Keir Starmer and his accomplices from several other Western countries colluded to commemorate Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, in their own special manner.
They’ve officially recognised Hamas as a sovereign state. “In the face of the growing horror in the Middle East,” explained Starmer, “we are acting to keep alive the possibility of peace and a two-state solution. That means a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state.”
This takes pride of place in the long list of other statements made by the prime minister, which span a full range between cynical and idiotic, with ignorant, subversive and Marxist in between.
First, ‘Palestinians’, the received term for Hamas, don’t want a two-state solution. They want a single-state one, from the river to the sea. All Jews currently living in that territory or – according to the Hamas Charter – anywhere else are to be exterminated.
That constitutional intent is hardly conducive to keeping “the possibility of peace” alive, unless all Israelis decide to enter into a national suicide pact. In the absence of that decision, Starmer’s recognition won’t add a single jot or tittle to peace in the region.
However, it will almost certainly enable the new ‘state’ to seek reparations for the egregious oppression ‘Palestinians’ suffered during the 30 years of the British mandate (1917-1947). Those dastardly British mandarins tyrannised the local Arabs by not letting them slit one another’s throats and do to the Jews what their descendants did on 7 October, 2023. How much more oppressive can you get?
More to the point, how do you attach a monetary value to the suffering of those poor people whose fingers itched for the knives to carve up some Jews?
Denominating anguish in pounds sterling seems hard, but it’s not impossible. Trillions have been mentioned in that context, so Starmer had better nationalise the whole economy and pay Britons whatever is left after the new ‘state’ has been properly compensated.
All in all, the effect of the recognition will be either nonexistent or, more likely, negative. This isn’t just a probability but an ironclad guarantee.
So why did Starmer (along with Macron et al.) do it? There are several reasons, and I assure you the desire to bring peace to the Middle East isn’t one of them.
First, Labour politicians, both nationally and locally, depend on the Muslim vote. And Muslims vote as a bloc for the party most hostile to Israel — that’s a given.
It’s in the confident expectation of boosting their electoral chances that Labour governments have always flung Britain’s doors open to welcome culturally alien immigrants. When Mandelson was Blair’s consiglieri, he openly admitted to this stratagem with his unmatched cynicism.
A voting bloc of millions of Muslims may or may not anoint a king, figuratively speaking, but they can certainly become a king maker. Millions of Muslims can also paralyse cities by staging riotous pro-Hamas (or anti-Israel) rallies, causing serious economic and social damage.
Second, Starmer and his government are Marxists, viscerally if not institutionally. And, taking their cue from their founder and patron saint, Marxists are ideologically anti-Semitic. For many of them, anti-Zionism is a more socially acceptable form of anti-Semitism.
“I recognise the Palestinian state” has a nicer, more self-righteous ring to it than “I hate Jews”, but for most British Muslims and many Labour members the two phrases are synonymous. Starmer’s disgusting decision thus has everything to do with Labour’s intraparty and domestic politics and nothing at all to do with any peaceful urges.
The third reason also springs from their Marxism. Marxists are prepared to love Britain as an abstract ideal they see in their minds’ eye, while meanwhile hating Britain as she is and especially has been throughout her history.
The Labour Party doesn’t mind affirming its Marxist credentials by flying the communist red flag at its conferences and singing the Italian communist song Bandiera Rossa, occasionally breaking into a rousing rendition of the Internationale.
The former has sinister lyrics, such as “From the country to the sea, to the mine/ To the workshop, those who suffer and hope/ Be ready, it’s the hour of vengeance/ Red flag will triumph.” Meanwhile, the latter declares war on tradition: “Servile masses arise, arise/ We’ll change henceforth the old tradition/ And spurn the dust to win the prize.”
This is the vocal expression of visceral hatred extending to every aspect of British history, but especially its imperial phase punctuated by the Industrial Revolution. This is depicted as nothing but rapacious, acquisitive exploitation of the downtrodden masses at home and downtrodden colonies abroad.
‘Colonialism’ and ‘capitalism’ stand side by side on the Marxist hit list, and all socialists are emotionally committed to atone for the former and destroy the latter. This explains Labour’s intentionally ruinous economic policies and, more to my point today, their febrile affection for what they perceive as the colonies those dastardly mandarins used to oppress.
Ignorant of history, and ideologically unwilling to learn, they dispense with details and broadly sympathise with the Third World in its every confrontation with the First. Israel, in their eyes, exacerbates the sins of the Mandate by stubbornly insisting on her own survival. Hamas, on the other hand, emits a warm glow of anti-Western animosity our Marxists share.
And not just our Marxists. Anti-colonial, anti-Western sentiments predominate in every international forum, including the UN.
Since 2023, the subject of Israel violating the human rights of the ‘Palestinians’ has come up 60 times in the General Assembly. And the human rights of the Ukrainians on the receiving end of Putin’s murdering, torturing, raping, looting hordes? Not even once.
Such are the more obvious streams flowing into the mighty river of the socialists’ deracinated hatred for their own countries and Western civilisation in general. Starmer’s willingness to recognise the nonexistent Palestinian state is consonant with his reluctance to recognise the benefits of free markets.
Both can be traced back to the Marxist longings of our ruling elite, its lust for the slogans sung in Bandiera Rossa and the Internationale to become calls to action. We must be able to see through the smokescreen of bien pensant waffle they emit to hide their wicked impulses.
And yes, a very Happy New Year to all my Jewish readers — with none of the sarcasm implied in the title above.
As so often, Mr Boot, you hit many nails squarely on their heads! Thank you!
I may be Jewish by ancestry, but I feel no need for the artificial support of religious observances, of any denomination.
Why are so many unable to recognize evil? Society has lost all sense of right and wrong, all morality. We worship now at the altar of artificial rights and equality (of all men, cultures, and ideas). We refuse to correct a man when he praises evil, as we are told it is his right to speak freely. He may have a right to say or do wrong, but it is still wrong and he should be corrected.
“From the river to the sea” is acceptable because it targets Jews. If white men were to chant “From the (Denmark) strait to the (Caspian) sea”, trumpeting their call to free Europe of muslims, there would be rioting in the streets.
On the subject of losing all sense of right and wrong, I dug up this quote from then-Monsignor Fulton Sheen from 1931 (!):
“America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance-it is not. It is suffering from tolerance. Tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded.”
“Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil … a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. Tolerance applies only to persons … never to truth. Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to the error … Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for
skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratory.”
“Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability.”
Absolutely brilliant, thank you. I must look him up.