Anti-Semitism & the Labour Party

People seem to be very tribal. Travelling the world, it’s hard not to conclude that they’re almost all racist. Not necessarily vindictively so, but often even that. Even among the swelling ranks of Corbyn supporters, denouncing straw-man Conservatives for intolerance and xenophobia, it’s not uncommon to find surprisingly ethnically homogenous friendship groups, and a tendency to avoid substantive conversation — or, even, eye contact — when faced with someone speaking English as a second language.

For much of European history, Jewish communities were a major — if not the principal — target for racism. They’re not any more. They’re certainly not in the UK. Members of the white British Generation X know exactly whom the most nationalist, bigoted, and isolationist elements of society have goaded each other to tease, bully, deprecate, or tyrannise over the past thirty or forty years. And the targets are all more recent immigrant communities.

It’s not everything, but it’s not nothing, for me to say that at school through the 1980s and 1990s, I happily don’t recall a single incident of Jewish schoolfriends being a target for racism. By contrast, then and since, I can’t begin to recall the number of incidents that have left me winded over racism targeted at South Asian, Afro-Caribbean, or East Asian friends, partners, or even strangers.

In the South East of England, I had a harder time for being thin than my Jewish friends had for being Jewish. Other friends had a way harder time for having acne, or for being gay. Without doubt, experiences would have been different, and worse, for Jewish children living in more culturally homogenous enclaves, geographically adjacent to — but socially detached from — other British communities. Mine is an idiosyncratic account but, being the direct experience of over 40 years in provincial England, one that is hard for me to completely dismiss as a test of attitudes outside of particular regional flashpoints.

That there is a specifically anti-Jewish racism penetrating the UK body politic — something different to the racism that depressingly menaces relations between all communities — is a notion I’ve not experienced. That, I must emphatically convey, is not to claim that the crime has not been committed, but rather a confession that I can’t offer myself as witness to it.

That this particular strain of social pathology in endemic within the Labour Party membership — to an order that almost defines it demographically against the Conservative Party membership — seems an even more eccentric idea. It is, at best, a happily anachronistic anxiety. At worst, it’s a political device.

Many of us grew up with no axe to grind in the Middle East, had uninformed parents that were unable to make head nor tail of Middle East politics, and a mainstream media narrative that attributed the woes in Israel to a terrorist called Yasser Arafat, who hijacked planes, bombed civilians, and cackled at his victims’ demise like a cartoon villain.

Those of us that went on to discover that the region had a somewhat more complex past and present, unwittingly also went on to discover a second expanse of unchartered territory: that is, being on the receiving end of accusations of racism. Except not for the name-calling, teasing, or bullying that we’d witnessed on racial lines at school, but: for publicly demurring over Israeli government policy.

A surprising number of people support security policies in Israel that are so dramatically deleterious to Palestinian civic life that they would be unconscionable in Britain. And yet to criticise those policies, with no agenda beyond challenging a friendly nation to manage criminality with more civility, can put you in a uniquely invidious position. Protesting against issues such as ‘detention without trial’ — uncontroversial if levelled at, say, North Korea — weaves you into a discursive tapestry that, by merely following the path of your conscience, can leave you depicted as the xenophobe.

Ever present in this ethical and political labyrinth is the shadow of the Holocaust, and it’s easy to appreciate why. But the unprecedented, industrial scale of human suffering inflicted upon European Jewry less than a hundred years ago is not, first and foremost, a Jewish tragedy: it’s a human tragedy. Any greater ethnolinguistic affiliation I might have with the British prisoners of war working on the Burma Railway, than I do with Jewish families summarily murdered in Eastern European death camps, counts for nothing when reflecting on their fate. They’re all my cousins, and the horrors they endured rank equal to me — in empathy, in sorrow, in opprobrium, and in fact.

Any other view would be a benign version of the ethnic, cultural, or religious exceptionalism that, in its most malignant form, mandated the atrocities in the first place.

Ethnocentric fascists in the early 20th Century framed, and then blamed, ‘other people’ for society’s problems in an act of political expediency that won them a mandate, at the cost of millions slain. Each time lobbyists invoke pejoratives reserved for those ideologues — purveyors of among the most evil doctrines ever to have terrorised humanity — to institutions as benign as the modern-day Labour Party, another pillar of the history’s potency collapses.

The misuse of history’s most important lessons by the most conservative elements of Israel’s political defenders, in order to silence its most vocal critics, is squandering one of the most valuable pedagogical assets that humanity owes posterity.

Illustration © 2017 Rikki Hewitt

War Games on the Korean Peninsula

There’s a wealth of critical histories of the lives of British subjects during the colonial era. But if any of those histories presents a narrative that suggests the colonial system was primarily an abuse of power, an agent for rapacious politics and economics — or that the empire might have imposed itself upon its subjects at their exclusive cost, for the exclusive benefit of the imperial haute monde — it quickly becomes the subject of controversy. Niall Ferguson fumbles for his mobile to answer a Radio 4 producer, and gets ready for an early morning huff on the Today Programme, applauded by terraces of readers, fans, or otherwise indignant, besmirched listeners.

At the root of their rancour is, essentially, the assumption that the end justifies the means — be that proverbial end either: (a) railways; (b) a globalised economy; (c) political institutions; or (d) some other bequest sufficiently dignified or sexy to warrant trans-generational gratitude.

My principal contention with their contention is not ideological but, rather, the enduring lack of consistency. We see it each time the same constituency unites in a chorus of antipathy towards our political enemies. Reflecting on their own totalitarian past, they celebrate it, boast about it, eulogise and dramatise its most violent proponents, recreate and reminisce in endless lavish dramas for stage and screen, and neutralise its political toxicity by presenting it as an essential part of a process.

A process that, it’s claimed, led via Magna Carta, the Provisions of Oxford, and the Bill of Rights, to parliamentary democracy and, ultimately, to universal suffrage.

Faced with the Edwards of their political enemies, however, they pity their system, malign its beneficiaries, and advocate for its victims: first in sententious rhetoric, and later by bombing them.

Contrast, for example, mainstream opinion over the Kim family’s culpability for the North Korean famine with the same constituency’s opinion over the British Government’s culpability for the Bengal famine or, closer to home, the Irish famine. Most interesting is when you garner that opinion from those who openly confess to knowing very little about either. Try it at home! We’re peculiarly, and reliably, more tolerant of our own totalitarianism than others’.

Whilst making sense of whether we’re in the throws of a 21st Century Cuban Missile Crisis, it’s easy for amnesia to set in, in regard to how little we know about life in North Korea. The most interesting insights have been those that have challenged the western public’s received wisdom — with photos of normal people going about their lives in Pyongyang, candid photos of families playing at seaside resorts, or accounts of restaurant and market life on the Vladivostok border. As the growing montage of images of Pyongyang increasingly dispels visions of the dilapidated, Soviet-era basket-case city imagined by the western public, so the story grows of a city reserved for the privileged elite. Aren’t all cities?

North Korea is now, unambiguously, a nuclear state — so any ambitions, strategies, and actions based around preventing that outcome have failed, and US foreign policy must now be reframed. If there was ever a state for which ‘nuclear deterrent’ wasn’t simply a euphemism, it’s North Korea. Now with three children, Kim’s primary concern will be the continuation of his dynasty, which he well knows will end the day he invades his neighbours. So he will not. If a future smoking gun that triggered World War III on the Korean peninsula has North Korean fingerprints on it, they were put there by the PR agents of Kim’s enemies.

Left alone, the sociopolitical environment in North Korea will evolve, like it will everywhere else. Commentators and policymakers committed to the analysis that  holds that we mustn’t sit idle while North Korean citizens suffer — but must instead be ever-prepared to send our children to kill theirs — are part of the problem both here and there.

When the informational landscape is so sparse, as it is with North Korea, we should be suspicious when the public discourse is filled with more answers than questions. To some, North Korea may be intolerable; to some, it may simply be home; to others, it may be a source of pride. We could say the same of our contemporaries from Edwardian England. And perhaps Song China might have looked on in pity for England’s 13th Century peasants, and mused intervention with their greater social, political, and technological sophistication. How kindly do readers think imperialist Chinese warrior-philanthropists might have been received by England’s Plantagenet subjects?

Through our cultural lens, the dress, style, language, and tone of North Korea is one-dimensional, tyrannical, eccentric, absurd. North Korea continues to fulfil the stereotype of the Cold War Bond villain. Trump says, in opposition to the new South Korean president’s nascent policy of appeasement, that there’s only one thing that the North Koreans understand — one of the few Trumpian claims considered uncontroversial by the wider public. But, in its anxiety to survive, North Korean policy has exposed the bitter irony of that premise. In the superpower’s unwillingness to relinquish its monopoly on power in the Pacific, there’s only one language that US foreign policy understands. And, with a nuclear deterrent, Kim’s speaking it fluently.

‘Enough is Enough’

Beyond the immediate violence and horror of a terrorist attack, and its wider fallout, the last of its victims is always perspective. It’s designed to be.

For the desperately unfortunate minority directly affected by heinous acts of violence, that perspective might reasonably be unrecoverable. For the more fortunate majority, it’s essential it never slips from our grasp.

It seems that the sub-cerebral response of an alarming range of political figures—if someone’s stabbed, bombed, or shot by some petty criminal-turned suicidal zealot—is to ramp-up public surveillance, erode civil liberties, dismantle civil protections within the criminal justice system, rant about ‘cowardly acts’, and anthropomorphise cities.

I’m unclear whether that’s because certain policymakers perceive an opportunity in the lack of public perspective, or whether they simply lack perspective themselves. In either case, what’s even more worrying is that the public seems to be in a growing state of consensus with them — if not emulation.

Usefully, The Telegraph on Sunday cited some figures from the Global Terrorism Database, which are altogether more helpful than HM Government’s public statements for making sense of recent chaos:

UK Deaths Owing To Terrorism

15-year period Number of Deaths
2000-2015 90
1985-1999 1,094
1970-1984 2,211

To add further perspective, I looked up the Office for National Statistics’ figures on UK homicides, which record 518 murders in the UK in the year ending March, 2015. Of these, 186 victims were women, of which 82 were murdered by their partner or ex-partner. That was, continuing a decade-long trend, the lowest number of homicides in ten years.

So:

  • 2015 saw the lowest number of UK homicides in the late modern era.
  • In 2015, 82 women were murdered by their partner or ex-partner.
  • In the 15 years from 2000-2015, 90 people were murdered in terrorist incidents.

If it’s a question of quantum, heterosexual relationships appear to be a greater threat to public safety than extremist Islam, by a factor of 15.

Shouldn’t we be affording crimes of passion 15 times the disapprobation than we afford a crime of terror? Has the heterosexual community had too little to say on the subject, given the heinous atrocities committed by its members?

With the benefit of perspective, we readily attribute cases of criminal violence to a minority of nut-jobs who have fallen off the wagon, and park the problem with the criminal justice system. Without perspective, we readily attribute cases of criminal violence to a wider narrative, and seek solutions from law makers, rather than from law enforcement. The threat becomes quantified by column inches, social media real estate, and leveraged by pre-existing prejudices.

The threat of ‘Islamic terrorism’ has been a constant background noise in the informational world of western societies since 2001, and wider debate about the true nature, origins, and threats, is not one I’m suggesting that we mute. But, in the meantime, Khuram Butt’s decision to watch the Champion’s League final, and then embark on a murder-suicide rampage in a hired van, simply must not be used to calibrate civil liberties. And if Abedi’s murder of 23 people in Manchester alters someone’s perceptions of British Muslims, more than Harold Shipman’s murder of over 230 people alters their perceptions of white British GPs, we need to understand why.

Scheherezade came to Sindbad

(Rotate phone to view.)

Scheherazade came to Sindbad, as a refugee,
To face an unforgiving prince and a sleepless Grand Vizier.
Through wind-swept dunes of golden sand, her painted feet, his steady hand,
Lead from Baghdad to Samarkand, where freedom’s prayers disappear.
Her lips, tongue, majesty and youth whisper in the Sultan’s ear;
Softly, but in fear.

Adorned with Persian jewels and gold, and skin barely fifteen years old,
She smiths the words and spins the yarns that define her young career;
From all beneath her golden lace—the trembling lips of her veiled face—
Spawns a world of wonder and grace the nation’s longing to hear,
Of seven wondrous voyages, sailing out from bristling pier,
Carried by her fear.

Arabian waters glisten, arresting Shahryar to listen,
As audience, with her hero, sails from Basra to Tangier—
To every place waxed for her groom, whilst confined to his lavish room.
Her final day seems ever to loom, each week and month and year;
Draped in silk and fur he lays, offering to her mouth his ear,
Heedless of her fear.

Through bracing waves of cobalt sea, on rugged course to set her free,
Sindbad’s theft, murder and greed is honed to serve the sultan’s cheer;
Monstrous beasts and riches unseen in kingdom, palace, or harem,
Lure him from his murderous scheme, ending those he holds most dear,
Strangled under the furrowed brows from which muscled eunuchs leer –
Luridly, and in fear.

Enthroned behind the Tak Kasra, lounging in greed, the Shahanshah,
His corpulence and avarice suited just to mock and jeer;
Yet his alone, that mouth so sweet bids aching loins to moist retreat,
Fair oasis in desert heat, at his call she will appear;
Apostle of freedom, yes, but: at his disposal, I’m clear;
Yet comely, in fear.

Reflected in the sultan’s eyes the youth and splendour of her naked thighs,
While he ponders on bearded jinn imprisoned by lamp and word;
The captor I beg she despise, in constant fear of his reprise,
Exhausted now, it’s no surprise—nor to you, or so I’ve heard—
His garden of Persian virgins; by her alone now he’s stirred,
Fear, to him, absurd.

Hero, brigand, from her mind’s eye, each of them one other than I,
In alleys, shadows, desert and seas with dirk, sabre and spear;
On horseback, armed with shield and mace, to press the sultan’s fall from grace,
Herself remaining barely chaste, to her breast my thoughts so near;
Preserved each night, by me at least, in—I implore, I’m quite sincere—
Deference to her fear.

With a luscious, languid, lustrous form and Sal al Din’s panache,
Little memory of her sister, or her fretful father’s waxed moustache,
Goes she:
Through Arabian peninsula, Maghreb, and far from here,
A thousand nights to share her creed, pharmakon for the sultan’s greed,
His wealth the crop of slavery’s seed, purloined from subject and peer:
The land before the wells turned black in the call to prayer we hear —
Spoke always in fear.

Mouthed in a voice that falls like silk, warm with the wine, sick of his milk,
Come the savage brutes and beasts our protagonist plied to rear
From plaits and pearls and painted lips, and gold, threading over her hips,
In Hanging Gardens where she sips from fountains on every tier;
Her patience, virtue, silver tongue, the unbridled masses cheer,
Sanguine, but, in fear.

Shipwrecked again, truth aptly wanes,
Ne’er a lie, yet: just myth remains.

In her satin ribbons and bows, and unearthly lack of other clothes,
With sailor saved from slavery and the porter from his sneer,
She laces bells on painted feet and, golden skin kissed by the heat,
She ventures desert dunes to greet the equivocal Grand Vizier;
A possible epiphany; in prayer for a sign;
Between the Tigris and Euphrates a garden at last benign;
In their hope and, surely, fear,
But more likely just in mine.

— RM

Geneva

This is no letter that Endymion wrote,
But is to one I loved, in secret —
Occasionally together, now always apart.
And thence the weight of a withered heart:
Impassioned to lobby devoid ballot or vote —
Entreating in the mouth, drying in the throat.
There’s been little to liken myself with this part
Of the world known more for aspiration than art;
Till both had no you to look upon and gloat.

— RM

Joe Biden’s teeth

Joe Biden’s teeth used to fascinate me. I recall watching Joe sweep into the theatre at Centre College, Danville, for the Vice Presidential debate leading up to the 2012 election, and actually laughing out loud at his coruscating smile. A real-life emoticon.

😀

When his easy smile breaks into that pearly grin, it’s like sticking magnesium ribbon into a Bunsen burner.

Arriving home too pissed to sleep, ‘Joe Biden’s teeth’ was a staple Google search to kill some time whilst waiting for my bedroom to knock off the Ferris wheel act. I quickly discovered the domain name had been registered. I can’t honestly say it’s worth a visit, but it’s worth knowing it’s there:

http://www.joebidensteeth.com

Now, only five years on, I’m looking at my own teeth languishing in their pyrrhic victory against my three favourite drugs: red wine, espresso, and English tea. Everyone told me to expect, with age, that my fascination with late nights and alcohol would wither and wane. I ultimately realised they were confusing the effects of age with the effects of having children and, in doing so, failed to mention stained teeth. But, far worse, nobody mentioned that by 2017 it would be normal to look like Joe.

A Google search for ‘why do English have…’ always used to autocomplete with ‘yellow teeth’ — a suggestion that barely ranks in the top five now that, increasingly, they don’t. Instagram’s cultural reach has normalised American values in Britain. While I’ve been busy sneering at the obsession with cosmetic surgery abroad, a bustling population of homegrown vain selfie-philes have been queuing for clinical help to emulate Kendall Jenner’s pout. The Donald’s phosphorescent teeth Trump old Joe’s, and yet it’s only the tangerine skin that gets a mention.

Well, I’ve a dental appointment when I get back to the UK, and—you guessed it—I’m going to gingerly open dialogue on how to wrest my teeth back from the clutches of my vices. It seems I’m too proud to embrace the symptoms, although I’m not proud to admit the remedy. I promise to be sufficiently subtle that you’ll barely notice the difference. No Bidenator iPhone flash smile. No magnesium ribbon flare. Just back where I was in 2012. That’s all. I’ve explored the possibility of claiming that it’s ‘for me’, but I just can’t pull that guff off. It’ll be for vanity. That means it’s for you lot. So I thought you ought to know. 

Putin led scheme to aid Trump —NYT

15940537_1209722709107796_7956175523737667264_n

I’d already seen the FT’s version of this headline on my phone before opening my hotel door early this afternoon. In fact, I’d managed to incorporate the 25-page ‘intelligence report’ into my hangover-recovery ritual.

Having been dragged wide-eyed and open-mouthed through the unrestrained politicisation of intelligence dossiers in the lead up to the Second Gulf War, this contrived establishment soliloquy was only too familiar.

The Olympian effort to bind together the Clinton campaign’s favourite bogeymen—Trump and Putin—is clearly not going to end gracefully. In the meantime, I think the US establishment is making a grave error in its decision to continue trying to manage public opinion by attempting to inflict a Carthaginian peace upon its populist upstart adversaries.

The hacked emails were received and published by Wikileaks. If there’s an agenda behind their publication, isn’t it reasonable to consider whether it might have been Wikileaks’ agenda? Apparently not, given that there’s no mention of Wikileaks’ own agenda throughout the report. That doesn’t warrant a thought, it seems: all we need to know is that its publication served Putin’s agenda.

It’s also unworthy of any mention that the information was true, and gave the public a unique insight into what the senior Clinton campaign managers say to each other behind the public’s back. Information that democracy purists might even suggest would enhance the democratic process. Certainly, the Clinton campaign worked indefatigably to reveal behind-the-scenes insight into their opponent’s world. But that’s just not relevant, apparently: Revealing to the public accurate information about what the Clinton campaign says to itself served only—according to the intelligence report—to ‘denigrate Secretary Clinton, and hurt her electability’.

I mean… seriously? If the goal here is to diminish Trump’s chances of a second term, these dealers need to relearn their poker.

♠️

The new role for business in a fairer Britain

Mrs May, in a surprise contribution to Sunday’s FT (https://www.ft.com/con…/12a839d4-af18-11e6-a37c-f4a01f1b0fa1), enjoined businesses to work together with government to, I quote: ‘maintain confidence in a system that has delivered unprecedented levels of wealth and opportunity, lifted millions out of poverty around the world, brought nations closer together, improved standards of living and consumer choice, and underpinned the rules-based international system that has been key to global prosperity and security for so long…’

She’s referring, of course, to free market capitalism. Or, more pointedly, to combating what she perceives as voters’ loss of confidence in the system. Voters are, she worries, resentful of unequal distribution of wealth, and perhaps perceive a rigged establishment with tax-avoiding corporations, tax-avoiding non-dom shareholders, and stratospheric financial sector bonuses awarded for taking risks that are underwritten by the taxpayer. Fair enough: they’re all good reasons for voters to be unhappy.

Except, how unhappy are they? Are voters really losing confidence in the system?

May is reading the electorate’s mood through the prism of Brexit. She will likely always be condemned to do so. For Mrs May, Brexit is the drug from Plato’s Pharmacy: a poison that paralysed the establishment, yet a remedy for her ambition to ascend the establishment’s most senior office. Through this lens, the referendum, Trump, the resurgence of populist politics across the Western hemisphere, represent iconoclastic, anti-establishment movements.

Which, in fact, they’re not. Voters still aren’t much interested in politics and economics. The anti-establishment theme is almost accidental. Voters are just having an identity crisis.

Trump the… Klansman?

When Donald Trump first seriously considered a presidential bid, back in 1999, it was as the prospective leader of the Reform Party. He resigned from the Republican Party at that time, saying ‘I really believe the Republicans are just too crazy right’.

Trump described the anticipated leader of the Reform Party, Pat Buchanan, as ‘a Hitler lover’, and the candidate of the ‘really staunch right wacko vote’, adding, ‘I guess he’s an anti-Semite…He doesn’t like blacks, he doesn’t like gays – it’s just incredible that anybody could embrace this guy’. (http://partners.nytimes.com/…/po…/camp/whouse/ref-trump.html.)

In February the following year, Trump declared that he wouldn’t pursue a leadership bid for the Reform Party, saying ‘Now I understand that David Duke has decided to join the Reform Party to support the candidacy of Pat Buchanan. So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman (Mr Duke); a Neo-Nazi (Mr Buchanan); and a Communist (Ms Fulani). This is not company I wish to keep.’ (https://www2.gwu.edu/~action/trumpout.html).

At that time, Trump was interviewed on the same subject by NBC’s Matt Lauer, who asked, ‘What do you see as the biggest problem with the Reform Party right now?’ To which Trump replied: ‘Well, you’ve got David Duke just joined — a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party.’

Either (a) Donald Trump has recently converted to the Klan’s cause, or (b) his Klan affiliations—purported singularly by his reaction to journalists over David Duke’s endorsement—are campaign bullshit. It’s not hard to decry Trump on policy: Why stoop to the lazy ass, sensationalist propaganda effort? What happened to ‘When they go low’, etc.?

Trump’s a populist, anti-immigration politician. The stable of ascendent right-wing leaders throughout Europe and beyond may quickly find that their similarity with him ends there. His Republican opponents for the candidacy circled him relentlessly on the opposite claim: that he was secretly a New York liberal — a Democrat wolf in Republican sheep’s clothing.

If the social media mood’s right, we’ll see Hillary in jail next year. If Rubio and Cruz were right, we won’t.