Monday, January 21, 2013

Caroline Glick says "Bye-bye" to London

Mike L.

{Editor's note - I swiped this in its entirety from Caroline Glick's blog.  I am probably engaging in copyright infringement, but if Caroline wants me to delete this from Israel Thrives I would be more than happy to comply.  I think, however, that this is something that we need to look closely at.  The rise of what we might call "humanitarian anti-Semitism," i.e., genocidal Jew hatred veiled as social justice is becoming more and more prominent throughout the western left, including the Jewish left.  - Mike L.}

In an interview with Haaretz in November 2010, British novelist Martin Amis said the following about discussions of Israel in his motherland:
I live in a mildly anti-Semitic country, and Europe is mildly anti-Semitic, and they hold Israel to a higher moral standard than its neighbors. If you bring up Israel in a public meeting in England, the whole atmosphere changes. The standard left-wing person never feels more comfortable than when attacking Israel. Because they are the only foreigners you can attack. Everyone else is protected by having dark skin, or colonial history, or something. But you can attack Israel. And the atmosphere becomes very unpleasant. It is traditional, snobbish, British anti-Semitism combined with present-day circumstances.
After participating last week in a debate in London about Israeli communities beyond the 1949 armistice lines organized by the self-consciously pretentious Intelligence Squared debating society, I can now say from personal experience that Amis is correct. The public atmosphere in England regarding Israel is ugly and violent.

The resolution we debated read: "Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy. If settlement expansion continues Israel will have no future."

My debating partner was Danny Dayan, the outgoing head of the Yesha Council.

We debated Daniel Levy, one of the founders of J-Street and the drafter of the Geneva Initiative, and the son of Lord Michael Levy, one of Tony Blair's biggest fundraisers; and William Sieghart, a British philanthropist who runs a non-profit that among other things, champions Hamas. Levy has publicly stated that Israel's creation was immoral. And Sieghart has a past record of saying that Israel's delegitimization would be a salutary process. He also is an outspoken champion of Hamas. and calling for a complete cultural boycott of Israel while lauding Hamas.

We lost overwhelmingly. I think the final vote tally was something like 500 for the resolution and 100 against it.

A couple of impressions I took away from the experience: First, I can say without hesitation that I hope never to return to Britain. I actually don't see any point. Jews are targeted by massive anti-Semitism of both the social and physical varieties. Why would anyone Jewish want to live there?

As to visiting as an Israeli, again, I just don't see the point. The discourse is owned by anti-Israel voices. They don't make arguments to spur thought, but to end it, by appealing to people's passions.

For instance, in one particularly ugly segment, Levy made the scurrilous accusation that Israel systematically steals land from the Palestinians. Both Dayan and I demanded that he provide just one example of his charge. And the audience raged against us for our temerity at insisting that he provide substantiation for his baseless allegation. In the event, he failed to substantiate his allegation.

At another point, I was asked how I defend the Nazi state of Israel. When I responded by among other things giving the Nazi pedigree of the Palestinian nationalist movement founded by Nazi agent Haj Amin el Husseini and currently led by Holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas, the crowd angrily shouted me down.

I want to note that the audience was made up of upper crust, wealthy British people, not unwashed rabble rousers. And yet they behaved in many respects like a mob when presented with pro-Israel positions.

I honestly don't know whether there are policy implications that arise from my experience in London last week. I have for a long time been of the opinion that Israel shouldn't bother to try to win over Europe because the Europeans have multiple reasons for always being anti-Israel and none of them have anything to do with anything that Israel does. As I discuss in my book, these reasons include anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, addiction to Arab oil, and growing Muslim populations in Europe.

I was prepared to conduct a civilized debate based on facts and reasoned argumentation. I expected it to be a difficult experience. I was not expecting to be greeted by a well-dressed mob. My pessimism about Europeans' capacity to avail themselves to reasoned, fact-based argumentation about Israel has only deepened from the experience.

One positive note, I had a breakfast discussion last Wednesday morning with activists from the Zionist Federation of Britain. The people I met are committed, warm, hardworking Zionists. I wish them all the best, and mainly that means, that I hope that these wonderful people and their families make aliyah.

While their work is worthwhile, there is no future for Jews in England.

{Another editor's note - this video is from some months ago and is not a clip from her recent debate in London.  Agree or disagree, she certainly has something to say.}


  1. What a shame she, or anyone, had to experience that. None of us who follow these things are surprised I suspect. After all, it is England which spawned the Atzmon phenomena among other atrocities. I looked at the lauding Hamas link and wow....that guy is unhinged.

  2. It's the Middle Ages all over again -- "complete with" the ethnically Jewish false accusers / "debaters" (Theobald of Cambridge, etc. -- the "pets" and main weapons of the non-Jewish ideologically genocidally anti-Jewish racists) against the targeted collective of the Jewish people. And it's, again, or still, the English -- the "upperclass" English. It's always been the "upperclass". Anti-Jewish bigotry is a "top-down" bigotry. It starts from, and is from, the "cultural elite" classes of, and the governing classes of, European and Middle Eastern societies. And it's most influentially furthered by deranged immoral Jewish people who propagate the lies of the anti-Jewish racists against the targeted collective of the Jewish people. That's how anti-Jewish bigotry "works".

  3. Some new character at a certain 'progressive' blog, who is apparently an author (perhaps he and David Harris-Gershon should hook up!), has shaken off the truly terrible bonds of his unfortunate upbringing, and can now clearly see The Light.

    Which when he aims it at a certain angle, reveals Truths such as -

    It's enormously frustrating to see the Jewish people hold hands with End Timers merely for the money

    But there is no antisemitism at Daily Kos. No, sir.

    1. This strain of Jon Haber's Big Ugly doesn't quite fit into Sabeel-style left wing theological antisemitism. So are we seeing another form of same develop here?

      Are there any other "reformed" Christians of a certain upbringing who now decry what they see as the unfortunate alliance between "the Jewish people" and the parents they may have a problem with?

      (Perhaps I should have posted this as a diary...)

    2. This also doesn't quite match up with the Mainline Protestant BDS stuff, either, because even though I believe the leaders of that 'movement' are clearly driven by anti-Jewish sentiment, they 'at least' limit their hostility to the Jewish state of Israel.

      What I see explicitly here in the case above, though, and which I'm quite sure I've seen elsewhere before (though I'd be hard-pressed to provide any hard examples at the moment; give me a bit to check on it and think it out, though, and I'll come back with something), is the specific claim of some sort of nefarious alliance between "The Jooooz" (as in not just Israel, but clearly Jews qua Jews) and far-out fringe characters amongst the Christian right, who though not all fit into the category of wanting to gather all the Jews in one place so their End Times can come, some certainly do.

      Which is to say that while not all evangelical Christians can be accused of being temporary philosemites until their own theological purposes are served, some absolutely can. And there are some folks who believe we stand with the latter, just as sure as Mahmoud Abbas believes there was a conspiracy between Zionists and Nazis.

      Am I making any sense here? I know what I'm trying to say, but I'm not quite sure I'm getting it across well at the moment...

    3. Jay,

      maybe you should write a piece on this question.

      My comments, you understand, were not meant as criticisms of your own, but just my own separate thoughts.

    4. Absolutely understood. I'll try to post something later tonight on it...

  4. Agreed, and I tried to get that across in my comment. I certainly don't believe they, by necessity, have nefarious intentions.

    Yet some of them do, and it's those outliers which certain 'progressives' then aim to tar us with by association, and use against us. Just as some like to claim that the words of some fringe rabbi in Brooklyn proves that Israel is [some-evil-fill-in-the-blank-word-here].

    I think I was careful not to generalize and paint with too broad a brush. If I did not come off that way, I do apologize.

  5. Which is to say that my ultimate point was not to attack the evangelical community, but rather to point out that there seems to be an increasing number of people (who are welcomed with open arms) amongst the 'progressive' community who say things like "look at me! I am a reformed former fundamentalist, here to tell you that Teh Jooooz are consorting with undesirables!"

    And shit like that.

    Sound familiar?

  6. Well,

    People who are authentically liberal-minded, and who, as part of that, are not politically motivated by religious mythology, and who know the situation that Israel is in, and who, therefore, support Israel, are the best friends of the Jewish people.

    And there are people who are authentically liberal-minded, and who, as part of that, are not politically motivated by religious mythology, and who know the situation that Israel is in, and who, therefore, support Israel -- people such as Pat Condell, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Kasim Hafeez, etc.

    And, moreover, there are, I think, many secular, so-called "liberal", people who would support Israel if they knew the facts of the history and current reality of the situation that Israel is in, but who don't know the facts of the history and current reality of the situation that Israel is in, and who, therefore, don't support Israel. They are the people who we need to communicate the facts of the situation to.

    It's authentically liberal-minded people who are the best friends of the Jewish people.

  7. And, by the way, I think that many contemporary "Conservatives" (such as many intellectual contemporary "Conservatives" (such as Thomas Sowell), and such as many "grass-roots" contemporary "Conservatives") are authentically liberal-minded Classical Liberals. And I think that many of the contemporary "Conservatives" who support Israel are authentically liberal-minded Classical Liberals.

    Thomas Sowell and a Conflict of Visions

    Scoop Jackson Lecture: Jon Kyl

    Douglas Murray

  8. Totally o/t btw, but of course with my luck, it just so happens that the time I chose to go to the grocery store also just so happened to coincide with the first actual snowstorm of the year in Philadelphia. And also, my first snowstorm in over four years.

    Not good times!

    I'll have some pictures once I get home, though. Will post the link. And fuck, it's freezing right now!!!!!!!

  9. "...the Europeans have multiple reasons for always being anti-Israel and none of them have anything to do with anything that Israel does. As I discuss in my book, these reasons include anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, addiction to Arab oil, and growing Muslim populations in Europe."

    Next stop USA, unless we put an end to uncontrolled immigration. Which isn't going to happen.

  10. Hi, Dan.

    I also like to think there's a distinction to be made between the two main groups on the left these days. There are those of us who are liberals, and who never abandoned that label.

    And then there are the 'progressives,' who are essentially that subset of liberals who began to self-identify by another name (i.e. - "progressive") once conservatives and / or Republicans started saying mean things about liberals and Democrats.

    In other words, they're pussies who spend an inordinate amount of time worried about what others will think of the positions they take on any given issue.

    So it is no surprise whatsoever that these are the very same people who also, against all common sense, tend to take sides with the antisemitic anti-Israel fanatics. It's because they're petrified that their political opponents will once again come up with some way to make them ashamed. Although this time, those potential opponents now come from the left, and threaten to insinuate that they are 'racists' if they dare oppose, say, the Code Pink agenda.

    So they twist themselves into ideological pretzels in order to fit in. At which point we witness the phenomenon of self-proclaimed 'leftists' supporting genocidal, homophobic, misogynistic Islamist terrorist organizations and figures. Because to do otherwise would risk being called nasty names by one's peers. And in fact, as others, including Mike, have noted before, this not only risks social status, but it also even in some cases puts careers in jeopardy.

    In the end, I believe it's something we can eventually fix. As I'm sure you agree. We need to "communicate the facts of the situation" much better. :)

    We have also not made antisemitism as socially unacceptable as it deserves to be, and as it once was for an all-too brief period in the middle of the last century. And we have certainly not made antisemitism as socially unacceptable as the antisemites have successfully made opposition to their agenda to be in certain quarters of the left.

    In those quarters, it's quite clearly much more desirable to even be an actual hardcore antisemite, than to give off a whiff of possibly potentially maybe kinda sorta being a bit sympathetic to the (gasp!) Zionists.

    In the former case, your credentials are impeccable until you actually start spray-painting swastikas on garages and shit. In the latter, you need to go far above and beyond the regular call required of anyone else to maintain your status. And you're always under suspicion, too.

    For example, once I became a "Known Zionist" at Daily Kos, and before I was kicked off that site (a site at which I was a founding member of a regular fundraising blogathon to end hunger, which raised countless thousands of dollars over the years; and someone who generally immediately garnered at least three dozen recs every time I posted a diary simply based on my name) for the very same thought crime, I couldn't even post a diary about the rise of antisemitic hate crimes in the US without being trolled by 'anti-Zionists' (wink, wink) who insisted that, say, eggs being tossed at Jewish teens in Lakewood, New Jersey is simply an understandable reaction to certain policies of the Israeli government that he or she doesn't like.

    So yeah, in the end it does come down to your phrase "authentically liberal minded people." Too bad there just aren't many of them around the internet these days...

  11. I'm going to snitch this too for the Joint.

    Copyright law doesn't bother me much any more. Its like making sure the place settings are in order on the Titanic.