I4NNl11CSgUz-VVLlB2770-Z4O-dbJnfO0Tzhl6tGu2fXGHDmKNPYhYB7HamXSj3fHdiRnK2kmhqcbd8tmI2XcFG1BzxGL-_vjrAGJM1nY7mLzyTXawMehTQsBj7as2uyIfQ/w284-h400/Screenshot+2020-12-09+at+20.55.26.png" width="284" /></a><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoOPWDgwILxy3dmlIJ76NrJwQyy6SbkA67XlCDc6juzhLFKRyJ7k3JVdMklo5Mj8bl56OOwhyHIMaDBzpkck4hzohTBuLbozv2EtRPoYuKtI52uGp6QuQf41dx7s4xDej7pbTDGSpJrgOJ/s1465/Screenshot+2020-12-09+at+20.57.05.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1465" data-original-width="1125" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoOPWDgwILxy3dmlIJ76NrJwQyy6SbkA67XlCDc6juzhLFKRyJ7k3JVdMklo5Mj8bl56OOwhyHIMaDBzpkck4hzohTBuLbozv2EtRPoYuKtI52uGp6QuQf41dx7s4xDej7pbTDGSpJrgOJ/w308-h400/Screenshot+2020-12-09+at+20.57.05.png" width="308" /></a></div><br /></div><p class="MsoNormal">And therein lies the difference: born as a sensible economic
alliance, the European ‘Union’ is now an ideological movement – one that aims
to gradually wipe out the nation states in favour of a new (some would say ‘artificial’)
European identity and its political manifestation: a supra-national entity
(some would call it an empire). Hence the
relentless push against any trace of ‘nationalism’ – even the mild, benign form
that many would call ‘patriotism’; hence the instinctive, knee-jerk reaction against
manifestations of such ‘nationalism’ – whether in the UK, in USA, or elsewhere;
hence the hostility towards Israel – the embodiment of such ‘nationalist’
aspirations.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6x6zmcFvRIphxrbudPRpLDebJwl4PGtnokKVhblufQof6knIr3PCwEpVjNASBDAsF4AhRYy2yEM4xjZFJ6McyH9ewwUYxl_AnjbkfSYrk39L3Q20z547j0WC2GTRwpmUKyaC5RWtpyLg6/s480/Angela+Merkel.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="480" height="250" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6x6zmcFvRIphxrbudPRpLDebJwl4PGtnokKVhblufQof6knIr3PCwEpVjNASBDAsF4AhRYy2yEM4xjZFJ6McyH9ewwUYxl_AnjbkfSYrk39L3Q20z547j0WC2GTRwpmUKyaC5RWtpyLg6/w400-h250/Angela+Merkel.webp" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal">The problem the EU has is that this ideological push does
not really have much to show in terms of popular support; it is the dream of a
political, economic and intellectual elite, which is promoting it without much
consultation with those they seek to re-educate and re-mould. Consequently, as the push towards ‘multilateralism’
and ‘European identity’ advanced, so did the (generally hostile) popular reaction
to it. What’s worse, from the point of view
of the promoters of ‘the European project’ is that the initially diffuse
popular reaction soon drew the attention of politicians eager to ride that ‘populist
wave’. There is, within the EU itself, a
rising ‘Euro-sceptic’ sentiment, a centrifugal tendency that worries the ‘internationalists’.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Brexit was, of course, by far the most powerful manifestation
of that tendency – and it has shocked and shaken the ‘Union’ to the core.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The worst nightmare of the ‘Europeans’ is
another ‘exit’, a second member state that would decide to contradict the ‘EU
line’ ideologically and cross it politically.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That would be, from the point of view of the ‘European project’ a
disaster.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The ‘Unionists’ must avoid it
at all costs and ‘sell’ Brexit as a complete outlier, a regrettable setback and
– most of all – as an unmitigated mistake.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hence, from EU’s point of view, Brexit <b>must</b> be (or at
least must look like it is) very painful for the UK; and if pragmatic interests
(economic and political) have to be sacrificed in the pursuit of that
ideological imperative – so be it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On
the other hand, they cannot go too far: EU’s economy is already on its knees;
and a spurned UK would be a loose cannon aimed at the European prow.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My conclusion is that a EU-UK deal is not just a possibility
– it’s the only possibility.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The ‘solutions’
to all the ‘major disagreements’ are simple; a deal could have been signed
months ago.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that’s not to say it
will be signed today, tomorrow or by 31 December.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It might indeed; or it might not – if the EU
powers that be feel that they can afford to postpone it to 2021.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Paradoxically, Biden’s election makes the
latter outcome more likely.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But postponing
has a price – and not just an economic one: once the UK absorbs the ‘birth
pangs’ of the new situation, the British government’ desire to do the deal will
go down a notch, with the result being a stiffening of its position in the
ensuing negotiations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Meanwhile, the EU
will have to absorb a few pangs of its own; and, since they will not be equally
felt by the various member states (Ireland, for instance, will feel more pain
than Austria), the vaunted ‘European unity’ may start to fray at the seamline
of opposing interests.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As for us… We the People will continue to be misinformed by
lazy and incompetent journalists; deceived by scruple-less politicians; and
generally treated with contempt by arrogant fools with a superiority complex
and a sense of entitlement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Until (not
unless!) we do something about it.<o:p></o:p></p>Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-68731461260904121592020-10-24T07:58:00.000-07:002020-10-24T08:00:11.384-07:00Hey, Mr. ‘Prominent British Jew’: be a mensch and say “I’m sorry!”<p> I know, I know: we are way past Yom Kippur. But who says it’s only on that one day a year
that we must say “I’m sorry”?</p><p>As yet another Arab country (Sudan) agrees to normalise
relations with the Jewish state, quite a few people owe us all (and to
themselves) a heartfelt apology.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<h1>Journalists<o:p></o:p></h1>
<p class="MsoNormal">The decay of journalism is one of the greatest challenges to
21<sup>st</sup> century democracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Real
journalists (read: people who value objectivity, have respect for facts and are
capable of insights) are becoming rare and far between; those depleting ranks
are being filled with political activists for whom ‘journalism’ is a weapon,
rather than a vocation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the saddest
thing is that they can get away with not even having to admit they were wrong;
mainly, perhaps, because most people did not pay attention to their pathetic screeches
– in the first place.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Zvi Bar’el, for instance, would probably describe himself as
a senior journalist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He sports the rather
serious-sounding title of Middle East Affairs Analyst for the Israeli newspaper
Ha’aretz; he even has a PhD in the History of the Middle East.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One of his ‘<a href="https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/.premium-israel-s-deal-with-the-uae-spells-new-conditions-for-ties-with-arab-states-1.9072749"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">analyses</span></a>’
was published a few weeks ago (<b><u>after</u></b> the UAE deal announcement),
under the assertive title: <o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote><p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><i>“Israel's Deal With the
UAE Spells New Conditions for Ties With Arab States”.</i><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some may say that’s only stating the obvious – and I
couldn’t agree more.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But I’m not
complaining about the lack of insight – I’ve come to expect that; the problem
is that nowhere in his learned article does Analyst Bar’el utter the words: ‘I
got it wrong, folks – I’m sorry!’<o:p></o:p></p>
Because Mr. Bar’el’s previous ‘analyses’ (i.e. <b><u>before</u></b>
the UAE announcement) were rather radically different.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> For instance, the one he <a href="https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-the-vision-of-the-moderate-states-1.5443606"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">published</span></a>
under the no-less sententious title:<o:p></o:p>
<blockquote><p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"><i>“Without Solution to
Palestinian Issue, No Arab State Will Seek Relations With Israel”</i><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Mr. Bar’el began that previous ‘analysis’ by quoting
Netanyahu’s statement, delivered at the UN:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Many have long assumed
that an Israeli-Palestinian peace can help facilitate a broader rapprochement
between Israel and the Arab World. But these days I think it may work the other
way around: Namely that a broader rapprochement between Israel and the Arab
world may help facilitate an Israeli-Palestinian peace. And therefore, to
achieve that peace, we must look not only to Jerusalem and Ramallah, but also
to Cairo, to Amman, Abu Dhabi, Riyadh and elsewhere.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ha’aretz’s Middle East Affairs Analyst then proceeded to
ridicule Netanyahu for that statement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>No, Arab country, declared our friend Zvi with iron-clad certitude, will
<i>“seek relations”</i> with Israel unless the latter first magics up a <i>“Solution
to </i>[the]<i> Palestinian Issue”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well,
the UAE (an Arab country by all accounts, including its name) did.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And two others (so far!) followed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hmm… so who looks ridiculous now? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Forgive my French, but I’d say that Zvi Bar’el
has made a bit of an ass of himself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Someone
should tell him that, despite the partial homophony, the title of ‘Analyst’
does not derive from the word ‘anal’!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is a sorry state of affairs when ‘Analysts’ (and
journalists in general) are utterly ignorant of what is happening – until the
moment it becomes public knowledge.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There
were plenty of clues for Mr. Bar’el to pick up.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>For years now, Netanyahu has been throwing thick hints about impending peace
with the Arab world; so did Trump.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That
there was considerable rapprochement was common knowledge.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And, if nothing else, it was clearly spelled
out in the latest Coalition Agreement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No,
not the part about ‘annexation’ – leave that one to the hapless ‘analysts’; no,
the part that says:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“The Prime Minister and
Substitute Prime Minister will act together and in a coordinated fashion to
advance peace agreements with all our neighbours and to advance regional
cooperation […] all this while aiming to protect the security and strategic
interests of the State of Israel, including the need to preserve regional
security, uphold existing peace agreements and strive towards future peace
agreements.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The words <i>“peace agreements”</i> feature no less than
three times in that one paragraph.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Enough of a clue – you’d think – to pique the curiosity of even a thick,
jaded Ha’aretz Analyst.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But ‘journalists’ like Bar’el aren’t attuned to facts or evidence;
they are driven by ideology, by beliefs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>According to Mr. Bar’el’s ‘secular religion’, Netanyahu and Trump are
perennial liars – never to be believed; Israel’s desire for peace is forever
suspect – lip service designed to hide nefarious intentions; and the plight of
the Palestinian Arabs is the #1 issue in the whole wide blimming world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For a certain ilk of pseudo-liberals, the
above statements are Gospel – and one does not question scripture!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now, I don’t wish to be too harsh: valued Middle East
Analysts (even those with a PhD and – incredibly, I know – even those writing
for Ha’aretz) are of course allowed to make mistakes, just like the rest of
us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But… forgive me if I humbly opine
that, besides being a mark of character, admitting one’s mistakes should be a
minimum requirement for retaining one’s credibility; if not one’s job.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But let’s stop picking on poor Zvi Bar’el – he is far from
the only culprit: pretty much every other ‘Analyst’ (and probably his dog, too)
agreed with him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Until very recently,
they all said that, while the Gulf Arab countries did not mind having the
political equivalent of furtive sex with the Jewish state, they wouldn’t dreeeeam
of formalising that relationship without Palestinian blessing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And I have yet to hear one of those
‘analysts’ saying the magic words: ‘I was wrong’.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which brings me to the next category.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h1>The ‘anti-annexation’ activists<o:p></o:p></h1>
<p class="MsoNormal">Anything involving Israel and the Palestinians is guaranteed
to attract a disproportionate amount of attention from ‘activists’ with an axe
to grind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But few things caused such a
berserk torrent of unbridled criticism like the ‘annexation’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Convinced (mainly by their own prejudice)
that all Netanyahu ever wanted was to despoil the Palestinians of ‘their’ land,
lots and lots of people – from New Israel Fund, Yachad, J-Street and other
‘usual suspects’ to Western European politicians and US Democratic Party senators
– came out to ‘express their grave concern’ with ‘the annexation plans’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After all, as all of them declared (without
even bothering to explain why) ‘annexation’ spells the death knell of the
two-state solution – doesn’t it?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Even some of the people who are genuinely pro-Israel were
baffled.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why would a previously very
cautious Netanyahu suddenly seem so keen to do something ’so radical’?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, as many an organisational behaviour
consultant will tell you, most people don’t like change: given a choice, they
tend to choose the ‘devil they know’; or at least to put off getting acquainted
with the new fiend.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To effect a change,
sometimes it is necessary to manufacture a crisis…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We know now that the UAE deal has been in the making for
many months.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And one does not need a PhD
in Middle East History to understand why it ultimately happened. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The threat of ‘annexation’ did that – and more. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the words of ‘a White House official’ (quoted
by Walla and the <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/mossad-chief-reportedly-spearheaded-deal-with-uae-made-several-trips-to-gulf/">Times
of Israel</a>):<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“We have been talking
about this </i><span>[the Israel-UAE normalisation]</span><i>
for over a year, but the issue of annexation created the atmosphere in which a
deal became more attainable.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This only sounds counter-intuitive to clueless ‘analysts’
and green (and I don’t mean just ‘Green Party’) European politicians.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Middle Eastern politics, the ‘annexation’ was
never an impending ‘catastrophe’; no, it was a brilliant gambit: it provided
the Emiratis with the opportunity to ‘save the Palestinians’ and ‘to save
peace’ – all while doing what they wanted to do anyway.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As for Netanyahu, he ‘reluctantly agreed’ to
forgo something he didn’t really want to do in the first place (except under
much more propitious circumstances), in return for peace with Arab world’s
rising star.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Both sides achieved not
just their purpose – but also found a way to sell that outcome to their domestic
constituencies.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But was it really a gambit, I hear you asking?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or was Netanyahu somehow ‘dissuaded’ at the
last moment from putting in practice those nefarious ‘annexation plans’?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Well, what plans – pray tell me?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘Annexing’ land (i.e. governing it as part of
Israel’s sovereign territory) is a rather large logistic operation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It involves establishing (or at least
re-deploying) government offices, security installations, centers of
authority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At a minimum, it involves
re-deploying military assets.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet no
preparations were made – or even sketched; no plans were submitted for
approval; no sites were earmarked, not one army unit was moved.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not just people in the street, but ministers
and military commanders were left wondering what – if anything – was going to
be annexed: a few symbolic dunams?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
Jordan Valley?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>30% of the West Bank?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Plans?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There were no ‘plans’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And why do you think that is?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The ‘annexation’ was a manufactured crisis, which enabled
UAE leaders to present normalisation as the solution.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As for ‘anti-annexation activists’, none – to the best of my
knowledge – has so far admitted they were wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, a few saw fit to express their great
relief at the ‘suspension of annexation plans’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Demonstrating either intellectual dishonesty or – more likely – just
sheer stupidity.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h1>‘Anti-racists’<o:p></o:p></h1>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is more to apologise about than merely going over the
top about ‘the annexation’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A couple of
years ago, I happened to have a discussion with a leading activist from New
Israel Fund – UK.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We were in a small
group and she launched into a rant about ‘the blatant racism’ that – in her
view – was taking over the Israeli society; she rather aggressively asked me to
condemn it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I replied that I unreservedly
condemn it; I added that, unfortunately, there is indeed despicable racism in
Israel – just as there is in the UK, USA and elsewhere.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘Oh, no,’ she said with something I can only
describe as cold anger.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘There is much,
much more racism in Israel.’<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I wanted to
ask her for the evidence behind such grave accusation – but she gave every
indication that, if I wasn’t going to admit that Israel was <b>more</b> racist
than other countries, she wasn’t interested in any further debate with me.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For years now, it has become fashionable in certain circles
to accuse not just Netanyahu, not just ‘the Israeli government’, but ‘the
Israeli society’ en-bloc of racism, of callousness and lack of desire for
peace, of ‘land theft’ and other sins.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The ‘evidence’ typically consists of ‘Israeli behaviour’ (as
narrated and interpreted by the accusers), politicised opinion surveys (with
questions the like of which are only ever asked of Israelis) and ‘anecdotal
evidence’ – all of which demonstrate ‘deeply-entrenched anti-Arab racism’ and
other such base attitudes.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">These ‘Israeli attitudes’ are then employed to call for
international ‘pressure’ on Israelis – who, as racist warmongers, cannot be
expected to make peace of their own volition.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Speaking about opinion polls, however, <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-nearly-80-of-israelis-prefer-uae-deal-over-west-bank-annexation/">one
was performed</a> after the UAE announcement: it seems that nearly 80% of ‘the
Israeli society’ supports the agreement with UAE over ‘the annexation’; less
than 17% expressed the opposite view.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In
fact, since the announcement, the entire country has been in a celebratory
mood.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It seems that, despite their
engrained anti-Arab racism and their lack of desire for peace – Israelis dream
of traveling to the UAE, of doing business there, of having Emirati Arabs visit
and do business in the Jewish state.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Hundreds of Israelis were visible on Twitter, seeking to make friends
with the Arabs they purportedly despise out of racial prejudice…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And it wasn’t just people in the street: the much maligned ‘right-wing
Israeli government’ voted unanimously in favour of the Abraham Accords – as did
parliamentarians representing ‘extreme right’ opposition parties.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, the only Israeli party that voted
against peaceful relations with the United Arab Emirates was… the Joint (Arab)
List!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Needless to say, none of the ‘peace
activists’ criticised the Israeli Arab parliamentarians for that stance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Pseudo-liberals – as we know – only see
faults in Jews.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h1>‘Prominent British Jews’<o:p></o:p></h1>
<p class="MsoNormal">But there’s somebody else who owes the Israeli public – and their
own community – an apology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A few months
ago, 40 ‘prominent British Jews’ wrote a letter to Israel’s Ambassador to London,
protesting ‘the annexation’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So what’s
wrong with this, you ask?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Surely British
Jews – whether ‘prominent’ or not, are entitled to write to the ambassador of
the Jewish state?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course they are;
but they chose a rather weird way to do it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>You see, if I want to send a letter (whether to an ambassador or to the
lovely man who sweeps the street in front of the Embassy, it does not matter),
I use the good services of the Royal Mail.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Of course, I’m not ‘prominent’; if I were a bit posh, I might use a
courier – or send my personal valet to drop the letter at the Embassy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that’s not what our ‘Prominent Jews’ did;
no, they published their letter <a href="https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/we-cannot-justify-israel-s-west-bank-annexation-1.8898139">in
the newspaper</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Which newspaper,
you’re asking?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why, Ha’aretz of course –
what else?!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And what did they write, these ‘prominents’?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, they expressed their <i>“unprecedented
level of concern”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As well as the
following ‘analysis’:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“We are yet to see an
argument that convinces us, committed Zionists and passionately outspoken
friends of Israel, that the proposed annexation is a constructive step.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, it would in our view be a pyrrhic
victory intensifying Israel’s political, diplomatic and economic challenges
without yielding any tangible benefit.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Needless to say, there were other, even saucier passages,
all faithfully and gleefully reproduced by other “friends of Israel” – such as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/05/israel-west-bank-annexation-plans-condemned-leading-british-jews">The
Guardian</a> and the BBC.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Judging by the above emphatic pronouncement, one would be
tempted to think that ‘the Prominents’ are all high-level experts in Middle
East politics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But… no, they’re not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They’re not even Ha’aretz Middle East Affairs
Analysts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most of them are politicians
and businessmen, a few even political activists masquerading as Rabbis.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What is unclear is: why do these people (who live in Britain,
pay taxes in Britain, vote in Britain and do not have to serve in the army in
Britain) presume to <b>publicly</b> tell Israelis what to do?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I wonder how would they feel if 40 ‘prominent
Israeli Jews’ would have published a letter in The Guardian, declaring something
like ‘we are still to see an argument that convinces us that Brexit is a
constructive step’? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Why do these arrogant pricks think they understand Israel’s
needs and interests better than the elected representatives of the Israeli
public?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why do they see themselves as
responsible adults, while viewing Israeli leaders (some of whom have fulfilled for
many years positions of vast responsibility in government and/or security
forces) as little more than children?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Most believed that Netanyahu – the new Genghis Khan, just as
reckless, primitive and bent on destruction as the old one – was about to
inflict a huuuge catastrophe upon the Jewish state and on the entire Jewish
people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But a cooler, more sober, more
‘anal’ analysis might have concluded that Netanyahu is anything but
reckless.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sure, like Trump, Netanyahu
isn’t everybody’s cup of tea.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hate the
man, if you so wish; despise him for his cigars, his ice-cream, his alleged
corruption, his spiteful wife or his undeniable achievements.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But reckless?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>No, this guy’s a calculated son of a bitch – if ever there was one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Netanyahu may play for high stakes – but his
game is chess, not backgammon: he does not roll the dice.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">By and large, the demarché of the ‘prominents’ was no
surprise – most of them have said and done stupid, outrageous things in the
past.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unfortunately, this time their
ranks included also people like Howard Jacobson, whom I respect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What possessed you to add your distinguished
name to that shameful list, dear Howard?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I know, I know: we are way past Yom Kippur.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But not past redemption, not yet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s not too late.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Please: would you be a mensch and say “I’m
sorry”?<o:p></o:p></p></span>Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-2346809629460740102020-07-05T11:57:00.001-07:002020-07-05T11:57:47.723-07:00Boris, Shield of Israel<p class="MsoNormal">In recent years, Israelis have often been <a href="https://www.haaretz.com/1.5217496"><font color="#0015ff">accused of apathy</font></a> on the question
of peace with the Palestinians.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the
putative annexation of/extension of jurisdiction over parts of the West
Bank/Judea & Samaria has already shaken things up.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is subject to fierce debate in Israel. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And so it should be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>True, the current government is the result of
democratic elections and the Israeli electorate has been told exactly what they
were voting for.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Still, there is nothing
wrong with debating the matter again, so that actual intentions are fleshed out
and previously unforeseen consequences flushed out.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I will abstain from taking a position here on the topic
itself – other than stating that I see legitimate arguments on both sides in that
discussion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The issue is – it is a
debate for Israelis to have.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In a
perfect world, the Palestinians should also be involved – provided, that is,
that they wish to be and that they produce representatives capable of relating
to any proposal with anything other than knee-jerk, hysteric rejections.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And, finally, it is only right for Israel to
involve the US; because of that country’s decades of (mostly) unwavering
support for the Jewish state; because it is the #1 world power; and because it
produced the peace proposal that forms the basis of the ‘annexation’.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But, however one positions oneself with respect to the plan
itself, it’s hard to understand why it should be anyone else’s business.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Why does everybody (and his lame sister) feel entitled to
tell Israel and Israelis what to do?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Some, of course, are motivated by the antisemitic belief that the Jewish
state is a threat to the welfare (and even the existence) of the entire world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Former British minister and Labour Party
politician Clare Short, for instance, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/26/sacking-rebecca-long-bailey-labour-antisemitism-keir-starmer"><font color="#0015ff">blamed</font></a>
the failure to decisively tackle global warming on… Israel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, she opined, the existence of the Jewish
state threatened to bring about <i>“the end of the human race”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>More recently, another British Labour MP – a certain
nobody called Alex Sobel – opined on Twitter that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“The annexation is a
danger to not just Palestinians and Israelis but to us all”.</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But then, we all know where that’s coming from. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I guess that’s why the Labour Party is being
investigated for its institutional antisemitism.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Things take a different turn when someone who isn’t a complete
nobody steps in.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Bestowing on himself a title that can be translated as ‘Defender of Israel’ or ‘Shield of Israel’, on
Wednesday British Prime Minister Boris Johnson penned an article – in Hebrew –
in one of Israel’s major newspapers.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhy51MNN6VK63VsEEywQEIwQ60LiXDm8Kj5kFf_aBzxF8Y8zyKj_iwAy1Jw_lETwKQMYtOc584zKc63FVKz3ajdxDFdbVF9ekrrckHB5MzDxr5u6jzbsD3xVrSOXqecih3X3w1lrwAEZsuG/s1088/Boris+article.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1007" data-original-width="1088" height="463" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhy51MNN6VK63VsEEywQEIwQ60LiXDm8Kj5kFf_aBzxF8Y8zyKj_iwAy1Jw_lETwKQMYtOc584zKc63FVKz3ajdxDFdbVF9ekrrckHB5MzDxr5u6jzbsD3xVrSOXqecih3X3w1lrwAEZsuG/w500-h463/Boris+article.png" width="500" /></a></div><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">People may shrug off Mr. Johnson’s uninvited ‘contribution’;
but imagine that, in the midst of the Brexit debate, Benjamin Netanyahu would’ve
published an article in the Times of London, telling the Brits in no uncertain
terms to stop behaving so foolishly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
have a nagging suspicion that such intervention by Israel’s prime minister would’ve
been seen as (to use a British understatement) ‘not entirely welcome’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Despite the fact that both the EU and the UK
are important trade partners for Israel and, as such, Netanyahu might have felt
entitled to weigh in.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is interesting to read Mr. Johnson’s article – if nothing
else, it provides a window into the patronising, neo-colonial mindset of so
many Western ‘friends of Israel’.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Indeed, Johnson starts by establishing his ‘credentials’;
no, not as a fair-minded, justice-loving politician – but as a <i>“supporter
and admirer of Israel”</i> – no less.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He
even writes:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“I am an enthusiastic
defender of Israel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Few goals are closer
to my heart than ensuring that her citizens are protected from the threat of
terror and antisemitic incitement.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You heard that, ye bloody Israelis?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You’ve got nothing to worry about – Uncle Boris
will forever protect you from harm.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>True, he has yet to deal with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/mar/28/politics.iran"><font color="#0015ff">those who
bullied and humiliated</font></a> his own country; but worry not – in case of need he will
surely deploy his valiant soldiers to defend Israeli lives and dignity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Especially since he also wrote that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Our commitment to Israel’s
security is firm, as long as I am Britain’s Prime Minister.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No worries, then, for the next 4 years or so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unless, of course, there’s a crisis that
brings Keir Starmer and Lisa Nandy to power.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Or even Jeremy Corbyn – who seems to still lurk somewhere in the dark
recesses of British politics.<o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjq7pQNnC72bdHiIIlLaE5chxRqCW1RihaPS_ypeWYObIA8LvM2eutwWT7YeX69kGnjXQzC7IKfnApycVO2Q85ncvm-9a5P_uwJL0dfmD72vsmPktPcW3cxViM-sr2_7SJjTNAbS5a1_UN8/s1265/nandy+Corbyn.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="877" data-original-width="1265" height="348" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjq7pQNnC72bdHiIIlLaE5chxRqCW1RihaPS_ypeWYObIA8LvM2eutwWT7YeX69kGnjXQzC7IKfnApycVO2Q85ncvm-9a5P_uwJL0dfmD72vsmPktPcW3cxViM-sr2_7SJjTNAbS5a1_UN8/w500-h348/nandy+Corbyn.png" width="500" /></a></div><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But it’s not just Uncle Boris; apparently, his entire
country has a proud tradition of valiant Israel-protecting:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Britain has always stood
with Israel and her right to exist in peace and security – like all other
nation.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are still a few people in Israel who, upon reading
this, may scratch their – mostly bald – heads.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>People who fought bloody battles against the Arab Legion – an army
armed, trained and officered by the British; in 1948, fighting that force cost
more Israeli lives than all the other fronts put together.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But we don’t have to rely on the memory of Israelis who were
of fighting age in 1948; perhaps they don’t remember all that well…<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As recently as August 2014, however, the
British government led by Conservative leader David Cameron (another stalwart friend
of Israel) <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/12/british-arms-exports-israel-gaza-block-suspension"><font color="#0015ff">suspended
exports of arms to the Jewish state</font></a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Apparently, Her Majesty’s Government was terribly worried that those
weapons might be used against the Palestinians in Gaza.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t understand what gave them that idea!
after all, between January and August 2014, Gaza had bombed Israel with only
marginally more than 4,000 missiles…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But it’s not all about weaponry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Apparently, Mr. Johnson’s country also
supplied Israel with political and diplomatic ‘protection’:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“Britain often defended
Israel, as part of a small minority at the UN, from unjustified and
disproportionate criticism.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That’s sooo important, especially since the UK has a veto at
the UN Security Council.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So let’s have a
look at some of UN’s more notable resolutions:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">-<span style="font: 7pt "times new roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>UN General Assembly
Resolution 181 (1947) proposed the establishment of a Jewish state on part of
the Mandate of Palestine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>33 countries
voted in favour, 13 against and 10 (including the UK) abstained.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Abstained – in terms of the vote, that is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The UK <b>did not</b> <b>abstain</b> from a
very sustained campaign aimed at sabotaging the implementation of that
resolution; a campaign that came very close to succeeding.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">-<span style="font: 7pt "times new roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>UN General Assembly
Resolution 273 (1949) admitted Israel as a member of the United Nations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This time 37 states voted in favour and 12
against; 9 abstained, including the UK.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">-<span style="font: 7pt "times new roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"></span>On 4 July 1967, the UK
voted in favour of General Assembly Resolution 2253 (proposed by Pakistan),
which declared ‘invalid’ all <i>“measures taken by Israel to change the status”
</i>of Jerusalem.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The <i>“measures”</i>,
by the way, were also referred in the accompanying speeches as the ‘annexation’
of Jerusalem.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Plus <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">ç</span>a
change…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But hey, this is old stuff, ‘innit?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let’s come a bit closer to our times.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 2000, having rejected Ehud Barak’s opening
peace proposal and even the ‘Parameters’ proposed by Bill Clinton, the
Palestinian Authority/PLO <a href="http://www.mafhoum.com/press3/111P55.htm"><font color="#0015ff">prepared</font></a>
a ‘popular uprising’ (read: a series of terror attacks that cost the lives of
more than 1000 Israelis – three quarters of them uninvolved civilians).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The UN Security Council ‘responded’ with Resolution
1322/7 October 2000, which condemned<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“acts of violence,
especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians…”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">UK voted <b>in favour</b> of this resolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I wonder if Boris Johnson had this in mind when
talking about his determination to ensure that <i>“Israel’s citizens are protected
from the threat of terror”</i>?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m not
sure – his memory and attention to ‘detail’ are notoriously feeble…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Indeed, one can hardly find a UN resolution condemning Israel
(including those accusing the Jewish state of outlandish ‘violations of
international humanitarian law’ and of horrible ‘war crimes’) that the United
Kingdom opposed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But if those pesky Israelis think they only owe Britain their
security, they’re wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, writes
Mr. Johnson, Britain is responsible for the establishment of the State of
Israel, via the Balfour Declaration.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now, I’m surprised Boris was so modest here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because the British Government did much more
than issue a declaration; in fact, they solemnly committed, in front of the ‘international
community’ of the day, to do everything in their power to establish in the
Mandate of Palestine ‘the Jewish national home’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The only problem – and this is obviously just
a small detail – is that, having secured the Mandate in return for that pledge,
they almost immediately lost any intention to ever fulfil it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Anyway: after listing all the reasons why Israelis should be
grateful to himself personally and to his country, Boris Johnson informed them
that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“The annexation would constitute
an infringement of international law.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That’s interesting because, almost at the same time, Her
Majesty’s Government also accused China of infringing international law, by
imposing on Hong Kong an undemocratic, draconic law – a ‘law’ that makes all protest…
unlawful.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The United Kingdom (which left
Hong Kong at the mercy of the Chinese with nothing but ‘international law’ to
defend them) reacted very strongly by… offering 3 million Hong Kongers UK residence
rights and a route to citizenship.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’ll
no doubt teach the Chinese never again to mess with international law; so I’m
thinking: perhaps Boris wishes to also punish Israel by offering UK residence to
3 million Palestinians?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m pretty sure
that such offer would cause a pretty long queue in front of the British
Consulate in Jerusalem…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But what I like about Boris Johnson is his optimism, his ‘can
do’ attitude.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Read, for instance, this charming
mixture of empty words and hot air:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><i>“There is another
way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Like many Israelis, I too am
frustrated that the peace discussions ended in failure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While I understand the frustration felt by both
sides, we must leverage this moment of energy to return once more to the negotiations
table and strive towards finding a solution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It will require compromise from all sides.”</i></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now, that’s indeed <i>“another way”</i>!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr. Johnson’s <i>“solution”</i> is simple (in
fact, I’d call it ‘simple-minded’): if we bashed our heads into a brick wall
for 25 years and failed to break through – we <i>“must”</i> try for another 25.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And I thought that that brilliant approach
ended with Theresa May and the many Parliament votes on the ‘only possible deal’!<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">***<span style="text-align: left;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Everybody seems to know better than the Israelis what the
Israelis should (and especially shouldn’t) do.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But whether we are in favour or opposed to the ‘annexation’,
we Israelis must respond to Mr. Johnson’s well-intentioned and not-at-all
self-serving intervention with utmost British courtesy:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>We are all very busy right now.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But your call is very important to us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Please stay on the line and we will answer as
soon as we can.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thank you!</i></p>Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-8987218410954991362020-05-29T07:38:00.000-07:002020-06-01T04:53:50.438-07:00Yachad: “together” with intellectual dishonesty?<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The Coalition Agreement which forms the basis of the new Israeli government includes the possibility for Prime Minister Netanyahu to proceed – with US blessing and as part of the new US peace proposal, plus a host of other conditions – with the ‘annexation’ (or ‘application of sovereignty’, however one chooses to call it) of parts of the West Bank/Judea & Samaria.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
This has caused controversy both in Israel and among Diaspora Jews – even among staunch Zionists. Yachad (Hebrew for ‘together’ – a group of hard-left British-Jewish activists who proclaim themselves as ‘pro-Israel’ but rarely, if ever, have anything positive to say about the Jewish state) has been particularly vocal in the campaign against ‘annexation’. So far – so legitimate; nothing wrong with that.</div>
<div class="banner-p-2 moved" style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div class="banner 336x280_Middle_1 " id="div-gpt-ad-336x280_Middle_1" style="border: 0px; clear: both; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px auto 30px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">
</div>
</div>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
But legitimacy – along with credibility and respect – evaporates when exposed to crass intellectual dishonesty.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
One doesn’t need to lie in order to oppose ‘annexation’; one can campaign – even campaign passionately – without trying to deceive. Passion is not a licence to cheat.</div>
<div class="wp-caption size-fullscreen aligncenter" id="attachment_806263" style="border: 0px; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 0; margin: 0px auto 30px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; width: auto;">
<img alt="" class="wp-image-806263 size-full" height="363" src="https://static.timesofisrael.com/blogs/uploads/2020/05/Yachad-newsletter.jpg" style="border: 0px; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;" width="640" /><br />
<div class="wp-caption-text" style="border: 0px; color: #505050; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 16px; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px 0px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">
Yachad’s misleading newsletter</div>
</div>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
On 28 May 2020, Yachad’s Director sent a newsletter to the group’s list of contacts. This is what she wrote, among other things:</div>
<blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Netanyahu is right, annexation is not democratic.<br />
In an interview published today, Prime Minister Netanyahu admitted that Israel will not “apply sovereignty” and give citizenship to Palestinians living in West Bank areas which Israel intends to annex. “They will remain Palestinian subjects if you like,” he said. According to the Israeli Prime Minister’s plan, Palestinians living in annexed areas will live “under [Israel’s] security control” but will not be equal citizens.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Now, let’s go to the <a href="https://www.israelhayom.com/2020/05/28/netanyahu-the-palestinians-have-to-concede-not-israel/" style="border: 0px; color: #3b8bea; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">interview</a> that Yachad refers to. Here’s the question and Netanyahu’s response, which the newspaper even provides with the subtitle <em style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">“A Palestinian enclave”</em>:</div>
<blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<b>Q:<span style="font-style: inherit;"> </span></b><i style="font-weight: inherit;">Nevertheless, several thousand Palestinians live in the Jordan Valley. Does that mean they will receive Israeli citizenship?</i><br />
<span style="font-style: inherit;"><b>[Netanyahu]:</b> </span><i style="font-weight: inherit;">“No. They will remain a Palestinian enclave. You’re not annexing Jericho. There’s a cluster or two. You don’t need to apply sovereignty over them, they will remain Palestinian subjects if you will. But security control also applies to these places.”</i></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Clearly, Netanyahu talks about areas (such as the city of Jericho) that will <span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">not</span> be annexed by Israel. The <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/media/peace-prosperity-full-plan/" style="border: 0px; color: #3b8bea; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">US ‘Peace to Prosperity’ Plan</a> describes such Palestinian enclaves – areas of Palestinian sovereignty connected to the envisaged State of Palestine by access roads. Since they live in areas earmarked for the future State of Palestine, the inhabitants of these enclaves are Palestinian citizens, not Israeli citizens. Conversely, there are also Israeli enclaves in the midst of the Palestinian state; these are connected to Israel through access roads and their inhabitants are citizens of Israel. Here is the exact wording of the Plan:</div>
<blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The Palestinian population located in enclaves that remain inside contiguous Israeli territory but that are part of the State of Palestine shall become citizens of the State of Palestine and shall have the option to remain in place unless they choose otherwise. They will have access routes connecting them to the State of Palestine. They will be subject to Palestinian civilian administration, including zoning and planning, within the interior of such Palestinian enclaves. They will not be discriminated against and will have appropriate security protection. Such enclaves and access routes will be subject to Israeli security responsibility.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The Israeli population located in enclaves that remain inside contiguous Palestinian territory but that are part of the State of Israel shall have the option to remain in place unless they choose otherwise, and maintain their existing Israeli citizenship. They will have access routes connecting them to the State of Israel. They will be subject to Israeli civilian administration, including zoning and planning, within the interior of such Israeli enclaves. They will not be discriminated against and will have appropriate security protection. Such enclaves and access routes will be subject to Israeli security responsibility.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
So let’s summarise: Netanyahu said (emphasis mine)</div>
<blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
You’re <span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">not annexing</span> Jericho</span>. There’s a cluster or two. You don’t need to apply sovereignty over them, they will remain Palestinian subjects if you will.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Yachad says (emphasis mine)</div>
<blockquote style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #525252; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 45px; position: relative; quotes: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Netanyahu admitted that Israel will not “apply sovereignty” and give citizenship to Palestinians living in West Bank areas <span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">which Israel <span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">intends to annex</span></span>.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Netanyahu clearly talks about territory that Israel <b>will not annex</b>; Yachad says he referred to areas that Israel <b>will annex</b>. This, without the shadow of a doubt, is twisting Netanyahu’s words. It’s horribly misleading. But, worse, I believe it is a deliberate misinterpretation, an attempt to deceive. Here is why:</div>
<ol style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; list-style-image: initial; list-style-position: initial; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 20px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<li style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">The Yachad’s Newsletter does in fact include a link to the text of Netanyahu’s interview. But that link is placed at the bottom of the email, where most readers are likely to ignore it. In addition, the link is to the Hebrew version of the interview. But it is reasonable to assume that most of Yachad's audience (British Jews) typically do not read modern Hebrew – or not well enough to fully understand the meaning of what was said. It would have been honest to place a link to the English translation of the interview (published in the same newspaper) in the actual paragraph. For instance, by making the word 'interview' itself a link, as I did above, which would have allowed readers to easily access that interview and check for themselves. </li>
<li style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Alterntively, Yachad could at least have quoted the short passage from Netanyahu’s interview, in English translation, just as I did above. Instead, they chose to (mis)‘interpret’ it, cutting and pasting small bits in a way that changed the meaning. The question is – why?</li>
<li style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Yachad knows the situation in the West Bank – they’ve been organising ‘educational’ tours (read: indoctrination field trips) there for years. The city of Jericho and its hinterland are Area A – the part of the West Bank that, since the Oslo Accords, is under the complete control of the Palestinian Authority – with Israel allowed to intervene only in cases of severe security breaches. Yachad knows very well that the ‘annexation’ refers to parts of Area C, the part of the West Bank where Israel was granted complete control. I’ve heard the same Director of Yachad delivering a presentation on Oslo and Areas A, B and C. Much as I’d like to, I cannot believe that she missed the reference to Jericho and its significance.</li>
<li style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Yachad are neither stupid nor newcomers to the intricacies of the US Peace Plan – they campaigned against it; they are familiar with Israeli politics and with the positions of the main personalities – certainly Netanyahu. They heard, not so long ago, Mark Regev, Israel’s Ambassador to London explaining that Israel will indeed offer citizenship to Palestinians inhabiting areas ‘annexed’ by Israel – just as she did when it ‘annexed’ the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. At the very least, that knowledge should have made Yachad circumspect in reading and ‘interpreting’ that part of Netanyahu’s interview.</li>
</ol>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_806265" style="border: 0px; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: 0; margin: 0px auto 30px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; width: auto;">
<img alt="" class="wp-image-806265 size-medium" height="250" src="https://static.timesofisrael.com/blogs/uploads/2020/05/Netanyahu-Jordan-valley-400x250.jpg" style="border: 0px; font: inherit; height: auto; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 600px;" width="400" /><br />
<div class="wp-caption-text" style="border: 0px; color: #505050; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 16px; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Netanyahu has previously explained the extent of his planned Jordan Valley ‘annexation’. The orange patch in the thicker part of the blue area is the Jericho area. This is part of Area A and is not included in the planned ‘annexation’. {Youtube screen capture}</div>
</div>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Yachad may point to some Israeli journalists (notably <a href="https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-netanyahu-says-palestinians-in-jordan-valley-won-t-get-citizenship-after-annexation-1.8879420" style="border: 0px; color: #3b8bea; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">Ha’aretz</a>) who made the same dishonest claim. But two liars don’t make a truth. At least Ha’aretz published the original fragment from Netanyahu’s interview, allowing people to judge for themselves, to spot the spin.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Yachad’s Director now has a last-ditch opportunity to be a mensch: she can write to the group’s contacts, apologising – without reservations, without ‘hochmes’, without trying to squeeze further dishonest propaganda from what she will say is an honest mistake. She should furthermore publish her apology in the Jewish News and Jewish Chronicle – the same newspapers the group often uses to convey their other messages. She should apologise in situ for the equally misleading social media posts.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
If she chooses not to do all that, then the verdict is inevitable. This is not about ‘annexation’ or Israel – we can agree or disagree on that. It’s about ethics; it’s about salvaging a remnant of credibility.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: "PT Serif", serif; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Intellectual dishonesty is always off-putting. But it is never more appalling than when employed by the self-righteous, by those who seek to cover themselves in the noble mantle of morality. Lies and deceit make shaky rungs on a ladder leading not to high moral ground – but to the depths of moral turpitude.<br />
<br />
<b>Note: a previous version of this article mistakenly stated that no link to the interview was provided in Yachad's email. It was – though the link was to the text in Hebrew (a language most British Jews do not speak) and it was included in the 'Read more' section at the bottom of the message, where most people would probably ignore it, as I did initially.</b></div>
Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1836526913826772207.post-40897527591314217822020-05-10T03:42:00.001-07:002020-05-10T03:42:41.875-07:00Taking the Mick out of Davis<br />
<div class="MsoTitle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 2.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">
<i><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 107%;">If I were a rich man,<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 2.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">
<i><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Yubby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dum.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 2.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">
<i><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 107%;">All day long I'd biddy biddy bum.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 2.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">
<i><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 107%;">If I were a wealthy man.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>[…]<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 2.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">
<i><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 107%;">And it won't make one bit of difference if I answer right or
wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 2.0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">
<i><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 107%;">When you're rich, they think you really know!<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
An absolute giant of Yiddish literature, Sholem Aleichem
populated his stories with all the colourful characters of the Eastern European
shtetl.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And one of the most convincing
is the <i>‘gvir’</i>: the rich Jew; the parvenu, the village boss who mistakes
subservience for respect and trades ‘charity’ for influence and power.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Jewish shtetl is a thing of the (nostalgic) past; not so
the gvir; that tragi-comic character, it seems, still struts around: among us,
but not quite one of us.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
*** </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p><br /></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sir Mick Davis is a very rich man.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He made his money in mining (coal, metals,
petroleum); but don’t picture him in a hard hat with black on his nose – I
suspect that he mines primarily from the comfort of a well-upholstered,
directorial armchair.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And I guess he’s
put that money to good use: he is an important donor to the Conservative Party
(Labour also likes money; but it doesn’t like Jews – let alone rich ones!)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Davis served as Treasurer and – until
recently – Chief Executive of the Tory Party.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I know, I know… a miner called Davis… what a cliché! <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But no: Sir Mick ‘the Miner’ isn’t Welsh –
he’s Jewish.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, naturally, he also took
an interest in the affairs of British Jewry: in 2009, he became Chairman of the
Jewish Leadership Council.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How, you’re
asking?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well… previously, the JLC had
been led by an elected official: the President of the Board of Deputies of
British Jews.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It looks like Mr. Davis took
advantage of a change of guard at the helm of the Board to shoulder aside the
new President.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or (to use the far more
delicate language employed by the <a href="https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/jc-power-100-2014-1.56931"><span style="color: blue;">Jewish
Chronicle</span></a>) <o:p></o:p></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<i>he grasped the reins of
its [the JLC’s] executive.</i></blockquote>
<div align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The newspaper commented – perhaps with a hint of irony –
that this<o:p></o:p></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>may not have been exactly a palace coup but it showed who was
boss in town.</i></blockquote>
<div class="MsoQuote">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Didn't it just! I should warn you here: irony plays a big role in this story;
where are you, Sholem Aleichem, when we most need you?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Mr. Davis first courted controversy in 2010, when he opined
(in English and in public) that Israel ‘could become’ an apartheid state.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some may see quite a bit of irony in that:
Mick Davis was born and lived his formative years in Apartheid South
Africa.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And… I might be wrong here, but
I’ve never seen his name listed among the <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/003132200128810973?journalCode=rpop20"><span style="color: blue;">many
South-African Jews</span></a> who actively fought that appalling regime; unless, that
is, one considers immigrating from South Africa to the UK as a brave act of
social protest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If indeed young Mr.
Davis omitted to valiantly combat the apartheid in his home country, it must’ve
been just a matter of <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>perspective: it seems
it’s easier to recognise (and, consequently, criticise) <b>potential</b>
apartheids that ‘may occur’ thousands of miles away; it’s not always easy to
spot an <b>actual</b> apartheid operating under one’s very nose.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Mr. Davis’s comments on Israel’s putative apartheid-hood so
outraged many in the British Jewish community that a petition was written
demanding his resignation from public community positions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it was quickly withdrawn, when Sir Mick <span style="color: blue;"><a href="https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/ujia-chair-threats-to-sue-over-resignation-petition-1.68352"><span style="color: blue;">threatened</span></a>
</span>to let the whole weight of his… err… indignation bear – by threatening to deploy
his heavy legal artillery against the poor... err... much less indignant petitioner!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not, God forbid, that Mr. Davis believes that
freedom of speech is for him, but not for others; no, it’s just that,
apparently, the petition had ‘misrepresented his positions’…</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
More recently, Sir Mick has once again become the talk of
the (virtual) shtetl: in the cover-page article of the (almost bankrupted, but
fortunately freshly resuscitated) Jewish News, he accused <i>“Israeli politics”</i>
of <i>“violat[ing] values of the Diaspora”</i>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I find the article full of (unintended) irony.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So let me read it to you with a running
commentary.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Says Sir Mick:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<i>Israel remains surrounded
by hostility but its emerging existential threats come from within.</i></blockquote>
<div align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, when he’s right – he’s right: the Jewish state is
indeed surrounded by enemies: there’s for instance Iran (80 times larger than
Israel in area, 9 times in population, 5 times in economic output), whose Holocaust-denying
leaders call for Israel’s blood every day – and twice on Saturday. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Leaving aside its nuclear ambitions, Iran has
a large, strong and well-equipped military, which is currently busy entrenching
itself in Syria, as close as it dares to Israel’s borders.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Another of those borders precariously
separates Israel from an Iranian ally: Hezbollah – and its 100,000+
rockets.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To the south, there’s Hamas and
the Palestinian Islamic Jihad; i.e., tens of thousands of rockets and mortar
rounds, some capable of reaching targets hundreds of miles away.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Sinai (a territory 3 times larger than
Israel, which the Jewish state once controlled but ceded in return for peace
and security) lurks a very active branch of the Islamic State.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You know – those nice people who’ve recently
beheaded, crucified and burned a broad swath of blood and tears through Syria
and Iraq.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And that’s before one thinks
of threats that currently seem – for whatever that’s worth in the Middle East –
less imminent: such as a certain manic dictator with neo-Ottoman ambitions.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Yet Sir Mick has decreed that these are not really
existential threats.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘The problem’, he
seems to preach to those Israelis who face the rockets, the bullets and the
knives, ‘the problem is not that they want to kill you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No, let <b>me</b> tell you what the <b>real </b>problem
is: it’s your own suicidal tendencies!’<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, Mick Davis is certainly entitled to his opinion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would be good to understand, however, on
what specialist knowledge it is based?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because,
although Costa Coffee has hosted many a debate on grand strategy, it doesn’t
actually count as an accredited military academy.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But, as we know, people don’t actually need to have a clue
what they’re talking about – they can still talk.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The problem, says Sir Mick, is Israel’s </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>own
dysfunctional political system</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And
why is that political system so bad?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>First, he explains, there are</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>the hazards of proportional
representation</i>.</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And I thought <i>“proportional”</i> was actually a positive
thing… stupid me! I thought that it
meant that each citizen gets a vote that is worth exactly the same; that the
makeup of the Parliament is a true reflection of the views of the electorate,
warts and all. That’s not what ‘first
past the post’ delivers. In 2019, for instance, 1 in every 8 Brits (circa 12%)
voted for the Liberal Democrats; but, because of the ‘first past the post’
system, that party only has 11 MPs – i.e. a mere 1.7% of the House of
Commons. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In a proportional system, with
12% of the votes they would have gotten, of course 12% of the seats in Parliament
– that’s what <i>“proportional”</i> means.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Don’t get me wrong: one can argue about the advantages and
disadvantages of either system – till one’s blue in the face; if one donates to
the Tories, I suppose that ‘first past the post’ is wonderful – it results in
more bang for the buck; if I were to ask Liberal Democrat supporters, they
might feel differently.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But is the <i>“proportional
representation”</i> any <b>less</b> democratic?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So what is Sir Mick’s beef with Israel’s <i>“proportional
representation”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, he tells us:<o:p></o:p></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<i>the outcome is a
government the public didn’t vote for, led by a prime minister seemingly driven
by holding onto power and propped up by parties who had previously pledged on
principle not to govern with him.</i></blockquote>
<div align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, Mr. Davis doesn’t like the outcome of the elections.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I get that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I just don’t think that’s a good enough reason to change the
system.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No disrespect, Sir Mick!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But why is this new government one <i>“the public didn’t
vote for”</i>?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It represents a broad
coalition, from left (the Israeli Labour Party) to centre (Blue & White) to
right (Likud).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The prime minister will
be Benjamin Netanyahu (leader of the largest party, which received 29% of the
votes), followed by Benny Gantz (whose party received 27% of the votes).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
True, before the elections Gantz promised not to serve in a
Netanyahu government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You caught him there,
Mr. Davis, Sir!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He’s a terrible,
terrible man – the first politician ever to break a pre-election promise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m sure nothing like that ever happened
while you were Chief Executive of the Conservative Party.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(In Gantz’s defence, he may have followed bad
examples: before elections, every US president in the past 25 years promised to
move the US Embassy to Jerusalem.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
took a quarter of a century to find one that actually did – and I doubt you
like him much.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is, I agree, terrible that Israel has such a <i>“dysfunctional
political system”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It gets people
frustrated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So unlike UK’s wonderfully
functional political system; the one that produced a pro-Remain Parliament
despite a clear pro-Brexit referendum; plus 3 years of paralysis, a government
begging for elections and an opposition courageously opposing them, etc. etc.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Where Sir Mick is right is that Israel will now have (for a
while, at least) a Prime Minister who faces <i>“corruption charges”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Netanyahu stands accused of having traded
favours in return for a ‘kinder treatment’ at the hands of a major news
outlet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>British politicians would
certainly never do anything like that!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Although there were things… I seem to remember quite a few MPs
(including ministers and shadow ministers) <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_parliamentary_expenses_scandal"><span style="color: blue;">dipping
their hands</span></a> rather dishonestly into the public purse…<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that’s a different thing altogether!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Oh, I do admire Sir Mick’s principled stance. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, I herewith demand that Netanyahu’s
sorry ass be put in prison – if found guilty by a court of law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s just surprising for me to hear rumours
that, in the past, Mr. Davis may have taken <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-chief-sir-mick-davis-accused-of-expenses-cover-up-7nxxwpxm9"><span style="color: blue;">a
less righteous position</span></a> against alleged corruption by one of his own
underlings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, given those false
rumours, I’m sure that Sir Mick cannot but agree with me that people (including
the Chairman of the Jewish Leadership Council and the Prime Minister of Israel)
are innocent, unless proven guilty.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It’s only halfway through his article that Mr. Davis comes
to the issue that really awoke his ire: the planned annexation by Israel of
parts of the West Bank – in accordance with the latest US ‘Peace to Prosperity’
plan.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<i>When we talk of
existential threats to Israel, then annexation is the genuine article.</i></blockquote>
<div align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That’s, of course, a valid opinion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unfortunately for Mr. Davis, it is just the
opinion of an outsider.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sir Mick is not
Israeli; he is a British citizen, paying his taxes in the UK.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is Israeli citizens (i.e., people who live
in Israel, pay taxes in Israel, serve in the army in Israel and risk being
bombed to smithereens in Israel) that are entitled to decide (as opposed to
opine) what constitutes genuine existential threats to Israel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And a clear majority of those Israeli
citizens voted for parties that accepted the US proposal.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But it doesn’t look like Sir Mick is content with ‘just’ an
outsider’s opinion:<o:p></o:p></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<i>The keep your wallets open
and mouths shut model of Israel-Diaspora relations was viable when Diaspora
Jewry saw in Israel’s political leadership an embodiment of its values rather
than a violation of them.</i></blockquote>
<div align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The <i>“wallets open”</i> was understood – and not just by
me – as a hint.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After all, as the Jewish
News <a href="https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/sir-mick-davis-israels-leaders-are-violating-our-values-2/"><span style="color: blue;">says</span></a>,
Sir Mick is not just any outsider; he is<o:p></o:p></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<i>[o]ne of Britain’s biggest
philanthropists to Israel.</i></blockquote>
<div align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I just wonder if, when Mr. Davis decided to give whatever he
gave <i>“to Israel”</i> (or, more likely, to whatever causes and organisations he
finds useful in Israel), he informed people that those donations came with a
clear caveat: ‘I pay – I get the say’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>‘Coz, had he said so to me (I’m Israeli), I would’ve told him to keep
his money.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have no idea what Sir
Mick’s experience is with donations to the Conservative Party; but Israel is a
sovereign country.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiC6NqeXgtHiiLQG1u6KFPtLyuUhgFFDfDMRAhULLLfWKKMTc8MvxVwHjzQHanUcQ8uNIMdrKXe2HqoanF8nSdW97tlvnCWW68ldGIuJquuNqBDtfBUocRCZUTjq02mo-llECTk951AEnlG/s1600/Yachad+Mich+Davis.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="414" data-original-width="485" height="341" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiC6NqeXgtHiiLQG1u6KFPtLyuUhgFFDfDMRAhULLLfWKKMTc8MvxVwHjzQHanUcQ8uNIMdrKXe2HqoanF8nSdW97tlvnCWW68ldGIuJquuNqBDtfBUocRCZUTjq02mo-llECTk951AEnlG/s400/Yachad+Mich+Davis.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Isn't 'philanthropy' something done without ulterior motives?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Apparently, however, some sovereign countries have duties to
set up other sovereign countries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How
else am I to understand Sir Mick’s sententious determination that Israel has a<o:p></o:p></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<i>moral and strategic
imperative to extricate itself from ruling over [the Palestinians].</i></blockquote>
<div align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Before I read Sir Mick’s wise words, I rather stupidly
thought it’s the task of every nation that doesn’t yet have independence to <i>“extricate”</i>
itself from its rulers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Including by
making the necessary concessions and compromises to achieve that goal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As Jews – and Indians, and Pakistanis – did
in 1947.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Sir Mick’s perfect world,
however, it is the sacred duty of Israel to offer <o:p></o:p></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<i>a tangible alternative on
this issue.</i></blockquote>
<div align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Well, a (or, rather, another) <i>“tangible alternative”</i>
has just been offered by the US Administration.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It may not be an administration to Sir Mick’s liking; it may not be an <i>“alternative”</i>
he likes, or that the Palestinians like.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But, surely, Mr. Davis hasn’t made his millions by walking away from
deals, simply because the opening offer wasn’t to his liking.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Peace-to-Prosperity-0120.pdf"><span style="color: blue;">the
US document</span></a> unsurprisingly expresses a US ‘Vision’, it also leaves the door
wide open for negotiations:<o:p></o:p></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<i>The peace agreement that
will hopefully be negotiated on the basis of this Vision should be implemented
through legally binding contracts and agreements (the “ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN
PEACE AGREEMENT”).</i></blockquote>
<div align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In fact, the reputed architects of the ‘Vision’ have gone to
great pains to make that clear.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Speaking
about the Palestinian leadership in an interview he gave to an Egyptian media
outlet, Jared Kushner <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/kushner-palestinians-welcome-to-propose-alternative-to-borders-set-out-in-plan/"><span style="color: blue;">said</span></a>:<o:p></o:p></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<i>If there are things they
want to change, if they don’t like where we drew the lines, they should come
and tell us.</i></blockquote>
<div align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Were they able and willing to make peace, the Palestinian
leaders could simply have said ‘We agree with the principle that there should
be an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Everything else – let’s negotiate.’<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the absence of such a response, Israel’s ‘duty’ of
providing <i>“a tangible alternative”</i> becomes a duty to provide ‘a tangible
alternative acceptable to the kind of leadership for whom no alternative was
acceptable in the past 100 years’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am
not as knowledgeable as Sir Mick – but I found no such ‘duty’ in the
Torah.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Maybe it’s in the Statutes of Values
of the Diaspora that he appears to own.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But the relationship with the Palestinians isn’t Sir Mick’s
only imputation towards the Jewish state.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Israel, he intones<o:p></o:p></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<i>must radically improve
social mobility within its own society.</i></blockquote>
<div align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And why does he think that Israel has such poor social
mobility?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because<o:p></o:p></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<i>for an OECD country,
Israel’s gaps between rich and poor are extraordinary.</i></blockquote>
<div align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Some may view as ironic that a multi-multi-millionaire
preaches about narrowing the <i>“gaps between rich and poor”</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But beyond the irony, <a href="https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=66670"><span style="color: blue;">according to OECD data</span></a>,
Israel has a Gini Coefficient of 0.35.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>UK’s is 0.36. Gini is a widely used measure of income inequality: 0
(zero) corresponds to perfect equality, 1 (one) to worst possible inequality –
so the lower, the better.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, I’d like
to think that Sir Mick applies more rigorous research and due diligence to his
business dealings than he does to his pronouncements on social issues.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Otherwise, I’d say such sloppiness is… how
should I put it… <i>“extraordinary”</i>!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgixnGHBwG_Bf6_6bU4ivRvRDabdeiUSr2OzJnlhDp938hOJymE1JF2BIPsRqT0gFUESj2K1MJFABpz2ki0vuoREEDAjnejIcGPnkEG0p87vzFCPy0kaLTKRAG1fbv9pnmr33t5Y42eYpb4/s1600/Israel+OECD+gini.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1179" height="390" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgixnGHBwG_Bf6_6bU4ivRvRDabdeiUSr2OzJnlhDp938hOJymE1JF2BIPsRqT0gFUESj2K1MJFABpz2ki0vuoREEDAjnejIcGPnkEG0p87vzFCPy0kaLTKRAG1fbv9pnmr33t5Y42eYpb4/s640/Israel+OECD+gini.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Income Inequality in OECD countries. Israel in red. The UK is the 4th bar to the right of Israel.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Next, Sir Mick’s bounces from pseudo-economics back to
pseudo-politics:<o:p></o:p></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<i>Israel advocates around
the world, of which I am one, boast about the full citizenship rights of Israel’s
Arab citizens and their role in Israeli life. However, the MKs those citizens
elect are still considered governmentally trayf.</i></blockquote>
<div align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Firstly, on behalf of all my countrymen, I’d like to thank
Sir Mick for his unparalleled advocacy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s
valiant defenders like him that make us feel so much safer!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
However, the rest of the passage is a bit of a spin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those MKs are not considered <i>“governmentally
trayf”</i> because they are Arabs (indeed, <a href="https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/.premium.MAGAZINE-knesset-candidate-netanyahu-is-an-arch-murderer-zionism-encourages-anti-semitism-1.6935511"><span style="color: blue;">one
of them</span></a> happens to be Jewish); nor because they are elected by Arabs (there
are <a href="https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/.premium-how-the-jewish-vote-for-arab-party-spiked-in-israeli-election-1.8633435"><span style="color: blue;">Jews
who vote for the ‘Arab List’</span></a> and there are <a href="https://www.israelhayom.com/2019/06/02/at-least-27-of-israeli-arabs-voted-for-zionist-parties-in-april-election/"><span style="color: blue;">Arabs
who vote for the ‘Jewish’ parties</span></a>);<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>no,
the problem is not the ethnicity or religion of those MKs or of their supporters
– but the political views that they represent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It’s about Zionism vs. anti-Zionism, yes – but not just.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Arab Joint List includes a <span style="color: blue;"><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadash"><span style="color: blue;">communist</span></a> </span>party; a <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balad_(political_party)"><span style="color: blue;">hyper-nationalist</span></a>
party; and an <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_List"><span style="color: blue;">Islamist</span></a>
Party.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Given the record of those ideologies
in the region and the world, mainstream Israeli politicians may perhaps be
forgiven for not wanting such parties in the governing coalition.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But the issue is more fundamental than that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In a parliamentary democracy, there is a
right to vote, to elect their parliamentary representatives (and be elected as
such); I wasn’t aware that there was a right to have one’s representatives
included in the governing coalition – whatever their politics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Are you making up democratic rules as you go
along, Mr. Davis?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Apparently, Sir Mick’s list of Israel’s many violations of ‘values
of the Diaspora’ also includes the fact that the Jewish state has failed to
teach British Jews Hebrew:<o:p></o:p></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<i>How for example, can we
nurture a thriving and mutual beneficial sense of shared peoplehood, when so
many Diaspora Jews, particularly in the English-speaking world are unable to
speak Hebrew, the language of their homeland?</i></blockquote>
<div align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That is indeed a problem – and I must thank Mr. Davis for
pointing it out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Too bad he pointed it
out… in English; in a Diaspora Jewish English language newspaper!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And it’s not Israel’s only linguistic and cultural sin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr. Davis also determines that:<o:p></o:p></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<i>Jewish Israelis need more
and better education in Arabic and Arab culture. Arab Israelis need more and
better education in Jewish culture and history.</i></blockquote>
<div align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Don’t you just looove one that always asks for <i>“more and
better”</i> – but fails to even mention what has already been achieved?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To start with, most Israelis (or their
parents or grandparents) hail from Arab lands – so Arab culture is hardly
unfamiliar to them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.sikkuy.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%A8-%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%A7%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9A.pdf"><span style="color: blue;">Arabic
is part of the curriculum in most Israeli secular schools</span></a> – at all
levels.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>True, it is not compulsory to
study Arabic – it’s one of the optional languages students can choose to study
(and many do).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In recent years, <a href="https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-number-of-arab-teachers-in-jewish-schools-on-the-rise-1.7043139"><span style="color: blue;">more
teachers of Arabic are employed in Jewish schools</span></a> – no doubt because Mr. Davis
has determined that this is the way forward.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Most Arab Israeli parents understandably choose to give their kids an education in
Arabic schools – but that education <a href="https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-hebrew-language-studies-in-arab-schools-expandeding-1.5387040"><span style="color: blue;">includes
the study of Hebrew</span></a>. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And actually, may I suggest that – before he idly shoots his
mouth off again – Sir Mick takes the time and the trouble to watch the excellent
Israeli series ‘Fauda’?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is available
on Netflix.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With English subtitles, Sir Mick;
no worries!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Don’t get me wrong: Mr. Davis can actually have a say on how
Israel looks like – and how she should look like in the future; once he comes
to live there, of course.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m sure he
has enough money to buy himself a decent flat in Sderot!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But, let’s face it – he is unlikely to make Aliyah. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, he doesn’t even envisage such
possibility.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He bashes Israel ‘as a Jew’
from the Diaspora.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A very charitable explanation would be ‘because
he cares’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s a very strange way to
show it, but hey-ho…<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Unfortunately, I am more inclined to believe an explanation
that Sir Mick himself <a href="https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/shock-over-senior-uk-jewish-leader-s-bibi-criticism-1.19493"><span style="color: blue;">let slip</span></a> at some point:<o:p></o:p></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<i>I think the government of
Israel […] have to recognise that their actions directly impact me as a Jew
living in London, the UK.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When they do
good things it is good for me, when they do bad things, it's bad for me. And
the impact on me is as significant as it is on Jews living in Israel.</i></blockquote>
<div align="left" class="MsoQuote" style="text-align: left;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are no less than 4 rather emphatic <b>me</b>’s in that
short peroration.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would seem that Mick
Davis does care deeply… about Mick Davis!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Well, Mr. Davis Sir, as an Israeli who served for 20 years in
the IDF, I am sorry for all the inconvenience that we caused you!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Oh, and… for whatever it’s worth, this Jewish Israeli (of the
Ashkenazi variety) loves the Arabic language and culture.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Take for instance this brilliant proverb,
which applies so well to you and your hatchet-job of an article:<o:p></o:p></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><i>الكلاب تنبح والقافلة تسير</i></span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">It means: ‘The dogs bark,
but the caravan moves on’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So long, Sir
Mick!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />Politically-incorrect Politicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17497370574189073046noreply@blogger.com13