Saturday, 2 May 2015

In a post I wrote recently about the "Jewish Manifesto" the Board of Deputies has published for the British election, I pointed out that a fair chunk of it is taken up with Israel-related demands. Thinking about it in the abstract, it's quite a bizarre thing that "policy asks" concerning a foreign country should feature so largely in an election held in Britain. But according to the "rules of politeness" that tyrannise our public sphere, no one ever dares to call Jews on the disloyalty that this concern for a foreign country implies. And if anyone does, the Jews mobilise against them and get them anathematised. Here we see an example of it in the response the Jews got when they tried to push their manifesto on a Lib Dem candidate.
A Liberal Democrat candidate has refused to back a Board of Deputies initiative relating to Jewish issues after appearing to accuse the organisation of mistreating Palestinians. 
Peter Hirst, who is standing in the Lancashire seat of Congleton, had been approached to support the Board’s Jewish Manifesto document. He responded by telling the Board: “How you treat the Palestinian people prevents me from signing up [to] this otherwise welcome manifesto.” 
Board chief executive Gillian Merron said: “Regardless of Dr Hirst’s views on the situation in the Middle East, his willingness to hold British Jews responsible for a complex conflict and to subsequently refuse to back the community on issues such as antisemitism, religious freedoms and promoting tolerance, as outlined in the Board’s Jewish Manifesto, is deeply disturbing.”
Source: Jewish Chronicle

So Jews in Britain seek to advance the interests of a foreign country in a British election, then when the person they are pressuring quite reasonably makes a connection between them and the country whose interests they are seeking to advance ("the Jewish state"), they go into hysterics, claiming it is improper that he has made this connection!

It reminds me of Baroness Warsi complaining that people thought she only got her job because she was brown-skinned and a woman then demanding that she be allowed to keep it because she was brown-skinned and a woman and the Conservatives needed those demographics. The Jews themselves actually have a word for this: Chutzpah.

UKIP have also suspended a candidate for making similar remarks about dual loyalties of Jewish candidates in an interview with the South-African website European Knights Project.
In the EKP interview, Sen said: “The minority South African, and Afrikaner in particular, is an endangered species in my estimation. It is being systemically hunted into extinction by a people we were told wanted to live in democratic harmony back in 1994. 
“Remember the rainbow nation propaganda campaign? Hard to reach that lofty ideal when people are being gunned down for sport from Joburg to Capetown. It’s still hunting season from what I can see.” 
He also said that there was a “common thread” that bound two prominent Jewish figures in South Africa and Miliband. “Your audience will have to decide what that is,” he told the website. 
A series of tweets were directed at Berger from his account. One read: “If you had it your way you’d send the £ to Poland/Israel.” Berger was accused of having “divided loyalties” and one of the tweets read: “Britain’s youngest Jewish MP, Luciana Berger, is facing criticism over her record of … loyalties”.
Source: Guardian

Of course, having recently received a £1 million donation from the Jewish newspaper proprietor Richard Desmond, you wouldn't expect UKIP to be championing free speech on this issue, would you?


Post a Comment