|
« Loaded justice
Main |
November 07, 2003
The chosen person
Ha'aretz, 7 November 2003 The British Conservative party has elected Michael Howard as its first Jewish leader – and potential Prime Minister – since Benjamin Disraeli led the Tories in the 19th century. This has occurred when much of the Jewish community in Britain feels besieged by an upsurge of anti-Jewish hatred. So how can a country whose deep vein of prejudice is once again open and flowing be sanguine about the possibility of a Jewish Prime Minister? Some Jews see no problem in Britain – quite the reverse. Howard’s rise demonstrates, they purr, that Britain has changed, that it has developed a new maturity, that British Jews have finally become truly accepted. From which Panglossian optimism, one can only marvel at the infinite human capacity for self-delusion. For Britain is where the veteran Labour MP Tam Dalyell claimed a ‘cabal’ of Jews was controlling Tony Blair and George Bush – and was then promptly excused as a lovable eccentric. Where the following day, the BBC TV current affairs show Newsnight concluded that Dalyell had a case, and a ‘tightly-knit’ group of Jews really did control US foreign policy. Where Israel is repeatedly dehumanised and delegitimised as an apartheid or Nazi state. Where almost two thirds of the public believe it is the biggest threat to world peace. Where attacks on Jews have increased. And where friendships between Jews and non-Jews founder over claims by the latter that the Jews are all-powerful, and that the establishment of Israel was a terrible mistake. In this hostile climate, however, Michael Howard has climbed to the top of the greasy Tory pole after the sacking of the previous party leader, Iain Duncan Smith. So how does one explain the apparent contradiction? The situation of diaspora Jews has always been characterised by many such ambiguities and nuances, by a profound ambivalence in the general population and a precarious balancing act over Anglo-Jewish identity. Howard’s triumph is an astonishing turnaround. As Home Secretary in the last Conservative government in the 1990s, he became the most unpopular politician in Britain, as much because of his personality as his tough policies. He was widely viewed as sinister and menacing, leading his colleague Ann Widdecombe to make her infamous claim that he had ‘something of the night’ about him. So what was she getting at? Howard provoked a notable repugnance not associated with other, even harder men of the right. This was clearly because he was viewed as an unctuous, oily, slippery, devious, too-clever-by-half lawyer – all epithets associated in the public mind with Jews. True, under Margaret Thatcher’s earlier regime there were no fewer than five Jews in the Cabinet. But this was an aberration, caused by Mrs Thatcher’s personal admiration for the Jews which was not shared by her colleagues, who objected that there were ‘more Estonians than Etonians’ in the government. Now, though, Howard is being hailed as the saviour of his party which is falling over itself to describe him as charming, decent, honourable, upright, fair, fastidious and virtuous. So have the Tories suddenly learned to love the Jews? Not quite. The Conservatives are in the grip of a protracted nervous breakdown, because they’ve been out of power for six years and the country regards them as a hopeless joke. So lacking are they in talent, and so bad is their disarray, they would have elected a Martian if they thought he might win the general election. Howard is by far the most successful politician they’ve got. He has authority and experience, and through his forensic approach does serious damage to the Labour government in House of Commons debates. He is therefore the Conservatives’ only reliable weapon. And the Tories will do anything to win power. Crucially, moreover, Howard’s Jewish profile has always been low. True, in his leadership bid he drew attention to the fact that he was the child of immigrants. True, he says Jewish values are still ‘an important guide and influence on my life’, and he attends a (Liberal) synagogue on the high holydays. But he has never made much of his Jewishness. His wife, the former model Sandra Paul, is a member of the Church of England; and his son Nick not only became a Christian, but provoked controversy as a student when he started trying to convert Jews to Christianity as well. Despite the gushing compliments about Howard in the media in the past week, there have still been uncomfortable reminders of the prejudice lurking below the surface. With the press going overboard to describe how his father fled the Nazis in Transylvania, there was also a reference to Howard posing as a ‘proper English gentleman ‘who stood for ‘those very Anglo-Saxon virtues of fair play and decency’ – whereas according to his enemies, he was a ‘chilly, calculating, heartless, ruthless, ambitious, calculating political machine, bent on passing himself off as something he wasn’t’. In other words, not an English gentleman at all. When Howard was asked by a newspaper what he had felt about this extraordinary line of questioning, he displayed a rare unease and muttered something about Paxman’s reputation for disobliging remarks. His reticence tells you everything you need to know about Britain’s supposed ‘maturity’ towards Jews. For Howard surely knew that for a Jew to complain about anti-Jewish prejudice in Britain is to provoke that very thing. That is the true measure of Anglo-Jewish status: you are accepted as long as you never come into conflict with the values of the surrounding community. Whatever they hit you with, you are supposed to take it in silence – the defining characteristic of the diaspora Jew. And this surely lies at the very heart of the terrible bitterness over British attitudes towards both Israel and the Jews. For the British think there’s nothing wrong with the Jews as long as they agree with the generally accepted view that Israel is the cause of world terror because it is an apartheid or even a Nazi state. Those Jews who agree with this analysis, and also agree that claims of resurgent British antisemitism are a figleaf to conceal the crimes of Ariel Sharon, are the Good Jews. They are welcomed at the most fashionable dinner tables; they are lionised in the universities, publishing or the media. Those Jews who say Israel is defending itself against an attempt to destroy it, that its dehumanisation by the media breaks the bounds of legitimate criticism, and that Jew-hatred of a kind that was assumed to have vanished forever is now horrifyingly respectable, are the Bad Jews. They are not merely socially and professionally ostracised. They are regarded as not really British at all. Antisemitism is now the prejudice that dare not speak its name. Everyone knows that ‘real’ antisemitism was what caused Howard’s father to flee Transylvania for Britain. Everyone also ‘knows’ that the victims of the Nazis have now turned into Nazis, that antisemitism is history, and that it exists today only as a shroud waved by whingeing Jews. In other words, the newly ‘mature’ British like Jews as long as they dump upon Israel, and deny the now rampant public prejudice against them. The British like Jews as long as they turn the other cheek when people commit mass murder against them. They are the good Jews: the Jews who die, just like Michael Howard’s picturesque relatives. The bad Jews are the Jews who fight back. The British believe they are not anti-Jew but anti-Israel. (So do many British Jews on the left, who encourage them). But they are not merely against the government of Israel. The agenda now is that the creation of the Jewish state itself was the big mistake that has led to world terror, and that the very idea of a Jewish state is racist. People now say this to me all the time. So what would happen if Howard were to speak up loudly and firmly in support of Israel’s measures for self-defence, and against the new antisemitism? He would be taking a big risk of being fingered for double loyalty. For what troubles the British even more than the individual Jew is the collective Jew. Jews who publicly identify with each other are considered suspect. The British public will overlook a politician’s Jewish heritage as long as it’s kept to the level of something consenting adults do in private, and as long he doesn’t identify with Jewish peoplehood. The idea that British Jews are not really ‘one of us’ is deeply rooted in British society. Even though prejudice based on Jewish identity went underground after the Holocaust, the successful dehumanisation of Israel by the media has legitimised the revival of the ancient canard of world Jewish power and other familiar tropes of Jew-hatred. British Jews, who have always trodden an existential tightrope, nevertheless believed until very recently that they were as British as anyone else. Now, they find themselves in the hideous position of being forced to denounce their own or bite their tongues as the price of social acceptance. Michael Howard has said: ‘Being Jewish is no bar to playing a very important part in public life in this country’. True, but at a price. A Jewish politician who is determined to become Prime Minister would be brave indeed if he put his head above this particular parapet. Whether such a situation constitutes a ‘new maturity’ to be celebrated about Britain is quite another matter. Posted by melanie at November 7, 2003
Comments
I confess I am somewhat surprised at the big issue that is made of Michael Howard's origins. It is a strange fact that Ramsay McDonald was not aware of his illegitimacy until Horatio Bottomley revealed his birth certificate in a newspaper. There are many means used in politics to wound an opponent. The peculiar situation in Germany of Hohmann MdB who started the old canard about "Bolshevik Jews" on 3rd October, which has led to the removal of General Gunzel of KSK, the German SAS; have me baffled. Why ever would a German politician want to harp on about his country's Nazi past ? So, if politics is about character-assassination, I suppose Judaism will be used to attack Howard, but I fail to see the relevance. I am concerned if a Foreign Secretary can be seen to reflect other than our national interests; and Jack Straw, Malcolm Rifkind, and the one-time Shadow, Gerald Kaufmann would not be my choices as Foreign Secretary, but only partially because of their tenuous links with Israel. It was in Germany again where Emil Rathenau was murdered as Foreign Minister because of his Jewish background as the ultr-nationalists took umbrage over Versailles. We must judge the man by his performance, and Michael Howard has the capacity to be a superior leader if he resists the temptation to engage in bear-baiting: he lost credibility as Home Secretary by responding to Jack Straw's challenges; and as leader he must rise above such things and not seek to win every point, but to sustain himself on the important ones. I resent somewhat that Ha'aretz should treat Michael Howard as "one of us has made it" as if he is now some agent of a foreign power; he is a British citizen, and I expect him to be there to uphold this country's interests, which I have no reason to doubt he will; but I abhor this 'adoption by group' mentality that has black policemen to serve the interests of blacks, and the like which seems to imply a 'masonic' conspiracy against the public as a whole. Disraeli was a fraud, but he was a fraud as a politician, not a man, and was very successful in an era where excessive Gladstonian rectitude was not always the best way forward. Better to concentrate on the Workmens' Compensation Act, and Artisans Dwelling Act, than whatever pathway to God Disraeli had chosen, whatever it was it motivated him to do good for his country and its citizens. Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 7, 2003 07:14 AMRe Newnight I always thought that Jeremy Paxman was a Jew. Even though I dislike Paxman (for his anti-Americanism), in his defence, his comment about Transylvania was a reference to Dracula - not a more undesirable immigrant (ha ha). Posted by: joe at November 7, 2003 12:56 PMI'm sorry Melanie, perhaps I'm naive, but I don't recognise the Israel-hating, much less anti-Semetic, Britain you describe. This is perhaps because I don't mix in the world of journalism, the media, politics and punditry - is that what's meant by the "chattering classes" perhaps? Most people aren't a part of this world. Whether through apathy or ignorance, most of them have no opinion on Israel one way or the other. The interest of even educated, professional people in what passes for politics is these days is minimal, and where it exists focuses on things of obvious impact in their own lives. Rightly or wrongly, the ongoing Arab/Israeli conflict seems just like background noise when they turn on the news. As for anti-Semitism, most people simply don't even notice whether someone is Jewish or not. Jews are simply not visible to most people as a race or people apart, unless you're one of those few people who busy themselves over it. You say, "the idea that British Jews are not really ‘one of us’ is deeply rooted in British society.". This is rubbish Melanie. The perversities of the western media with regard to the Arab-Israeli question, about which I entirely agree with you, are not reflective of a wider anti-Semitism in British society, thank God. As for anti-Zionism, most people wouldn't even know what that means. Please don't follow the well-trodden path of those leftist champions of racial politics by insisting that, as Britons, we're all somehow guilty of institutional anti-Semetism just because it's fashionable among the liberal media and the intelligentsia. Posted by: Simon Jones at November 7, 2003 03:08 PMOh, Melanie, Simon Jones is right! This is terrible that you have got these vibrations. I know of Barbara Amiel's dinner party experience (because she had the guts to write about it) but this is the vicious chatterati. After WWII, Britain accepted more Jews than the rest of the world put together, and we have only prospered from it. Before last week, I thought Michael Howard would be a brilliant leader for the Tories, because he's a brilliant, witty, warm man. I didn't even know he was Jewish. I doubt whether Widdecombe's enigmatic "something of the night" quote referred to his ethnicity. More, it was an enigmatic, if meaningless quote and will ultimately, I think, will work to his advantage. As cartoonist Max had, the dragon Howard is fighting says: "There's something of the knight about him." Posted by: Caroline at November 8, 2003 07:03 PMOoops! Meant "cartoonist Matt", of course. Posted by: Caroline at November 8, 2003 07:04 PMIn 1188 150 Jews were massacred in York and London. In 1239 there was another massacre in London. From 1255 to 1264 Jews suffered from mob attacks and public hangings. King Edward I expelled Jews from England in 1290. While Jews were somewhat tolerated in Britain they did not enjoy full formal emancipation until 1858. However, the ever-present British anti-Semitism has never developed its ghastly form similar to the one that has always existed in other parts of Europe. Can a Jew achieve the Michael Howard’s type professional aspirations in Europe? Michael Howard proves that it is possible but at a tremendous price. Obviously, he wanted to fit in the British society and he wanted it bad. It is very hard for the non-Jews comprehend what he had to give up. For a Jew of the Bessarabian-Romanian heritage to violate thousands of years of family traditions by marrying out of faith and give birth not only a non-Jewish offspring but also a devout Christian offspring is very high price to pay. Evidently, for Michael Howard it was a worthwhile trade. Is it possible to become a leader wearing a yarmulke, marrying a Jewish woman and be an orthodox Jew in Her Majesty’s Government? It is doubtful. Michael Howard has always been careful about touting his faith. In the UK it is defined as being “private”. In a non-Jewish country the Jews can reach the upper echelon levels as long as they don’t look or present themselves as too “schmaltzy” or Jewish. Many Jews take it for granted that despite all the difficulties and anti-Semitism in the world the current generation of Jews is blessed. The existence of the Jewish Israel has changed the formula for advancement for all Jews. The anti-Semites or as they call themselves these days “anti-Zionists” hate Israel, because Israel's presence and might deter anti-Semites from acting up worldwide. In Jewish Israel a Jew does not have to be insecure or hide his identity. In Jewish Israel one does not need to be molded into an image of a non-Jewish culture and renege the family traditions to fit it. A fat, bald, oily Jew wearing a yarmulke and a beard can still become a leader of the Jewish state as long as long as they meet the right qualifications. Michael Howard is not unique. History has known plenty of Jewish characters like him. Sooner or later the US and its ally the UK will sell Israel to her enemies and they will need the Jews like Michael Howard to PR the deed. Oh! I didn't realise Roger was a Jewish name! For someone so attached to racial purity, you seem to have stepped a little out of line there. Why is this suddenly all down not to the man and his vision and ability to lead, but to what religion he was born into? He's brilliant, he's motivated, he's strong. His soul is his business. Not yours. I doubt whether he needs your help. And like Simon, I simply do not understand the notion that in Britain, 'British Jews are not one of us'. This is the strange, double-talk of divisive, special interest politics. I'm really shocked by Roger's post. Howard is going to go into battle for us, and he is going to win! That's all I care about! And apart from anything else, Christianity is founded on Jewish traditions. For heaven's sake, man! Get a grip! Posted by: Caroline at November 9, 2003 01:46 PMRoger forgot to mention how cosy life was for the rest of the poulace in 1188 AD. He also forgot to credit The Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell for reversing the explusion of 1290 AD. I believe that Michael Howard's choice os wife is his alone, and not to conform to some stringent ethnic obligation; much as I believe Muslim women should not be forced to marry cousins or those who hold bonds against their family which marriage to someone in Mirpur is supposed to acquit. It is indeed wonderful Roger that Israel is able to offer so many career opportunities to Orthodox Jews in a country where the state is predicated upon Judaism; and so you have made clear just why it is more likely that in Britain political leaders will be Protestant, even if in business they may well be Catholics, Jews or Muslims or Atheists, or Hindus.....I doubt Israel has too many Greek Orthodox or Protestant business leaders or public sector administrators, or even members of the Knesset wearing a crucifix around their necks, let alone adorning their walls; and I do not think Comparative Religion is taught in Israeli schools. You are clearly a depressive, and seem to think the Leader of the Opposition in the United Kingdom has only Israel as his concern, when actually it hardly rates against the state of public transport, education, policing, housing, defence, or even reform of the judiciary and Upper House. I am sure Israel spends less time discussing the state of Britain's public transport than the state of the economy. From your mis-spelling of "mould" I see you are American by education, and pehaps you have an imperfect understanding of Michael Howard and his commiment to public service in his country, the country in which he was born, and the one which he wishes to see successful and prosperous. Your comments relate to another country, of which he is not a citizen, and seemingly to which he has only the most tenuous of links. Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 9, 2003 03:30 PMPeter, There might not be too many Greek Orthodox or Protestants in Israel, but there are 10 Arabs that were elected to Israeli parliament. Says more about Israel as a country than the rest of your enemies. Posted by: Peter's madness at November 9, 2003 07:58 PMYes, Peter, how terribly vulgar of that American to leave the 'u' out of mold. "Mould" is so much more logical. Just last week a majority of Britons criticized the Jewish State of Israel as a the major threat to world peace in a European Union poll. Given this particularly hideous context, I am terribly concerned that the appointment of Michael Howard, an assimilated British Jew as the new Leader of the Tories, is just another in a long and dreary list of contemporary examples of how the Conservatives rather adeptly shoot themselves in the foot. Posted by: Ken Besig at November 9, 2003 08:11 PMWell, Caroline, what do you know about the Bessarabian-Romanian Jewish heritage? Probably nothing. The British nation is personified in the Royal Family. The British are working hard on preserving the British customs. Do you think your way of life is more important than the 6000-year-old Jewish traditions? After all it is your faith and your customs that latched on to Judaism not the other way around. How long Christianity has tried to wipe out the Jewish faith? You would think that after 2000 years the Christians would finally give up and leave the Jews in peace to be Jewish but it is not the case. There are 5000 Christian missionaries in Israel alone. Can you please show me one Jewish missionary anywhere in the world? The Christians continue to spend vast amount of money to convert the Jews wherever they find them. The Christian networks beam all over the world including Israel. In fact, Israel happens to be the only state in the Middle East where the Christian population is increasing while in all Arab states it is decreasing. Caroline, it is quite obvious that your knowledge of Judaism is identical to your knowledge of the Bessarabian Jews. For your information Jews come in all races and are not a race. The concept of “racial purity” is your concept, which is by the way totally foreign to Jews and Judaism. The problem is when it comes to Jews, Israel and Judaism knowledge and facts are not relevant while the emotions, stereotyping and perceptions are. The media has used it quite effectively. That is how it increases its ratings to improve the bottom line. Is it any wonder that according to the latest European poll Israel is the “biggest threat” to world peace? That is the environment that your culture, concepts customs and traditions have produced. That is the exact environment where a European/British Jew has to survive especially when one is an elected official like Michael Howard. Peter, I am not saying that the British treatment of Jews was the worst. In fact, comparing to the aborigines the Jews faired real well. Also, please get your facts straight. When the Jews own the land under the Buckingham Palace and the 10 Downing Street building then you will talk. The Greek Orthodox Christians own the land not only under the Israeli parliament building but also under the residence of the Israeli Prime Minister. You seem to know about Jews and Judaism as much as Caroline does. Well written and scary, alas. I take some comfort (but not enough) that this rebirth of anti-Semitism is greatest in the chattering classes. It makes the British seem, well, oddly French. That should concern them, if nothing else does. Posted by: Roger L. Simon at November 9, 2003 08:16 PM"In fact, comparing to the aborigines the Jews faired real well."
I will be in Britain in 48 hours and for the first time feel as if I am entering unfriendly territory. I hope that most UK citizens can see through the lies of the British media and chattering classes. Posted by: Travis at November 9, 2003 09:17 PM"Just last week a majority of Britons criticized the Jewish State of Israel as a the major threat to world peace in a European Union poll. "
"When the Jews own the land under the Buckingham Palace and the 10 Downing Street building then you will talk."
As one of the oldest states in Europe ownership most probably has title deeds, which is a sound basis for property ownership don't you agree, Roger ? Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 9, 2003 09:25 PMSomething the British should appreciate is the discrimination they introduced around the world where ever the chattering classes went. If Howard son is going around trying to convert people to Christianity then Howard must be not much of a JEww. The chance that he would stand up for Israel seem minimal. There will be all the negatives of a Jew in office but as usual no positives and if anything an unwillingness to do even what gentiles do for the fear of being accused of sual loyalty. Probably a P**sy British Jew. They had their Dunkirk and they want Israel to have hers. Posted by: Palestine is Frankesnstein at November 10, 2003 12:32 AMMelanie, thanks for the insight. I think these quotes describe the situation very accurately: This is true not just for the UK, but for the rest of Europe as well. Some postings here only confirm the truth behind this observation. Oh, and by the way, I happened to see some Victorian anti-Disraeli cartoons. They were undoubtedly anti-Semitic. Posted by: Liza P. at November 10, 2003 01:14 AMPeter, do you want to tell us that Her Majesty’s subjects perpetrated the horrendous crimes only outside the British Isles? One of the reasons the world hates Israel is because in Israel Moishe Hecht can stay Moishe Hecht and does not need to transform himself into the Smith-like Michael Howard. Travis, don’t worry. They will take your money. Facinating and disturbing expose' Melanie! I'm not at all certain what Howard's selection portends for the Tories, but I am sure that British politics are becoming very interesting again. Posted by: Richard at November 10, 2003 02:27 AMAre you implying Christian Barnard was Jewish ? That would be the first time I had ever seen that pointed out; however as for joining a cricket club, I would not have thought his personality fitted: there are few good reports about his character or his behaviour with respect to other people; now with revelations that he wanted to stop the heart of someone not yet dead to 'harvest' her organ; convinces me he was not right for a cricket club. Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 10, 2003 05:56 AMRoger, you are risible...."One of the reasons the world hates Israel is because in Israel Moishe Hecht can stay Moishe Hecht and does not need to transform himself into the Smith-like Michael Howard."
In this country Saxe-Coburg Gotha is also anglicised. Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 10, 2003 06:00 AM"The British public will overlook a politician’s Jewish heritage as long as it’s kept to the level of something consenting adults do in private, and as long he doesn’t identify with Jewish peoplehood."
All I can say is that Melanie is a treasure and I always look forward to her articles!! My Dear Melanie, if England sadly ever succumbs to its Islamic invasion and traditional British Anti Semitism, please come and live in Western Canada!! We are pro Israel out here and anti semitism is unheard of except from a few Aryan nation kooks or the usual Islamic hatred which is admittedly a fairly small presence out here in Alberta!! A treasure like you is always welcome in beautiful Alberta!! Devon in Calgary Posted by: Devon Hill at November 10, 2003 08:00 AMWho cares if Howard is 'a Jew'. The only thing that matters in a politician are his policies and his integrity. While Howard has a smattering of the latter, the former are hopelessly outdated and won't win him any elections in Britain this side of Kingdom come... which will undoubtedly provide Mrs Phillips with more ammunition to winge about the way Howard has been given a rough ride 'cos he's 'a Jew'. Dear Mrs Phillips: give it a break. Write about something else for once. Posted by: Tom Stein at November 10, 2003 01:01 PM"It was in Germany again where That should read Walter You are of course quite correct, it is or was Walter. I had no means of correcting my error, but I thank you for giving me the opportunity now Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 10, 2003 02:37 PMKid Charlemagne: >Yes, Peter, how terribly >vulgar of that American to >leave the 'u' out of >mold. "Mould" is so much >more logical. I think "arsehole" is the word you're looking for... Ian Posted by: Konstantin Levin at November 10, 2003 03:03 PMI have mixed feelings about the state of British Jew-hatred. Yes, the media certainly is strongly anti; anti-Sharon gets twisted as much as possible to anti-Jew. In my personal experiences, however, the negative stuff I've experienced is minor. Most people don't really bat an eye when I say I have family in Israel, and talk about it in totally normal or even curious tones (e.g., So hey, what's it like?). Still, I feel a bit uncomfortable at times, hearing general anti-Jewish comments being made, and I think some people surely privately don't like that I'm Jewish. And certainly, if you attend any Jewish event, the security that has to be employed absolutely makes you feel under siege. The fact that published reports say Iranian students are monitoring synagogues doesn't make me feel particularly good, either. Posted by: Steve at November 10, 2003 03:07 PMPeter, you proved Melanie’s point. You may consume Michael Howard but Moishe Hecht is too greasy for your British taste. That is your respect for cultural identity, diversity, individual uniqueness, personal meaning, openness, etc – the main ingredients of democracy. By the way, Michael Douglas is not Jewish. His father Kirk (aka Issur Danielovitch Demsky – not easy to pronounce) is. Danny Kaye is dead. These are actors not elected officials. Posted by: Roger at November 10, 2003 04:13 PMSteve, anti-Sharon is anti-Jewish. They can tolerate a victimized, pitiful European Jew but not an empowered Jew that Ariel Sharon represents. All 22 Arab states are based on either internal or external terror. Their leaders are all corrupt. Why are not they directing their daily criticism at them? Most media networks are businesses. To be economically viable they have to sell the products the consumers buy. Anti-Sharon, anti-Israel, anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism – all generate revenue. There are more reporters per square mile in Israel than in any other place on this planet. Here in the USA the anti-Israeli rhetoric was also harsh. It has moderated a bit. Obviously, the American consumer does not buy it but anything Jewish still generates emotions and an interest. As for Michael Howard the picture is clear. The guy claims that he has been guided by the Jewish values. Yet, he married a shiksa; not just a shiksa but one of that blond model type shiksas who had been married a few times and not only that but also a member of the Anglican Church which eventually produced a Christian missionary. Would you trust that guy? "Peter, you proved Melanie’s point. You may consume Michael Howard but Moishe Hecht is too greasy for your British taste"
This column of thought is interesting but here's another thought to ponder. He then went on and chose not only Jerusalem as the one little bit of the whole earth for himself but also this little group of people to bless and through them the world. He also stated very clearly that He would bless them who bless you and curse them who cursed you. Maybe deep down there is a little bit of us that resents this or Him or them for making it up. The Jewish scriptures state very clearly that Jerusalem will be the place the whole world fights over and that was written how many years ago? Who would have thought that a little space only 3% of the mid-east would be so fought over and desired by the other 97%. It makes you think doesn't it? Posted by: Mike Mckee at November 10, 2003 08:22 PM"We have no Aborigines in Peter, Peter, I can only presume that the fact that Michael Douglas is not Jewish does bother you a lot. Mike, where did you get 3%? Can you please reference it? We could only wish Israel occupied 3% or half of that of the Middle Eastern landmass. Why is it anti-semitic to say that "a 'cabal' of Jews [is] controlling Tony Blair and George Bush," or that "a 'tightly-knit' group of Jews ... control US foreign policy"? It's either true or false. What's anti-semitic about stating a fact or being mistaken? Posted by: Andrew Gilling at November 11, 2003 02:15 AMNational geographic map "Heart of the Middle East" October 2002 Covers Nile (Cairo) to Western border of Iran (Abadan) Some put it even less than 3%Here is one article which is pro Israel. ""Now, at least to Western audiences, Arafat and some other so-called "moderate" Arab leaders will tell you that it's OK for the Jews to have their homeland, too – side-by-side with the Arabs. Why wasn't it OK in 1948? There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass "" Joseph Farah wmd.com I can look in my archive material but more importantly. What do you think it is and why? Mike NZ Dear Ms.Phillips, I am an American Jew living in the Washington,D.C. area. In the past few years there has been a striking increase in active antisemitism. Not just newsmaking things like the arson of synagogues or public comments by politicians but a constant stream of abuses by "ordinary" people--coughing, nose-holding, trying to drive me off the sidewalk, drycleaners mishandling my clothes, store clerks tearing my bags and pretending they don't hear what I say, restaurant people ignoring me or putting hair in my food, phone receptionists putting me on hold forever, banks blocking the autonomated teller machines, hospital workers putting pennies in my clothing pockets--the list is endless. This is really happening. But when I try to get other Jews to realize that these are not random occurrences, they don't want to see it. Jews at organizations like the Anti-Defamation League are the same way. This is really serious. I'd appreciate your help in bringing this to public attention. I am a writer-editor. We could collaborate on something, if you're interested. Posted by: Sharon Kass at November 11, 2003 10:22 AMThank you very much Melanie. I feel that your article truly gets to the heart of what is going on in Britain, and probably the rest of Europe too. Your desription of the 'Good Jew' and 'Bad Jew' is spot on. Posted by: zak at November 11, 2003 02:39 PMThere was a new EU poll asking 'Who do you think is the bigger loon: Barbara Amiel or Melanie Phillips?" -----------
We gotta love the anti-Semites. They are cute and funny. What would we do without them? Posted by: Roger at November 11, 2003 07:22 PMI think Chris (see above) has got a point. However, I am concerned that he devoted so much time to the poll when just his opinion would have done. This was time which could well have been used pan frying rabbis or performing sadistic but essential torture of random ethnic minorities. And surely it is distasteful to mention something as delicious as a walnut souffle in the same scentence as Barbara Amiel. Now there's food for thought. Posted by: Steve at November 11, 2003 07:55 PMActually Roger (Stud) without a surname, I could not care less about Michael Douglas, he has some good films and some bad ones. To me he is like a plumber; a tradesman. He does his bit, gets well paid, and I choose whether to watch his output. Much the same way, voters in Dover area get to choose whether Michael Howard is their local MP; and he does not need Ariel Saron to campaign for him, nor your good self. He has performed as a local MP, and on that basis he is selected or not.
"We gotta love the anti-Semites. They are cute and funny. What would we do without them?" I don't think you are 'cute' or 'funny' Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 12, 2003 07:37 AMPeter, of course, we have to be aware of what is going on because of the people like …... Anti-Semitism has survived colonialism, fascism, communism, the disco music, black plagues, etc. It is a virus that lives on. How come so many people who have dedicated some of the most beautiful buildings in the world to one dead Jew and his mama hate all living Jews trying to destroy their only home? A few years ago some Palestinian Arabs burned down a 2000-year-old synagogue in Jericho and ransacked the Joseph tomb transforming it into a mosque. They even made a claim in Bethlehem that Jesus was a Palestinian Arab despite the fact that the geographical name of Palestine was not even around at the time of Jesus. They have been trying to eradicate the Jewish attachment to the land. Just last week the outcome of the Italian poll mirrored the European poll. 22% of Italians believe that the Jews are not real “Italians” despite the fact that the Jews have lived in Italy for over 2000 years. It would be interesting to see the British poll and what do the British think of the Jews. Just a few days ago a world-renowned Greek composer added his 2 cents to the anti-Semitic chorus. You have a viable organization in the UK, which is called “Jews for Jesus”. Many of the members of that worldwide organization have nothing to do with Jews or Judaism. Can you only imagine what would have happened to us if we started an organization “Jews against Jesus”? After all our rabbinical scholars read the original Hebrew version of the Torah and do not rely on an interpreted one. The world has been obsessed with Jews and Judaism for thousands of years. The Arab states occupy 99.9% of the Middle Eastern landmass. Israel represents a mere 0.1%. If you factor in that over 20% of Israel is not Jewish plus all the land owned by the Greek Orthodox Church the Jews barely occupy 80% of the 0.1% of the Middle Eastern landmass. Yet, it is the most contested piece of real estate in the world and 70% of all UN resolutions are directed against Israel. The 1994 murder of the 85 Jews in Buenos Aires proves that Israel is the center of attention but they are targeting all of us regardless where we live. These days the Europeans cast a moral judgment on the very people they annihilated and some European Jews join in. How quickly they forgot that those who sent them to the gas chambers in Auschwitz did not differentiate between the orthodox, rich, poor, non-religious, liberal, conservative or even the Jews married to the non-Jews? Peter, the Jews will survive and remain Jewish whether we are pounded on with force, bought with the career opportunities or harassed with love. Despite all wars and terror Israel’s per capita income is equivalent to the British and it is one of the most dynamic economies in the world. You may not like the brilliant general Sharon but there is hardly a military college in the world that does study his unique strategies. As for Michael Howard, please...he is all yours ….. Seems that even the mildest criticism of Israel leads certain people to label others as anti-semitic. Posted by: Mike H at November 26, 2003 12:36 AMMike, if you learn the facts, then, you can be critical of Israel. The problem is most people who love to shoot arrows at Israel don't know or care about the facts as the truth and data are irrelevant to them. How would you feel if your neighbors initiated 5 wars against your land trying to wipe you out? How would you feel if the most European countries did not acknowledge your existence or blockaded you economically, politically, diplomatically, etc. What gives you the right to judge those who are trying to survive on the tiny stretch of land when your country caused pain and committed annihilation and destruction all over the world? Posted by: Roger at November 26, 2003 05:07 AMIt's a funny old world isn't it, One of the worlds largest shouters of democracy and fairness the EU. Has just assisted in sidelining a motion condeming violence against Israeli children, that was after they shelved their own report on the rising anti-semitism in the EU because they don't want to offend Muslims amongst them. This is after they were presented with the evidence from Jenin that Arafat directly finances the terror from their monies that you pay in taxes. Is it any wonder that Jewish people feel under seige, The EU want to stop the wall that offers the only respite for ordinary people who are being blown up in their daily lives. Coming from a country of 4 million I can understand how devastating that must be to a society as everyone knows everyone else. I do not condone Israeli injustices but I can understand why they happen after more than 50yrs of war last century and 3 in this one. If the Israelis lose, they all go swimming in the Med as that is the aim of every country around them. So yeah even the mildest critisism can seem anti-semitic.
what about your financing the school books that say jews are monkeys and deserve to die, you've known about that for at least 2yrs now, no mass letters to the editor nor rallies there either. I don't see any street rallies in the news of you Europeans protesting the slaughter of little Israeli children or even whole families. Where were you all when Saddam was in power, murdering and raping his own people were there mass rallies outside the Iraqi embassey all over the EU. No you were in the queue building palaces and weapons plants for him. Where are you now for the ordinary Syrians and the subjugated Lebanese. If any other country in the world banned another race from entering their country you would scream blue murder, organise marches, start a boycott. I don't see that happening to Saudi Arabia. Incidently just how much of your money does Arafat It makes you think doesn't it. Posted by: Mike at December 2, 2003 09:08 AMUnusual ideas can make enemies. The way to love anything is to realize it might be lost. Posted by: Baron David at December 10, 2003 05:22 PMSeekers of truth invariably turn to lies. Posted by: Stern Caroline at December 10, 2003 05:22 PMNever let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right. Posted by: Polk Khary at January 9, 2004 07:06 AM |
