I read a post this morning concerning Israeli interference in British elections. I haven’t followed British politics at all but I knew that, given the source, there was no way in Hell we were getting two sides of the story. So I did a bit of checking.
Let me begin by saying that I do not fault Putin for interfering in American elections, I fault Americans who cooperated with him. I have made this point before more than once. Putin is not sworn to uphold our Constitution.
What would trigger any Israeli entity to such an action? This is assuming the information about the Israeli action is accurate because I have not looked into it. Let’s for arguments’ sake assume that it is.
What exactly is the issue in Britain?
The Labour Party is traditionally supported by the Jewish community in Britain because Leftist values are closer to (non-crazy Orthodox) traditional Jewish values, even though the European Left has a tradition of antisemitism (that predates Israel). Lately, though, that relationship has become frayed. For one thing, the Labour Party now has a docket of over seventy cases of alleged internal antisemitism that they’re investigating, but they’ve managed to get to very few of them, so few that they’ve now been forced by political pressure to form a committee dedicated to investigating these to deal with the backlog.
How is the British Jewish community reacting to Labour and to Jeremy Corbin, head of Labour since 2015?
The reaction of that community is unprecedented and unusually close to unanimity. A few weeks ago, three Jewish newspapers published front page articles simultaneously protesting some of Labour’s decisions in this area, and further stating that a Corbyn Labour government would constitute and extistential threat to the Jewish community in Britain. One of those decisions was also protested in a joint letter by sixty-eight rabbis from across denominations:
Some of this fighting has happened within Parliament itself between a Jewish Labour MP and Corbyn, and it has involved actions taken by Labour against that MP but later dropped. It also involves public allegations that Labour is trying to purge Corbyn critics.
So far we’re dealing with what’s happened with the British Jewish community, not the Israeli government.
As this flap has progressed, there has been a lot of publicity - and this does allegedly involve Israeli action, again, strictly based on the post I read - about something Corbyn said in 2010. Corbyn was claiming BBC bias in an interview. If he’d complained that the BBC was biased in favor of Israeli policy, no one has a right to make an issue of that. I’m not in favor of Israeli policy. I don’t think anyone Jewish on this site is. But that’s not what he complained about.
He complained that the BBC was biased in favor of Israel’s right to exist.
Let’s put things in perspective here. When Russia interfered in an American election or when the United States has interfered in other elections, in no cases were Russia’s or America’s right to exist questioned by the countries being targeted. National right to exist is something often questioned about only one country, and existential threats are a different league of threat.
The interview. Where was it? In Iran.
Let’s get this straight. Corbyn complained about a BBC bias toward Israel’s right to exist in a country that has expressed frequent interest in ending Israel’s existence, is currently working on developing nuclear weaponry, and one of the signers of the agreement slowing that process was Great Britain.
This isn’t the only complaint about Corbyn, of course. Up until 2015, he belonged to a Palestinian Live Facebook group that posted all sorts of interesting things, including allegations that Israel was responsible for the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks and conspiracy theories about the Rothschilds. Corbyn, of course, claims to have seen none of that. And his Facebook account has now been deleted.
About those conspiracy theories about the Rothschilds: Sound familiar? It should.
A huge one, and I mean one whose falsity was screamingly obvious to anyone who bothered to think for a minute (including such allegations as a Jewish family owning most of the national bank of Iran), was published here, not as theory but as fact, by the same person who wrote the post this post is a response to.
The point of the post was to protest the amount of aid Israel gets from the United States. I don’t know how the amount of aid is determined and, not knowing, I have no idea if I would agree with the amount. I do know the post contained a survey asking what would be a better use of that money. Interesting survey, but such results can change drastically depending on how the question itself is posed. What limited academic background I have is in Sociology, which is heavily dependent on survey research, so we studied how to keep bias out of surveys, a difficult task. There was no such effort made here. Asking how aid to Israel could be better spent states the conclusion that it can be better spent in the question itself. Also, of course, the question didn’t address whether the issue with the aid was the amount involved. The question essentially involved all of it.
Giving Israel no aid could be problematic to America’s interests for a variety of reasons, but I’ll concentrate on one here. Israel’s interests are not my concern. (Israel’s survival is because of its Jewish population.) If Israel has an insufficient military budget to defend itself against existential threats, which it clearly faces (and Corbyn indicated to Iran that he tolerates), and such a threat materializes in the form of an attack that Israel has any trouble holding off, Israel will only have one choice to preserve its existence. That choice involves the use of weaponry it is not in American interests to see used.
This statement will undoubtedly lead to condemnations of Israel for presumably considering such an action (I have no specific evidence that it would, Israel has never stated that it would to my knowledge, I’m just extrapolating), but any nuclear power that saw its existence imminently threatened would do the same as that’s why they have nuclear weapons in the first place.