Contra Corbynomics: Why we should be incredulous towards Labour’s economic statism

 

By Richard Mather

People are themselves. They are not objects to be pushed around by the State, which is what Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, proposes. This is why the British public shouldn’t be seduced by Corbyn’s vision of economic statism in which individualism, hard work and enterprise are demonised by expensive and controlling government.

Corbynomics, which is characterised by social ownership of the means of production and of the economy, is inefficient, unrealistic and reactionary. Corbynomics will not transfer power from the top of society to the bottom. It will merely hand power to (and enrich) apparatchiks, trade unions, politicians and state bureaucrats. In other words, a Corbyn government means power will be centralised and controlled by an overstaffed elite.

Corbyn’s economic statism reduces everything to the banality of the One: a one-size-fits-all economic narrative that ignores regional, local and competitive differences. The notion of the State as a single essence was a twentieth century experiment that failed. Look at the continental catastrophes of communism or fascism, or the public sector battles in the UK during the 1970s. It was only with the formation of a new British consensus in the 1980s and 1990s –  first under Thatcher and then Blair – that taxes were lowered and the monopoly of public sector power was broken, thanks in part to the privatisation of some industries/services.

Social mobility in the twenty-first century will not be helped by a return to an outdated economic public sector model. Contrary to popular opinion, the free market is not a reductive enterprise; rather, it is the guarantor of aspiration and progress. There is nothing immoral about people buying goods and services produced for profit. We need entrepreneurs, businesses and companies to invest in our local and regional economies, and to create new jobs. And of course, profits can be reinvested, fuelling economic growth and reducing prices for consumers.

Corbyn’s vision of the State comprises an unworkable trinity of nationalisation, people’s quantitative easing and higher taxes. But this trinity will not result in some kind of utopia. In the land of Corbyn, our democratic rights over state services will be endlessly deferred in a chain of bureaucracy and political obfuscation. Our frustrations with the railways will not diminish if the State steps in. On the contrary, our concerns will grow because of less choice, higher costs, below-par service and unionised public sector strikes.

Higher tax rates, for example, do not necessarily yield more revenues because they reduce incentives to work. What Corbyn fails to understand is that the UK is actually becoming more equal. The top one per cent of earners in the UK now shoulder a greater share of the income tax burden than at any time in the country’s history. Corbynomics is regressive and will generate less income for the country.

Corbynomics is a fantasy. It is an illiterate and ideologically-driven economic metanarrative that elevates and enshrines the grand role of the State and punishes the virtues of localism, eclecticism, enterprise, healthy competition and personal aspiration. These virtues help make Britain a modern and exciting country. Corbynomics, by contrast, is a return to the old and defeated arguments of the 1970s when high inflation, government inefficiency, bad services, trade union militancy and low growth turned the UK into the sick man of Europe.

Labour needs to get real and reach out to the British people with sensible and moderate policies. The electorate is neither stupid nor naïve. Given that the country rejected Ed Miliband in May 2015 and voted for a Conservative majority government for the first time since the 1990s, they are unlikely to vote for Labour’s dangerous economic statism on June 8.  But stranger things have happened and the Conservatives cannot afford to be complacent or indecisive on economic matters as the country prepares for this snap General Election.

 

On the London terror attack: What must be said

Big_BenWestminster_Bridge_Road_Westminster_London_-_panoramio-600x450

(Photo credit: ktanaka / Wikimedia Commons)

Islam breeds terror. It’s an unsavory truth but it has to be said. Only then can it be confronted.

By Richard Mather 

The present age is essentially one of denial and misunderstanding; it is an age devoid of common sense; an age that judges the victims not the perpetrators; an age that flies into self-righteous fury over the descendants of Holocaust survivors building houses in Judea, only to decline back into idleness when men, women and children are broken into pieces by the Islamist menace. Our age is also one of resentment. The past is judged and found guilty for not being what it should have been. Many Muslims resent the fact that Islamic empire building has come to nothing. Every caliphate in history has failed. Moreover, there is not a single really successful Islamic country anywhere in the world. And since the past cannot be changed, the resentful individual settles his scores by wreaking revenge on the present by driving into crowds of people in London, Berlin, Nice and Jerusalem.

The West, which has become increasingly secular in recent decades, is blind to this kind of religious resentment. Western Europeans, in particular, are inept in their understanding of current conflicts. They misread the Israeli-Arab dispute as a clash over land, and they think that acts of terrorism on European soil are symptomatic of capitalism’s failure to cater for the global poor. Both views are wrong. What Westerners (particularly those on the Left) fail to see is that Islamic terrorism is rooted in religiously-inspired rancor and malice. This is where the Islamists have the advantage. They understand only too well that the war against Jews and the West in general is not just a religious conflict, but one that is born from utter malice and failure. If the Islamists ever do defeat Western democracy, it won’t be out of strength, but simply because Europe proved weaker and sicker than the Islamists.

Actually, such a scenario is possible. Since the end of the Second World War, Europe has rid itself of its Judeo-Christian-Enlightenment heritage and burdened itself with so much colonial guilt that Angela Merkel and her EU sidekicks now lack the political will to protect their own citizens because they no longer think Europeans are worth saving. Israel, by contrast, embarrasses the European Union by insisting on its own ethno-cultural heritage and by protecting its own citizens. This is why Israel is strong and Europe is weak. Of course, the situation might not be so bad if Europeans had embraced a robust humanism, which emphasises critical thinking, freedom and progress. Unfortunately, many in the West have become politically-correct automatons who tolerate the intolerable by creating ‘safe spaces’ on campuses for unpleasant people who wish to kill Jews and Europeans, and who undermine pluralistic values by allowing Islamist supremacists to flood into towns and cities.

Just as one might say about the Cold War that we knew how to make distinctions between what worked (democracy, capitalism) and what didn’t (totalitarianism, communism), the present age does not make distinctions at all: there is no difference anymore, it seems, between the murdered Londoner and the terrorist who carried out the atrocity. Why do I say this? Because liberals argue that the terrorist is also a victim – the victim of borders, of capitalism, of Israel, of the prison system, of colonialism, a victim of everything except the ideology of Islam. Even in the face of terrorism, left-wing liberals and globalists continue to call for an end to borders because they do not make a distinction between an Islamist from Tunisia and a secular Parisian. And yet anyone with any common sense can see that there is a distinction to be made, and that making sensible is a desirable thing to do. It is not racist.

By declaring that refugees are welcome after mass sexual attacks in Cologne or vehicular attacks in France, Germany and the UK, the West is showing itself to be weak and sick, that Europeans have given up on their own values and relinquished their own cultures, out of fear of appearing racist or colonialist. But when we no longer believe in anything, we may end up believing anything. Kindness, humility, and sympathy are all well and good, but if resentful Islamists exploit our values, then there will be nobody left to extol these virtues. Turning the other cheek in the face of Islamist malice may sound noble in theory, but in actuality it is a kind of enslavement – the enslavement of non-Muslims by religious extremists who think non-believers are whores, apes and pigs, or even worse, sub-human and deserving of death.

It would help if politicians stopped denying the link between Islam and terrorism. British prime minister Theresa May says it is wrong to describe the recent London attack as Islamic terrorism and that the attacker’s ideology was a “perversion of a great faith.”  As political commentator Melanie Phillips writes, “Since 9/11 the British political establishment has refused to acknowledge that the jihadi terrorism being conducted in the name of Islam is actually inspired by… Islam. Islamic jihadi terror has instead been called ‘un-Islamic’ or even ‘anti-Islamic’ or ‘a perversion of Islam’ or ‘a warped ideology.’ Everything but what it actually is: terrorism inspired by a fanatical but legitimate interpretation of Islam.”

Terrorism inspired by a fanatical but legitimate interpretation of Islam. Let’s be honest, it’s getting harder to avoid the conclusion that terrorism carried out in the name of Islam is a natural expression of Islamic beliefs (perhaps not the only expression, but nonetheless a legitimate one.) But politicians and the mainstream media refuse to concede this point. As another commentator says, “mainstream politicians cannot agree with this, not least because they (and Merkel in particular) are responsible for the massive upsurge of Muslim migration into Europe that is fundamentally changing its future. But this is a gap which they must at some point bridge.” So says Douglas Murray in The Spectator.

In what is shaping up to be the ideological war of the 21st century, we need to accept that that there is a serious problem with Islamic beliefs about non-believers, martyrdom, jihad, sharia law, sexuality and the ummah. We also need to ask why so many criminals are drawn to Islam (especially in prison). More needs to be done to tackle non-violent Muslim fundamentalists, who legitimize, excuse and passively allow jihadi extremism. (In a recent opinion poll of British Muslims, a mere 34 per cent said they would report to the police anybody they thought was involved with jihadi extremism.)

The general public in Britain, France, Italy and so on are thoroughly sick of being told there isn’t a problem with Islam. Unless the liberal elites come to their senses, the disconnect between citizens and the establishment will grow ever wider. Not only is this very bad for democracy, it is a gift to the Far Right, which capitalizes on people’s frustration with the political system and thrives on the message that politicians and lawmakers do not speak for (or even care about) the majority. People aren’t stupid. It’s time that the liberal elites in London, Berlin, Brussels and Paris cease sneering at the masses and concede that the belief system of Islam breeds terror. It’s an unsavory truth but it has to be said. Only then can it be confronted.

 

Exposing deception: The cult of Palestinianism

cult-pray

It is crucial that the Palestinian deception is exposed for what it is – an anti-Semitic, terroristic, racist cult that spreads Jew-hatred, legitimizes murder and destabilizes societies.

By Richard Mather 

The term cult usually refers to a social group defined by their religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, or common interest in a particular personality, object or goal. Cults range in size from local groups with a few members to international organizations with millions. Sub-categories of cults include doomsday cults, political cults, racist cults, polygamist cults and terrorist cults.

The Palestinian movement is a political cult, but it is also a racist and terroristic cult. Its goal is the advancement of the dishonest Palestinian narrative, the destruction of the historic Jewish homeland and the implementation of a racist sharia-state called Palestine, achieved through terroristic means. Cult members, who number in the millions, deny or falsify the Jewish people’s historical, legal and biblical ties to the land of Israel. They use the weapons of delegitimization, defamation, disinformation, anti-Semitic propaganda, faked news footage, sanctions and boycotts to achieve their aims.

The Palestinianist cult can be traced back to two men: Yasser Arafat and Mohammed Amin al-Husseini. The latter is the father of Palestinian Islamic nationalism who believed it was a religious impossibility for Muslims to share the Land of Israel with Jews. Even areas where Jews formed a majority were considered to be a kind of religious defilement. Husseini, who was complicit in the Holocaust, called on his fellow Arabs to “not forget that the Jew is your worst enemy and has been the enemy of your forefathers.” Not surprisingly, his bombast resulted in various pogroms, massacres and terrorist atrocities. 

Husseini’s political successor was Yasser Arafat. From the 1960s, Arafat toured the world, converting people to his cause, acquiring recognition and financial backing until his movement was a global phenomenon. Thanks to Arafat, Palestinianism has become a ‘new religious movement’ (NRM) that appeals to people of all faiths and none, including Christians, Muslims, hardcore communist atheists, agnostics, liberals and even some Jews (who are sometimes the most fanatical converts).

This particular NRM (another term for cult) offers all the benefits of mainstream religion, such as community and social action, but without any of theological ‘baggage’ such as the Trinity, Torah or Islam’s Pillars of Faith. Even the quasi-religion of Marxism can be included within the framework of this new interfaith ideology because it, too, turns a finite, limited ideal (a world without Jews/the classless society/the end of capitalism) into an object of absolute and murderous godlike devotion. 

Paradoxically, BDS is an egalitarian cult; it is not closed, secret or hierarchical. It doesn’t matter where you come from or which god you may (or may not) worship; all that is required is that you express genocidal disdain for Jewish political autonomy. In fact, proponents of the ideology are keen to make new converts. They routinely brainwash young minds on Western university campuses, and in colleges and in mosques; their literature demonizes Jews and the Jewish state; and opponents are slandered and condemned using conspiratorial language, usually involving words like “Rothschild,” “Nazi,” and “Satanic.”

Indeed, Jews are routinely described in abusive and cult-like language (sometimes reminiscent of medieval Christian theologians): Jews as satanic murderers, baby-killers, well-poisoners, harvesters of organs and stealers of land. The charge of deicide (killing God) has been resurrected in modified form and is now presented as the charge of genocide against the so-called Palestinians. Of course, such claims made against the Jewish people are scandalous nonsense, propaganda designed to both demonise and legitimize murder. But in the minds of cult members, any justification to kill Jews or force them into permanent exile will suffice. 

This is a very dangerous cult indeed. What’s worse is that it has the backing of many governments, international organizations, NGOs and charities. It is a movement of global proportions, bigger than the Nazi cult that killed more than six million Jews. But unlike the Nazis, the Palestinianists face very little opposition. This is why it’s crucial that the Palestinian deception is repeatedly exposed for what it is – an anti-Semitic, terroristic, racist cult that spreads Jew-hatred, legitimizes murder, undermines social cohesion and destroys any prospect of peace. It is only by constantly challenging, scrutinizing and revealing the sick ideology of Palestinianism that we stand any chance of ending this horrific movement.

 

Purim: Where is God in all this?

Capture-1

Megillah Benedictions and Illuminations, painting on parchment, Italy, 18th century (via jewishvirtuallibrary.org)

The Purim story shows us that God expects the Jewish people to take the initiative, to act for themselves and to rely on their own talents and skills in order to ensure their long-term survival.

By Richard Mather 

Megillat Esther (the Scroll of Esther) narrates the story of a Jewish girl who becomes Queen of Persia and saves the Jewish people from a genocide decreed by the wicked Haman. The story takes place in 473 BCE. The Persian kingdom is a huge and sprawling empire, and all the Jews are its subjects. When King Ahasuerus deposes Queen Vashti for disobedience, he arranges a beauty parade to find a new consort. Esther is chosen and she becomes the new queen of Persia. However, she does not reveal her Jewish identity.

A wicked man called Haman is appointed first minister of the Persian empire. Haman becomes enraged when Mordechai, leader of the Jews, refuses to bow to him. Spitefully, Haman convinces the King to issue a decree ordering the genocide of all the Jews on the 13th of Adar. The date is chosen by lottery, hence the word Purim, which means “lots,” from the word Hebrew word פור.

Esther takes practical action. She reveals her Jewish identity to the King. Haman is hanged and Mordechai is appointed first minister in his place. A new decree granting the Jews the right to defend themselves against their enemies is issued. On the 13th of Adar the Jews kill many of their enemies. On the 14th, they rest and celebrate. The Jews of Shushan wage war on both Adar 13th and 14th, and rejoice on the 15th, which explains the celebration of Shushan Purim in Israel on the 15th.

The holiday of Purim is a time of merriment. Celebrants are allowed to drink alcohol to the point where they are unable to differentiate between the phrases ‘Bless Mordecai’ and ‘Curse Haman.’ Another feature of Purim is the Purimspiel, which is a dramatic retelling of the story of Esther, often involving costumes, masks, music, dance and humour. Traditionally, the Purimspiel was performed by poor students, actors and acrobats. These days, the Purimspiel is often acted out by children who dress up as characters from the story.

But there is a darker side to Purim. Megillat Esther depicts an existential threat to the Jews. Genocide hangs over them like the sword of Damocles. The Jews are saved and their enemies slain, not because God intervenes but because the Jews themselves take decisive action to eradicate the threat. Purim seems to be about the role of Jewish self-reliance in a universe where God has apparently disappeared from the stage.

This is why the story of Esther is particularly relevant in our post-Holocaust era. For many people, God’s goodness cannot be taken for granted. Elie Wiesel, the prize-winning writer and Holocaust survivor, has refused to shy away from the difficult subject of God’s absence during the Shoah. Perhaps his most famous book is Night. But for me, one of Wiesel’s most striking works is his play The Trial of God.

The Trial of God is set in 1649, and is a Purimspiel within a Purimspiel. But it is not the kind of Purimspiel we would recognise. This is a brief outline of the story:

Three wandering minstrels, three Purimspielers, come to a city called Shamgorod in the Ukraine. It is Purim eve, and they want to perform a play in order to get food and drink. The minstrels are unaware that a recent pogrom has killed all of the local Jews except for Berish the innkeeper and his daughter Hanna who was gang-raped and is now in a state of nervous collapse.

But the minstrels insist on performing and finally Berish relents and says, ‘All right. Under one condition – that I will give you the idea. The theme will be a “din torah,”  a trial of God. I want you to indict God for what he has done to my family, to my community, to all these Jews.’ The performers accept. In the first act the decision is made to hold a trial. In the second act there is a problem because there is nobody to play the role of God’s attorney. In the third act an attorney is found and we have the trial itself.

Wiesel’s play is based on an event that occurred in Auschwitz. According to Wiesel, three rabbis – all erudite and pious men – decided one winter evening to indict God for allowing his children to be massacred. The trial at Auschwitz lasted several nights and culminated in an unanimous verdict of guilty. And then, after a few moments of silence, one of the rabbis looked towards the heavens and said “It’s time for evening prayers.”

Given the subject matter, it is not surprising that Wiesel’s Purimspiel rejects the usual carnivalesque atmosphere of Purim. Mendel, one of the Purim minstrels, frequently asks the question, ‘And where is God in all of this?’ To which Berish the innkeeper answers: ‘Why don’t you ask where Berish is in all this? Let me answer you that one. God sought me out and God struck me down. So let Him stay away from me.’

In Wiesel’s text, God is accused of hostility, cruelty and indifference. Over the course of the trial, a number of arguments are made, both for and against God’s guilt. Wiesel’s play ends darkly, with the victory of Satan (who is God’s defendant) and the imminent massacre of the town’s remaining Jews by a mob of bloodthirsty gentiles.Megillat Esther is the only book in the Tanakh –  except for Shir Hashirim or the Song of Songs –  that does not mention the name of God. The Trial of God, however, makes God the central character, although like Godot in Beckett’s famous play, He never actually makes an appearance. And while Purim is generally a time of merriment, Wiesel’s play plumbs the depth of theological inquiry, asking, ‘Where is God in all this?’

In a world where the Holocaust was allowed to happen, the question of ‘Where is God in all this?’ remains pertinent. Of course, even before the Holocaust, Jewish experience was one of exile, alienation and violence – a sign perhaps that God’s power has rarely been some awesome force. Indeed, for much of history, God has hidden his face from us. The concept of hester panim (“hiding of the face”) is sometimes used to explain the absence or eclipse of God during times of suffering. The concept of divine concealment is based on words from Sefer Devarim: “I will become very angry at them on that day, and I will abandon them and hide My face from them. They will be devoured, and plagued by many evils that will distress them, and will say, ‘Do we not suffer because God has left us?’.”

In the case of Purim, the importance of hester panim is implied by the name of the heroine. Note the similarity between the words hester and Est(h)er. The Babylonian Talmud tractate Hullin 139B states, “From where does the Torah bring the name Esther? From the verse ‘But I [God] will surely conceal my face [“haster astir panai“] on that day for all of the ill that they have done–for they turned to other gods.”

In our post-Holocaust era, it can be difficult to subscribe to the notion of God as a transcendent Supreme Being who intervenes in history. Doesn’t the Esther story, and the story of the Jews in general, suggest that God’s power is not some ‘top-down’ affair but is conducted through the actions of individuals and groups, like Moses and the Israelites or Theodor Herzl and the First Zionist Congress? Isn’t it perhaps the case that God’s power is channelled through the Jewish people themselves?

In 1948 when Palestine’s Jews declared independence, there occurred a unique rupture in the history of colonialism and imperialism. But this declaration also ruptured the long-held hope of a messianic king or priest who would gather the Jewish people and end the exile. It wasn’t God or the Messiah who restored the Jewish nation. It was the Jews themselves. To paraphrase Rabbi Eleazar (Megillah 15a), the moment the Jewish people decide to cloak themselves in royalty and declare independence is the moment in which the Jews cloak themselves in the spirit of God.

This is why I strongly disagree with those ultra-religious Jews in Israel who refuse to serve in the army because it detracts from Torah study, which (they say) is Israel’s best protection. Unfortunately, history shows us that no amount of Torah study or prayer prevents pogroms or genocides; nor will Torah study protect the State Israel from future attacks. Likewise, it’s wrong of anti-Zionist religious Jews to argue that the State of Israel is a usurpation of the Messiah’s role. My answer to them is simple: for too long we waited for the Messiah, but he never came. And he may never come for one simple reason – because the Jewish people themselves already function as a messianic community.

In other words, it is not God or Messiah, but the Jews themselves who determine what to do, and when and how to do it. As Rabbi David Blumenthal says, God “has all eternity to make up His mind. We do not have all eternity; we have now.”  The example set by Esther shows us that God expects the Jewish people to take the initiative, to act for themselves and to rely on their own talents and skills in order to ensure their long-term survival. The success of the State of Israel and the fact that the majority of Jews are prepared to defend themselves in a world full of Hamans is testament to the spirit of Megillat Esther.

 

Op-ed: UN vote may actually accelerate Israeli sovereignty in Judea-Samaria

unsc

The Security Council votes on resolution reiterating its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities. The vote was 14 in favour, with one abstention (United States). UN Photo/Manuel Elias.

The UN condemnation of “settlement activities” may actually accelerate Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria – and rightfully so, because the correct interpretation of international law reveals the so-called settlements are, in fact, legal.

By Richard Mather – Israel News Online

The message is loud and clear. Despite residing in the land of Judea and Samaria for millennia, UN Security Council Resolution 2334 says Jews are forbidden to live on their own land. Arabs, on the other hand, are endowed with a natural entitlement to “Palestine.” The fact that the United States – under the guidance of Obama – allowed the vote to go ahead adds insult to injury.

However, it is plausible that the shameful vote at the UN may actually accelerate Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, especially as the incoming US president, Donald Trump, is staunchly pro-Israel and will probably not oppose Israel if the Jewish state formally annexes Judea and Samaria. Naftali Bennett, Tzipi Hotovely and others are publicly calling for the application of Israeli law in most or all of the so-called West Bank.

Indeed, Hotovely sums up the mood of many Israelis and Jews when she says that “History shows there are events which create drastic changes in Israel’s response. History will remember the UN Security Council’s Resolution 2334 as the one which brought about Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. No decision will cause Israel to stop building on its own land.”

Obama is on his way out. With nothing better to do, he should take the opportunity to educate himself on the legality of Israel’s position in Judea and Samaria, as well as in east Jerusalem.

Israel’s appropriation of land is both practically and legally comprehensible. If Obama knew his history (and he obviously doesn’t), he would already know that the “West Bank” is unclaimed land. Contrary to popular opinion, Israeli settlements are entirely legal as long as they are within the parameters of the 1922 Mandate of Palestine. This is the same mandate that legalized and encouraged the immigration of Jews to all parts of historic Israel.

Israel’s critics may be surprised to know that the 1922 Mandate has never been superseded in international law, not even by the United Nation’s 1947 partition plan. Because the Arabs refused to recognize the partition of “Palestine,” the legal status of Judea and Samaria reverted back to the 1922 law . The capture of Judea and Samaria from Jordan in 1967 was the first step in the restoration of the territory’s true legal status. It also means that Israel’s settlements are actually the fulfilment of the original 1922 Mandate.

Quoting the Fourth Geneva Convention to argue that the settlements are in fact illegal is nonsensical. The Fourth Geneva Convention pertains only to cases of occupation of a sovereign entity. Because of the Arab refusal to reach an agreement between 1947 and 1949, the area popularly referred to as the West Bank never became the legal territory of any sovereign entity – not even Jordan, despite its occupation of the territory until 1967. Only Israel has a legal entitlement to Judea and Samaria.

If anyone is in any doubt, they would do well to consult a document boasting the signatures of over 1,000 respected diplomats and legal experts from around the world, ranging from South Africa and Canada to Norway and Brazil. The file was delivered to the EU’s then foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton in the form of a petition around three years ago.

According to these legal experts, it is factually incorrect to refer to the settlements as illegal for the simple reason that the term “1967 lines” does not exist in international law. The pre-1967 lines are in fact 1949 armistice lines, and are not recognized lines or security lines. Moreover, the issue of borders is on the agenda of the peace talks and is subject to final status negotiations.

All of which means that the Palestinian/UN claim that Palestinian statehood is an unassailable right should not be taken at face value. Arab hatred of Israel has never been about the settlements or even about land. The primary obstacle is an ideological refusal to recognize the Jewish people’s deep-rooted historic, cultural and legal connections to the entire land of Israel.

Jews have an inalienable and legal right to live in east Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, and no number of sordid anti-Jewish UN resolutions can change this fact.

Resist or submit: Europe’s dilemma in the face of Islamist malice

capture

Turning the other cheek in the face of Islamist malice is a kind of enslavement – the enslavement of Europeans by Muslim extremists who think Westerners and Jews are pigs, apes and whores.

By Richard Mather

The present age is one of Palestinianism, antisemitism, liberal hypocrisy, ‘safe spaces’ and Islamism; an age that lacks historical understanding, devoid of common sense, an age that flies into enthusiasm over Gaza, only to decline back into indolence when the bodies of Jews and Europeans are broken.

The present age is an age of ressentiment, a French word adopted by Kierkegaard and Nietzsche to denote a sense of bitter malice directed at a scapegoat (usually the Jews) in order to insulate themselves from self-responsibility. Who are the most resentful people on earth today? The Palestinians, left-wing liberals and Islamists.

The spirit of revenge that fires the Palestinianist desire to overthrow Israel – as well as the liberal’s desire to overturn Brexit or Trump’s victory – also colors and warps his view of the past. The past is judged and found guilty for not being what it should have been.

And so the Arabs say that the Balfour Declaration should never have happened. And liberals in Britain and the United States say that Brexit and Trump should never have happened. But since the past cannot be changed, the resentful individual settles his scores by wreaking revenge on the present by murdering Jews or trying to sabotage the outcome of democratic decisions made by ordinary people in the UK and United States.

Meanwhile, Islamists everywhere resent the fact that Islamic empire building has come to nothing. Every caliphate in history has failed. Moreover, there is not a single really successful Islamic country anywhere in the world. And so resentful jihadists drive trucks into crowds of people in France and Germany out of revenge for their own failings.

The West, which has become increasingly secular in recent decades, is blind to this kind of religious resentment. Western Europeans, in particular, are inept in their understanding of current conflicts. They misread the Israeli-Arab dispute as a clash over land, and they think that acts of terrorism on European soil are symptomatic of capitalism’s failure to cater for the global poor.

Both views are wrong. What westerners (particularly those on the Left) fail to see is that Islamist terrorism is rooted in religiously-inspired rancor and malice. This is where the Islamists have the advantage. They understand only too well that the war against Jews and the West in general is not just a religious conflict, but one that is born from utter malice and failure. If the Islamists ever do defeat Western democracy, it won’t be out of strength, but simply because Europe proved weaker and sicker than the Islamists.

Actually, such a scenario is possible. Since the end of the Second World War, Europe has rid itself of its Judeo-Christian-Enlightenment heritage and burdened itself with so much colonial guilt that Angela Merkel and her EU sidekicks now lack the political will to protect their own citizens because they no longer think Europeans are worth saving.

Israel, by contrast, embarrasses the European Union by insisting on its own ethnocultural heritage and by protecting its own citizens. This is why Israel is strong and Europe is weak.

Of course, the situation might not be so bad if Europeans had embraced a robust humanism, which emphasises critical thinking, freedom and progress. Unfortunately, many in the West have become politically-correct automatons who tolerate the intolerable by creating ‘safe spaces’ on campuses for unpleasant people who wish to kill Jews and Europeans, and who undermine pluralistic values by allowing Islamist supremacists to flood into our towns and cities.

Just as one might say about the Cold War that we knew how to make distinctions between what worked (democracy, capitalism) and what didn’t (totalitarianism, communism), the present age does not make distinctions at all: there is no difference anymore, it seems, between the murdered Berliner and the terrorist who carried out the atrocity. Why do I say this? Because liberals argue that the terrorist is also a victim – the victim of borders, of capitalism, of Israel, of colonialism, a victim of everything except the failed ideology of Islamism.

Even in the face of terrorism, left-wing liberals and globalists continue to call for an end to borders because they do not make a distinction between an Islamist from Tunisia and a secular Berliner. And yet anyone with any common sense can see that there is a distinction to be made, and that making sensible is a desirable thing to do. It is not racist.

By declaring that refugees are welcome after mass sexual attacks in Cologne or truck attacks in France and Germany, the West is showing itself to be weak and sick; that Europeans have given up on their own values and relinquished their own culture, out of fear of appearing racist or colonialist. But when we no longer believe in anything, we may end up believing anything.

Kindness, humility, and sympathy are all well and good, but if resentful Islamists exploit these virtues, then there will be nobody left to extol these virtues. Turning the other cheek in the face of Islamist malice is a kind of enslavement – the enslavement of Europeans by Muslim extremists who think Westerners and Jews are pigs, apes and whores.

Who will stand up for Europe? Not Angela Merkel. Not the EU. Who will stand up for Europe? The answer is clear: Like the Israelis, we Europeans must stand up for ourselves.

 

 

Palestinianism: When people of all faiths (and none) conspire against Israel

People who call for Jews to be exiled from the Land of Israel are evangelists for a new quasi-religion called Palestinianism, which has positioned itself as the most contemporary of interfaith ideologies.

For Christians, Muslims, atheists and even radical left-wing Jews, Palestinianism offers a new kind of replacement theology in which Palestine is the True Israel and Israeli Jews are cast out of the family of nations because they remain loyal to their historic homeland.

By Richard Mather  

Replacement theology or supersessionism is the Christian teaching that the Church has replaced Israel regarding the plan, purpose and promises of God. It has been a core tenet of the Christian faith for the best part of 2,000 years and it holds that the Church replaced the Israelites/Jews as the Chosen People and that the New Covenant replaced God’s covenant with Moses.

From very early on, the Church Fathers taught that the Mosaic Covenant had been fulfilled and replaced by Christ. Tertullian, for example, taught that the “old law” and “carnal circumcision” had been “obliterated” by the “new law.” One of the implications of this theological standpoint is that the Jews are seen as an accursed people stubbornly clinging to an outmoded set of rituals that serve no divine purpose.

In fact, so the argument goes, just by continuing to exist, the Jews are recalcitrant sinners. Worse, their refusal to embrace Christ is an obstacle to God’s salvational plan for the world.

After the Shoah, some Christian theologians started to de-emphasise supersessionism. But replacement theology has never gone away. Far from it. In fact, it has re-emerged in a new guise, with all the evangelical fervor of a brand new religion. That religion is Palestinianism. I don’t just mean Christian Palestinianism which ludicrously seeks to “de-Zionize” the Tanakh and “Palestinianize” Jesus. Nor do I merely mean the Islamic tendency to use the Palestinian issue as a recruiting sergeant in the mosques.

Rather, I am talking about Palestinianism in its fullest sense: a wide-ranging quasi-religious ideology that appeals to all faiths and none. It appeals to Christians, Muslims, and even some Jews. It appeals to hardcore communist atheists and religious fanatics alike. It is the belief system of anti-Semitic movements like BDS and the International Solidarity Movement. It is a unifying belief system that blames all the world’s problems on the Jews and promises salvation by promising to eradicate Zionism and establish a State of Palestine between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

This new religion can be traced back to one man – Yasser Arafat, Palestinianism’s anti-apostle to the nations. Arafat toured the world, converting people to his cause, acquiring recognition and financial backing until his movement was a global phenomenon. As with Christianity, Palestinianism has become an almost-universal faith that appeals to gentiles and even some Jews, who are usually the most fanatical converts. It is because of Arafat (with the help of the Soviet Union) that contemporary Zionism is portrayed in much the same way that the Mosaic Covenant was/is depicted by some Christians – as corrupt, outdated, superstitious, carnal, evil.

II

Following Emperor Constantine’s declaration of Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire, theologians began to teach that Jews were solely responsible for the crime of murdering God, of deicide. John Chrysostrom (354-407), Archbishop of Constantinople, stated that Jews were murderers and destroyers, a people “possessed by the devil.”

If hostility to the Torah motivated early anti-Semitism, it was the Talmud that soon became an object of anti-Jewish hate. Full-scale attacks on the Talmud began in France during the thirteenth century. The Talmud was said to make Jews stubborn and superstitious. If only the Jews would relinquish their superstitious rituals, argued their opponents, then they’d convert to Christianity and conform to societal norms.

In the midst of all this anti-Talmud hysteria, Christian anti-Semites were accusing Jews of using the blood of Christian children for ritual purposes. It began in England in 1144 when the Jews of Norwich were accused of ritual murder after a boy was found dead with stab wounds. Thomas of Monmouth erroneously claimed that there was a Jewish prophecy that stated the killing of a Christian child each year would ensure Jewish restoration in Eretz Yisrael. This must be one of the earliest instances of a Jew-hater using the blood libel to smear the Jews for their dream of national restoration. In fact, the blood libel, or variations thereof, continue to this day.

After Israel committed the cardinal sin of winning the 1967 Six Day War, Jews have been routinely described in the language of medieval Christian theologians: Jews as satanic murderers, baby-killers, well-poisoners, harvesters of organs and stealers of land. The charge of deicide has been resurrected in modified form and is now presented as the charge of genocide against Palestinians. Of course, such claims made against the Jewish people are scandalous nonsense, propaganda designed to demonise and then to kill. But in the minds of Palestinianists, any justification to kill Jews or force them into permanent exile will suffice.

So: First the Torah and the polemical arguments against the Mosaic covenant; then the Talmud and the blood libel as justifications for persecuting Jews. Now, the object of hate is Zionism and the State of Israel. Under the banner of the new Palestinianist theology, Palestine is portrayed as the True Israel, just like the Church was described as the True Israel.

While Christian covenant theologians claim that Jews have been cast off and are no longer pre-eminent in the plans of God because they continue to abide by their Mosaic traditions, so the State of Israel is to be cast out of the family of nations because it stubbornly clings to the “carnal covenant” of Zionism. There is an eschatological aspect at play that demands the passing away of the old heaven and earth (Zionism) and the arrival of the new heaven and earth (the State of Palestine).

The sooner Zionism and the Israeli state pass into history, say the Palestinianists, the sooner there will be peace in the Middle East. Despite the obvious drawbacks to this scenario, such as the oppression of women and minorities in a Palestinian state, the imprisonment of journalists and dissidents, and the political legitimisation of far right Islamist groups like Hamas, Palestinianists remain zealous in their commitment to the creation of a twenty-third Arab state.

III

And then there are the Jewish apostates. Once upon a time we had to endure people like Titus Flavius Josephus, the writer-historian who defected to the Romans in 69 CE during the First Roman-Jewish War; and Nicholas Donin, a Jewish convert to Christianity, who pressed thirty-five charges against the Talmud to Pope Gregory IX; and Abner of Burgos, the fourteenth-century Jewish philosopher who converted to Christianity and wrote Mostrador de Justicia, one of the longest polemics against Judaism ever written.

Now we have people like Ilan Pappe, Paul Eisen, Shlomo Sand, and Noam Chomsky, who spend their days writing anti-Zionist and/or anti-Jewish polemics in order to ingratiate themselves to the non-Jewish world. It seems that some Jews, both then and now, are unable to resist the lure of either Christianity or Palestinianism.

(To complicate matters, there are some very religious Jews who believe that continued exile is part of God’s plan. The Christian view that the destruction of the Second Temple was a punishment for killing Christ has been absorbed in a modified way by some ultra-Orthodox Jews such as Neturei Karta who believe that because of their sins, the Jewish people went into exile and that human recapture of the Land of Israel is a violation of divine will. If Christians believe in replacement theology, it seems some Jews, both religious and secular, subscribe to what might be called displacement theology – the displacement of themselves.)

Because it appeals to many Christians, most Muslims and a minority of Jews, Palestinianism is the latest example of the postmodern exercise in interbelief cooperation, which can be defined as the (de)constructive interaction between people of different religious traditions and/or spiritual or humanistic beliefs. In a sense, Palestinianism is the most democratic and egalitarian of faiths. It doesn’t matter where you come from or which god you may (or may not) worship; all that is required is that you express genocidal disdain for Jewish political autonomy.

Indeed, Palestinianism is now a substitute faith for post-Christian European liberals. It offers all the benefits of mainstream religion, such as community and social action, but without any of theological baggage such as the Trinity or Islam’s Pillars of Faith. Even the quasi-religion of Marxism can be included within the framework of this new interfaith ideology because it, too, turns a finite, limited ideal (a world without Zionism/the classless society/the end of capitalism) into an object of absolute and murderous godlike devotion.

Given that Palestinianism draws on Christianity and Islam, it is perhaps no surprise that it borrows heavily from Abrahamic salvation history. This helps explain the Palestinianist preoccupation with the status and fate of the Jews, with ownership and boundaries of the land of Israel, with the importance of Jerusalem, with the identity of Jesus, and with the messianic goal of peace in the Middle East. Even the concept of “original sin” is employed to describe the creation of the State of Israel, as if pre-Zionist Palestine was the Garden of Eden!

In other words, Palestinianism offers the world a set of religious symbols that are reassuringly infused with the comfort of Bible imagery (“new wine in old skins”). Hence the myth of a Palestinian lineage that goes all the way back to the Canaanites; the “Satanic” intrusion of Zionism; the “crucifixion” of Palestine and the arrival of “Isra-hell”; and the awaited return of Palestine as a land of milk and honey. All these concepts and word-ideas are used in Palestinianist discourse.

In this salvation story, the Jews may have a role to play, but only as a people who are about to be expunged from history as the prelude to the arrival of a new world. In the Gospel of John, Jesus says, “Salvation is of the Jews.” But for many people – Christian, Muslim or atheist – it seems that salvation is not of the Jews, but of the Palestinians. It is a terrifying thought.

Britain’s Jews must urge UK government to uphold its commitment to Israel

330px-balfour_declaration_in_the_times_9_november_1917

By Richard Mather

Following discussions with government ministers and Jewish leaders in the UK, the British government endorsed the establishment of a Jewish home in Palestine. The decision, dated November 2 1917, was made public in a letter from British Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild. It became known as the Balfour Declaration and was incorporated into the Sevres peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire, and the Mandate for Palestine, which was ratified by the League of Nations on July 24 1922.

Fast forward ninety-nine years and we have witnessed the shameful spectacle of an anti-Israel/anti-Balfour event hosted by the House of Lords and chaired by the notorious anti-Semite Baroness Jenny Tonge, during which Israel was compared to Islamic State, and Jews were blamed for pushing Hitler over the edge and thereby bringing the Holocaust on themselves.

The event, which was organised by Baroness Tonge and the London-based hate group Palestine Return Centre, marked the launch of the so-called Balfour Apology Campaign ahead of the Balfour Declaration centenary, which occurs in November 2017. A couple of months ago, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas told the UN General Assembly that Britain should apologise for the Balfour Declaration. We can expect much of the same absurd and offensive rhetoric over the coming year as anti-Zionist campaigners in Britain and abroad continue to urge the UK government to show remorse for so-called “colonial crimes” in the Middle East.

Indeed, next year, 2017, may well be the high water mark of British anti-Semitism. The situation for Jews in Britain has been getting steadily worse over the past ten to fifteen years. It reached an unprecedented level in the summer of 2014 (during Operation Protective Edge) and has been worsening ever since. The centenary of the Balfour Declaration may see the biggest avalanche of hatred on the Anglo-Jewish community since the medieval period, especially if Abbas’ proxies in Britain fill the airwaves and newspapers with vile slanders against the Jews.

To attack Israel’s very existence is appallingly anti-Semitic but don’t expect the mainstream media in the UK to point this out. On the contrary, the majority of media outlets in Britain will very likely take a very strong pro-Arab line and single out Jews for condemnation.  Even so, Jews must continue to affirm and celebrate the role Britain played in the reestablishment of Israel. And Britain’s Jews must urge the UK government to uphold its historic commitment to Israel, without apology or remorse.

 

UK’s despicable liberals owe Israel an apology

palace_of_westminster_london_-_feb_2007

By Richard Mather

We have just witnessed the shameful spectacle of a Jew-hating event hosted by the House of Lords and chaired by the notorious anti-Semite Baroness Jenny Tonge, who co-organised the event with the Palestine Return Centre. During the session, Israel was compared to Islamic State and Jews were blamed for pushing Hitler over the edge and bringing the Holocaust on themselves. Baroness Tonge appeared to enjoy the sessions. Her only concern was that someone might overhear them. There may be “Zionist ears in the room,” she warned her audience.

Baroness Tonge is no stranger to anti-Semitism and anti-Zionist paranoia. A purveyor of the modern-day blood libel, she accused the Israel Defense Forces’ medical team in Haiti in 2010 of harvesting organs. Two years later, she appeared at an Israeli Apartheid Week event and called for an end to the Jewish state, which she described as an “aircraft carrier.” She has also expressed support for Arab suicide bombers and has repeatedly railed against the so-called pro-Israeli lobby, which “has got its grips on the western world, its financial grips.”

Baroness Tonge represents everything that is wrong with left-wing liberalism in Britain. Arrogant, elitist, self-righteous, smugly comfortable, she is completely out of touch with the lower middle and working classes (she is, after all, a Baroness in the House of Lords). She is also one of those ‘anti-racist anti-Semites’ who sees racism everywhere except when it presents itself as Jew-hatred. Baroness Tonge, like many left-wing liberals, believes that history is on their side when it comes to multiculturalism, the demise of national borders and the annihilation of Israel. In a word, she is despicable.

Left liberals like Baroness Tonge would like you to believe there’s a substantial difference between classical anti-Semitism and post-Shoah anti-Zionism. The assertion that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are somehow different is a cynical and deliberate ruse designed to both normalize Jew-hatred in Britain and to delegitimise the State of Israel. It is redolent of the state-sanctioned anti-Semitism prevalent in Russia, as part of the anti-Western campaign of Zhdanovshchina. The Soviet people were told that the Jews had to be excluded from Soviet life because they had a tendency to glorify the West. Now, left-wing liberals are making it clear that Jews must be excluded from British political discourse because they are linked to the State of Israel.

Baroness Tonge and her band of anti-Zionist campaigners in the House of Lords want the British government to apologize for the Balfour Declaration of 1917. What these people fail to understand is that the Balfour Declaration was the outcome of decades of campaigning by Jews whose vision was to secure international legitimacy for the right of the Jewish people to a build a safe homeland. Anti-Semites like Baroness Tonge fail to see that the Balfour Declaration was about building a sanctuary for the world’s most persecuted people. Instead, she appears to derive her definition of Zionism from the notorious anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which purports to describe a plan by Jewish interest groups to accumulate as much power as possible.

The House of Lords event was shameful, but not particularly surprising. There is a long tradition in the West of denouncing Jews, Judaism and the nation of Israel. It is called Adversus Judaeos (so-called because of a series of fourth century anti-Jewish homilies called Ioudaion, “against the Jews”). Early Christian anti-Jewish polemics have become the pattern for twentieth and twenty-first century anti-Jewish tirades, in which Jews/Israelis are falsely accused of murdering Arabs or stealing land. These false accusations, bad enough in themselves, have been grafted onto age-old prejudices about Jews and money, Jews and power, etc. The end goal of all this, of course, is the annihilation or displacement of six million Israeli Jews, plus the discomforting and political marginalization of Diaspora Jews.

Whereas the early anti-Jewish polemicists were convinced they were agents of Christ, people like Baroness Tonge believe themselves to be agents of liberalism (hence the smug self-righteousness that is common on the Left). Jenny Tonge et al claim to act in the name of universalism, to safeguard and respect everyone equally, with Jews being the obvious exception. If liberal universalism has become aligned with the Palestinian Arabs, the Jewish people inevitably emerge as betrayers of that universalism. The existence of a distinct people – the Jews/Israel – produces intense anxiety in the minds of liberals like Baroness Tonge.

By singling out Jews for political condemnation, and by infecting public discourse with anti-Semitic poison, Baroness Tonge and her despicable left-liberal friends are trying their hardest to destroy the post-war consensus that Anglo-Jews form an integral part of British society. Thanks to people like Baroness Tonge, anti-Semitism is once again an immutable factor in Britain. British Jews deserve better than this. And Israel deserves an apology from the UK Parliament for the shameful episode at the House of Lords.