Blogroll: Lustig's Letter
I read blogs, as well as write one. The 'blogroll' on this site reproduces some posts from some of the people I enjoy reading. There are currently 5 posts from the blog 'Lustig's Letter.'
Disclaimer: Reproducing an article here need not necessarily imply agreement or endorsement!
I know this is almost certainly a forlorn hope, but let’s see if I can inject some dispassionate reasoning into the ‘burka’ debate.
(I put ‘burka’ in quotes, because although it is the word that everyone is using when discussing Boris Johnson’s article in the Daily Telegraph, what they’re actually referring to is the ‘niqab’.) Burkas are worn almost exclusively in Pakistan, Afghanistan and parts of India, and they look like this:
A niqab is the face covering worn mainly by women in Saudi Arabia and some Gulf states. It looks like this:
The former foreign secretary wrote that he was not in favour of banning the burka or the niqab in the UK, on the grounds that it would risk making martyrs of the women who would be prosecuted for wearing them. So far, so impeccably liberal.
But then he said this: ‘It is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes.’ And for good measure, he added, a few lines later, that if a female student with her face covered ‘turned up at school or at a university lecture looking like a bank robber’, he would feel fully entitled to ask her to remove her face covering.
Two points need to be made: first, that Johnson himself acknowledges that, at least in some cases, Muslim women do choose, of their own volition, to cover their faces. (I got into a huge amount of trouble on Twitter a couple of days ago from his supporters for suggesting the same thing.) And second, that his insulting remarks were aimed not at the form of dress to which he objects but to the women who wear it.
And by the way, if you don’t believe that some Muslim women – a tiny number in the UK – do choose to cover their faces, you may find this article of interest.
Boris Johnson is one of the country’s leading politicians. Until recently he was foreign secretary – and, as you may remember, not so long ago, he put himself forward as a potential leader of his party and prime minister. That’s why what he wrote is of greater importance than if the same words had been written by, say, Richard Littlejohn or Rod Liddle.
As it happens, I am no fan of either the niqab or the burka. I disapprove of any society in which women are expected to cover their faces on the grounds that men need to be protected from temptation. And I accept that in many countries in the Middle East and south Asia, far too many women are forced to wear a form of clothing that they would not choose for themselves.
Over the years, I have reported extensively from countries where women are forced, either by law or by social pressure, to cover their faces, and I know that many of them would love to be able to dress differently. But that has nothing to do with what Mr Johnson said in his newspaper article.
Because, to repeat, what he did was gratuitously insult Muslim women living in Britain. He could have said what he wanted to say without insulting anyone, but that wouldn’t have served his purpose. With just a few deftly targeted words, he sent a coded message to right-wing Tories and homeless ex-UKIP voters. ‘I’m your man.’ It was straight from the Trump/Bannon political playbook.
If you could see the outpouring of anti-Muslim vitriol that I have received from Boris supporters since first commenting on this, you would understand why his words were so reprehensible. His article was both cynical and dangerous, and it will make Muslim women even more vulnerable than they already are. From a man who still wants to prime minister, it was a disgrace.
I have a question for the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, who this week – together with the editors of two rival Jewish publications – published a statement in which they claimed that a government led by Jeremy Corbyn would pose an ‘existential threat to Jewish life in this country’.
Their fear stems from the Labour party’s insistence that it does not wish to adopt as an example of antisemitism ‘denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.’
So my question is this: does he regard the statement ‘the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 may well have been a mistake’ as antisemitic? And how about this? ‘The Zionist dream of a homeland in which Jews could live in safety has turned out to be a chimera.’
Both statements, on the face of it, could be interpreted as denying Jews their right to self-determination. They would, therefore, fall foul of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism which is at the centre of the row over the Labour party’s alleged failure to deal with the issue.
But as it happens, both statements are taken from an article that appeared in the Jewish Chronicle itself – an article that I remember well because I wrote it.
In my memoir, Is Anything Happening? (still available from all the usual places), I reflected at some length on my time as a Middle East correspondent based in Jerusalem and my three decades of reporting from and about the region. My conclusion, in the book as well as on the pages of the Jewish Chronicle, was as quoted above.
So am I antisemitic? As the son of refugees from Nazi Germany, whose maternal grandmother was shot by a Nazi death squad in 1941 (the story is here if you’re interested), I think I’m a pretty unlikely antisemite.
I’m also a pretty unlikely Corbyn supporter on this issue – a few months back, I described his attempts to deal with it as having demonstrated ‘a truly spectacular level of incompetence’. Yet when it comes to definitions, I think he is more right than wrong.
Here is what the Labour party’s code of conduct on antisemitism says about its attitude towards Israel: ‘The party is clear that the Jewish people have the same right to self-determination as other people. To deny that right is to treat the Jewish people unequally and is therefore a form of antisemitism.’
And it adds: ‘The fact of Israel’s description as a Jewish state does not make it permissible to hold Jewish people or institutions in general responsible for alleged misconduct on the part of that state. In addition, it is wrong to apply double standards by requiring more vociferous condemnation of such actions from Jewish people or organisations than from others.’
All of which strikes me as perfectly adequate. And if I were a member of the Labour party, I don’t think I would fall foul of its rules.
Nor would the Israeli-born musician Daniel Barenboim, who wrote the other day that a new Israeli law which states that ‘Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people and they have an exclusive right to national self-determination in it’ is a ‘very clear form of apartheid’. Under the IHRA definition on the other hand (‘the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour’), he would almost certainly be branded an antisemite. What, after all, is apartheid, if not a ‘racist endeavour’?
At the heart of the Labour party’s problems over all this lie the left’s five decades of antipathy towards the state of Israel, matched only by their antipathy towards the US. Ever since the 1967 war, when Israel seized control of the territories of the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights, as well as east Jerusalem, it has been seen by many on the left as an aggressive oppressor of the Palestinian people, to be condemned at every opportunity.
Given that Israel is the fulfilment of a Zionist dream (Zionism = a political ideology that supports the establishment of a Jewish homeland), if Israel behaves badly – so the argument goes -- then it must be the fault of Zionists. And if most Jews describe themselves as Zionists … well, you can see where this is going.
Jeremy Corbyn and those around him have a long history of tolerating anti-Zionists who too often stray across the line into antisemitism. If they were better able to tell the difference, they could have avoided much of the current nonsense.
Even so, for Jewish newspapers to talk of an ‘existential risk to Jewish life in this country’ is to give new meaning to the concept of hyperbole.
As it happens, I have just been doing some research into my own family background. My paternal grandmother’s cousin, Julius Philippson, was an anti-Nazi activist in Berlin who was arrested in 1937, sentenced to life imprisonment and never heard of again.
Another of her cousins, another Julius, Julius Flesch, was also active in the underground, fled to Italy, where he was betrayed in 1944 and sent to Auschwitz where he died.
Arguing over definitions of antisemitism does not pose an existential risk to anyone. And it does the Jewish newspaper editors’ cause no good at all to claim that it does.
I want you to try to imagine that a foreign power has systematically, secretly and illegally been spending huge sums of money to weaken its overseas rivals -- including the UK -- and subvert their political systems.
Its aim has been to weaken their global influence and strengthen its own position. I also want you to imagine that there is substantial and increasing evidence that its efforts have been successful beyond its wildest dreams.
If you can, imagine that while one wealthy British businessman was spending more than £8 million to promote a policy dear to this nation’s heart, he was also being offered at least three potentially lucrative investment opportunities in its gold or diamond mines.
Imagine that at the same time, his main corporate asset was posting a loss of £32 million. And imagine, moreover, that a journalist who ghost-wrote a book for this same businessman, and who had access to forty thousand emails provided by him, concluded that he had been ‘shamelessly used’ by the foreign power.
What’s more, according to the BBC, a parallel campaign is about to be found guilty by an independent election watchdog of breaking the law on election finance by making an inaccurate return of campaign expenditure; failing to provide a complete set of invoices and receipts; and exceeding permitted spending limits.
I suspect that – in your imagination – this would all seem like a pretty big deal. Certainly something that would be all over the media, with teams of investigative journalists digging away to get to the bottom of it.
I’m afraid I’m not done yet. I now need you to imagine that in a different country, a senior lawmaker has called a disruption campaign organised by the same foreign power ‘extensive and sophisticated’, and said that its goals were to ‘undermine public faith in the democratic process’, to hurt one presidential candidate and to benefit another. (Guess what. Its favoured candidate won.)
A special prosecutor is already hard at work gathering evidence to see if crimes have been committed. Several arrests have been made, and the president’s former personal lawyer is the latest figure said to be ready to dish the dirt.
So let me now spell it out, to give your over-heated imagination a break. In the words of New York magazine: ‘In 2016, Vladimir Putin reaped two of his greatest foreign policy triumphs in quick succession. The United Kingdom voted narrowly to exit the European Union, advancing a longstanding Russian goal of splitting Western allies that have long been united against it. Later that year, the United States voted even more narrowly to elect Donald Trump president ... The more we learn, the more similar the pattern of behaviour in the two countries becomes clear, and the more suspicious the denials of Putin’s partners grows.’
By now, perhaps, your imagination has started to join up the dots. It will have no difficulty imagining that there are connections between the parties involved – that the British millionaire businessman, for example, is a vociferous supporter of, and has met with, the victorious US presidential candidate.
So why have I asked you to imagine all this? After all, if you have clicked on any of the links above, you will know that none of it needs to be imagined. There really is growing evidence that Russia has spent millions to subvert the democratic process in both the UK and the US – and indeed has tried to do so elsewhere.
But somehow, it hasn’t broken through into public consciousness yet – perhaps because Westminster correspondents are obsessed with the minutiae of Tory party Brexit-inspired meltdowns, and anyway, it’s July, the sun is shining, and both the World Cup and Wimbledon are on TV.
With one exception – the indefatigable Carole Cadwalladr of The Observer, who has done more than anyone to bring all this to light and was recently awarded the highly prestigious Orwell prize for journalism – much of the UK media seem to find it all far too complicated and arcane. It is frankly bizarre that there is so little coverage of what may turn out to be the most serious attack on Western democracies since 1945.
(Credit, however, to the BBC in Northern Ireland, where the Spotlightprogramme has been investigating the DUP's record £435,000 donation during the EU referendum campaign.)
My view is that if a foreign power illegally financed a campaign to take the UK out of the European Union -- and helped to elect the most dangerous US president in recent history -- then that’s something we need to know about. And if laws were broken in the UK, especially if they were broken by senior political figures (and their aides), prosecutions must follow. Anyone would think we just don’t care very much if someone illegally buys their way to a momentous political decision of their liking.
Did I hear someone say novichok? I think I’ll leave that one for now … although you may care to re-read my piece from last March on the subject.
One final point: I should add that just about everyone alleged to be involved in the various events I have outlined above deny any wrongdoing.
England go through! Yeah!
Germany go home! Yeah again!
Brexit will be great! Er, excuse me?
Don’t you hate it when what eleven men do with a spherical object on a patch of grass suddenly gets translated into some mystically powerful symbol of the State of the World?
By all means, celebrate the achievements of an England football team that aren’t a total disgrace. For me personally, it’s less than life-changing, but hey, if it makes you happy, be my guest.
But please, spare me the guff about Britain holding its head high in Europe again, or showing who’s boss, or Engerland all the way. Sport is never a metaphor for lasting political success, as a certain German leader discovered to his cost after the Berlin Olympics in 1936.
The truth is that Europe is in deep trouble. So if the World Cup had anything to do with reality, this year’s tournament would be won by a non-European team. My own preference would be Mexico, just to piss off Donald Trump, who thinks it’s where the ‘animals’ who ‘infest’ the United States come from.
As for Brexit, our EU neighbours have given up worrying. Their attitude can now be accurately, if brutally, summed up as: ‘Tell us when you’ve managed to work out what you want, and then we’ll tell you why you can’t have it.’
Once upon a time, not so long ago, the countries of western Europe linked up with the United States and Canada to form something called The West. They were united by a shared belief in liberal democracy and capitalism, and a perceived need to protect themselves against expansionist Soviet communism.
Most importantly, they believed that they were both stronger and safer when they cooperated with each other than when they confronted each other. That’s what NATO was all about – ‘an attack on one is an attack on all’ – it was also, in a strictly European context, what the EU was all about.
No longer – and not only because of Brexit. European leaders of the stature of Helmut Kohl, François Mitterrand and Vaclav Havel have long gone. Now, Angela Merkel, the last leader worthy of the name on the European stage, is so politically weakened that she may soon be gone as well. Emmanuel Macron is all that’s left, but he sometimes seems to think he’s the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte, which I find somewhat worrying.
The post-war consensus – that the nations of the Western world must work together for the benefit of all instead of going to war for the benefit of none – has been shredded. When Donald Trump promises ‘America First’, we know that what he means is ‘And the rest of the world, allies included, nowhere.’
Mr Trump is a salesman, first and last. His over-riding aim is to screw anyone with whom he does business, because it’s the only way he knows how to ensure that he’s not getting screwed himself. The notion of a ‘fair deal’ has no place in his thinking. I must always win, because otherwise I will always lose.
Look at his record: Paris climate deal? Ripped up. Iran nuclear deal? Ditto. G7 summit? Trashed. Trade war with allies Canada and the EU? Bring it on.
The NATO summit is next, followed closely by a summit in Helsinki with President Putin. No prizes for guessing which will produce the warmer words.
Wherever you look, the autocrats, xenophobes and extreme nationalists are on the march. In Germany, Angela Merkel is under threat from anti-immigration voices both inside and outside her coalition. In Hungary and Poland, governments have no hesitation in pandering to the basest of anti-foreigner sentiment. In Italy, one of the EU’s biggest economies, the most powerful voice in the newly-formed government is that of Matteo Salvini, the loud-mouth leader of the formerly separatist (Northern) League.
And worst of all, in the United States, which twice in the last century came to Europe’s rescue to save it from itself, the man in the Oval Office cares for nothing except his own self-image as the strongest leader of the strongest nation in the world.
Perhaps it is because he knows that in reality he is anything but strong that he so enjoys basking in the reflected glory of other self-styled ‘strong leaders’. He values the friendship of Xi Jinping of China, Vladimir Putin of Russia, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey – even the ‘rocket man’ of North Korea, Kim Jong-Un – far more than that of the US’s traditional allies. How does he describe Justin Trudeau and Angela Merkel? Weak, weak, weak.
In Trumpworld, democrats (and Democrats, come to that) are by definition weak and ineffectual. Only autocrats are worthy of respect. Trump’s latest bright idea is to rip up the rule of law and deport allegedly illegal immigrants without even a semblance of due process. After all, even before he was elected, he was whipping up his supporters into a frenzy of hysteria just at the thought of jailing his opponent, Hillary Clinton. (‘Lock her up, lock her up.’)
For eighteen months, ever since Trump took office, commentators have shied away from describing him as a Fascist. Now, perhaps, it is time to stop pretending. In Washington, and in a worrying number of European capitals as well, the echo of jackboots can be heard ever more loudly.
You think I exaggerate? Trump likes to describe journalists as ‘enemies of the people’ – and just a couple of days ago, Milo Yiannopoulos, former senior editor at Breitbart News, once run by Trump’s ex-chief strategist, Steve Bannon, revealed that he has decided from now on to use the same response to all journalists’ questions: ‘I can’t wait for the vigilante squads to start gunning journalists down on sight.’ (He says it’s a joke. Of course.)
At the time of writing, by the way, there is no evidence to suggest that the fatal shooting of five people yesterday at the offices of a newspaper in Annapolis, Maryland, was in any way related to such remarks.
But the atmosphere is dangerous and ugly. Words have power, and Trump’s words are almost always ugly. Anger is rising, and there is surely no challenge more urgent than to confront the threat head on. In 1939, it took a world war; this time, we must find a better way.
To update only slightly the words of the anti-Nazi Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller: ‘First they came for the immigrants, and I did not speak out, because I was not an immigrant … Then they came for the journalists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a journalist …’
This is the story of two youngsters who were sent, unaccompanied, by their parents to seek refuge in a foreign land.
One of them, a 20-year-old male, was arrested a few months after his arrival and locked up in a prison camp. The other, an 18-year-old female, found work with family friends. Her mother, who had to stay behind in their home country after being refused entry into the UK, was later murdered by a government death squad.
The two youngsters were refugees. If they had stayed in the country of their birth, they would almost certainly have been killed. I am glad that they managed to get out, even though millions more didn't.
Why do I tell their story now? First, because we have supposedly just been marking World Refugee Day, although you could be forgiven for having missed it. Refugees aren't exactly flavour of the month these days.
And second, because those two youngsters were my parents, who escaped from Nazi Germany in 1939. They both later joined the British army and served in a top-secret military intelligence unit, which is where they met.
Let us not, however, mythologise the past. Whatever you may have heard, refugees have rarely been welcomed with open arms. In the years before the Second World War, an estimated 70,000 Jewish refugees were granted asylum in the UK -- but another 500,000 who applied for entry were unsuccessful. Among them was my grandmother.
Now fast forward to today. President Trump believes migrants from Mexico and central America are 'infesting' the US. His choice of words is chilling, given that 'infesting', as you don't need me to tell you, is something normally associated with vermin.
During the presidential election campaign, he said of Mexican migrants: 'They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.' (And then, as an afterthought, as if he had shocked even himself by the violence of his rhetoric, he added: 'Some, I assume, are good people.') Honduras and El Salvador, from which many of the migrants have come, just happen to be the two countries with the highest murder rates in the world. If you or I were parents there, we too would be prepared to risk everything to find a place of safety for our children. Yes, even if it meant crossing a border illegally and risking arrest.
But that doesn't matter to Mr Trump. Compassion is as foreign to his psyche as it is to the Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, who has just introduced legislation to criminalise any individual or group that offers to help asylum-seekers, or to the populist Italian interior minister Matteo Salvini, who has refused to allow ships carrying desperate migrants from north Africa to dock at Italian ports and has called for 'a mass cleansing, street by street, piazza by piazza' of Italy's Roma population.
And while we're pointing fingers, let us not forget the horror that is the Yarl's Wood immigrant detention centre in Bedfordshire, where more than four hundred people are being held in conditions described by the Green party MP Caroline Lucas after a recent visit as 'psychological torture'. Those who live in glass houses ...
Of course, I'm sympathetic to refugees and asylum-seekers. With my background, how could I not be? But what I find hard to understand is why hostility towards refugees and other migrants still seems to be so widespread.
Did refugees cause the global financial crisis a decade ago? Was it refugees who slashed public services, closed libraries and under-funded the NHS? Of course it wasn't.
According to the UN, there are now more refugees than at any time since the end of the Second World War. Why? Because more are fleeing from conflicts -- including those in Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan -- and from what the 1951 UN Refugee Convention calls 'a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.' Millions more are fleeing from grinding poverty, in part as a result of climate change, and the fear of violence at the hands of drugs cartels.
No one suggests that all countries should throw open their borders willy-nilly to all who wish to enter. But surely the richest countries in the world have a clear moral duty to devise a fair, humane system for offering sanctuary to those who are in fear for their lives.
If Hungary, for example, refuses point blank even to consider any EU proposal to take in refugees, perhaps Mr Orbán could be reminded that belonging to the European Union involves responsibilities as well as benefits. Perhaps he has forgotten that when Hungary joined the EU in 2004, it signed up to the so-called 'Copenhagen criteria': to preserve a democratic system of government, to guarantee human rights and a functioning market economy, and to accept the obligations of EU membership.
The demonisation of refugees -- and of migrants in general -- is a stain on the modern world. For President Trump, targeting them is a cheap, cynical ploy to energise his core supporters. The same goes for Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Matteo Salvini in Italy and populist demagogues everywhere. What could be easier than stirring up hatred of foreigners?
Even in once-liberal Sweden, growing support for the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats party now means that they could well end up holding the balance of power after elections later this year. All in all, it is a deeply depressing picture.