GREAT BRITAIN – LESS CONCERNED NOW WITH FAIR PLAY THAN FAIR GAME?
The great thing about the British is not, as some may think, accepting that it is no longer great, in the sense that at one time one third of the world’s land surface was coloured pink on world maps to indicate British influence – from the Americas to Australasia, via Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, Palestine, most of sub-Saharan Africa, India (which included today’s Pakistan and Bangladesh), the Seychelles, Hong Kong and Singapore – protected by the world’s greatest institution, the Royal Navy, and that today it has little more than a few per cent of that, and even less global influence. No the greatness, until recently, has been the British idea of fair play.
In the context of fair play, the British could traditionally be counted upon to display integrity in all things and, in particular, to be even-handed. That is one reason why the courts, tribunals and lawyers of England and Wales handle large numbers of international disputes; and one manifestation of that integrity is that, when an English lawyer tells his client that he is preparing a bundle for the judge, he means of relevant documents and not ready money.
In the past week, however, the future prospects for the reliability of Great Britain in regard to fair play have been seriously undermined. This has been becoming clear for some time, in particular in the trade union movement, the universities and the British Medical Association (through is written organ, the British Medical Journal). BDS is welcomed with open arms in those environments, whilst Israeli speakers, politicians and academics, are not. What has catalyzed the process just now has been the exposure of naked anti-Semitism in the National Union of [university] Students and the Labour Party, Her Britannic Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.
The newly-elected President of the Students’ representative body, Ms Malia Bouattia, has a track record that would make Abu Mazen consider naming a street in Ramallah after her. This is not such a distant prospect for, whilst you might think that the headgirl of the students might be aged around 19, this one is an almost superannuated 29 year old. Nonetheless, she has been duly and constitutionally elected (as was Hitler, in 1933), and President she is, whether the student body likes it or not. Thankfully, it seems that not all do, and there are moves by Cambridge University students, amongst others, to dissociate from the national body. In her defence, Ms Bouattia claims that what she is on record as having said, to which some object, was not anti-Semitic, heaven forfend, but only anti-Zionist, so that, as she claims, her track record is unimpeachable.
You see the problem forming here: if you can get home on anti-Zionism, you have nothing to worry about, because it is a given that all criticism of Israel is, in and of itself and without more explanation, fully justified. Anti-Semitic also? Not proven.
Whilst Britain’s student body is important to the nation over the medium- to long-term, the opposition party in the Mother of Parliaments is important in the short term. Opposition today can mean government tomorrow. Whilst it would be reassuring to think that Sweden will remain the sole nakedly-aggressively anti-Israeli country in the West, that picture could change in a flash if, by some fluke, the British Labour party were to find itself caressing the levers of power. The reason for this pessimism is itself the result of a fluke, which removes any doubt that these things can happen, as we shall now see.
Following the resignation of the hapless leader of the Labour Party, the Jewish MP, Ed Milliband – a laughing-stock, but a fratricidal one, for he pipped to the post his more capable and telegenic brother, David, (pure Old Testament stuff, in case you hadn’t noticed) – for having lost the 2015 general election, there was an inevitable leadership contest. Milliband was succeeded by the utterly-unlikely Jeremy Corbyn, a career-long back-bencher, abstainer, revolutionary and a fully paid-up member of the awkward squad, so far as his party had been concerned. That a Trotskyite, who had for years openly sympathised, not to say fraternised, with Hamas and Hezbollah, could rise to a position of potential power was brought about by a Labour grass-roots revolt, should speak volumes as to how the grass-roots in Britain think about Israel (and Jews).
As an aside, it is worth noting that Corbyn could not have been elected leader had he not been pitched into the leadership race by (amongst 35 others) Mr Sadiq Khan MP. On May 5, Khan may well become Mayor of London, in the elections of that day. That would make him the most powerful Muslim in Europe. Not to worry. In his campaigning he claims to want to represent all Londoners, including the Jewish ones. And for so long as he has another election to fight, at least, that may well remain his position.
In the past few days, a predecessor to the London mayoralty, the former Leader of the Greater London Council (abolished by the Thatcher government which took his Marxist bait and spat it out, with him), one Ken Livingstone, a prominent member of the Labour Party and another fellow traveller of the Hamas/Hezbollah Axis, has whitewashed Hitler and damned Israel in one breath – and repeatedly in several others in media interviews. His claims are that Hitler had once supported Zionism, and that anti-Semitism was “not exactly the same” as racism. He distinguishes between hating Jews who live in Israel (OK) and those who live in Golders Green, London (not quite so OK).
A Labour Party enquiry into what is beginning to look like its endemic anti-Semitism (for there have been other recent manifestations and resignations – Livingstone’s is still awaited) has now been launched by party-leader, Corbyn. The nominated head of the inquiry is Ms Shami Chakrabati, whom British pundit, Ron Liddle, remarked is a member of a group of “agreeable people with civilised views, as they would see them, usually — although not always — public-school-educated, faux leftish and unelected”. How objective will be the results of the inquiry remains to be seen.
It might be thought that it would do some good if Ms Chakrabati’s inquiry first focused on who let the anti-Semitic cat out of the bag – or who, rather, loosed the dogs of the war against the Jews, sorry, Israel. I shall save them the trouble: It was none other than Corbyn himself, whose Hamas-Hezbollah associations gave the impression (correctly) that picking on Israel would be tolerated. From that, it was a short-step to venting about the Jews in general. Certainly Livingstone, during his series of media interviews last week could barely, if at all, distinguish between the two.
One is reminded of the observation of the late Sir Isaiah Berlin, one of the most revered Western philosophers of the twentieth century, that an anti-Semite is “some-one who hates Jews more than is absolutely necessary.” Anything less than that, as you appreciate, means you are not an anti-Semite – and “less” includes critics and criticism of Israel.
Now, it is not generally appreciated that criticism can be positive as well as negative. That means that you may, in a critique of Israel, note (by way of example) that it makes a massive contribution to the welfare of the world and, in per capita contributions, it stands head and shoulders above any other nation. For example, in terms of academic papers published, start-up companies, and engineers and scientists, no other nation on earth comes close on a per capita basis. That, you appreciate, is all positive criticism.
Whatever the outcome of the scrutiny of the intestines and inferior parts of the Labour Party, what Israel has to contend with now are claims that there is a difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. The former is presented as not quite the right way behave, old chap. The latter, criticism of Israel and Zionism (note the etymological overlap: na-zi-on, which obviously causes some mis-identification – almost amounting to miscegenation – in the minds of those who wish to see a connection between “nazi” and “zion”), is not only fully acceptable but also acceptable on the invariable basis that Israel, its policies and its actions are always and unchangeably wrong. No room there, as you see, for positive criticism.
There are even, amongst the critics, some British Jews who assert that there is a difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, so as, or so they think – and so it might be in the short run – to afford themselves a cloak of British respectability. By this means, they hope to maintain their comfortable seat in what was for many years a tolerant and fair society, and that it will remain so for those at least for those who are Jews, but not so Jew-ish as to be defenders of Israel.
Here, for example, is Lord (Danny) Finkelstein (no really, that is his proper moniker since he was “ennobled” in 2013), writing in The Times of London on April 29, last (with my emphasis):-
It isn’t antisemitic to be a critic of the policies of the state of Israel. No government should be immune from criticism, and Jews are often the first to be critical of Israeli policy. It isn’t even antisemitic, in my view, to believe that Israel should not have been formed.
Well, Danny boy, that is a personal view you would have done well to have kept within your bosom for, whilst you may think that by puffing out your chest with your non-Israeliness in your Jewishness you can be bosom pals with the Peers of the Realm, you should have the intelligence to know they may never feel quite the same way about you. In fact, that sort of cheap expression of empathy with the critics of Israel – pure appeasement to gain some breathing space under the avalanche of anti-Semitism mixed with anti- Zionism – with those whom you consider will think less of you if you show too little objectivity, will return to bite you in your nether regions, and sooner than you think. It may wash for a while to be seen to be impartially damning of Israel, but it is neither decorous nor loyal; and one’s enemies, especially one’s enemies, quickly identify and then despise disloyalty. In the end they will punish you for it – just the opposite of the outcome for which you sold your soul, and sold out your brethren.
Lord Finkelstein parades his Jewishness in his weekly column in The Times (with frequent references to his family, all of whom have names that Jacky Mason would call “too Jewish”, and his provenance from Europeans who survived the Holocaust, as if anyone cares about them), to the point of embarrassment for me, and who knows what reaction from his gentile readers. His alacrity last week, from his elevated positions on the red leather benches of the House of Lords and at the august British newspaper, at selling the very (how I resent having to refer to this expression) Right of Israel To Exist down the river, without getting in return even a mess of potage, gives gratuitous respectability and encouragement to all those from the Corbynistas, BDS, Malia Bouattia and the BMJ to Hamas, Hezbollah and Abu Mazen, to continue to do the same.
That leaves the British Jews in this unenviable position: too many of them, like Finkelstein, seek to distance themselves from Israel, in showing their worldliness, objectivity and impartiality. By this they hope for, as I say, a renewed period of quiet enjoyment of their British homes. In doing so, however, they weaken Israel’s position, and by that, as they will see in the fullness of time, they will have weakened their own.
This last observation will probably sooner rather than later dawn on those who have forgotten the real fear they experienced when Israel last had the chutzpah to refuse to lie down and die, which is what many would wish it to do. During the Israel/Hamas war called Operation Protective Edge in July 2014 (oh how short is their memory of bad times past!), fear was not so much abroad as very much at home for British Jews. That bilious sensation will return the next time that Israel gets fed up with accepting the sort of provocation that no other country would take for more than a scintilla of time.
How long do you think it would take the English to react forcefully should an independent Scotland fire rockets – rather a rocket – over Hadrian’s Wall (built by the Romans to keep the Scots out of England) or tunnel beneath it to kidnap English citizens or soldiers? Two heartbeats, or one? The SAS (read the UK’s Sayeret Matkal) would be recalled from Syria, Iraq and Libya, where London perceives its interests threatened (yes, really), and sent into Glasgow faster than you could say: “Hands off Gaza”. But Israel? That is deemed to be a different story.
The US, UK, France and Russia may kill unlimited, and certainly unknown, but undoubtedly several thousands of innocents in Da’esh-held Syria, without a single protester taking to the streets of London or Manchester; but 1,500 Gazans dying, whilst embedded amongst thousands of Hamas rockets and launchers, can be counted upon to cause major protests on British streets – and Jewish calculations on Jewish Excel spreadsheets to see what a home in London or Manchester, and its contents and the jewellery, will buy in Kfar Shemeryahu.
I have bad news for those British Jews who appease Israel’s critics: Israel will take more than any other country, but has its limits and will protect the Jews that it is OK for the Livingstonians to hate: those who live in Israel. When that happens, how will those inimical to British Jews differentiate the appeasers and apologists from those who insist on brazenly supporting Israel? Perhaps the apologists think that those other Jews, the recalcitrants, should wear a yellow star, whilst they, the apologists smear their doorposts with the blood of a Pascal lamb for added protection.
What those Jews who would like to place distance between themselves and Israel have done to Israel in the meantime is to allow, nay invite, Israel’s (perhaps very many but certainly very vocal) British critics to declare Israel fair game. Fair game rather than fair play, for all criticism of Israel is now deemed to be acceptable, and none of it will be either positive or fair.
Here are some further points of criticism of Israel I guarantee you will not be hearing from Britain anytime soon:-
- Whilst Europe has, for over forty years, funded Arab/Moslem terrorism against Israel (which gave it the aura of the common-place and quasi-respectability until it leaked, as it was eventually bound to, out of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv into Paris and Brussels), Israel has steadfastly maintained democracy and the rule of law.
- Israel, as such democratic society – and one which upon even perfunctory, let alone profound, examination is patently in no way an apartheid state – should not be expected to allow the formation of a neighbouring state that is committed to its destruction. Indeed, whilst a two-state solution is greatly to be desired, it is not unreasonable for Israel to expect a period of at least 15 years in which Palestinian children do not have it drummed into them that Jews are descended from pigs and apes, and all of them deserve to die, not of natural causes but at the hand of any Palestinian who can lay his hands on a Kalashnikov or a steak knife. (Further to this, see the coda below.)
These are the messages that British Jews, especially those who have high profiles, should be broadcasting. Speaking of broadcasting, the coat of arms of the BBC bears this motto: Nation shall speak truth unto Nation. Nation should speak truth unto its own people, too. Absent this, the very name Israel, not to mention Zionism, causes a visceral reaction in the breasts of many Britons, who now see they are licensed by politicians, journalists and pundits, including Jewish ones, to treat Israel as fair game.
Better-recognised writers than I have said that Israel should have a policy for the absorption of a million Jews from the UK, Europe and Ukraine. If the constituents of that million think there will be room for them all (or indeed many of them) in America, they should think again. Very few ballot places are available each year and not everyone can open a launderette in Los Angeles. Indeed, the idea that the Goldene Medina will always be comfortable for Jews is outdated, as is plain from demographic trends over the Pond. The default place for Jews is Israel. Nu! Some default, in what is now commonly-regarded as the world’s most successful economy, with the best lifestyle you can find and a state capable of taking care of itself and its citizens come what may.
Who would take care of Lord Finkelstein if the gates of the Garden of the Fitzi-Continis became the only ones open to him? He can relax. Despite his best contrary efforts, Israel will recognize his Right of Return.
Coda: From last week’s Times:
UK CHARITY ‘LINKED TO HAMAS STAB PLAY FOR CHILDREN’
Lucy Fisher, Senior Political Correspondent
April 29 2016, 1:01am, The Times
Footage of a Palestinian girl apparently miming violence against Jews in a children’s play was taken at a festival funded partly by Interpal, a British charity supported by Jeremy Corbyn, it was claimed yesterday.
The film, which showed a play allegedly staged during the Palestine Festival for Children and Education, was broadcast on Hamas TV last week. It showed a girl aged seven pretending to stab two boys dressed as Israeli soldiers, who pretend to shoot her in response.
Interpal gave £6,800 towards the festival, according to MailOnline. The Charity Commission is understood to be investigating the matter.
The Labour leader has spoken at Interpal fundraisers and appeared in a promotional video for the charity. Mr Corbyn’s office declined to comment last night on his support for the charity.
A spokesperson for Interpal said: “We did not support this particular play and did not have any involvement with it. Interpal deplores any activity involving children and violence.
“This play is totally contrary to our ethos, and our focus is on getting children away from the politics and trauma of occupation.”
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3cf1142c-0d83-11e6-9777-cb378ba09ac6
