Tag Archives: christina patterson

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.

Is The Independent anti-Semitic?

I don’t think so, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth the discussion. After all we have just had to endure a week of radio phone-ins questioning whether England is an anti-Semitic country after Shimon Peres’ less than diplomatic recent interview in which he said that “There is in England a saying that an anti-Semite is someone who hates the Jews more than is necessary.”

That dreadful statement implies that the English dislike the Jews as a matter of course which is not true.

Peres was correct however in pointing to the political advantage for many of being anti-Israel. They’ve done the maths.

Even David Cameron managed to keep tight-lipped about Israel until election-day. He made a point of referring to East Jerusalem as “occupied East Jerusalem” but because he constantly praised British Jews for their contribution to British society they flocked to vote for him and his party.

However, within three months of being elected his true thoughts revealed themselves when he referred to Gaza as being a “prison camp” because of Israel and he called the attack on the Mavi Marmara unreasonable (I doubt Cameron would have allowed an IRA boat to have docked at a British port).

But while England is not an anti-Semitic country there are English people that are anti-Semitic. This anti-Semitism is not merely confined to the BNP but deeply penetrates the far-left of politics also.

The subtle difference is that while the BNP and other far-right groups actively encourage anti-Semitism those on the far-left allow it to flourish unchallenged in order to suit their objectives.

Take the case of the openly and virulently anti-Semitic Hamas. Their Charter talks of jihad and killing Jews but the far-left will never condemn Hamas. Instead they state that although they don’t support Hamas they support the Palestinian people’s elected representatives’ right to govern. This is where the ideology of the far-left and Hamas coincide: the destruction of the Jewish state.

The expressed anti-Semitism of Hamas is left unchallenged by far-left political activists because they see it as having, for them, this benign outcome.

This isn’t a new phenomenon. Down the years far-left politics have helped to destroy many a Jewish life, so why should it be any different today.

But getting back to The Independent. While Peres was taken to task over his unhinged statement The Independent got away with publishing an objectionable article by Chistina Patterson disingenuously headlined The limits of multi-culturalism in which she attacks religious Jews for the capital crime of…..being rude. For example:

“I didn’t realise that goyim were about as welcome in the Hasidic Jewish shops as Martin Luther King at a Klu Klux Klan convention.”

She doesn’t like the way religious Jews clog up the pavements with their prams and children, drive while on their mobile phones and drive the wrong way into supermarket car-parks.

To honour political correctness Patterson then goes on to slam the way Muslims dress before arriving at her real gripe; female circumcision and the lack of prosecutions for it.

Now female circumcision is a far more serious crime among ethnic groups than being rude. I am sure that many religious Jews are incredibly rude but then many non-Jews are also guilty of the same charges of rudeness and driving while speaking on a mobile phone.

So Patterson’s attack on this specific group of Jews is totally gratuitous. Not only that but when one ascribes such miserable traits to just one group of people, like Patterson does, people might have the wholly legitimate right to identify this as nothing less than racist rhetoric. This kind of talk is comparable with the notoriously anti-Semitic “Jews are tight with money” jibe.

Patterson’s gratuitous attack on religious Jews seems to be a cover for her not unreasonable attack on the barbaric but very rare British Muslim practice of female circumcision and as a good liberal Patterson probably wanted to show balance.

By now we are used to The Independent being a totally anti-Israel newspaper. Johann Hari, Yasmin Alibai-Brown and Robert Fisk have spent vast amounts of their journalistic years taking Israel to task. Fisk won’t even compare Israel to Hamas. Israel is far, far worse apparently now.

Sadly, The Independent’s views are more far more ideological than factual about Israel and at times the newspaper itself seems to be a mere extension of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, the high-profile anti-Israel lobby group.

But this unscientific attack by Patterson on Jews directly is out of place in a British newspaper. I’m surprised it was allowed to run but then maybe The Independent is unfussed these days in appealing to the people Peres meant to refer to in his interview as being anti-Semitic. After all with its vastly declining circulation it needs the readership.

But where were the phone-ins about Patterson’s objectionable views?