RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://david-collier.com/?p=1336

It is 27/10/2015 and I am at 1 Parliament St for a ’roundtable event’ organised by the Palestine Return Council and hosted by Gerald Kaufman. I had not been to one of these before and therefore had no idea what to expect, but as all the names on the invitation were hostile to Israel, I was hoping for a little excitement. However, even I did not expect to be taken down the route of global Jewish conspiracy theories.

The room was small, but it was packed full. The table was not round but rectangle and Kaufman was very late (this not the first time the Palestinians have said one thing and done another, nor that their friends make them promises of support and fail to deliver). The subject was to be British Foreign Policy towards Palestine since 2010, so it came as no surprise when the early attacks were directed towards the Conservatives; I need not have worried though, this room contained people with far greater hatreds.

Before Kaufman belatedly arrived and spoke, there were those such as Martin Linton, who used the time to speak. A red light was flashed to all those who support partial boycott and are unaware of classic PLO strategy. Back in 1974 the PLO changed strategy and rather than reject all compromise, stood behind a new ‘Ten Point Program’ that would see them accept any part of ‘Palestine’ Israel was willing to cede through negotiation. Their goal was still the same, and they would not deliver peace at any point, but felt the only way they would defeat Israel would be by using what Sir Humphrey Appleby referred to as salami tactics (slice by slice). In 2015, BDS is hiding behind the same strategy. Promises that call only to boycott settlement products are merely a ‘first step’ with what they refer to now as the ‘stepladder approach’ outlined in stark detail by one of the speakers. I wonder if those aligning with ‘boycott lite’ are aware the cynical goal is to use those waving a banner of ‘ethical shopping’ to eliminate Israel from the map.

Seventy leaders, thinkers, and clergy respond: What will be the condition of the Jewish community fifty years from now?

1. Optimism

The exercise of imagining the Jewish future is, of course, more precisely an effort to understand the Jewish present by thinking through what the consequences of our actions and beliefs might be. There is no way to envision how we Jews can and will react to real-world events, calamities, and scientific advances. After all, as Dennis Prager writes, in 2065 “there may well be a Chabad House on the moon.” Prager says this not in a tone of triumphalism, by the way; he is the gloomiest of Commentary’s 69 symposiasts. And certainly the Jewish past gives us no reason to believe the Jewish future will be a sunny one.

And yet optimism, of a kind, informs most of the contributions to “The Jewish Future.” There will, practically everyone agrees, be a Jewish future. And that is a triumph. It might not seem like much of one, since the Jewish people have survived for more than three millennia—against which the next 50 years can be seen as nothing more than a blip in time. But considering the many reasons we have been given in the past few years to doubt the Jewish future, the general spirit of optimism expressed in these musings should not be taken lightly.

The 60,000 words that compose “The Jewish Future” were written under twin shadows, one hovering over each of the world’s most important communities of Jews—ours in the United States, and the one in Israel.

In 2013, the Pew survey of American Jewry painted nothing less than a portrait of a people drifting toward nonexistence. The findings documented an American Jewish community largely ignorant about the fundaments of their faith and their history, largely indifferent to their ignorance, and possibly on the verge of seeing its middle ground—the grand compromise between modernity and tradition known as the Conservative movement—vanish almost entirely. Intermarriage and out-marriage have become the norm, not the exception, and the record of the past century suggests that descendents of these couplings will not be Jews by their own reckoning in relatively short order.

Acting star receives award at Israel Film Festival, reveals impact of her work on Israeli kibbutz after Six Day War.

Academy Award, Tony Award and Emmy Award-winning actress Helen Mirren was honored at the 29th Israel Film Festival on Wednesday at the Saban Theater in Beverly Hills, where she revealed how her first visit to the Jewish state shaped her career.

Mirren was honored with the Career Achievement Award at the festival, and while there she said her time working at an Israeli kibbutz shortly after the 1967 Six Day War “made me the actress I am.” Video of her speech can be seen by clicking the image below.

Hearkening back to her stay in Israel, the British actress said, “I was thinking about the building blocks that lead you to becoming the person you will become. I was thinking that my visit to Israel in those days was a part, not a direct connection, but it’s absolutely a part of the building blocks that have made me the actress I am and doing the kind of work that I do.”

The Middle East is a notoriously volatile region, but you can always count on two things. One: There will be violence between Israelis and Palestinians. Two: As soon as tempers begin to flare up again, sundry Jewish commentators will set about putting pen to paper for strident anti-Israel op-eds in the world’s media.

These columns invariably follow the same dreary template, as if penned by freshmen in a Creative Writing 101 course:

A) Authors establish their Jewish credentials to lend themselves moral authority.

B) They move on to decry Israel’s settlements and express shock at Israelis’ collective inhumanity towards Palestinians, while liberally dropping the obligatory emotive clichés of anti-Israel propaganda: “occupation,” “oppression,” “apartheid,” “racism,” “disproportionate response.”

C) They explain how the conduct of the Jewish state has betrayed fundamental Zionist ideals, violated timeless “Jewish values,” and/or caused Israelis to lose their moral compass.

D) Finally, they insist that Israelis need to be saved from themselves by being boycotted, isolated and forced into further unilateral concessions.

The order of these elements might vary, but their content never does.

The European Union is being run by men and women who have displayed marked symptoms of dementia, a condition that is quite in sync with Islam’s own brand.

Again, this column is also about the epistemological epilepsy of our political elite. And the political elite’s unreal metaphysics.

As noted in an illustration tag in Part One, the sustainability of a European Islamic State, which is all the Continent’s current immigration policies can lead to and end with, will depend in large part on the ignorance of its itinerate and hapless citizens – Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Once it reaches that stage, and Shariah law becomes the legal byword, non-Muslims will be obliged to assimilate into a largely Islamic culture.

Rank-and-file Muslims will be naturally ignorant and will have no problem adjusting to the new society of diversity. Non-Muslims, however, will have great difficulty keeping their mouths and minds shut as they are relegated to second-class citizen status.

It is notable that the same week that Israel marked the twentieth anniversary of the assassination of prime minister and defense minister Yitzhak Rabin, Palestinian Authority President and PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas went before the UN Human Rights Commission and asked the UN to establish “a special regime of international protection” for the Palestinians against Israel.

“It is no longer useful to waste time in negotiations just for the sake of negotiations. What is required is the ending of the occupation in accordance with international legitimacy,” said the man who has never held good faith negotiations with Israel in his life and has refused to even pretend to hold them for the past seven years.

Geert Wilders has, once again, been accused, of violating hate laws in The Netherlands over a remark he made during a March 19, 2014 Freedom Party (PVV) campaign rally for the European Parliament elections that occurred in May of last year: “fewer and fewer Moroccans” . Complaints were filed by alleged aggrieved Dutch Moroccans on the grounds that his remarks were racist and violated hate laws in The Netherlands. These remarks in the US would be protected under our First Amendment to the Constitution. No such protections current exist under the laws in The Netherlands, let alone the EU. We noted this in a December 2014 Iconoclast post about a statement Wilders made before his interrogation by Dutch police in The Hague: