24 May 2011: West Dumbartonshire , Scotland, County Council has enacted a law banning books printed or published in Israel.
Heinrich Heine "Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings." ("Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen.")
___________________
Picture a small cottage in West Dumbartonshire, some time in the summer of 2011. It is midnight and there is a fierce knocking on the door. Sarah, fearfully, in her dressing gown, peers through the window.
“Who is it?”
“Nothing to worry about , Madam, just a mere formal enquiry.”
She opens the door to the two policemen standing outside.
“Madam, I am Sergeant McTaggart and this is my assistant, Hamish McGivern. Would I be correct in assuming that this is a Jewish household?”
“Well, ...” Sarah is hesitant.
“No worries, Madam, but we have information that leads us to believe that you may be in possession of illegal material.”
“Illegal material? There is nothing of that nature here.” Sarah is nonplussed.
“Well, Madam, we have reason to believe that there may be Jewish books, or, more specifically books published in “ – here the Sergeant steels himself to pronounce the word –“Israel, in your possession. No? Perhaps a Hebrew Bible, or...whatever.” McTaggart is clearly not totally familiar with what is, after all, a new area of police enquiry.
“Well, we do have an old family bible from my grandparents, but we’re really not very Jewish...”
“No problem, Madame. Could we possibly have a look at this, er, family bible?”
“Certainly, sergeant”.
Sarah rummages in a cupboard, and comes up with a large dog-eared volume.
“Thank you, Madame.” McTaggart thumbs through the volume, initially in the wrong sense, and then happens on the flyleaf.
“I see that this book was published in Jerusalem. Would that be West Jerusalem or East Jerusalem, Madame?” McTaggart has clearly been through the police Forbidden Book Section’s orientation course.
Sarah is at a loss here. “We’re not all that Jewish, you know. I got it from my grandparents and...” Her voice drops off.
“I’m sorry, Madame, but we shall have to impound this volume. If it is found to contravene the Illegal Material (Books) Statute24052011 we shall, I very much regret, have to dispose of it in the specified manner. Now – do you have anything else you would like to show me. Let me advise you that you are already in contravention of the Statute and may be faced with serious penalties if you are found to be concealing any further illegal material. “
Sarah is now trembling nervously. “I’m sorry, I really didn’t know...”
“Madame, ignorance of the law is not a defence. Please, I insist, show me any other material of this nature that you have, otherwise Hamish here will return very shortly with a search warrant, and I can assure you that we will not miss anything.”
Sarah begins to weep. “My late father left an old Hebrew prayer book...I’ll get it from the loft.”
She returns and hands a rather dusty book to McTaggart, who looks at the latest find.
“Hmmm. I see that this was published in London, so it may be OK. But, just to be sure, we will take it along in any case. You don’t want any more trouble, Madame, do you?”
The policemen make to leave, when McTaggart spots a metal cylinder attached to the doorpost.
“Would this be what is termed a Mezzuzah, Madame?” He has really been an apt pupil at the banned books section training course.
Sarah looks through her tears. “I don’t really know. When my parents passed on they left me the house, and I didn’t want to remove it – I thought it was a good luck charm or something..”.
“That’s as may be – but as like as not this contains material which was made in - again McTaggart’s voice trembles slightly before pronouncing the accursed word – Israel. We shall have to take this away. Hamish, get the crowbar. Sorry we inconvenienced you, Madame, but really, I am afraid that you should have known better than to retain such material in your possession. I hope the magistrate will take a lenient view as this is probably a first offence. Good evening.”
And with that the policemen were gone.
But that is only the beginning......
Saturday, 2 July 2011
Monday, 4 April 2011
Geneva International Jewish Film Festival 2011
I attended the first Geneva International Jewish Film Festival last week (23-27 March 2011). Based on the UK equivalent, founded by Judy Ironside, the selection of films was of an internationally high standard and in most instances the director or key actor was present to engage with the audience in discussion. Particularly moving was Inside Hanna’s Suitcase, the story of the journey of the curator of a small Holocaust education centre in Japan to discover the story of a suitcase left from the mass murder. Director Larry Weinstein enthralled an audience of schoolchildren who participated in a vigorous question-and-answer session after the showing. Also notable was the award-winning Czech film Protektor, set in German-occupied Prague of the Thirties. I had the good fortune to interview Jana Plodkova, whose performance as the Jewish wife of a radio presenter won her Best Actress in the Czech Film Academy Awards.
Another notable film was Precious Life, which tells the true story of the an Israeli doctor’s fight to save the life of Mohammed Abu Mustafa, a four-month-old Palestinian infant from Gaza who suffers from a genetic disorder in his immune system. This film was short-listed in the 83rd Academy Awards for Best Documentary. The doctor, Dr. Raz Somech, was present to answer questions.
Finally, an excellent film The Matchmaker directed by Israeli Avi Nesher, who was also present to answer questions about his film, ended an excellent filmic feast.
There were 17 films in all, of which I managed to get to see13! For a full listing of the films see the festival Homepage.
The Festival was a total sell-out, which augurs well for future events in what promises to be an annual series.
Monday, 14 March 2011
At last – a great victory for Arab heroes
The protracted military operations in Libya, with neither side yet achieving ultimate victory in spite of the great material superiority of the pro-Gaddafi forces, have proved somewhat of an embarrassment to the reputation of Arab fighting prowess. But one recent success at least has shown what the Arab fighting machine is still capable of.
On Saturday night 12th March 2011, while they slept in their beds, five members of an Israeli family were killed; the parents , two boys, one aged eleven and a toddler of three and, greatest success of all, a three-month old baby who had her throat slashed. It really takes some courage to cut the throat of a three-month-old but, as she was sleeping at the time, this was probably not beyond the ability of a well-trained Arab militant.
It is not often that our Arab friends can claim a great heroic victory, but this event showed what they are really capable of when they try. Celebrations resounded throughout Gaza, with celebratory sweets being handed out. Doubtless this epic feat will be commemorated by the naming of squares and football teams, the striking of medals, and long-lasting adulation throughout the Arab world.
Israeli babies – tremble in your cots. You have met your match!
On Saturday night 12th March 2011, while they slept in their beds, five members of an Israeli family were killed; the parents , two boys, one aged eleven and a toddler of three and, greatest success of all, a three-month old baby who had her throat slashed. It really takes some courage to cut the throat of a three-month-old but, as she was sleeping at the time, this was probably not beyond the ability of a well-trained Arab militant.
It is not often that our Arab friends can claim a great heroic victory, but this event showed what they are really capable of when they try. Celebrations resounded throughout Gaza, with celebratory sweets being handed out. Doubtless this epic feat will be commemorated by the naming of squares and football teams, the striking of medals, and long-lasting adulation throughout the Arab world.
Israeli babies – tremble in your cots. You have met your match!
Thursday, 3 March 2011
Cameron on Democracy
By his insensitive excursion to a Middle East aflame with insurrection in an attempt to bolster – of all things – arms sales, David Cameron has shown a complete lack of understanding of feelings in that area. But worse, Cameron exhibits total ignorance of what “democracy” means, arguing that dismissing the Muslim world as unsuited to democracy amounts to “prejudice bordering on racism”.
Democracy is not the mere counting of ballots. By that measure, Adolph Hitler, who was elected democratically and – if the newsreels of the époque are anything to go by – was adored by the German people – was one of the most democratic leaders in history.
No. Democratic governance should reflect the will of the majority while respecting the aspirations of the minority. It is in this sense that democracy is indeed incompatible with Islam. The true Muslim believer can never respect the faiths of his non-Muslim fellow citizens; this is expressly ruled out by the Koran, which relegates such, at best, to ‘dhimmitude’, a subservient position with regard to that of the Muslim. That is why a gathering of two million Egyptians in Tahrir Square, shouting in unison “Together we march on Jerusalem”, cannot be described as a step towards democracy.
Democracy is not the mere counting of ballots. By that measure, Adolph Hitler, who was elected democratically and – if the newsreels of the époque are anything to go by – was adored by the German people – was one of the most democratic leaders in history.
No. Democratic governance should reflect the will of the majority while respecting the aspirations of the minority. It is in this sense that democracy is indeed incompatible with Islam. The true Muslim believer can never respect the faiths of his non-Muslim fellow citizens; this is expressly ruled out by the Koran, which relegates such, at best, to ‘dhimmitude’, a subservient position with regard to that of the Muslim. That is why a gathering of two million Egyptians in Tahrir Square, shouting in unison “Together we march on Jerusalem”, cannot be described as a step towards democracy.
Monday, 21 February 2011
Arab world awash with revolt and massacre - and the UN acts at last.
During the recent rioting in Libya, a Benghazi doctor appeared on Aljazeera television, describing the wholesale massacre of his fellow-citizens who were protesting peacefully, murdered by heavy weapon fire. "Where is the United Nations, where is the Human Rights council?", he cried out.
He need not have worried. The UN Security Council has indeed been in action.
In Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Algeria, Jordan and Iran, protests have been held, with what must now total thousands of peaceful protestors being murdered on the streets!
But the UN has not been inactive.
At last the Security Council has met - to do what?
To condemn Israel for wishing to build a few homes in its capital city, Jerusalem.
Perhaps this is not totally surprising. All the above-named autocratic tyrannies - Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Algeria, Jordan and Iran - have been members of the Security Council. Israel has never been invited to join this august body.
So, as this eminent group of 14 po-faced imbeciles gathered solemnly around the table to condemn Israel - with the cries of the massacred citizens of at least eight Middle-Eastern and North-African regimes screaming in their ears -only the 15th member, the United States, represented by Ambassador Susan Rice, saw what a complete charade the whole shoddy business was, and applied its veto.
No surprise too that the United Kingdom voted with the condemnation; its brain-impaired Foreign Minister William Hague had already condemned Israel for "belligerency" during the Egyptian uprising. (Don't try to figure this out - put it down to congenital madness.)
The UN must collectively go down on its knees daily to thank God for Israel. Without Israel, what would there be for it to do?
He need not have worried. The UN Security Council has indeed been in action.
In Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Algeria, Jordan and Iran, protests have been held, with what must now total thousands of peaceful protestors being murdered on the streets!
But the UN has not been inactive.
At last the Security Council has met - to do what?
To condemn Israel for wishing to build a few homes in its capital city, Jerusalem.
Perhaps this is not totally surprising. All the above-named autocratic tyrannies - Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Algeria, Jordan and Iran - have been members of the Security Council. Israel has never been invited to join this august body.
So, as this eminent group of 14 po-faced imbeciles gathered solemnly around the table to condemn Israel - with the cries of the massacred citizens of at least eight Middle-Eastern and North-African regimes screaming in their ears -only the 15th member, the United States, represented by Ambassador Susan Rice, saw what a complete charade the whole shoddy business was, and applied its veto.
No surprise too that the United Kingdom voted with the condemnation; its brain-impaired Foreign Minister William Hague had already condemned Israel for "belligerency" during the Egyptian uprising. (Don't try to figure this out - put it down to congenital madness.)
The UN must collectively go down on its knees daily to thank God for Israel. Without Israel, what would there be for it to do?
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
Lies, Damned Lies and The Guardian
Consider the following headline as it might appear in a newspaper:
________________________
Suspect: “I killed my neighbour”
Yesterday local police interviewed Mr Joe Bloggs following the death of his neighbour. He told our reporter “ I killed my neighbour”.
(End of story.)
____________________
Suppose now that the actual words said by Mr Bloggs to the reporter were:
"The police believe I killed my neighbour. I swear to you, it’s totally untrue – I really liked the guy and would do nothing to hurt him.”
__________________________________________
Note that the first quotation, as it might be used by a mendacious newspaper, is 100% accurate – the words cited are indeed (some of ) the words used by Mr Bloggs.
If you believe that such malicious reporting is impossible by a newspaper such as the Guardian, well, think again. The newspaper would not get away with it in a court of English Law. But when it comes to Israel and the Guardian, anything goes.
______________
'The Israel policy is to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we'll say that it is impossible, we already have the land and cannot create the state.' Tzipi Livni, then Israeli foreign minister
____________________________________________________ The paper now acknowledges that the actual words of Israel’s one-time Foreign Minister were:
__________________________________
"I understand the sentiments of the Palestinians when they see the settlements being built. The meaning from the Palestinian perspective is that Israel takes more land, that the Palestinian state will be impossible, the Israel policy is to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we'll say that it is impossible, we already have the land and cannot create the state."
On February 12th the paper, in a small aside, acknowledged that their selective quote, as given above the correct version, “may have given a misleading impression”. Hats off to Just Journalism for squeezing this reluctant admission from the Guardian.
May have given a misleading impression? If it is the Guardian’s intention to foster hatred of the Jewish state, they are doing a very good job. However, if they believe that anyone can now take seriously anything they report on Israeli politics - well – they have just blown it.
________________________
Suspect: “I killed my neighbour”
Yesterday local police interviewed Mr Joe Bloggs following the death of his neighbour. He told our reporter “ I killed my neighbour”.
(End of story.)
____________________
Suppose now that the actual words said by Mr Bloggs to the reporter were:
"The police believe I killed my neighbour. I swear to you, it’s totally untrue – I really liked the guy and would do nothing to hurt him.”
__________________________________________
Note that the first quotation, as it might be used by a mendacious newspaper, is 100% accurate – the words cited are indeed (some of ) the words used by Mr Bloggs.
If you believe that such malicious reporting is impossible by a newspaper such as the Guardian, well, think again. The newspaper would not get away with it in a court of English Law. But when it comes to Israel and the Guardian, anything goes.
Here is an account by the Guardian of the “words” of Mrs Tzipi Livni, Israel's former foreign minister, taken from the Aljazeera-leaked Palestine Papers, as reported on the 24 January 2011: |  |
'The Israel policy is to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we'll say that it is impossible, we already have the land and cannot create the state.' Tzipi Livni, then Israeli foreign minister
____________________________________________________ The paper now acknowledges that the actual words of Israel’s one-time Foreign Minister were:
__________________________________
"I understand the sentiments of the Palestinians when they see the settlements being built. The meaning from the Palestinian perspective is that Israel takes more land, that the Palestinian state will be impossible, the Israel policy is to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we'll say that it is impossible, we already have the land and cannot create the state."
On February 12th the paper, in a small aside, acknowledged that their selective quote, as given above the correct version, “may have given a misleading impression”. Hats off to Just Journalism for squeezing this reluctant admission from the Guardian.
May have given a misleading impression? If it is the Guardian’s intention to foster hatred of the Jewish state, they are doing a very good job. However, if they believe that anyone can now take seriously anything they report on Israeli politics - well – they have just blown it.
Monday, 14 February 2011
One, two, three, or four-state solution?
Recently the Board of Deputies, the UK's "Jewish parliament", voted on a resolution concerning an approach to the Mid-East peace process. By a large majority, they defeated a proposal by the executive which, inter alia, called for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The totally justified reasoning behind this rejection was the feeling that it is not up to Diaspora Jews to prescribe what solution should be adopted by the Israeli government to problems which, in essence, affect their own citizens.
However, an additional reason might well be offered: namely, the two-state solution seems only one of many possible outcomes - and by no means the most likely. For example, it is entirely possible to envisage 1,2,3 or even 4-state solutions.
One state solution: This is the one favoured by the Islamic world - a national entity including essentially the current boundaries of Israel and the Palestinian Authority with a single government. Demographically, this would rapidly become just another Muslim state in the area, removing what many Muslims consider a blot on the otherwise totally Islamic texture of the region. This joining-up of two different ethnic or religious groups within the one area is precisely the opposite of what was done, for example, in the case of India and Pakistan in order to avoid internecine strife. This particular end of the Jewish nature of Israel – another ”final solution” - is likely to be resisted by the government of Israel, and so it won’t happen.
Two-state solution: The mantra of a two-state solution is currently being chanted by all the pundits. This completely disregards the wishes of the democratically-elected government of Gaza – and the fact that Hamas is totally opposed to such an outcome. In their speeches to their publics in Arabic it also appears that this would not be a satisfactory ultimate outcome for the Fatah rulers in the PA. Given the situation in Gaza vis-à-vis Israel, after Israel’s withdrawal from that strip of land, it is not clear that anything other than a totally disarmed region would be acceptable to most Israelis either – and unlikely that the PA would accept such restrictions.
Three-state solution: Given the ferocity of the enmity between Hamas and Fatah, it is unlikely that these two groups could co-exist within the same national entity. This opens up the possibility of three co-existing states; Israel, a PA-ruled region -essentially what is termed the West Bank – and a Hamas-ruled Gaza.
Four-state solution: It is estimated that at least half of Jordan’s citizens are Palestinians. The “Jordan option” has always been considered as a viable one, but is mainly resisted by Arabs who see this as a reduction of their territorial claims to the whole region, if it is considered as the only state for Palestinians. But with the addition of the West Bank and Gaza, this would seem a generous area to fulfill Palestinian ambitions. Given the recent upheaval in Egypt, and the resulting echoes in Jordan, it is by no means impossible that the Palestinian residents of that state would express their desire for autonomy, as a step towards the creation of their own state.
So, with a bit of lateral thinking, it is clear that a two-state solution is not the only one, and perhaps not even the most viable one.
However, an additional reason might well be offered: namely, the two-state solution seems only one of many possible outcomes - and by no means the most likely. For example, it is entirely possible to envisage 1,2,3 or even 4-state solutions.
One state solution: This is the one favoured by the Islamic world - a national entity including essentially the current boundaries of Israel and the Palestinian Authority with a single government. Demographically, this would rapidly become just another Muslim state in the area, removing what many Muslims consider a blot on the otherwise totally Islamic texture of the region. This joining-up of two different ethnic or religious groups within the one area is precisely the opposite of what was done, for example, in the case of India and Pakistan in order to avoid internecine strife. This particular end of the Jewish nature of Israel – another ”final solution” - is likely to be resisted by the government of Israel, and so it won’t happen.
Two-state solution: The mantra of a two-state solution is currently being chanted by all the pundits. This completely disregards the wishes of the democratically-elected government of Gaza – and the fact that Hamas is totally opposed to such an outcome. In their speeches to their publics in Arabic it also appears that this would not be a satisfactory ultimate outcome for the Fatah rulers in the PA. Given the situation in Gaza vis-à-vis Israel, after Israel’s withdrawal from that strip of land, it is not clear that anything other than a totally disarmed region would be acceptable to most Israelis either – and unlikely that the PA would accept such restrictions.
Three-state solution: Given the ferocity of the enmity between Hamas and Fatah, it is unlikely that these two groups could co-exist within the same national entity. This opens up the possibility of three co-existing states; Israel, a PA-ruled region -essentially what is termed the West Bank – and a Hamas-ruled Gaza.
Four-state solution: It is estimated that at least half of Jordan’s citizens are Palestinians. The “Jordan option” has always been considered as a viable one, but is mainly resisted by Arabs who see this as a reduction of their territorial claims to the whole region, if it is considered as the only state for Palestinians. But with the addition of the West Bank and Gaza, this would seem a generous area to fulfill Palestinian ambitions. Given the recent upheaval in Egypt, and the resulting echoes in Jordan, it is by no means impossible that the Palestinian residents of that state would express their desire for autonomy, as a step towards the creation of their own state.
So, with a bit of lateral thinking, it is clear that a two-state solution is not the only one, and perhaps not even the most viable one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)