We all know the saying – and apparent truism – that there will be peace in the Middle East when the Palestinians start loving their children more than they hate the Jews. But it seems increasingly apparent to me that something similar applies to so-called “progressive politics”. Campaigning organizations might one day achieve their campaigning goals when they value those goals more than they hate the Jews.
Last week we saw the unedifying spectacle of Environmental Campaigner Greta Thunburg – who only a short while ago claimed the “climate emergency” was the biggest existential threat to the planet. Of course, it wasn’t so great an emergency that she couldn’t take time out from it to deliver some groceries to Gaza as if she were Tuesday’s ‘Hello Fresh’ drop-off driver.
The Israel-Iran war gives us a few new examples of where anti-Israel activism seems to override the urgency of primary campaigning. Almost all of these groups state that their values include human rights, democracy, rights and protections for women and sexual minorities, and so on. So when they appear to condemn Israel – a society where these values have legal force – over Iran – where these values are forced to their knees – is there any conclusion other than this one?
“Progressives hate Jews so much that they are willing to support a theocratic dictatorship that stands against almost all of their core values against a Jewish state which reflects most of those values.”
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) apparently stands for a world free from the threat of nuclear war. So you’d think they’d be quite pleased when a mad theocracy on the verge of acquiring a nuclear bomb is stopped. But of course they aren’t.
“The British government must end its support for nuclear-armed Israel’s illegal war on Iran – a war based on lies used to justify attempts at regime change that risks widening a humanitarian catastrophe,” they raged.
Similarly, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) condemned Israel’s attacks on the grounds that attacking nuclear facilities might cause an environmental disaster. “Nuclear facilities must never be attacked,” scolded the agency head, Rafael Mariano Grossi. His organization is dedicated, they say, to “nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament, and to promote cooperation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy.”
Of course they don’t appear to have a plan to stop a rogue state weaponizing nuclear power other than to hope for the best while condemning any practical efforts to stop them. Perhaps they subscribe to the view formulated by President Barack Obama ten years ago. How’s that turning out?
The UK Green Party MP, Ellie Clowns – in a tweet endorsed by former party leader Caroline Lucas – complained “Israel’s attack on Iran is an incredibly dangerous escalation. This is not the way to tackle the growing Iranian nuclear threat. It’s reckless, provocative and risks full scale war. UK must clearly condemn attack and use every lever possible to de-escalate.” Okay, so let’s say this isn’t the way….what’s your plan? The absence of a plan makes me suspect that she doesn’t really believe Iran poses a threat, she just wants to criticize Israel… which, unlike Iran, she actually wants to disarm.
Meanwhile, Chowns’s green-fingered friend, Hugh Fearnly-Whittingstall (day job, ‘celebrity chef’ and generally the ‘Jeremy Clarkson’ for Guardian readers) did the usual wet-liberal thing on TV of calling for peace and de-escalation, while stressing his opposition to the UK providing any help to our ally, Israel. Israel – not Iran – is the country we should be trying to disarm, he says.
Senator Bernie Sanders ranted that “Netanyahu launched illegal strikes on Iran, killing a top ceasefire negotiator, undermining U.S. diplomatic efforts & putting countless innocent lives at risk. We can’t be dragged into another Netanyahu war.” He claimed that this had undermined “talks” to address Iran’s “nuclear program”, as if it were a benign thing which only required a summit to iron out details. But more to the point, what part of Sanders’s vision for humanity does Iran currently advance? Why would he want this theocracy to thrive? Does he not believe their threats?
Human Rights Watch (HRW) director Kenneth Roth sneered: “Israel’s close intermingling of military and civilian sites makes it difficult to know what Iran is aiming its missiles at. When Hamas does this in the tiny Gaza Strip, Israel accuses it of using human shields.” His objective is to give political cover for Iran’s indiscriminate targeting, while – frankly – talking nonsense.
Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine is demanding that European leaders acknowledge Iran’s “right to defend itself” against Israels’ “unprovoked attack”.
Mehdi Hassan – he who thought non-Muslims were worse than cattle, but who nevertheless landed an editing job at the left-wing political magazine New Statesman , and punditry gigs at The Guardian, Sky News and the BBC, before moving on (to America) to progressive left-leaning MSNBC and elsewhere – has pinned his tweet on the subject. He says: “Iran doesn’t have nukes. Israel does. Iran is a signatory to the NPT. Israel isn’t. Iran has allowed IAEA inspectors into its country. Israel doesn’t.”
In his case it is easier to believe that his ‘progressive’ mantle is slipping and he is reverting to the views that were once in his heart but which he more lately stopped coming to his lips.
More and more examples will present themselves as this conflict progresses.
Now, if like me, you come from a liberal/left background but find yourself increasing alienated, I’m sure beyond the activists and campaigners you can – sadly – find examples among your own social circles of people you once allied with on issues of women’s rights, gay rights, anti-racism, and so on, who have tried your friendship with similar rants against Israel and “Zionism”, and who have expressed in varying degrees support for Hamas, Hezbollah, The Houtis, and now finally the Ayatollahs.
It is sad and seemingly inexplicable. I really struggle to find an explanation for how so many good people went so bad…. other than the one that (with a heavy heart) I offer here. I’d prefer to think better of people, so please leave alternative explanations in the comments.
