Howard Epstein

HOWARD EPSTEIN: I VOTE OMSK SHOULD BE THE CAPITAL OF RUSSIA

By Howard Epstein

Posted on December 13, 2017

HOWARD EPSTEIN: I VOTE OMSK SHOULD BE THE CAPITAL OF RUSSIA

Apparently, in a fit of pique, Little Rocket Man has decided to recognise Chippenham as the capital of England and Ayers Rock as the capital of Australia. In a tit for tat, Theresa May says she regards Seoul, or whatever may soon be left of it, as the indivisible capital of a united, if somewhat over-energised, Korea and the Australians have followed suit. Ridiculous? No more than others dictating to Israel what they recognise as the seat of its government, political and administrative. As in the days of the British Mandate, and since the birth of the State of Israel on 15 May 1948, it is – like it or lump it – the same capital as the Jews had when London was, three thousand years ago (as Chaim Weizmann told British Prime Minister Arthur Balfour in January 1905), a swamp. Yerushalayim (or Jerusalem) is its name, as President Donald Trump acknowledged last week.

Given the rate at which sea level is rising, thanks to global warming, to which mankind, or bovine-kind, may or may not be making a material contribution), London will, well before the century is out, be a swamp again – if you can locate it under the swollen and girth-extended River Thames – whilst Jerusalem will remain, as it were, riding high. If by the time the Mediterranean starts to consume Marbella, Nice, Athens and Beirut, the will is found for the necessary level of international cooperation, not only Venice but also Tel Aviv can be saved, with the Gibraltar-Algeciras barrage. (You read it first here folks!)

Of course, that will mean a volte face in the customary Arab-Muslim obstructionism and nihilism that prevents any form of progress. This is particularly a problem for the Palestinians, poor souls. With leadership like they have, they need no enemies, Israeli or otherwise. And with leadership of a different stripe (constructive and prepared to compromise) they would not have any – save perhaps for the Iranians: non-Arabs and Shia, who have no love for Sunni Muslims, such as the Palestinians.

Of course, whilst the British were using Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, from 1921 to 1948, both Jews and Arabs were, under the Mandate, Palestinians. Ben Gurion himself did not know what name should be adopted for the new Jewish state that was about to be declared until 13 May. The provisional government, comprised of Jewish Palestinians, might have chosen “Palestine”, which would certainly have stolen the thunder of the Arab Palestinians.

What name would they then have adopted for their cause? “Jordan”, perhaps, for when the fighting finally ended, with five Arab armies unable to subdue the Jews in 1949, it was the Kingdom of Jordan – occupying, in Transjordan, what had been ascribed to the Jews, until Winston Churchill presented it to the Hashemite family in 1922 (thereby sparing the Jews the burden of securing thousands of miles of borders with such neighbours as the Syrians, the Iraqis and the Saudis) – that was left with the west bank of the River Jordan.

There was no protest from the West Bank Arabs that they were being ruled over by Jordan and it was not to extract them from Jordanian hands that Yasser Arafat formed the murderous PLO in 1964, three years before the Six Day War, that constrained Israel to relieve King Hussein of Judea and Samaria.

A more suitable name than “Israel” might have been chosen by Ben Gurion on the night of 13/14 May 1948: “Aunt Sally”. The State of Aunt Sally. That would have been much more appropriate than the State of Israel.

For those of you who lack the luxury of a British background, here is a definition of “Aunt Sally”:

a game played in some parts of Britain in which players throw sticks or balls at a wooden dummy.

The subsidiary definition reads:

a person or thing that is subjected to much criticism, especially one set up as an easy target for it.

You see how appropriate it is? And much more informative, too, for when those of the ilk of Haaretz and The Guardian wrote about Trump’s gracious act, they could have fulminated against Aunt Sally for not having offered anything in return for the honour of being granted a capital city.

The British, French and the rest of Europe could have told it as they saw it – but more realistically – by complaining that Aunt Sally has no right to claim Jerusalem as its capital. And Erdogan, that great democratic leader of Turkey, could have said that Aunt Sally will doubtless get her comeuppance in a new Intifada.

Indeed, instead of the Jews seeking to persuade the world that they have the right to declare the Jewish State of Israel (goodness knows there are sufficient Islamic States – eg Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc, so why not admit the possibility of a Jewish State?) it could be called “The Jewish State of Aunt Sally” and its true function amongst the community of nations would immediately become clear.

On the other hand, in these days of gender-sensitivity, perhaps Aunt Sally is asking for trouble, so I offer as alternatives:

The Jewish State of The Scapegoat

The Jewish State of The Whipping Post

Why we in Israel should put up with being put upon I have no idea? Could it be something to do with being Jewish, I wonder. Two thousand years of anti-Semitism (longer if you subscribe to the thesis of the superb 2013 work, Anti-Judaism by David Nirenberg) seem to indicate that the Jew thing could be the thing that gets up their noses.

What right has Aunt Sally got to have an annual GDP growth rate ten times that of any part, or the whole, of Europe, or that of the USA? What right does a Whipping Post of a nation have to host 50% of the world’s cyber technology companies? How come the State of the Scapegoat has a fully-functioning health service almost free at the point of delivery (quite unlike unlike the USA) and not constantly about to go broke (as in the UK)?

It beggars belief, does it not, that the nations of the UN support the fictions of the Palestinians – everything about Jerusalem is (allegedly) Moslem, notwithstanding that the Jews were evicted by the Romans, after a thousand years there, seven centuries before the birth of the Prophet – just because they regard the Jews as inferiors (dhimmis), who have no right to elevate themselves into the greatest success story of the past seventy years.

It is, of course, undeniable that India and China (gaining independence in 1947 and 1949 respectively) have made great strides in that time, too; but their peoples still suffer widespread poverty and one of them (guess) has no semblance of democracy. Further, neither of them has a properly-functioning justice (civil as well as criminal) system, as is the case in Israel. In India rape is common-place. In China, it is child-abduction.

How come the Jews suffer none of these wrongs? Perhaps it is because they are Jews. Better, then, to regard them then as Aunt Sallys than to face up to one’s own inadequacies. After all, if the world could not go in for constant Jew-bashing, whom could they attack? Burma, for its ethnic cleansing policies? Russia and what used to be Syria for their indiscriminate bombing of civilians? Turkey for its persecution of journalists? Iran for its wanton hanging of homosexuals? None of these bring the protesters onto the streets. But should there be another Intifada which, disappointingly for The Guardian and Haaretz is looking unlikely, you can bet your hoard of Bitcoin that the Brits would fill Central London, baying for stones to be thrown at the Jewish State of Aunt Sally.

Time for some European and American introspection – but honestly undertaken. Had they told the Palestinians fifty years ago that there would be no more money if they did not abjure violence, then Sunni street terrorism would not have been developed for, and then exported to, the US and the EU. Instead of that, they appeased the Arabs (and their supposedly nebbish Palestinians, whose greatest burden has always been their leadership) for their oil-flow, and to hell with honesty and integrity. If there were a prize for ignorance coupled with arrogance, you would not know whether to award it to the Americans or the Europeans.

That is the problem with appeasement. You feed the crocodile and (pace Winston Churchill) when you run out of tasty morsels to offer it, it consumes you. At that point whether your capital is and is recognised as Berlin, Paris, or London, the pain is the same.

The author’s book, Israel at Seventy: In Weizmann’s Image is available now from Amazon in paperback or as a Kindle e-book

As Israel reaches its seventieth birthday in May 2018, it is timely to consider the story of its indispensable founder, Chaim Weizmann. Statesman and scientist, it was Weizmann who saved the British Empire from defeat in World War I, kindled the hope for the return of the Jewish people to their ancient homeland, after an absence of 2,000 years, and was then instrumental in securing what was needed to establish the State of Israel and its future as a technological powerhouse. Weizmann may be said to be the world’s first 20th century – even 21st century – man. If any aspects of modern life became supremely important last century, and remain so in this, they are science & technology and networking. Weizmann’s chemistry, both in the laboratory and with a wide-range of key people, led to his four great political coups, each essential to the emergence of the State of Israel. In addition, he pulled off three crucial educational feats that secured Israel’s future and ensured its success – in his image. In the case of the political achievements, only Weizmann could have wrought them. In the case of the others, only he did. Despite these signature successes, today little is known of him and what he achieved. Why this should be so is revealed in a tale of rivalry between two political giants: Weizmann, the greater talent, but the older, and his nemesis, David Ben-Gurion.

Amazon USA – Paperback