Sunday, March 30, 2025

Who is an antisemite: Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice vs Marx's Jewish Question

One of the curious things about both The Merchant of Venice (1597) and On the Jewish Question (1843), both of them seminal texts of Western civilization, is the number of people who insist that they aren't antisemitic. 

The introductions to their Wikipedia articles end with a reference to debates but imply that this is of marginal significance: 

  • "Debate exists on whether the play is anti-Semitic..." (Merchant of Venice
  • "A number of scholars and commentators regard On the Jewish Question... ...as antisemitic, although others do not [I cut the long prevarication in middle]. 

In both cases, the arguments are the same: That the antisemitism is debatable or is a claim made by [some] oversensitive Jews. 

Shakespeare, it is said, was keen to portray Jews as fellow humans, but then Shakespeare always provided deep insights into his characters' psychology: However bad they are, they always have human motivations. The fact is though, that Shylock is an unpleasant, antisemitic, vengeful caricature and the "pound of flesh" metaphor has often been used against Jews, both as individuals and as a group. Just because Shakespeare also shows Shylock's motivations, doesn't stop it being a caricature. I am not suggesting that the play should be banned, but pretending it has no antisemitic characteristics is ridiculous.

As for Karl Marx, the point made by his defenders is that the article seeks to argue that Jews should be given equal rights. Yet the article is just as bad as the Merchant of Venice: "Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money[...] An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible" [quote copied from Wikipedia, this is not the only quoted text].

There are a couple of points to be made about the Wikipedia articles that reflect British attitudes to these texts: 

  • The complete denial of obvious antisemitism by claiming positive intention.
  • The insistence that the antisemitism claims are debatable and therefore suspect.
  • The assumption that evidence of antisemitism invalidates the text.
In contrast, the article on Geofrey Chaucer's "The Prioress's Tale" is very explicit about its antisemitism, but that story has no redeeming features. The article about Chaucer makes no mention of this tale or the antisemitism.

I think it is a feature of what is currently being called "Woke culture" that if a text contains racism, then the author is completely invalid. So if we describe Marx or Shakespeare as antisemites, the implication is that all their texts are antisemitism. 

I found a Universities UK document "Tackling racial harassment in November 2020" (written by Professor David Richardson,  Chair, UUK Advisory Group on tackling racial harassment in  higher education). The text is very persuasive and aggressive in its nature: 

"In a university, institutional racism is not just the problem of those suffering from the injustices that result from it. It is a problem of the whole university community, and so the whole community must own the challenge together, led by the vicechancellor or principal. University leaders and governing bodies must recognise addressing racism as a strategic priority. This will benefit students and staff, but also society as a whole as we shape the minds and attitudes of the next generation. Some have argued that we need patience, and that cultural change takes time. However, it is clear that people have run out of patience – and rightly so. The sector demonstrated how quickly change is possible when it adapted its entire delivery model within a few days in March and April this year in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. My challenge will be to see similar fast progress in turning words into action on tackling racial harassment in our institutions. We cannot afford not to."

He never uses the word "Jew" (I searched for it), just "students and staff from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds". 

Antisemitism in the UK is deeply embedded in the fabric of society and, as Chaucer shows, goes back to the very origins of the English language. In effect, it cannot really be removed from British culture. It can, however, be acknowledged. 





Wednesday, March 26, 2025

Netanyahu: The loser who always wins.

Netanyahu has led the Likud in 12 Knesset elections, over 33 years: More elections than any other Israeli politician, although Begin was leader of the Likud or Herut for just as long. Under Netanyahu's leadership, the Likud did not always emerge as the largest party and he did not always become prime minister. 

Ben Gurion particpated in 5 elections over 15 years, winning them all. Begin led the Likud (or its earlier version called Herut) in all 10 elections from 1948 to 1981. Over 30 years (since 1951), Begin's share of the vote either increased or remained static in every election: He never won less seats than in a previous election.

Elections   Likud seats
under Begin
  Labor Leader   Labor Seats
 1949   14   Ben Gurion    46
 1951  8   Ben Gurion    45
 1955  15   Ben Gurion    40
 1959  17   Ben Gurion    47
 1961  17   Ben Gurion    42
 1965  26   Eshkol    45
 1969  26   Golda      56
 1973  39   Golda    51
 1977  43   Peres    32
 1981  48   Peres    47

In 1982 Begin resigned and Shamir took over, leading the Likud in 3 elections (winning one). Since winning leadership of the Likud in 1992, 33 years ago, Netanyahu has contested 12 Knesset elections as head of the Likud. In 7 of those elections, Netanyahu became Prime Minister . Curiously he has won the most Knesset seats only 5 times in 12 elections, but still managed to become (or remain) Prime Minster 8 times.

Netanyahu has never lost a contest for leadership of the Likud. Sharon became leader because Netanyahu resigned in 1999, after he lost a general election to Ehud Barak.
Ariel Sharon left the Likud in 2005, creating a new party called Kadima, and Netanyahu has led the Likud ever since.

Since 1992 there have been three direct election contests for the role of Prime Minister. Netanyahu contested those twice, winning once and losing once.

In only one election in the last 28 years, was the Likud not led by Netanyahu: Ariel Sharon won the 2003 Knesset elections and accompanying direct election of the Prime Minister.

When has Netanyahu lost?

The first election Netanyahu lost was in 1999. At the time, the Prime Minister was elected directly (a bit like US presidential elections) and one voted for the parties separately. Netanyahu faced two rival candidates, both highly decorated former Generals: Yitshak Mordechai (representing a new center party) and Ehud Barak (leading the Labor party). Netanyahu lost.

The second election Netanyahu lost was in 2006.  Sharon had taken most of the Likud into a new party and then had a stroke. Ehud Olmert led Kadima (Sharon's new party) and the Likud led by Netanyahu came third, with a mere 12 seats.  Technically, Netanyahu also lost to Tzippi Livni in 2009, by a single seat: But she was unable to form a coalition and he became Prime-Minister. 

 
Why did Netanyahu not win?

Well, Netanyahu has only once won an election in which his chief rival was a former Army Chief of Staff: He lost to Barak and he has only beaten Gantz once.  He lost two elections to the leaders of Kadima before that party disintegrated and vanished from the scene: Maybe the auora of the comatose Sharon was enough to keep him down. 
Most importantly, Netanyahu's record in Knesset elections was not stellar until 2013: He was, however, very effective at forming coalitions. Until 2013, Netanyahu never led the largest party or won over 30 seats, since 2013 he has consistently won at least 30 seats and, except for once, always led the largest party.

Data sourced from Wikipedia.  From 1996 to 2003, the Prime Minister was directly elected, a system which disastrously fractured Israeli politics. The system was abandoned after that. 
 

Elections   Leader of
 Likud 
   Knesset
 Seats
Became
  PM?
Largest
party?
Winner or
opposition
 1996   Netanyahu     32    Yes   No   Peres (Labor) 34
 1999  Netanyahu     19    No   No   Barak (Labor) 26
 2003  Sharon     38     -     -   Mitzna (Labor) 19
 2006  Netanyahu      12    No  No   Olmert (Kadima) 29
 2009  Netanyahu     27   Yes  No   Livni (Kadima) 28
 2013  Netanyahu      31   Yes Yes   Lapid (Yesh Atid) 19
 2015  Netanyahu      30   Yes Yes   Herzog (Labor) 24
 2019(1)  Netanyahu     35   Yes* Tied   Gantz (Blue & White) 35
 2019(2)  Netanyahu     32   A new election was called
No    Gantz (Blue & White) 33
 2020  Netanyahu     36   Yes* Yes   Gantz (Blue & White) 33
 2021  Netanyahu     30   No Yes   Lapid (Yesh Atid) 17
 2022  Netanyahu     32   Yes Yes   Lapid (Yesh Atid) 24

Tuesday, February 11, 2025

A Manifesto for the Advancement of Peace in Eretz Israel - Palestine

 Jews and Moslems worship the same God.  Most Jews have no problems with Moslems praying in their Synagogue and most Moslems have no problems with Jews praying in their Mosque. This I believe provides a framework for co-existence:

1. Any Jew or Moslem who kills a member of the other religion with the intention of driving them out of Palestine - Eretz Israel or eradicating their religion will be punished and then exiled from the land.

2. An annual day of mutual prayer will be agreed between leaders of the two religions, in which both religions will pray together for peace.

3.  Jews will accept the right of all Moslems who are born in Palestine, and their children, to live in Palestine and to own whatever property is rightfully theirs.

4. Moslems will accept the right of all Jews who are born in Eretz Israel, and their children, to live in Eretz Israel and to own whatever property is rightfully theirs.

5. One day in the week and a space will be allocated for Jews who wish to peacefully pray alongside Moslems, on the Temple Mount.

6. One day in the week and a space will be allocated for Moslems who wish to peacefully pray alongside Jews, at the Kotel.

7. Moslems will accept that parts of Palestine are for all time a sanctuary for Jews who feel persecuted. 

8. Certain agreed areas will be open to residence of any Palestinian Moslem or Israeli Jew.

9. A joint parliament will be created with the elected representatives of all the residents of Palestine -Eretz Israel. No party or candidate will be permitted to join this parliament unless they agree to accept the principles of this manifesto.


Wednesday, January 29, 2025

Why racism and anti-Semitism are not the same

Skin color is only meaningful at the extremes of human settlement: Northern Europeans are easily described as white (mainly because they see little sun) as are sub-Saharan Africans who have a very different skin color. On the other hand, people who live close to the Mediterranean are hard to categorize: Southern Italians, Spaniards, Syrians or Algerians are likely to look the same and because the area is a  mixing pot of peoples from Africa, Europe and Asia you can usually find many different colors in a single country.  

People who live at the far East end of Asia look very different from Europeans but when you get into Iran or India the differences start to fray. Many Palestinian Arabs are descended from Crusaders - red heads are not that rare, while Jews belong to a hodgepodge of different "races".

I have always taken the view that race is not a meaningful way of categorizing people and has no scientific validity: You cannot judge "the strength of someone's character" (to paraphrase Martin Luther King) by the color of their skin. In my view, ethnicity is a far more flexible and useful definition.

 Of course many people in the West have experiences which are influenced by their skin color, including the experience of prejudice, but does that make it a valid way to judge people? Jews face prejudice based on a mixture of religion and the assumption of race, outsiders impose on us an assumption of racial categorization which, in my experience, is only very rarely shared by the Jews themselves. 

As Jews we regard ourselves as having a common ancestry - it is, in a sense, a requirement of the religion but any system which categorizes people on the basis of skin type is clearly irrelevant to Jews - as it is to almost anybody who lives in the Middle East.

When you fill out forms related to "ethnicity" or "race" in British job applications, "Jew" is not a recognized category and you are left to choose from a number of skin-color based categories, which may work for many Britons but just leaves Jews feeling that the form does not define them. There is often an "Other" field, but then to say you are Other - Jewish is to imply that you accept physical categories, and especially skin color, as a valid category to define yourself and also that you accept that Jews are a race.

Yes, the religion suggests a common ancestry - something which is common among ethnic groups - but it is just as much about a common culture, a common religion, a common history and a lack of a recent location-based origin. You will find few Jews where both parents are descended from people who have lived in the same region for more than 3 generations.

I don't think anti-Semitism should be defined as a form of racism. Firstly Jews are not a race and "racism" implies prejudice based on race. Secondly, the whole experience of prejudice is different: Jews can "hide", we/they are not physically visible to everyone in the same way as black people in Europe, unless the Jews are very Orthodox and wear distinctive clothes. 

By the way, a lot of what is defined as racism is really about clothing. Most people can avoid standing out by dressing the same as everyone else. Also there is an issue of names. When filling out forms, in some countries it is easier to identify who is Jewish then who is black. 

Did the Nazis kill Jews because they were "racist"? Its not that clear. In truth Nazi race theory was a bit muddled, the whole Aryan thing implied that Germans originated in Central Asia and in reality only black Africans, Jews and Gypsies were definitively defined as problematic, with Slavs added later. Arabs, despite being Semitic, the Nazis defined as acceptable people. Of course the Nazis always put the "native" Germans at the top of their imaginary (and inconsistent) tree. In the end, Jews were killed as much for their religion, as for their race and converts usually got killed too. So while racism played a role, I think anti-Semitism - hatred of Jews - was more important to Nazi policies then "race". While being blonde haired and blue-eyed might have helped one hide, it would not have protected you from the gas chambers.

Many countries collaborated with the Nazis in their policies: Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Croatia, Italy, Vichy France all at some point rounded up their Jews and delivered them to the Nazis for extermination. In many of these countries, what the English always refer to as a "Swastika" was widely called the "Hooked Cross". According to Google: "the actual Nazi and Neo-Nazi symbol is correctly labeled as a 'hakenkreuz', the German word for 'hooked cross".

Locals in Austria, Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine and Holland helped with the round-ups of Jews. Did they do so because of racism?   I think anti-Semitism was the driving force, and also in many cases anti-Communism: In some countries Jews were associated with communism and that played a role in the willingness to assist the Nazis. 

It took the Germans and their European allies about 4 years to wipe out a third of the world's Jews. Given another ten years and occupation of the USA and the Mediterranean basin, it could have been well over 90%. But at that rate, wiping out the entire population of Africa would have taken over a Century: They would still be at it, there simply are too many Africans.  That is a crucial difference. Exterminating the Jews was and still is an extremely unlikely and yet viable option. Especially if you could rope in the UN to assist you. The UN would not assist against Africans (too many nations) but against Jews it's not inconceivable.

In recent "Holocaust Day" memorials in the UK and Ireland, the Jewish Chronical has reported local Jewish communities complaining that they have been sidelined or pushed to side venues while the main event was managed by non-Jews and sometimes the word "Jew" wasn't even mentioned: 

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/jewish-community-excluded-lowestoft-hmd-event-pkr72zbj

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14337643/Good-Morning-Britain-viewers-complain-Ofcom-failure-mention-Jews-Holocaust-coverage.html

https://www.thejc.com/opinion/this-was-the-year-the-jews-were-told-the-holocaust-is-not-about-you-fjtnb1q0

https://www.thejc.com/news/world/protestors-dragged-out-during-irish-presidents-politicised-holocaust-speech-l5jk413v

Of course, that is not the only story, the liberation of Auschwitz was widely celebrated: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14331601/london-eye-parliament-lit-purple-holocaust-memorial-day.html

The gas chambers were erected because of a range of ideas in which anti-Semitism clearly played an important role. The Hutu massacre of the Tutsi was clearly not about racism.  


 

 


Saturday, October 5, 2024

The seasons are changing, lets go to war!

Below is a rough list of Arab Israeli wars and their start dates. The country whose forces first invaded/attacked is in brackets. In some cases the precise cause is complex and not reflected clearly by the act of invasion.

(Israel) Suez Crisis - October 29, 1956
(Israel) Six Day War - June 5, 1967
(Egypt) War of Attrition - July 1, 1968 [no invasion took place]
(Egypt / Syria) Yom Kippur War - October 6, 1973
(Israel) First Lebanon War - June 6, 1982
(Lebanon) Second Lebanon War - July 12, 2006
(Israel) First Gaza War - July 8, 2014
(Gaza) Second Gaza War - October 7, 2023

To these I would add, 

(Palestinian attacks) November 1947 Palestine Civil War
(Arab invasion) May 15 1948 War

Looking at this list, I conclude that the start and end of summer are danger zones of Middle Eastern wars: Of the eight wars I've listed, three started in October and four in June or July.

Summer is very hot in the Middle East, so it makes sense that wars are more likely to start when summer ends: Around October. Logistically, water supplies could be a big issue for Middle Eastern armies in Summer. 

Some of these wars involve non-state or semi-state actors and I am not sure how you decide what is a war and what is not. If you were only looking at territorial invasions, then the 1968 War of Attrition could be ignored. 

These timings are not unusual: Iraq invaded Iran on September 29,1980 and then Kuwait on the August 2, 1990. So it would seem that summers are definitely a time to worry about war.

By the way, Hitler invaded Poland September 1 1939 and Russia on June 22, 1941. Napoleon invaded Russia on June 24, 1812. 
The Japanese invaded China twice: First in September 1931 and then in July 1937.


Sunday, September 22, 2024

Observing the 2022 Israeli election in Kfar Kassem (a Palestinian town)

 At the end of 2021, I wrote a blog about observing the March 2021 Israeli election in Bnei Brak (Israel's largest Haredi city). I also volunteered as an observer in the next election, in November 2022. Having "done" the Haredis, I decided to go observe an election in a Palestinian ("Israeli Arab") town. It is now almost 2 years since I did this so this blog is very late and I apologize for the delay. I am upset about what has followed that election.

So, this is the story:  Having decided to be an observer, I was a little afraid. There had been a lot of items in the Israeli press about shootings in Arab towns/villages and the failure of the government to Police them properly.  All the locations I was considering needed to be reasonably close to home, so my focus was "the triangle" - a term the British gave in the 1930s to a group of Arab villages near to Tel Aviv. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_(Israel), I mean the small triangle.

I eventually decided to go to Kfar Kassem,a small town of 25,000 which is a 30 minute drive from my home. Kfar Kassem has an industrial area on its territory, and I had recently bought a ladder from a hardware store there. The (very large) store turned out to be entirely Jewish owned, with the property rented from Palestinian owners and paying local authority taxes to Kfar Kassem. I later bought laminated flooring from a shop/warehouse in the Kfar Kassem industrial area. I have been to Kfar Kassem many times, so Kfar Kassem was a safe choice; A town I know well.

כפר קאסם 

Kfar Kassem (image courtesy of https://www.sharedpaths.org.il/product/kfar-qasim/
 
For more information about the industrial zone see https://qec.org.il/english/ and https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100067733601165

I chose to be an observer in the evening, because the evening observers also watch the votes being counted: In Israeli elections every voting booth manually counts its votes at the end of the day and the results are recorded and then sent, with all the paper work associated with the day's voting, to the central election center in Jerusalem. 

 So in the later afternoon of the election day (election days are a public holiday in Israel and public transport is free), I drove into Kfar Kassem to a primary school where the vote was taking place, using Google Maps as my guide. The entrance to Kfar Kassem has wide roads flanked by shops (many with Hebrew signs), two lanes on each side with parking/ no parking marked in Israeli style (red/white curbs for no parking, blue/white curbs for paid parking) but no traffic lights (they are rare in small Arab Israeli towns). There were plenty of election signs, almost all in Arabic which I can't read but which seemed to refer to local people.

I noticed a lot of men in black, sitting and milling around in a store which appeared to be an Islamic Center (judging by the signs). Israeli Islamists seem to favor dressing in black. I then turned off the main road into a winding, narrow, road that made its way up the hill.

The layout of Palestinian/Arab-Israeli towns tends to be similar to Italian towns in that they mostly sit on the sides of steep hills where the agricultural land is poor (the good land is in the valley) and which are more defensible. The older parts have narrow streets which pre-date cars and driving up towards the school was hard as there wasn't quite enough space on the street which had a lot of parked cars and cars going back down toward the center.

In the late 1990s I was in Catholic Belfast and there were almost no cars on the streets. I realized then that this was a sign of poverty. Well, there was no such problem in Kfar Kassem. There were many cars and some were very nice (11,000 cars with an average age of 8 according to the statistics office).  The industrial zone has many car repair places which are cheaper then those in Jewish towns and are popular with Jewish Israelis. 

According to the Israel Statistics Office, Kfar Kassem's wealth is in the 3rd decile of Israeli (lowest 30%) of Israeli towns. Only 13% of the 35-55 year olds have a degree, 21% have a full matriculation (After 12 years of school) and 16% of 20-25 year olds are students, however 76% of high-schoolers are entitled to a matriculation certificate and 50% meet university entrance requirements: I think things are changing. My source (related to 2020) is https://www.cbs.gov.il/he/publications/doclib/2022/local_authorities20_1879/193_0634.pdf.
Population growth is 1.8% (Bnei Brak where I was in the previous election, is in the 2nd decile and has population growth of 3.4%).

I eventually found the primary school and then found a safe place to park (I was worried about damage in the narrow streets) and made my way back to the school, where I replaced a woman at one of the polling booths who looked like she had come from Tel Aviv (like me). Near the school there was a building with a large "Meretz" sign.

The school contained several booths and I was at one of them. As is normal in Israeli elections there were also 3 policeman in the school yard - one elderly volunteer policeman, a woman policeman and a younger policeman, who was dark skinned and tough looking, the other two looked extremely un-threatening.

Israeli polling booths are run by a trio of paid personnel. Two are party representatives and a third is a "professional" administrator appointed by the election committee (in practice it,s a couple of well paid days work). One of the two party representatives functions as the "chairman" (it was a man) of the booth who welcomes the voters, administers the voting list and reads their details. The "professional" sat to the left of the chairman and also monitors proceedings: The professional takes over when the votes are counted. To the right of the chairman was a representative of "Shas" the Jewish Sephardi-Haredi party, except that he was a footballer who lived in Kfar Kassem: Shas had done a deal with the Arab party he represented and they had swapped representatives. He was supposed to be in Bnei Brak, where a member of Shas was representing his party. 

There is also a guy with a camera hanging round his neck (like the Police cameras) who sits further away from the booth and does nothing but hold the camera (he gets paid about 300$ for doing this).

Voters come in one at a time, present their ID to the chairman and receive in return an envelope (signed by the chairman) which they take behind a screen: A careful count of the envelopes is maintained. The chairman crosses the voter's name off the voter list. The ID is passed between the 3 people manning the booth.

Behind the screen are piles of voting slips, one for each party. There is also a poster listing all the slips and what they represent. Each party is given up to 3 letters to represent their name, which are written on the slip in large letters (the full name is beneath it). The voter chooses the slip for the party they prefer, places it in the envelope they were given, seals the envelope (if they want) and comes out from behind the screen. They insert the envelope into a sealed cardboard box which is in front of the reception committee. The voter gets their ID back and the next voter is called in.

There were no large queues to vote, but there was a flow of voters. The booth chairman was a member of "Ra'am" the Israeli Islamist party (Sunni with Moslem Brotherhood connections) which at the time was the first "Arab party" to join a ruling Israeli coalition. When there was nobody voting, which happened quite a few times, the Islamist chairman was calling people on the voting list, clearly urging them to come and vote. He later told me that he was a student, studying accountancy at Ben Gurion University. He was quietly authoritative.

I was not the only observer. There was also a far right observer, an orthodox Jewish man, probably a teenager still at school. I think he told me he studied in a Yeshiva, but I no longer remember the details.  It seemed to me that he had been sent by his Yeshiva. He had a large colored skullcap with small side curls and sported what might be described as the "settler look".  In Israel, both synagogues and mosques are major political recruiting grounds. They have within them communities which are close knit and who can be easily recruited to vote by religious leaders. 

I recall twice seeing "modern" women voting and taking selfies as they voted. I don't remember seeing anybody in traditional dress but I don't think that is common in Kfar Kassem. In my recollection most of the voters were younger and looked modern. According to the central election office, 63% voted for the Islamist party (their founder came from Kfar Kassem) and 20% for Meretz, who had a woman from Kfar Kassem in their list. 15% voted for the "Joint Arab list" which is the other Arab parties joined together (including the Communist Party). 82 people voted for the Likud, 32 for Labour and 10 for the Far Right Jewish nationalists (I wonder if this was observers casting their vote locally?, I'm not sure how that works). There were various single votes for odd parties, including 2 for the Pirate party.

   ( source: https://votes24.bechirot.gov.il/cityresults?cityID=634)

 

   

 

 

 

 


Recreating ancient kingdoms: Arab Nationalism vs Zionism.

Although Zionism and Arab Nationalism are at loggerheads over Palestine (or perhaps Southern Syria), the two have a certain amount in common...