The Independent’s New Year’s message to Britain’s Jews: Goodbye Israel.

While Britain’s Jews were last week preparing for Rosh Hashanah Mary Dejevsky, of The Independent newspaper, was thinking about her article Will Israel still exist in 2048?, which was published on Friday, the second day of Rosh Hashanah.

She imagined every doomsday scenario possible which could mean that “Israel, as currently constituted, may not be a permanent feature of the international scene”.

She wished to give the impression of objectivity by telling us that “Israel should continue to exist” because it has “UN recognition”, “has survived more than 60 years in a distinctly hostile neighbourhood”, “has created a thriving economy” and “has a rich cultural life”.

The question for her is whether Israel “can and will survive”.

This sounds distinctly like PLO/Fatah and Hamas rhetoric. Both, like Dejevsky, recognise Israel’s existence as fact. But, neither recognise Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

And nowhere in her article does Dejevsky acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, which might explain her excitement at the possibilities of how Israel’s demise might come about.

Possibility 1: Israel’s borders are too vast and too porous to defend and could be breached by Palestinian civilians from Syria or there could some sort of invasion from Egypt. The Palestinian Authority and Jordan may join in.

Possibility 2: Islamists may come to power in the surrounding countries with the knock on consequences for Israel and the new Arab leaders “will have to be responsive to the wishes of their people”.

Possibility 3: Israel’s suffers a societal split making it less unified and, therefore, less likely to successfully defend itself militarily. This split, she thinks, will be the result of “the Arab, Orthodox Jewish and second-generation Russian populations increasing much faster than other groups”.

She explains that the Holocaust could be “less of a unifying force” and that “the younger, more educated” of the population might leave Israel.

Dejevsky leaves Israel with just two outcomes; it becomes a fortress-like, isolated state protected by nuclear weapeons or “the so-called one-state solution” ensues.

She concludes with the idea that “Next Year in Jerusalem” could be reduced to “a noble ambition overtaken by cruel demographic and geopolitical reality”.

First, she should know that the Holocaust is not needed to unify Israelis. They are unified by their desire to go on living.

Second, none of the three groups she cites as catalysts for a possible societal split would prefer living under Arab rule, judging by the human rights violations ongoing in many of the world’s Arab and Muslim states. That applies to Palestinian Israelis too.

Third, Israel already has 200 nuclear weapons, so what will be the difference in 10 or 20 years time?

And, finally, Israel has a far superior fire-power and will win wars against any Islamist states.

Dejevsky could have written an article about the demise of any country by 2048. Who knows what could have happened to Britain, America or France by then?

And her article would have been a pleasure to read for those who really wish Israel harm, but for it to be published on Rosh Hashanah shows a lack of respect for Britain’s Jews that The Indy is becoming notorious for.

That The Independent hasn’t got a great deal of respect for Britain’s Jews, especially the more religious ones, is evident from the piece by Christina Patterson it published last year in which she tore apart Hasidic Jews living in Stamford Hill in a manner that she wouldn’t dare to do if she was on the receiving end of the same behaviour she attributed to them if they happened to be Blacks, Asians or Muslims living in a certain part of London.

The Independent does have the pro-Israel Howard Jacobson writing for it. However, this only seems to allow other Independent commentators like Dejevsky, Patterson, Johann Hari and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to be even more vitriolic about Israel as any complaints to OFCOM about bias can be countered by The Indy pointing to the presence of Jacobson in its pages.

While Israel lives on the same cannot be said for The Independent. With its ever plummeting sales figures who can say whether it will see 2018, let alone 2048.

37 responses to “The Independent’s New Year’s message to Britain’s Jews: Goodbye Israel.

  1. I think she should have been asking if England will exist in 2048.

    • Or 2028.
      The traitors running this country – and I mean ‘traitors’ in the most literal, legal sense – are doing their damnest to ensure she doesn’t.

  2. Strange that she left Iran out of the equation…surely the greatest threat. Because if it came to a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran, there will be no winners or survivors….except the cockroaches. Israel had better destroy Iran’s nuclear installations before it is too late.

    • I was hoping they’d do it before Bush left office, and consider it a huge mistake that they didn’t.

  3. Jonathan Hoffman

    “The Independent” was sold for just £1 to Alexander Lebedev … and now it is speculating on ISRAEL’S longevity?

    You couldn’t make it up ..

  4. The question of Israel’s survival is one which indeed causes much speculation.
    We occupy about 0.25% of the Middle East and most of our neighbours don’t like us very much.
    Even those who have peace agreements with us could at any time change their minds as has been shown by the recent changes in Egypt.
    At its inception Israel was were attacked by its neighbours and has had to endure another two serious attempts to destroy her and countless military skimishes.
    We’ve also got Iran trying desperately to get neuclear and guess who they want as their first customer.
    It really doesn’t make much sense that not only have we survived but in many ways prospered.
    It is only with G-d’s help that we have survived and that we will continue to survive and prosper.

  5. Anyway:
    The modern equivalent of the Stuermer prints a bile-dripping Jew-hating piece.
    It’s a dog-bites-man story.

  6. At least Johann Hari is out of the picture for a while – here is the teaser from Wikipedia about it – some blogs have done great jobs fisking his apology. Let’s hope he’ll have to stay in honesty-rehab for a long long time.

    In 2011, Hari was suspended from The Independent following accusations of professional misconduct. He later apologised for plagiarising and for using Wikipedia to make malicious attacks under a pseudonym.

    As to Howard Jacobson, if I remember correctly, he is all for the division of Jerusalem and giving the PalArabs the rocket launching pads they crave.

  7. I found the article disturbing, but to be honest, as a staunch Zionist, I share many of the concerns that are raised. I didn’t sense ‘wishful thinking’ in the article.

    I believe that the main propaganda issue Israel faces is because it is perceived as being in a position of strength (compared with the meek Palestinians). The reality is different, given the hostile environment within which it exists. Israel’s existence as the only Jewish state is always under threat. Perhaps if this perspective were more widely held, there wouldn’t be so much anti-Zionism?

    • richardmillett

      Hi Robin, I think that a lack of wishful thinking is a good summation. That is what i sensed in the article also; she is almost willing for all this to happen.

      • Richard, I think – correct me if I’m wrong, Robin – that you misread Robin’s meaning. I think Robin meant he *didn’t* sense that she was willing for any of it to happen.

        That’s how I read the article, anyway. She’s just laying out possible scenarios that are regularly discussed by many Israelis, too. You see articles like this in the Israeli press a lot.

        As Robin, said, when articles such as this Independent one are read it helps the general public understand the threats Israel is facing. Which is a good thing.

        There are so many unpleasant/distorted articles about Israel in the media, not least in the Independent. This isn’t one of them.

  8. I don’t read the Independent as it is anything but!

    The notion of Palestinian Israelis is an oxymoron. They can either be Palestinian or Israeli but not both. In Israel there are Arab Israelis, Muslim Israelis, Jewish Israelis, Christian Israelis and some, and this is because the groups are either religion based or a race of people. The notion of Palestinian Israelis gives credibility to the notion that the Palestinians are a distinct Muslim people with a racial/ethnic background different and separate from other Arab Muslims. Since I know certain Israeli Jews born in the Palestinian Mandated territories pre 1948 who traveled on Palestinian Mandate passports, I guess they too would be Palestinian Israelis were such a grouping not an oxymoron? And for sure those born after 1948 whose parents emanated from areas now referred to as Palestine would also be Palestinian Israelis? And if such sprog were born elsewhere in the world, would they also not have this right of return demanded for Palestinians in all these ill-conceived peace processes? Or once again are Jews denied rights demanded by others, just as the Jews’ right to exist in a Jewish state not dissimilar to Islamic states nearby or Catholic states like the Vatican is denied?

    But who cares anyway – Jews have outlived every other civilization by a long shot and no op-ed by some stupid woman or failing newspaper can alter that fact. One thing is for sure – Israel will certainly outlive the EU!

  9. Richard, this was an excellent analysis of Dejevsky’s wrongly drawn conclusions.

    What I found disturbing, besides the article itself, were the hundreds of comments, so many of them dripping with antisemitism, occasionally overt, often disguised as “only” anti-Zionist. I felt physically sick.

    It amuses and amazes me each time anew how many hundreds of comments appear under any article about Israel on any foreign website, be it the Guardian, Indy, NYT, CBC, even the Telegraph. You don’t see anywhere near these numbers on any other subject.

    I suppose that old adage is true: Jews is News.

  10. This man nails the problem succinctly. He knows. He’s a Muslim. And it is exactly this that Obama and Netanyahu should be telling the world , instead of waffling on about a ‘peace process’ that does not exist. Obama has nothing valid to say on the matter, Richard. Period. He’s a fraud.

    • “if they all convert” is another canard – in olden times Islam took care that not too many converted, according to Tom Holland in Millenium to get their tax incomes right but I think also in order to preserve it as looking like an honour to be admitted in. Currently they may be taking everybody but they are the masters of adjustable policies.

      BTW the NSDAP had stretches during which it didn’t allow new members in.

  11. @OyvaGoy – That’s exactly what I meant.
    @Roger – Thanks for posting that video.

    • Thanks – thought so! 🙂

      • richardmillett

        Well the Indy isn’t a paper you turn to for pro-Israel analysis. As anneinpt says below look at the letters page today and the comments below Dejevsky’s article. This article won’t help Israel in the slightest. Many people want to read how vulnerable Israel is to attack. It gives them hope. They love it. The article was unnecessary. You might read this is Israel, but usually only in Haaretz and usually by Gideon Levy. They way she invoked the Holocaust and her mention of the “one-state solution” were pernicious. These, for me, were what gave her game away. I don’t believe this article was written with Israel’s health in mind. Had she stated Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state I would have been more inclined to believe she had Israel’s interests at heart.

  12. Israelinurse

    “Possibility 1: Israel’s borders are too vast and too porous to defend and could be breached by Palestinian civilians from Syria …”

    The writer has obviously not seen the new fence built after the border infiltration earlier this year. Believe me, that is not going to happen again.

  13. Read the 2 letters about Dejevsky’s article in today’s Indy, both of which smear Israel, claim Israel will not be around in 2048, talking about “European settlers colonising a foreign land” and claiming that the economy of Palestine had been highly developed before the Jews arrived, which is such a laughable assertion that it’s amazing an adult can write such drivel.

    I would write a talkback in the comments beneath the letters page, but from my bitter experience it all descends into an immediate flame war with hundreds of comments from people who haven’t a clue about what they’re talking, as long as they can besmirch Israel. I simply haven’t got the kop or the time to deal with it as I used to. But it is so exceedingly depressing to think there are so many Israel-haters out there.

    • If your comment isn’t deleted, that is. Most antisemitic papers are also cowardly (as are sites like SU and Lenin’s Tomb, of course, run by complete pondscum).

  14. I think putting the question into a question of life or death (survive) is aimed at making readers salivate (in case Anglos salivate when they see and smell appetizing must have food) and from comments here I see that they do exactly that.

    All in all I tend to get more scared by not openly anti-semitic pieces than by real screamers.

    Another of those threats which is peddled with abandon by pro-Israel Jeffrey Goldberg is that Israel will become a pariah-state if she doesn’t obey.

    I could never ever threaten somebody I claim to love with becoming a pariah just as I could never discuss with him/her chances of survival if he/she is battling a bad cold.

  15. Israel will exist long after The Independent, The Guardian and other anti Israel organisms have dropped by the wayside. That was as cruel an article as I have ever seen. Britain as we now know it might not be around by 2048.

  16. Julie Burchill, one of the most pro Israel Britons around – writes a column for Das Independent.

  17. Richard

    If not demanding the immediate destruction of the State of Israel is what qualifies a writer to be ‘pro-Israel’ nowadays then I guess Howard Jacobson might scrape home as ‘pro-Israel’. But having read his book the Finkler Question then we are REALLY in trouble if he is the one to stand up for Israel. The Finkler Question is a massively overrated piece of garbage which was supposed to poke fun at anti-Israel Jews but only actually succeeds in presenting a totally anti-Israel narrative right down to the defining ‘finale’ in which a Jewish terrorist in Israel randomly kills a load of Arabs, thus causing the book’s pro-Israel elderly Jewish character to commit suicide.

  18. The truth is, Dejevsky’s arguments will not be refuted by other arguments, only reality. She makes many valid points, many of which I have considered myself.

    Potentially millions of refugees storming Israel’s borders? Will, should, Israelis have the will to shoot them? Even if I think they should, will an 18 year old on the front line feel the same?

    Israel under seige: Hamas and an MB Egypt, with a porous Sinai. Netanyahu has focussed on Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas. Can Israel’s overstretched forces faces a new front?

    Potential war with Turkey, the most serious consequences for Israel are damage or loss of her oil and gas resources, already threatened by Hamas.

    In a sense, Iran is nothing compared with these.

    In the event of a third intifada, combined with war in the east and south, would Israeli Jews have to define new internal borders against Israeli Arabs, or worse? And would they even even had the will or means to do so?

    Will an increase in orthodoxy among Israeli Jews, and its soldiery, drive out the secular elements, as in Turkey and Egypt? Frankly, it wouldn’t leave much of the Israel I know and love.

    The P.A. is now settling down to a long BDS, Hamas, MB-Egypt, Turkey seige of Israel, to ‘iiberate’ every last inch of the 67 WB. Now Israel is relatively strong. But that mayn’t remain the case. Israel is obliged by all kinds of constraints to let her existential long term enemies live, and survive, to threaten her existence later.

  19. Potential war with Turkey, the most serious consequences for Israel are damage or loss of her oil and gas resources, already threatened by Hizbullah.

  20. Actually, the Independent is saying, Shana tova, Israel is doomed. And what’s so wrong with a fortress? Israel has always been a kind of fortress.

    • one can’t have Jews in a fortress – that just won’t do – Fortresses are not for Jews – Jews have to live openly where everybody can get at them with the least bother.


  21. Okay, all these “threats” are very worrying. But hey! Who would have believed, at the first Zionist Congress, that there would even be a Jewish State in only half a century? All the odds were against it. But, at the risk of it sounding like a cliché, let me quote Herzl: “”If I had to sum up the Basel Congress in one word—which I shall not do openly—it would be this: At Basel I founded the Jewish state. If I were to say this today, I would be greeted by universal laughter. In five years, perhaps, and certainly in 50, everyone will see it.”
    And who would have believed, when the nascent State of Israel was attacked by 7 Arab states (not to mention the Arabs within) that she would not only survive, but emerge with even more territory than that allocated her by the United Nations (who did NOTHING to ensure that their own Partition Decision was implemented)? Time and time again, with God’s help, we have beaten the odds. Our very existence, as a people, as Jews, is in defiance of all the odds (which drove Arnold Toynbee crazy, since we refused to fit into his world-view).
    I have faith. My only fear is that we, ourselves, will lose faith. As long as we have faith – in the Almighty, in ourselves and in each other – we will continue to be strong and we will continue to survive.

    גמר חתימה טובה

    • Shimona

      Do you have a link to that nonsense Toynbee said at Cairo? where he said that about not recognizing Jesus?

      I learned a lot from his Study of History (4 volumes in German) and find it difficult to sync that with that quote – on the other hand Wikipedia suggests that he was quite a weathervane.

  22. The Obama’s Speechat the UN….A wonderful speech. A beautiful speech.

    The language expressive and elegant. The arguments clear and convincing. The delivery flawless.

    A work of art. The art of hypocrisy. Almost every statement in the passage concerning the Israeli-Palestinian issue was a lie. A blatant lie: the speaker knew it was a lie, and so did the audience.

    It was Obama at his best, Obama at his worst.

    Being a moral person, he must have felt the urge to vomit. Being a pragmatic person, he knew that he had to do it, if he wanted to be re-elected.

    In essence, he sold the fundamental national interests of the United States of America for the chance of a second term.

    Not very nice, but that’s politics, OK?

    It may be superfluous – almost insulting to the reader – to point out the mendacious details of this rhetorical edifice.

    Obama treated the two sides as if they were equal in strength – Israelis and Palestinians, Palestinians and Israelis.

    But of the two, it is the Israelis – only they – who suffer and have suffered. Persecution. Exile. Holocaust. An Israeli child threatened by rockets. Surrounded by the hatred of Arab children. So sad.

    No Occupation. No settlements. No June 1967 borders. No Naqba. No Palestinian children killed or frightened. It’s the straight right-wing Israeli propaganda line, pure and simple – the terminology, the historical narrative, the argumentation. The music.

    The Palestinians, of course, should have a state of their own. Sure, sure. But they must not be pushy. They must not embarrass the US. They must not come to the UN. They must sit with the Israelis, like reasonable people, and work it out with them. The reasonable sheep must sit down with the reasonable wolf and decide what to have for dinner. Foreigners should not interfere.

    Obama gave full service. A lady who provides this kind of service generally gets paid in advance. Obama got paid immediately afterwards, within the hour. Netanyahu sat down with him in front of the cameras and gave him enough quotable professions of love and gratitude to last for several election campaigns.

    • No June 1967 borders.

      Maybe because there has never been such a thing as ‘1967 borders’.

      As to the rest of your lying drivel: eff off.

    • The suffering of the Palestinians over the past 64 years is due to one thing only: the collective moral failure of the arab/ Islamic world to accept the facts on the ground – the establishment in 1948 of the nation state of the Jewish people.
      Your ‘narrative’ conveniently omits this. You keep pushing your children into the path of a train and then claim the train is to blame. Obama’s speech is mmerely proof that you can’t fool all the people all of the time.

  23. I sent quite a few comments to that article, and as expected, all and any ‘awkward questions’ were immediately deleted by the moderator.