Gaza: starved of the Truth

 An unprecedented media and political campaign has been launched, to persuade everybody that Israel is deliberately starving innocent Gazans – men, women and especially children.  The drumbeat is so intense because it aims to drown out everything else – especially the Truth.  And it mostly does.

The photos of Israeli hostages starved by Hamas did not make it to the cover of New York Times or The Guardian...

As usual, the lies are monochromatic and simple to grasp; the truth is complex and uncomfortable.  But that’s no reason to fall for the lies.  Choose the truth.  Here it is.

Question: Is there famine in Gaza?

Short answer: no.  This isn’t an opinion, but a fact that even the BBC was forced to admit, just a few days ago:

“Global food security experts have not yet classified the situation in Gaza as a famine, but UN agencies have warned of man-made, mass starvation taking hold.”

Long answer: ‘Famine’ is not a metaphor, but a well-defined phenomenon.  The international body that defined ‘Famine’ and put itself in charge of declaring it boasts the catchy name of Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC).  These are the “[g]lobal food security experts” that the BBC refers to.  The BBC report above is deliberately worded to give the impression that the “[g]lobal food security experts” are different from “UN agencies”.  In reality, the IPC functions as an arm of the United Nations.  Several UN agencies are part of the IPC ecosystem, as are several charities and governmental agencies.  As a result, IPC (which was born out of the best humanitarian intentions) has gradually been politicised.  But, to try and balance the various interests, while also striving to preserve some credibility, the IPC structure includes the so-called Famine Review Committee.  The FRC is (at least in theory) made up of independent experts and acts as a sort of auditor, reviewing IPC-issued classifications.

To make things even more confusing, several other bodies may declare Famine in a territory, based on IPC methodology.  Nobody accredited them to do that, but they do it anyway and the FRC tends to agree with these assessments – unless they are too far fetched.  Such a situation occurred in 2024: in May that year, one of the bodies supporting the IPC ‘determined’ that there was Famine in the Gaza Strip; but in June the FRC disagreed:

“The FRC does not find the . . . analysis plausible given the uncertainty and lack of convergence of the supporting evidence employed in the analysis.”

The IPC/FRC system does two things:

1. Assesses & classifies the current situation;
2. Produces a forecast for the next period.

As mentioned above, currently the situation in Gaza is not classified as famine.  The IPC did issue a forecast on 12 May 2025, warning of “critical risk of Famine” in the next period (April-September 2025).  The document goes on to explain that, from 11 March 2025 (when the Israel-Hamas ceasefire collapsed), the territory had been under a complete blockade:

“Over 60 days have passed since all humanitarian aid and commercial supplies were blocked from entering the territory.  Goods indispensable for people’s survival are either depleted or expected to run out in the coming weeks.”

The “[g]oods” referred above were those provided during the ceasefire, when massive amounts of aid had been delivered into the Strip.  Israel claimed that much of that aid was stashed away by Hamas; it wanted it returned to and consumed by the population before any additional supplies were delivered.

“[C]ritical risk of Famine” means ‘currently there is no Famine, but there very likely will be in the future, unless something is done about it’.  But something was done about it: starting from 18 May 2025 (just a few days after the IPC forecast was issued) aid deliveries to Gaza resumed.  According to Israeli reports quoted (i.e., not disputed) by the IPC, almost 20,000 metric tonnes of food were delivered between 19 and 31 May 2025, followed by close to 38,000 metric tonnes in June and 32,600 between 1 and 23 July.

Yet on 29 July 2025, the IPC issued an ‘Alert’ entitled: “Worst-case scenario of Famine unfolding in the Gaza Strip”.

Most media outlets reported the title above (and embellished it), but without providing a link to the document itself.  So most people have no way to know that this does not mean that there is currently famine in the Gaza Strip.

Just after the ominous title, the document (designed as an infographic) explains:

“According to IPC protocols, an Alert does not classify areas or provide population estimates and does not constitute a Famine classification. [emphasis added]”

Unlike IPC Assessments and Forecasts (which must be based on rigorous scientific data and are reviewed by the FRC), Alerts are political advocacy documents.  They can and often do rely on fishy sources – in this case ‘data’ from the Hamas-run ‘Health Ministry’ in Gaza.  Indeed, the ‘Alert’ states:

“The IPC Global Initiative is issuing this Alert based on the latest evidence available until 25 July to draw urgent attention to the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, following the IPC analysis published in May 2025, which detected a risk of Famine.”

In other words, the Alert isn’t based on any new analysis (the latest analysis was the one published in May, before the resumption of aid), but on “evidence available”; which, as the rest of the document shows, is the ‘evidence’ supplied by the Hamas ministry.

The purpose of Forecasts is to establish a scientific basis for action; the purpose of Alerts is “to draw urgent attention” – i.e. advocacy.

But let’s have a closer look at what the IPC is saying: they use rather convoluted phrases such as “Famine unfolding” and “Famine is currently playing out”.  Isn’t this strange?  Why not simply state ‘there is terrible Famine in the Gaza Strip’?

Well, even when engaging in political advocacy, a body like IPC cannot be caught lying.  And stating outright that there is currently Famine in Gaza would be an obvious lie – one contradicting IPC’s own classification.  Hence, they use ambiguous phrases: “unfolding” and “playing out” can be said to refer to the future (they both mean ‘gradually developing’).  At the same time, many people will read them as meaning ‘there’s famine now’.  So the IPC gets effective advocacy without severe loss of credibility: they’re not lying – just misleading.

Additional information: Famine should not be used as a metaphor – it’s a well-defined situation on the ground.

So, if there is currently no Famine declared in the Gaza Strip, why do so many media outlets say there is?  How can they get away with a lie?

Well, just like the IPC, they don’t ‘technically’ lie – they just deceive.

On 21 July 2025, in the course of just 8 hours of ‘live reporting’ on Gaza, the BBC News website printed the term ‘famine’ 3 times.  But, technically, the BBC did not claim that there was famine.  Rather, they quoted ‘sources’ making that claim.  For instance:

“A 15-year-old girl at Shifa says there is a ‘severe and devastating famine in Gaza’"

The other two BBC reports of famine were attributed to unspecified“[l]ocal residents” and to the UN agency World Food Programme (WFP).  The latter claimed “Gaza is facing famine-like conditions”.  “[F]amine-like”, by the way, is a simile – not a metaphor…

Google ‘what is a simile?’ and find out that it means

“a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid (e.g. as brave as a lion).”

So “famine-like” does not mean Famine, just as “brave like a lion” does not mean the subject is actually a lion.  It's "a figure of speech"...

But most people browsing the news (as most people do, rather than dissecting the meaning as I do) will mentally associate ‘Gaza’ with ‘famine’ and, of course, blame Israel for it.

The IPC, the WFP, the BBC all understand this; they know that there is no Famine in Gaza.  They use ‘famine’ not as a statement of fact, but as a rhetorical cudgel.  They do this because they are, essentially, political activists.  And many political activists are, unfortunately, fundamentally dishonest: they feel that the ‘noble cause’ they strive for justify a few ignoble means – such as being rather ‘liberal’ with the truth.

But corrupting the truth is never a good thing: by giving the false impression that there is Famine when there isn’t, these activists gradually erode their own credibility – and that of the outfits that employ them.  With the ultimate outcome that they won’t be believed when they do report the truth – like the proverbial boy who cried ‘Wolf!’

And there’s something else, as well: by focusing so much attention on Gaza, the activists deny it (along with donations and other resources) to places that are in even direr need.

Following analysis conducted in July 2024, on 1 August that year the IPC declared Famine in parts of Sudan.  By December, it found that Famine was persisting in those places and had expanded to at least 10 additional areas, with 17 others at high risk.

Unlike in Gaza, in Sudan there is Famine, with capital ‘F’: the real thing, not the metaphor.

The Famine in Sudan is the direct consequence of the civil war raging in that country.  C. 9 million people have been displaced; people are unable to gather the crops on which they depend for nourishment.  The warring armed factions have plundered international aid and prevented it from reaching those in need.

BBC News reported on the Famine in Sudan – but only sporadically, in a handful of items spread over several months.  So did other Western media outlets.  There was none of the obsessive fascination with Gaza.  As a consequence, the Famine continues unabated in Sudan, with people dying like flies.

Question: Hold on – I saw with my own eyes on Twitter images of emaciated children, little kids reduced to skin and bones.  Are you saying that those images are not genuine?

Short answer: Even when they are genuine, those photos are fundamentally dishonest.  Those children are wasting away because of disease, not lack of food.

Long answer: Some are not, but others are genuine in the sense that they show actual children from Gaza.  Take for instance this one, published by the BBC on 25 July 2025.  Attributed to Reuters but reproduced by many media outlets (let alone on social media), this is a powerful image, deliberately designed to resemble Madonna with Child.  Christian imagery aside, the vast majority of human beings will be touched by this picture of an obviously starving child – bones sticking out of his pale-bluish skin.  But, before we rage against Israeli inhumanity, let’s read the picture’s caption:

“Samah Matar holds her malnourished son Youssef, who suffers from cerebral palsy, at a school where they are sheltering in Gaza City”

Then let’s ask Google:

“Is starvation associated with Cerebral Palsy?”

Wonders of technology: these days the search engine comes with Artificial Intelligence capabilities.  In less than two seconds, it ‘read’ thousands of scientific articles, returning the following summary:

“Yes, malnutrition and starvation are significant concerns for individuals with cerebral palsy (CP). Children with CP are at a higher risk of malnutrition due to various factors including feeding difficulties, increased energy expenditure, and underlying medical conditions.”

Clearly, it was the disease and not just shortage of food that caused Youssef Matar to look so pitifully emaciated.  One of those diseases that… you know… can’t really be blamed on the Jews.

Some would say that, at least, the BBC had the decency to disclose that little Youssef suffered from cerebral palsy.  But why use that photo in the first place in the context of ‘starvation’ in Gaza?  Most people won’t investigate; they will see the heartbreaking picture and believe it to be the result of Israeli policies, not of a terrible disease.

Little Youssef’s case is by no means the exception: the picture of another little boy is – if possible – even more tragic.  It went viral on social media in mid-July 2025, posted, reposted and commented on (initially, at least) by accounts boasting Iranian flags.  Official Israeli sources identified him as 5-year-old Osama al-Rakab.  Little Osama, who suffers from a serious genetic disease, is no longer in Gaza.  The same Israeli source (COGAT) reports:

“On June 12, we actively coordinated Osama's exit from Gaza with his mother and brother through the Ramon airport.  He is now receiving treatment in Italy.”

And more: on 21 July 2025, the New York Times published the picture of 3-year-old Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq: another hauntingly thin child, also portrayed in his mother’s arms, in the same Madonna-with-Child pose.  The original photos published by a Turkish media outlet featured in the background the child’s slightly older brother, who looked perfectly normal; but the NYT cropped the brother out of the picture…  Why let such details interfere with a good story?

The BBC did one better: they didn’t ‘just’ publish the photo – they proceeded to interview the photographer, who suggested the photo was representative of the widespread starvation of children in the Gaza Strip.

And it’s not just the NYT and the BBC – the photo appeared in the CNN, NBC News, The Guardian, The Daily Mail…  And no journalist wondered: if this is representative of Gaza’s children, how come we are being sent photos of the same child?

A few days later, it was revealed that little Muhammad Zakariya suffers from a series of severe genetic disorders…

Left: the photo of 3-year-old Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq (left) and his mother, in a ‘Madonna with Child’-like composition. Right: the same child, who (it turns out) suffers from severe genetic disorders, next to his slightly older brother, who looks perfectly normal.

Unfortunately, in Gaza – as elsewhere – there are some very sick children.  No doubt, war and all the associated hardship makes their situation even worse.  But using those pictures to ‘exemplify’ the starvation of Gaza’s children is dishonest and calumniatory.

Question: And what about the reports that each day Gazans die of malnutrition? Sure, they come from the Hamas-run health ministry.  But are they mere inventions?

Short answer: Again, we are talking about people who died of disease, not starvation.  Their sickness may or may not have been made worse by the general scarcity and hardship caused by the war.

Long answer: Let’s pay attention to the terminology.  Gaza’s health ministry does not actually claim that these people starved to death.  Such a claim would be easy to verify by any pathologist.  No, the official phrasing (not always reproduced as such by the Western media) is that they “died as a result of malnutrition”.  That’s different.  Even in the midst of a terrible war, people die not because they’re shot or blown to pieces and not because they starve to death, but because of unrelated disease.  In some cases, poor nutrition may worsen the disease and bring about or hasten death.  This is what Hamas is claiming: that given a better nutrition these people would not have died of disease (or at least, not in the short term).  Such a claim cannot be verified.  Even if the bodies could be independently examined (but they generally aren’t available for such examination), it is very difficult to determine whether better nutrition would have been sufficient to ensure survival or to prolong life.

One thing is sure: these fatalities – alongside everybody else that died of natural causes in the Gaza Strip since 7 October 2023 – will be counted among the victims of ‘Israeli aggression’.

Question: So are you claiming that everything is fine?  There’s no hunger, no malnutrition, no suffering, it’s all propaganda and fabrication?

Short answer: No, that’s not what I claim at all.  Gazans are not starving to death, but they experience hunger, disease and horrendous hardship.

Long answer: Starvation means that people do not get enough food to keep them alive in the short term.  Famine means widespread starvation.  That’s by-and-large what happens in Sudan, not in Gaza.

Malnutrition, on the other hand, means bad or improper nutrition.  A person can survive for a long time by eating relatively small amounts of concentrated food: bread, rice, pasta, beans or lentils…  But that’s still malnutrition, because bread, rice, pasta, beans and lentils do not provide all the nutrients that she needs to be healthy.  Malnutrition is currently widespread in the Gaza Strip.  People get enough to stay alive – but they do not get good, proper nutrition.

Additional information: Listening to the BBC and other mainstream media these days, one might think that malnutrition (especially child malnutrition) is a rare phenomenon.  In fact, it is widespread, even outside the context of war.

According to the UNICEF, at least 77 million children in the Arab world suffer from some form of malnutrition.  Even in a rich country like the UK, food poverty causes significant numbers of children to be malnourished.  A 2017 report by The Food Foundation found that “one in 10 children [in the UK] are living with adults who report experiencing severe food insecurity”.

Question: OK, so why doesn’t Israel just open the Gaza border crossings to aid, as much as the UN and others wish to bring in?  Why limit it to the bare minimum?  Why would Israel care if civilians get plenty of food?

Short answer: Because it is impossible to supply the population with everything they need, while also fighting Hamas.  The two activities are incompatible: the logistics of aid delivery at such a scale simply preclude military operations in that territory.

Long answer: Israel’s standard response to the question above is to blame Hamas for stealing aid.  Deliberately denying basic sustenance to the civilian population is a war crime; denying it to the enemy is a legitimate war strategy.  Hence, claim the Israelis, the supply of aid needs to be tightly controlled, to deny it to Hamas and the other terror organisations.

But does Hamas really steal aid?  Western media outlets habitually cast doubt on this (as they do with most other Israeli claims).  The BBC, for instance, states:

“Israel has said an alternative to the current aid system is needed to stop Hamas stealing aid, which the group denies doing.”

And also:

“Israel claims that Hamas stole aid from the UN system. The UN says it is still waiting for the Israelis to back their claims with evidence.”

The BBC, it turns out, continues to promote those doubts, despite the fact that Israeli claims were corroborated by Gazans.  Buried deep inside a video report by BBC Diplomatic Correspondent Paul Adams (a video that is generally very critical of Israel), one finds the following little nugget:

“But Hamas took control of some of the newly arrived goods.  That’s not just an Israeli allegation.  Our own sources inside Gaza have confirmed it.”

This must be blindingly true – if even the BBC let it slip out.  But – I’m afraid – it’s not the entire truth.

Here’s the unpleasant reality: in places like Gaza, it is impossible to starve out Hamas without starving the entire civilian population.  Sure, there are a few terror leaders that may be hiding in tunnels.  But the typical foot soldier (whether Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Mujahideen Brigades, etc.) is indistinguishable from the rest of the population.  That foot soldier seldom resides in tunnels or in paramilitary bases.  When he is not digging out his weapon to try and kill or kidnap an Israeli soldier, he spends his time at home, with wife, kids and often an extended family: brothers and sisters, cousins, aunts and uncles, nephews and nieces…  So how exactly can one feed the wife and kids, but not the terrorist husband and father?

It cannot be done – and that’s not really what Israel is trying to do.  Hamas cannot be starved out of Gaza.  But, the terrorists want to do more than eating: if left to its own devices, Hamas would like to control the distribution of aid as a means of maintaining its power over the population of Gaza.

Separating Hamas from its tools of power – not the physical elimination of every single terror operative, nor the complete dismantlement of Islamism as an idea – is what Israel is trying to achieve in Gaza.  Failing in that endeavour would mean that Hamas remained in power in Gaza for the foreseeable future; which would constitute a clear victory for Hamas and an obvious defeat for Israel – however many foot soldiers the IDF ‘eliminates’.

Israeli leaders actually say all this, but not quite as loud and clear; because it is not 100% clear that, in the cold eyes of ‘international jurists’ long-detached from the realities of war, this would constitute a ‘legal’ reason for the tight control of aid.

But even this is not the entire or main reason for limiting aid.  True, Israel must deny Hamas control of the aid distribution; but it could conceivably (albeit with a lot of extra risk, effort and expense) allow more aid in – and still attempt to eliminate Hamas from the supply chain.

But there’s something else here – something that ‘people in the know’ understand, but they’re hiding from you.  The truth is that, in a situation like Gaza, it not possible to keep the population supplied with all the life’s necessities – while also prosecuting the war against Hamas.

It needs to be understood: Supplying 2,000,000 people to the level that the UN and others demand would be a gigantic logistic operation.  The issue is not lorries being allowed into Gaza – that’s just one small step in a long journey; the much larger problem is aid distribution inside the Strip.  In contrast to the US/Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), the philosophy of UN agencies and of the various charities involved in Gaza is that aid needs to be brought to the aided.  That means that the lorries need to travel in many different directions.  They need to take their cargo to warehouses and from there to many hundreds of distribution centres, bakeries and community kitchens.  All that on roads and in areas that must be ‘deconflicted’ (i.e., free of Israeli troops and away from IDF military operations).  If they are not completely ‘deconflicted’, then the result is (as we’ve seen in the past) aid convoys that are either caught in the crossfire or inadvertently attacked.

The UN claims that it needs more than 600 truckloads of aid a day.  It’s a lie; but even if the number were 100, distributing that amount of aid translates into hundreds of truck journeys a day and hundreds of ‘deconflicted’ areas – all that in a territory just 41 kilometres (25 miles) long and 6 to 12 km (3.7 to 7.5 mi) wide.  Roads the military would have to avoid, areas it would have to vacate… Such massive ‘deconfliction’ would not just hinder, but in practice completely paralyse Israeli combat operations.  Not so Hamas’s operations, of course: terrorists aren’t required to ‘deconflict’ anything.

Here's the naked truth that nobody wants to tell you: one can either fight a war in Gaza, or one can keep Gaza’s civilian population well-supplied with food, medicines and other necessities.  One or the other, but not both!

The UN and aid organisations claim that at least 600 truckloads a day must not just go in, but be distributed to the population of Gaza.

The ‘humanitarians’ understand this, as do politicians; which is why both categories of people so keenly advocate a ceasefire.  Even while continuing to bash the Jewish state for ‘not allowing more aid into Gaza’, they know that only when the fighting stops can the aid reach those in need, in sufficient volume and variety.  That’s why the IPC Alert doesn’t just say ‘let the aid get in’; no, the very first of its 5 ‘Recommended actions’ actually demands

“End hostilities: An immediate, unconditional, and sustained ceasefire is critical to reversing the catastrophic levels of human suffering.”

Of course, everyone understands that “sustained ceasefire” is a euphemism.  What the ‘humanitarians’ want is the end of the war, not a temporary ceasefire.  In that, their aims are completely aligned with those of Hamas.  But of course, ending the war and leaving Hamas in power in Gaza is something Israelis simply cannot afford to do: it wouldn’t just mean living in perpetuity with a sword hung over their collective neck – but also admitting a vulnerability that can only invite more attacks from additional enemies.

Question: So what’s the solution?  Are you saying that we must resign ourselves to seeing innocent people suffering and being killed?

Short answer: Unfortunately, innocents will always suffer and get killed in wars.  But it is possible to alleviate that suffering and starkly reduce the number of innocent casualties.

The first step is, simply, to allow those innocents to escape; they are currently cynically trapped in a war zone.  Using a combination of political pressure and economic incentives, Egypt must be persuaded to allow unarmed Gazans to cross into Sinai, where well-organised refugee camps can be established, away from the rigours of war and with full access by aid organisations.

Long answer: Currently, the war in Gaza is the only armed conflict in recent history that civilians have been utterly prevented from fleeing.  While millions of Syrians found refuge in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and further afield, very few Gazans have managed to bribe their way into Egypt.  As I have shown in a previous article, this is a cynical ploy by Egypt and other Arab countries, who fear that allowing Gazans to leave would constitute the end of ‘the Palestinian cause’.  This isn’t surprising; in fact, it’s always been obvious that Arab dictators are very keen on ‘the Palestinian cause’, but don’t actually give a damn about Palestinians.

Even more outrageously, the ‘international community’ (including the likes of Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron, as well as media outlets) seems to accept that ‘logic’.  How else can we explain that in 2022 the European Union and the UK opened their gates to c. 6 million Ukrainian refugees, but in 2023 they shut them to practically every Gazan wanting to escape the war?

But if a genocide is taking place in Gaza – as some people claim – then surely the priority should be to take those innocents outside the reach of the ‘genocidaire’ Israelis?  Do these people want to save the victims, or are they only interested in punishing the offenders?  If the latter, what does this tell us about their true motivations?

Yes, I know: nobody but fanatics and a handful of dupes actually believes in this tall ‘genocide’ story.  But, regardless, innocent people are getting killed – because they are forcibly kept inside a battlefield.  Why are they not allowed to escape?

Question: But it isn’t happening.  So I don’t understand how Israel hopes to achieve its goals in Gaza.  You’ve been fighting there for almost two years.  What are you hoping for now?

Short answer: Unsurprisingly, Israel hopes that ‘someone’ (preferably a ‘moderate’ Arab ‘someone’) will take Gaza off its hands, pacify and rebuild it.  Whether this is feasible and desirable is at this point unclear, but no other conceivable alternative promises to deliver what Israel wants: peace and quiet, at least in the medium term.

Long answer: Firstly, “it isn’t happening” because you put no pressure on your government to make it happen.  Rather than just wringing your hands about the suffering in Gaza and bashing Israel for it, you should demand that your government a) pressures Egypt into opening its border and allowing unarmed Gazans to take refuge in the Sinai Peninsula; b) takes in a reasonable number of Gazan refugees – just like it did with Ukrainian asylum-seekers.

Secondly, Israel hopes that at some point, confronted with this perpetual problem and under pressure to alleviate the suffering, a consortium of Arab countries will take over the governance of Gaza and its reconstruction.  Of course, all those countries currently say that they have no intention to do that.  But, as the Abraham Accords demonstrate, such vows are not set in stone.  Given a suitable pretext (for instance, saving the Palestinians from mass displacement and the end of their ‘cause’), the likes of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar may come to believe that they can ‘dress it up’ as a noble – and temporary – gesture.

Would that be a good solution?  I don’t know.  But, when it comes to the Palestinian issue, everybody is running out of ‘solutions’.  Israel has tried ‘benign occupation’; it has tried negotiations and accommodation; it tried unilateral withdrawal; it attempted to ‘manage’ the conflict without ‘solving’ it.  Nothing really worked so far.  In fact, all the ‘solutions’ ended in disaster.

The likes of Starmer and Macron are even worse: they don’t even try anything new – they cling to a ‘solution’ that the Palestinian Arabs have been rejecting for an entire century.  The only thing that changed in the meantime is that in the post-7 October era the vast majority of Israelis reject it, too.  So how do Starmer and Macron hope to achieve their ‘two state solution’?  No, reader, you don’t need to answer that.  It was a rhetorical question; we all know that Starmer and Macron don’t really believe in what they say.  They’d just say anything to get re-elected.

So they are terribly exercised by the rhetorical, yet-to-be-declared famine in Gaza, even while showing no interest in the real, duly declared Famine in Sudan.  That’s because these sleezy, weaselly and unscrupulous politicians have decided to ride the wave of antisemitism, rather than confronting it.

Some have compared this outburst of antisemitism to Germany in the early 1930s.  But a better analogy, I think, is turn-of-the-century Eastern Europe.

The anti-Israel campaign unfolding these days in Europe, Canada, Australia and sectors of the American society is reminiscent of czarist Russia.  Like there and then, it can only lead to pogrom.

It’s the Holocaust, stupid!

"The Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz!"

Zvi Rex, Israeli psychiatrist

 

On 5 July 2024, King Charles III approved the appointment of Rt Hon Keir Starmer as UK Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury.  Rt Hon David Lammy was appointed as Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs.

On 14 July, the latter announced that the UK would “restart funding to UNRWA in order to get aid as quickly as possible to those who need it in Gaza”.  The funding had been stopped when some UNRWA ‘humanitarian workers’ were found to have taken active part in the 7 October attack and massacres.  But the new government declared that it was

“confident that UNRWA is taking action to ensure it meets the highest standards of neutrality”.

“Is taking action” is an interesting way to put it: it clearly refers to something that may bear fruit in the (undefined) future; but the funding resumed with immediate effect.

On 25 July, the UK Labour government announced that it would withdraw the objections (submitted by the previous administration) to the issuance, by the International Criminal Court, of arrest warrants against the Israeli Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence.

On 2 September, the UK government banned the export of certain weapons to Israel.  The announcement explained:

“On day one in office, the Foreign Secretary commissioned a thorough review into Israel’s compliance with International Humanitarian Law, and has travelled to Israel twice since being appointed to the role to understand the situation on the ground.”

“On day one in office” would seem to indicate a huge sense of urgency.  These three measures – all taken within 60 days of its appointment – were by far the most prominent foreign affairs decisions taken by the new government; and, in fact, arguably the most forceful decisions it took in any area.  It seems that the Jewish state and its behaviour is – for some reason – the new UK government’s top concern.

UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy visited Israel twice in his first 60 days in office, "to understand the situation on the ground". He concluded that Israel might be breaching the laws of war in Gaza, and banned the export of some weapons to the Jewish state. Here he is on a previous visit to Israel, organised in 2022 by Labour Friends of Israel. Some friend!

On the other hand, the Labour government also did something else, though perhaps not “[o]n day one in office”: it commissioned a review of the national curriculum for schools in England.  Of course, the matter of what British children are taught in British schools is not quite as burning as whatever happens in Gaza; so the curriculum review will take at least a year, not a fortnight.  It is scheduled to report sometime in autumn 2025.

Well, I suppose education reforms can wait; but some things clearly cannot.  Thus, already on 16 September this year, Prime Minister Starmer announced that, as part of the review to be completed in a year’s time, he was making “Holocaust education” a mandatory topic of study in every school in England.  Of course, the national curriculum – which is followed by the vast majority of schools in England – already includes “Holocaust education”.  And Mr. Starmer’s decision won’t be applied with immediate effect anyway – but only “when the new curriculum comes in” – i.e. after the review is completed, hopefully in autumn 2025.  So why did he announce it already – and with such fanfare?

In opposition, Sir Keir Starmer promised to mend the Labour Party's relationship with the Jewish community. Once in office, he started by making 3 anti-Israel decisions, in quick succession. No wonder that he felt he had to throw the Jews a bone. And he chose "Holocaust education".

Clearly, Rt Hon Starmer needed to balance his government’s slew of hostile measures against the Jewish state with ‘doing something good for the Jews’.  But why “Holocaust education”?  Sure, the memory of the Shoah is a very important part of contemporary Jewish identity.  But, when it comes to their expectations from the government, British Jews have many pressing concerns: “Preserve the memory of the Holocaust” was #8 on the list of ‘Ten Commandments’ included in ‘The Jewish Manifesto for the General Election 2024’ published by the Board of Deputies of British Jews.  (Interestingly, the cover of that brochure boasted a picture of Jews holding up photos of Israeli hostages abducted by Hamas!)

So why bring up the Holocaust?  Jews have been accused of being obsessed with the Shoah.  But it seems many Gentiles are fascinated by it, too; only in different ways.

Let us remember: in the ‘enlightened’ 20th century, the world attempted to murder its Jews and wipe out their memory.  I say ‘the world’ advisedly: while it was Nazi Germany that led that ‘effort,’ members of many other nations lent ‘a helping hand’.  From Ukrainian guards to Polish peasants, from Vichy government officials to Norwegian collaborators – they all played an active role in the Shoah.  Fortunately, the Nazis never conquered the isle of Britain; but even there there were those only too eager to take part in ‘freeing the world from Jewish domination’.

Of those who did not murder Jews themselves (or delivered them to be slaughtered), many were guilty by omission: the vast majority of countries refused to accept Jewish refugees fleeing unimaginable threats and persecution; the British government of the time even callously banned Jews from fleeing to the ‘Jewish Home’ they were supposed to establish.  As for the United States, it responded to European Jews’ desperate need for a safe haven by… further reducing immigration quotas – in particular (and purely coincidentally, of course!) from Germany and Poland.

Ultimately, of course, nations went to war against the Axis; soldiers spilled their blood to defeat it.  But no country fought to save the Jews – they did so to defend their own interests.  The enormity of what was being done to the Jews eventually became known to the Allies, not in the least because so many trains were crisscrossing Europe to deliver raw material to the Nazi death factories.  But, if Hitler hated Jews enough to take those trains away from the Nazi war effort and employ them as vehicles of murder – the Allies didn’t love Jews that much; otherwise, they might’ve used their clear air superiority to destroy those railways.

No wonder that, when finally the war ended and the horrors became widely known, many felt – deep in their hearts – a sense of guilt.  No, not because they felt they contributed to those horrors themselves – the perpetrators were soon declared to be just the Germans and, even among them, only a small circle of Nazis, most of whom were by then conveniently dead.  No, the reason many people secretly felt guilty was that, looking candidly into their souls, they discovered (shhhh, don’t tell anyone!) some of the same feelings that the Nazis harboured.  After all, the latter did not invent antisemitism; the Holocaust was but the culmination of many centuries of hatred, persecution and massacres.

Guilt – as any good Jew or Catholic will tell you – is a very oppressive feeling.  And so, the ovens of Majdanek had barely cooled down, when denial started.  Already by 1948, a French ‘intellectual’ and journalist was publishing a book ‘demonstrating’ that the Shoah was a false narrative.  Other ‘intellectuals’ and ‘academics’ followed suit.

The problem with Holocaust denial is, however – from the point of view of its promoters – that it’s too easily debunked.  Too many people were involved; in too many places; there were too many surviving witnesses; and, despite Nazi efforts, there was also physical evidence.  If – as the deniers claim – the gas chambers were only used to de-lice clothes, it is rather difficult to explain what happened to the people who wore those thousands of shoes left in a dusty warehouse.  The denial approach is still alive and kicking of course – massively in Muslim countries and occasionally in Europe, N. America and elsewhere.  But it struggled to attract a mass following – not in the least because its promoters tended to be obviously unsavoury characters: Islamists and neo-Nazis.

A more appealing way to deal with the guilt is Holocaust trivialisation – promoted primarily by ‘progressives’ like Jeremy Corbyn or Jackie Walkers.  The Holocaust – proclaim supporters of this particular brand of deniers – indeed happened.  But… it didn’t happen only to Jews, it affected many other categories of victims (Communists, Roma and Sinti, homosexuals, disabled people).  And ‘the Holocaust’ was really just ‘one Holocaust’ among many; perhaps not quite as horrific as the transatlantic slave trade – to cite a favourite item on that list.

Former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone (right) ‘resigned’ from the Labour Party. Former Vice-Chair of Momentum Jackie Walker (left) was expelled. Both are notorious for having made very ‘controversial’ statements involving Jews and the Holocaust.

But if the Holocaust never happened; or if it happened as just one such event among many others; then what explains the widespread belief in the contrary (i.e., that it did happen and was an extraordinary, exceptional event)?  If the deniers are really truth-tellers, then there’s a conspiracy to be found in the opposite camp.

And who are more credibly accused of conspiracy than the Jews?  Of course, blaming ‘the Jews’ as such has become a little unfashionable.  But hey, there is by now a Jewish state.  From the point of view of the deniers (of all tinges and methodologies), Israel is an ideal scapegoat: on one hand, it’s mostly Jewish – so mostly suspect; but on the other hand, one can attack that ‘mostly’ by referring to them as ‘Israelis’, thus avoiding the potential pitfall of bashing ‘the Jews’ – like a certain fellow with a funny moustache!

By the mid-1950s, all references to Jews as its main victims have been ‘expunged’ from the ‘history’ of the Holocaust – as told by the Soviet Union and by many ‘progressive’ circles in the West. By mid-1970s Israel was commonly accused – in the same circles – of ‘weaponising’ the Shoah to ‘justify the crimes against the Palestinian people’.  Eventually, someone (a renegade Jew, just like in the times of inquisitorial trials) came up with the term ‘Holocaust industry’; a term invented to describe not the industrialised murder of Jews – but the Jewish ‘exaggerate’ propensity to ‘over-memorialise’ and ‘exploit’ it.

This form of denial is, it seems, much easier for people to ‘buy’ into.  A 2017 survey found that just 2% of the population strongly agreed/tended to agree with the proposition ‘The Holocaust is a myth’.  ‘The Holocaust has been exaggerated’ gained the agreement of 4%.  But no less than 10% agreed that ‘Jews exploit Holocaust victimhood for their own purposes’.  (‘No less’ is not a figure of speech: this particular question elicited a lot of ‘Neither agree nor disagree’ responses (19%), as well as ‘Don’t know/Refuse to respond’ (15%).  So, in addition to the 10% that agreed, 34% of respondents abstained – for some reason – from providing a clear answer to that question.)

But ‘merely’ accusing Jews of nefariously ‘exploiting Holocaust victimhood’ doesn’t go far enough in terms of relieving the guilt.  Because the implication is that, whether ‘exploiting’ or not, they were victims.

How about accusing the Jews themselves of somehow bringing that catastrophe upon themselves?  Of course, accusing an entire population of ‘deserving’ to be massacred is a bit problematic in ‘progressive’ circles.  And before 1948 there was no Jewish state to blame.  But, conveniently, there was a movement aiming to establish one; a movement that, for some reason, was desperate to save Jews from the claws of the Nazis – especially by bringing them to Palestine Mandate.  By 1982, the Institute of Oriental Studies (no, not SOAS; this was IOS, affiliated with the Soviet Academy of Sciences!) was awarding a PhD to a certain PLO leader called Mahmoud Abbas – upon the successful defence of his thesis “The Relationship Between Zionists and Nazis, 1933-1945”.  Few people read this piece of original research, but the theme itself is still popular among hard-leftists – see comments made by former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone in 2016.

For some, however, such theories still don’t go far enough.  After all, even if one were to believe that ‘Zionists’ collaborated with the Nazis (or, in Livingstone’s version, that ‘Hitler supported Zionism’), those Zionists would have been no worse than so many others on the European continent.  And the victims were still Jews!

No, the ultimate guilt-relieving medicine is Holocaust inversion.  If one can persuade oneself that the Jews (or the Jewish state, as the guilt-free euphemism for ‘the Jews’) perpetrate ‘a Holocaust’ themselves – then one can finally hate with no niggling unease.  One can even proffer one’s hatred as a noble endeavour, a kind of belatedly-found and cost-free anti-Nazism.  What better way of bearing the Mark of Cain, than wearing it as badge of honour?

It’s not easy, but with persistence everything is possible.  The Naqba can be narrated as ‘a Holocaust’; Gaza Strip can be equated to ‘a concentration camp’; and bombing Israel with thousands of rockets can be likened to ‘the Revolt of the Warsaw Ghetto’.

Can you name one symbol – other than the Star of David – that is so often associated with the Swastika?

The intention was clear.  Of course, one can believe – especially if one is so inclined – that Israel’s behaviour towards the Palestinians is bad, bad, bad.  But there is ‘bad’ (and there’s no penury of bad behaviour in the world) – and then there is ‘Nazi’.  Others are occasionally accused of Nazi-like behaviour; when it comes to Israel, such ‘metaphors’ abound.  There’s an overwhelming propensity to cast Jews (and only Jews) in the role of Nazis.

In fact, some people found creative ways to claim that Jews are actually worse than Nazis.  After all, unlike the original Nazis, Jews have been themselves victims of the Holocaust; so, as an Honourable Member of the House of Commons once said, they should know better, shouldn’t they??

A 1998 article (published by two ‘researchers’ holding academic positions in London and Paris) stated:

“[T]he Holocaust does not free the Jewish state or the Jews of accountability.  On the contrary, the Nazi crime compounds their moral responsibility and exposes them to greater answerability.  They are the ones who have escaped the ugliest crime in history, and now they are perpetrating reprehensible deeds against another people.”

Ah, but there was still something missing: after all, “reprehensible deeds” is rather weak – if you are to accuse somebody of perpetrating ‘a Holocaust’.  The Holocaust was more than displacement, ghettos and concentration camps; it was history’s largest and most obvious genocide.  Indeed, in most people’s minds, it is synonymous with ‘genocide’.

So, when a truly genocidal attack by Hamas triggered a harsh Israeli response; and when that response resulted (if we are to believe Hamas) in more than 40,000 Palestinian deaths; that’s when the final component fell in place.

40,000 is a large number, but hardly an unusual one.  According to a 2021 UN Development Programme report, the Saudi-led war in Yemen (prosecuted among others with British weapons) caused some 377,000 fatalities – around 150,000 from the fighting itself and the rest from lack of safe water, food and medical care.  The Saudis, by the way, did what Israel arguably should have done: they did not wait for the Houthis to attack them, but hit them first – on the assumption that an Iranian-sponsored terror group on the border is enough of a casus belli.  They also imposed a comprehensive blockade on Yemen, which according to the UN resulted in 3.5 million cases of acute malnutrition and 131,000 deaths between 2015 and 2020.

One of the indirect victims of the war in Yemen.  A 2016 UNICEF report claimed "one child dies every 10 minutes because of malnutrition, diarrhoea and respiratory-tract infections."

But all that’s irrelevant, ain’t it?  Saudi Arabia has not been accused of genocide; it hasn’t been dragged before an international court.  Its leaders aren’t going to be indicted for committing ‘the crime of extermination’.

Will Netanyahu be indicted?  Will Israel be found guilty of genocide?  It doesn't matter, folks.  The words have been spoken; the accusation is all that matters.  The image of Jews as Nazis has now been planted into the minds of those who did not harbour it already.

In short, the Saudis aren’t Jews.  There’s no specific interest – and certainly no morbid satisfaction – in accusing them of perpetrating a new Holocaust.  When Saudis kill children, it’s bad luck; when Jews do it, it’s – for some reason – fascinating...

Night is the new day, folks!  Haniyeh’s a moderate, Netanyahu the devil incarnate.  Hamas is progressive, the PLO moderate, Isreal is a racist state.  Hizb’ullah are brave and noble warriors, the J… err… Zionists are the new Nazis.  Palestinians are the new Jews, and the old ones – having failed to internalise the valuable lessons of the Shoah – are holocausting them poor bastards!  They need to be stopped!  Otherwise, what’s the point of getting all that “Holocaust Education”??  What better way to honour all those dead Jews than prevent the ones alive from doing to others what’s been done to them?  It’s time to finally apply the ‘Never again!’ injunction and all the international treaties that – as we all know – have been put in place precisely with this in mind.  The way to ensure this never happens again is to immediately restore the ceasefire that was in place before 7/10.  The way to preserve peace in the Middle East is to deny Israel weapons.  And put them nasty Isrealis in the dock, not in the Hague, but at Nuremberg – now that’s an idea!

After all, we live in a just, fair and delightful world, governed by the International Humanitarian Law.  Enjoy!!!

Is there a future for the Labour Movement?

 

The Movement

I don’t care what your pet ideology is, dear reader – if indeed you care to have one.  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.  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^th century, fought – often at great peril and disadvantage to themselves – to achieve these things and others, for all of us.  The first trade unionists.  We owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

But at some point (also in the 19^th 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’.

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.  One raised the oppressed – the other raised new oppressors.  As one Jewish smart-ass said, 2,000 years ago: “by their fruits ye shall know them”.

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.

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.  For this reason, while taking stock of the past, this article wants to look into the future.

The Report

On Thursday, 29 October 2020, UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) published its report entitled “Investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party”.  It’s a long (130 pages) document, written in a cool, detached, formal language.  If you cannot be bothered to read it all, here’s the concise but accurate summary produced by my brilliant friend Ged Ornstein:

The EHRC found that the Labour Party had:

1.      Acted unlawfully in that agents of the LP had used antisemitic tropes and had suggested that complaints of antisemitism were fake or smears.

2.      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.

3.      An opaque and inefficient complaints mechanism;

4.      An inadequate training programme with regards to antisemitism;

5.      Disregarded abusive social media content.

The EHRC is a statutory body endowed with legal powers and concerned primarily with breaches of the Equality Act.  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.  In the words of the report:

"…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."

And, in that respect, the Commission found

"a culture within the Party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it."

While Ged’s five points are damning from a legal point of view, I would argue that the ‘culture’ problem is even more troubling.  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.

Strangely, the ‘culture’ problem has gone almost entirely unnoticed by the army of journalists, pundits and political activists that presumed to ‘interpret’ the report.  Yet I would argue that it is its most important (and most troubling) finding.

Firstly, it takes a large number of individuals to create ‘a culture’.  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.  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’.  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.

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.

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.

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.

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’.  Touching indeed – except that she went on to say:

"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."

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?  How can one see it as “the best […] for this country”?  Isn’t this a most revealing display of the ‘culture’ referred to by the EHRC?  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’?

Bonnie Greer: "I'll always vote Labour"

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:

"How can anyone vote for a man with that kind of thing?"

Herein lies the ‘culture’ problem: not just, as some may think, in the antisemitic acts or words of a Jeremy Corbyn, Ken Livingston or Chris Williamson; 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.

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.

 

The Problem

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?  Why is it that people whose entire world view is built around social justice fail to recognise injustice?  And why is it that those whose fundamental yearning is to eliminate oppression end up tolerating or even practicing it against Jews?

Here’s a thing: this isn’t just a problem of psychology – but of ideology.  The Cambridge Dictionary defines ‘ideology’ as

"a set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party, or organization is based."

The same dictionary defines the term ‘religion’ as

"the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship."

Both ‘ideology’ and ‘religion’ are sets (or systems) of beliefs.  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 ‘categorical imperative’.  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.

Just as there are degrees of religiosity, there are also degrees of ideological zeal.  There is, in that sense, a form of ‘ideological fundamentalism’, the secular equivalent of religious fundamentalism.

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).  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’.

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.

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:

"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."

Saddam Hussein may have murdered (en-masse, using chemical weapons) tens of thousands of innocent people.  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.  If Rees’s “unconditionally support” does not bring to your mind Bonnie Greer’s “I will always vote Labour”, then you’re missing the point here.

 

The Jews

Historically, fundamentalists (whether religious or secular) tended to ‘have a problem’ with Jews.  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.

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.  It is part of something much bigger: a fundamentalist world view.  That is the root cause of the ‘culture’ that the EHRC was referring to.  One cannot ‘cure’ fundamentalism of antisemitism.  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.  It is integral to that world view.  'Tackling’ antisemitism without dealing with the fundamentalism is like trying to cure cancer by prescribing pain killers.

‘Dealing with antisemitism’ should not be reduced to ‘dealing with complaints of antisemitism’.  That would do very little to eliminate the “culture” EHRC referred to.  And ‘dealing with the problem’ should not be reduced to ‘dealing with antisemitism’.

The problem is what I called ‘ideological fundamentalism’ – a form of political extremism.  Antisemitism is just one of the manifestations of that fundamentalism.  In fact, you’ll find that it’s been a manifestation of every type of European political extremism – for centuries.

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 “thousands and thousands”, as his Deputy threatened.

 

The Current Leader

Which brings me to Starmer himself.  Since he became leader (Leader?) his attitude and speeches in relation to antisemitism seem flawless.  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!

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?  How come he cheered him on?  How come he campaigned for people to vote for a party with a culture of antisemitism?  For Corbyn as Prime Minister?  Starmer claims that he voiced his criticism more firmly ‘inside’.  Perhaps he did – but is that enough?  How was Sir Keir’s attitude different than that of a John Rees or Bonnie Greer?

What is it that Sir Keir Starmer really believes in?  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.  Now he says he wants to clean and cure it.  He even revealed – but only once Corbyn resigned – that his wife was Jewish.

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.  Starmer stayed, kept his mouth shut – and benefited.  I respect and trust them; I don’t – him.

The Former Leader

But Starmer suspended Corbyn, you’ll say.  In the eyes of many a battered, worried Jew, suspending Corbyn turned Starmer into a modern-day King Ahasuerus.  But let’s get our wits about us and reason: is this what we want?  Sure, Corbyn was toxic; he was definitely part of the problem; but is he the problem?  Would a Labour Party led by – for instance – John McDonnell be better for Jews?  Will the ‘culture’ problem magically disappear if Corbyn does?

In reality, Corbyn’s suspension was counter-productive.  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.

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!

 

The Leadership in general

In a democracy, leaders are elected.  But how are they selected?  After all, We The People can only vote for the candidates that the parties put in front of us.

Now, if you own a business or you work in one, you know how people are recruited and how they are promoted.  You would never take someone who just finished school and appoint him or her as – say – Director of Sales.  No, not even if s/he spent a couple of years working as a barista at Costa Coffee.  You would not appoint as CEO someone that has not (at the very least!) successfully managed a department.

Why, then, would you want to have as Prime Minister someone (like Corbyn or Starmer) who never-ever served as Minister?  Sure, in his time Corbyn ‘managed’ many a political demonstration.  Starmer was a human rights barrister and Director of Public Prosecutions.  But how relevant are these skills to the role of Prime Minister?

Deputy Labour Leader Angela Rayner left school at 16 and trained as a social worker.  She became involved in the Unison trade union and gradually rose in the Party hierarchy.   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.  She seems like a decent person; but will that make her a decent minister?

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?

 

The Future

Some take it as given that the Labour Party (as the political arm of the Labour Movement) will always exist.  That’s an illusion.  Voters trust pragmatic leaders, not ideological ones; people who seek solutions in the reality around them, not in the Little Red Book.  In Israel, the Labour Party has practically disappeared – mainly because it stuck to slogans, ideas and ‘ideals’ that voters saw as disconnected from reality.

If you think that this could never happen in the UK – think again.  It is not just the colossal 2019 Labour defeat.  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…

So what should Labour do?  Well, this is ‘Politically-incorrect Politics’ – but I’m afraid I do not have any original solution.  Just some good ol' advice.

If you want to govern the country, put in place capable leaders with a good track record.  It’s about skills and experience, not just good intentions.

If you want to wave Palestinian flags – go be Prime Minister of Palestine.  We want someone who at least cares about the UK.

And then, understand that, if one wishes to govern a democracy, one has to appeal to a majority of the people.  Which – look at any statistics of political inclinations – means appealing to the moderate centre.

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.  We’ll have none of that, thank you!  Go try your ‘radical ideas’ elsewhere.  Maybe in Palestine?  If they work there, we’ll consider them here.  See ya!

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.  You were stupid enough to let them in?  Now find a way to get rid of them.  If what you’re selling is Communist Party dressed up as ‘Labour’ – we’re not buying.

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.

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.  We The People understand this, do you?  Just look at the current government, with its record number of ethnic minority ministers – including the senior posts of Chancellor and Home Secretary.  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.  Just look at its environment-related pledges, or the worship-like praise of the NHS…

You, Labour guys, have your work cut out for you.  On one hand, you have to be (or at least appear to be) moderate; we ain’t voting for no nutters.  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.  ‘The Government should have done more’ is a rather feeble criticism, because it implies that what was done was good.

You wanna govern again?  Start by proving you can mount a sensible Opposition.  Because – in the UK, just like in Israel – democracy needs one.  Best of luck to you!