OPINION
December 4th, 2023
My letter today is going to be a bit of a ramble, a stream-of-consciousness piece highlighting areas of concern to me as a resident of this green and pleasant land.
I have had marches inflicted on me by pro-Palestinian supporters and “unbiased peace promoters”. The instigators of these marches allegedly decry the representation of the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” as merely wanting freedom for all who live in that area and claim that it in no way advocates the extermination of Israel. On a chat programme, someone raised the point of whether it would then be fine to chant “From the river to the Med, Hamas must be dead” as their interpretation of this was figurative, not literal. This of course resulted in explosive hypocrisy from the usual suspects with lots of knickers getting in a twist.
The same debate has recently seen discussion on the alleged Israeli “genocide” of the Palestinian people. The United Nations Convention on Genocide, Article 2 defines genocide as follows:-
To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.
By that definition, it would appear that Hamas, not Israel, is promoting genocide as a policy with their objective being the destruction of Israel and as a result the eradication of all Jews.
It is a fact that in 2006 the population of Gaza was 1,500,000 (Source Palestinian Central Bureau Of Statistics). By 2022 the population of Gaza had reached 2,100,000. (Source CIA World Factbook). If this is genocide, then the Israelis have been uncharacteristically inefficient in the implementation of it as a policy.
Similarly, the accusation of genocide emanating from Te Pati Maori seems to ring hollow.
As an interesting aside, in 1970, Golda Meir gave an interview with Thames TV in the UK in which she declared that she was Palestinian. She did in fact carry a Palestinian passport issued under the British mandate. She was making the point that Palestine was not a solely Arab/Palestinian concept. One of her more lasting quotes was:
We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. But we can never forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.
Whilst we are discussing this, there has been a lot of discussion in the UK about the proportionality of the Israeli response to October 7th and saying that the Israelis have gone overboard with the concept of “A Tooth for a Tooth, an Eye for an Eye”. (Leviticus 24:20). Theological scholars have argued that this phrase is intended not to exact revenge but to restrict it. For example, you shall not take MORE than a tooth in retaliation. This is seen in the Israelis’ attempts to restrict collateral damage. Of course, one can have endless discussions about the success or otherwise of their attempts.
This leads me on to the post-riot comments by the Irish Taioseach Leo Varadkar on the release of Irish-Israeli Hostage, 9-year-old Emily Hand. He said:
“This is a day of enormous joy and relief for Emily Hand and her family,” Varadkar’s official account tweeted on X, formerly Twitter. “An innocent child who was lost has now been found and returned, and we breathe a massive sigh of relief. Our prayers have been answered.”
Source The Times of Israel, 26th November 2023
It was pointed out to Varadkar that Emily was not lost, she was abducted, and she was not found, she was part of a hostage rescue program.
His defenders pointed out that he was referencing a quote from the Bible. Unfortunately for Varadkar it was from Luke 15:24 which of course is in the New Testament and upset a few of the Jewish audience.
Coming back to the UK, the Havering council, one of the East London boroughs, has always had a large, illuminated Menorah outside their buildings to celebrate Hannukah. This year, of course, they cancelled it (which makes a change from cancelling Christmas) because they wanted to protect the Jewish population on ‘health and safety’ grounds. They didn’t want to cause civil upset from the rent-a-mob protestors. After three days of vigorous protests from Jews and Christians alike, they relented and will be erecting it as usual.
Watching the UK TV reporting on the increasing division in the country, they report on the activities of the far right. This raises the question that if there is a far right why is there not a far left? Does the scale start with the Greens being in the centre and everything else is gradually further right? What is to the left of the Greens?
And finally, talking of TV the BBC licence fee is up for renewal after two years of no increase. This is causing the role of the BBC to be questioned and its alleged/confirmed (select your own) bias to the left. It also raised the bullying attitude of the BBC towards non-payment of the licence fee. It transpired that 10% of all prosecutions in the magistrates’ courts are for non-payment of the TV licence fee. Until a few years ago the licence fee was waived for the over 75s. The BBC abolished this privilege, and it would be interesting to find out what percentage of the prosecutions were of the elderly.
PS. The new series of Dr Who started last week to condemnation from the general public about it being ruined and how the Wokerati in charge have destroyed a national institution.