Tuesday 21 August 2012

Media Studies #1: GOEBELLIAN / SNOW - JOB

Media studies  #1 GOEBELLIAN / SNOW - JOB 

From Geoff Seidner

In due course I may make more detailed comments on this important article below by the esteemed Barry Rubin . For now look merely at Rubin's line quoted below:

''I’m going to focus on a single point because it brings this problem into sharp focus.''

As far as this writer is concerned this ''single point'' plainly relates to one of the major media manipulations of our time. Our enemies use the GOEBELLIAN / SNOW - JOB  technique of multiple gross distortions.

Sadly derivatives of the Snow - Job works brilliantly.

  1. The obvious corollary to lies and big lies is obvious.
  2. Less obvious is the 'SNOW - JOB' technique whereby there are too many lies, distortions and disparate aberrations to debunk. 
  3. Furthermore a single lie - or whatever one calls it - requires prolix analysis. And given the attention - span*** of the above or below average person - our cause is usually lost before we start. Call it unfair - but note nevertheless that the plebian may read the original - but will not bother with the  correct interpretation bebunking it.
  4. Worse: the average person thinks the issue is debatable - one side says this / vs that from the other.
  5. THAT IS WHY BARRY RUBIN'S SIMPLE LINE IS SO IMPORTANT: BECAUSE IT ELICITS INTEREST IN A SINGLE THEME! 
  6. RUBIN I GUESS COULD HAVE THEORETICALLY GONE FURTHER - AND MENTIONED THAT EACH WORD, PHRASE, LINE IN HIS ARTICLE IS TO BE TAKEN AS AN ITEM TO BE DISPROVEN IF INDEED IT CAN BE DISPROVEN! AND DISPROVING IT DEMANDS NO DIVERSIONS TO UNRELATED CLAP - TRAP - WHICH IN THEMSELVES COULD BE DISPROVEN AS WELL -  IF THE SOW - JOB TECHNIQUE DID NOT UNFAIRLY  MILITATE AGAINST AND CONTRA  - INDICATE IN ANY RATIONAL CONTEXT. HO HUM................. I AM SENDING MYSELF UP!!
  7. This stream to be continued when I have more time.
***The reason for this is that the world has changed - people use all sorts of excuses for not being interested in the all - important detail: any subject on the internet is overladen with material that is impossible for anyone to absorb. Debates on Israel are not important as barbeque stoppers.

Post - modernism also does not help: it effectively vitiates absolute truth.

Geoff Seidner


http://www.gloria-center.org/2012/08/why-is-israel-more-prosperous-than-the-palestinians/?utm_source=activetrail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email


Why Is Israel More Prosperous than the Palestinians?

In almost 40 years of studying these issues, I’ve never seen a better case study of mass media bias and knee-jerk narrowness than an aspect of the current flap about what presidential candidate Mitt Romney said during his trip to Israel. I’m going to focus on a single point because it brings this problem into sharp focus.
If you truly understand what you are about to read, I don’t see how you can accord most of the mass media any credibility when it comes to Israel ever again. Briefly, Romney mentioned the gap between the Israeli and Palestinian economies — ironically, he vastly understated the gap — and attributed it to “culture,” by which he meant, as Romney has said elsewhere, such things as democracy, individual liberty, free enterprise, and the rule of law.
But I’m not talking about Romney here or the media’s critique of him. What is interesting is this: How do you explain the reason why Israel is so more advanced in terms of economy, technology, and living standards? The media generally rejected Romney’s explanation and pretty much all made the same point. To quote the Associated Press story, that was:
Comparison of the two economies did not take into account the stifling effect the Israeli occupation has had on the Palestinian economy in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem—areas Israel captured in 1967 where the Palestinians hope to establish a state.
In the West Bank, Palestinians have only limited self-rule. Israel controls all border crossings in and out of the territory, and continues to restrict Palestinian trade and movement. Israel annexed east Jerusalem in 1967, but has invested much less heavily there than in Jewish west Jerusalem.
Or, in other words, it’s all Israel’s fault. Yet in choosing to blame Israel, the media generally showed no interest at all in additional factors which are equally, or far more, valid.
I’m not suggesting that journalists and editors thought through the following list of factors and deliberately decided not to mention them. I think that these things never entered their minds. Yet how can that be? Some of these points require knowledge of the situation on the ground and its history. Still, many should be obvious to those who have read past newspaper accounts or just use logic, not to mention research.
Consider the points made below. You might count them for less, but anyone honest should admit that they add up to a compelling case:
1. The most devastating problem for the Palestinian economy has been the leadership’s refusal to make peace with Israel and to get a state. Most notably, the opportunities thrown away in 1948, 1979, and 2000 doomed both countries to years of suffering, casualties, and lower development. Today, in 2012, both Palestinian leaderships — Fatah and Hamas — continue this strategy.
2. Statistics show major advances in the West Bank and Gaza Strip during the period of Israeli occupation. A lot of money also came in from Palestinians working in Israel (or to a surprising extent on the Jewish settlements).
3. The media should be expected to explain why Israel interfered at all once, by around 1994, almost all West Bank and Gaza Palestinians were under Palestinian rule. The reason, of course, was Palestinian violence against Israel and Israelis. If there had not been such attacks, Israeli forces would not have set foot in Palestinian-ruled areas. Stability would have encouraged development and foreign investment. There would be no roadblocks. Incidentally, roadblocks and restrictions on travel have changed constantly and at times of relative quiet became almost non-existent. Of course, Israel maintained control of the borders to prevent weapons from coming in.
4. There was a large transfer of funds (as provided in the Oslo agreement, but PA behavior did not make Israel violate the agreement) from Israel to the PA regarding refunds on customs duties and workers’ fringe benefits.
5.The well-documented incompetence and corruption of the Palestinian Authority. For example, there is no reliable body of law that a company could depend on there. Bribes determine who gets contracts. Literally billions of dollars have been stolen and mostly ended up in the European accounts of Palestinian leaders.
6. And where did those billions of dollars come from? They came from foreign donors who showered huge amounts of money on a relatively small population. Yet, even aside from theft, the money was not used productively or to benefit the people.
7. Because of the risks and attacks on Israel, the country stopped admitting Palestinian workers except for a far smaller number. Tens of thousands thus lost lucrative jobs and the PA could not replace these.
8. The unequal status of women in the Palestinian society throws away up to one-half of the potential labor and talent that could otherwise have made a big contribution to development.
9. And then there are the special factors relating to the Gaza Strip. Under the rule of Hamas, a group committing many acts of terror and openly calling for genocide against Israel, the emphasis was not put on economic development but on war-fighting. The shooting of rockets at Israel created an economic blockade. Note also, however, that Hamas also alienated the Mubarak regime in Egypt which also had no incentive to help it, instituting its own restrictions that were as intense as those of Israel.
10. The Palestinian leadership generally antagonized Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other oil-rich Arab states that were consequently not interested in helping them develop.
11. Also, compare the Palestinians to the Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, or Lebanese. In those places the excuse of “it’s all Israel’s fault” is hard to sustain, yet the Palestinians have done as well or better than those other Arabs who share a very similar political culture.
12. And incidentally, remember that Israel also had to cope with war, terrorism, and defense needs unequaled by the burden faced by any other democratic state in the world. Moreover, it could not trade for most of its history with any of its neighbors — and commerce is still limited — or any of the countries in the Arabic-speaking world that surround it. In addition, it has almost no natural resources. So while Israel received a lot of U.S. aid, most of that went into defense and not economic development. In other words, Israel’s has handicaps as impressive (or almost as marked) as the Palestinian ones.
My goal here was not so much to present these twelve points but to ask the question: Why is it that these factors were barely mentioned or not mentioned at all in the media analyses of Romney’s statement?
The answer, of course, is that most of the media is set on the blame-Israel argument. Yet even given this truth, why do they have to do so virtually 100 percent of the time with nothing about the other side of the issue? This applies to dozens of other questions, such as why peace hasn’t been achieved. And in this as in many other cases, they virtually take the PA’s talking points as their themes and facts.
Often, one suspects there are a lot of people in the mass media and academia who are totally uninterested in presenting anything other than an anti-Israel narrative. This article doesn’t mean to generalize about everyone, of course, but you who are doing that know who you are, and you readers know who they are!
This article was also published in PJ Media.
91
About Barry Rubin
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist for PajamasMedia at http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan)

Friday 10 August 2012

Territorial concessions and ‘rights of return’ for sworn enemies!

Originally on:
http://socialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/territorial-concessions-and-return-for.html



 10 AUGUST 2012


Territorial concessions and ‘rights of return’ for sworn enemies!

SEE BACKGROUND MATERIAL BELOW
# 1 - 2 - 3
############################################################################################################


From: g87
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 11:03 AM
Subject: VER 2: Territorial concessions and 'rights of return' for sworn enemies!!


Territorial concessions and ‘rights of return’ for sworn enemies!
Never in history have a people waged war officially [1948, 1956, 1967, etc.] been constantly defeated by a benign nation [Israel] who plainly only wants to live in peace with them, then waged undeclared war AKA internicine, murderous terrorist campaigns murdering women and children, been given territorial concessions which they always refused, made clear their outrageous murderous intent via their unchanged constitutions and real - world actions - then have the temerity to suggest that ''The right of return of Palestinians is enshrined in law.''
Letters 10/8 Rights in Palestine.
Oh – and in between they reconfigure themselves as ‘refugees’ – and plunder the name ‘Palestinian.’ Plainly they have no relationship to either the Philistines or the British Mandate of 1922.
A home for the Jewish people..’’
Furthermore, what ‘law’? Not in the real world where intransigent enemies have been wiped out without demur! Note the common law right to self - defence which would have destroyed the terrorists overnight - if Israel exercised it.
There are too many examples:
  • Remember what the Sri Lankan government did to the Tamil people? 20,000 helpless people were murdered.
  • The Russians to Chechnya?
  • USA in Hiroshima: when no response - Nagasaki. Japan then - and only then sued for peace.
  • Carpet bombing of Berlin?
There are scores of recent examples of nation states acting to protect their people from murderous enemies.
Somehow Israel has never exercised this legal right of self - defence.
  1. The progenitor / activist for a continuum of this travestous mayhem should inform the reader where intransigent mortal enemies have ever been treated to so generously by any other nation? Name the people, time, place, treaty.
  2. In law there is the principle of the looser accepting whatever is offered - invariably a dimunition of previous positions. With the so - called Palestinians - every loss emboldens them to claim more! Plea – bargaining? Not for these people.
I have a dream that one day these activists will concede that Israel is a reality and their attempts to destroy her will gain them nothing except the sympathy of the politically, logistically and historically duplicitous or mere ignorant.

It will also cause their people heartache – whereas living in peace with Israel would enable them to generate wealth for their people.

Not in my lifetime.
Their ancestors have been doing derivations of ‘this’ for thousands of years.
Geoff Seidner
13 Alston Gr East St Kida 3183
03 9525 9299
British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The British Mandate for Palestine, or simply the Mandate for Palestine, was a legal commission for the administration of the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Sanjaks of NablusAcre, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros. The draft of the Mandate was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, amended via the 16 September 1922Transjordan memorandum[1][2] and which came into effect on 29 September 1923[1] following the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne.[3][4] The mandate ended at midnight on 14 May 1948.
The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War.[1] The mandate formalised British rule in the southern part of Ottoman Syriafrom 1923–1948.
The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[5] The mandate document formalised the creation of two distinct British protectorates - Palestine, as anational home for the Jewish people under direct British rule, and Transjordan, an Emirate governed semi-autonomously from Britain under the rule of the Hashemitefamily.[1]

########################################################################################################################################################################################################################

#1

Rights in Palestine

IT comes as no great surprise that the pro-Israel camp continues to cloak itself in revisionist theories to support its erroneous assertions (Letters, 7/8). The right of return of Palestinians is enshrined in law. Any expert can attempt to manipulate the language or intent of UN resolution 194, but that does not change the facts.
A just solution will only be found when the human rights of all those living in Israel and Palestine are recognised. If giving Palestinians basic human rights is such a threat to Israel, then what does that say about Israel as a democracy?
Moammar Mashni, Australians for Palestine, Melbourne, Vic

################

#2

Disgusted by BDS


I WAS disgusted to read the report on unions backing the asinine Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign ("Unions fuelling Israel protests", 6/8).
The insidious campaign that promotes the boycotting of Israeli businesses as a means of espousing solidarity with the Palestinians parallels the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses in 1933. It reeks of anti-semitism.
Israel is not a terrorist state. Quite the contrary. Israel is a beacon of democracy in a region dominated by autocratic and murderous regimes. One only needs to look at Syria and Iran as examples.
Nevertheless, it is Israel that consistently incurs the wrath of so-called human rights and peace activists.
Those unions and political groups supporting the BDS warrant condemnation for promoting such an abhorrent campaign. If these movements wanted to advocate on behalf of the Palestinian cause, they ought to lobby both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to abandon terrorism and urge them to promote democratic rights in the Palestinian territories.

Joel Feren, Elwood, Vic
##################################################################################################################################################################


#3
Unions fuelling Israel protests

MILITANT unionists and political groups prosecuting the anti-Israel boycott campaign are using official union facilities and resources to encourage anti-business protests and to sell the pro-Palestinian message.
Senior Victorian union figures have admitted growing support from some affiliates and some fringe political groups for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign.
It has emerged that along with key union backing, Victorian Trades Hall Council resources have been used for fundraising for the BDS campaign and to aid protesters arrested while backing the Palestinian cause.
VTHC secretary Brian Boyd would not comment on the BDS campaign yesterday.
The Baillieu government called for Labor to distance itself from the BDS campaign being waged from within sections of its industrial wing.
A Labor spokesman said yesterday the BDS campaign had "no role in a respectful and harmonious multicultural Victoria".

"Playing politics with this issue puts at risk the diversity that all Victorians value and cherish," the spokesman said.
But Maritime Union of Australia Victorian secretary Kevin Bracken, a former Trades Hall president, said the campaign was justified as it was a way of defending the Palestinian people.
"We support them because it's a non-violent way of ending the oppression of the Palestinian people, the persecution by Israel," he told The Australian.

Mr Bracken was photographed at a recent BDS protest outside the Max Brenner coffee shop in Melbourne, where the protesters accused the company of links with the Israeli defence forces. A large banner at the protest declared "Israel is a terrorist state".
Victorian Industrial Relations Minister Richard Dalla-Riva said Labor leader Daniel Andrews had not done enough to stamp out Labor links to the BDS campaign.
"The involvement of the Labor-affiliated MUA and the Victorian Trades Hall Council in September 11 conspiracy theories, and the discriminatory, anti-Israel BDS campaign would disgust decent Victorians who belong to those unions or to the Labor Party," he said.
"Last August, the Victorian government called on the Opposition Leader to take action against involvement and support for BDS extremism in the MUA, Victoria's peak union body and his own parliamentary caucus. Mr Andrews did nothing, ignored the problem and the BDS campaign has continued with ongoing support from within the Victorian labour movement."
Last month charges were dismissed against 16 BDS protesters after a rally outside the Max Brenner store in Melbourne's QV Centre. The magistrate ruled that the protest did not threaten public order or breach the peace.
The Baillieu government is considering changing the law to make it harder to disrupt businesses when protesting.
Mr Boyd wrote on his website of the potential implications of the protest and the magistrate's decision. He did not write that he supported the BDS but said the court decision could have significant implications for protesters

Thursday 9 August 2012

I will continue to writing my analysis of Sacks and his views on multiculturalism et al

I will continue another day writing my analysis of Sacks and his views on multiculturalism et al: Note the below links on this blog.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Note in particular his views on multiculturalism as per these few words extracted from my below post in Generally Jewish,  in particular:
''My parents lived those values and taught them to us. They became the first Jews in their families for perhaps a thousand years not to teach their children Yiddish because they wanted us to be English and identify with the wider society.''

Ref: ABRIDGED!!! Sacks: Pride in Britain: Compare with 

and
http://www.chiefrabbi.org/2011/02/07/having-pride-in-britain-protects-all-cultures-published-in-the-times/#.UCMJlU0gdqj


It is the above words in particular, the  conclusions I postulate indubitably follow on from same -  that I will comment on in ever greater detail another time.

There are many tangents flowing from what has been written here  that will inevitably require my attention. ANOTHER DAY.....

For now I want to merely didactically elucidate on what Sacks written in his article.
I for now merely write a  cryptic introduction as below.

Again - note there are many more problems with this screed of Sacks!
GS
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

SYNPOSIS / INTRODUCTION OF SACKS' VIEWS ON MULTICULTURALISM AND MORE: TO BE CONTINUED...LATER


by Geoff Seidner

Note his words as reproduced in full in the below article - the article incidently appears to be complete.

''My parents lived those values and taught them to us. They became the first Jews in their families for perhaps a thousand years not to teach their children Yiddish because they wanted us to be English and identify with the wider society.''

Superficially I have problems with this. Sacks is so proud of his parents' yearnings to assimilate; plainly not realising that in vouchsafing ''these values'' he / his parents plainly contradicted the same said ''values'' quoted  by Montefiore a paragraph earlier!

THIS IS SIMPLY PATHETIC!! SACKS DOES THIS HUMBUG -  HOKUM THING THROUGHOUT MANY OF HIS ARTICLES! I HAVE SEEN IT ALL.
HE PLAINLY THINKS WE ARE ALL MORONS AND CANNOT FOLLOW LOGICAL - AND ILLOGICAL AND PERVERSE AND OBTUSE  CORROLLARIES THAT HIS  PROLIX CONSTRUCTION UNSKILLFULLY ATTEMPTS TO HIDE!  WRONG!


ONE MERELY HAS TO NOTE HOW HE THINKS IN COMPILING THE VERBIAGE RESIDENT IN  HIS ARTICLES!! THIS DELIBERATE MALFEASANT HUMBUG IN THE CORPUS OF HIS ARTICLES HE SMUGLY THINKS NO - ONE CAN DISCERN!!

IT IS HIS ARROGANCE THAT GETS ME!
BUT I DIGRESSED - I GO ON: NOTE THAT I EXPLORE HERE MERELY ONE OF HIS CONTRIVANCES
....................................
I guess Sacks uses disparate alternative words and phrases  to assimilate like:

  1.  identify with the wider society
  2. wanted us to be English
  3. They integrated


Note what Montefiore is quoted as quoted as having said by The Times  - Sacks wrote the original article for The Times - which explains why he is prepared in THAT forum prepared to break with the basic ele,ents of Judaism!


''....birthday in 1884, said that he had shown that “fervent Judaism and patriotic citizenship are absolutely compatible with one another.''

So much for his parents ignoble sycophantic yearning to assimilate - or ''integrate'' as Sacks puts it.
Indeed, Sacks ''went further!!!''

''They integrated and encouraged us to go further because there was something to integrate into.''

Indeed, Sacks ''went further!!!''
As demonstrated in merely this one tangent of his contradictory theme.

 Note that the pathetic man plainly does not realize that his own words so plainly vitiate /  contradict the ethic of assimilation /  integration / and as he grandly puts it -  ''identifing with the wider society''!

Oh the silliness - the trite imbecility of simultaneously insulting the basic principles of Judaism via his sycophantic efforts to APPEASE THE TIMES AUDIENCE!!

AND THEN ADMITTING IT DID NOT WORK!! SEE HIS SECOND AND THIRD PARAGRAPHS!!

SEE DIFFERENT TYPE!!

I leave this essay unfinished.
Geoff Seidner

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

The role model was Sir Moses Montefiore, the Victorian philanthropist and president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. The Times, in an editorial written on his hundredth birthday in 1884, said that he had shown that “fervent Judaism and patriotic citizenship are absolutely compatible with one another”. That might sound condescending now, but considering what was happening to Jews elsewhere in Europe, it was a lifeline.



Ex Jonathan Sacks' website pulished there on 7 February 2011

AS PER LINK ABOVE.
 [GS]

Having pride in Britain protects all cultures (published in The Times)

7 February, 2011\



David Cameron was right to say that multiculturalism has failed, echoing similar statements by Nicholas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel. It was undertaken for the highest of motives. It was intended to create a more tolerant society, one in which everyone, regardless of colour, creed or culture, felt at home. Its effect has been precisely the opposite.
Last week the Community Security Trust, the body that monitors antisemitic incidents, published its annual report, showing that the figures for 2010 were the second highest since record-keeping began. Jews especially in London and Manchester have found themselves attacked on their way to and from synagogue, or abused by passers-by. Jewish students feel themselves so intimidated on campuses throughout the country that last week they were in Westminster lobbying their MPs, something I cannot recall happening before.
The Jewish community in Britain is small, and antisemitism only one form of hatred among many. But the Jewish story is worth telling if only because the re-emergence of antisemitism in a culture is always an early warning signal of wider breakdown. The alarm has been sounding loudly for some time.
Many Jews of my parents’ generation owed their lives to this country. It took them in when they faced persecution elsewhere. They loved Britain and deeply internalized its values. The inscription on the tombstone of a former President of the United Synagogue summed up the entire Anglo-Jewish experience. It read, “A proud Englishman and a proud Jew.”
The role model was Sir Moses Montefiore, the Victorian philanthropist and president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. The Times, in an editorial written on his hundredth birthday in 1884, said that he had shown that “fervent Judaism and patriotic citizenship are absolutely compatible with one another”. That might sound condescending now, but considering what was happening to Jews elsewhere in Europe, it was a lifeline.
My parents lived those values and taught them to us. They became the first Jews in their families for perhaps a thousand years not to teach their children Yiddish because they wanted us to be English and identify with the wider society.
They were not naive. They remembered vividly when Mosley and the British Union of Fascists marched through London’s East End. They knew the genteel anti-Semitism that was almost ubiquitous in certain literary and social circles. They knew that England was a class bound society with many faults.
But they admired the British for their tolerance and decency, their sense of fair play and their understated but indomitable courage. They were proud to be English because the English were proud to be English. Indeed in the absence of pride there can be no identity at all. They integrated and encouraged us to go further because there was something to integrate into.
At some time that pride disintegrated, to be replaced by what Kate Fox amusingly calls “one-downmanship.” TheBritish started seeing their own history as an irredeemable narrative of class, snobbery, imperialism, racism and social exclusion. It was in this atmosphere that, in the 1970s, multiculturalism was born. It said: there is no need to integrate.
The first people to try multiculturalism, the Dutch, were also the first people to regret it. The Princeton sociologists Paul Sniderman and Louk Hagendoorn found that the Dutch favoured tolerance and opposed multiculturalism. When asked what the difference was, they replied that tolerance ignores differences; multiculturalism makes an issue of them at every point.
Multiculturalism is part of the wider European phenomenon of moral relativism, a doctrine that became influential as a response to the Holocaust. It was argued that taking a stand on moral issues was a sign of an “authoritarian personality”. Moral judgment was seen as the first step down the road to fanaticism. But moral relativism is the deathknell of a civilization. In a relativist culture, there is no moral consensus, only a clash of conflicting views in which the loudest voice wins.
That is where we are today. The extremists command attention and capture the headlines, and they become the role models for the young. Since there is no national identity to claim their allegiance, there is no contest. Hence the phenomenon, widespread throughout Europe today but rare in the past, that the children of immigrants are more hostile to the host society than their parents were, and feel themselves more alien to its values.
I have never known the British Jewish community, especially its university students, more anxious about the future than they are today. But I have heard the same from many Hindus and Sikhs. They feel that the more they seek to integrate, the less attention is paid to them by the government and the media. They are no problem, therefore they can be ignored. That too is terribly dangerous for the British future.
Multiculturalism, entered into for the noblest of reasons, has suffered from the law of unintended consequences. By dissolving national identity it makes it impossible for groups to integrate because there is nothing to integrate into, and by failing to offer people pride in being British, it forces them to find sources of pride elsewhere.
Without shared values and a sense of collective identity, no society can sustain itself for long. I fear the extremism that is slowly but surely becoming, throughout the world, the siren song of the twenty-first century. We have to fight it here before we can convincingly oppose it elsewhere.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@




Having pride in Britain protects all cultures (published in The Times)


7 February, 2007
ArticlesWritings & Speeches


David Cameron was right to say that multiculturalism has failed, echoing similar statements by Nicholas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel. It was undertaken for the highest of motives. It was intended to create a more tolerant society, one in which everyone, regardless of colour, creed or culture, felt at home. Its effect has been precisely the opposite.
Last week the Community Security Trust, the body that monitors antisemitic incidents, published its annual report, showing that the figures for 2010 were the second highest since record-keeping began. Jews especially in London and Manchester have found themselves attacked on their way to and from synagogue, or abused by passers-by. Jewish students feel themselves so intimidated on campuses throughout the country that last week they were in Westminster lobbying their MPs, something I cannot recall happening before.
The Jewish community in Britain is small, and antisemitism only one form of hatred among many. But the Jewish story is worth telling if only because the re-emergence of antisemitism in a culture is always an early warning signal of wider breakdown. The alarm has been sounding loudly for some time.
Many Jews of my parents’ generation owed their lives to this country. It took them in when they faced persecution elsewhere. They loved Britain and deeply internalized its values. The inscription on the tombstone of a former President of the United Synagogue summed up the entire Anglo-Jewish experience. It read, “A proud Englishman and a proud Jew.”
The role model was Sir Moses Montefiore, the Victorian philanthropist and president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. The Times, in an editorial written on his hundredth birthday in 1884, said that he had shown that “fervent Judaism and patriotic citizenship are absolutely compatible with one another”. That might sound condescending now, but considering what was happening to Jews elsewhere in Europe, it was a lifeline.
My parents lived those values and taught them to us. They became the first Jews in their families for perhaps a thousand years not to teach their children Yiddish because they wanted us to be English and identify with the wider society.
They were not naive. They remembered vividly when Mosley and the British Union of Fascists marched through London’s East End. They knew the genteel anti-Semitism that was almost ubiquitous in certain literary and social circles. They knew that England was a class bound society with many faults.
But they admired the British for their tolerance and decency, their sense of fair play and their understated but indomitable courage. They were proud to be English because the English were proud to be English. Indeed in the absence of pride there can be no identity at all. They integrated and encouraged us to go further because there was something to integrate into.
At some time that pride disintegrated, to be replaced by what Kate Fox amusingly calls “one-downmanship.” TheBritish started seeing their own history as an irredeemable narrative of class, snobbery, imperialism, racism and social exclusion. It was in this atmosphere that, in the 1970s, multiculturalism was born. It said: there is no need to integrate.
The first people to try multiculturalism, the Dutch, were also the first people to regret it. The Princeton sociologists Paul Sniderman and Louk Hagendoorn found that the Dutch favoured tolerance and opposed multiculturalism. When asked what the difference was, they replied that tolerance ignores differences; multiculturalism makes an issue of them at every point.
Multiculturalism is part of the wider European phenomenon of moral relativism, a doctrine that became influential as a response to the Holocaust. It was argued that taking a stand on moral issues was a sign of an “authoritarian personality”. Moral judgment was seen as the first step down the road to fanaticism. But moral relativism is the deathknell of a civilization. In a relativist culture, there is no moral consensus, only a clash of conflicting views in which the loudest voice wins.
That is where we are today. The extremists command attention and capture the headlines, and they become the role models for the young. Since there is no national identity to claim their allegiance, there is no contest. Hence the phenomenon, widespread throughout Europe today but rare in the past, that the children of immigrants are more hostile to the host society than their parents were, and feel themselves more alien to its values.
I have never known the British Jewish community, especially its university students, more anxious about the future than they are today. But I have heard the same from many Hindus and Sikhs. They feel that the more they seek to integrate, the less attention is paid to them by the government and the media. They are no problem, therefore they can be ignored. That too is terribly dangerous for the British future.
Multiculturalism, entered into for the noblest of reasons, has suffered from the law of unintended consequences. By dissolving national identity it makes it impossible for groups to integrate because there is nothing to integrate into, and by failing to offer people pride in being British, it forces them to find sources of pride elsewhere.
Without shared values and a sense of collective identity, no society can sustain itself for long. I fear the extremism that is slowly but surely becoming, throughout the world, the siren song of the twenty-first century. We have to fight it here before we can convincingly oppose it elsewhere.