The ill effects of Brexit… and why it should happen

The pound has tanked since the Brexit vote, which is irksome for those looking to go on foreign holidays, but overall people haven’t felt too many ill effects.  The FTSE (mainly on the back of listed foreign companies benefitting from the fall in the pound) has gone up.

That said, it is a little irksome – my word of the day – when pro-Brexit politicians and newspapers point to this to show that ‘Project Fear’ was misguided, and that Brexit wasn’t as bad as people feared.  The key point, however, is that: Brexit hasn’t happened yet. 

All that has happened is a vote on Brexit – and everyone (including the Market) realises that there is no point panicking yet for something that is so far away in the future.  However, the view that overall Brexit will be bad for the economy is as strong as ever.

I am no fan of European institution, but I voted to Remain, and if I had the chance to do so again, would vote in the same way.

That said the Democratic will of the people decided otherwise.  The manoeuvres of Labour politicians, and various pressure and lobby groups (and ex-prime ministers) is very disturbing – or at least irksome.  Democracy isn’t democracy if those at the top can just overturn a vote if they don’t like the outcome.

Equally, the view that we were ‘lied’ to – or that new information has come to light -is irrelevant.  It was clear at the time that the claims were lies – and it was pointed out by the Remain campaign.  There isn’t really any new information that people were not being told.

Of course, democracy requires an element of trust in the electorate, and their collective rationality or sense.  It means you buy into the fact that a few people cannot – in a paternalistic fashion – know ‘what is best’ for people – against their explicitly stated point of view.  Sometimes that trust isn’t founded or rewarded.

However, in the long run, playing fast and loose with democracy will be more than irksome.

Jeremy Corbyn: Likes, Dislikes, Indifferences and Ambivalences: Asceticism

Jeremy Corbyn is, of course, an unacceptable force in British politics.  … It is also true that not everything he says is or will be bad or wrong… See full intro here

One dislike is Jeremy Corbyn’s asceticism, and coming with that as a bedfellow is obsession . 

See Jeremy Corbyn Story on BBC Website.

a man who is known for his austere, almost ascetic, approach to life...

He reportedly split up with his second wife Claudia after she insisted on sending their son Ben ...to Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, in Barnet, instead of an Islington comprehensive....

Chapman says she married Corbyn for his "honesty" and "principles" but she soon grew weary of his intense focus on politics.

"Politics became our life. He was out most evenings because when we weren't at meetings he would go to the Labour headquarters, and do photocopying

But fun was in short supply at home, recalls Chapman, who remains in touch with Corbyn and backed his leadership bid.

During their five years together he never once took her dinner, she told The Mail, preferring instead to "grab a can of beans and eat it straight from the can" to save time.

I have not great love for material or expensive things.  I don't like to splash the cash.  I feel very bad claiming even legitimate expenses at work (taxis etc).  I don't have a great drive or ambition to climb the greasy pole.

Yet, extreme asceticism will often signify an imbalance, or of being psychologically unhealthy: 

• Following one extreme - even if that extreme is one that results in staying away from bad or unnecessary things - can lead to the negation of good things that could be concentrated on (e.g. ascetics bean eating at the expense of attention to your family). 
• It can lead to a lack of compromise -  compromise that leads to a negation of one's saintliness and yet necessary for getting on in the world (cf. breaking up with your wife about your childs' school)
• It will often come from a place of obsession (cf. out every night at Labour Headquarters) 
• At the very least, it leads to a certain element of being unrelatable.  Asceticism is, at its core, a manifestation of not being like everyone else, not being quite of the world.  Can one who is an ascetic empathise with the priorities and concerns of everyone else, and vice versa? (cf. Corbyn's favourite biscuit)

As I say, asceticism isn't wrong in it itself, but can be both symptomatic of, and a precursor to, obsession.  To repeat, I think obsession is wrong even if that obsession is about a good thing. 

For an observant Jew, studying Torah is one of the highest ideals and one that one should dedicate a good proportion of time to.  Once, however, a rabbi I very much respect told of someone who never got a haircut because he didn't want to lose any opportunity to study.  I said it was obsessive and he said: "But is that a bad thing if what he is obsessive about is Torah?" Well, yes, yes it is. 

Equally charity (cf. Peter Singer).  Giving away too much money if it leave you yourself poor, or if you devote more to other people than your own family, it is a bad thing.

Asceticism and Obsession are characteristic of extremists (e.g. religious extremists).  The following of one ideal, one purpose, one goal, one value (at the expense of all others) will at least lead you to having very strange bedfellows; and justifying things which in any other situation one would reject so long as it furthers your goal.  There is a certain level of judgement and sense that is gained from diversity (of people, experience, interests, obstacles) that is absent from people that focus on just 'important' things whilst being generally switched off.

Of course, the above are all the lifestyle choices of somebody which I have no right to criticise on their own terms.  No-one should eat fancy dinners on my say so.  Yet, these items come into play if they start to effect other people - as in the case of politics.

Just as I have no interest in Israeli ultra-orthodox, chareidi, religious judgements from people that know a lot of religious source material but not about peoples' actual religious practice; politicians who do not share the moral sense, or priorities, of the country is not someone I want as a leader.

Rambam/Maimonides contrasts the saint (chassid) and the wise man (chacham).  The saint stays away from evil influences; and if the evil is one extreme they will go to the other extreme to avoid the merest hint of them.  The wise man on the other hand always takes the middle path: He chooses not to do that which is detrimental but does so from a normal context, in amongst the real world.  It might occasionally be necessary to be a saint, but for him, the wise man is far superior. 

Jeremy Corbyn: Likes, Dislikes, Indifferences and Ambivalences: His Clothing

Jeremy Corbyn is, of course, an unacceptable force in British politics.  … It is also true that not everything he says is or will be bad or wrong… See full intro here

One indifference is Jeremy Corbyn’s clothing:

• He doesn’t wearing matching tops and bottoms
• He doesn’t always wear a tie
• Sometimes he looks ‘scruffy’
• He doesn’t conform to what might be expected of hi,

Quite frankly, I like the old English university professor look.  It could even converge into a ‘like’ in an aesthetic sense.

As for a tie?  I only wear ties on two occasions: If I am meeting someone an IT Board Director level or above or on Rosh Hashana/Yom Kippur (Jewish Days of Awe).

Look, there are occasions which call for dressing up and I cannot imagine a sensible reason to conform on those occasions. 

Nevertheless, ultimately, who cares?  It is the content and impact of his views that are of relevance.  And disagreeing about petty things takes away the force of the arguments against the potentially dangerous views he holds

Jeremy Corbyn: Likes, Dislikes, Ambivalences and Indifferences: PMQs

Jeremy Corbyn is, of course, an unacceptable force in British politics.  Being friends with dictators, fascists, anti-Semites, murderers and terrorists is something that  should disqualify him immediately.…  It is also true that not everything he says is or will be bad or wrong… See full intro here

To start with an ambivalence….  Prime Minister’s Question Time

Jeremy Corbyn introduced the “new politics” by creating a very civil question time, asking questions from the general public and without any of the bickering or theatre.

First ambivalent thing about this is the questions from the “public”.  It is of course, the public’s opinions that should be at the heart of politicians’ questions, and in their interests in which they serve.  It is also good that people ‘feel’ involved in politics.

Yet, these questions are never and never will be ones drawn from the tombola – otherwise why would one need a Jeremy Corbyn?  And, if the tombola selected one which was very searching of him, it would make for an odd result  

Now, given that there will be as diverse opinions as there are members of the public (and given that a great many of those would support the Conservatives, given the election result) the questions are presumably the ones Jeremy Corbyn himself wanted to ask.  And, if he wanted to ask them, why not just go ahead and do so?  What does adding that Nick, Steve or Maureen asked the questions contribute other than being its own bit of theatre?

Second, isn’t theatre the point of PMQs and isn’t that why people watch?

It is a good thing to have a sensible and sober analysis of policy and governmental action, focusing on the issues, working together where appropriate and weighing evidence. 

Yet, does this not happen already?  There are parliamentary debates highlighting the different points of view on bills going through the House.  There are parliamentary select committees with cross-party representatives scrutinising experts and outside witnesses.

And is this not already available to view?  People can watch serious politics all day long if they so chose on BBC Parliament. but I very much doubt that many do.

Yet, the “Punch and Judy show” of PMQs is watched (more) and does showcase what the different sides stand for.  People might “love to hate” PMQs but it is these exchanges that people tune in for.  Once the novelty of the new approach wears off, will the majority of people be even less engaged than before?

People should refrain from personal attacks, but fierce and entertaining attacks on the policies of another party is surely a key element in informing the public

Jeremy Corbyn: Likes, Dislikes, Ambivalences and Indifferences: Intro

Jeremy Corbyn is, of course, an unacceptable force in British politics.  Being friends with dictators, fascists, anti-semites, murderers and terrorists is something that  should disqualify him immediately.  This is not an issue of left or right, but of core values that underpin liberal democracy and more mundanely: common decency.  Pointing out the truth about someone’s allegiances is not a smear campaign, but a necessary expose of undesirable viewpoints. 

Nevertheless, one is in danger of quite a common thing: the truth is heard so much and is so obvious that people begin to disbelieve it (e.g. Hamas using human shields).  It is also true that not everything he says is or will be bad or wrong.  People can jump on the small truths to ignore the big lies.  Part of people ultimately making the right decision will be based on a balanced view of what is being said.

Of course, the balanced view is simply my view.  Nevertheless, I feel compelled to think about the items I like, the items which (although others may think terribly important) I am rather indifferent about, the ambivalent items where I am pulled in many directions and the many dislikes.

As ambivalence is my primary emotion that will be my first port of call…

Not Racist

I don’t know much about immigration policy, and have no more than vague feelings about numbers of immigrants we should let in.  Personally, I’d feel uncomfortable with a fixed and potentially arbitrary quota.  Surely the focus should just be on what they are here to contribute.  Nonetheless, I approach the issue with an open mind.

One thing, however, David Cameron is certainly right about is that we should feel free to discuss such issues without the threat of being labelled “racist”.  If “cultural sensitivities” prevent discussion in polite society, it leaves it to the extremists to make a meal of what are genuine concerns.

Here is Cameron addressing one such concern:

But as well as abuse of the system, there are other problems with the family route. We know, for instance, that some marriages take place when the spouse is very young, and has little or no grasp of English. Again we cannot allow cultural sensitivity to stop us from acting. That's why last November we introduced a requirement for all those applying for a marriage visa to demonstrate a minimum standard of English

Language is an important enabler for integration into wider society and entry into a culture.  It allows for access to education and the workplace.  Through the media, it allows the free-flow of information, opinion and analysis.  It allows for joint projects and projects and identities amongst different groups of people. 

And yes, dare I say it, it is about being British and feeling a sense of belonging and loyalty to this country.  The country isn’t merely a hotel that provides services.  Rather than residing in self-segregated cultural ghettos, people should contribute to projects wider than their own group.

Obviously, this has nothing specifically to do with Britain or Britishness. Anglos often do the same forming isolated communities in France, Spain or Israel.  It is equally wrong there, and it constitutes a certain arrogance if English speakers refuse to learn the language of their host country. 

Of course, having a national identity doesn’t mean any group turning the back on their own individual identities.  The aim is what the Chief Rabbi calls “integration without assimilation”.  If you disagree, feel free to call me a racist, but perhaps I could just be plain-vanilla wrong.

Live Election Debates

Without sounding premature- and with the risk of looking stupid after tonight- I have two objections to ‘presidential style debates’ between party leaders.  They are both linked but separate.

The first one is just coming from the perspective of being a pedantic purist.  Unlike in America, we are not voting for head of state or even a head of government.  We are voting for a local candidate to represent the interests of their constituency.  Of course, they will usually (but not always) subscribe to a broad programme of action that will link them with other candidates as a ‘party’.  The party with the largest amount of candidates will have the strongest mandate to rule, and will be prudent for the Queen to ask the leader of that party to form a government.

Here, party rule and the recognition of a prime minister are outgrowths of the process and not its object.  This is why (so i believe) a candidate may change party mid-term.  It is also why there didn’t need to be an election when Tony Blair stood down as leader of the Labour party.  People complained that Gordon Brown hadn’t been given a mandate by the British people.  HE didn’t need one- he had the support of the largest amount of candidates that we had supported. 

From this perspective, there is a risk in these debates that we vote on which person we want to decide the laws of the country.  However, most decisions will not be made by that person (alone) but by 646 people we vote for.  And there is, at least in theory, a distinction between the people we vote for and the party they belong to.

The second reason is linked but from a more practical perspective.  The idea of the debates, I suppose, is to open up a wider audience to the ideas and policies of the different parties.  However, the head-to-head format is such that it will focus us on the personalities and not the policies:

1. It will create an adversarial atmosphere and they will not be able to reflect on past-mistakes or the trade-offs inherent in their policies without the other candidates just using it as a weapon to rubbish them with. 
2. To score points, they will immediately have to debate which policies are better, without having the time to say what the policies actually are (beyond a punch-line).
3. It encourages scrutiny of body-language, confidence and presentation- everything apart from substance.
4. They won’t (can’t) dignify one another’s points by debating specific points, but just as a springboard to make a speech about their own policies in that area.
5. They will need to find that 'key quote or slogan’ which will appear on the news.

Both criticisms are this:  what is important is what the candidates we vote for want to do and not who it is that does them.  We don’t need to vote for someone to head up the country or embody the country.  We have that already.  The Queen.  As her (and because we vote for them: our) loyal servants, the M.Ps are the people to carry out her (and because we vote on it: our) program.  There should be no importance to a PM other than in that regard.  Their personality is, therefore, irrelevant and so the debate is misleading if it suggest otherwise.  

Make Sure You’re Registered!!

Yes, general election time and no doubt, there will be an awfully poor turnout as is the norm.  Make sure that you don’t contribute to this trend. 

The first step is to make sure you are actually on the electoral roll.  This is probably that should have been done as far back as last year.  However, in my case I was too lazy to register in Leeds and mistakenly thought I was already registered back in Reading.  Realising that I wasn’t registered last week, I thought it would be too late but there was enough time… just!  My local constituency had the deadline of the 20th April.  It may be different town to town but time is definitely running out.  For more information or to download a form see here:  www.aboutmyvote.co.uk. 

People not voting is a sign of the decadence of our culture.  We enjoy our freedom but don’t really believe in it enough to take an active part.  Not caring about democracy is the attitude that leads so many in our country to support tyrants (left and right) abroad.  Who are we to say that our society or form of governance is better than theirs?  Well, tell that to the Iraqis who risk bomb and bullet to be able to vote.  Whilst I hold no truck with imposing democracy on other people, the least we can do is to uphold our own.  Voting is not a right, it is a duty!

G-d’s response to the Israeli Settlers

Finally, leaders of pro-Israel countries such as America are taking on the settlers. If only were it the case that a) more countries were strongly pro-Israel and b) countries that are, take a stand against the settlers. Thankfully Netanyahu, if only for reasons of self-interest, is playing along to a certain extent. As a result of this, Gush Emunim are revealing their true colours as some of the great anti-Zionists of our time. Not only are they intent on pursuing a course of action that can only lead to the destruction of Israel in the long-term, they are now advocating soldiers refuse to obey Israeli orders.

R’ Eliezer Melamed, a leading (and I use the words reservedly:) ‘Religious-Zionist’ rabbi has incited soldiers not to follow IDF orders to remove people from illegally constructed houses or settlements in West Bank. Due to this, his Har Bracha Yeshiva has been quite rightly removed from the Hesder Yeshivot programme that allows participants to spend part of their time studying and part of their time serving. People like this only support or see value in the State of Israel so long as it does what they want and serves their particular interests. They don’t support Israel; they only want Israel to support them.

His excuse is that the army is there to protect against its enemies and not against their own countrymen. Surely he cannot mean that the army can never be used against Jews. What if powerful Jewish drug barons started to run a well-armed drug empire from there neighbourhood? He can only mean the army cannot be used against Jewish interests and in this case, expelling Jews from their homes. Well, it is not their homes to start with! The ban is only applicable to new houses that are set up without permission. They are most definitely illegal according to the Israeli government and according to international law. Even (or especially) from the point of view of halacha, it is highly doubtful that Jews should be there in the first place.*

Maybe they would say (and I have heard many people say) that as Jews they say that the land is our natural inheritance given to us by G-d. ‘Greater Israel’ is our possession regardless of Israeli or international law; no-one else should have any of it; and no-one has the right to remove us. Well, fortunately G-d got his response in early (through the mouth of Ezekiel):

Then the word of G-d came to me saying, Son of man, They that inhabit these waste places of the land of Israel speak, saying, Abraham was one man and yet he inherited the land, but we are many; the land is given us for inheritance. Therefore we say to them, thus says the L-rd G-d: You eat with the blood and lift up your eyes towards your idols, and shed blood: and shall you possess the land? You stand upon your sword, you carry out disgusting deeds, and you defile every man his neighbour’s wife; and you shall possess the land?

The land is unequivocally not ours to do what we want with. We may say along with Leibowitz that: “To speak of the divine promise to Abraham and his issue as a gratuitous gift, to ignore the condition of the promise, and to disregard the obligations it confers on the receivers is a degradation and desecration of the religious faith”.

The settlers have an attitude that “it’s ours, not yours, so get out”. Yet G-d’s response is that if you do not conduct yourself with morality, you the ‘land will spit you out’. This shown by the first Rashi which Religious Zionists often use, but which says the opposite of what they want it to say. No human and no Jews has a ‘right’ to any the land- it is G-d’s land and plays by his rules. That is, it is only for those who are Yashar be’einei Hashem- straight in the eyes of the L-rd. According to Rashi, He can take it away from the Canaanites (due to their lack of morality) and give it to the Jews. However, he can take it away from them and given it to the Romans or Ottomans when the Jews weren’t moral.

In summation, let us quote the Netziv who talks about just this eventuality in the time of the Second Temple:

Regarding this came the justification of the divine judgment, because the Holy One, blessed be He, is a yashar, and He cannot tolerate righteous people like this unless they also function with decency in their dealings with the world

Apart from all the political reasons for being against the settlers, and the universal moral ones, let us say it is an affront to G-d.

------

* A Milchemet Reshut, such as a war of conquest, could only be sanctioned by a Sanhedrin, which we don’t have. Thus, when the six day war turned from a defensive war (Milchemet Mitzvah) into one of conquest, the government (and rabbis who supported it) broke Jewish law.

David Cameron, Charles I and the Demon Barber of Downing Street

The knives are out. “Off with their heads” screams the Queen of Hearts. “Slash their necks” cantors Sweeney Todd. “You won’t even have a constituency home if you are not careful” says David Cameron with a wry smile.

That’s right. Julie Kirkbride M.P. has to answer to his “scrutiny panel”. It sounds as if I could make this into a sexual innuendo, but I have no idea what it would be. As it is, it conjures up a picture of the Spanish Inquisition. A confession will be scrutinised out of her - “if only you would admit your sin of embarrassing your Lord and Saviour”- and once she admits humiliating Davey, she’ll have to pay the King’s Ransom. Or death; political death. It will be- as my Pythonesque imagination envisions- a foregone conclusion and a show trial. No real consideration for the case on its individual merits, but a chance for a public hanging of a former favourite.

Now I don’t know the law but it seems she, like most M.P.’s didn’t break any- unlike the few that committed outright fraud. Nor do I know what the “spirit” of expenses are meant to be. For my job, I have a small amount of personal expenses, but I can’t possibly think what I need to use them for. And on what basis do I judge if I have used them in the right spirit? From a glance her excuses don’t seem so bad. She is ‘accused’ of letting her brother stay rent-free in her second home. Julie’s response: he looks after my son so I can do my constituency work. Fair enough.

But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it’s not “fair enough”. Maybe this was an abuse of this ineffable spirit. However, the point is that all the town cryer (read: Daily Telegraph) has to do is to spread a rumour of witchcraft and the poor witch is automatically condemned. Not only that, but the Grand Inquisitor is the very Bishop that gave her ordination. Yes, David Cameron has to be seen to be doing the Lord’s work or otherwise it will be he that is condemned as witch-man. Not only that but the whole Church would tumble down besides him.

David Cameron has learned from the mistakes of Charles I. Unlike his father (James VI) who would make any concession to save his popularity and to oil the wheels of parliament, Charles was too principled. He was too well intentioned and we all now where that ended! He was literally beheaded for his sins against the G-dly.

Charles would not do, for example, what kings of England had done since the days of Edward III and the ‘Good Parliament’ of 1376 and jettisoned a royal favourite for the sake of an improved working relationship between Crown and parliament. Cynicism and disloyalty shocked him deeply. Instead, Charles insisted on looking at the individual merits of the case. This was a terrible mistake. You will not find any chapters in constitutional histories devoted to the rituals of therapeutic disgrace, but creative scapegoating had, none the less, long been an integral element of English politics. Concentrating odium for unpopular policies on the head of a politician… preserved the fiction that the ‘king could do no wrong’.

Charles refused to scapegoat one of his advisors and so consequently, the blame had nowhere to go but to him. If the King stood by the minister, then he was saying that he was personally responsible for unpopular policy. His honesty led to his unpopularity!

So David Cameron has learnt well. Find some scapegoats for the unpopular policy and…. Slash Slash Slash. Maybe this is a necessary move. Charles’ refusal to act led to civil war and revolution; and maybe Cameron’s policies will help prevent too much of a revolution in our democracy. However, despite its political pragmatism, it doesn’t feel right!

The BNP and that het’rogenous thing

As the poem highlights below, that het’rogenous thing is none other than an Englishman.  Daniel Defoe, as early as 1701, provides a beautiful rebuttal of that most favourite of concepts among BNP supporters- “the indigenous of Britain”.  People of ‘other nationalities’, so they claim, are flooding the country, to the disadvantage of those who are true-born British. 

But who exactly, so the poem asks, is one of those?

Thus from a mixture of all kinds began,
That het’rogenous thing, an Englishman:
In eager rapes, and furious lust begot,
Betwixt a painted Britain and a Scot.
Whose gend’ring off-spring quickly learn’d to bow,
And yoke theirs heifers to the Roman Plough;
From whence a mongrel half-bred race there came,
With neither name, nor nation, speech nor fame.
In whose hot veins new mixtures quickly ran,
Infus’d betwixt a Saxon and a Dane…
A true-born Englishman’s a contradiction,
In speech an irony, in fact a fiction.

“Britain”, so the Chief Rabbi asserts “had been for so long a mix of races and cultural influences that it had never developed a narrow ethnic nationalism”.  The BNP seems to argue in favour of just such an ethnic nationalism. Sure, the rate of immigration is far faster and the ethnic diversity of Britain is far greater than before.  However, there is nothing essentially new about our situation, and there is nothing historically, genetically or socially pure about British people.

If this were all it takes to defeat the BNP- a small history lesson- then we should feel mightily satisfied with ourselves, followed by a quick pat on the back.  But it doesn’t.  I very much doubt anyone is having a narrow argument about genetics or social geography.  A BNP supporter could perfectly well accept that there are many different ingredients makes up the recipe of being British.  Yet, it would not affect one iota their belief that some people do not have those ingredients!  The above arguments alone do not touch on the psychological, philosophical or historical roots of their belief.

Oh well… one step at a time!

Please not Bibi, Please no, Please

The title sounds like it should be read in a mock-baby voice. Whilst not the intention when deciding to write about this, it is indeed an uncontrollable cry. My response, rather than specifically being rational, is at base a simple reaction to the a gross unfairness of a world in which Benjamin Netanyahu could lead our Jewish, democratic state? Maybe having such a leader will, Chas v'Salom, precipitate the end of such a state itself.

It is an unfortunate side effect of 'proportional representation' that in a deeply fragmented society, the winners of a general election are not necessarily the winners of the elections! The leader of the party that wins the most votes will not necessarily be able to form a government. In this case, Livni and Kadima may win the most seats in parliament but will end up in opposition. There are so many parties on so many issues for so many interest groups, that even the main parties will only get 30 or so seats, out of 120 in the Knesset. You only then get into government through coalition with many, many of the smaller parties. There is no guarantee that the main party will, and ample evidence they will not, be able to do this.

These small parties get the deciding vote as to who leads and therefore, proportional representation leads to disproportional influence of these groups. As such, you may doubly end up not getting what you voted for. Firstly, the group that most people want end up in opposition. Secondly, even if those you voted for get into government, you will not be able to recognise them post-election. To get the smaller parties to agree to join them, you basically have to cede your policies to theirs. They often get their votes on the basis of a single issue and this is what the main party will have to cede some ground on. Often this will have benign or amusing effect. Only in Israel could "The Pensioners Party" have such sway over governmental policy!

However, in this case it leads to Bibi being PM!! He is the most able to form a coalition as he the most willing to give up on any principles he has to gain and hold on to power. One thing that this will mean, although I won't go into detail here, is an a major step backwards from the peace process. This isn't do with the fact that he is 'right-wing' as it often only those on the 'right' that can make peace. Nor is it specifically to with his views. If it suited him, he would try make peace by going back on his word about a United Jerusalem in a second. The problem is, is that he will have to go into coalition with the possibly racist Avigdor Lieberman and his Yisrael Beiteinu. Their minority view- one which hardly anyone accepts or voted for- will have a disproportional influence. It will only serve to amplify Netanyahu's hawkish tendencies.

However, in the short term, his policies will not be all that different from anyone else's. They would all continue the disastrous policy of maintaining the status quo with regards to settlements until such a peace deal is made. Such a policy leads to the slow but sure death of the Zionist dream. Netanyahu may (sadly) put off the surgery but everyone will be dealing with the symptoms of the illness in the same way.

More worryingly about Bibi becoming PM in the short term, is his economic policies. With all the attention on the recent war in Gaza, people have forgotten about social issues. These are things which a) Netanyahu is more principled about (for the worse) and b) where policies will have more immediate effects. Moreover, Netanyahu already has a record in this area and people know (but have forgotten or ignored) what he is capable of. This, more than anything else, puts into doubt the building of a Jewish society.

However, rather than saying anything myself, I will just copy an article by Rabbi Michael Melchior who heads the only religious party in Israel- Meimad. Yes, there are many parties with rabbis in or have the word 'religious' in their title. But they are just one more interest group trying to secure a) money for their yeshivot b) a hawkish foreign policy c) exemption from army service d) control over the institutional Bet Din and Chief Rabbinate etc. Who though is fighting for a Jewish character of society? This is what Meimad, founded by Rav Yehuda Amital, tries to do. Meimad is an acronym for "Jewish State, Democratic State".

Here is what R' Melchior said in 2004 in relation to Bibi's economic policies (originally from Ha'aretz):

"The group of children that gathered around us seemed highly amused. Some of the children held out syringes they had collected n a nearby yard, and demonstrated how to inject drugs "like dults." Others cursed the state and everything to do with it. It is hard to blame them: It is not pleasant seeing a closed community center. Near the gravel road the sewage flowed freely, and the neighbor from the nearby house told us about the complex "ATM" network or selling drugs, which is open for business there from the afternoon to the next morning.

Presumably, the million Israelis that went abroad this summer will not encounter such a scene. It is hiding across the road, two kilometers from Ben-Gurion Airport. During take off and landing it is hard to detect the squalid hovels, the dirt and drugs of the town of Lod, but to its residents it is a painful, depressing everyday reality.

In recent years there have been serious attempts to change the situation and improve the town's image. But just when it seemed that the town was on the right course and had a chance, some of the authorities stopped their activity and now the collapse and destruction loom closer than ever. Israel, which defines itself as "a Jewish Democratic state," has become one of the most immoral states in the Western world.

In one field Israel could win a gold medal, although not in Athens. It is in the income gaps between society's top tier and the lower tiers. These gaps compromise human dignity, and cast grave doubt on our right to be called a Jewish democratic society.

It is not a decree of fate. Only a few years ago Israel was at the top of the education pyramid. The Israeli health system also won a worldwide reputation, even though the economic situation was worse than it is today.

We live in a society in which a million and a quarter people - 40 percent of them working people - are below the poverty line. This is a society that abandons 366,000 of its children-at-risk and throws them into the street; a society that treats its foreign workers like animals; a society that despises its elderly and sends them to rummage through the garbage. It is a society, according to information given the Knesset Committee for Children's Rights, where in the absence of standards, a social worker has to devote an average of two minutes to a family in distress. It is a society among the leaders in the world trafficking in women. Such a society is neither Jewish nor democratic.

The magic solution that the Israeli government has found for this situation is bulimic privatization, taken from the economic school of the finance minister. In recent years Israeli society has been privatizing itself to death. The damages of this dangerous trend are obvious in every direction. Thus, for example, Jewish communities abroad were enlisted to subsidize summer camps for needy children. The days go by, a year passes, and in time fashions change. The amount of money communities gave this year dwindled significantly - the number of children at camps was reduced this summer by two-thirds. By means of the privatization, the government of Israel is washing its hands of its minimal social responsibilities. In the best tradition of the shtetl of the Jewish community in exile, the government leaves education, health and welfare to the mercies f the rich philanthropists.

True, charity has always been the main concern of the Jewish community. But this is not what the State of Israel was meant to be. The Jewish state is supposed to and ought to take care of all its citizens, not only the rich ones, so that they can give their children a good education, and provide all the citizens with health and social services that would preserve their welfare and dignity. Instead of a rule of justice, a rule of charity is being established, based on alms collection and mutual back scratching.

In the beggar state there is no place for single mothers, elderly or handicapped people. The philanthropists prefer to give their money to grandiose marble buildings, or ambulances with their names inscribed on them. In the beggar state the Knesset enacts a "feeding law," which ensures that a small percentage of the school children (who of course are immediately branded with wretched poverty) can have one warm meal a day. A considerable part of this law - hard to believe, but a majority of the Knesset members decided this - will be financed by philanthropists. And what will happen when they prefer to direct their contributions toward other causes?

Beyond the immediate risk of the collapse of the education, health and welfare services, those who need them - the majority of the population - are losing their voice. Where there is privatization, there is no responsible minister, and consequently the children at risk no longer have a mouth at the cabinet table.

Those in the upper class can wait two more years for the tax benefits which the magician Benjamin Netanyahu promised them. Instead of reducing the taxes, the government would have done better to direct those NIS 2.5 billion to the health services, the single mothers and the children at risk. Had it done so, perhaps the old couple who "thanked" Netanyahu before committing suicide due to their economic distress could have thanked him in person. Had it done so, the government could have boasted that it was heading a Jewish, democratic state."

David Milliband and I

Today I hate a private meeting with David Milliband- the foreign secretary.  Well, not quite private.  My good friend Dave, myself and about 59 other people.  He talked about Israel and such like to important communal people!!  I was so enamoured with his responses that I can't remember a single word he said.  Either that or it was before 9 in the morning and I was a zombie.  (It's something to tell the parents at any rate.)

On the whole, the answers which he gave were very politique and thus, friendly and positive about Israel.  On the other hand, he was honest and candid.  So, for example, he clearly said in response to a question: "I don't think Hamas has been politically weakened by the Israeli incursion, and I don't think Mahmoud Abas has been strengthened". 

Example 2: he said that absolutely, allegations of Israeli war crimes should be fully investigated just as Britain are constantly investigated for such crimes in other Afghanistan.  That democracies such as Israel and Britain should be held to higher standards than terrorists is a good thing.  It is our values- Britain and Israel's values- that make us what we are.

Other than this, I can't remember much.  I do remember feeling sorry for the older people in the room.  Standing there, all I could think of "oooooh... ain't he young?"  He looked very good for his age and not a single gray hair.  If I was thinking that, what must everyone else been thinking?

Israel and Gaza: Random thoughts 1

· Isn’t it amazing how there is a humanitarian crisis with no food or medical supplies in Gaza? Isn’t it equally amazing that there are thousands of rockets ready to be fired at Israel? If the Palestinians went to as much effort into ‘smuggling’ food in as they do rockets, the situation would be a lot different. Maybe they haven’t realised that food is cheaper, more portable and less likely to be stopped. Maybe they need reminding that it will do a thousand times more to help the Palestinians than weapons ever will. Maybe they just need reminding and now it’ll stop. Maybe but I don’t think so.

· You can’t help but get the impression that the timing of the offensive was designed with the coming election in mind. The Lebanon War was a ‘flop’, the disengagement led to more attacks against Israel, Kadima’s negotiations with the PA are going nowhere and it seems that Livni is incapable of defending Israel. A whitewash in favour of Netanyahu looms and oh look.... a full-scale assault on the Palestinians. Politicians’ motives are never entirely pure, but to play with lives (on both sides) for such a shallow reason is indefensible. Not to say that that is the reason but....

· There was a beautiful moment at Limmud when we held a one-minute silence for the situation in Gaza and the Palestinians that have lost their lives, followed by a rousing rendition of Hatikvah (Israeli national anthem). If everyone had such pride in their country coupled with empathy of the ‘other’ we would not be in such a mess.

Of course, Palestinians might say this is a phoney ‘show’ of emotion orchestrated by the oppressors. “They can afford such pretence”. Well I say, let them think that. It may even be true but the Palestinians don’t even have the desire to fake it! They seem to have given up entirely on such notions as justice, compassion and the innate morality of certain actions. There doesn’t seem to be any protest to Hamas’ claim that Jews everywhere have given up their right to live.

· The ‘invasion’ (so people have called it) seems to have got just as much ire as that of bombing. As I said on my previous post, I found the bombing to be morally outrageous but as for a ground operation I am less unhappy. Of course, if the operation involves certain tactics then I am just as unhappy. If mortars are fired in such a way that they know it to take innocent lives with the guilty, then there is no moral difference. However, a ground operation has the potential to be far more targeted and far more accurate. Bombings in densely crowded areas will always kill civilians no matter how targeted; going in by foot should allow them to target specific things.

· I don’t know whether to be proud or sick when I see Israeli soldiers by their tanks donning tallit and tefillin. A Kiddush Hashem or a Chillul Hashem? Of course, the secular world and the Christian world would like to see religion confined to Church and the inner sanctum of the heart. Religious people should be saintly, spend their days in monkly solitude or on the parish green and not dirty their hands with worldly affairs. “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, Render to G-d what is G-d’s”. This is a view of religion I reject entirely. If it is not concerned with real life, then it is impotent. Plus you have to bear in mind that regardless of the relation between religion and the army, these men are commanded to put on such garments. Yet... there can be nothing more dangerous than mixing religious zeal and deadly weapons.

· It could be argued that Israel treats Palestinian lives very cheaply and on the part of some, this is true. But at least they value the lives of their own civilians. This is more than can be said for the vast majority of Palestinian groups. It is Israel’s concern for its own that leads it release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners for the dead bodies of Israeli ones. It is this which leads the name of each and every name of fallen Israeli soldier to be recited and remembered on Yom Hazikaron. It is this that leads us to campaign on behalf of MIA soldiers decades on.

This is in sharp contrast to Palestinian children’s TV that implores people to grow up martyrs. In sharp contrast to mothers who allow their children to be suicide bombers. In sharp contrast to terrorist groups who use civilians as human shields. In sharp contrast to groups who prevent their injured civilians gaining treatment in other countries. For Palestinian terrorists, there is only one thing better than Israeli deaths: dead Palestinians.

· I get worried by the ‘wavering’ of my moral sense. What, straight after I heard the news, was so certain is no longer. What was so emphatic when I wrote my post is now just a theoretical position I hold. What kept me up at night because of its outrageousness seems ‘not so bad’. Yes, I hold that what Israel did was wrong, but not so wrong. I’m influenced by the fact that there is evidence the bombs were targeted, I am swayed by the deaths of Israeli civilians, I have taken in that the vast majority of Palestinians that died were terrorists and I am assuaged by the very justification I fought so hard against, “What else can we do?”

But the Palestinian civilians that died weren’t only “20-25%” of overall deaths, they weren’t part of the “grand scheme of things”, there is no comfort for a family who knows that their daughter has died accidentally as part of a targeted attack. THEY ARE REAL PEOPLE. Yet, I fall into the numbers game.

As I write this I am swelling up with tears. Lest you think that shows that I care, or that they are part of a morally nuanced position, let me assure you they are purely selfish. They are a detestation of my moral impotence and my inability to see clearly. What good is a morally nuanced position anyway? Who does it help? I couldn’t with any conscience join in a rally against the bombings knowing who I was marching with and what this would imply. I couldn’t with good conscience join in the Israeli propaganda. I can’t with good conscience do anything and that makes me upset.

MORE THOUGHTS TO COME BUT I'M TIRED...

The day that Hamas won

I

Today Hamas has got what it wanted. Today it has celebrated yet another victory. Having riled Israel, committed thousands of unforgivable acts and mobilised world opinion against Israel, it has got Israel to perform an immoral act. Providing no avenue for any constructive solutions to the situation, Hamas have called Israel’s “What else can we do?” card into play to justify something that couldn’t otherwise be justified.

To come from Shabbat to find out that Israel has conducted massive air raids on Gaza and have killed over 200 people is quite frankly sickening. 200 people dead. Forget the rhetoric for a minute, forget who is in the right or in the wrong and forget the situation. Were Israel 100% in the right and it 100% necessary (which it was not), there would be no other reaction one should have apart from desolation. If in Judaism we are taught not to rejoice over the downfall of our enemies, how much more so if innocent civilians have been killed?

It must never be forgotten that hundreds and thousands of rockets have been fired into Israel. Israel must never apologise for the residents of Sderot being well drilled in what to do in an emergency, bomb shelters being effective, or Kassam rockets being crap. Israelis and Zionists must always prefer less people to be killed and have less popularity rather than vice versa. Israel must ALWAYS believe it has a right to exist and never be downhearted or think twice. This is not a numbers game and ‘amount dead’ on each side does not equate to the morality of one’s position.

Yet.... Yet... we must never be desensitized to the amount of pain, hurt and anguish caused to the Palestinians through the death of thousands of them over the years. We must never be deaf to the cries of mothers who have lost their children. Suffering is no one nation’s province. Hurt goes beyond ideology, politics or religion. Tears are a universal language. Israel should never forget this and should never perform an action they know to unnecessarily increase this.
They seem to have forgotten this. Bombing in heavily built-up areas isn’t the most targeted thing one can do, now is it? And for what tangible benefit? For Israel to perform an action that they know will cause so much ‘collateral damage’ (which human life SHOULD NEVER BE) is not something to be criticised heavily.

II

What pains me as a human being, also pains me as a Zionist. Jews and Zionists have already responded by saying “....but what else can Israel do about Hamas?”; “... maybe it is wrong but you can understand why Israel felt it had to do it” and “Don’t you know what Hamas do?”. Yes I do understand and I do know. I said so above. And? What has this to do with the morality of this action? This pains me because we are reducing ourselves to the scum-bag moral level that so-called supporters of the Palestinians show.

People like ‘Baroness Tonge’ understand Palestinian suicide bombers, groups like Jews for Justice for the Palestinians continually point out the ‘oppression’ of the Israelis, and terrorists ask “what else can we do?” The only question we have to ask about suicide bombing is whether it is anything but morally outrageous. Once we know it is, no amount of understanding can serve as a justification for their actions. When Zionists start to use their arguments and we have descended to their moral level, we know we have a problem.

There is a moral disease spreading round the globe. The ‘liberal left’ seem to be infected, the condition in the Arab world seems terminal and I really hope and pray that we are just suffering a bout of illness that will clear up. Where the dignity of human life is sacrificed on the altar of political expediency, someone’s moral condition is at critical.

III

Israel’s actions are frankly what Hamas wants. They are a group that simultaneously spread and feed on this disease. They don’t care about the lives of the Palestinians, one iota. The more Palestinians killed, the more grist to their mill. The worse their lives, the more supporters they have. The more they can provoke Israel, the more hate they can create. They have learnt that terrorism works. TERRORISM ABSOLUTELY BLOODY WORKS.

It doesn’t work in the sense of helping anyone but works in the sense of fulfilling their aims. It works in convincing people of the essential rightness of a position that is essentially wrong. Where the ‘rightness’ of your position is more important to you than human suffering, then they have a great strategy. They can do absolutely anything and get away with it, knowing that they can always lay the blame elsewhere. They don’t have to take moral responsibility for their actions because they were forced into it by “external conditions”. Say it enough and people believe you. Be consistent in your evil and people will understand you. Mobilise everyone on your side and make your enemy think the same way.

IV

Israel try to do the right thing, they get blamed. They try to be PR friendly, they fail. They try to get help from other countries to sort out the terrorists, none is forthcoming. They have a free press and independent judiciary, the world turns it against them. They try their war criminals and their corrupt politicians, they are made out to be nothing but corrupt and criminal. They try for a two-state solution, Palestinians demand its destruction. They try and sort out terrorism themselves, they get mulled. And so on and so on and so on.

EVERYTHING ISRAEL DOES IS ‘WRONG’, SO WHY BE RIGHT? Just as Hamas can do anything and be liked, Israel can do everything short of failing to exist and be hated. Israel’s moral standards do not lead to a moral solution. They will simultaneously get attacked and be blamed for it. The double standards of the international community mean that people will never accept a secure Israel that is able to defend its citizens. This leads to the paradoxical position (to the glee of Hamas) that far from international opinion constraining Israel, it releases them. If they’ll be blamed no matter what, what does is matter to the Israeli government whether they do this or that?

Why risk a targeted ground attack risking Israeli soldiers when you can air bomb the targets? Why warn people in Lebanon that they will be bombed if Hezbollah will intentionally put citizens in just those places? Why allow easy access of supplied to Gaza when they will just use it to transport bombs? Why sit back and let your citizens be bombed by Kassams when you take actions accident. Because the result will be the same- Israel will be ‘in the wrong’ according to international. So Israel might as well do whatever is best for their position, the position we know to be a valuable one, no? NO. ABSO-BLOODY-LUTELY-NOT.

AND I WILL TELL YOU WHY. It is immoral to not allow people humanitarian aid, immoral to endanger innocent lives unnecessarily and immoral to do things which you could not otherwise justify. “What else can we do?” does not overturn a moral decision. It is not a justification. That is Hamas’ position. IT IS THEIR DISEASE. Advancing the ‘right’ position (whether right or otherwise) does not, in an individual moral decision, trump the dignity and infinite value of human life.

I don’t give a flying f*** about world opinion (or at least I should not) but as a human, I care about life and as a Zionist, I care is about the moral integrity of Israel. Let us not be morally debased and stand against wrong wherever it can be found. If, on the other hand, we take Hamas’ position and do whatever they want, then we not only confirm their position to the world but in our own souls

V

At the beginning of last year, Akram, the head of PSG and a co-founder of Leeds Shalom-Salaam told me that Palestinians just want to get on with their everyday lives, want to go to work, and want to raise their families. This, he said, trumps ideology. As a Palestinian himself, I very much wanted to believe him. I still have to have faith that this is true of most Palestinians, but the actions of groups like Hamas and PSG (on Leeds campus and elsewhere) seriously undermine that. If their intentions are good, their actions betray them.

Golda Meir once said, “We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us”. Unfortunately, this is not yet true. Or if it is, and Akram is right, then Hamas have helped spread the disease to me and undermined my ability to see the good in the other side. I must, at least, make sure that our side stays good. Actions, like today’s, make me lose faith. They make me hate Hamas and despair of Israel. They make me see black.

Tonight, we must pray for the Palestinians who have lost their life. We must reaffirm our morality and say that human life is infinite. We must help Israel remain morally strong and a blessing in the world. We must strengthen our resolve to see a solution to this conflict that aids every person’s dignity. We must leave vengeance of our enemies to G-d and not take it upon ourselves. We must weep the tears of others.

Brown's tax cuts: you what?

I don't know a thing about economics- and I'm severely under the impression that people talked themselves into an economic crisis- so I shall keep this short. As I understand, Brown wants to cut certain taxes without any means of paying for them and increase government borrowing. In other words, more spending and less income. This - supposedly- is meant to 'boost the economy'.

Wait a minute..... wasn't part of the reason we are in this crisis because people borrowed more than they could afford? Wasn't it the lack of common sense forgetting that you shouldn't spend more than you have? If this is right, I'm not sure the thinking behind the idea. Doesn't the same 'common sense' apply to countries as much as to people? Why get the country into debt?

And for what? £120 a year! This may be very middle-class of me but £120 isn't going to change the world for the individual but a lot of £120 is a massive amount for the country.

But this is presumably my ignorance

When so little can be done

A couple of months back the excitement was palpable, well it was for me.  Yet no-one else seemed that bothered at the revolution that was taking place.  Robert Mugabe was defeated.  One tyrant down.  No-one including me was so naive to think that Robert Mugabe would go without a fuss, yet the pressure to go seemed overwhelming.  Yet quietly and without (relatively speaking) fuss, he managed to keep hold of his grip on power.  He let the waters settle but managed to stay in the race on a legal technicality (alright.. his opponent didn't have enough to defeat him but still)! 

Then quietly and without much international fuss he starts to murder people and drive others out of their homes right in the pubic eye.  And now the opposition party has pulled out (citing unfree and unfair elections), Mugabe gets to be upset that the average Zimbabwean is deprived of his/her vote.  And what happens... China, Russia and South Africa for the first time agree to a non-binding, watered down resolution.  As if Mugabe could care about a UN resolution, economic sanctions (he's not affected or not being part of the commonwealth  (I'm sure his loyalty to the queen is minimal).

Maybe I should write a letter to my MP and get an emphatic statement read in parliament.  Or maybe I should get depressed about the state of the world and be apathetic and think about me.  Or maybe just pray.  Of course my real instinct is to blat him. Wipe him out.  Diplomacy is great and all but that only works with someone who gives a damn.  What possible advantage does he get from it?  But violence, is that the answer... if you wipe out one dictator there are ten more to take his place.  And what does that say about the rule of law?

It's an easy life for tyrants.  Maybe I should consider my future career prospects.  Hmm