Jeremy Corbyn - Jewish News2
Extremism

Why does Jeremy Corbyn grasp the oppression of every minority except Jews?

 

“For too many on the Left, Jewish suffering does not touch them the way Muslim suffering or gay suffering or black suffering touches them,” writes the discerning Stephen Daisley for STV News. “Scrutiny of Corbyn’s associations elicits cries of ‘smear’ or just a collective shrug of the shoulders. It was always going to. We lack a language to talk about anti-Semitism because too many on the Left don’t consider it a serious problem and couldn’t recognise it as readily as racism, misogyny or homophobia anyway.”

And he recounts a veritable litany of Jeremy Corbyn’s long association with malignant anti-Semites and sundry extremists, from his “friends” in Hezbollah and Hamas to Holocaust deniers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Daisley reminds us:

Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah >says of Jews: “If they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide”. Hamas is committed by charter to “struggle against the Jews” until the “obliteration” of the State of Israel.

Nice friends.

At this point one ought to exhort Diane Abbott to keep her hair on. This isn’t intended to ‘smear’ Jeremy Corbyn: it is a cogent interrogation of a rather glaring inconsistency. His defence for associating with “honoured” extremists and referring to them as “friends” is one of diplomacy: he is engaged in the pursuit of peace and reconciliation. “It is important to reach out and have a dialogue even with those with whom there is strong disagreement,” he said. And yet:

Corbyn Jews

That tweet did the rounds, and elicited more than a whiff of anti-Semitism. Jeremy Corbyn is not only a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign: he supports the BDS agenda. What manner of peace-making diplomat supports sanctions against one party after hearing the grievances only of the other? Why invite Islamists to tea on the House of Commons terrace, but not extremist Zionists?

Indeed, why invite members of Sinn Féin to Parliament but not representatives of the UVF, UDA or LVF?

A pattern begins to emerge, and it is one which utterly confutes the “diplomacy” deception: Jeremy Corbyn shares platforms with those he manifestly supports. His “friends” are those with whom he feels fraternal bonds of struggle – jihad, if you will – and those are they who are “honoured” in his presence, or he in theirs. And so:

He invited Dyab Abou Jahjah and shared a platform with the Belgian radical. Abou Jahjah called the killing of British soldiers in Iraq “a victory” and the 9/11 terrorist atrocities “sweet revenge”. He says Europe has adopted “the cult of the Holocaust and Jew-worshiping its alternative religion”, and in response to the Danish Mohammed cartoons he called on Arabs to spray paint walls across Europe with “hoax gas-chambers built in Hollywood in 1946 with Steven Spielberg’s approval stamp, and Aids spreading fagots”.

He denies it all, of course. Or, rather, he “can’t recall” meeting such people, or was unaware that they held any extremist or abhorrent views. And yet Daisley concludes:

Jeremy Corbyn is not an anti-Semite. How I wish that he were. How much easier it would make things. We could chalk all this up to the prejudices of one man and we could avoid the raw, awkward conversation we’re about to have. Because this isn’t about Jeremy Corbyn; he’s just a symptom and a symbol. The Left, and not just the fringes, has an anti-Semitism problem.

It is a curious concurrence of thinking. Last night, Mehdi Hasan tweeted: “Sad that some people in UK journalism so (rightly) exercised by anti-Semitism often same people so complacent/in denial re Islamophobia”, which merited a lateral riposte:

anti-Semitism tweet

But, of course, this is dismissed as a belligerent “right-wing” rant (or “extreme right-wing” rant), if not “Zionism” or “bigotry” or (bizarrely) Islamophobia. Yes, it’s Islamophobic even to extend an empathetic understanding of the equality of ‘hate’ experienced by Muslims and Jews: there is now no phobia on the planet that even comes close to the malignancy of Islamophobia. Daisley explains:

Contrary to left-wing mythology, anti-Jewish prejudice has never been the exclusive preserve of aristocratic snobs or skinhead fantasists. “The Jew is the enemy of the human race,” declared Proudhon. “One must send this race back to Asia or exterminate it.” Bakunin labelled Jews “bloodsucking people” while Orwell, self-consciously anti-Semitic, even obsessed over the excessive number of Jews sheltering in London’s Underground during World War II. (No matter what the Jews do to protect themselves, it’s always disproportionate.) Marx, the grandson of a rabbi, essayed: ”Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible”.

The contemporary Left, in most cases, would recognise these statements as irrational prejudice. But what if we substituted “Zionist” for “Jew”, what would happen then? How many would object to “Zionists” being termed enemies of the human race? How many would be glad to see the “Zionist” become impossible? Anti-Zionism has removed much of the need for classical anti-Semitism by recycling the old superstitions as a political critique of the State of Israel. Why risk the ridicule that comes with quoting The Protocols of the Elders of Zion when you can cite The Israel Lobby and win eager nods from academics and commentators? Why deny the Holocaust when you can throw it back in the Jews’ faces by fictionalising Gaza as a concentration camp? Why hurl rocks at a Jew in the street when you can hurl endless vexatious UN resolutions at Israel?

And so we arrive at vicarious anti-Semitism: Jew-hate by proxy. Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t hate Jews: he doesn’t need to. He despises and detests Israel, with its smug sense of superiority, aggressive imperialism, plundered wealth and gibbous nuclear capacity. He is for peace, boundless compassion and unfettered human rights: Israel is for war, endless oppression and totalitarian cruelty. There can be no fellowship of light with darkness, and no tea on the Commons’ terrace, either.

The Left’s unhinged antipathy towards the State of Israel has let loose ugly sentiments wholly unmoored from such legitimate criticisms. Israel is execrated as uniquely malignant and its enemies held up as plucky freedom-fighters or victim-idols. Corbyn and his like sup with Hamas and Hezbollah, they say, because we must talk to all sides to resolve the conflict, even the extreme and unpleasant. It would never occur to them to invite representatives of the Jewish Defence League to Parliament or to count Baruch Marzel or Michael Ben-Ari as “friends”.

The inequality, inconsistency – or hypocrisy – is glaring. The Left have a liberation theology for blacks, gays, women, disabled, Muslims, Palestinians and the albinos of Sub-Saharan Africa. But Jews? Well, there’s the small matter of a conniving ‘Kosher Conspiracy‘ to take over the world, and the Left has a divine mission to expose and sterilise its sinister agenda. Jeremy Corbyn’s vocation is to lead that mission. So he righteously rails against racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia and every discrimination on earth except the oldest of prejudices: “the organisation of politics against the Jews”. It is a religio-political blindness, or a politico-religious ignorance. Daisley concludes:

Jeremy Corbyn is not an anti-Semite and nor are most people on the Left. He is a petition-signer who never reads the small-print, a sincere man blinded as so many radicals are by hatred of the United States and Western power. But his ascendancy comes at a time of great upheaval and populist torrents battering the centre-left and centre-right. It is a storm in which the organisation of politics against the Jews could once again prove an anchoring force in Europe.

There is indeed a storm brewing, but it isn’t clear at all that ‘the Left’ is morally equipped to deal with it. They perpetually misread the forecasts and batten down the wrong hatches. If, as Jeremy Corbyn insists, “We all have a duty to oppose any kind of racism wherever it raises its head, in whatever form it raises its head”, then “We” must begin with him, and “any kind of racism” must extend to guests invited to Parliament and journals deemed worthy of being granted an interview. He might even deign to share a platform..

“Tomorrow evening it will be my pleasure and my honour to host an event in Parliament where my friend Melanie Phillips our allies from the Israeli Embassy will be speaking..”

  • John Thomas

    “Jeremy Corbyn is not an anti-Semite” – it doesn’t sound that way! I agree with Melanie Phillips: anti-Semitism used to be a right-wing obsession, now it’s a left-wing one.

    • len

      That`s just a denial of the problem of anti semitism.Unless the problem is confronted throw away comments such as yours will only exacerbate the problem

      • avi barzel

        Come now, Len, that’s unfair. John states a fact by quoting a secular political thinker. There are many facets to and manifestations of antisemitism, some of them theological, which to you and me may be foundational (for entirely different readons, I’m sure), but that doesn’t negate the political.

  • len

    Anti- semitism is a spiritual problem.Unless one takes into account the spiritual dimension from a Judeo/Christian standpoint one will remain under a cloud of deception from the forces that oppose the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob….
    Hence Jeremy Corbyns (and billions of others ) anti semitism….

    • alternative_perspective

      Quite, replacement theology is as much a symptom of the problem as its cause… Spiritual justification for Semitic marginalisation.

      • You do know that replacement theology is actually a protestant doctrine? The Catholic position is somewhat more nuanced and has been misrepresented. It holds that the Abrahamic covenant now applies to the New Covenant People of God i.e. Christians. Not as a replacement but as a fulfilment and that we are brothers with the Jews who are still beloved by God and who form a key part of His plan. Strictly speaking, neither are anti-Semitic although replacement theology can and has morphed into regarding the Jews as a cursed and stiff necked people who are delaying Christ’s Second Coming because they refuse to convert. Zionism, based on dispensationalist notions, is equally harmful spiritually.

        • alternative_perspective

          As a protestant with strong catholic inclinations I can tell u.. I don’t care from whence it came. Its part of the problem and not the solution.

          Luther was a pioneer and a bigot. I can simultaneously honour him and hold some of his beliefs in derision. I’m not so polarised as that, how may u say it… My beliefs are somewhat more catholic.

          • Luther was an impatient man with a high opinion of himself. His outrage at the human abuses of the Church were justified but he rather threw the baby out with the bathwater.

        • len
          • avi barzel

            Hahaha! A jolly idea, alas, there is no legitimate Sanhedrin at this time. By the time it happens, it will have to wait in line with its suit behind all the Catholics, or whatever’s left of them, with their own charges.

          • Who or what is this outfit, Avi?

          • avi barzel

            Frankly, never heard of them. It’s one thing to plan for the rebuilding of the Temple and to discuss practicalities behind reinstituting a Sanhedrin, another to claim to be members of a Sanhedrin. The sole authority in Israel is the elected government and its courts, however faulty they may be.

          • According to the article, the bods behind this self designated ‘High Court’ are Rabbi Yoel Schwartz, Rabbi Dov Levanoni, Rabbi Israel Ariel, Rabbi Daniel Stavsky, Rabbi Yehuda Edri, and Rabbi Dov Meir Shtein.

            It comments: “The Sanhedrin … is comprised of some of the greatest rabbis of the modern Jewish nation, men who have dedicated themselves to Torah, serving God and Israel. One of the main leaders behind the revival of the Sanhedrin is Rabbi Yoel Schwartz, well known for his advocacy in strengthening non-Jewish support for Israel”.

            How can you, a good Jewish boy, not have heard of these men and this Sanhedrin?

          • avi barzel

            Simples, Jack. I’m in the religious Zionist, rationalist, Modern Orthodox camp wgich has its own issues and we follow the guidance of our own rabbis and theological traditions, even as we observe the same laws. So, sometimes I get busy and miss little tempests in the teapot such as this one. I was aware that there was a project to prepare the groundwork for a Sanhedrin, and that there was an attempt to emulate its structure for limited decisions on halakhah, but missed the fact that some folks got way ahead on themselves and now, went public with it.

            Upon reading up here and there, I see that this self-declared “Sanhedrin” is a creation of a minority within a particular minority of our Hareidi (ultra-Orthodox) minority. Yes, these are generally resoected rabbis…although not for long if they start pulling such antics on their own. The one shocker was Rabbi Steinsaltz’ former membership, but he resigned, apparently over the letter. The bottom line is that there is no agreed upon Orthodox central authority…even if the Hareidi insist that there is and they are it.

            That being said, the main thrust of the critique of Pope Francis’ declaration is valid, but it should have been one issued (along more prosaic lines and in proper diplomatic language, through established diplomatic channels) by the legitimate representatives of the State of Israel, the current government and if need be, the Chief Rabbinate representing all Orthodox streams.

          • He may well be tried by the CDF before then.

          • Will you be after a ticket, Len?

  • The Explorer

    There are twenty-one Arab nations on 5.3 million square miles of land, revenue from oil, with a combined population of around 175 million.

    There is one nation of Israel on 8 000 square miles of land, revenue from initiative, with around six million Jews (and a burgeoning Arab population). Naturally, that makes Israel the bully. Isn’t it terrible the way the small always victimise the large?

    (Metal detector needed for those of a literal frame of mind.)

    • bluedog

      Excellent news. One reads that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will be bankrupt within five years if the oil price stays at current levels. All those schools, madrassas, colleges and terrorist camps funded by the House of Saud will find they have a Kids Company moment.

  • Johnny Rottenborough

    ‘a time of great upheaval and populist torrents battering the centre-left and centre-right. It is a storm in which the organisation of politics against the Jews could once again prove an anchoring force in Europe.’—Stephen Daisley

    The storm feared so much by Jews—evidenced most clearly, I suppose, by the growing electoral success of nationalist parties—is a reaction against more than half a century of Third World immigration, the very same Third World immigration that Jews see as vital for their safety because it will neutralize the worst anti-Semitism of all, white Christian anti-Semitism.

    In Why Jews Welcome Muslims, Lawrence Auster writes: ‘there is something that many American Jews fear in their heart of hearts even more than they fear Moslem anti-Semitism, and that is white Christian anti-Semitism.’ Later in the same article he says: ‘Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews’ best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.’

    Hence the campaign by Jews, beginning in the 19th century, to open the US to non-white and non-Christian immigration, an ambition also pursued in the heartland of white Christian anti-Semitism, Europe. The irony is that living in white Christian countries was the best deal the diaspora was ever likely to get, and the diaspora has blown it.

    • The Explorer

      The American mink was released into the Norfolk Broads without anticipation of what its introduction would do to voles or water fowl. The results are now known. Those responsible for Islamic immigration into Europe are guilty of a similar lack of preliminary research about the likely effects (but with rather more far-reaching consequences).

      • David

        Interesting analogy !

      • Johnny Rottenborough

        @ The Explorer—When Islamic immigration into Europe began, around 1950, Islam was a downtrodden religion with zero confidence. ‘Those responsible’ could not have foreseen that Islam would, after just a few decades, rediscover its divinely inspired loathing of ‘Those responsible’. If ‘Those responsible’ had had a crystal ball, perhaps they would have spared us Muslim immigration. Then again, perhaps the opportunity to take revenge on white Christians for centuries of—as ‘Those responsible’ see it—totally unprovoked persecution would still have been irresistible.

    • The Explorer

      Hezbollah would like all the World’s Jews in Israel. If Islamic persecution of Jews in France and Sweden comes to be repeated elsewhere, Hezbollah’s wish might yet come true.

    • David

      What was that about hitting nails on their heads !

    • Hi Johnny

      The big flaw in your analysis is to assume Jews have a Borg or hive like consciousness or collective. In actuality that’s a completely false.

      Jews do nothing but argue , often about the smallest of details and have disagreements even when it comes to Israel (as we can see from how the left wheeled out Jews who claim to support Jeremy Corbyn).

      Therefore to assume we are some monotonic monolithic bloc , is utterly false. Therefore to describe Islamic or third world immigration or whatever else you want to blame Jews on as a big plot by Jews is also false.

      • Johnny Rottenborough

        @ Hannah Out Loud—However argumentative Jews are, it remains a fact that they are supreme at organizing to achieve their best advantage. Churchill noted: ‘they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.’ Having suffered persecution at the hands of white Christians, it is not surprising that Jews should organize to put an end to that persecution by making white Christian countries less white and less Christian, through involvement in politics, lobbying, education and, probably most effective of all, the media.

        I’d argue that the persecution of Jews was very largely retaliation for the Jews’ own actions. Jews, though, do not—it seems, cannot—admit responsibility for their part in outbreaks of retaliation/anti-Semitism. As a consequence of that terrible flaw in the Jewish character, white Christian countries are now being destroyed. When white Christians in the US have been reduced to a powerless minority, it is highly probable that US support for Israel will cease, whereupon Israel will be destroyed.

        • Hi Johnny

          Having read your various posts over time , no matter how much you try and spin this traditional far right view of Jews into an intellectual argument, it basically boils down to you , unwittingly or consciously, regurgitating age old and frankly laughable conspiracy theories , as expounded by Nazis propaganda , about the “evil Jews” collectively pulling the strings against the world.

          This is a worldview which frankly isn’t worth taking seriously but it is sad because it is so far from the actual truth or is as if it comes from an alternative reality. However I shall indulge this view so as to make it plain to the reader how ridiculous it is :

          1). If Jews were or are as crafty, powerful or organised as your thesis maintains Jews would NEVER have been subjected to pogroms and antisemitism in the first place.

          2)Jews would not be wanting to simply have a piece of land as big as Wales which despite being described as a “land of milk and honey”was at the time of the mandate , dirt poor, mostly desert and lacking any strategic resources (oil, iron, coal, arable land). Like an alleged millionaire living in a council flat rather than a mansion, if we take your view seriously.

          3). In fact if Jews were that powerful and able to manipulate the rest of the world /white Christians/ the Martians from Venus etc, then surely we’d be onto to a better deal than what we’ve had in this past. Your theory simply doesn’t stack up when you think about it logically and objectively.

          4).In response to your Churchill quote it wouldn’t surprise if you -as you usually do- take his word’s deliberately out of context.

          5).In response to your view on antisemitism , I see you seek to shift the blame from the victims to the perpetrators. But again if Jews are so good at being a collective world hive we wouldn’t have had a history of antisemitism would we?

          6).in response to your argument about immigration, you know Christianity isn’t synonymous with being white as I’m sure you are aware. It seems to me that if there were no minorities in the UK , church attendance would still be small, because white people have chosen not to attend church. The church of England leadership itself has abandoned any real attempts to bring itself back. again nothing to do with Jews.

          7).What you are talking about isn’t Christianity , but the demographic racial makeup of the UK, crudely put the white birth rate. Therefore you should consider that it is down to smaller families, abortion and the general social liberalisation since the 1960s. These are conscious free choices white people have made, rather than some global conspiracy by Jews. To readress the smaller birth rate , Christian/white Britain could be having more sex or more babies, to alter this decline in population. This would again be true even if the UK were purely white ethnic British : Japan has a similar issue.

          8). Of course you have to blame someone for immigration and Islamic fundamentalism, so Jews are the easiest target. You couldn’t possibly accept the reality that white British Christians who, however notional, decided to allow for relaxed immigration laws in the 1950s and still do so for (white) Europeans by being in the EU. That’s where the fault (if you take immigration as one) lies. Not at the door of Jews as a collective whole.

          • Johnny Rottenborough

            @ Hannah Out Loud—
            ● Your comments reinforce my argument that Jews will not/cannot accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. I put that down to Judaism, like Islam, being a blame culture. The West, by contrast, is a guilt culture, which any minority worth its salt quickly learns to turn to its advantage.
            ● Others will judge for themselves whether I quoted Churchill out of context.
            ● The ‘demographic racial make-up of the UK’ is not a ‘conscious free [choice] white people have made’, it has been forced on us.
            ● Who can blame the British for choosing not to bring children into the multicultural ruin of what was a successful nation? For white babies born today, life in the years to come, as part of a hated minority, will not be worth living.

          • Sam

            Had a great time reading this latest nonsense. Brightened my day it has.

          • avi barzel

            Don’t listen to Hannah’s obfuscations, Johnny, she’s a crafty Reptillian from Draco masquerading as a Zionist Jewess. The truth is that after starting up Capitalism and Communism, Jews brought the Holocaust and Stalinist persecutions on themselves as a diabolically clever maskirovka to feck-up the dumb Goyim. Then, hutzbah of all hutzbahs, they pretended to fight Arab armies as a ruse to covince Europeans to let in millions of Muslims, all this to finish the job fascusts and commies began and to water down clearly superior racial types such as yourself. Makes much more sense.

          • Sam

            Well said Hannah

            Johnny is full of shit, however much he acts as the blogging thinking man’s BNP apologist.Basically you can’t engage with ultra far right types. If Jews discovered a cure for cancer they’d still be finding ways to attack Jews.

  • The Explorer

    That Hezbollah statement in paragraph 3 (which gets reiterated from time to time) about wanting to get all the World’s Jews into Israel is deeply revealing. Politics is not the issue with this viewpoint; race is the issue.

    The elimination of Israel would merely be a step in the right direction if there were still Jews outside Israel. For this mind-set, the problem is not resolved until Jews are eliminated from the planet.

    Hamas, it would seem, is much more moderate. The obliteration of Israel will be sufficient. (Presumably, with Israel eliminated, Hezbollah would turn on Hamas for its dangerously-conciliatory attitude?)

  • David

    The Scriptures of the Jewish “nation”, both in diaspora or partially, now physically gathered in their historic homeland, points to them as being blessed by God.
    Gentile Christians see themselves, both collectively within the universal Church, and individually as believers, as having been grafted onto that stem of spiritual “Israel”, through faith, and thereby also accepted and blessed by the same God.
    Those outside those two groups will hate them, and we have been warned of this.
    Therefore I am not surprised by any anti-Jewish or anti-Christain hatred.

    • Jack certainly believes the Jews are blessed and loved by God and scripture points to them accepting Jesus of Nazareth as their long awaited Messiah shortly before His Second Coming. It may well be that they need to gather once more in the Holy Land for this. However, Jack also has very mixed feelings about their returning to their historic homeland; or, more accurately, the various means by which this was achieved and how this can now be sustained peacefully.

      Jack is not a “Zionist” – whatever this may mean. He nevertheless supports Israel’s right to defend herself as a legitimate nation against unjust aggression from others. Personally, he cannot envisage peace with Islam taking place for a very long time, if ever. but it is something that must be worked at.

      Christians are the People of God and the Jews are our older brother with whom we are predestined to be reunited with in Christ one day. Jack supports them for this reason but he does not give unconditionally support to all the military and diplomatic actions of secular Israel.

      • David

        Thank you for your succinct “position statement”, which is not far away from my own.

      • Anton

        At risk of pedantry, Jack, Israel is regarded by Jews as a fatherland rather than a motherland, because Israel/Jacob was a man. (“Jack… supports Israel’s right to defend herself”.) It is Jerusalem that is portrayed as feminine in the Hebrew scriptures.

        • Why thank you kind sir.

          Doesn’t the name mean “wrestle with God”?

          • Anton

            So I believe.

          • Then it must be a male name – as we all know God is male and He would never wrestle a woman.

          • avi barzel

            You never met some of our tough women.

          • God is a gentleman, Avi.

          • len

            At last something to agree on!.

          • We may agree on more than you think, Len.

      • Hi happy Jack

        In true Jewish fashion there’s different types of Zionism. By saying Israel has a right to exit, some would see you as a Zionist (the mere idea of Israel existing is an affront to some).

      • Sam

        Dude

        “Jack is not a “Zionist”

        *gasp*

        But by muttering the words “Israel’s right to defend herself as a legitimate nation against unjust aggression from others” makes you a de facto Zionist. Albeit a leftie one. But regardless welcome to the club . Haven’t got a clue about the religious argument you profess. But then I’m not Catholic.

  • Darach Conneely

    The British Government and armed forces were already working hand in glove with Loyalist paramilitaries, it was the IRA and Sinn Féin you needed to start talking to. Remember the peace process? You don’t get peace by labelling one side as evil terrorists and refusing to talk to them.

    • carl jacobs

      Of course, if one side is a collection of evil terrorists, then the label is simply a matter of accurate taxonomy.

      I shall now go forth and find all those examples of Leftists reaching out to engage their enemies on the Right. Oh, that’s right. There aren’t any. Leftists are too busy shouting “Nazi!”

      • Darach Conneely

        As opposed to the Right calling anyone who disagrees with them ‘Leftists’ and ‘Marxists’?

        • The Explorer

          If the Right represents tradition, and the Left represents change then it is reasonable tor each side to call the other ‘Left’ or ‘Right’: it is simply a description of a political conviction.

          ‘Marxist, agreed, is more contentious: all Marxists are Leftists, but not all Leftists are Marxists. When the Labour Party was actually the Labour Party, some had their roots in Marxism, but others in Methodism.

          • Darach Conneely

            The reason they could agree is that the values of Marxism has its roots in the bible and radical Christian groups in the 17th century that produced a whole raft of changes in society from the emancipation of slaves to feminism and every adult having a vote. Not sure you can simply represent the right as following tradition, the neo conservatism we see in the UK today owes more to the American policy think tanks and Ayn Rand than traditional values.

          • Hmmm … “the values of Marxism has its roots in the bible”?
            Not exactly. The anticipated outcome of Marxism is rooted in the end time vision of Isiaah. This much is true. The means and methods differ. One is rooted in theism and objective morality; the other in materialism and extreme consequentialism.

        • avi barzel

          The Leftists and Marxist have recently invented a slew of creative new names for themselves out of sheer embarrembarrassment, so they need reminding. It’s for their own good and it clarifies discussions.

          • Darach Conneely

            it certainly simplifies discussions and avoids the right having to deal with the issues.

          • avi barzel

            It avoids playing silly-buggers over the same old issues which the self-renamed “progressives” and “neo-Marxists” try to peddle as new wine.

    • Hi

      I find it ironic that the left is in bed with groups which otherwise they’d want nothing to do with: i.e. homophobic, racist, religious reactionaries who detest everything the left allegedly stand for. The Arab states, despite peace treaties with two of them, Hamas, Hezbollah , Iran and others would like nothing more than to see a second holocaust. That’s why peace is illusive. Israel removed all settlements and settlers from Gaza. The result was Hamas taking over, but rather than them seeking to better the lot of their own people they imposed hard core Islamic rule and have engaged in nothing other than perpetual warfare against Israel. If Israel did the same in Judea, then the results would be similar. The Hamas would take over and there’d be a war on two fronts.

      • Darach Conneely

        Wasn’t sure which homophobic, racist, religious reactionaries you were referring to, Hezbollah or the American religious right 😉 One of the problems is the West’s support of the Israeli Right rather than Israeli moderates who want peace and realise you won’t get peace by continually crushing the Palestinians, destroying their homes and building settlement on their land. The poisonous rhetoric of extremist Islam feeds on the injustice and suffering of ordinary people. How can there be peace in the Middle East while that continues? Of course there are elements in the American Right who fantasize about Armageddon just as much as the Iranians #LeftBehind. For all their supposed friendship with Israel, they look forward to a time when only 144,000 Jews survive and turn to the returned Christ. The religious right in America don’t want peace in the Middle East, because in spite of Jesus saying “blessed are the peacemakers”, they are trained to see any peacemaker as a candidate for Antichrist.

        • avi barzel

          Yes, the American religious Right refuses to bake cakes for Gay weddings, so they’re exactly like Hezbollah.

          Since when has the West supported “right wing” Jews? It bankrolls Muslim terrorists, reinvented as “Palestinians”, to the tune of billions and are pushing Israel to surrender its strategic heartland which it liberated from Jordan and to allow another Muslim terror state to form. Bottom line is, that last bit ain’t ever gonna happen.

          • Darach Conneely

            Yes bakers refusing to bake wedding cakes just like their fathers refused to serve blacks in a white only cafes, or allow interracial marriage. We won’t mention refusing to issue marriage licences and fighting tooth and nail to stop gays getting married in the first place. But congratulations on Americans being more tolerant to gays than Hezbollah, though it is hard to tell with right wing Christian organisations active in countries like Uganda trying to introduce much tougher prison sentences, even the death penalty for gays. It is so strange to see the American Right cheering on Putin and Russia’s anti gay laws. As for support of the Israel right, didn’t the Republicans go against all protocol and invite Netanyahu to Congress to speak against their own President? Isn’t any criticism of Netanyahu’s policies labelled antisemitism?

          • What” anti-gay laws” has Putin introduced in Russia? Do tell.

          • Darach Conneely

            let me Google that for you
            http://bfy.tw/1TUG

          • No evidence then. This so called ‘anti-gay law’ simply bans the promotion of homosexuality to minors. Wow! Did you weep in the streets with Stephen Fry and all the other lubby anti-Christians?

            So Putin has prohibited the publicity of homosexual behaviour in the country. He doesn’t want this moral evil broadcasted as acceptable in order to avoid corrupting the young. His countrymen agree. So would any orthodox Christian.

          • Darach Conneely

            A new law about homosexuality and one that lead to an upsurge in violence against gays. What is it in orthodox Christianity that says learning about homosexuality corrupts the young? I know a lot of fundamentalists believe homosexuality is a choice, but that is just Christian pop psychology, not a tenet of orthodox Christianity.

          • Where’s the evidence there ha been “an upsurge in violence” against homosexuals? For sure there is little tolerance of protests against this law. This is not the same thing.

            Promoting homosexuality by normalising what is regarded as an intrinsic moral evil by most Christians is hardly orthodox. Christian morality teaches sex can only be properly expressed between a man and a woman in a life long marriage. The sinful inclination may not be a choice – acting on it most certainly is.

            Do you have a ‘vested interest’ to declare, Darach?

          • Darach Conneely

            http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/violence-against-lgbts-getting-worse-in-russia-study-says/513341.html
            “Russia’s controversial law against gay propaganda has become a “license to harm” for Russian homophobes, who have expanded to target closeted gays, a new study says.”

            There are plenty of things Christians consider wrong, but while we have sometimes acted that way, it has never been a tenet of orthodox Christianity that these have to be illegal too or that allowing people who don’t believe as we do to practice them is an intrinsic moral evil. Divorce is wrong yet it is legal and even practised by Christians as is shopping on a Sunday. Hindus are allowed their temples and idols. We look back in horror at the burning of witches or the Inquisition sending people to their deaths for heresy.

            Have I a vested interest? I am a Christian and a human being and I hate to see fellow human beings discriminated against because of their religion, race or sexuality. It is the ‘do unto others’, and ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ vested interest.

            Anyway, it getting late here. Have a good night Jack.

          • A “Human Rights Watch” report. Yes, well … must be true then

          • avi barzel

            Unless you can show that scores of cultures which universally practiced, formalized and institutionalized homosexuality between adults and boys…such as the Spartans, Thracians, Trobrian Islanders, various African chiefdoms and so on… involuntarily became biologically homosexual at a certain time in their history and then magically “went straight”, you are obligated to allow other cultures to reject the practice and to prevent its children from being groomed through normalization and promotion in tax-funded, compulsary education schools.

          • Darach Conneely

            If you have any evidence homosexuals are ‘grooming children’ you should present it to the police. Otherwise it is a pretty ugly slur. Boarding schools and prisons certainly result in ‘institutional homosexuality’ among people who are heterosexual outside, but that went on when homosexuality was a crime. Education doesn’t ‘groom children’ it teaches them not to beat up the ones they think are gay, something the Russians could do with learning.

          • avi barzel

            It wasn’t their fathers…the slave-owning KKK-ridden South, the racial purists and eugenics promoters like that hero of the Left, Margaret Sanger, were all Democrats and “progressives.” I’ve told you once before that you know shit-all about Anerican history and thought you’ve updated your data by now.

            As for Congress inviting Bibi, it’s their prerogative by history and custom, especially when stuck with a traitorous narcissist in the White House who has pauperized, weakened and now existentially endangered the US and its allies by assisting and enabling its deadliest enemy.

            “Isn’t any criticism of Netanyahu’s policies labelled antisemitism?”

            Not at all…I do this all the time and so does the majority of Israelis as well…but funnily enough, it’s the hardcore antisemites who like to use this line a lot. What a silly muppet you are; can’t even hide your nasty soul behind the “social justice” gobledey-gook you bore us with.

          • Darach Conneely

            So you think your elected president is a traitor and you support a foreign government who opposes him? Sounds like you and the Republicans are bordering on treason there. Are you really trying to claim southern democrats back in Jim Crow days and the KKK were ‘progressive’?

          • avi barzel

            Not my president, thank goodness; the head of my government is Her Majesty. Obama is opposed by a clear majority of his citizens and Congress on this issue, and Congress is an integral and equally important part of the US government as is its president. And again, Congress invites anyone it wants to hear…even if it pisses off the guy in the White House.

            Interesting. So, you think that Republicans should, for the first time in history, kowtow to a president of the opposing party by rubber-stamping every idiocy of his and that the minority of American Jews who oppose him must be traitors? Why? Because Obama is Black and because everyone can oppose a president, except for Jews? Tell us more about yourself.

          • Darach Conneely

            I’m not sure the leader of a foreign nation has a say in Congress over a treaty the president of the United States is negotiating. In the past Republican Congresses usually found ways to work with a Democratic president. How many time did they try to repeal Obama care instead of passing acts through Congress? Only difference I can see is Obama is Black, oh and apparently a Muslim from Kenya.

          • avi barzel

            Bibi the Evil of Zion Likudnik didn’t have a “say” in US policy, you Jew-baiting, slanderous twit, you. He was invited by United States Congress…no notice or permission from the President required…. to articulate, rather convincingly, something the majority of Americans already agreed with: Iran, virtually at war with the US oand on record to attempt the annihilation of Israel is a clear, present and lethal danger. And my current government, ably led by our federal Conservatives agrees and will boycott Iran no matter what. Well, ok, I guess that was my tricky Jew manipulation; I volunteered to install lawn signs for my MP and I’m socially acquainted, albeit rather peripherally, with a current minister with a portfolio.

            And according to your expertise in American history and governance, all was rosy and hunky-dory between Dems and the GOP until one day Democrat Obama came along and the Republicans…who fought the Democrat South and freed the slaves, decided to go all White private club on him. And, of course, only racism and “Islamophobia” can explain bi-partisan opposition to disastrous Obama policies, each stupider than the next. Why do I bother with you?

          • Darach Conneely

            So by disagreeing with Netanyahu and the American right’s unconditional support of him and his policies, I am a ‘Jew-baiting, slanderous twit’ That would be another term for anti-Semite? Thank you for proving my point.

          • Inspector General

            People of the same sex can’t get married. That would be stupid…

    • grutchyngfysch

      It was the actions of loyalist paramilitaries murderously attacking Catholics that first brought soldiers to the streets of Belfast. You don’t talk to murdering bastards, whatever political ideology they use as their fig leaf. You bring them before a court for judgment and you do not spare the consequences if they threaten more violence – you increase the sentence.

      Collusion was undoubtedly endemic – not just north of the border, either. But what is the lesson we learn from injustices perpetrated or condoned by the state? That other men’s injustices are acceptable? Apparently it is, because the up-shot of the Northern Irish “peace process” has been to produce a class of apologists who sagely talk about one day needing to “talk” to the likes of ISIS.

      A peace built by discarding justice is not peace. The absence of violence is not a victory of peace when it is achieved by elevating the unjust to power.

      • Darach Conneely

        If you don’t understand what motivates people who join ISIS or Hezbollah, if you just paint them as evil monsters inspired by hate, you simply justify the violent response from your own side and perpetuate the problem. What if the men of violence on the other side are seeking justice for the violence and injustice your side perpetrated on them? We only learn what we might be doing wrong by listening, and when peace is achieved both sides letting go the desires for retribution. Why not use the lessons of Northern Ireland? The peace process worked.

        • Did the peace process “work”? Jack knows a man who frequently travels to Derry in vain attempts to achieve justice for his dead brother and his family who were murdered by terrorists. The perpetrators are known; the evidence is available. The men walk free. You look him in the eye and tell him the peace process “worked”.
          It is not Godly to secure peace by ignoring injustice. The way to secure peace is certainly through dialogue and addressing perceived grievances. However, an armistice for murderers and terrorists, giving them the status of soldiers, is not only immoral, it also inspires future terrorism. Mercy can replace retributive justice if there is an admission of wrong doing and the injured parties agree. Turning a blind eye and bargaining with the devil, is not a good model.

          • Darach Conneely

            The UK gets on quite well with nations that got their freedom from Britain through terrorism and insurrection like the USA, Ireland and Israel. Are you saying George Washington wasn’t a soldier? What about Collins or Yitzhak Rabin? Making peace means drawing a line under the past, letting go the hurt and the pain you suffered and turning from the injustice your own side committed. Would you really prefer the violence in Northern Ireland to have continued? Some people can’t let go, but it is what Christ commands us. But letting go is part of the price of peace. It is easier when you start to understand the other side’s pov and see them as fellow human beings. The only alternative is continuing war and suffering until one side crushes the other and imposes its version of justice. Then we wait until the next generation rises up against what it sees as your oppression, which you never stopped because by refusing to listen you have never learned the injustices you are inflicting on them.

          • We’re talking about Ireland in the 1970’s and a minority taking it upon themselves to bomb and murder innocent people. Forgiving a person does not mean letting go of the demands of justice. It was Christ who said if one lives by sword, even in the face of injustice, one dies by the sword.

            Jack was born and raised in Belfast and his family were essentially driven out because his Jewish/Catholic father could not find employment or housing when he left the Army. He understands the “pov”. Did the discrimination and sectarianism excuse or justify violence against a legitimate authority? No, it did not. That’s in the Gospel too, btw.

          • Darach Conneely

            Yes Protestant Ulster maintained political power through a system equivalent to Apartheid or the Jim Crow laws of the American South. Catholic marches for Civil Rights and ‘one man one vote’ were met with police violence and Protestant mobs rioting and burning in Catholic estates. Do I agree with violence? No. I think Martin Luther King’s non violence is a better answer, though I can understand why the IRA rearmed to defend Catholic homes and why Catholic teens beaten by the RUC and Army flocked to the IRA. Violence begat more violence. What solution was there other than both sides sitting down and listening to one another and dealing with the injustices behind it all and ending the cycle of retribution and revenge.

          • Understanding evil is not the same as supporting or justifying it – and you’re close to doing so.

          • Darach Conneely

            I am talking about understanding people and the injustices they have suffered. Unfortunately the propaganda that paints the other side as evil and our own side’s inhumanities and killing as necessary and justified, prevent human beings on both sides seeing the other side as human beings too and finding a way to end the violence and live together.

          • alternative_perspective

            I feel you are superimposing your value system and interpretive framework on people who simply do not identify with your PoV. What you write is perfectly reasonable when one shares s sufficient comnonslity with them. But how do you sympathise and understand people who are systematically opposed to your PoV and who are as a matter of principle are dedicated to killing every last Jew… As a matter of faith, as an act of pure religion?

            If it could be done, peace would have been achieved, peace hadn’t been achieved because it is simply impossible. Israel as defender of the Jewish people can only ever manage and contain the situation until that time when biblical prophecy tells us the world will line up against it and in that moment God himself will do the fighting. At that point justice as defined by God and not man will be triumphant.

          • Darach Conneely

            Worth remembering that for 1300 years, Jews were better treated in the Islamic world than they were in Christian Europe. There is nothing intrinsic in Islam that says they have to be genocidal to Jews. We do not know what the fulfilment of biblical prophecy is or when it will be, though I do know we have spent 2,000 year getting it wrong. Who says there can’t be peace in the meantime? We are called to be peacemakers. Loving you neighbour as yourself calls us to go beyond the boundaries of people like us, that is why Jesus chose a Samaritan as an example of a good neighbour.

          • Remember though the robbed person wasn’t lying in the road with a suicide bomb strapped to his waist waiting to blow his helper to kingdom come.

          • avi barzel

            Hahahah! Good one, Jack. My first spontaneous guffah of the evening’s games.

          • avi barzel

            Bull-fiddles on your continuing butchery of history. Except when they were of used as physicians, ministers and financiers for brief periods by a handful of califs within sight of their palaces, Jews were murdered, persecuted and oppressed since Mohammed started the sport by lopping off the heads of the conqueted Jewish tribeof Arabia. Dude, you for real or are you a parody of something that went out of style with bell-bottoms and platform shoes?

          • Anton

            This is a side issue Avi, but it is not clear whether the Banu Qurayza were Jews or ethnic Arabs who had converted en masse to Judaism. Maybe some intermarriage had gone on too?

          • avi barzel

            Or it may have been made up as most of the stories in the Koran. Whatever the case, the robber-bandit cult leader and his scriptures started off a jihad against Jews for all time and the current crop of his followers appears to be either on the war paths or sympathetic to the idea.

          • Hi Anton

            A ger tzedek(convert) is as much a Jew as Jew born by a Jewish mother, so it’s quite irrelevant. Kind David was descended from Ruth, who was a convert for example

          • Anton

            It is/was irrelevant to Jews, but not necessarily to Arabs.

          • carl jacobs

            “Bull-fiddles?”

            OK, who let the Canadians try to make expletives again?

          • avi barzel

            Gosh-darn-tootin’ right, it’s bull-fiddles! Fightin’ words these be.

          • carl jacobs

            I see. Western Canadian, huh?

          • avi barzel

            Argh! I’m from the civilized parts, you should know by now. Upper Canada, Fort York lands; now Province of Ontario, megalopolis of Toronto, not far from the King’s Highway and the heights from which our Red Coat grenadiers used to take shots at your square-rigged Yankee privateers on Lake Ontario.

          • carl jacobs

            I’m from the civilized parts, you should know by now.

            So … I am sitting here trying to fathom what could possibly make a Canadian “uncivilized” relative to another Canadian. Do “uncivilized” Canadians fail to stop behind the white line at stop signs? And anyways. Wouldn’t that make the “civilized” part of Canada the more liberal part of Canada?

            But seriously. There are two realities of the American West. There is the real West where no one ever said “Gosh-darn-tootin’ right.” And then there is the mythical West best represented by Louie Lamour novels. No one says “Gosh-darn-tootin’ right” in the Mythical West either. You should read some Louie Lamour novels so you are more comfortable operating in the Mythical West. Much more interesting than French literature.

          • avi barzel

            Alright, it’s a fair cop. I embellished with “gosh” and “right”, but “darn tootin” is legit. First literary appearance in 1916 (B. M. Bower, *The Heritage of the Sioux,* chapter 28) and was big in the Mid West in the 1930s. It’s a vernacular idiomatic expression (possibly Wisconsin orogins) which is mostly extinct now, but according Wiki it cropped up a few times in pop culture, last time in 2009, and I’m sure I heard it in a n old Simpson episode. I love idioms and etymologies and this one stuck.

            I’ve spent time in Virginia, Tennesee, Alabama, Georgia…but I’ve only driven my rigs through the West all the way to LA and even …stupid me… Monterrey in the middle of the Mexican “gang troubles,” always on a tight schedule, mostly at night, and the only thing I saw of the Mythical West folk was other drivers at truck stops, many of whom were Sikhs and Sri Lankans. When I retire…at 90 at this rate… I’d like to take an RV and see the West at leisure… with my old Lamour softcovers.

          • carl jacobs

            You have read Louie Lamour novels! I sort of figured that your wife wouldn’t approve. I had images of her snatching the book from your hands, announcing “We don’t read trash like that in this house!” and handing you something by Camus instead.

            Or do you keep them in the cab. Underneath the mattress. In a brown paper bag.

          • avi barzel

            My wife in an academic who only reads stuff that would give us a headache in five minutes and sink us into a coma in ten. Lucky for me, she is impressed by my history, Judaica and anthro library and moreover, when she catches me reading Westerns, sci-fi, alternate historical fiction or techno-thrillers, with garish cover depicting killing machines or laser-gun armed, scantily clad heroines, I can lul her to sleep with impromptu expositions on transitioning cultural meanings and linguistic and semiotic drifts in popular Modern fiction. Alas, I still get dragged out to stuffy plays and concerts for my own good.

          • Hi Avi,

            also Jews were Dhimmi which came with questions long list of conditions or lack of rights to avoid being killed. There were bouts of persecutions of Jews in the middle east, the last one was the farhud pogrom in 1941.

          • The Explorer

            Sahih Bukhari Hadith vol 4 Bk 52 No 176: You will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will betray them, saying, “There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.”

          • alternative_perspective

            I’m sorry Darrach but you need to reread your Koran and the Hadith.

            Moreover you sound as though you’re falling hook line and sinker for extremist left wing revisionist history.

            In my humble opinion I think you need to be careful spiritually. I admire your dedication to human flourishing but I feel you’re allowing your politics to drve your theology, somewhat unidirectionally.

          • Darach Conneely

            Sorry just ordinary vanilla history, though I do encounter Right Wing revisionist history online, Barton and Co., that have no academic credibility. Simple fact is while Europe kicked Jews from country to country, invented the Ghetto, pogroms, launched their crusades by slaughtering ‘Christ killers’ at home and set the inquisition on Catholics of Jewish descent, Jews enjoyed a much higher status in the Islamic world as ‘people of the book’.

            Would you base your views of Christianity on Dawkins’ proof texting the bible? You should be just as dubious about Christian Fundamentalists or atheists prooftexting the Koran or the Hadith. The Islamic tradition of tolerance to Jews is a much more reliable source.

            I used be quite right wing. It is my walk with Christ teaching me compassion for the poor and downtrodden that is driving my politics. Given a choice between a genuine compassionate conservatism

          • Richard Watson

            And what do you do if people stereotype the ‘other’ as people with whom you can never have anything in common?

            How about we start by not assuming things about each other?

        • The Explorer

          Piet Retief really wanted to understand the Zulu point of view. He agreed that he and his negotiating party should leave their guns outside and go unarmed into Dingaan’s kraal as a gesture of good faith. The Zulus would be unarmed as well.

          Guess what? The Zulus didn’t want to understand Retief’s point of view. They still had their spears. They used them. Retief’s group were massacred to a man.

          Retief’s altruism resulted in the dreadful reprisal by the unaltruistic Boers against the Zulus in what became appropriately known as the Battle of Blood River.

          • avi barzel

            Worse, Retief and his party were slowly clubbed to death, Retief last so that he could witness the deaths, and the Zulus went on to massacre several laagers of of abuot 500 trekker-Boers, who had settled the area long before the Zulus arrived. Then, they left the corpses to rot.

            But Blood river wasn’t just a reprisal. Vastly outnumered, the trekker forces faced a Zulu army of 20,000 and killed about 3000, defeating it at the cost of couple of minor injuries. The new Zulu king sued for peace.

          • The Explorer

            The town of Weenen marks the spot where the wagons were attacked. It means ‘Weeping’. It’s well described in the book ‘The Washing of the Spears’, plus the nasty detail that the Zulu felt it necessary to disembowel their enemies so that the spirit of each might escape. They carried a broad-bladed slashing spear for the purpose, in addition to their assegais.

          • avi barzel

            The slashing spears were probably picked up from the Xhosa, who in turn may have been emulating the Arabs up the eastern coast. The slasher was essentially a large leaf-shaped copper or iron knife with a longish handle, but one shorter than a throwing spear. It was also used in the way Romans used their short swords, spada, in a stabbing motion. I remember this stuff from when I studied the !Kung, Sa’an and Gikwe, and by necesdity their neighbours and competitors, o so many years ago.

          • The Explorer

            ” Ah, here’s a Zulu. Now let’s sit down and talk so that we understand each other. Interesting leaf-shaped implement you have there. What do you use it for? Aaaagh!”

          • avi barzel

            That’s what we have the UN for. They can make sure that the injured party doesn’t “escalate the conflict” and shower the Zulu with land, money and sympathy because it works every time.

          • carl jacobs

            I thought the UN was for parking problems that states didn’t want to address.

          • avi barzel

            Same difference.

          • Inspector General

            The kind of meeting Conneely would arrange…

          • The Explorer

            Having been captured, the negotiating team, and their non-Zulu black servants, were clubbed to death one by one. Retief was deliberately killed last; so that he could see where his folly had led him.
            The Zulus danced on thorns to toughen the soles of their feet. They didn’t believe in altruism.

          • Inspector General

            Just shows how effective the sub Saharan African way of reproduction was. Only the warriors were allowed to mate with the maidens. A thousand generations and more of that has given us the African descendants that crowd our prisons. At a rate, for their number, of 7 to 1.

            What do you make of that, Conneely?

        • Inspector General

          There are no lessons from the north of Ireland to be learned by the protagonists in the Middle East. The set of racial characteristics that is the Arab, inflamed by Islam, does not allow for compromise. But don’t let that truth interfere with your pursuits in the subject.

          The British empire learnt how to handle the Arabs. You impress upon them your MIGHT and then they kneel before you. They call you effendi, and are pliant. But give them a chance, and they’ll stake you out in the desert and grin as you thirst to death. Whatever makes you think lessons learnt the hard way dealing with these cruel people’s great grandfathers from a century and a half ago no longer apply today?

          • Darach Conneely

            Funny that’s how Paisley and Co felt about Papists. #HomeRuleIsRomeRule

          • Inspector General

            You really ought to embrace the theory of racial hierarchy. Because if you don’t, you’ll fail to grasp that as a white man, you are on top of the thing, and you’ll make the mistake that all the other races are just as humane and forgiving as you are. Thus you will continue to look rather silly…

          • carl jacobs

            It’s interesting that the only people who “embrace the theory of racial hierarchy” are those who imagine themselves at the top of it.

          • avi barzel

            Actually, that would have to be East Asians now, who apparently outscore everyone on the various (and still highly problematic) IQ assessments….even, gulp, us Yids.

            Anyhow, on this matter the Inspector and I disagree. The problem, I think, is is that even if there are such things as genetically transferable behavioural and cognitive traits, they wouldn’t necessarily be clumped along our standard perception of what constitutes “race”, which is a cultural construct based on perceptions of superficial and unimportant markers like melatonin content and bone structure, and most of those characteristics emerged in the last 10,000 years only as adaptations to environments.

            But while I think the Inspector is wrong, and that culture, in turn influenced by material realities, is the sole mechanism driving differences between human groups (in a fairly minor and temporary way), it is an opinion based on my “holistic” understanding of history. The bottom line is that it is currently impossible to prove him wrong scientifically. The only serious researcher, Jensen, and his many credible opponents, squabbled over equally mushy data sets, vague interpretations and iffy assessments, and political correctness and genuine concerns over misuse has shut down the possibiloty of meaningful, empirical research on the question of any possible physiology-based differences between human groups.

          • Inspector General

            It’s the old question of “is it nature or is it nurture” Avi. To have the question at all means there are people out there who believe we are born with a clean sheet. One cannot subscribe to that, and suggests that our thought processes are influenced by our brain structure which of course is inherited. That’s not to say we are prisoners of the damn thing, as being made aware of our (often immense) shortcomings is where education comes in.

            Perhaps the biggest illustration of one’s findings is the male negro who is the product of thousands of years careful breeding only from warrior types and the fittest women. Unfortunately, the resulting tendency to extreme violence in some though not all has led to around a hundred thousand of their type serving sentences exceeding three score and ten in American prisons…

          • Inspector General

            No more out of the ordinary than those people who believe they are at the top of a religious hierarchy. You don’t mind that do you, the idea of a religious hierarchy…

          • carl jacobs

            Truth can be separated from falsehood by the employment of meaningful and tangible discriminators. And truth is detached from men. It has independent objective existence. You aren’t making a value judgment about a man when you say “X is true.

          • Inspector General

            Carl, you are not going to get very far in this life if you embrace phrases like ‘truth is detached from man’. The truth is out there to be had. If it holds water, then it’s the truth whether it is or not. We are here to find it, and that involves giving X a value or values.

          • carl jacobs

            Truth exists because God exists. It is a property of God and not man. Because God is, Truth is. We don’t derive it. We don’t authenticate it. We don’t authorize it. We receive it.

          • Inspector General

            Calm down Carl, you’re foaming at the mouth (again). In philosophical circles, truth does not need the existence of God. Now, this will come as a dreadful disappointment to you, but…

          • carl jacobs

            You know, Shakespeare should have written a play about you. Called “Taming of the Inspector.” With Jack in the role of Petruchio. In the end you would become a docile compliant Catholic.

          • Inspector General

            The Inspector likes you Carl. So much so that he is prepared to take you out on a lead (muzzled, of course) so that you be able to lift your leg against all that annoys you, the Inspector included…

          • carl jacobs

            Thanks for the offer, Inspector, but I could never allow to absent yourself from your Gentlemen’s Club for so long a period. What would that black man in the white suit do if you weren’t there to provide him guidance and instruction, and tell him what drinks to bring?

          • Inspector General

            Ah yes, one’s club. We were to be having a new chap on the staff. An American, previously worked as a TV journalist. They say he won’t be coming now – had anger issues and a ‘tendency to extreme violence’ In flagrante delicto. It’s for the best he stays away…

            Hmmm ‘tendency to extreme violence’. Do help a fellow out, Carl, where did the Inspector last read that phrase of late?

          • Richard Watson

            And we wonder why those folks aren’t so friendly now they aren’t under the kosh.

          • Inspector General

            For an empire that stretched around the world, there was remarkably little coshing to be found. One cannot remember the fellows name, but he stated that Britain ran an empire with less of their own troops than a Balkan state needed to keep their own people in order.

            Having researched that glorious period of empire, it cannot be understated how willingly native types took to British administration. In one’s own opinion, we had their hearts and minds by introducing them to sanitation, not least of which being the flushing toilet and a reliable water supply. It is interesting to note that the dash for independence came after the 39 45 war, when those who were still around and who knew their territory before the British arrived where aged and lacked influence. The young discontents must have thought that such trappings of civilisation would always be there for them. How many of them were soon be to disappointed…

        • dannybhoy

          It worked?
          No, it legitimised bullying. And the use of violence remains idle as long as that bullying tactic yields results.

        • avi barzel

          This isn’t rocket science. ISIS is composed not of monsters, but of much too human fanatical religious ideologues. It is fuelled by those who profit by their mayhem and refreshed with the bodies of young adventurists and psychopaths with a taste for booty, torture and murder and sexual perversion. Neither is a solution that complicated; first you destroy them and then, if you got nothing better to do, you can send the academics and do-gooders to forensically examine and argue over the causes.

  • carl jacobs

    In the lexicon of the Left, an “oppressed people” reveals the corruption of the system opposed by the Left. This “oppressed people” is only important insofar as it reveal oppression. It has no intrinsic importance of its own. The black population of Rhodesia, for example, was only important because it revealed colonial imperialism and assumptions of white superiority. This made manifest the Leftist critique of the Western Capitalist societies. As soon as Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, the “oppressed people” became a “liberated people.” They could no longer display the racism and imperialism of that which the Left opposes. Therefore the Left lost interest in Zimbabwe. So also would it be with the Palestinians. The Left has no particular interest in Palestine or ts people. It has an interest in using Palestinians as a mirror to reflect both its own virtue and the vice of its enemies.

    The Left carries tremendous resentment against Israel. It was supposed to be the shining example of a new Socialist state – a confirmation of Left wing presuppositions and proof the Socialism could be achieved without bloodshed. Instead, it has become a tool of American Capitalist Imperialism. It is this sense of betrayal that drives the animosity on the Left. It is this sense of betrayal that impels the Left to try to conform Israel to that original Leftist image of the Kibbutz. Israel isn’t just any nation. It is the Apostate. And it will be returned to the fold, even if must die in the process.

    • The Explorer

      You’re right. We focus on the punishment meted out to those who leave Islam, but the penalties for those who leave the Left are almost as severe; although falling short of death. Career and social death instead. Think of the ostracism of David Horowitz.

    • Hi Carl

      Only in Israel could you get a forest in a desert, a winery in a desert and a fish farm in a desert. Also , not so well know is the Moshav, which was the Sephardic /Mizrahi alternative to the secular/liberal Ashkenazi dominated kibbutz.

      Basically the same, principle but more socially conservative /family collectives(no group child rearing for example) .

      A bit Like happy Jack being a bit of a leftie on economics, but social conservative on societal ethics.

  • Hi

    You can tell the difference between the two sides via the national anthems

    Israel’s hatikvah, based on a poem, is called “the hope”, verses which include:

    “So long as still within the inmost heart a Jewish spirit sings,
    so long as the eye looks eastward, gazing toward Zion,
    our hope is not lost: that hope of two thousand years,
    to be a free people in our land, the land of Zion and Jerusalem

    Our hope is not yet lost,
    The hope of two thousand years,
    To be a free people in our land,
    The land of Zion and Jerusalem

    Hear, O my brothers in the lands of exile,
    The voice of our Prophets,(Who declare)
    That only with the very last Jew —
    Only there is the end of our hope!

    Go, my people, return in peace to your land
    The balm in Gilead, your healer in Jerusalem,
    Your healer is G-d, the wisdom of His heart,
    Go my people in peace, Redemption is imminent”

    By contrast ,the Palestinian national anthem is called “fedayeen warrior”and seemingly has an obsession with warfare and conflict:

    “Warrior, warrior, warrior,
    Oh my land, the land of the ancestors
    Warrior, warrior, warrior,
    Oh my people, people of eternity

    With my determination, my fire and the volcano of my vendetta
    With the longing in my blood for my land and my home
    I have climbed the mountains and fought the wars
    I have conquered the impossible, and crossed the frontiers”

    If the Arabs laid down their arms, there would be peace. If the Israelis laid down theirs, then there would be no more Jews.

    • Anton

      “our hope is not lost: that hope of two thousand years,to be a free people in our land, the land of Zion and Jerusalem”

      I am glad that you are. It is indeed your land.

    • David

      Thank you for that Hannah.
      The two songs say as much as a thousand learned books.

    • IanCad

      Beautiful Hannah.
      The last paragraph says it all!

    • Richard Watson

      “If the Arabs laid down their arms, there would be peace.”

      Let’s assume that’s true for a moment. Even so can you understand why they might believe that they have a legitimate grievance against the imposition of a state which they perceive as occupying land they used to have?

      Supposing during the cold war the Americans had captured Moscow, established a perimeter around it and declared it a sovereign state. The Russians around the city would fight to get it back. Isn’t that similar to how the displaced Arabs would feel? I’m not saying they are right or wrong to feel like that, but understanding motives is important.

      • carl jacobs

        The Arabs started what they hoped would be a War of Jewish Annihilation. They lost. They ran away. That doesn’t count as “displacement.”

        • Ivan M

          The Arabs were driven away. Among other farrago around this event, surely the most egregious is the lie that somehow they all packed up and left their homes to give the Arab forces (the most effective one of which was the Jordanian Arab Legion under Glubb Pasha, which largely stayed out and gave a pasting to the Zionists on every encounter), a clear line of fire onto the Jewish villages or settlement.

          I believed this piece of bullshit for many years, until it dawned on me after a poster on Mondoweiss pointed out the stupidity of it.

          For in the first place, the Arabs did not dispose of the of the kind of firepower that was employed in Stalingrad or Kursk or the Bulge. They could not lay down a sea of fire from the distance with the artillery they had. You can see how pathetic the arms were that they actually possessed. Second and more important, is that this must be the first time in history that a population is fleeing in the face of a friendly army. Apparently the Arab infantry could not distinguish between Jews and Arabs. If you can accept this you will accept most of the other fictions.

          The Arabs had to fight as they knew that the so-called Partition to which Israel agreed to (they would not have got their state otherwise) was nothing more that the first pass of the installment plan.

          As the Tamils say – a marriage is worth a thousand lies – undoubtedly a nation is worth much more. Israel is no more illegitimate than any other country, but lets dispense with the Immaculate Conception of Israel.

          • avi barzel

            That’s post-Zionist revisionist 1980s pseudohistorical bullshit you’ve bought into, Ivan, the fragmented and besieged forces Israel projected could not have driven away this many Arabs. Of course the rationale was ludicrous; but the former Mandate’s Arabs beliwved it and acted accordingly by clearing out overnight.. Yes, Jewish forces wisely cleared some key areas, but would have been unable, physically and politically, to halt a dermined Arab return. Instead as Carl aptly said, they ran. The various Arab potentates saw an opportunity to slaughter the Jews and help themselves to their drained lands, new forests, mines, model agrarian enterprises, fields, orchards, factories, roads, harbours, settlements and towns packed with cool, shiny things, and openly ordered the peons to leave “temporarily” to make way for the glorious slaughter of Jews. They didn’t need the backward cretins on the land, huddled in mud shacks under medieval clan chieftains, when they could have brought in their own people in from Aman, Beirut, Cairo or Damascus to the Land of Milk and Honey. That”s on public record, in Arab declarations and proclamations, scattered in hundreds of archival libraries.

            Many more Muslims would have left, perhaps twice the number, had not so many idiotic socialist Jews of the kibbutzim and the Yishuv, including Moshe Dayan of all people, gallantly assured their safety and urged them to stay. But there were only so many idiotic Jews, which is why some villages, towns and regions were abandoned entirely and others not.

            Personally, I no longer give a green fig for a pristine history. Thoudands of peoples disappeared over the millenia, many clutching pristine histories. Back in the day I would have rooted for the Irgun and LEHI types, Stern and Begin, who knew you couldn’t build a nation while surrounded by crazed religious fanatics, saw the danger then and into the future. A full population transfer of a lethally hostile population, a measure good enough for Czechs, India and Pakistan, and dozens of places all over post-War Europe and elsewhere, would have been preferable and would have avoided a lot of bloodshed on all sides.

          • Hi Avi

            Even as late as the 1970s there was a relocation of people and Britain was the one who did so , to enable the US to build a military base on what’s known as the British Indian ocean territory. But you never hear of that. So the bottom line is people are selective about this stuff. In fact you could argue the Arabs already have a state for Palestinians, called Jordan , whose queen is actually Palestinian.

            Furthermore I think there was a sort of population transfer in that the Mizrahi were forced to leave Arab(and later Persian) lands when they became stateless thanks to Arab bigotry (pace Arab Israelis have full equality within Israel as citizens) .Israel absorbed most of these without qualification, whereas the Arabs have consistently refused anything for their own refugees.

            Interestingly Israel recently was prepared to allow the descendents of Palestinian refugees (or refugees as they are the only group given hereditary refugee status) from Syria to resettle in Judea, because of the conflict there . The only stipulation was that these refugees would give up their hereditary rights . Abbas refused and happily said his people were better off dead than give up their right to return to Israel.

            In fact if any two state was created the Palestinians have constantly said that they wouldn’t give citizenship to even the Palestinians who are deemed to be refugees who live in Judea/west bank. Ergo a two state solution is the start of the campaign to get rid of Israel and wouldn’t bring peace.

          • Richard Watson

            But isn’t it some kind of fanaticism that tries to create a state for a minority people supposedly in the middle of a hostile environment?

            I agree with you that trying to pin down the correct history is a waste of time. We all need to accept where we are and move on. However we need to understand that people have all been told different histories. You and I can discuss this at length if we want, but how do we expect your average Gaza strip inhabitant to grapple with these issues when they probably don’t have access to the sources we do, and the sources they do have access to will have ensured that the bias is well and truly slanted in a certain direction?

            I firmly believe that education is the key to the way out of this, that and slowly building bridges. I don’t believe all Palestinians are born to think it’s right to hate and send in suicide bombers, any more than I believe all Israelis believe it’s right to bulldoze people’s houses and set up settlements. Yet it’s those two groups that appear to be having whatever ‘conversation’ exists right now.

          • carl jacobs

            Israel was an under-populated undeveloped backwater in 1948. The problem was not the introduction of a Jewish minority onto an Arab population. The problem was the introduction of a non-Muslim dominant Western culture onto land claimed for Islam. The Arabs feared that what did happen would happen.

          • Richard Watson

            Yes, it was undeveloped (and vaguely peaceful by comparison with modern times).

            However every single neighbour of the newly-formed state was opposed to it. It was madness to proceed on that basis.

          • carl jacobs

            Blame the British FO. They had the Mandate, and threw the problem to the UN fully expecting the UN to fail – thus handing the British a free hand. They didn’t count on Truman.

            Blame the survivors as well. Something had to be done with the Jews in refugee camps. They couldn’t go home. They wanted their own state. They wanted to go to Israel. And historical reality in 1947 limited the ability of European powers to stop that movement. Once the Jews started going there, it would have been difficult to prevent conflict. And they had moral capital from the holocaust available to spend.

            Finally blame the Arabs. They supported the Germans in the war. I find it hard to sympathize.

          • Richard Watson

            Refugees don’t normally get their own country. I do generally blame the British though. British foreign policy back then has come back to bite us so many times on so many fronts.

            But you can blame whoever you want, it’s irrelevant today, except to note that everyone blames everyone else.

            Sympathy? It’s not about sympathy it’s about practical things that can bring about results. Post war western Germany is a great example. Who had sympathy for the Germans then? It didn’t stop many billions of dollars of investment and loans which has arguably made Germany what it is today.

            And we can’t blame anyone who is alive today for responding to the situation in which they find themselves. The question is who is going to be brave and really work tirelessly for peace? Who can see the future Germany-like states emerging from the ashes of the Levant?

          • Sam

            Dude

            Hamas and co don’t want to create a rich liberal democratic Germany like state, but a Jew free Palestine based on strict sharia law. The only state in the middle east that is like what you describe is Israel itself. As Hannah’s said above forests , vineyards and fish farms all in a desert. That is quite, but just a small , example of Israel’s progress and innovation.

          • carl jacobs

            The Jews of Europe in 1947 were hardly a “normal” refugee group. And refugees don’t normally have access to land controlled by a power that had promised to establish that country and also had the authority to do so. The establishment of Israel was not an imposition. It offended Arab pride. That isn’t a reason for war.

            The issue then as now is intractable. The issue is “Which culture will dominate the land?” There is no mutually satisfactory answer to that question. The only answer to your dilemma is “Never establish a Jewish state in the first place “. The Arabs did then, do not now, and will nevernever in the future accept a non-Muslim culture controlling that land. If you therefore ask me to choose between Israel and Palestine, I will choose Israel every time.

          • avi barzel

            Just so we don’t have any illusions about my position, let me start by saying that it’s perfectly correct and moral to bulldoze Arab houses of terrorists because it is a powerful deterrent to a clan-based culture. Or houses that are being donated to Arabs at the tune of tens of millions by the cash-strapped EU and are being built now in Area C and the eastern parts of Jerusalem. Or Arab houses built on Jewish state land, or on land bought by Jews from Arab landowners. And I believe that the “settlement enterprise” is the most vital project Jewry can and must undertake today because it has legal, unabrogated rights to Judea and Samaria, its religious and historical heartland and is a crucial, strategic territory whose loss would be lethal to the Jewish state. For alternatives, look at the case of Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and heck, the entire Muslim Middle East.

            As for a conversation, we can have one when the PLO entity is defeated and the Arab population of Judea and Samaria can treat with Israel through genuine, self-selected representatives who speak on behalf of their people, not the Arab world, the UN or the EU.

            The “conversation” you imagine is taking place by the “nice” Arabs and the “nice” Jews is a one-sided sham. In it, Jews must a priori accept all stages of the Muslim demands as inherently legitimate and unquestionable and can only discuss the hows of surrendering. And the demands all source to the one ultimate demand which has been spelled out clearly in official Arab policies, documents, literature, poetry and what have you: the State of Israel must cease to exist.

            Furthermore, the typical Jew you imagine is having a “conversation” with his Arab counterparts does not represent other Jews and Israelis; he is almost invariably a bought and paid for member of a lavishly EU or UN-funded, PLO-approved organization. In other words, he is a traitor who should be sitting in a jail cell, instead of before a media scrum. So, let me know when you find Arabs who are free to speak and represent their interests and Israelis who are honest spokesmen and I’ll set up a confab for you myself.

            You reveal basic ignorance of history when you ask the rhetorical question, “but isn’t it some kind of fanaticism that tries to create a state for a minority people supposedly in the middle of a hostile environment?” The earliest Zionists and returnees to the dismal lands mismanaged by Ottoman administrators, Syrian landlords and imported Arab peasants were not looking for a state; they were looking for refuge from a Europe which in various ways decreed that Jews have no place in European civilization; not as a religion. people or “race.” They were refugees and ideologues bought swamp and desert land for inflated prices and built successful farming enterprises and functioning towns with their own money and through their own labour. There was no “Palestine” as a state and no “Palestinians” as a people and it was only after Jewish successes and growing numbers that the new Arab nations with dreams of yet another glorious Islamic caliphate and the European countries who eyed colonies and access to trade routes and oil that the panic and the real trouble began.

          • Sam

            Dude

            Ayelet Shaked would be a good choice for the Israeli side of the “conversation”.

          • Hi Sam

            So it’s got nothing to do with the fact Ayelet is a young attractive woman?

          • Ivan M

            I am not in the camp of those who claim that Israel did something that was unprecedented in the annals of the 20th century. As you say in the context of that time, the large scale displacement of peoples were commonplace and the death of a few hundred Arabs pales into insignificance when compared to the millions who died during the Indian Partition, and the many millions of Europeans who lost their lives in the aftermath of WW2. At that time nobody was going to care that a few Arabs died, there were no tears to spare.

            I do not question the legitimacy of Israel at all, since it too is home to many millions, and frankly if Israel has no right to exist then that calls into question the right to exist of every other nation.. I question only its current policies. And no I would not be on Comrade Corbyn’s side baiting just the Israelis either, since the Arabs are far worse.

          • avi barzel

            Question away Israel’s current policies; I do too, and I’m probably much harsher than you, although over different issues perhaps.

          • Sam

            What I find interesting is when the discussion of a people swap crops up -e.g. Israelis move from Judea to Israel proper and the Arab Israelis go to live in this state of Palestine- the Arab Israelis kick up a fuss. But they are supposed to be an oppressed minority under the Israeli “jackboot”. However they wish to continue to be Israeli citizens and not Palestinians. Could it be that in reality that they don’t want to live in a future Palestine state which will end up like Gaza?

          • carl jacobs

            In late 1947 at the time of the UN vote, the Arab states were openly threatening war, and were absolutely confident of victory. So was essentially every other nation. One of the reasons the US DoD was so opposed to the establishment of Israel was because it feared the US military get pulled into the resulting war. The Arabs armies were not the Wehrmacht, but they were attacking a bunch of settlers. They attacked confident of victory.

            It takes fear to drive away a population that does not want to leave. If the Israelis had driven out the Palestinians, there would be a large body of evidence to substantiate it – in terms of murder and rape and burning. You couldn’t hide that sort of thing. Were is the evidence of the acts that would have induced the Palestinians to flee? If the Palestinians fled, perhaps it was because people tend to expect to receive the treatment they intended to give. And what exactly do you suppose would have happened to the Jews in Israel in 1948 if the Arabs had won that war?

          • Ivan M

            At that time the leading and ranking members of the US Army were opposed to the creation of Israel, men such Marshall and if he were asked Eisenhower. They were opposed for plain geopolitical reasons. The Israelis were more trouble than they were worth, and the US was run by men who put American interests first and last. All that has changed since. With the absurdity of Americans from the left and right claiming that Israel is the greatest ally. An ally which has not fought a single war on the American side. Who had to have their chestnuts picked out by the Americans in Iraq 1991 and Lebanon 1982 for starters.

            The Arabs then and now have big mouths. The reality is that the Israelis were the superior force. They drove out the Arabs, not that I care all that much about it.

            The evidence is there in Benny Morris accounts, and that of Ilan Pappe if anyone cares to read. Of course accounts by Arabs themselves, Edward Said or Karl Sabbagh or anyone of the towelheads should not be believed.

          • avi barzel

            When I mentioned “post-Zionist pseudo-historians” I meant primarily Morris and Pappe. I just didn’t think you had heard of them, much less read them.

            An ally [i.e., Israel] which has not fought a single war on the American side. Who had to have their chestnuts picked out by the Americans in Iraq 1991 and Lebanon 1982 for starters.

            Israel fights wars for America and the entire West on daily basis simply by existing. It does so by absorbing Muslim hate and terror, by disrupting its capabilities and dampening the enthusiasm of the Islamic world by its ability to project force at any given time. It has never had to be defended; not from Iraq, which was not a plausible threat to Israel, not from Lebanon which, had Israel been allowed to finish the job, would have seen the reinstitution of Christians in at least part of the country.

            Any way you look at it, any nation of barely six million which can enrage and frighten 1.57 billion Muslims, 23% of the world’s population, while running a successful economy is most likely a worthy and desirable ally.

          • Ivan M

            Can you please stop patronising me about what I have or have not read. In my time I have read more than you about everything under the sun. Which is why I can hold my own on any topic I get tangled in. At some stage when you are an expert like me you can catch the gist of everything.

          • avi barzel

            Ok, you’re right; that did sound patronising, and I’m sorry.

            Wasn’t my intent at all, though, as few remember the authors. They were flashes in the pan, who enjoyed brief , but lucrative, prominence and slid back to obscurity, as they have little standing in academia, not because of their politics, but because of their shoddy research, lack of scholarly integrity and crude bias. Morris, as far as I remember, retracted a lot of his claims after the “post-Zionism” fad spent itself.

            Israeli academics, doctors and scientists earn a fraction of what their counyerparts make in the West. However, any second-rate Israeli or Jewish academic with minimal credentials and flat-lining prospects can propel himself to prominence, successfully publish and land lucrative academic positions in Europe or the US if he can find a way to knock Jews or Israel and give a substantial audience of “critics” on the Right and Left exactly what they want to hear. To be sure, their audience is far, far larger than the neutral or pro-Israel one.

            Ok, maybe you have read more than I, but your citing of Morris and Pappe (among other ones in the past) as sources of evidence makes me question the quality of your readings and your ability to differentiate between credible sources and pop-history shlock meant to feed your confirmation bias. For that assessment I won’t apologise.

          • Ivan M

            Damned you did read it, and I thought I had escaped the whiskey sodden, Peripatetic of the North.

        • Richard Watson

          And you seriously think this had nothing to do with the plans to partition Palestine?

          • carl jacobs

            Of course the war was intended to kill the Israeli state envisioned by partition. The Arabs intended to prevent the establishment of a new “Crusader state” on the assumption that land claimed for Islam must never be surrendered by Islam. They feared they would not be able to compete with a modern Western state. And they were right.

            But that doesn’t mean the state of Israel shouldn’t have been established, or that the Arabs were “oppressed” by its establishment. The powers that established the state of Israel had the authority to do so. The surrounding Arab states had no cause for war – other than fear of failure and further Arab humiliation.

          • Richard Watson

            It shouldn’t have been established in the way it was. I’m not about to say it should be disbanded now, that would be stupid, but huge mistakes were made in the way it was created that have completely poisoned the area.

            Of course nobody really cared at the time, but if there wasn’t such a rush to set it up (presumably partly aggravated by the refugee crisis) then there could well have been a better solution.

          • carl jacobs

            How should it have been established? What could have been done in the face of Jewish migration and Arab rejectionism?

      • Hi

        the west bank and Gaza were occupied by Jordan and Egypt until 1967, but they didn’t fight back against that imposition.

        I’d like to know why , when Israel seriously committed itself to peace, Arafat was give a two state solution and the israeli capital Jerusalem , plus the right of return of Palestinians to the west bank(Judea) and his response was the second intifada, suicide bombers and a refusal to sign a deal which was the best any Palestinian could expect (even Clinton thought Barak to be highly generous in his proposals).

        • Richard Watson

          Because Arafat was a shockingly bad leader who let the Palestinian cause down.

      • Royinsouthwest

        The United States has occupied Texas, Arizona and California for quite a while now. Mind you, given the current rate of immigration from south of the Rio Grande, Mexico might regain those states one day.

  • Anton

    The questions to ask those who say they are anti-Israel but not anti-semitic is this: Do you hold Israel to higher standards than other Middle Eastern nations? If so, why?

    • David

      Good point.

    • Jack would say all nations in the Middle East should be held to the same standards – even if adhering to such standards places one at a disadvantage because the others “play dirty”.

      • Anton

        Happy to agree with you!

      • Sam

        Dude

        This isn’t a game of cricket….

        • God has His ways for man, Sam.

        • carl jacobs

          There theoretically might be rules for Cricket, but since nothing ever happens in Cricket, it’s hard to tell.

          • James60498 .

            I find it astonishing that an American can think that any non-American sport is slow.

          • carl jacobs

            Cricket isn’t so much slow. It’s more like trapped in a stasis field.

      • carl jacobs

        Meanwhile, back in the real world …

    • alternative_perspective

      Why just the middle East? I’d like to see how rev. Rosie whatchamacallit would respond if rockets were repeatedly fired from an adjoining state, killing some of her parishioners, by people with the express intent of killing her?

    • Richard Watson

      “Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required.”

      It’s too late to be anti-Israel even though it’s a flawed idea on many levels. Partition on the grounds of religion and race is always going to cause strife. Rather than promote the Jewish people the modern state of Israel is, in many respects, a ghetto.

      What to do now is a difficult question but letting the ongoing cycle of oppression continue cannot be the answer. It’s no excuse to oppress someone because you are the minority.

      So, to answer your question, yes, we should hold all the countries in that area accountable for their actions. But the ultimate winner is the country that takes the lead and builds the bridges. Israel with their vast resources are in a position to do this more than most, and certainly more than Palestine.

      However the bigger responsibility lies with those countries who created the current situation, not least of which is the UK.

      • Anton

        Let us first take a survey of who in Britain is proud of the Balfour Declaration and who is not. (I am.) It is grotesque to compare Israel to a ghetto when the zionist movement gained most of its early momentum from Jews suffering persecution in ghettos in eastern European lands in which they had no political self-determination. Israel does not hate Arabs but it prioritises its own survival, as any nation State should. Nor does it always behave perfectly, but the question is then: should it be compared against perfection or against other nation States?

        • Richard Watson

          ‘Ghetto’ is not my word. It was the prediction of the Jewish MP Edwin Montague in 1917 : http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Montagumemo.html – has it come true or not?

          We don’t actually need to compare Israel against perfection, or anything else. My only question to the Israeli leaders would be ‘What do you want to happen?’ because if peace is the answer then then I don’t believe that the way to it lies along the path they have chosen.

          • Anton

            Of course it hasn’t come true. A ghetto is full of people who have no political self-determination. The Jews of Israel do.

            And their leaders are open about what they want: an end to terrorism.

          • Richard Watson

            A ghetto is just an area inhabited by a minority group.

            As I say, I don’t think their current actions are going to result in an end to terrorism.

          • Anton

            Your definition is lacking: a ghetto is an area inhabited by a persecuted minority group in a region run by the majority group.

            Is it not up to terrorists to put an end to terrorism?

          • Richard Watson

            Maybe morally, but if you actually want terrorism to end then it requires people who have done nothing wrong to do take risks.

            In the case of Israel / Palestine it needs good will on both sides. At the moment I don’t believe either side thinks it will find it in the other.

          • Anton

            That is true, but so is the statement that if the Arabs of the Holy Land lay down their weapons then there would be no more terror, whereas if the Jews did then there would be no more Israel.

          • Richard Watson

            I don’t believe either of those have been tried. And actually the Arabs are nearer to it than the Jews, purely by virtue of the extra resources that the Jews have.

            For the Arabs to do that it also requires them to believe in the assertion, and they don’t. Neither would you if you’d seen your house squashed by the ‘enemy’ bulldozers.

            Other people’s beliefs are their reality. Before you can change their reality you have to change the belief. Before you can change someone’s beliefs you have to change your own actions.

          • Anton

            There is only one reality but there are multiple beliefs about it. A major problem is corruption in Arab leadership in the Holy Land.

          • Richard Watson

            Alas none of us has enough objectivity to know completely what the truth is. And expecting other people to have the same beliefs about the truth as we do is equally futile.

          • Richard Watson

            To go back to Montagu, he firmly believed that Zionism itself is anti-Semitic.

            Supposing we said “what we need is a homeland for the black-skinned people, run by themselves, where they can go and we can defend them and they will feel safe”. It would be tantamount to agreeing that black people cannot live with others, and that we cannot live with them. It would be saying that they are not a part of the human race.

          • Anton

            That is a false analogy. Jews had been persecuted in Europe for centuries, and when Montagu wrote it was about to get worse as Hitler rose. If Montagu believed that zionism was antisemitic then he believed that Jews were antisemitic, in which case it is a matter between Jew and Jew and none of his business. I, of course, think his view that zionism is antisemitic is simply barmy.

          • Richard Watson

            Blacks were persecuted in South Africa for years. Was the answer to that to segregate them and give them their own country?

            I think you’re right that the Zionists themselves were not anti-Semitic, but that a Jew in a prominent position in that era would think that the movement itself was should make us all think hard about it.

          • Anton

            I have. Do you know that many prominent Jews wished to distance themselves from zionism because they believed it threatened their hard-won citizenship of European nations? Much good it did them in Germany and the lands it invaded.

  • Inspector General

    Splendid stuff Cranmer! You remind this man why he reads you daily.

    The Inspector has researched the essential difference between the extreme left and its equally uncompromising twin, the extreme right. He finds that while the latter is based on authority driven goals, the former is a herd mentality. Corbyn has bought into that. He couldn’t change it even if he wanted to. He must follow the mob as it rampages through what we all hold dear. Although he is at the front of it, he finds himself propelled by the surge behind him.

    Corbyn needs his dubious associates, for it is they who provide the surge behind. If they stopped coming to him, then he would know he’d taken a wrong turn and the mob are leaving him behind. The equivalent of being disowned by his family, no less.

    Let us thank him for his honesty. When he becomes leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition, anyone who would vote for him knows exactly what they’ll be getting. You used to be able to say that about the Conservatives, until Same Sex Marriage…

    • alternative_perspective

      I’m not entirely sure what extreme right wing politics are since the majority of totalitarian regimes over the last century seem to have been decidedly socialist or communist. Perhaps Pinochet, but I have no understanding of life under his rule.

      It would seem racism (antisemitism) and nationalism are as much at home traditionally in left wing as right wing camps. The only difference between the BNP and socialist worker being different out-groups but both are happy to vilify, marginalise and even violently persecute those they oppose.

      To be honest, in this kind of exchange I believe the terms right wing and left wing collapse into meaninlessness.: there’s only us and them, in versus out… Those with power versus those without.

      • Inspector General

        Left and Right seem rather outdated these days. Understandable as the concept arose from the seating in the French revolutionary parliament, so one recalls. The Inspector gets by by using a scale reasonable>extreme these days…

      • David

        Instead of right or left, all meaningless as we agree, I’m experimenting with a spectrum between : –
        Total Personal Freedom …..to……Total Government Control.
        Total Personal Freedom is of course unattainable, as we must live in …society.
        Total Government Control = North Korea.
        Perhaps someone would consider writing a Phd thesis on this. My fees for their supervision are very reasonable.

        • alternative_perspective

          Yes but what about social and economic dimensions? May I suggest u check out the political compass website, its quite interesting.

  • Inspector General

    It used to be said that the existence of Israel was the best guarantor we in Europe had from the prophets people continuing the struggle against the infidel and repeating their incursion by force into the continent that they achieved some hundreds of years ago.

    It used to be said, and it damn well needs to be said today! It’s as true now as ever before.

    We must remember that although Islam is making its presence known in our home, what’s happened so far would be as nothing if the main source of their vile hatred was removed tomorrow. That the great, yet small, country of Israel is tying up Islam’s resources should be trumpeted for all to hear. It just isn’t appreciated enough, if at all…

  • The Jews are rich enough to look after themselves.

    • Sam

      Marie

      I Dunno I feel like baron hardup….

      • avi barzel

        Marie’s line brings to mind that old joke where old man Shloimie shocked his family by reading old copies of Der Stuermer, studying The Protocols every day and subscribing to Storfront. When asked by his shocked family why, he explained, “because I’ve been a shlemiel all my life, never able to save a rusty penny, and when I read this scheiss about how we rule the velt and roll in the gelt, I feel like I’m no longer just Old Shlomie, but Schlomo the King.”

    • dannybhoy

      Unfair! They are resourceful and talented enough to look after themselves, but individually I have met many like Baron Shmu’el Hardup..

      • I’ve never met a hard-up Jew.

        • ZX10

          I’ve never met a hard up socialist so what

    • ZX10

      ‘The Jews ‘ nice collective term are you a fan of Corby ?

      • Yes and no. I do like some of his ideas and plans but I’m not a fan of collective living. There has to be some socialism, but also people need freedoms to be creative.

  • avi barzel

    I’ll steal The Inspector’s pithy line, Your Grace, as it says best what I wish to say: Splendid stuff Cranmer! You remind this man why he reads you daily.

    • Inspector General

      Good grief Avi! You so embarrass a fellow. Anyway, fall in, there’s fighting to be done tonight…

      • avi barzel

        Ay-yay, Inspector, ready and willing with new flint in the lock and powder dry!

  • dannybhoy

    “The inequality, inconsistency – or hypocrisy – is glaring. The Left have
    a liberation theology for blacks, gays, women, disabled, Muslims,
    Palestinians and the albinos of Sub-Saharan Africa. But Jews? Well,
    there’s the small matter of a conniving ‘Kosher Conspiracy‘ to take over the world, and the Left has a divine mission to expose and sterilise its sinister agenda.”
    The left prefers victims who want to stay helpless and therefore dependent on them.
    It’s a kind of paternalism with sinister undertones…!

    Personally I believe there is also a spiritual dimension to this. The Jews are God’s Covenant people, chosen by Him to serve and represent Him among the nations.
    As long as this remains the case it seriously damages the case for Man being his own saviour and lawmaker. Even though many Jews are now secular, they remain a physical reminder of His faithfulness to the Covenant.

    • David

      Totally agree.

  • Anna

    Anyone who has lived in countries where the Muslims constitute the majority of the population or even a sizeable minority will instinctively understand the danger they pose. No other community is allowed a voice and permitting a church to meet is considered a major concession.

    In dealing with Muslims, at a personal level, Christians need to exercise ‘gentleness and respect’; but in engaging with them as a group, a different approach is required. It is a mistake to grant concessions or special privileges without demanding some reciprocity from Muslim nations. Muslims view such appeasement as a sign of weakness, which they will continue to exploit.

    Although there is now a greater perception of the dangers of Islam, it is difficult for most western leaders to see through their actual tactics to gain dominance. So you have Christian leaders stating that Sharia law has a place in Britain and the British government opening its doors to Islamic finance. The voices of those like Dr Michael Nazir-Ali who understands the impact of Islam’s growing influence in the west often falls on deaf ears. “I will make youths their leaders, and the unstable will govern them” (Isaiah 3:4 HCSB).

    Instead of funding Muslim organisations (another mistake), it makes more sense to reach out to the Middle Eastern Christians – and many are now settled in the UK – to understand this threat and seek solutions.

    Most of all this is a time to call on God. “If my people who are called by my name

    humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways,
    then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land” (2
    Chron. 7:14 ESV)

    • dannybhoy

      A very good post.

      • Anna

        Thank you.
        Anna

    • David

      Well put.

  • chiefofsinners

    Now I am confused and need help with a moral issue:
    Supposing I had a right-leaning friend who had ‘joined’ the Labour party in order to vote for Corbyn and make mischief.
    Should he a) still vote for the anti-Semite hoping that the left will rend itself asunder? b) confess his sin to Harriet Harman in the hope of absolution and see if he can get his three quid back? c) vote for Yvette because a victory for her would sink Ed Balls even deeper into misery?
    It’s a moral jungle and no mistake. For my friend, that is.

    • avi barzel

      Do you mean vote in party selections or general elections? If the former, it would strike me as improper to corrupt the integrity of the electoral process by feigning membership in a party you…um, your friend…despises and if in the latter, strategic voting may be ethically acceptable, as we are not serfs to parties and our piddly vote is all we peons have, but fraught with danger if too many try to be smart cookies at the same time.

    • If ‘your friend’ joined the Labour Party then ‘he’ is entitled to vote in whatever way he chooses for whatever reasons he has.
      Is that all it costs nowadays to join Labour – £3?

      • chiefofsinners

        £3 for associate membership. Some would say that’s a rip-off.

        • Goodness. One can’t even buy a pint with that these days. You are right though, it would be money wasted.

          • chiefofsinners

            Ah, comrade Jack, you don’t realise that £3 is a vast sum to the average British worker on the shop floor! Typical out-of-touch Tory toff. Up the revolution! I’m going to nationalise your hat. Rant, rant etc.
            Just practising for my new life as a Labour party member.
            I think I have the solution now. I will stand for the leadership myself.

          • Comrade Chief, Jack will happily donate his hat for the revolution – just so long as he’s permitted to keep his head.

    • Richard Watson

      A few random points, Chief.

      1) I don’t think voting for Corbyn is making mischief, but it could be interesting. He has some very popular policies, like renationalising the railways, that all the Tory commuters will probably also support. I think Labour would gain support under him, at least from places that matter.

      2) Neither is it a vote for an anti-Semite, at least not any more than any of us are prejudiced towards our own causes and not those of others.

      3) Yvette seems true to herself at least, but seems to know less and less what she stands for.

      4) Burnham probably has the best heart and political brain but isn’t choosing to apply them. He could have stolen a march on corbyn by being just slightly to the right of him and the guy with more experience.

      5) Kendal. I’ve no idea why anyone would vote for her.

      Press your buttons and gamble away!

      • chiefofsinners

        Thanks for the advice. Having considered the qualities of all the candidates, I have decided to run for the leadership myself.

        • Richard Watson

          Oops, too late. Never mind, you can always have another go when the labour party has its next crisis.

  • michaelkx

    the reason the left will always be against the Jews is, (In my opinion,) is they wish to remove God from there life, but Israel keeps reminding them that there is a GOD and he keeps his word. That is the land of Israel was given to Abraham and to his seed for EVER. no conditions were attached, it is there in the bible and confirmed by Paul in Romans. No amount of refusing to believe that, is going to alter it.

    • The Explorer

      Surely Islam also keeps reminding the Left there is a God? It may not be the same God, but any sort of God is an uncomfortable reminder if you want a God-free world view.

  • Mark

    On the “did he ever talk to the other side” or invite them, or refer to them as “friends” was covered by Douglas Murray. I’m surprised this question hasn’t come up before, or pushed in TV interviews by now. Also I’m wondering why TV interviewers haven’t asked his opinion on the contents of the Hamas Charter.
    Corbyn has not been “diplomatic” or a mediator. He has simply taken sides.