Idiocy is what got him the job

Tweet

 

According to the US Ambassador to Israel this week, if Sir Starmer had been the UK’s PM during the Second World War, we’d all be speaking German now. He’s not the first to use the “…all be speaking German now if it weren’t for” (insert saviour of choice here) line, and he probably won’t be the last. It’s like some sort of bizarre corollary of Godwin’s Law, except in this case it’s an argument of first resort rather than last. Those deploying the line usually seem to think it’s an absolute killer line, but all it really demonstrates is an ignorance of history, especially linguistic history.

Even had the outcome of that war been different, the probability that the German overlords would have been able to replace the languages of all the conquered peoples with their own in such a historically short timescale are pretty much negligible. For evidence, one has only to look at what was, perhaps, the single most prolific attempted perpetrator of linguistic and cultural elimination in history, namely the UK itself, in its then guise of the British Empire (and it was, incidentally, the British Empire which declared war on Germany, not the UK). Whilst the language of the colonial administration might have been English, most people in the conquered realms continued speaking their own languages throughout the period of colonisation. And here in Wales, half a millennium of attempted linguistic cleansing succeeded only in reducing the use of Welsh, not eliminating it.

But the real problem with it as a line of argument is the way in which it reduces the consequences of conquest to a rather simplistic question about which language people end up speaking. It wasn't even relevant to the ambassador’s underlying point, which was that providing food to a starving population who have been driven from their homes by a completely disproportionate response by Israel somehow equates to a capitulation to Hamas: he would clearly prefer them to starve to death. Labour’s Emily Thornbury was surely right in saying that “This Ambassador is clearly an idiot,” but isn’t being an idiot his prime qualification for serving as part of the Trump administration?

Choosing on what to be defeated

Tweet

 

Much of the commentary surrounding the shambles into which the English House of Commons descended earlier this week has been either about the extent to which it was all about party political manoeuvring over what appear to be tiny differences in wording or about whether the Speaker was being partisan in his decision-making. Whilst the difference between an immediate ceasefire, a humanitarian ceasefire and a sustainable ceasefire is indeed important in terms of nuance, the population of Gaza, who have largely been herded over recent weeks into a giant refugee camp right up against the border with Egypt, simply want the shooting and the bombing to stop. Some of the other differences in wording – such as the extent to which Israel deserves criticism – are probably more significant in terms of meaning, but even less so in terms of simply stopping the fighting. On the substance of the issue being debated, there isn’t really much more to say than that the fighting needs to stop.

The shambles also revealed yet another aspect of the arcane nature of Westminster’s rules, something which has received rather less comment. The SNP still hold the majority of Scottish seats (whatever the current opinion polls tell us about their prospects for the next election) and under the normal rules of democracy that might suggest that they have a reasonable right to claim that they represent Scottish opinion. They are accustomed to losing votes in parliament; having Scottish opinion over-ruled by the English majority of MPs (and in this context, Tory and Labour usually seem to act as one) is something which happens on a more or less daily basis. One of the things that emerged from this week’s debacle is that, on three sitting days each year, the SNP get to choose the subject on which the English majority proceeds to over-rule Scotland’s voice. 'They' probably see it as an over-generous concession.

Choosing the subject on which you’re going to get hopelessly outvoted can’t be an easy matter, and since the result is pre-ordained, one could argue that it doesn’t matter a great deal anyway. The wish to be seen to have views on matters other than domestic Scottish issues is an obvious one for a party which wants to avoid being labelled parochial, and which wants Scotland to take its place on the world stage. I can’t help wondering, though, about the wisdom of choosing to lose on an issue which genuinely is a UK-wide issue for as long as the UK exists. It doesn’t add much to the narrative of Scottish voices being ignored. On this occasion, the SNP’s natural desire to twist the knife in a divided Labour Party seems to have got the better of them, and they’ve ended up joining in the procedural fun and games which are so typical of Westminster. It’s not the first time that I’ve wondered what there is about the place which sucks people into its preposterous norms and practices. It's not unique to the SNP. But then sucking people in is what has made the English establishment so extraordinarily long-lived.  

Ultimately, they must negotiate rather than kill

Tweet

 

The reaction of the UK’s two largest parties to the past week’s events in the Middle East has been instructive in terms of their attitudes and priorities. Firstly, they were in competition to see who could issue the strongest condemnation of the BBC for calling Hamas militants rather than terrorists, as though the most important thing is the label used; and they followed that up by competing over who could take the hardest line against any show of support for the Palestinian side. They were, of course, in complete agreement that Israel should be supported in whatever way might be necessary. There was little room for nuance or debate: in this battle there are good guys in white hats and bad guys in black hats. Presumably, they think that it makes for good politics, but it does nothing to aid understanding, let alone reconciliation.

History, as ever, is complex. Whilst events are generally indisputable, their significance is always open to multiple interpretations. There is no doubt that Jews have suffered centuries of persecution and discrimination, including the attempt in parts of Europe in the last century to eliminate them as a people. Sympathy for a people who have suffered so much is natural, but it cannot give the state of Israel a free pass from any criticism when it comes to its own actions against others. Criticism of Israeli actions is not, in itself, anti-Semitism. Palestinians have been forced from their homes and land and, even today, Israel continues to encroach on land internationally recognised as being outside the boundaries of Israel and the property of Palestinians. But the grievance of Palestinians, in turn, cannot justify the sort of random killings that we saw last Saturday. A cycle of atrocity, counter-atrocity and counter-counter-atrocity ends up as a never-ending cycle of death and grief on both sides, from which there is no obvious escape.

Applying the label of ‘war crime’, whether to the random violence delivered by Hamas last weekend or to the retaliatory denial of food, water, medicines and power to millions of citizens in Gaza may be technically accurate, but it overlooks the fact that the real crime is war itself. The idea that a war – any war – can be fought according to a set of gentlemanly rules is to ignore the reality, which is that people – mostly, but not exclusively, young men, whether regular soldiers or less organised bands of fighters – are sent to kill or be killed, a situation in which they will feel fear, anger, and hatred towards those they are trying to kill, added to which the inevitable raised levels of adrenaline and the sight of comrades being killed can all too easily result in actions which few would call civilized being perpetrated by ordinary, average human beings.

The total elimination of Hamas – Israel’s stated objective – may buy a period of relative ‘peace’ to the extent to which it is successful. But experience suggests that it will come at a heavy price in lives and will last only until the next generation are old enough to pick up arms, when they will be driven by an even greater sense of grievance and injustice. Ultimately, the only lasting settlement will have to be a negotiated one, and the rest of the world has a responsibility to drive both sides in that direction, using whatever (peaceful) means it has at its disposal. Picking one side, and giving that side unconditional support, is not living up to that responsibility. Yet that’s where the UK is choosing to be. Regardless of which party is in power. Global leadership it most definitely is not.