They came for the Jews. Will you speak out even if you are not a Jew?
One of the things that was driven home by the terror attack on the Paris Hyper Cacher supermarket is that they are still coming for us Jews, long after 'they' have stopped coming for most others. In England, they are feeling that lesson from up close. But is anyone non-Jewish feeling it?
A couple of days after the Charlie Hebdo attack, I did a debate with the
Guardian’s Simon Jenkins on the PM programme, about the appropriate UK
security response. In the course of conversation Simon came out with an
illuminating statement. “Britain is a robust country”, he said. “We’re not
vulnerable to these people. Accidents will happen, terrorist incidents will
happen. But we mustn’t dance to their tune”.
I think I know what Simon meant. That for all the harm they do, terrorists do
not represent an existential threat to our society or way of life. Indeed,
this has been a common response amongst the liberal commentariat. Polly
Toynbee wrote a similar piece last week: “In everyday life, Britain
has become remarkably safe – relatively crime-free, children rarely die,
most people live to a ripe old age. Life is so dull we invent fears”. And
Simon and Polly are right. You are not all that vulnerable. Many of your
fears about becoming a victim of terrorism are invented. So long as you are
not Jewish.
Whenever Martin Niemöller’s warning is quoted, it is always used in the past
tense. But as the Paris attacks proved, they are still coming for the Jews.
In reality, they have never stopped coming for the Jews.
Attend a wedding, or other social function hosted by a prominent member of the
Jewish community. You will be met by smart young men with name badges and
ear pieces, who will politely ask you your business, and check your bag.
Walk past a Jewish school. You will see the high gates and CCTV cameras. Walk
past a Jewish school in France, and you will see soldiers with automatic
weapons. They are not there to ward off imaginary monsters, but real
ones.
Not everyone in the public sphere has been silent to this truth. Since the
Paris attacks I have seen several commentators passionately speaking out
about the real and present threat to the Jewish community. Emma
Barnett, Jonathan Freedland, Danny Finkelstein, Nick Cohen, David
Aaronovitch. But that underlines the problem. It is mainly Jews that have
again been left to speak out for the Jews.
The reaction from outside the Jewish community follows the same pattern. Like
Simon Jenkins and Polly Toynbee, we try to hide behind a veil of
self-centered proportionality. Or, we cry “look over there!” Yes the Jewish
community is under threat, but what about the “revenge” attacks being
launched against the Muslim community? Or we deploy the “some of my best
friends are Jewish” argument. Yes some Jews are being targeted. But
look at what’s happening to the Palestinians. Should we really
be surprised? Yes, obviously we must condemn the “terrorists”. But don’t we
have an obligation to try to understand them as well?
And what lies at the heart of this response? If we’re honest, if we’re really
honest, it’s that those of us who are not part of the Jewish community have
subconsciously – and shamefully – come to the view that being a target of
terrorism is merely one of the occupational hazards of being a Jew.
The words on that poster on my office wall used to inspire me. But in the past
week they have come to chill me. Why? Because the full implications of them
have finally dawned on me.
With Britain sending a warship to enforce its claim to Gibraltar, thousands of miles away, Bret Stephens implants his tongue firmly in cheek, and without even mentioning Israel mentions some of the other occupied territories in the world, and wonders why no one worries about them. In fact, in none of those cases, is the territory in question necessary for the occupier's security, a thought that appears lost on those who criticize Israel as an 'occupier' in Judea and Samaria, which I can literally see from my front door. (Those without access to the Journal's web site can find the full article here.
Rather than waste time and money on a fruitless diplomatic brawl,
Prime Minister David Cameron should say he’s prepared to relinquish
Gibraltar to Spain—on just one condition.
That would be a declaration by the Spanish government that it will
renounce its own claims to the cities of Ceuta and Melilla, which lie
opposite Gibraltar on the northern coast of Africa. Morocco has long
claimed these Spanish enclaves for itself, and in July 2002 it even sent
troops to seize an uninhabited Spanish islet near Ceuta. Madrid
responded a week later by deploying its navy, air force and special
forces to bloodlessly retake the island, but tensions still simmer.
Spaniards might object to returning the two cities on the grounds that
local inhabitants overwhelmingly consider themselves Spanish and wish to
remain a part of Spain. Then again, the last time Gibraltarians took a
vote on their sovereignty, 99% of them wished to remain British.
Of course, Madrid couldn’t just turn over Ceuta and Melilla without
asking Morocco to readjust its own territorial claims. Since 1975, Rabat
has occupied the Western Sahara—a territory larger than the U.K.—though
no other country recognizes Moroccan sovereignty. The Moroccan position
is contested by an Algerian-backed group called the Polisario Front,
which administers a “country” called the Sahrawi Arab Democratic
Republic.
But the leadership in Rabat could hardly be asked to deliver such a
political prize to its arch-rivals in Algiers without expecting some
commensurate sacrifice.
It’s been more than 50 years since Algerian independence led to the exodus of nearly one million pieds-noirs
and the seizure of their properties by Ben Bella’s government. And
though the French government did pay some small indemnities to their
displaced kinsmen, the Algerian government has never recognized, much
less atoned for, the injustice it did to an indigenous community that
had considered itself Algerian for generations.
'An embarrassing decision for this so-called land of democracy'
Bloggers and anti-Islamist activists Pam Geller and Robert Spencer have been banned from entering England, where they hoped to speak at a rally of the English Defence League on Sunday.
Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, who set up Stop Islamization of
America, and run the website Jihad Watch, have been forbidden from
entering the country on the grounds their presence would "not be
conducive to the public good".
The far-right English Defence League
was planning a march on Saturday ending in Woolwich, south-east
London, where soldier Drummer Lee Rigby was murdered last month. Geller
and Spencer were both set to attend.
A Home Office spokesman said:
"We can confirm that Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are subject to an
exclusion decision … We condemn all those whose behaviours and views
run counter to our shared values and will not stand for extremism in any
form."
I would like to say it's unbelievable but it's not. Pam and Robert are in good company: Geert Wilders and Moshe Feiglin have been banned (Wilders was later allowed in), while Hezbullah spokesman Ibrahim Moussawi and Islamic Movement Northern Front Sheikh Raed Salah were allowed in (although Salah was subsequently arrested). It took years before Britain changed their laws so that Israeli politicians and IDF officers could enter the country without fear of arrest.
What a morally decrepit country England has become....
Students at the prestigious university voted against the
motion, as reported by The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday, at Oxford University
Students’ Union (OUSU), with 69 votes against, 10 for and 15
abstentions.
The vote failed by a margin of seven to one.
Oxford
University’s collegiate system is made up of 38 colleges and six private halls
founded by various Christian denominations. Each college has a “junior common
room” that votes at the OUSU. The number of votes each college has is determined
by the size of the college.
The motion called for the OUSU and National
Union of Students to join the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign, known
as the BDS movement, against the Jewish state.
...
The motion also called on the union to “conduct research into
higher education institutions’ contacts, relations, investment and commercial
relationships that may be implicated in violating Palestinian human rights as
stated by the BDS movement.”
The decision was hailed by the Union of
Jewish Students who called on students to constructively engage with Israel, its
ideas and people, rather than choose to boycott.
“It’s encouraging to see
that this vote reflects a student body who are willing to discuss the
complexities that exist within Israel and do not see boycotting it as a viable
option or avenue to discuss the conflict,” UJS campaigns director Judith Flacks
said.
I wish I could be optimistic and say that this is a turning point and that the world is finally starting to recognize that it is employing a double standard with respect to Israel. But it isn't.
In what could be the last straw for English Jewry (or at least for those Jews affiliated enough to send their kids to Jewish schools), the British government has decided to withdraw recognition from Hebrew as a 'foreign language.' Children between the ages of 7-11 in England must be taught a foreign language, and Hebrew no longer qualifies. Arabic anyone? (Hat Tip: Shy Guy).
The U.K. government has dropped Hebrew as an official recognized language for the purpose of teaching it to school children, according to press reports.
The government exclusion of Hebrew from the provided list of officially recognized languages for primary schools could damage Jewish education, the Board of Deputies warned this week.
Education Minister Elizabeth Truss last month announced plans to make it mandatory from September 2014, to teach a foreign language to children aged 7 to 11. Schools must offer at least one of seven recognized languages, excluding Hebrew.
Many elementary Jewish schools, who have to fit in Jewish studies, along with the national curriculum, are currently offering only Hebrew as a foreign language. According to the Board, they would be unable to continue their education if they were forced to offer another foreign language.
Hey guys - come to Israel, where English is the most commonly taught foreign language. Either that, or take lessons from Montreal, where the Jewish schools have to teach their children Hebrew, English and French. But Montreal hasn't gone Islamic yet like England has. No one there teaches their kids Arabic.
Israel's cabinet unanimously passed a resolution on Sunday rejecting Thursday's events at the United Nations and the declaration of a 'state' of 'Palestine.'
"The Jewish people have natural,
historical and legal rights to its homeland with its eternal capital
Jerusalem," the resolution stated. "The State of Israel as the state of
the Jewish people has rights and claims to areas are under dispute in
the land of Israel."
The cabinet decision says that the UN
resolution does not change the status of disputed areas and does not
detract in any way from Israel and the Jewish people's right to those
areas.
Furthermore the resolution said that the UN resolution will not be a basis for future negotiations.
There's been a lot of surprise in the media, especially abroad at the vehemence of the Israeli reaction to the General Assembly decision on Thursday. For the last couple of weeks, we've been seeing stories that Israel would not go ballistic over the resolution passing and that it would not take what the 'international community' sees as 'drastic' steps against the 'Palestinians.' Now, we're seeing that Israel is taking - or at least saying that it will take - some pretty harsh steps.
The answer to that lies in the Europeans. It was a foregone conclusion that the resolution would pass because the 'Palestinians' have an automatic majority in the United Nations. What was unexpected was that the only country in Europe to vote with us would be the Czech Republic. If England, Germany, Italy and France had voted with us (and not just abstained as the first three did), I don't think we'd be seeing quite as strong a reaction. At this point, the government is trying to make sure that there will never ever be another vote like this.
How to spend your summer vacation: 'Experience Life Under Occupation' and 'Palestinian prisoner' camp
I don't know about you, but I'm always looking for innovative ways to keep my kids busy during the summer. This summer, we have two kids in day camp, a third preparing for his Bar Mitzva, and the older kids are all keeping themselves entertained (one still has university exams, one is still in yeshiva and two are married so that just leaves the recent high school graduate who is helping a teacher do lesson plans for next year). In England, the Church of England (yes, really) has come up with an innovative way for your older kids to spend their summer. It's called 'Experience Life Under Occupation.'
The representative organization of British Jewry - the Board of Deputies - said it was "dismayed" by this week's decision by the Church of England’s Synod to pass a motion endorsing the Ecumenical Accompaniment Program in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI), which sends "internationals" to the West Bank to "experience life under occupation."
The Board of Deputies criticized what it called a decision to "promote an inflammatory and partisan program at the expense of its interfaith relations, the Jewish Chronicle reported.
"Justifying its decision using the views of marginal groups in Israel and the UK, the Synod has ridden rough shod over the very real and legitimate concerns of the UK Jewish community, showing a complete disregard for the importance of Anglican-Jewish relations," the board said in a statement.
Another thing you can think about doing is sending your kids to 'Palestinian prisoners' camp, a new variant on past 'Palestinian' camps.
Hytham al- Madhun, one of the camp guides, explained that the mock prison set up for the camp is divided into six rooms, each simulating the incarceration conditions of Palestinian prisoners. The first room is an interrogation cell, which is where prisoners are first led once entering the prison. In this room, Madhun describes to the kids "the prisoners' firm resilience in the face of Israeli interrogators' threats and their refusal to admit the charges ascribed to them."
One of the main heroes of the camp is Ibrahim Hamed, who was the head of Hamas' military wing in Ramallah and is responsible for murdering dozens of Israelis. The guides boastfully tell the children how Hamed, who was recently sentenced to 54 life sentences, has continually refused to give his interrogators any information, including his given name.
In the next room, the children get to see what a prisoner's cell looks like, and the guides warn them of Israeli agents who pose as prisoners, trying to get the Palestinian prisoners to talk and admit to their acts. Other rooms include a solitary confinement chamber, a torture den, a room that simulates a prison hospital, and even a small prison courtyard.
Ahmad Rantisi, one of the organizers of the summer camp, said that its goal is to allow children to get a tangible experience of the suffering of Palestinian prisoners, and strengthen their belief in the protection of Palestinian land and the high price that must be paid.
My two younger kids' camp (which is supposed to be a continuation of school with less study time and with trips) went on a trip to an amusement park today. I think they're much better off than these people are. At least they won't be brainwashed.
Can you imagine the New York Times being so respectful if Israel had a law like this on the books?
The international edition of the Daily Show, a weekly compilation of the best clips from Jon Stewart’s news satire program, did not air in Britain two weeks ago, as has been well-documented by the blog Mediaite.
Perplexed viewers, seeking answers, quickly found that the apparent programming error was in fact an act of censorship required by a British law, which prevents the use of footage of Parliament for satirical purposes.
In this case, the footage was used as part of a segment in which Mr. Stewart praised the back-and-forth debate that occurred in Parliament between members and Prime Minister David Cameron over the widening British phone hacking scandal. “England is awesome,” Mr. Stewart said after watching the clips in question.
...
But as a blog at the British magazine the New Statesman explained, “no extracts from parliamentary proceedings may be used in comedy shows or other light entertainment, such as political satire.”
And on Friday, an electronic petition — “Satire for the House of Commons” — was filed with the British government to change the law.
This petition aims to influence the Government to change the law allowing for images and sounds from any House of Commons debate to be used in a comedic and satirical manner. Currently, the law stipulates that such images and sounds cannot be used. Comedy and satire are increasingly becoming mainstream methods to express dissatisfaction with various policies, and it is a poor expression of the democratic right for the freedoms of speech and expression that this law is in place.
As of Friday afternoon, the idea had attracted 70 signatures from British citizens who evidently would like to see their representatives mocked with fewer restrictions.
In Israel, we actually do have a law that makes it a crime to be disrespectful to a public servant. Of course, given that one third of the country are public servants.....
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
