« Alan Johnson PM? | Main | Farage is new UKIP leader »

Comments

A very astute article. He ought to have added two things:

1. Labour regards the Muslim population as a captive constituency whose block vote, courtesy of the community leaders whom Labour panders to, is there for the taking at every election....by fair means or foul. Quite apart from anything else, this is profoundly unfair to individual Muslim voters.

2. The British left, sometimes aided and abetted by elements within the Tory Party, has long had a psycho-sexual fixation with extreme political violence. Since the thirties, the following have at one time or another been icons of the so-called democratic left: Stalin, Tito, the Vietcong, the IRA, Castro, Che Guevara, Yassir Arafat.....and now Hezbollah.

Trying to explain hostility to the Lebanon war in terms of anti-Zionism and anti-semitism is over-complicating the subject. I’d say that the explanation is far simpler: we’re all fed up of war and bloodshed. Israel seemed to take it’s retaliation beyond what was necessary, and thereby fell out from the general mood.

Argghh I'm a grocer!

Sorry to disagree Michael but I don't believe it was astute at all. Gove makes a big mistake if he really believes that Israeli actions in Lebanon is only condemned by the left in Britain. Condemnation goes across the political spectrum. The anti -Semitic comment is unworthy of him. I would have expected better from Gove and if this is what he really feels I'm glad his influence over Conservative party foreign policy appears to be in decline.

The anti-Israeli stance comes from those on the left who have no stomach for a country standing up for itself and defending against those that would obliterate it of the face of the Middle East map.
The fact that Israel uses robust military methods to defend itself and often causes civilian deaths, collataral in US parlance, is often used as a reason for supporting the Arab "freedom fighters". The fact that all the terrorist organisations locate themselves in the midst of residential locations is overlooked. As is the callous methodology of terrorism and its means of recruitment, by using the fall out from collataral as a recruitment aid. These people have corrupted many generations with their hate and perverse interpretation of the Koran.
Many western nations have grown stale and pudgy from over-reliance on NATO, and the US's nuclear umbrella, which required very little effort on their part.
This lethargy can now be seen in the lack of support for Israel, their is no willpower to take on the unpleasant task of fighting the terrorists or backbone to recognise that if you give in to the payground bully, life is finished.
Many fail to recognise that there are many Arab states who still call for the total elimination of Israel...Iran most recently and its Mad President. These people mean what they say, and when they've finished, the Western nations will be next, have no doubt.
We need to have less of this wishy-washy liberal rubbish and a more robust and pragmatic viewpoint.
We may need Arab oil, but they need our money and technological skills to buy the shiny arms and planes and other toys of war.

Let's face it - Gove's biggest talent is to dress statements of the obvious up in polysyllables and pretend he's being frightfully clever. He's really saying nothing very new or interesting. It's just more exposure to yet another graduate of the Scottish debaaating school of politics. Oh dear me.

Gove is right about all this. Doesn't matter if Malcolm et al aren't interested in war, war is interested in you. A war started by political Islam that is being waged every day. Israel is the front line of this war, Gove understands this and Al-Queda reiterated it yesterday. Simply wishing that no blood should be be spilt won't prevent it from happening. The only thing we can hope to influence is how much of the blood is ours and how much is theirs.

Warfare is not pretty. Israel's mistake is to be involved in some. Her strategy of 'disproportionality' is producing results in Gaza, and maybe in Lebanon too. The Lebanese are going to play harder with Hezbollah after seeing how bad things get if they don't.

Blair's intervention between Israel and the Palestinians seems to have been well-timed. His career might get a lift just when it needs one.

Brits can try being anti-Israeli or anti-American if they like but the war on terror isn't going to go away any time soon. We should be learning from the Isrealis and the Americans. They're getting good at the anti-terror game, but the BBC are not of a mind to let anyone in this country know about that.

Malcolm, I was focussing more on his general comments rather than on Israel....although you and I disagree on that one. Gove understands better than most the very real threats we face...internal and external. He also understands that despite his undoubted mistakes, Bush has always been the pantomime villain of the chattering classes....since before 9/11 and the decision to invade Iraq. He can do no right in the eyes of the "Guardian" and the BBC and nor can Blair as a consequence.

I certainly hope that Gove retains an influential voice. The last thing we need is a return to the languid defeatism of Rifkind, Hurd and Patten.

Was looking back through various websites on 1967 war and came across this quote from senior US administration official in 1966 after Isreali incursion into Jordan, which undermined Jordanian policy of working with Israel "This 3000-man raid with tanks and planes was out of all proportion to the provocation and was aimed at the wrong target" Disproportionate?

"They've wrecked a good system of tacit cooperation between Hussein and the Israelis... They've undercut Hussein. We've spent $500 million to shore him up as a stabilizing factor on Israel's longest border and vis-à-vis Syria and Iraq. Israel's attack increases the pressure on him to counterattack not only from the more radical Arab governments and from the Palestinians in Jordan but also from the Army, which is his main source of support and may now press for a chance to recoup its Sunday losses... They've set back progress toward a long term accommodation with the Arabs... They may have persuaded the Syrians, who are the main troublemakers, that Israel didn't dare attack Soviet-protected Syria but could attack US-backed Jordan with impunity."

Sounds like the Lebanon today - Israel attacks a potential neutral if not overtly friendly Arab state and creates another enemy. Israel's true foes are Syria & Iran - these need to be isolated and cut off from international assistance. Many friends of Israel were against the Lebanese action because we saw it would strengthen Syria in particular, at a time post the Lebanese withdrawl and charges of complicity in assisination that it was being successfully isolated.

Yes the left has moved from being pro-Israeli ( all good socialists used to go on kibbutz holidays) but many on the right are also losing patience with Israeli disproportionate hardline tactics because we can't see how these will ever deliver peace.

Israeli tactics in Lebanon were neither disproportionate nor hardline in my view. Lebanon was neither overtly friendly nor potentially neutral, not with two or three Hezbollah terrorists as Cabinet ministers.

Syria and Iran still pull enough of the strings there to cause the recent phase of the on-going global war against non-Muslims.

There is no possibility of peace until Hezbollah and Hamas and their backers all around the Arab and Muslim world, including the EU and within the UK, accept Israel's existence and concentrate on turning their tinpot failed states into countries worthy of the name.

A good example Tired and Emotional of the absolute failure of the committed pro Israeli faction abject failure to try and win the hearts and minds of those who don't believe that Israels actions are always for the best.

Whose hearts and minds? Yours Malcolm? Ted's? Look I do realise I am somewhat dogmatic on this particular issue.

But I regard it as the defining issue of our times. I believe that we are at war against an enemy who has no scruple, no compunction and no compassion and in fact believes that his god will reward him all the more greatly the more mercilessly he slaughters non-Muslims.

I trust you will forgive me if I seem a little impatient of the niceties.

Ultimately the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Particularly if he operates the only capitalist democratic state in an area world-famous for corruption, repression and fanaticism and has very large balls into the bargain.

What chutzpah to survive!


"chutzpah"

A deliberate use of Yiddish?

There is a school of thought (which I tend to agree with) that, if Israel had chosen Yiddish as its national language (being associated with internationalism) things would have turned out much better than choosing the Modern Hebrew that had become connected to Zionism.

Words matter.

I agree with Matthew Parris' assessment of Gove.

A deliberate use of Yiddish, yes Cardinal.
I am sure that if the Israelis had chosen Yiddish instead of Modern Hebrew as their language that Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al Quaeda, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Eygpt, Saudia Arabia and all the other tinpot failed states out there like the EU wouldn't be sworn to destroy it. Oh they speak Yiddish, how charming - and what scope for jokes! We just ADORE Jackie Mason....

Probably if they had gone for a international approach (whatever that is) rather than daring to define themselves in the manner of their own choosing and defend that identity against all-comers they would be all now be as dead as the non-Arabs of Darfur, or the Bosnian Muslims huddled in Srebenicia or the Rwandans Kofi Annan could have protected but chose not to to protect the UN's impartiality.

Oh and I agree with the Spectator's assessment of Matthew Parris on this issue.

It's obvious that a gulf is beginning to open here.

On one side we have the pro-Israel old-style Thatcherites joining with Neocons such as Gove and Osborne.

On the the other we have a strange alliance between Guardian/Independent Do-Gooders (including Tory Wets), Cynical votegrabbing "Glibcons" like Cameron, and all points right beyond that.

Already we see accusations of "anti-semitism" being bandied about. So predictable.

Given the preferences of many of this party's backers, Cameron is treading a dangerous path. I have no doubt it will all end in tears.

It's obvious that a gulf is beginning to open here.

On one side we have the pro-Israel old-style Thatcherites joining with Neocons such as Gove and Osborne.

On the the other we have a strange alliance between Guardian/Independent Do-Gooders (including Tory Wets), Cynical votegrabbing "Glibcons" like Cameron, and all points right beyond that.

Already we see accusations of "anti-semitism" being bandied about. So predictable.

Given the preferences of many of this party's backers, Cameron is treading a dangerous path. I have no doubt it will all end in tears.

"A Gulf opening up here"? Oh very good!

I defer to your ageless wisdom Vlad, of course.

I am not sure we know where DC's loyalties lie yet - therein lies the genius of his recent speech.

Anyway, god forbid that the leader of a political party should go vote-grabbing, most unseemly.

Not sure where you saw the anti-semitism jibe though - not in my response to the Cardinal I hope.

No. The accusations certainly won't be coming from me. The Cardinal's post was utter bunk, incidentally.

>>I am not sure we know where DC's loyalties lie yet<<

I don't suppose he knows from one day to the next.


To be attacked by someone such as Wallenstein is a pleasure. I'd be upset if I thought we were on the same side.

Clearly some have no knowledge of how politics was played out through other means, such as the choice of national language, regarding the creation of Israel.

I hoped that someone would try and make it sound as though this never happened, it's always good to reveal the ignorance of others with whom you disagree.

A little backing for this 'bunk' from the Reuben Hecht chair of zionism at the University of Haifa 9from 1985).

http://www.tau.ac.il/~itamarez/works/papers/papers/lngconfl.htm

Especially interesting is the way that many American Jews are studying Yiddish in preference to Hebrew.

Elsewhere, to give an idea of the battles -

"In Tel Aviv, the Legion of the Defenders of the Language was established, which worked to enforce Hebrew use, sometimes by force. Jews who spoke other languages on the street met the answer of "Jew, speak Hebrew" (יהודי, דבר עברית) and meetings conducted in Yiddish were sometimes bombed by the Legion."

Know your history!

Your history is doubtless impeccable. I for one am most impressed that you find time to read as much as you do while still producing those wonderful calendars.

There may well have been an intense debate over the identity and character of the Jewish state and Jewishness. I am not sure that it matters a damn though.

Wallenstein's called your post 'bunk', if I may be so bold, because you seemed to suggest that the state of Israel would not now face the range of enemies that it does.

That is just crap.

And so was my post. I'll try again

Your history is doubtless impeccable. I for one am most impressed that you find time to read as much as you do while still producing those wonderful calendars.

There may well have been an intense debate over the identity and character of the Jewish state and Jewishness. I am not sure that it matters a damn though.

Wallenstein called your post 'bunk', if I may be so bold, because you seemed to suggest that the state of Israel would not now face the range of enemies that it does if it had chosen a different language - presumably this is because you think a softer crowd would have prevailed.

I think this is rubbish. And another way of saying "It's their fault everyone wants to kill them, if only they had done x or y then it would all be fine"

Ah, the calendars! Unfortunately not my end of the business, I am much too preoccupied with the baptism of dogs and other such excommunicable acts (see the novels of Ronald Firbank).

I understand your main point but it wasn't the same as mine! The language was merely a cover for (or a side issue to) the politics. Hebrew is essentially a synthetic language whereas Yiddish was, in the early part of the century, spoken by three quarters of Jews. It's poetic qualities are richer (witness the work of Isaac Bashevis Singer, probably best known as the author of the story which became 'Fiddler on the Roof') and its roots more worldwide (hence my reference to internationalism). I just find it a shame that this was all lost, at the very least it would been a fitting tribute to those (mostly Yiddish speaking) from Eastern Europe who lost their lives in the holocaust if it had been made into an official language.

(As a side issue Yiddish was a national language in the short lived Republic of Ukraine - as you can tell, it's a bad idea to get me onto linguistics!)

So my point is not that somehow, miraculously, speaking a different language stops you being a target, but that, in this case, if Yiddish had held sway it would have necessarily meant that a different approach to the state of Isreal had been taken and this different political approach may well have allowed things to turn out better than they currently are.

Missed the last sentence -

It may not have, but we shall never know. It remains as one of those 'what ifs?' of history.

Ah! Well, someone needs to baptise the hounds after all.

Possibly you are correct, and I shall not challenge your linguistic knowledge for fear of further elaboration. But it may be that fervour of the Zionists and other supporters of Modern Hebrew is what has sustained Israel against the many slings and arrows it has suffered over the years.

It seems to me that different currents of opinion of how best to resolve Israel's problems have dominated at various times anyway.

I am not sure that had Topol been running the show that his offer of a drink and song would have been received by Arabs and Muslims in the spirit it was intended.

May I be so bold as to point out to His Emininence that while speaking Yiddish as opposed to German, English etc. may have been taken as indicating differences in social status, it made absolutely no difference to the way European Jews were treated by the Nazis, and I don't think that Arabs would be likely to show a fine sense of discrimination either.

As it happens I am just half-way through a biography of Theodor Herzl. If you study the politics of the early Zionist movement I think you will conclude that it is almost inconceivable that Israel would have adopted Yiddish as its official language.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker