|
« The terror supporters' club
Main Readers' ground rules revisited » |
January 23, 2004
Oldest hatred, latest chapter
According to a survey in the Jewish Chronicle, some 20% of Britons would not find a Jewish prime minister acceptable. This is surely pretty startling. Would 20% of the population say a black or gay prime minister would be unacceptable? I think not; most people would think it wasn't an issue, and rightly so. Some Jews put an optimistic spin on the finding. The Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, takes comfort in the fact that the vast majority of people are not opposed to the idea. Well, yes; but behind the headline figure lies another finding which indicates the problem is rather wider. As the Independent reports, the poll 'found 47 per cent of people were unable to agree with the statement: "A British Jew would make an equally acceptable prime minister as a member of any other faith." ' So nearly half the population couldn't bring themselves to agree that there would be nothing wrong with a Jew at Number 10. In addition, one in seven believed the Holocaust had been exaggerated. The even more dismaying finding was that such prejudice was most pronounced among the young, as well as the elderly. So much for Holocaust education, which frankly I always thought was likely to do more harm than good. What's gone missing, and what's needed, is properr education that gives young people not only knowledge about the past in a way that enables them to give meaning to the present, but which shows them that there are objective truths and teaches them to think about them. Instead, we have a society which no longer knows what truth it and is receptive to whatever lies and poisonous propaganda fit the prejudices of a sentimentalised, shallow and ignorant culture. Hence the hate-fest against Israel and the Jews now current in Britain and Europe, of which this survey gives but a flavour.
Posted by melanie at January 23, 2004
Comments
I find myself agreeing with Melanie Phillips more and more. "Would 20% of the population say a . . . gay prime minster would be unacceptable? I think not." She is quite right. A much larger proportion of the population would find it unacceptable. Sadly so. Posted by: BeefQueen at January 23, 2004 04:17 PMWhat was infinitely more shocking, and to my mind far more indicative of not-so-latent anti-Semitism, was the finding that only 30 odd percent of British citizens believed that Jews had made a positive contribution to British society. That is the kind of thing one associates with virulently anti-Semitic countries like Poland, Hungary, Lithuania and the Ukraine. Posted by: Charles at January 23, 2004 04:58 PMCongratulations BBC, al Reuters, al Guardian, Das Independent, Tom Dalyell, Richard Ingrams, Harold Pinter, et al. You've done your jobs well. Posted by: Travis at January 23, 2004 05:10 PMHey, Kilroy said Arabs contributed nothing and that was fine. Posted by: Paul at January 23, 2004 05:47 PMYou really think 20 per cent would accept a gay or black PM? Dream on ! Posted by: at January 23, 2004 05:48 PM"Hey, Kilroy said Arabs contributed nothing and that was fine." Given Kilroy was actually speaking about current Arab regimes and not simply Arabs, that was more or less true, The Jewish contribution, on the other hand, to the UK and so many other nations has been without equal. Sadly, Paul, in your case, as with so many others, this Jewish contribution has been nothing but pearls before swine. Posted by: Charles at January 23, 2004 05:56 PMThis survey is baffling. I can only suspect that a lot of my countrymen don't actually know the difference between a Jew and a jacket potato, but yet somehow link the word "Jew" with "foreign race". A somewhat reassuring reflection is that many of those who likewise express hostility towards "blacks" and "gays" in the abstract, won't connect these adjectives with the black or gay people they actually know, except in the most theoretical sense. I suspect, and hope, that the same goes for the word "Jewish". I'm convinced that someone's Jewishness is largely uninteresting, if now wholly invisible, to most of us, however much historical resonance the abstract word may or may not have, given Jews' traumatic history. I'm also convinced that if liberals didn't keep banging on about "ethnicity" the whole time, in the hope of making us all "race conscious" rather than colour-blind, this nonsense would quickly disappear. In the meantime, I'm worried Jewish people like Melanie Phillips are going to be nudged into the same narrow-minded seige-mentality of too many other minorities, which would be incredibly disappointing and unnecessary. Posted by: Simon at January 23, 2004 05:57 PMSimon, Clearly, you adhere to the usual bien pensant position that in racial matters familiarity breeds acceptance. Thus, if only everybody keeps mum the English will get along like good liberals with their new black and brown friends! How, then to disabuse you of this comforting illusion? Perhaps by asking you to search history for a single example of a self-identified people volunteering to share its genepool and its homeland with utterly different peoples from distant lands. I don't think you will find one. As it happens the self-identification of the English is just coming out of a long dormant phase. If - and it is an if - it reaches a certain pitch, and if the rate of racial change in England continues unabated over, perhaps, the next 2 or 3 generations liberal sensibilities may receive a severe bruising. Therefore, binding the English Gulliver to an ineluctably brown future may be less expeditious than addressing the cause of his discontent. The Chief Rabbi may have cottoned on to this since he has called for restrictions on immigration. Posted by: Guessedworker at January 23, 2004 07:03 PMI think you will find this survey flawed along with many surveys. Theres lies, damn lies and statistics. My work involves the disemination of data and I find you can easily fit them to whatever point of view you choose. I can only speak for myself but I would welcome a Prime Minister of any religion who put the English people first. Posted by: Jon at January 23, 2004 11:25 PMAs has been said, I think that we have keep this survey within some sort of perpective. It is testimony towards the levels of ignorance within the UK - but those same people whom judge "Jews" as unfit to be PM are the same people who judge "Gays", "Blacks" or "Asians" as fit to play any role in government. We have to admit that a minority of people like, for example, Guessedworker, will never accept the invigorating cultural and economic contribution different ethnicities make towards the makeup of the UK. I have no trouble with a Jewish PM, I have difficulties with Scottish and Welsh ones though. Posted by: tally at January 24, 2004 02:09 AMSorry - when I said "fit to play any role in government", I meant "unfit to play any role in government". Must be the contamination of the gene pool. I would choose, if possible, a Prime Minister who would attempt to serve the best interests of all British subjects or citizens, rather than just favouring his own party, or any other exclusive group interest, or 'life style' proclivity. As things stand I, and everybody else, will have to do what we have always done, in my lifetime, anyway - put up with whoever gets more votes than any adversary, which probably means that he/she will take office with a minority of the popular vote and therefore screw the majority of us for five years or so. That's the only poll that counts. Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 24, 2004 04:10 AMThere are surveys, and then there are surveys..there are lots of ways to mess these things up. Since most of the readers of this blog are probably British, let me ask: does this *feel* accurate, based on your personal experiences? "Instead, we have a society which no longer knows what truth it and is receptive to whatever lies and poisonous propaganda fit the prejudices of a sentimentalised, shallow and ignorant culture". I think there is some merit in this statement. I think the reasons are complex but include one factor that is rarely mentioned: people cannot cope with the enormous amount of information that pours in on them and in response to which they are expected to 'feel' something or to have a strong view. This represents a real change from previous generations who did not spend a lot of time thinking about all of the 'issues' that now crowd into various 'agendas'. A whole new 'loaded' vocabulary has evolved in order to convey 'meanings' in 'dialogues' that would be unimaginable and unfathomable to previous generations. The 'objective truth' therefore often gets submerged (sometimes knowlingly sometimes unwittingly) by both the language employed and the strength of views of the people using it (and of, course, depending on the context in which they are using it). I think also that opinion polls are virtually useless in reflecting accurately how people would really feel about whether someone gay, black, Jewish (or any combination of these!) were to be Prime Minister because these are 'abstract' notions only until someone is presented with a real, live, flesh and blood, politician. If people believe that politician A will bring greater benefit to their lives and create the kind of society they want to see more than politician B then they will tend to vote for politician A rather than politician B. In such circumstances, whether politician A is black, gay, Jewish or whatever will be judged mainly in terms of whether it will damage his/her ability to deliver what is important to the individual voter. Opinion polls that ask 'would you vote for someone gay/black/Jewish' can never capture these important - and sometimes subtle - determining factors and are redundant. Posted by: David at January 24, 2004 10:31 AMI don't think one should read too much into these surveys. One survey showed that 10% of young people think Hitler was Britain's wartime leader. If one in seven believe the holocaust was exaggerated, general ignorance is a more likely culprit than anything sinister. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. The way the question is cast plays a large part in determining the answer. If the question had been "Can you tell me any reason, apart from his political beliefs, party allegiance, and competency, why Michael Howard should not be Prime Minister" the answer would have been a resounding "no". Few people know or care that Howard is Jewish. What they think about is that he is a Conservative with something of a Thatcherite streak. Posted by: KJN at January 24, 2004 10:32 AMGuy Chambers: you refer to the "invigorating cultural and economic contribution different ethnicities make towards the makeup of the UK." I've yet to see any hard evidence from any source that the per capita GNP of the UK is higher than it would have been without the mass immigration from the Third World which has taken place over the past 55 years. Certainly what evidence I have seen relating to the state of the public finances suggests that Third World immigrants (as opposed to migrant workers from other developed countries) cost far more in extra Government expenditure than the additional taxes they pay. And can't you have a cultural contribution without mass settlement? Haven't Black Americans had far more impact on popular music in the UK than West Indian or African immigrants? It doesn't follow that because some immigrant groups in the past made a net contribution to the UK (including Jews from Eastern Europe and Ugandan Asians) all current or future groups will do so.Can anyone supply a list of five ways in which either Albanian or Somali immigrants are likely to "invigorate" UK culture over the next ten years? (Apart from forced prostitution and clitorodectomy, of course). The thing about the Third World is that it is backward.The idea that the UK can only prosper in the 21st century by importing large numbers of people from the most primitive parts of the world is laughable. Posted by: martin at January 24, 2004 11:21 AMWhether it is blithely dismissing the quite obvious and virulent anti-Semitism of the British here, or vigorously defending Dr. Tonge elsewhere, Simon demonstrates the enormous dangers the Jews of Britain face. Had the Nazis invaded Britain in 1940, matters would have been very different to Holland or France. Without question, the British authorities would not have simply rounded up the Jews and handed them over to the SS. Indeed not - they would have said please and thank you first. Posted by: Charles at January 24, 2004 01:07 PMExtract From "DID HITLERISM DIE WITH HITLER?" by Omer Bartov (professor of history at Brown University) published in this week's (02.02.04) edition of The New Republic Online: What we are witnessing today is a broad front of opinion, spanning the entire spectrum of the political and religious scene, whose criticism of American and Israeli policies, and whose fears and phobias about present conditions, utopian dreams of a better future, and nostalgic fantasies of a mythical past, all converge in a bizarre and increasingly frightening way on a single figure, a single cause: "the Jew." I have long believed that it is pointless, and dishonorable, to debate anti-Semites. Such an exchange of "ideas" only confers legitimacy upon them. But there are times when absurdities become political facts and cannot be ignored. They must, instead, be directly challenged--not by explaining their violent ideas and feelings away, but by putting limits to them through all available means, political, judicial, and, if necessary, by the use of legitimate force. For these are people who mean what they say. If you do not destroy them, they will destroy you. There are precedents for this. Consider again what Hitler wrote in 1928. Yes, it is insane; but take out the word "race" and replace it, say, with "Zionism" or "American imperialism," and replace the references to the Soviet Union with references to the United States, and suddenly the discourse is not only crazy but also quite common. The "soft core" of this poisonous rhetoric is to be found among some sectors of European and American intellectuals and academics. It tends to identify Israelis as culprits, and Jews as potential Israelis. It is obsessed with the influence of Jews on culture, politics, and economics around the world. The partially successful boycott of Israeli academics in recent years is a case in point, not least because it tends to affect precisely those who number among the most determined and articulate opponents of the current Israeli government's policies. The divestment campaign, calling on American and European universities to desist from any investments in Israel, is another example; this campaign provides cover, and even immunity, for all the regimes around the world that have never recognized academic freedom. The sympathetic understanding expressed in academic settings, and in liberal and left-wing publications, for suicide bombers who blow up innocent civilians in Israel creates a climate of tolerance for murder that is cleverly couched in the righteous language of liberation and justice.
Some allegations of an apparent takeover by Jews, or by Jewish themes, of this or that cultural sphere seem to have nothing to do with Israel. In October 2001, The Chronicle of Higher Education published an article by Mark Anderson, a professor of Germanic languages at Columbia University. Anderson expressed fears about "the way in which American scholars have distorted the study of German culture" by reducing "the canon of German literature to a tiny handful of teachable authors who often have a Jewish background." This "excessive focus on German-Jewish authors," he argued, "relied on the subtext of Jewish suffering." This "has undermined intellectual freedom in American universities" and is "testimony to an ongoing intellectual paralysis that could and should be relieved." It is not clear from Anderson's argument who is to blame, apart from an ill-defined "pressure from American culture to focus on minority issues, as well as our fascination with Hitler and the Holocaust." It is also somewhat ironic that Anderson himself edited a volume called Hitler's Exiles: Personal Stories of the Flight from Nazi Germany to America, which testifies to his own fascination with this topic, if not to his recognition of its importance. But one cannot help but detect here a clear connection between the alleged over-emphasis on Jewish authors and Jewish themes "identified" by Anderson and its distorting effects both on the study of German literature and on American intellectual freedom. Somehow the focus on Jewish victims seems to have that effect.
Sometimes this sort of intellectual-academic-journalistic obsession with Jews becomes intimately linked with anti-Americanism. Several best-selling books published in France and Germany by academics, politicians, and journalists have "confirmed" the already widespread belief (held by 19 percent of the German population according to a recent poll, and apparently by a majority in many Arab and Islamic countries) that the September 11 attacks on the United States were orchestrated by the CIA and the Mossad, and that the latter warned the Jews working in the World Trade Center not to come to work that day. Indeed, the United States, attacked by Europeans for its support of Israel, has been repeatedly depicted as controlled by the Jews, whose lobbies, financial and electoral levers of power, and key figures in the White House and Pentagon, are manipulating both the American public and world politics. At the same time Israel has been portrayed as the perpetrator of Nazi-like crimes even as these very same portrayals carry echoes of the Nazi representation of Jews. Thus the European media, especially its more highbrow representatives, were as keen to portray the Israeli operation in Jenin last year as a war crime and a massacre as they were reluctant to admit that they had been fooled by Palestinian propaganda and in turn misinformed their publics about the nature of the operation, greatly inflating the number of Palestinian civilians killed in order to justify its description as a massacre. The Israeli prime minister was depicted in a cartoon published in The Independent in London in the shape of a bloody ogre devouring Palestinian children, his features eerily reminiscent of those popularized by Der Stürmer. Anyone who has access (that is, anyone on the Internet) to racist, anti-Semitic, and neo-Nazi publications in the United States and elsewhere will find almost precisely the same opinions and depictions. These hateful representations are normally not much remarked upon. But there are some important exceptions. Most striking was the speech made by Martin Hohmann, a parliamentary representative of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in the German Bundestag, to an audience of one hundred thirty people, on October 3, 2003. Hohmann argued that one had no right to speak of the Germans as a "people of perpetrators" (Tätervolk) because the Jews--presumably those making that argument--were themselves a "people of perpetrators," considering their high representation among the murderous Bolsheviks. This was the first time since the end of Nazism that a member of the Bundestag made an anti-Semitic argument based on the very logic of Hitler's rationalization for war against the Soviet Union. And an elite Bundeswehr general expressed agreement with Hohmann's speech. Under much public pressure, Hohmann was eventually ejected from the parliamentary fraction of the CDU--but 20 percent of his colleagues opposed his removal. And Hohmann knew, like so many fascists before him who said what he said, what many others were thinking. In a poll recently conducted by the University of Bielefeld, it was found that 70 percent of Germans resent being blamed for the Holocaust, and 25 percent believe that the Jews are trying to make political capital out of their own genocide (and another 30 percent say that there is a measure of truth in this assertion), and three-quarters believe that there are too many foreigners in Germany. Much more publicity has been given to anti-Israeli protests on American campuses, and these have demonstrated a troubling trend. A group calling itself "New Jersey Solidarity: Activists for the Destruction of Israel" called for an "anti-Israel hate-fest" to be held on the campus of Rutgers University, New Brunswick, in October 2003. The group's website declares itself "opposed to the existence of the apartheid colonial settler state of Israel, as it is based on the racist ideology of Zionism and is an expression of colonialism and imperialism." Richard McCormick, the president of Rutgers University and a former member of its history department, where I also taught during the 1990s, issued an open letter on the planned meeting. He stated that he found "abhorrent some elements of NJ Solidarity's mission." But he went on to say that "intrinsic to Rutgers' own mission is the free exchange of ideas and discourse on a variety of issues, including those that are controversial. This university must remain a model of debate, dialogue and education ... we encourage our students to express their beliefs and analyze the difficult issues of the day." So some may think that destroying Israel is legitimate and some may think otherwise. Some may think that Israel is an apartheid colonial settler state based on a racist ideology, and some may have a different opinion. There are two sides to the question. Through such a "free exchange of ideas" we will all prosper intellectually. This brings to mind Hannah Arendt's observation, when she visited Germany in 1950, for the first time since she fled the Nazis, that the Germans viewed the extermination of the Jews as a matter of opinion: some said it happened, some said it had not happened. Who could tell? The average German, she wrote, considered this "nihilistic relativism" about the facts as an essential expression of democracy. Throughout campuses in the United States, students associated with Arab and Islamic organizations, Christian groups, and the left carried flags, banners, and posters that were mostly focused on one theme: the equation between Zionism, or Israel, and Nazism. Banners portrayed a swastika joined by an equal sign to a Star of David and an Israeli flag featuring a swastika instead of a Star of David. Placards issued the call to "End the Holocaust," and proclaimed that "Zionism = racism = ethnic cleansing," and that "Zionism is Ethnic Cleansing," and that "Sharon = Hitler." A particularly ingenious sign asserted: "1943: Warsaw 2002: Jenin." While some summarized their views with the slogan "Zionazis," others warned, "First Jesus Now Arafat." What makes this virulent anti-Semitism respectable is that it presents itself as anti-Nazism. To accomplish this sinister exculpatory purpose it needs only to declare that Zionism equals Nazism, just as the old canard of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world is legitimized by its association with American imperialism, capitalism, and globalization. That the vocabulary of this rhetoric is taken directly (whether consciously or not) from Nazi texts is so clear that one wonders why there is such a reluctance to recognize it. In part this is owed to ignorance, which is as rampant today in journalism and political commentary as it always was. In part this is owed to the fact that those who would most readily identify the provenance of these words and ideas are largely liberals, some of whom also happen to be Jewish, and thus are likely to be most harmed, both personally and ideologically, by making this identification. By exposing the anti-Semitic underbelly of this phenomenon, they would expose themselves as Jews and friends of Jews, and would open themselves to the argument that precisely their opposition to this phenomenon is the best proof of Jewish domination in the world. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040202&s=bartov020204 Posted by: Charles at January 24, 2004 01:29 PMAnd before someone starts in defending the honor of the British, let me point out a few home truths: 1) Britain fought a war in spite of and not because of the Jews. 2) The British police on Jersey and Guernsey did hand over Jews to the SS 3) Britain did not lift a finger to assist the Jews of Europe, whether that was refusing to help at two major conference on the plight of the Jews (one held pre-war and one during the war), the cutting off of all immigration to Palestine, or failing to bomb the railway tracks to Auschwitz (despite having complete knowledge of the mass-murder of Jews in that place - knowledge gleaned from overflights by the RAF) - a failure that resulted in the deaths of 600,000 Hungarian Jews in 1944. This is, of course, the very same Britain whose armed forces, who were literally only yards away, looked on calmly over many hours while 67 Jewish doctors, nurses and students were murdered by Arab terrorists in Jerusalem in 1948. Posted by: Charles at January 24, 2004 01:40 PM"This survey is baffling. I can only suspect that a lot of my countrymen don't actually know the difference between a Jew and a jacket potato, but yet somehow link the word "Jew" with "foreign race" You imagine Jew hatred has to make sense? In Poland, which is renowned for its virulent anti-Semitism, not only have most people never met a Jew, there are now, thanks to the Nazis and their many millions of Polish collaborators, virtually no Jews left in the country (prior to the Holocaust there were 3.5 million Polish Jews). Posted by: Charles at January 24, 2004 02:18 PMLets get some perspective here Charles. You imply that the British police on Jersey and Guernsey were so antisemitic that they gladly handed over Jewish people to the Germans. Don't you think it is more likely that they were forced to do so on pain of death (as were many throughout Europe)? I do, and I don't doubt the strength of the self-preservation instinct as a motivator. Once again on this website, people are letting prejudice stand in the way of objectivity. Posted by: matt at January 24, 2004 03:49 PMThe amount of prejudice on this site is stomach churning. I quote "The thing about the Third World is that it is backward.The idea that the UK can only prosper in the 21st century by importing large numbers of people from the most primitive parts of the world is laughable." Strange to think that the oh so developed first world of the UK now depends on doctors and nurses from the backward Third World to keep its NHS running, not to speak of the legion of backward Third Worlders who keep your informal economy ticking over. When you are too old and feeble to wipe your bottom, I hope you'll welcome a backward Third Worlder to do it, especially as you aren't saving enough toward your retirement ! You are nothing but racist and I claim my free Posted by: at January 24, 2004 04:01 PM"What we are witnessing today is a broad front of opinion, spanning the entire spectrum of the political and religious scene, whose criticism of American and Israeli policies, and whose fears and phobias about present conditions, utopian dreams of a better future, and nostalgic fantasies of a mythical past, all converge in a bizarre and increasingly frightening way on a single figure, a single cause: 'the Jew.'" - Omer Bartov, posted above by Charles I do not recognise this as a description of opinion in the UK. I sincerely hope that, as a description of political thought in the US, it is an exaggeration. While these opinions may indeed be spread "in a broad front" across many areas of discourse, that does not mean that they are held by significant numbers of people. I think it is important to maintain a sense of perspective. That doesn't mean ignoring or excusing anti-semitism, but making an effort to understand whether things really are getting worse, and if so, by how much. There is at least one real historical trend whose significance the author appears not to have realised. As he points out, anyone with an internet connection has access to a wide range of anti-semitic material. It is easy to forget how recent this phenomenon is: only fifteen years ago, no one would have seen such a wide range of material, unless they were police investigators, academic researchers, members of neo-nazi groups, or the recipients of criminal hate mail. The fact that nowadays any concerned person can use a search engine to instantly locate an unlimited supply of this filth does not mean that the whole world has suddenly become more anti-semitic. Search engines have another use: anyone can find every story in the day's news, from anywhere in the web-aware world, that contains the word "anti-semitic". No need to actually flick through hundreds of papers looking for these stories, no need to employ stringers or researchers, you or I can do this in our spare time if we feel so inclined. The danger is in what we do with this knowledge. Most people (in the UK) believe that over the last 50 years there has been a huge increase in the number of children who are murdered by strangers; therefore they give their own children much less freedom to play outdoors than they had themselves when they were children. In fact, the probability of this type of crime has not changed much in the last 50 years. What has changed is access to mass media, particularly television, and the tendency of all the media to give these stories prominence. The internet is still too young for us to know how it will change the reporting and understanding of news; but there is the danger that we will all become much wiser in the ways of wickedness than is altogether healthy. Posted by: KJN at January 24, 2004 05:25 PMThe time is coming when one day the P.M. of the U.K. will be Islamic. Posted by: Travis at January 24, 2004 05:54 PMCharles has me quite wrong. I am a solid supporter of the state of Israel and I despise the double-standards and lethal bigotry of the British left which finds expression in "sympathy" for homocide bombers from the likes of Ms Tonge. On no reasonable reading could my post have been taken otherwise. This is almost a mirror-image of the frequent debates I have with those on the left, who'll dismiss you as a right-wing fanatic unless you blithely endorse every banal politically-correct dogma they trot out. What I actually said was that I reluctantly had to disagree with Melanie Phillips that Ms Tonge's remarks were suitable grounds for criminalising her. To paraphase Voltaire, I find what she said despicable, but since any incitement to or condoning of murder was not obviously intended, I will still defend her right to say it. Now I am as alarmed as many others at the sort of dangerous nonsense fashionable among the lefterati these days. But even so, Jews do not face "enormous dangers" here in Britain; to insist they do is to utterly lose all sense of perspective. It is not complacency to say that the Britain portrayed in this survey is not at all the anti-Semitic Britain of my daily experience, any more than it is "latent" anti-Semitism to criticise the way the government of Israel behaves sometimes, as Melanie does in the Jewish chronicle this week for example. Moreover, an obvious contempt for Britain and a tendency to marginalise those who disagree with you as somehow latently racialist are familiar from those we misleading call liberals. Heaven help you if you copy them. Posted by: at January 24, 2004 06:41 PMApologies for neglecting to sign my name there - that last post was from me :-) Posted by: Simon at January 24, 2004 06:42 PMAt the risk of irritating you all with corrections, I had meant to insist that the Britain in the survey was apparently anti-Semitic, rather than the Britain of my experience, not the reverse..! Posted by: Simon at January 24, 2004 06:44 PMPerhaps 47% is misleading and not as bad as it sounds. I know Jews in the United States who won't vote for Lieberman because they fear it would reinforce the notion that the country is owned and controlled by their co-religionists. They are as far from anti-Semitic as it is possible to get, yet they would have been in the 47% Posted by: Theodopoulos Pherecydes at January 24, 2004 07:16 PMCharles, I read that some recently released documents from World War Two show the Foreign Offices' attitude toward the Jews at the time. These consisted of several memoranda that reported fairly early on (1941 or 1942) what Hitler was doing, but at least one of the memoranda stated that this issue must be given, and I remember the exact words: "the lowest priority." Posted by: Joanne at January 24, 2004 10:30 PMFunny, I seem to recall a Mr. Disraeli was PM for a bit during the reign of Queen Victoria. I also recall that he is held in high regard in the history books. Would this 20 percent have stood against him for being a Jew? Posted by: Tom at January 25, 2004 08:03 AMYesterday an English acquaintance told me about a story he had read in The Independent. It featured a lot of over-the-top angry quotes from Israelis talking about the guy who shot Rabin and expressing the hope that he would not be able to marry (as he currently plans to do, hence the story). The thing is, this man was telling me the story entirely to demonstrate what violent nutters he thinks the Israelis are. It turns out he didn't even know that the man who shot Rabin was an Israeli; he thought it was a Palestinian who was being unjustly vilified. Actually I'm not sure if it's really not an issue. On the basis of whether someone is black, Indian or Chinese I'm really not bothered as long as they're up to the job and I agree with their political philosophy. What is uncomfortable for me is the religious affiliation of MPs. We're a christian country, and to be honest, I'm not comfortable with the fact that Tony Blair is a catholic. I agree with Alaistar Campbell: 'we don't do god' and on this basis if a future PM were ardently Jewish, christian, muslim, hindu or whatever, then I wouldn't vote for them. Posted by: Pedro at January 25, 2004 03:51 PMThis man Temko is American, who else would stir things up with such a silly question. "Do you want a Jewish Prime Minister ?" NO ! "Does it matter if Michael Howard becomes Prime Minister and happens to be Jewish ?" Probably not. Why throw it in people's face this way ? Herbert Samuel led the National Liberals in the 1930s; why the big fuss. Why not ask in the USA how they feel about Lieberman as President ? Or why only one Catholic became President ? If the Jewish Chronicle has nothing better to do than have such stupid surveys it should pack in. Did they say what proportion of MUslim voters were in favour ? Of women ? Of black lesbians ? Of Jews ? Just what percentage of practising Jews would like an overtly Jewish Prime Minister ? Myself, I should like to have a competent one.....such a long long time since we had anyone competent. Posted by: Romulus at January 25, 2004 05:40 PM"Lets get some perspective here Charles. You imply that the British police on Jersey and Guernsey were so antisemitic that they gladly handed over Jewish people to the Germans. Don't you think it is more likely that they were forced to do so on pain of death (as were many throughout Europe)?" This is exactly the type of revisionist history that is so prevalent today. The vast majority of those who collaborated with the Germans did so willingly, and in many cases joyfully. Certainly, in most cases, where Jews were rounded up, the local police went above and beyond the call of duty. Let me give you a few of many examples: 1) In France, it was purely a French notion to round up and hand over Jewish children to the Nazis for deportation to the death camps. As Petain wrote so bluntly and chillingly on an official document: "Les enfant aussi." The French police were almost frenzied in their round-ups: no stone went unturned, no attic or cellar was safe. 2) In Holland, beset by collaborators on every side who betrayed Jews to the Germans, and with the local police meticulous to an extreme in the round-ups, very few Jews escaped. This explains why over 100,000 Jews, over 75% of the Jewish population, were murdered. Virtually all property left behind was stolen by local citizens and the Dutch state (after the government-in-exile had suggested that in order to prevent any later possible claims, the Jews were compelled to sign a document giving up all rights to their property). The great majority of stolen property still has not been returned. Most of the round-ups in Holland were organised by local officials with very little prompting from the local Gestapo who were incredibly few in number. The number of local members of the SS was the highest in Europe outside of Germany and Austria. 3) In Lithuania, a bastion of Jewish culture for centuries, 93% of the Jews (around 250,000) were murdered for the most part, not by the Germans, but by local partisans who rounded up the Jews and then, having forced them to strip naked and dig their own graves, machine-gunned them into pits. The parties at local inns that took place after these massacres became notorious for the scenes of wild celebration. It should be noted that the local Roman Catholic church had by public proclamation forbidden, on pain of excommunication, any assistance being afforded any Jew attempting to escape. 4) In Poland, almost certainly the most anti-Semitic country on the planet, the Poles, despite their own hatred for the Jews did everything possible to aid the Germans in their butal slaughter of over 3,000,000 Polish Jews and others. As the Poles used to say during the war: "After the war is over, we Poles will go to Hitler's grave to spit on it. We will then return to to bring him flowers to thank him for helping us get rid of the Jews." Of the money given to the Poles from London to help them fight the Nazis, only 1% of the money was devoted to aiding Jews. Aside from taking part in a number of massacres of Jews themselves, the non-Jewish Poles, having betrayed their neighbours, virtually all Jewish property - homes, businesses, personal possessions was immediately stolen by them. In a telegram sent by the Home Army (the resistance army) to the Polish government-in-exile in London, it was stated quite plainly that the local population, having taken possession of all Jewish homes, would not under any circumstances, allow the Jews to come back to their homes. And indeed, after the war was over and some Jews returned to their homes in Poland, a number were duly murdered by the local population. There are many other stories: of how Jewish partisans escaping the Warsaw Ghetto were far more likely to be murdered by a Pole than a Nazi; of how Jews were sold to the Nazi for a second-hand suit; of the fair that stood outside the ghetto and how the local Poles, enjoyed themselves, as Jews were being murdered within shouting distance. 5) In Hungary, 500,000 Jews were rounded up by Hungarians with little prompting from the Nazis and sent to Auschwitz where they were subsequently murdered. 100,000 Jews were murdered by local Hungarians. In Hungary today, as they do in Holland, popular chants at soccer matches are: "Take the Jews to the gas" and "The trains to Auschwitz are waiting." The history of the Holocaust in virtually every country in Europe was as above, but let's move on and deal with the other lies: There is never any record of a person, German, Austrian or otherwise, being in any way harmed for refusing to serve in death or concentration camp. Similarly, local populations and police forces were in most places seen to enjoy their participation in round-ups and massacres. And what really gives the lie to the notion that collaborators did what they did because they were under pain of death, is made clear from the following examples. In Fascist Italy, many Jews escaped because the local police force refused to hand over the Jews. In Bulgaria, virtually all Jews escaped because the government and church refused point blank to hand over the Jews. In Denmark as we all know virtually all Jews were saved through the actions of the King and local partisans. In no instance, were local officials or police harmed as a result of their actions. The Nazis could never have achieved what they did as regards their almost total destruction of the Jewish people of Europe without, for the most part, the complete co-operation of the peoples of the occupied countries. A few facts about Britain, aside from what I have written earlier. 1) Prior to World War II, according to various opinion polls that were taken at that time, Britain was a virulently anti-Semitic country. 2) There was every indication that many if not most people were violently opposed to fighting "a war for the Jews." 3) British collaboration with the Nazis on Jersey was widespread. The police worked hand-in-glove with the Nazis to round up what few Jews were there. Posted by: Charles at January 25, 2004 11:07 PM"I have to ask myself: Where does this attitude come from? And the answer must have to do with the "poisonous propaganda" pumped out by the European media for consumption by a public already disposed to believe the worst about Jews." There is more truth in these words, Kid charlemagne, than in acres of other twaddle I've read on the subject recently. I have carefully copied them down, and shall quote them at every opportunity I get. Honored, Charles, and thank you for your long and informative post. Interesting that Italy, Denmark and Bulgaria - the three countries you mention as being exceptions to the anti-semitic European rule during WWII - are now members of the allied coalition fighting fascism in Iraq. Posted by: kid charlemagne at January 26, 2004 01:34 AMTom: Disraeli was indeed Jewish by birth -- it is most unlikely that he would have got the job had he not converted to Anglicanism beforehand. Posted by: Dave F at January 26, 2004 11:14 AM"you for your long and informative post. Interesting that Italy, Denmark and Bulgaria - the three countries you mention as being exceptions to the anti-semitic European rule during WWII - are now members of the allied coalition fighting fascism in Iraq." The more one looks into the subject, the more shocking it becomes. Thus, there is now much evidence to support the proposition that the deportation of French Jews was actually lobbied for not by the SS, but by the French national railway company, primarily because of the money it would make shipping so many Jews in its trains (actually cattle trucks) to the death camps. The reality is that for the last 60 years, Europe has been living a lie by continuing to hide behind the falsehood that the Holocaust was all the fault of the "Nazis" or "Hitler" or "Germany" when much of the rest of the continent was just as guilty. And there is little doubt in my mind that the current demonization of Israel, is, as many others have suggested, merely an attempt by non-Jewish Europeans to say to themselves and others, "See the Jews blame us for the Holocaust when they are just as bad if not worse." That many on the Israeli left have provided succour and cover for these Jew haters is both sickening and outrageous. Posted by: Charles at January 26, 2004 11:36 AMDisraeli and Daniel O'Connell Having been publicly derided in the House of Commons by Irish Catholic leader Daniel O'Connell for his Jewish origins, Benjamin Disraeli immediately confessed: "Yes, I am Jew," he said, "but when the ancestors of the right honorable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in Solomon's temple." Posted by: Charles at January 26, 2004 11:38 AMIf pre World War II Britain was "virulently anti-semitic" as you claim, Charles, it's hard to understand why so many Jews should have chosen to come here, and have prospered here. Unlike some other European countries, no mainstream British political party ever made anti-semitism part of its manifesto, which suggest there would have been little popular support for this. Indeed, from the early 1900's Jews were very much part of the mainstream of British political life. I have difficulty understanding the point of view that saving the Jews should have been our priority in WWII. Winning the War was our priority, which had the happy by-product of saving at least a large number of the Jews. "If pre World War II Britain was "virulently anti-semitic" as you claim, Charles, it's hard to understand why so many Jews should have chosen to come here, and have prospered here." This statement was not due to some idle imaginings on my part, but the result of a number of government surveys at that time. And Jews at different times had settled and become exceedingly prosperous in Germany, Austria, Poland, Hungary and Lithuania? And so? "Unlike some other European countries, no mainstream British political party ever made anti-semitism part of its manifesto, which suggest there would have been little popular support for this. Indeed, from the early 1900's Jews were very much part of the mainstream of British political life." Since "the early 1900's Jews were very much a part of mainstream politica life." This is so far divorced from reality that it's difficult to even answer. Given that Jews only really entered Parliament in any numbers from the 1960s onwards, I would actually argue "that Jews have never become part of the mainstream of British political life" compelled as they are to, in large part, hide any signs of overt Jewishness and support for Israel, except when it accords with the British sense of what is "proper." And no, official anti-Semitism has never been a part of any major political party's manifesto. But there were many countries in Europe who willingly collaborated with the Nazis in the Holocaust where this was also so. In any event, this is not Britain's way. Anti-Semitism by the back door is far more her style. "I have difficulty understanding the point of view that saving the Jews should have been our priority in WWII. Winning the War was our priority, which had the happy by-product of saving at least a large number of the Jews." You write as if a number of high-minded politicians had sat around a table and argued whether the opportunity costs of helping the Jews of Europe was too great, given other priorities. In fact, whether one is talking the failure to speak out about the atrocities, immigration to Palestine, or the failure to send even one RAF bomber to attack the railway lines at Auschwitz, the British did not help, not through any lack of ability, but instead, a total absence of desire. Whether that lack of desire resulted from the belief of many in authority and elsewhere that the wiping out of the Jews of Europe was a "jolly good idea", or because they simply didn't consider the genocide of the Jews very important, is a matter for debate. One might ask what loyalty Britain felt towards the Jews of Britain though, 60,000 of whom were fighting for the country, in that she didn't lift a finger to help their brothers and sisters on the continent? One might also ask for what reason Britain was fighting the war? It certainly wasn't to forestall genocide. It certainly wasn't for the chief victims of the Nazis. Maybe she was just fighting to save her own skin? Surely this is understandable, but it lays to rest once and for all the myth that Britain was fighting on behalf of the free world and justice. As a final word, who were these "large numbers of Jews" you speak about who were saved? The great majority of Jews who could have been murdered had been by war's end. In Poland, for example, of those Jews who had not fled (most could not even if they had wanted to) by September 1939, only 1% survived out of a total pre-war population of over 3 million. And if any gratitude is to be shown for such happenstance, America and especially the Soviet Union, who both did so much more to win the war than Britain, stand in line far ahead of the nation you speak for. Britain did little pre-war to forestall the Holocaust - indeed, at the Evian Conference which was called to discuss the fate of the Jews, the only stand Britain took was notable for the active role she took in persuading other countries in the world to do absolutely nothing for the Jews; and the 1939 White Paper which barred the fleeing refugees from reaching Palestine was if anything far worse. During the war, Britain did nothing to help the drowning Jews of Europe. After the war, Britain's actions in Palestine shocked the whole world with their brutality against the survivors of death camps, and were in much measure responsible for the UN voting in favor of partition of Palestine. Posted by: Charles at January 26, 2004 03:06 PMHave you actually met many British Jews, Charles? You might find they have a radically different view of this country to the one that you have. Who are all these politicians who have been obliged to keep their Jewish antecedents a secret? The first Lord Rothschild? Benjamin Disraeli? Sir Herbert Samuel? Rufus Isaacs? Sir Keith Joseph? Michael Howard? Where is this "anti-semitism by the back door"? A few snobs saying they don't want Jews in their golf clubs is about all that it has amounted to in modern times. Jews have flourished in modern Britain more than in any country other than probably the USA. You seem pretty ignorant about Britain's war aims. We went to war because Germany attacked an ally. Quite a laudable war aim in my view. What's more, we fought unaided against Germany for over a year, when it would have been open to the government of the day to make peace with the Nazis on very easy terms. I would call that fighting for freedom and justice. Plenty of Jews were saved as a result of the British, and subsequently allied, war effort. 450,000 in the UK and Ireland for a start; a similar number in France, and a couple of hundred thousand in Italy. However, you are right in one respect. We did not fight to "save the Jews". We fought to save Europeans generally (including the Jews) from Nazism. Posted by: Sean Fear at January 26, 2004 03:50 PM"Britain fought a war in spite of and not because of the Jews. 2) The British police on Jersey and Guernsey did hand over Jews to the SS"
If he wants to speak of deporting Jews, he should ask why the Us sent so many back to Germany when rounding up Japanese and other aliens in the US. Charles - However, it seems to me that you are drawing the wrong conclusion from your analysis. Shocking though it is to realise, you and I belong to the same species as the many Germans, Poles and others who with varying degrees of enthusiasm implemented the Final Solution. I don't need to be German to be ashamed about the Holocaust - I feel shame to be a member of the human race. If you and I had been born as Gentiles in those places and at that time, do you think we would have behaved any differently from the other people who were there? It's too easy to avoid this painful conclusion by directing one's criticism towards an entire continent, especially if you happen not to live there. Besides committing the sin of generalisation, this line of argument can lead to dangerous conclusions: that the descendents of the perpetrators are somehow the only ones tainted by these crimes; and that the lessons of history only need to be learned by "them", not by "us". This is not the case. Posted by: KJN at January 26, 2004 04:38 PMBTW Charles while Britain and Poland were fighting this war, the US was trading with Germany, and Menachem Begin who only got out of Kazakhstan because of Britain, deserted in Palestine and started a terrorist campaign against the British who were fighting the Nazis. Evidence exists that the wonderful founder of the Stern Gang was in contact with Ribbentrop about an alliance against the British. Great Britain had few friends in 1939-41 and fought against most of Europe and the USSR all allied to Nazi Germany........if you read up enough you can apologise to Britain, for without the actions of this country in 1939 it is doubtful if Israel, Jews, or democracy would be concepts familiar to the world after 70 years of the 1000 Year Reich Posted by: Romulus at January 26, 2004 04:40 PMRomulus, Please furnish this evidence. "If it wasn't for the Americans there would be no Britain as we know it today!" And if it wasn't for the British, there would be no America as we know it today. Both countries have had a beneficial impact on each other. Posted by: Sean Fear at January 26, 2004 05:58 PM"'Evidence exists that the wonderful founder of the Stern Gang was in contact with Ribbentrop about an alliance against the British' "Please furnish this evidence." The web site of the Jewish Agency for Israel alludes to this: http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/concepts/d1.html#lehi All credit to JAFI for not airbrushing out this very embarrassing part of their history. Posted by: KJN at January 26, 2004 06:11 PM
the Stern Gang, formed by the Polish immigrant Abraham Stern, who used violence against British forces in Palestine, extorted money from the Yishuv to finance its activities, and even contacted German and Italian officials in order to cooperate against the common British enemy. Collaboration with the Nazis was too much for other Jewish military groupings who assisted British officials in the apprehension of most Stern Gang leaders. However, those member who later escaped or had not been arrested earlier re-formed as LEHI ("Fighters for the Freedom of Israel"). http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_jewish_forces.php David Ben-Gurion, chairman of the Zionist Executive, ruled that the Zionist movement and the yishuv would cooperate with Britain against the Nazis on the military level but would continue to resist the White Paper in matters of immigration and settlement. The Lehi (from the Hebrew acronym for Fighters for the Freedom of Israel), was a right-wing paramilitary organization of some 300 members whose deeds had repercussions far beyond its size. Founded by Avraham Stern, even during World War II the Lehi emphasized anti-British rebellion. Stern even made a bizarre attempt to contact Vichy Syria in his struggle against British rule in Palestine. Continuing after Stern's shooting death by police in 1942, the Lehi squeezed funds from Jewish shopkeepers, robbed banks, and indiscriminately shot British policemen. The 1944 Lehi assassination of British minister-resident Lord Moyne accelerated mainstream Zionist denunciation of extremist groups and sundered cooperation between the British and Zionist authorities in Palestine, even as the Nazi death machinery continued to swallow European Jewry
Lohamei Herut Yisrael (abbr. Lehi)
Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the condition the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognized on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively lake part in the war on Germany’s side. This offer by the NMO, covering activity in the military, political and information fields, in Palestine and, according to our determined preparations, outside Palestine, would be connected to the military training and organizing of Jewish manpower in Europe, under the leadership and command of the NMO. These military units would take part in the fight to conquer Palestine, should such a front be decided upon. The indirect participation of the Israeli freedom movement in the New Order in Europe, already in the preparatory stage, would be linked with a positive-radical solution of the European Jewish problem in conformity with the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Jewish people. This would extraordinarily strengthen the moral basis of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity. The cooperation of the Israeli freedom movement would also be along the lines of one of the last speeches of the German Reich Chancellor, in which Herr Hitler emphasized that he would utilize every combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England. A brief general view of the formation, essence, and activity of the NMO in Palestine: The NMO developed partly out of the Jewish self-defense in Palestine and the Revisionist movement (New Zionist Organization), with which the NMO was loosely connected through the person of Mr. V. Jabotinsky until his death. The pro-English attitude of the Revisionist Organization in Palestine, which prevented the renewal of the personal union, led in the autumn of this year to a complete break between it and the NMO as well as to a thereupon following split in the Revisionist movement. The goal of the NMO is the establishment of the Jewish state within its historic borders. The NMO, in contrast to all Zionist trends, rejects colonizatory infiltration as the only means of making accessible and gradually taking possession of the fatherland and practices its slogan, the struggle and the sacrifice, as the only true means for the conquest and liberation of Palestine. On account of its militant character and its anti-English disposition the NMO is forced, under constant persecutions by the English administration, to exercise its political activity and the military training of its members in Palestine in secret. The NMO, whose terrorist activities began as early as the autumn of the year 1936, became, after the publication of the British White Papers, especially prominent in the summer of 1939 through successful intensification of its terroristic activity and sabotage of English properly. At that lime these activities, as well as daily secret radio broadcasts, were noticed and discussed by virtually the entire world press. Posted by: Romulus at January 26, 2004 10:38 PM, the late Nathan Yalin-Mor, wrote that Avraham Stern never believed the Axis powers would win (Israel, Israel, in French, Paris 1978, p. 90). On the other hand Eitan Livni, of Menachem Begin's rival organization ETZEL (the Irgun), asserts that "they [LEHI leaders] believed the Italians and Germans would win" (newspaper Yediot Aharonot, Tel Aviv, March 9, 1979). Be that as it may, the fact remains that in the spring of 1941 Avraham Stern-Yair offered Germany, and Italy, a deal through his emissary Naftali Lubentchik: the Axis powers would recognize the "Hebrew Nation's right" to found its sovereign national (and authoritarian-nationalistic) state and help LEHI move all of Europe's Jews to Palestine as soon as possible; LEHI would undertake to do everything possible to harm British interests and to drive the British from Palestine. That was Utopian. The German diplomat Otto Werner von Hentig, who after the war was West Germany' s ambassador in Indonesia, replied to Lubentchik in essence the following: there was a movement in Germany that supported the idea of forming a Hebrew state in Palestine, that would be a practical solution to the "Jewish problem"; however, this movement had become too weak to influence the decisions of the government in Berlin, and in any case it was already too late to consider any such action. The Wehrmacht's generals had already decided to rely on the Arabs --whose numbers had to be counted in millions -- in the fight against Great Britain in the Near and Middle East, whereas there was only a handful of Jews. http://vip.latnet.lv/LPRA/fg_dilemma.htm Joseph Heller's The Stem Gang. Ideology, Politics and Terror, 1940-1949 (London/Portland: Frank Cass, 1995; Pp. x + 358. 37.50 [pounds sterling]; pb. 18 [pounds sterling]) is an astute and useful addition. It is the first to clarify what made Lehi, the Freedom Fighters of Israel, as followers of Avraham Stern styled themselves, the attempted Sternist embrace of the Nazis, in the context of 1939, sounds just too far-fetched where it is not perverse. That Stern relentlessly pursued the idea that the Nazis were only ephemeral `persecutors' of the Jews compared with the constant ,enemy' which was Britain, even when Lehi's approach to the German Beirut consulate had been unceremoniously rebuffed, suggests not simply the fanaticism but the tunnel-visioned nature of Stern's Weltanschauung.
as late as January 1941, the Zionist group LEHI, one of whose The Nazis rejected this proposal for an alliance because, it is reported, http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/journal_shahak/shahak39.asp
Heller opens his discussion by recalling that Yair had, on ideological grounds, advocated a Jewish alliance with fascist states even before he founded his own organization in September 1940. His advocacy of that alliance was further spurred by advances of the Italian army into Egypt in September 1940 and by the Italian air raid on Tel Aviv at the same time. The raid, which resulted in over 100 dead and hundreds of wounded "impressed him deeply," turning him, as Heller notes, into a believer in Italian victory. Unlike all other Jewish groups in Palestine, Yair refused to believe that Mussolini's alliance with Hitler and his concomitant adoption of anti-Semitic policies could be of any significance for the Jews. Nor did he believe that Hitler's views on the "Jewish question" could have consequences for the fate of Jews. In order to persuade his comrades, he used two "ideological" arguments. The first was borrowed from Jabotinsky's distinction between "verbal" and "behavioral" anti-Semitism. Although used by Jabotinsky in a different context, it became a fundamental tenet of LEHI's ideology. Thus, argued Yair, Polish anti-Semitism (generalized by him as affecting every single Pole), was "behavioral" and therefore much worse than the Nazi one, which was supposed to be merely "verbal." Shamir is apparently affected by this doctrine to this very day. His virulent anti-Polish racism, as recently expressed in his notorious statement that "every Pole sucks anti-Semitism with his mother's milk," is clearly traceable to those ravings of his teacher Yair, and even reminiscent of the latter's pro-Nazi leanings. The second argument of Yair, no less demagogic than the first, was the supposed distinction between "enemies of the Jews" and "Jew-haters." The latter, who, like Hitler, "merely" hated the Jews, were to be regarded as a lesser evil, since according to Yair they were no more than the usual run of anti-Semites "who arise in every generation." The "enemies," by contrast, were those "who occupied the Jewish homeland" (as defined above), which meant the Arabs, the British and (on account of their rule in Syria and Lebanon) also the French: all three to be regarded as much worse than Hitler. Yair, who wanted the Jews to learn this distinction well, regarded every Jew cooperating with the British as deserving death. He expressly stated his wish to be like Quisling, already known then as the ruler of Norway on Hitler's behalf. He wanted to perform the same role in the "kingdom of Israel" allied with the Nazis. He would even consider this scheme as his personal contribution to the Messianic rebirth. To be sure, some former adherents were sufficiently repelled by this ideology to defect from LEHI. But Shamir remained, demonstrating his agreement with it. He can be presumed to agree with it still. The pro-Italian leanings of Yair were consummated in some draft proposals of an alliance with Italy. Unfortunately for him, the Italian invasion of Egypt had been repulsed by the British in December 1940. This made Yair despair over the Italian alliance and pursue instead efforts to forge one with Germany. He unflinchingly believed that the Nazis would win the war. He regarded Nazi victory not only as assured but as also desirable for the Jews. Consequently, a victory of democracy over dictatorship, e.g., of Britain over Germany, would have been calamitous for the Jews: "How could we benefit from a victory of democracy? Democracy as a goal in itself is something we should have nothing to do with." In conformity with such notions, LEHI under Yair's inspiration praised the Nazis extravagantly for locking the Polish Jews into the ghettos, contrasting this favorably with the conditions of Jewish life in Poland before the Nazi invasion. As Heller clarifies, this praise was extended on the assumption that "in the Warsaw Ghetto there existed Jewish police, Jewish courts, Jewish tax collection," etc. This looked to LEHI like "a nascent Jewish state," preferable to conditions in Mandatory Palestine. This is why Yair looked forward to a Nazi conquest of Palestine. As he explained to a skeptical older right-winger, Abba Ahimeir: "We will then be able to deal with the Germans in the same manner as the Soviets dealt with them." He was apparently referring to the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939, because the conversation with Ahimeir took place before the Nazi invasion of the USSR. But the pro-Nazi sympathies of Yair persisted after the invasion. It can be stated that they were well-grounded in the Principles of Renaissance written at the same time. There is no record of any LEHI veteran ever disassociating himself from this pernicious nonsense. A concrete proposal of the alliance addressed to "Herr Hitler" followed in late December of 1940. It was facilitated by the fact that Syria and Lebanon were then still under the rule of the French Vichy regime. Consequently, there existed a Nazi diplomatic post in Beirut, while movement between Palestine and Lebanon was free. The proposal was unanimously approved by the entire LEHI command. A LEHI member, Naftali Lubenchik, was arrested for the actual delivery of the proposal to the German Consulate in Beirut. He did it disguised as a Maronite and with assistance from some Lebanese friends of LEHI. Lubenchik did meet a senior representative of the German Foreign Ministry in Beirut, Otto Werner von Hentig, who forwarded the proposal, along with his own memorandum, to Berlin. After the war, the documents were found in German archives. Hentig was alive until 1984, so various Israeli journalists and scholars had plenty of opportunities to interview him. The interviews have been published. The full text of the proposal was published in Israel in the original German and in a Hebrew translation, the latter in a collection of documents edited by Heller (In a Struggle for a State [Be'ma'avak Le'medina], Zalman Shazar Center, 1985, p. 308 ff). It has also been summarized and discussed in Hebrew-language sources too numerous to be listed. Following this publicity, LEHI veterans did finally acknowledge that they had indeed sought an alliance with the Nazis and in the end even published the proposal in their own major propaganda piece, In Purple: The Life of Yair -- Abraham Stern, by Ada Amichal-Yevin (Hadar, 1986), which contains an extravagant apology of LEHI's whole approach to the Nazis. As Heller acidly notes, however, there was a significant omission in the text as published there. To understand it, one has to know that, among its other falsehoods, the document was signed in the name of the parent organization from which LEHI had split, i.e., ETZEL. The omitted passage reads: "Given its world view, ETZEL bears the closest possible similarity to European totalitarian movements." The principles of the alliance as proposed in LEHI's document submitted to Hentig were to be LEHI's unconditional acceptance of the Nazi "New Order" in Europe, together with "a state of the Jews to be established on nationalist and totalitarian foundations and tied to the German Reich." The state was to be established "within its historic boundaries." Yair considered it impolitic to explain to Hitler in full geographical detail exactly how those "boundaries" were envisaged. In the event the Nazis accepted the offer, "LEHI would join the war, fighting on the side of Germany, provided the latter would recognize the aims of the Israeli Liberation Movement." The "state of the Jews" would commit itself to being "allied with the German Reich." The alliance, as the document carefully explained, "would be our answer to a recent speech of the Chancellor of the German Reich, in which Mr. Hitler expressed his readiness to rely on any conceivable coalition and configuration of forces promoting isolation of Britain and thereby contributing to its ultimate defeat." Heller adds that subsequent LEHI proposals forwarded to Hentig and listed by him in his own memorandum, "without hesitation suggested a cooperation [with the Nazis] in military, political and intelligence domains within Palestine, and after suitable organizational preparations, also outside Palestine." Unfortunately for LEHI, the Nazis did not even bother to reply to its proposals. Heller explains that, as a civil servant from pre-Nazi times, Hentig was devoid of all real influence. More decisively, however, the proposal conflicted with Hitler's ideology and deepest emotions. According to Heller, Yair looked forward impatiently for a German reply. But even though it never arrived, Yair became all the more firm in his belief that an alliance with the Nazis was indispensable. He was impressed by the victories of the German army over the British, which in March-April 1941 rescued the hard-pressed Italians; and he was also impressed by the Nazi conquest of the Balkans at the same time. He anticipated the Nazi conquest of the entire Middle East as a distinct possibility. Heller recounts how on May 10, 1941, LEHI was emboldened enough by those Nazi victories to reveal a little about its pro-Nazi leanings, previously kept in strict secrecy, through its clandestine broadcasting station. Together with the usual excoriation of the British as the real enemy, Yair demanded in this broadcast an immediate attack on the Arabs, another real enemy. An overwhelming majority of the Jewish public in Palestine responded to this broadcast with utter resentment. As is known, the expectations of a rapid Nazi victory were soon dashed. What happened instead was the rapid British conquest of Syria and Lebanon, which entailed an escape of Nazi diplomats from Beirut. Yair held the Vichy regime in high esteem, as a model for the Jews to imitate. For him, that regime had the supreme virtues of being anti-British and anti-democratic. But after the collapse of this regime in Syria and Lebanon, he had to look farther for possible contacts. During the second half of 1941, after the invasion of the USSR and the German victories there, his appetite increased for approaching the Nazis again with an alliance proposal. As Heller believes, his renewed effort to contact the Nazis rested merely on "his desire to see Britain defeated by them." Therefore, in December 1941, he dispatched Nathan Yelin-Mor with another offer of the alliance with the Nazis. The initiative floundered, however, as Yelin-Mor was arrested by the British in Aleppo before he could reach Turkey and, via Turkey, Nazi-occupied Europe. Several days after Yelin-Mor's arrest, Yair was killed while being apprehended by British detectives. After Yair's death, the leadership of LEHI passed on to the "triumvirate" comprised of Shamir, Eldad-Sheib and the same Yelin-Mor whom Yair had dispatched to Europe. Posted by: Romulus at January 26, 2004 11:02 PMI have to thank Charles for enlightening so many people on a very sensitive subject which is that of anti-semitism in the UK. Besides the middle ages when the Jews were all expelled from these isles, the underlying prejudices are still there. During the war, my mother was evacuated to Wales and the family she stayed with told her that they thought all Jews had horns, because that was the popular belief at the time. Then after the war, during the 1950's, fascism was rife in the UK - with a most distinguished leader - Sir Oswald Moseley and his blackshirts - with the famous Battle of Cable Street where the blackshirts fought the Jews, along with blacks and the communists. For more information on fascism and anti-semitism in Britain since the war, see searchlight magazine http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/default.asp You'll see that anti-semitism has always been "brushed under the carpet" even though it still exists, but in a much more politically correct way today than years ago. Posted by: nannette at January 27, 2004 02:14 AM"Then after the war, during the 1950's, fascism was rife in the UK - with a most distinguished leader - Sir Oswald Moseley and his blackshirts - with the famous Battle of Cable Street where the blackshirts fought the Jews, along with blacks and the communists.
"Besides the middle ages when the Jews were all expelled from these isles, "
Martin laughable. Get away from ill-informed mass-media and read something like the Economist; immigration supports our economy, pure and simple. There are still those who think you need a manufacturing or even (heaven help us) a farming backbone for the country - you don't. We've moved on to a service economy, something not fully understood, but undeniably the next step in the developed world. Such an economy will have highly trained people covering the "top" end of the financial, media etc. sectors, but someone still has to do the jobs of cleaners, bar staff etc.etc. Those jobs are supported by people who are prepared to work for less - students, yes, to some extent, and young people, yes, to some extent. But also immigrants - just as some people settled in this country and ran a shop, thus managing to send their children to university to become doctors, so some people will now be here working for peanuts in the hope of a better future. Of course there are lazy immigrants, just as there are lazy natives - because they're all *people* with attendant good and bad sides. But I'd rather entrust the future of the country to the progeny of people with a huge work ethic, who see that as the only way out of their circumstance, than to yobbish white trash. I appreciate there's another side to this - there are freeloaders, of course - but I'm just trying to balance things. If this country is to achieve the growth targets set for it, we need immigration - otherwise we won't have the people to do the jobs. Thanks to my generation - I'm 31 and childless, and I apologise for that - we have an undynamic and ageing population, and need immigration to redress the balance. So long as (and it's a big if) that doesn't create a wave of hatred, then that's the way it works my friend. Posted by: Jake at January 27, 2004 03:55 PMJason you just described London, but not Britain. 66% British exports is in manufactured goods; the Service sector is small fry and could never grow big enough to compensate. Very little Media is exported, licence income employs very few people. The Economist is run by Old Etonians peddling half-baked notions; and those service sectors you talk about would wither without manufacturing simply because most of them are outsourced HR, Accounting, Cleaning, Transport, Maintenance functions which were once done in-house; nothing more. THat Christian Salvesen does the trucking makes the job service even if Cadbury used to own its own truck fleet; and using headhunters instead of having an HR staff is hardly technological wizardry. The most complex piece of equipment in a service business is a PC and mobile phone; which are toys in a manufacturing business like British Aerospace or Rolls-Royce where real innovation takes place. Taking each other's washing in or minding each other's children raises the GDP in an arithmetic manner, buit actually nothing has been created. Posted by: Romulus at January 27, 2004 04:14 PMFor "Jason" read "Jake" Posted by: Romulus at January 27, 2004 04:15 PM"We've moved on to a service economy, something not fully understood, but undeniably the next step in the developed world. Such an economy will have highly trained people covering the "top" end of the financial, media etc. sectors" Deliriously funny ! Financial Services has peaked and is now going the way of Steel. Having destroyed huge amounts of capital in Endowments, LBOs and Paramalat/Enron/Equitable Life/Worldcom/World Online/EMM/Mobilcom/Skandia Life/Tyco - the retail investor is going to starve the fund managers....... Just why do you think Sandy Weill build Citigroup ? Why do you think JP Morgan Chase took over BancOne; why Deutsche Bank will soon be absorbed........CONSOLIDATION.......too much excess capacity in Financial Services.......most Life Assurers in Europe are insolvent kept afloat by dodgy accounting....and capitalised future earnings.......
Marx predicted that all would be commoditised and we shall see brands disappear as the lowest cost operator wins........no highly paid City jobs for the masses, most of whom are clerical staff anyway.......presumably salesmen "Relationship Officers" will get the cream for performance; the rest.................history Posted by: Harvey at January 27, 2004 04:24 PMJason - you don't know your English history of how the Jews were expelled from these isles - obviously... and didn't come back for 400 years. Sean I respect Charles' posts - which are the truth - as opposed to yours and Jasons' totally vacuous comments. During the reigns of Henry III and Edward I, the clerks of the Exchequer of the Jews at Westminster produced a mass of records, in which the lives and tribulations of the Jewries can be traced in detail which is surprising for the time. Although a few Jews came from Roman times onwards, the majority came to England, from Rouen in France, with William the Conqueror in 1066. The first English "Street of the Jews" was recorded in London in 1128 and by 1229, 17 towns had a Jewry. Until the time of Stephen (1135-54) the Jews had prospered. He sought to protect them but he also sought to tax them - up to one fourth of their liquid assets. At the coronation of Richard the Lion Hearted in 1189, Jews bearing handsome gifts were refused entry by officials and pelted by mobs. The story circulated that the king wished them exterminated and many Jews were killed in riots and their stately homes were burned. Richard punished the ringleaders and sought to prevent further outrages and protect his financial interest in "his Jews". When Richard left for the third crusade in 1190 a series of terrible massacres wiped out several Jewish communities. The York riot was the worst. Before following Richard to the crusades, warriors, many of whom were heavily in debt to the Jews, plundered the possessions of the Jews. The Jews fled to the castle and were besieged by the warriors. When the Jews realised they were doomed they took their own lives. The few surviving when the tower was stormed were slaughtered. The attackers then went to the cathedral and burned the records of their financial obligations to their victims. King John (1167- 1216) imprisoned all Jews, tortured many and extorted 60,000 silver marks. In 1194 English Jewry was called to Northampton to allocate a Tallage of 5000 marks – their contribution to ransom of Richard I. Also in 1194 "The Exchequer of the Jews" was set up to control money lending activities. Every Jewish moneylender had to swear an oath on the Torah scrolls that he would register all his bonds. The church forbade money lending for interest so the Jews were needed as they did not have such a prohibition. Although many Jews became wealthy through money-lending, their legal status was one of rightlessness". "The Jew can have nothing of his own, for whatever he acquires, he acquires not for himself but for the king". In 1210 John arrested all wealthy Jews and demanded a ransom for their release. Roger of Wendover recorded the story of one "Jew of Bristol" who refused to pay his ransom. The king ordered his torturers to pull out one of his molar teeth every day until he paid the 1000 marks. He stood it for seven days, but paid the ransom when they started on his eighth tooth. Henry III (1207-1272) taxed the Jews until many sought to leave England. In 1218 the Council "informed what great profit might arise from the Jews if they are kindly dealt with". Prominent people were responsible for their security from molestation, "especially from the Crusaders". In March 1218 the Royal Council, under pressure from Papal legate ordered that all adult Jews wear the cloth "badge of shame". It was a yellow felt or taffeta shape representing the two tablets of the Law, 2 fingers wide by 4 long. In 1275 it was increased to 6x3. These were troubled times as the church was becoming increasingly Anti-Semitic and Crusaders were questioning going off to the "Holy Land" to kill infidels when they had Jews at home to deal with first. Jews were suspect because they were not under the rigid control the church exercised over the natives, and because they were conspicuously different and separate in dress, lifestyle, customs, language, and education (locals were illiterate and innumerate). Their business was a source of resentment to those who owed them money. When Edward was crowned in 1272 the Jews were too poor to be needed and in 1275 his "Act concerning Jews" prohibited them from money lending. Jewish communities throughout Europe suffered from blood libels – stories of Christian children being murdered in Jewish rituals. The Expulsion In 1290, Edward I sent secret orders to the sheriff that all Jews, with their wives, children and chattels, were, on pain of death, to quit the realm by 1 November, the feast of All Saints. The sheriff was to ensure that they suffered no injury, harm, damage or grievance in their departure. The penalty for any Jew who remained behind after that was death. In October (a month before the deadline) 16,000 had left for France and Belgium. Many did not arrive – (some were tricked by a ships captain, into leaving the ship when it ran aground in the Thames Estuary. They were then left to drown with the rising tide.) Paris was the goal of the wealthiest, but in February 1291 Philip the Fair expelled all English Jews from his lands except those profitable to the French crown . It is not known what became of Hereford's Jews. · The Expulsion was announced on 18th April, which, that year, fell on the 9th of Av, on the Jewish calendar. The 9th of Av is Tisha BaAv, a day of fasting, since it was also the date of the destruction of 1st and 2nd Temples. Major acts against the Jews of England, and the corresponding, recent acts of repentance are listed below. A CHRONICLE OF ANTI-SEMITISM IN ENGLAND 1144-1290 AND THE REPENTANCE OF CHRISTIANS IN OUR DAY 1144 NORWICH - Blood libel - ritual murder accusation Repentance 1994 1168 GLOUCESTER - Blood libel 1181 BURY ST EDMUNDS-Blood libel Repentance 1994 1188 Saladin Tithe for Crusade- 1/4 Jewish Property 1/10 Others' 1189 LONDON - Coronation of Richard Lionheart (September 3rd) - No Jews or women admitted to Westminster Hall - Several Jews beaten or trampled to death - Riots: 30 dead including the Rabbi Jacob of Orleans 1190 LYNN - "pogrom" - Jews exterminated Repentance 1998 STAMFORD-Crusaders killed Jews Repentance 1998 YORK - over 150 Jews died in Clifford's Tower Repentance 1990 BURY ST EDMUNDS - Palm Sunday 57 Jews massacred Repentance 1995 DARTMOUTH - European fleet assembled : 3rd Crusade Repentance 1998 1194 Richard captured : Jews apportion tax for ransom at Northampton 1210-13 BRISTOL - heavy tax on Jews : defaulters imprisoned in Castle Repentance 1997 1215 Civil War- LONDON : Jewry demolished - Magna Carta discriminates against Jews 1218 Jewish badge to be worn (Royal decree) 1222 Jews forbidden to build new synagogues 1231 LEICESTER-Jews expelled (Simon deMontfort) Repentance 1996 1233 Statute of April 4th expels/imprisons all Jews unless they serve the King 1234 NEWCASTLE-Jews expelled Repentance 1996 1236 SOUTHAMPTON-Jews expelled Repentance 1998 1237 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE-Jews expelled Repentance 1995 1240 WORCESTER-Parliament of Jews to share out tax of 1/3 Repentance 1996 1242 BERKHAMSTED - Jews expelled 1255 Jews mortgaeed to Richard of CORNWALL : slavery in mines Repentance 1998 LINCOLN-Blood libel Repentance 1998 1263 LONDON - 400 Jews massacred (Palm Sunday) 1278 WINCHESTER-Jewry plundered Repentance 1998 1274 Jews taxed 1/3 of property, again 1275 "Statutum de Judeismo" - money lending at interest forbidden BRISTOL Jewry burned Repentance 1997 MARLBOROUGH, GLOUCESTER, WORCESTER, CAMBRIDGE, GUILDFORD - Jews expelled 1277 NORTHAMPTON-Jews dragged to death by cart horses Repentance 1991 1278 LONDON - 680 Jews imprisoned in Tower : 290 hanged 1286 EXETER Synod enforced all limitations against Jews Repentance 1994 1290 LONDON - Expulsion of Jews decreed by king in council (July 18th - ninth ofAv) All Jews to leave England before Feast of All Saints - November 1st http://fp.thebeers.f9.co.uk/england_history.htm It took 400 years and the brain behind that notorious English ruler, Oliver Cromwell, to ask the Jews to return to England to re-boost English international trade. After the Christian Reformation of 500 years ago, the Roman Catholic Christian Church, then banned in England, continued to brutally kill Jews, normally by burning at the stake. Protestant Holland and England became more tolerant which helped these countries become leaders in international trade at that time. 200 years ago to the present day. The Christian Church (except in England, Holland and the US) went on persecuting Jews until the French Revolution (1789-99) which was in part triggered by the American War of independence (1775-83) in which the French were very much involved. Human rights statements were built into legislation for the first time, stating that all men are born equal including finally Jews. The French, being less fortunate than the English in the sense of being ruled by an unelected King without parliamentary control plus the dogmatic and ruthless Roman Catholic Christian Church , erupted in 1777 and killed their King and some 40,000 members of the Catholic Church hierarchy (including over 20,000 nuns) on their way to a democratic state. This fervour against the corrupt ruling classes and Catholic Church was continued by Napoleon who rose as ruler from the ashes of the French revolution and proceeded to conquer the whole of Europe (never England where the Navy and military leaders were too powerful). When Napoleon entered Italy one of his first tasks was to imprison the Pope (for crimes against humanity) and release the Jews from their Ghettos. This triggered the freedom (emancipation) for all European Jews but as the world knows, old habits die hard and the suspicion and hatred of the Jewish race by “Christians” has not completely disappeared. http://www.historyofengland.net/judaism/jews2.html Posted by: nannette at January 28, 2004 12:50 AMPerhaps you might wish to discuss the positions of The Huguenots and the Massacre at La Rochelle in your potted history Nannette. Posted by: Romulus at January 28, 2004 06:52 AMWell Nanette I do know my history and if you read you will see it is clear that the Jews were re-admitted to England......and in 1290 we speak of England - OLiver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England allowed them back. I don't think my family did awfully well out of King John either........and I cannot be sure that Cromwell was decent to them, maybe we all have a moan about events in 1290 or 1416.......or even earlier, maybe we should have a"Justice for Canaanites" campaign or "Love Your Philistine" or even "Stick up for Esau". You must have a fun time unloading all your grievances loaded into your long-term memory on every 21st CEntury Londoner you meet ! Posted by: Jason at January 28, 2004 06:58 AM"Although a few Jews came from Roman times onwards, the majority came to England, from Rouen in France, with William the Conqueror in 1066" Yes Nanette "Carpetbaggers" who came over with the Invader, the Norman gangster William and a man who devastated England......read about the "Pillage of the North" and the scorched earth policy of this "Fuehrer" and his destruction of Anglo-Saxon tradition and culture and the imposition of an alien ruling class on the peoples of England. Maybe you think being allied to an invading army is a good strategy for long-term residence ? Look at Africa, Asia and see how the ethnic groups which ally themselves to a foreign overclass are expelled in de-colonisation exercises. Posted by: Jason at January 28, 2004 07:02 AMJews arrived in England from Normandy with William the Conqueror and the Normans after 1066. It is unclear whether these Jews, most of whom were involved in finance, had received any charters or invitations or whether they arrived in England as aliens without any rights from the start. The fortune of the Jews of England deteriorated very rapidly. Although because at first they were needed, they received protection, but soon hostility developed, their assets were expropriated and they were expelled within two centuries. http://www.jews.net/englishjews.htm Posted by: Jason at January 28, 2004 09:36 AM20% of the population not accepting a British PM who is Jewish = 80% who would. 80% is a HIGH figure. There's always a hard core of people who are against one of more minority group for any number of reasons. It would be genuinely interesting to know the figures for a i) Moslem; ii) gay; iii) black - or a combination of two of the above (I guess a gay black Moslem would be a little too much of a stretch at credibility)... However, the problem with opinion polls of this type is that they DO NOT refect the range of different types of beliefs or personal characteristics that individuals within these groups possess. They also do not take account of people's personal experiences of the images that come to their minds when the word 'Jew', 'gay' or 'Moslem' are mentioned. Some people might immediately think of Hasidic Jews in Stamford Hill. Some may think of Nigella-Lawson. Some may think of Michael Howard. These are quite a range of types. They might also think of people they know (as favourable personal experiences tend to break down prejudice more than minority group sponsored anti-prejudice campaigns).
I would have no objection to a black Prime Minister who was like Colin Powell. I would strongly object to a black Prime Minister who was like Lee Jaspers. So if a pollster were to ask me "Would you be comfortable with a black PM", I'd have to respond "It depends". Posted by: Sean Fear at January 28, 2004 12:15 PMWhat proportion are opposed to a "Labour" Prime Minister ? Or to having a "Scottish Prime Minister"; or even a Woman Prime Minister ?
Charles, "the quite obvious and virulent anti-Semitism of the British" This is an appalling generalisation. Even the (over-simplified) facts of the survey that Melanie quoted show that the British are not generally virulently anti-Semitic. A few may be but not enough to tar 'the British' in this unwarranted way. Posted by: David at January 29, 2004 04:53 PM |
