Save the Children

I keep coming back to the moment I heard a British Jewish acquaintance saying – with a wistful expression and a throaty voice:

“A lot of people here don’t like Jews”

What better definition for ‘modern’ antisemitism?  It is this ‘dislike’ for Jews as Jews that is the root of the problem.  It’s subliminal but visceral; rarely manifest but often present.

* * *

My father was a teenager in pre-World War II Romania.  One of his school teachers was a known member of the local fascist organisation – and a known antisemite.  Not unusual in that time and place, yet my father must have been terrified.  One day, in front of the entire class, the teacher asked my dad to stand up.  “Joseph,” he thundered, “you are a Jew, aren’t you?”  My dad nodded in meek admission of the crime.  “I don’t like Jews,” said the teacher.  “But that does not mean I don’t like you.  You’re a good kid”.

I keep remembering this story, because it is characteristic of the mindset of many antisemites.  It is why the statement “Some of my best friends are Jews” has become not just a cliché, but almost a litmus test for antisemites.  Most antisemites do not hate (or even ‘dislike’) every individual Jew.  What they hate, dislike and fear is ‘the Jews’ – that vague but (in the antisemitic mind) omnipresent collective.  It is that collective – and not the individual Jew – that is the ultimate, the quintessential ‘Other’.  That’s why the ‘modern’ antisemites dislike, hate and fear the State of Israel: with its Jewish majority and character, Israel is the tangible, physical embodiment of that ‘Jewish collective’.  That’s why antisemites argue that ‘anti-Zionism is not antisemitism’: because they feel they can tolerate individual Jews – though not ‘the Jewish collective’.

* * *

What most antisemites ‘don’t like’ is – paradoxically – not Jews as such, but Jewishness.  It is the Jewish identity – religious, cultural and (in ‘modern’ antisemitism) especially national, that is the red cloth to the antisemitic bull.  And that identity is especially obvious when Jews ‘get together’ (or indeed ‘stick together’); when they become not Jews but Jewry.

And that’s why antisemitism is tolerated – some would say embraced – by the (declaredly ‘anti-racist’) far-left.  Universalism, which has become a defining value on the far-left (I prefer to call far-leftists ‘extreme universalists’ or ‘uniformists’) provides an ideological justification for disliking the nation while proclaiming tolerance for the individuals.  Extreme universalism provides base racism with a noble mantle.  Is it a surprise, then, that Jeremy Corbyn can’t even order an inquiry into antisemitism without adding “Islamophobia and other forms of racism”?  To do otherwise would, to an ideologically-intoxicated mind, be in itself a deviation from the ‘value’ of universalism taken to extremes.

Extreme universalists ‘don’t like Jews’; because in their eyes Jews – with their obstinate wish to retain their specific culture and character – are the very embodiment of particularism.  As I mentioned in another recent article, extreme left ideologues want to change ‘the Jew’, to ‘better’ him; in other words, to make ‘him’ disappear in the amorphous ‘masses’ of a humanity robbed of identity.

* * *

Here’s a stereotype: one is more likely to meet other Jews around a table laden with food, then anywhere else.  It was around a table laden with food that, a couple of months ago, I was having a discussion with some Jewish friends and acquaintances; among them a charming couple in their early 30s – let’s call them Miriam and John.

My partner and I had just registered for ‘March of the Living’ – the annual gesture of Holocaust remembrance and defiance which consists of travelling to Poland to visit ghettos and concentration camps; and which culminates with a march from Auschwitz to Birkenau.  I guess both my partner and I were struggling in our hearts with a mixture of excitement and anxiety – and mentioned the trip in our dinner-table conversation.  “Oh, that is very interesting,” said Miriam.  And my partner went into sales mode: “Why don’t you come, too?” she asked.  But Miriam seemed to recoil a bit: “Oh, I don’t know… I’d like to do it at some point… but I don’t feel like doing it with a group of hundreds of other Jews”.  She must have seen the shock in my eyes, because she felt like explaining it: “No, seriously, I don’t like being in large groups of Jews… I think it brings the worst in us.”  Her husband agreed: “Yes, it would be good to visit those sites.  Maybe we will do it once on our own.  Certainly doing it with hundreds of other Jews would be a real nightmare…”.  “But we’re only saying this among ourselves, of course,” he added with a forced laugh.

Seldom in my life have I been so distraught.  Here’s a couple of ‘nice Jewish kids’ who… don’t like Jews.  At least, not Jews as a ‘large group’ – they obviously don’t mind breaking bread and chatting with certain individual Jews.

* * *

How did we get there?  It’s certainly not something they would have heard at home – they both grew up in warm Jewish families that treasured ‘Yiddishkeit’.  But then they went to study at British universities…

I once heard a talk given by a former Chair of UJS, the Union of Jewish Students.  Among other things, she told the audience:

“If you want to understand the political landscape anywhere on campus, imagine a world in which there are no Tories.  There are Anarchists, Marxists, Trotskyites…  The Labour Party Blairites are – like – the extreme-extreme right”.

My son – who also attended university in the UK – agrees, albeit with a proviso:

“There may have been some Tories – but they’d never dare admit it.  They’d be like… they’d be like hated and boycotted…”

* * *

And it’s not just universities, either.  It starts with schools in which teaching ‘British values’ (or indeed Jewish values) is frowned upon with distaste; in which extreme universalism is promoted as an article of faith – indeed as the only tolerated faith – and manifesting any trace of ‘particularist’ identity is discouraged as heresy.  And if you think that that’s not happening in Jewish schools – think again!  Increasingly, extreme universalism is taught there, too – even while security people stand guard outside, to prevent harm being visited upon a very particular group of children…

Some of you may be sending your children to Jewish youth movements and organisations –hoping they’d pick up a bit of Yiddishkeit.  But beware: some of those organisations have been infiltrated.  The ‘Yiddishkeit’ they teach is speckled with Jewish terms and concepts, yes – but those terms and concepts are robbed of their most important, overriding meaning: that of preserving the Jewish people as a particular, distinct ethnic, religious and cultural entity.  They’ll speak, for instance, about ‘Tikkun Olam’ – that beautiful aspiration of ‘repairing the world’.  But they’ll stand that concept on its head: rather than using it to cure the world of antisemitism, they’ll employ it to bash other Jews – for being too Jewish.

Even the position of rabbi has been corrupted: these days, the title may refer to far-left political activists endowed with a smattering of learning and a kwikfit diploma.  They have little interest in shepherding Jewish communities – unsurprisingly, since they don’t really like those communities.  But they love working with naïve youngsters and turning them into more far-left activists.  These ‘rabbis’ harbour an intolerance to Jewry – but they don’t mind specific, ‘liberal’ Jews.

* * *

Recently, the British Jewish community was shocked to discover that, in the midst of a tsunami of unfair, deceitful and discriminatory ‘criticism’ directed at the Jewish state, a group of Jewish youngsters assembled (or, rather, ‘were assembled’) in London’s Parliament Square to… recite Kaddish for Palestinian ‘protesters’ killed by Israel’s Defence Forces.

I know, I know: Kaddish is such an emotional prayer; it comes laden with the painful memory of dead relatives; of people we loved and lost.  And no, those Palestinian ‘protesters’ were neither dead relatives, not genuine protesters; in fact, as the ‘mourners’ knew very well, they were members of terrorist organisations that want to kill our relatives.

Jewish youngsters in London's Parliament Square, reciting the mourners' prayer
(Kaddish) for members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad

I know all that; I understand the shock.  But should we really be surprised?  Just look at who the leaders of that gathering were: a student ‘rabbi’ and a few activists with Jewish youth organisations (i.e., people to whom we entrust our children, our youngsters; who are supposed to ‘school’ them in what ‘being Jewish’ means; who guide them on birthright tours to Israel…)

* * *

Make no mistake: our children are under attack.  It’s an insidious assault – and just paying for school security won't help.  The aggressors don’t aim to injure tender bodies, but to mutilate raw, naïve souls.  If we allow this to continue, our children, our youngsters will not be Jews; but they also won’t be ‘just good people’, no.  Because the fanatics don’t just want to take away their Jewish identity and feeling; they want to replace it with a twisted, grotesque, revolting caricature of Jewishness.  Our kids are being brainwashed into political activists masquerading as Jews; into ‘Jews’ that don’t like Jews.

Don’t slam Islam; but don’t tolerate intolerance, either!

Paris is in shock again and with it the entire civilised world.  Although, truth be told, this has not come as a surprise.  Nor have the reactions of Western politicians and journalists.  On one hand, we hear again the predictable but oh-so-idiotic claim that acts perpetrated in the name of Allah and Muhammad ‘have nothing to do with Islam’; on the other hand, we are treated to the bigoted implication that believing in Allah and Muhammad counts as ‘fifth column’ membership.  Both approaches are cowardly populist; both are terribly wrong; worse – both are pathetically unhelpful.

No, we can’t start accusing or suspecting everyone who embraces Islam as his/her religion; or even as his/her main identity.  But neither should we stick our heads in the ground, close our eyes to reality and plug our ears with politically-correct cotton wool, denying that a certain strand of Islam has everything to do with terrorism.

There will never be a shortage of imbeciles eager to find excuses and to ‘explain away’ terrorism.  Yes, the West has made war in Iraq and Afghanistan; but then, Russia is making war in Ukraine – and yet Ukrainians don't blow themselves up in Moscow’s stadiums or in Sankt Petersburg’s concert halls.  Yes, Western colonialists have left a lousy legacy in the Middle East; but they did worse, much worse elsewhere.  Indians don’t try to blow up the Wembley Stadium.  Armenians don’t murder patrons in Istanbul’s restaurants and Israeli Jews don’t fly airplanes into Frankfurt’s office buildings.

There’ll also be bigots who will point to passages from the Qur’an and claim that there’s something inherently violent in Islam.  But I can equally quote passages from the Torah and from the New Testament that would seem to incite to violence.  What about the injunction to “blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven”?  And didn’t Jesus say “I came not to send peace, but the sword”?  Oh, and I can find for you Qur’anic verses praising peace – just like one finds in every scripture.

No, Islam is not a religion of peace; nor is it a religion of war.  Religions aren’t ‘of’ anything; people are.  There is no denying that acts of terrorism are currently more likely to be committed in the name of Islam than in the name of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or Shintoism.  If a suicide bomber detonates himself tomorrow, it is more likely that he’ll be called Muhammad, rather than Paul, Moshe or Jitendra.  That is a fact.  Most Muslims are not radicals; it's just that there are more radicals among Muslims.

But why?  Islam is not fundamentally different from Christianity or Judaism.  It is just younger, much younger.  It appeared on the grand scene of history about 14 centuries ago.  Christianity is considerably older – more than 2000 years; Judaism is ancient.  Age is of consequence: religions (like all human endeavours) have a life of their own.  Just like human beings.  Youngsters are more impetuous; more impulsive; less patient and less tolerant.  Thankfully, they mellow as they grow old.  So do religions.  Want to understand radical Islam?  Violent Jihad?  Think 14th century Christianity, with its crusades and Inquisition.

In 14th century Europe, religion pervaded every aspect of human life; so it does these days in most parts of the Middle East.  14th century Europeans may have called themselves ‘French’, ‘German’ or ‘English’; but their primary identity was ‘Christians’.  Just as these days hundreds of millions of people will tell you that they define themselves first and foremost as ‘Muslims’.

Jihadis are nothing more – and nothing less, and nothing else – than the ‘modern’, Muslim version of medieval Crusaders.  They may be armed with assault rifles and grenades, rather than swords and maces; but they are just as blood-thirsty; just as self-righteous; just as ready to achieve martyrdom and earn their ticket to heaven.  Are you still wondering why they behead people?

OK, you’ll say; that may well be so, but how does this help?  Will we have to endure centuries of Jihad?  Well, not necessarily.  Things have changed somewhat from the real 14th century.

Think about it: why did so many people (not just kings and knights, but simple peasants and tradesmen) leave behind their homesteads, their families, their lives – to make war on the infidels?  To kill, maim, pillage and rape?  No, Popes did not use Twitter to stir up trouble – not in those times.  They used preachers.  That has not changed: it is still the preachers of hate that brainwash people into becoming butchers.

Wanna deal with Jihadi terrorism?  You can try to track all the tens of thousands that have already been radicalised – and the millions that will be; or you can go after a few thousand hate preachers. Those preachers may not practice violence themselves; but they kill, maim, pillage and rape – however indirectly.  Jail them if you can; kill them if you have to; or just prevent their odious message from reaching its target.  That means tighter border controls.  It means closing websites, monitoring social media, controlling school activities, raiding mosques, banning radical madrassahs.  If that implies changing our laws, so they protect the tolerant, rather than tolerating the bigot – then so be it; if it means making law enforcement more intrusive, then that’s a price we’ll have to pay, for our safety and that of our children.  Make no mistake: it’s the price we’ll have to pay to maintain rule of law; to avoid rule of the mob.  There will have to be limits to freedom: your freedom must end where you want to take away mine.

That won’t stop tomorrow’s terrorist attack; it won’t provide an instant solution.  But, in time, it will choke the flow of hatred.

The Torah says “I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, so that you and your offspring will live”.  I’m sure the Qur’an won’t disagree.

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to ‘Comprehensible Terrorism’

Much (and much junk!) has already been written about the most recent wave of terrorism that shook Israel.  While random Israeli Jews were being stabbed and shot in the street, much of the Western media was busy, as usual, trying to put a ‘pro-Palestinian’ spin on the ‘story’.  This tendency manifested itself, among other things, in a keen effort to discover ‘reasons’ for terrorism.  That in itself may not be a bad idea; but for so many of today’s lazy, talent-less and politically regimented ‘journalists’, the term ‘discover’ does not mean ‘investigate’, but rather ‘speculate’.  To Israeli ears, such attempts to present ‘reasons’ sound very much like finding justifications for terrorism.

Stephen Sackur

That’s what Yair Lapid – a former Finance Minister who now leads one of Israel’s opposition parties – told BBC presenter Stephen Sackur, who was interviewing him for a programme entitled HARDTalk.  Sackur had said:

“The Palestinians are quite clear, as Mahmoud Abbas has said, ‘we are living’, he says, ‘under unbearable conditions’.  And when that is the case, you get the kind of desperation, particularly among nihilistic young people, who see no future, that results in violence on your streets.”

After Lapid accused him of justifying terrorism, Sackur countered:

“You use the word ‘justification’; I never used that word.  I’m trying to place what is happening in a context, trying to maybe explain it, not justify it.”

Sounds logical, doesn’t it?  He wasn’t justifying terrorism; just placing it in context, ‘explaining’ it.  Nothing wrong with that, surely?  Well, two things are very wrong with that, actually.

Firstly, such valiant attempts to use European logic in order to ‘explain’ Middle Eastern terrorism are only ever made when Israelis are its victims.  Mr. Sackur would not use a similar ‘logic’ to ‘explain’ 9/11, or 7/7.  When Muslim terrorists killed a random British soldier outside his barracks, no one at BBC ‘explained’ the act as “desperation, particularly among nihilistic young people, who see no future…”

Secondly, even assuming that ‘context’ and ‘explanations’ are necessary, why is it that, when Israel is involved (and only when Israel is involved) a particular ‘context’ is chosen, a particular ‘explanation’ is embraced as self-evident, with no attempt to actually investigate the reasons?  Where does such ‘explanation’ come from?  Mr. Sackur tells us in so many words: it comes from Mahmoud Abbas.  But is Abbas a credible source?  “The Palestinians are quite clear”, says Sackur.  Really, are they??  Who speaks for “The Palestinians”?  Abbas has become president 10 years ago, ‘winning’ stitched-up elections; there were no presidential elections since then.  The latest parliamentary elections (2006) were won by Hamas – Abbas’s arch-rivals.  Mahmoud Abbas speaks for the Palestinians just as Bashar Assad speaks for the Syrians.

Name: Jeremy Bowen; Occupation: anti-Israel militant masquerading as BBC's Middle East Editor 

Yet Sackur is not the only Western journalist adopting such irrational ‘reasoning’.  He is not even the only one at BBC.  Beeb’s Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen is also fond of ‘context’ and ‘explanations’ – when it comes to terrorism directed against Israel:

“Violence does not come out of the blue. It has a context. Once again, the problem is the unresolved conflict between Palestinians and Jews. It is at the heart of all the violence that shakes this city.

A big part of the conflict is the military occupation of the Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, that has lasted for nearly 50 years. It is impossible to ignore the effects of an occupation that is always coercive and can be brutal.

In successive Palestinian generations, it has created hopelessness and hatred. In some cases, that bursts out into murderous anger. Jerusalem this week is crackling with tension and hate, directed by both sides at each other.”

Again, if violence always has ‘a context’, then perhaps Mr Bowen should explain what was the ‘context’ of 9/11 and 7/7?  What ‘unresolved conflict’, what ‘coercive and brutal occupation’ caused that burst of ‘murderous anger’?  And, if that’s the ‘logic’ that he chooses to apply, shouldn’t the despicable murder of Drummer Lee Rigby be ‘explained’ as a consequence of the ‘coercive and brutal occupation’ of Iraq and Afghanistan – Muslim lands situated thousands of miles from British shores?

Karl Vick of Time Magazine: the face of Western comprehension 

It seems to me, however, that the award for The Most Stupid Comment in Years belongs by rights to Time Magazine’s Karl Vick.  After blaming the terrorist attacks on Israeli-induced Palestinian hopelessness, including of course an obligatory quote from Mahmoud Abbas, Vick calls Israel and ‘the Palestinian territories’

“the one part of the Middle East where the source of strife is comprehensible to Westerners: the aspiration–on the part of both sides–for a national home.”

The Middle East, of course, has no lack of conflicts: it’s Muslims against Christians, Muslims against Yazidis, Sunnis against Shi’a, Alawis against Sunnis, Kurds against Arabs, Turks against Kurds, Persians against Arabs, etc. etc.  All that, Mr. Vick confesses, is incomprehensible to the Western brain; the one conflict that is different is that between Arabs and Jews.  Why?  ‘Coz when it comes to Jews, Arabs only want a national home.

Given Karl Vick’s admirable comprehension of that 100-years-old conflict, I thought I’d ask him a simple question; one that none of the oh-so-knowledgeable Western journalists has yet asked: where are the Christians?

No, I don’t mean the hundreds of thousands of Christians that have been persecuted out of the Middle East; we know where they are.  What I mean is: why aren’t there any Christians among the terrorists?

Christians account for circa 2.5% of West Bank’s Arab population (they were 4% only a few years ago and circa 10% in 1948 – as they still are among Arab Israelis).  Yet none of the terrorists involved in the recent wave of attacks was a Christian.  And if you think that the number of those attackers is too small for reliable statistics, here is another fact: since 1993, circa 200 Arab Palestinians have blown themselves up in attempts to kill Jews; yet none of them was a Christian.

It’s not that Christians are uninvolved in the ‘Palestinian national struggle’.  They pay their dues.  God (or Allah) help them if they don’t!  Under the loving ‘guidance’ of their Muslim ‘brothers’, Christian ‘spiritual leaders’ (whose flock is increasingly fleeing that same tight ‘guidance’) lambast Israel at every possible opportunity, including appeals to foreign coreligionists to boycott the Jewish state out of existence.  Yet no Palestinian Christian has been involved – for decades now – in a serious terrorist attack against Jews.

This is understandable if, as Israelis assert, such acts of terrorism are the result of religious extremism, just as they are in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan and many other places.  But if, as Messrs. Sackur, Bowen, Vick and numerous other Western 'useful idiots' seem to believe, Palestinian terrorism is an expression of ‘desperation’ and frustrated ‘national aspirations’, then let them explain what makes Palestinian Christians less ‘desperate’; or why are Christians (who, historically, have been the flag-bearers of Arab nationalism) less keen to express their longing for a ‘national home’ – by stabbing, shooting or blowing up a few Jews.

Oh, he's just a bit frustrated...  It's because of the occupation... and the settlements...

It is Islamist fanaticism that begets stabbings, beheadings, suicide bombings and plane crashing all over the globe – from New York to London, from Madrid to Bali, from Moscow to Kunming, from Baghdad to Damascus and in many, many other places.  Not in Jerusalem, though – in that place terrorists are not Muslim extremists, but nice people who want a ‘national home’ and just got… well, a bit impatient waiting for it.  Welcome to Vick’s Planet!

Imagine... Gaza

Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one…
               (John Lennon)

I’d like to think I’m a sober pragmatist – I rarely indulge in flights of fancy.  Yet sometimes one has to pause, disconnect for just a few brief moments from the grim reality and imagine what could have been…  Call it a learning exercise.

Almost exactly 10 years ago, an Israeli government (one that much of the world viewed as ‘right-wing’ and ‘hawkish’) implemented the country’s ‘disengagement’ from the Gaza Strip.  That euphemism was used to describe a complete withdrawal: every single Israeli soldier was pulled out of the Strip; every ‘Jewish settler’ was evicted (occasionally by force); every ‘illegal Israeli settlement’ in the Strip was evacuated – even the dead Jews were dug up and moved to the Israeli side of ‘the 1967 border’.  As a token of further intentions, four ‘settlements’ in the West Bank were also dismantled.

It could have been, it should have been a momentous change: for the first time ever, Palestinian Arabs gained not just complete control over territory – but also freedom of movement: the Agreement on Movement and Access (concluded in November 2005 between Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the European Union) opened the Rafah Crossing, allowing Palestinian Arabs to travel freely between Gaza and Egypt, with only European – not Israeli! – supervision.  The Agreement also opened the Karni Crossing between Israel and Gaza to non-military exports and imports; it provided a ‘safe passage’ allowing Palestinian Arabs to travel between the West Bank and Gaza, crossing Israeli territory; it authorised the construction of a seaport in Gaza and initiated negotiations towards the building of an airport in the Strip.

Just a few months later – uniquely in the entire Arab World – Palestinian Arabs voted in free elections.  Amazingly given the bitterness of the conflict, Israel cooperated – enabling even residents of East Jerusalem to vote in the Palestinian elections.

It was exactly what the ‘international community’ had been asking Israel to do: concede ‘land for peace’; courageously assume risks by allowing ‘the enemy’ freedom of operation; take a bold step towards ‘the two-state solution’.

The rest is, of course, history: as is often the case in the Middle East, concessions were interpreted as signs of weakness, rather than desire for peace; they were met with harsher demands, rather than generous gestures in return; they emboldened additional extremism, rather than empowering the moderates.  To the great surprise of hapless Western supporters of ‘the Palestinian People’s right to self-determination’, the electorate in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusatook the power away from the ‘nationalist’ Fatah and handed it to Islamist Hamas – the local branch of the pan-Islamic organisation Muslim Brotherhood.

Hamas’s first ‘act of government’ was to repudiate the Agreement on Movement and Access, kick out the European supervisors and use its control of the border to smuggle in weaponry.  It used that weaponry to wrestle complete power from the rival Fatah and to subject Israeli towns and villages to a bombardment with mortar shells and ever-more-sophisticated rockets.  With Gaza Strip officially ‘enemy territory’, Israel declared a military blockade, a war tactic which interdicts the movement of people and all but essential goods.

Brainwashed Westerners usually describe Gaza Strip as ‘tiny and overcrowded’.  It is actually larger than European Union member state Malta; it is somewhat smaller but definitely less crowded than Singapore and Hong Kong…  But that is where any similarities end.

No, this is not Gaza City...  It's 'overcrowded' Singapore.

Ten years after the ‘disengagement’, Gaza remains yet another sore point in the Middle East.  Although movement restrictions for people and goods have been relaxed somewhat, they are still in place, driven by war and fear, rather than peace and hope.  There may be an affluent middle class in Gaza – but there is also huge unemployment; one may find markets abundant in products, but also lots of abject poverty…

Under the rule of Hamas and with the 'kind collaboration' of a few other terrorist organisation, the territory produces a more-or-less constant ‘drizzle’ of missiles which hit Israeli territory, disrupting, threatening and occasionally destroying life; whenever the ‘drizzle’ turns into a ‘rain’, Israel has to resort to military operations which – despite unprecedented precautions – cause death and injury also among innocents.  To most Israelis, ‘land for peace’ is these days a bitter joke; the belief in ‘two states for two peoples’ has made room to a fierce ‘us or them’ determination.

A by-now routine tweet from the Police Commissioner: another murder attempt
disguised as 'resistance' to 'occupiers in absentia'.

But it did not have to be like this.  Imagine…  Imagine an alternative history in which the ‘liberated’ Gazans cease to attack Israel, choosing instead to focus on developing their now un-occupied, ‘settler-free’ territory.  There is no denying their diligence and skill: imagine that the efforts put into digging hundreds of miles of smuggling and terror tunnels were used instead to build hundreds of miles of roads, of water conduits, of sewage pipelines.  Imagine that all that wealth of intelligence, creativity, passion and determination were placed in the service of happiness and life, rather than hatred and death.

Imagine that, instead of trading fire with Israel, Gaza traded goods: how many Israeli entrepreneurs would have leaped  to take advantage of that new opportunity?  Imagine scores of ships docking in Gaza Harbour and dozens of airplanes taking off from the newly-built Gaza International Airport.  Imagine European kids traveling to Gaza to get a tan on its golden beaches, rather than fraternise with terrorists.

And imagine Israel alongside this peaceful, stable, prosperous Gaza: who – other than perhaps a handful of fanatics – would not trade land to extend such permanent bliss to the West Bank?  How many Jewish mothers would choose to cling to a few more square miles of land, rather than ensuring peace, quiet and happiness for their children?

Imagine Gaza, in an alternative 2015: a positive model for the entire Middle East, rather than an epitome of violence and misery.

Imagine…  Yes, imagine.  Perhaps that is what’s lacking in the Middle East: a bit of imagination.

A tale of two systems: general elections in UK and Israel

A few months ago, I was invited to make a presentation on some ‘hot’ political topic in the West Midlands, in front of an audience made up of local Labour Party activists.  During the Q & A session that followed, I happened to mention the concept of ‘democracy’.  One of the participants intervened: “The question is”, he pompously intoned, gazing down at me along his nose, “what is democracy, actually?  We cannot impose our Western views on other people.  What we see as democracy, other nations may see as something else – and the other way around”.

Whether born of sheer ignorance or moral relativism, such thinking (or lack thereof) is not uncommon among activists, journalists, politicians and even professional diplomats.

Take, for instance, the opinion of Andrew Green, a former British Ambassador who represented his country in Syria and Saudi Arabia.  In a Telegraph article entitled ‘Why Western democracy can never work in the Middle East’, Mr. Green states:

“Democracy is emphatically not the solution for extremely complex societies and Western meddling only makes matters immeasurably worse. The fundamental reason for our failure is that democracy, as we understand it, simply doesn’t work in Middle Eastern countries where family, tribe, sect and personal friendships trump the apparatus of the state. These are certainly not societies governed by the rule of law. On the contrary, they are better described as ‘favour for favour’ societies.”

To paraphrase Mr. Green, I would suggest that “The fundamental reason for our failure is the stupidity of our diplomats”.  To even use the term ‘Western democracy’ denotes ignorance; the rest of Mr. Green’s peroration is suffused with the falsely-tolerant but actually supremacist idea that cultural issues are either immutable or taboo.  Let me suggest to Mr. Green that the reason why in some countries “family, tribe, sect and personal friendships trump the apparatus of the state” is that that “apparatus” represents an artificial state, one that is not based on any true form of identity, such as national or religious identity.  Such artificial ‘states’ have been created by Mr. Green’s ‘imperial’ predecessors and are being ruled (‘oppressed’ may be a better description) by local despots with the ‘benevolent’ complicity of Mr. Green’s colleagues and bosses.

There is no such thing as ‘Western democracy’.  There is liberal democracy – a political system that may have originated in the West (although, unlike democracy, ‘West’ is a relative term), but that is equally suitable to nations vastly dissimilar in terms of society and culture.  Liberal democracy works in Asian Japan just as well as in the United States of America.  It works in European France and Middle Eastern Israel.  Germany’s Western European culture did not stop it from becoming a Nazi state in the 1930s; North and South Korea are home to the same Asian nation, yet one is a liberal democracy – the other an autocratic inferno; China may still be described as a “favour for favour society”, but liberal democracy rules culturally akin Taiwan.

Inane journalists often reduce ‘liberal democracy’ to the much-much narrower concept of ‘free elections’.  The BBC, for instance, informs its audience (‘misinforms’ would be a better description) that

“Mohammed Morsi was Egypt's first democratically elected president…”

Needless to say, while Egypt may have experienced one round of (almost) free elections, Morsi could not have been ‘democratically elected’, because the country does not have the basic infrastructure of a democracy: freedom of press, freedom of speech, expression and dissent, a healthy public debate, etc.

Had the West Midlands Labour Party activist been forced to live for a few months under a dictatorial regime, he would have developed a better understanding of what democracy actually is.  Had BBC journalists been forced out of their five-star hotels and forced to live like most Egyptians, they would have understood that there is nothing ‘democratic’ in that country.

But while politicians, diplomats and journalists wallow in intellectual paucity and moral relativism, the good news is that liberal democracy survives and flourishes.  Because, while people on the street may have difficulty in defining it in academic terms, they understand and appreciate its blessings; honest, down-to-earth street smarts easily beat vacuous Etonian and Oxbridgean arrogance.

It is heartening to see, therefore, that within the space of just a couple of months, truly democratic elections have taken place in two liberal democracies, on two different continents: Israel and the United Kingdom.  And it is not just that elections have taken place; in true democratic fashion, they have taken place after intense – sometimes to the point of stridency – public debate.  And in both countries – again in true democratic fashion – the losers have neither declared a coup, nor have they been imprisoned by the winners; rather, they have more-or-less graciously admitted defeat, while vowing to continue – as democratic opposition – to provide checks and balances on the winners’ power.

Israel and the UK have very different electoral systems: the United Kingdom is divided in electoral wards (constituencies) – each electing a Member of Parliament from among several candidates.  The winner is the recipient of most votes, irrespective of whether s/he achieved an absolute majority (the ‘first past the post’ system).  The Israeli system is a purely proportional one: it views the entire country (Israel is almost exactly the size of Wales) as a single constituency, whose inhabitants vote for one of several political parties.  The number of Members of Parliament elected from each party is in direct proportion to the number of votes received (i.e. a party that received 10% of the votes will have 10% of the seats in Parliament).  Each system has advantages and disadvantages; but whatever the technicalities, both give suitable expression to the collective will of the people.

In both countries, that collective will has this time favoured the incumbents.  In both countries, the winners belong to what I’d call the Sane Right, as opposed to the Sane Left who came out as the main losers.  In both Israel and the UK the media and pollsters (who, in both countries, typically lean left) allowed wishful thinking to taint their professional judgment – and as a result issued erroneous predictions.  The difference between the two electoral systems produced a governing party in the UK, but a coalition government in Israel.  Crucially, however, in both countries democratic rule will continue unabated.

Not everybody accepted the electoral verdict, of course.  In the UK, ‘protesters’ belonging to the extreme-left Socialist Workers Party ‘laid siege on Downing Street’ and clashed with the police, intent on ridding the country of the ‘F*****g Tory scum’.  In Israel, a host of ‘NGOs’ is in continuous ‘protest’ against the country’s democratically expressed will.  Like the British ones, most Israeli ‘protesters’ identify with what I call ‘Red Mad’: the extreme-left communist/anarchist/’just-gimme-a-cause’-ist fringe of the society.  In both countries, the ‘Red Mad’ hope is that ideology will trump democracy; having failed at persuasion, these people attempt coercion.  But that’s where the similarity stops: lame as they may be, the British ‘protesters’ are at least an internal phenomenon, rather than a foreign intervention; far-left extremists are not funded by Israel, nor supported by the United States; Israeli media shows little interest in their ideologically-skewed utterings.  Not so with the Israeli ‘protesters’: these ‘Non-Governmental Organisations’ (Foreign-Sponsored Subversion Agencies or FSSA would be a better descriptor) are typically funded by foreign governments, either directly or through other NGOs; and they are the ‘darlings’ of mainstream media, which showers them with attention massively disproportionate to their weight within the Israeli public opinion.

Unwittingly, undemocratically and unbeknownst to most British taxpayers who foot the bill (but under the advice of Mr. Green’s ilk of Middle East ‘experts’), the United Kingdom is, sadly, among the countries fomenting sedition in a fellow liberal democracy.  In that respect, it is not just the Israeli democracy that is undermined, but also the British one.  After all, democracy implies transparency and majority rule; but in allowing part of its foreign policy to be underhandedly hijacked by a militant minority, the United Kingdom deviates from both those principles.

In a future article, we will analyse the issue in detail.  Watch this space!

The Audacity of Hoax: the real story behind the ‘Iran nuclear deal’

Have you by any chance read the framework agreement recently signed by Iran and six world powers?  No?  Of course you didn't – no  agreement was signed.  True, after missing the original deadline, the negotiators did show up with exhausted-but-triumphant facial expressions, slapping each other on the back like NBA players that just scored a slam dunk.  But there was no slam dunk at all: the negotiations had only produced an agreement… to agree.

Years and a small fortune – nay, make that a laaarge fortune to you and me – have been spent; ministers have neglected their other duties, to pursue all-important nuclear negotiations; and all they have to show for all that is... a verbal agreement???  One that the parties already ‘remember’ in at least three different, conflicting ways?  Now, think hard: when was the last time a grave international dispute was resolved through a verbal agreement?  International treaties are long, carefully worded legal documents, signed with ceremony by leaders and ratified by parliaments.  A verbal agreement?  Seriously???

Folks, we are being taken for a ride; they’re playing us for fools, with ‘fact-sheets’ meant only to hide the ‘agreement’s’ blatant non-existence; its being but a figment of deceitful minds.  In reality, after months and years of negotiations – there is no agreement; nothing beyond a loose, vague, reversible, oral ‘understanding’ on some bare-bones ‘principles’.  That’s a truth politicians thought best to keep from us, ordinary Joes.  What a brazen hoax!  What incredible chutzpah!  How they mock our honesty, our genuine trust!

And it’s not just sordid politicians, these mollusks who make a living (and a good one, too!) from falsehood and deceit; it’s also regimented ‘journalists’, the politicians’ intellectual prostitutes; those swiftly mobilised to prop up the fraud.  Take, for instance, Time Magazine’s Joe Klein: he has already produced at least two 'articles' – two shameless pieces of Soviet-style propaganda – praising the verbal ‘framework’ (which he dubs, of course, ‘the agreement’ or ‘the deal’) as the best thing since sliced bread.  Just in case someone should doubt his ‘expertise’ in Middle Eastern affairs, Klein starts by brandishing his ‘Jewish’ credentials, informing readers that he’s just celebrated Passover Seder with his friend Ramin

"an Iranian leprechaun, if such a thing is possible – born a Muslim but converted to Judaism…"

Needless to say, the personal opinion of this starry-eyed ‘Iranian leprechaun’ (who, we are informed, “does favor regime change, but through peaceful means”) is harnessed to serve Klein’s ‘argument’ – or rather is employed in-lieu of an argument.  After all, as a mercenary pen-wielder, Klein’s ‘conclusions’ are pre-determined by ideological fixations.  So why bother to perform research or interview some genuine authority?  Much easier to pen an article based on casual conversations with friends over chicken soup and matzo balls!

Joe Klein, the 'resident Jew' in charge of propaganda

Despite his a priori enthusiasm for ‘the deal’, Klein does mention in passing a certain Mohammad Reza Naqdi; who, as the negotiators were still backslapping, declared that for the Islamic Republic of Iran “erasing Israel off the map” is “non-negotiable”.  Naqdi is neither a leprechaun nor one of Klein’s bohemian friends; he’s a much more prosaic (but much, much, much more influential) General and senior commander in the powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guard – a vital power base of the ayatollahs’ regime.  But don’t expect Klein to assign any importance at all to Naqdi’s genocidal threat.  In fact, the journo only mentioned Naqdi so he could take another swipe at Benjamin Netanyahu; no doubt, because the latter chose to react to the Iranian general’s spittle – and not by pretending it’s rain.  Of course, Netanyahu isn't necessarily right; the point is, however, that he has the right: his own family is on the line, within striking distance of Revolutionary Guard’s ballistic (and potentially nuclear) missiles.  If it’s Klein who got it wrong, the only personal pain he’s likely to feel is that caused by his own haemorrhoids, gingerly seated in a soft armchair in Midtown Manhattan.

So what’s gonna happen now?  Well, not much: they will continue to negotiate ‘the details’ of an as-yet non-existent agreement.  The new deadline is June 30.  But don’t worry – it will be extended, of course.  After all, the old deadline (March 31, the ‘deadline’ for the ‘framework’ concocted on April 2!) was itself an extension of the extension…  Eventually, some sort of agreement may emerge; or the whole thing might just fizzle out, as the world’s attention turns to some other crisis.  Ukraine, perhaps; or Yemen; or South China Sea…

In truth, it makes no difference if an agreement is signed or not; it’s all the same if you judge it to be a good deal or a bad one; it does not matter whether, like Klein, you’re stupid enough to trust the ayatollahs’ regime to abide by any agreement.  In general, it makes absolutely no difference what you or I think; or what Klein thinks, or what Barack-effing-Obama thinks.  What really matters – the only thing that matters, folks – is what people in the Middle East think.  Not all people, of course, just those few people in power.  And we know what they think: not one of them trusts the ayatollahs; not one of them puts his faith in the likes of Obama, John Kerry and François Hollande.  And why would they?  Aren't these just foolish Westerners, weaklings who want to ‘lead from behind’?  Hasn't their ilk already allowed North Korea to get The Bomb?

Says Prince Turki Al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia’s main foreign policy spokesman:

"I've always said whatever comes out of these talks, we will want the same.  So if Iran has the ability to enrich uranium to whatever level, it's not just Saudi Arabia that's going to ask for that.  The whole world will be an open door to go that route without any inhibition, and that's my main objection to this..."

Obama re-assuring the (now dead and buried)
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia

The Saudi nuclear programme will of course be entirely peaceful.  Just like Iran (world’s fourth-largest reserves of crude oil) Saudi Arabia (world’s second largest) simply wants to produce a bit of atomic energy.  Which is why in March, just as the negotiators were hammering that Klein-acclaimed Iranian ‘framework’, the Saudis were quietly signing an agreement (a written agreement!) to purchase two South Korean nuclear reactors.  In total, the oil-drenched desert kingdom plans to build no less than 16 nuclear reactors.  All of them utterly peaceful, of course!  Egypt’s military rulers want an equally peaceful nuclear programme; which is why, in February, Egypt’s General-turned-President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi met Russia’s President-turned-Prime Minister-turned-President Vladimir Putin.  The two triumphantly announced an agreement to build a nuclear reactor in Egypt.  Doubtless, a few other Middle Eastern kings, sheikhs and presidents for life will follow the lead, using their oil wealth to buy themselves a bit of nuclear oomph.

Another good friend: former Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak

As for the rest of us, one day we will wake up to a Middle East (yes, the Middle East of sectarian beheadings and suicide bombings!) able to wage nuclear jihad.  A prospect that should send some mighty shivers down Western leaders’ spines.  If, that is, they were leaders; or had spines.

Angry Jews

Afraid?

Mainstream journalists are herd creatures: once one of them (finally) stumbles upon a juicy subject, expect a flurry of articles, all similar except – at best – for the blurb.  No wonder, then, that the last few months have brought us a large number of media items describing European Jews as afraid and contemplating immigration to Israel – for fear of their lives.

Thus, in an article entitled ‘Fear on Rise, Jews in France Weigh an Exit’, New York Times reports:

“French Jews, already feeling under siege by anti-Semitism, say the trauma of the terrorist attacks last week has left them scared, angry, unsure of their future in France and increasingly willing to consider conflict-torn Israel as a safer refuge.”

For its part, the BBC published an item so minuscule that we can reproduce it here in its entirety:

“Israel has said an increasing number of Jewish people are migrating to the country from France because of a rise in anti-Semitism.
Around 3,200 people left last year, a 63% jump when compared to 2012.
Christian Fraser reports from Paris.”

Mr. Fraser’s report, by the way, was initially entitled “French Jews 'afraid to be Jewish'“(yes, inverted quote marks in the original); but someone at the Beeb later changed it into “Anti-Semitism forcing Jews out of France, says Israel”.  Just in case the inverted quote marks in the original title left any doubt about BBC’s views.

Now, I have no idea who was the creative animal who wrote the first ‘Jews-are-afraid’ item.  But it’s easy to imagine how the rest of the herd (for instance, Mr. Fraser) produced their ‘reports’:

Journalist: With all this terrorism, are you concerned when your children go to school?  Are you worried for them?
Mrs. Lévy: Errr… mais oui, of course I’m worried-eh…
Journalist: And you are thinking about moving to Israel, don’t you?
Mrs. Lévy: Err… we due discuss it-eh sometimes…
Journalist: Excellent.  Sorry, I’ve got to go and write this up.  Thank you for your time.

One thing is clear.  Not because “Israel says”, but because it’s a statistical fact: the number of European Jews making Aliyah (i.e., immigrating to Israel) is on the increase.  50,000 French Jews are expected to arrive to Israel in the next few years.  The number of British ‘olim’ (new immigrants) are much smaller, but they increased by 20% in just one year.

It’s also a statistical fact that the number and severity of anti-Jewish incidents has sky-rocketed.  In France, Belgium and Denmark, Jews have been murdered for being Jews.  Nobody has been killed yet in the UK, but the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism has recently listed a number of very disturbing incidents:

•           The daubing of a swastika on the front door of a Jewish home in North West London;
•           Abuse of a rabbi by a group of youths whilst walking in North London including chants of “Free Palestine” and “F*** the Jews”;
•           Two attacks on the Somerton Road synagogue in Belfast;
•           Shouts of “baby murderers” at congregants attending synagogue in Liverpool, a sign displaying “child murderers” being fixed to the synagogue door in Kingston and a brick thrown through the window of the synagogue in Belfast;
•           Flowers with a card naming three children killed in Gaza, being left outside a prominent Jewish centre in North West London, deliberately in time for Jewish schoolchildren being collected from a summer scheme to see them. Police told people that there had been several similar incidents in the local area;
•           The hospitalisation of a rabbi who was beaten by four teens in an unprovoked attack in Gateshead.  [sic!  We are quoting here the language of the report ‘as is’; yet feelings of respect towards the English language compel us to point out that it was the beating, not the hospitalisation, that constituted the anti-Semitic incident!!]  Northumbria Police were investigating a racist tweet in connection with the incident which showed a picture of what was described as a Jewish primary school accompanied by the message: “This Jewish school in Gateshead cheered when the bombs fell in Palestine”;
•           Verbal abuse of a couple in Bradford in person and on a loudhailer when they politely declined to donate to a roadside collection for Gaza when driving through the town;
•           An attack on a visibly Jewish boy cycling in North London, who had a stone thrown at his head by a woman veiled in a niqab [i.e. (in plain English) the attempt by a Muslim woman to cause bodily harm to a child, because of his Jewish appearance];
•           A Nazi salute given to a visibly Orthodox Jewish individual whilst he was in his car at traffic lights in Glasgow;
•           A man at a party being asked “so, you like killing Palestinian children?” when taking off his hat to reveal a kippah [skullcap];
•           Emails sent to a Jewish organisation entitled “murder” and ending “we see why he [Hitler] did it”.

So, if one is a superficial journalist (and, let's face it, the vast majority of today’s journalists are) one concludes, based on the facts above, that Jews are leaving Europe and immigrating to Israel out of fear for their lives.  Reaching such conclusions is easy-peasy; but also very lazy; and, incidentally, very wrong.

Sure, Jews are worried; old Jews are concerned about the young ones; Jewish mothers are anxious for their children.  There’s nothing new in that; worrying is the Jewish national sport.  Jews may be afraid; but one thing they are not – they’re not stupid.  Despite the facile ‘discoveries’ of shallow journalists, it is not fear that makes Jews turn their backs on Europe.  After all, Jews have been killed not just in Toulouse, Brussels, Paris and Copenhagen, but also in Jerusalem, Haifa and Tel Aviv.  Murderous jihadists may be busy planning the next attack in Europe; but I seriously doubt that Hamas, Hizb’ullah and the Islamic Jihad are turning rockets into ploughs and mortar tubes into sewerage pipes.

European politicians and pundits just don’t get it: Jews are not leaving Europe in search of safety, but in search of dignity.  It’s not so much fear; it’s disappointment and anger.

The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry just doesn’t get it: it’s not ‘antisemitic incidents’ that’s the biggest problem; it’s antisemitism itself.  It’s the anti-Jewish prejudice that lurks in the deep, dark recesses of many a European’s mind and increasingly emerges under the ‘politically correct’ veil of ‘anti-Israel’ sentiment.

Much of the European citizenry just doesn’t get it: it’s not the extreme right; it’s not the extreme left.  It’s not even the jihadists – homegrown or imported – that Jews have come to resent; it’s the relentless seepage of anti-Semitic discourse into the mainstream that’s the real problem.  And the fact that that anti-Semitic discourse masquerades as ‘anti-Zionism’, ‘anti-Israelism’ and ‘humanitarian concern’ only adds insult to injury.  ‘Humanitarian concern’???  Even if every accusation flung at Israel were true, there would still be a hundred places more worthy of true humanitarian concern.  ‘Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism’ they say.  Really, isn’t it???  They boycott Israeli tomatoes, while selling weaponry to Saudi Arabia; they scream abuse at Israeli dance troops, but meekly fawn around medieval-minded sheikhs; they work themselves into a frenzy over Gaza, but aren't particularly bothered when a hundred times more people are killed in Syria.  ‘Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism’??  LOL, haters!  Forget the clumsily-veiled prejudice, the strident injustice, the stomach-turning hatred; it’s the insult to our intelligence that’s arguably the most annoying!

From the pages of ‘The Scotsman’ (the more mainstream newspapers can’t be bothered to print such things), Dani Garavelli explains:

“Though Glasgow City Council’s decision to fly the Palestinian flag after Israel launched Operation Protective Edge in the Gaza strip was politically motivated, the hurt it caused the Jewish community was visceral. […]

The community seems to have closed in on itself; people are increasingly reluctant to draw attention to their Jewishness or to engage in political debate. [...]

But those who are prepared to speak – albeit anonymously – report a dramatic change in the way Jews throughout Scotland feel about themselves and their country, so dramatic, in fact, that Being Jewish, a project undertaken by the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities (SCoJeC) in which a range of people were interviewed about their experiences, is being updated to take into account of shifting attitudes. One woman – Anna – who lives in a rural community, told the original interviewers Scotland was a 'darn good place to be a Jew'. Today, she feels marginalised and says her grown-up son has expressed a desire to move to Israel.

At the SCoJeC offices attached to the synagogue, director Ephraim Borowski, a mild-mannered man with a greying beard and a good line in self-deprecating humour, says Jewish people are upset not only by specific attacks but by what they see as a wider anti-Jewish narrative. […]

90 per cent of Scottish Jews have connections to Israel and more than 80 per cent describe themselves as Zionists. Borowski insists the term Zionist encompasses a wide spectrum of political opinion and that most Scottish Jews (around 75 per cent), including him, believe in a two-state solution. And yet some left-wing campaigners have called for Scotland to be Zionist-free.

'When you hear that, and realise it means forcing more than 80 per cent of Jews out of Scotland, you think: ‘Hang on. This person might not think of themselves as an antisemite in the sense of hating Jews for being Jews, but the fact is they are advocating a policy which is discriminatory in terms of the Equality Act.'

Just like the 1930s?

In the 1920s and early 1930s, many German anti-Semites claimed that they had
nothing against German Jews.  Their ire -- so they claimed -- was directed 'just' at
'Ostjuden', the 'uncouth' Eastern Jews fleeing persecution in Russia and Poland.

A poll of 2,230 British Jews found 56% felt that anti-Semitism now echoes the 1930s.  Politicians, pundits and activists protested; many found fault with the poll methodology; but whether it’s 56% or just 15%, that feeling should come as a shock.  How can ‘today’ be compared to ‘back then’?  Back then, a political party was coming to power, which had anti-Semitism as its official platform.  Today, every European political party touchingly declares its abhorrence of anti-Semitism.

'Save Gaza' demonstration in London

So is this just a typical Jewish exaggeration?  No, it isn’t.  Because one can argue with statistics and logical constructs; but one cannot, should not argue with feelings.  Especially the feelings of a people that is – to use a British understatement – not unfamiliar with persecution.  They do not need statistics – they feel things in their bones.

Tweets referring to the North-London Jewish neighbourhood of
Stamford Hill

Sure, there are many things that differentiate 2015 from 1930 (and perhaps the comparison is better made with the 1920s); yet there are also things that are eerily, disturbingly familiar.  Like mobs ‘protesting’ (in growing numbers and increasingly berserk fashion) against Jews; not ‘all Jews’, you understand, just ‘the bad Jews’ – the ‘murderous Zionists’ today, the ‘primitive Ostjuden’ back then.

The ‘good Jews’ will disagree, of course; they think they’ll be fine.  But then, they thought so ‘back then’, too…  Famous journalist I.F. Stone once reminisced:

“I followed the rise of Hitler very closely, beginning in twenty-nine and thirty. I remember one German-Jewish reader coming to me, about thirty-one or thirty-two. He said, ‘Why are you writing these editorials against Hitler? I got a letter from Germany that says he's only against Ostjuden [Eastern Jews]’”.

But to the vast majority of Jews, this division into ‘good Jews’ and ‘bad Jews’ sounds both familiar and typically anti-Semitic.  And the disappointment, the dismay and anger are all the more devastating because Western European Jews (just like the German Jews ‘back then’) felt well-integrated, accepted and accepting, an all-but-completely-assimilated part of their Western European nations.  They are now shocked to realise that the prejudice did not go away; it was just better hidden, waiting for a slightly more ‘politically correct’ outlet.

Not Jew-baiters – just Jewish state-baiters

On the Stop the War Coalition’s website, one Lindsey German (no relation to the actual Germans) declares:

“The protests are against Israel’s actions with regard to the Palestinians, not against Jews. They are against Zionism as an expansionist ideology…”

So that should be ok, shouldn’t it?  It’s not against Jews.  It’s just against the ‘bad Jews’.

But, as The Scotsman’s Dani Garavelli put it:

“Trying to separate the two [anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism] is complicated…”

And not just because

“more than 90 per cent of Scottish Jews have connections to Israel and more than 80 per cent describe themselves as Zionists.”

But because the love and longing for Zion is an integral, inseparable part of both the Jewish religion and the Jewish culture; of Judaism and Jewishness.  And even those Jews who are neither religiously observant, nor particularly attuned to Jewish cultural identity, even they find it hard to understand why Zionism is treated so differently in comparison with all other national emancipation movements.  Why is every other people entitled to a country of their own, while the Zionist desire for a State of the Jews is the object of so much hatred, scorn and venom?

Sure, as Ms. Lindsey German hurries to mention, there are also ‘good Jews’:

“There are many Jews who define themselves as anti-Zionist…”

Well, precisely, Ms. German: they define themselves as anti-Zionists; and that is, typically, the only context in which they remember their Jewishness.

Ms. Lindsay German just doesn’t get it: Jews – not those accidentally born from a Jewish mother, but those who feel and identify themselves as Jews – cannot give up Israel and Zionism and remain Jews; it is an inextricable part of our very identity.  It’s not a political ideology you’re talking about, it’s the lifeblood of a culture.

I consider myself a secular Jew; religion is a very small part of my life.  Yet every other Friday evening I join my small community for a Shabbat service.  Faces and thoughts turned towards Jerusalem, we read together from the prayer book, in a cacophony of loud and whispering voices, old and young:

“Our God and God of our fathers, we are all Israel.  In Your service we have become old in experience and young in hope.  We carry both in the deepest places of our hearts and minds.  On this Sabbath day we turn to You with eyes newly open, with hope re-awakened, shrugging off the layers of worry and doubt that have closed upon us.
We are all Israel, created by Your promise, holy by Your word, wise through Your Torah, righteous through Your commands, renewed by the Sabbath of Your rest.”

We then supplicate:

“Spread over us the covering of Your peace, guide us with Your good counsel and save us for the sake of Your name.  Be a shield about us, turning away every enemy, disease, violence, hunger and sorrow.  […]  Blessed are You Lord, who spreads the shelter of peace over us, over His people Israel and over all the world.”

And plead:

“Lord Our God, be pleased with Your people Israel and listen to their prayers.  In Your great mercy, delight in us, so that Your presence may rest upon Zion.  Our eyes look forward to Your return to Zion in mercy!  Blessed are You Lord, who restores His presence to Zion”.

After which, satisfied with our spiritual endeavours, we engage in a bit of mundane small-talk, telling each other, among other things, about our son in Haifa, our daughter in Bat Yam, our parents in Ashqelon and our cousins in Tel Aviv; or about our latest visit to Jerusalem.  We eat Israeli dates, dip big chunks of Israeli-style pitta in Israeli hummus and praise the rising quality of Israeli wines.

Ms. Lindsey German just doesn’t get it: Jews – not those accidentally born from a Jewish mother, but those who feel and identify themselves as Jews – cannot give up Israel and remain Jews; it would be easier to get Muslims to give up Mecca!

Just Jews

Mainstream journalists are herd creatures; but a few, cleverer, less lazy and more honest than their colleagues, actually retain a propensity to think, a desire to understand.  Those few journalists realise that Jews are not so much afraid – they are deeply offended; they do not flee Europe in fear – they turn their backs on it in disgust.  Dani Garavelli reports:

“Many Jews in Scotland say that as soon as they admit to being Jewish, they face aggressive questioning and accusations over their position on Israel. ‘I work with very left-wing people and it’s really uncomfortable,’ says Louise. ‘During the summer, I found it hard to go to work; for a long time I couldn’t even go into the canteen because people would make comments.’ […] 

Yiftah Curiel, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in London, suggested Glasgow University had failed to uphold freedom of speech after a talk he was giving was halted by rowdy demonstrators.  

Nicola Livingston, chair of the Jewish Student Chaplaincy, says that […] political demonstrations against Israeli speakers breed a climate of “permissiveness” where antisemitic comments are seen as more acceptable.

Nick Henderson, who was brought up a ‘culturally assimilated western secular Jew’ in Glasgow, was so affected by his negative experiences at Dundee University and elsewhere, he left Scotland for Israel. In a piece he wrote for the Times of Israel last week, he told how his involvement with left-wing politics ended when he overheard campaigners “joking” that “if only all the Jews had been murdered in the Holocaust, there would be no Israel and they wouldn’t have to keep going to anti-Israel rallies all the time”.  After he left university, Henderson started a job in a charity shop but says he was forced out when his boss said she couldn’t employ anyone who didn’t understand the oppression of Palestinians. Henderson had few links to Israel growing up but has now taken a Hebrew name and says he feels Israeli.  ‘Today, I don’t need to apologise for being Jewish. I don’t need to apologise for loving my country. I can sing songs on Shabbat as loud as I like, I can decorate my window with the blue and white flag. I can wear a Star of David necklace or a kippah if I want and not fear for my life,’ he writes.

Back in Giffnock, [director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities] Borowski says he believes other Scottish Jews may have ­already contemplated making the same journey. ‘They may not have booked 
the one-way ticket, but the idea will be there hovering in the back of their minds.’”

Gradually, other journalists might venture out of the lazy complacency of the heard.  So perhaps one of these days another journalist might interview our imaginary Mrs. Lévy, and this time take just a bit of interest in what she actually thinks:

Journalist: With all this terrorism, are you concerned when your children go to school?  Are you worried for them?
Mrs. Lévy: mais oui, of course I’m worried-eh…
Journalist: But do you think you’ll be less worried in Israel?
Mrs. Lévy: mais non, monsieur, I’m always worried.  My children’s surname is Lévy.  Wherever we live, they’ll be less safe than my neighbour’s children, whose name is Lévêque…  I worry, but we’re used to it…
Journalist: So why do you want to leave France?
Mrs. Lévy: Because, monsieur, you guys have hurt my feelings.  I thought my children are proud Jewish Frenchmen; then I understood that, at best, they’ll always be French Jews.  So I decided they are really just Jews.  Always have been, always will be.  Nobody can take that away from them…