- Latest Blog Post: The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist.
- Latest Comment: Anonymous on The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist.
Subscribe to our RSS feed here
Chris Davies MEP: a disgrace to the Liberal Democrats
Excerpt: In case you missed it, Chris Davies, the Lib Dem leader in Europe, has resigned.
The train of events that led to his resignation begin with these comments that he made on his website attacking Israel. What struck many - including myself - as being unacceptable was the following:
In case you missed it, Chris Davies, the Lib Dem leader in Europe, has resigned.
The train of events that led to his resignation begin with these comments that he made on his website attacking Israel. What struck many - including myself - as being unacceptable was the following:
"We should be honest. These are the racist policies of apartheid yet Israel continues to pose as a victim.
"I visited Auschwitz last year, and it is very difficult to understand why those whose history is one of such terrible oppression appear not to care that they have themselves become oppressors."
Such lazy moral equivalence invites and attracts condemnatory criticism. One example by David Hirsch can be read here; another by Paul Dennett can be read here. Our own James Graham gets involved in the debate here (including a brief cameo by myself!) which he followed up with this post.
What prompted Davies to resign, however, was some email correspondence between himself and a reader of the Jewish News (courtesy of The Times) which attacked him for being crass and insensitive:
From: Jewish News reader
Sent: 21 April 2006 21:59
To: DAVIES Chris
Subject: Lesson of Auschwitz
Mr Davies, it is not Israel that ‘hasn’t learnt from Auschwitz’ — it is YOU — you and the many well-meaning, misguided people, who, for some reason, support people that are homophobic, mysogynistic and intolerant of other religions
Davies reply is astounding:
From: DAVIES Chris To: Jewish News reader
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 21:47
Subject: RE: Lesson of Auschwitz
Sounds like racism to me. I hope you enjoy wallowing in your own filth.
Yes, he did actually write "wallowing in your own filth".
Even if the context were not one of alleged anti-semitism and the heightened tension that the row had created, such language is totally unacceptable whatever the circumstance; in the specific context it is even worse. Indeed, the correspondent thought so too:
From: Jewish News reader
Sent: 24 April 2006 15:53
To: DAVIES Chris
Subject: Fw: Lesson of Auschwitz
You are supposed to represent people of the north-west in the UK at the European Parliament - if this is how you do it, you are a disgrace.
Davies reply, again, beggars belief:
From: DAVIES Chris
To: Jewish News reader
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 16:46
Subject: RE: Lesson of Auschwitz
I answer to the electorate collectively. I may never seek election again. If I do . . . I shall tell them that I intend to speak out against this oppression at every opportunity, and I shall denounce the influence of the Jewish lobby that seems to have far too great a say over the political decision-making process in many countries.
Not only is his view of the role of an elected representative high handed and superior, but he moved beyond an ill-judged criticism of Israel and seemingly intended to "denounce the influence of the Jewish lobby that seems to have far too great a say...". Not the pro-Israel lobby note, but the Jewish lobby. That sounds way too conspiratorial to me, but even if you agree with such speculations, it in no way explains Davies "wallowing in filth" comment. No wonder he had to resign.
David Hirsch has subsequently continued the debate in light of Davies' resignation and in an article worth reading is rather kind:
Chris Davies is not an antisemite. He is not motivated by Jew-hatred. But he is guilty of serious negligence. ... Davies has not had to resign because he is a racist or because he criticized Israel or because the global Jewish Lobby has taken its revenge. He has had to resign because his laudable instinct to side with the underdog was not tempered by care, thought or self-education. His self-righteous anger at one injustice led him to close his eyes to the possibility of another.
Davies himself states the following by way of apology to his correspondent:
"My visit to Palestine last month has left me with such a sense of despair about the Israeli Government's policies towards the Palestinians that I have been blinded to the need for civilised debate with those who make not unreasonable arguments.
"Your e-mail of 21 April was opened immediately after my having read a number of others variously describing me as 'anti semitic', 'scumbag', 'Jew hater', and comparing me with excrement.
"In my anger I did not pay due regard to its actual content and I apologise for the language and tone of my response, which was unacceptable and without justification.
And so ends an unedifying episode. Or does it?
There is a sense that an unfortunate rhetorical turn and an inability to correctly draw moral parallels suffuses a great deal of Liberal Democratic thought and argument when it comes to matters in international affairs - and I am not only referring to Israel/Palestine here. A properly liberal and democratic approach to foreign policy cannot automatically default to the support of the perceived underdog, nor can it tolerate prejudged anti-Americanism, and it certainly shouldn't assume the existence of a pernicious "Jewish lobby" (or a pro-Israeli lobby). Similarly, we shouldn't always assume that moral rectitude lies with the decisions of the UN or its Security Council, and as much as everyone abhors conflict Liberals should never be axiomatically or ideologically pacific if they believe that some causes are worth fighting for, or are realistic enough to acknowledge that not all conflicts are best avoided. What worries me, however, is that these views are not as common among Liberal Democrats as they should be.
I imagine that we will return to these issues....
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Google
The only consolation in this is that Ming acted quickly.
However it demonstrates the peril of sending emails when you're angry - if you were writing a letter you'd have more time to reflect on what you've just written!
Indeed.
Chris should not have reacted so hastily.
But Ming and he have taken the right decision.
Peter
Regrettable for all concerned, really. Good to see that he took the honourable way out - a certain Mr. Livingstone could learn from the example.
"it certainly shouldn't assume the existence of a pernicious "Jewish lobby" (or a pro-Israeli lobby)"
Not quite sure what you mean by that - of course there is a pro-Israeli lobby.
"we shouldn't always assume that moral rectitude lies with the decisions of the UN or its Security Council"
I agree with this. But perhaps the first thing we need decide is whether we are Westphalians or post-Westphalians (or something else).
The Chinese seem to be Westphalian - so that means the security council is going to be Westphalian too.
Peter
http://liberalism2010.blogspot.com/
The number one priority for the CCP is domestic stability; in pursuit of this end they will seek to maintain international stability wherever possible.
The problem with the UN is that it manifestly is not providing adequate frameworks for regional and global security. Secondly, faith in international law and international institutions should not act as a substitute for knowing what is right from what is wrong, nor should it be an allowable substitute or excuse for making a hard decision. During the build-up to the Iraq war the extent to which some people imagined that the UN Security Council was the arbiter of what was legal and illegal was an abdication of good judgment. The UNSC very nearly authorised the war. Would that have made it the correct decision? Is the UNSC always right?
I think we are post-Wesphalians. Anyone who is in favour of the pooled sovereignty of the EU has to be, really.
I resigned after 27 years active and generous membership of the Lib Dems over Jenny Tonge' s remarks (who I actually heard speak).
I have since visited and stayed with Palestinian families twice.
Having lived in Apartheid South Africa, I can say on the basis of fact, Israel is a racist state.
I am not surprised Chris responded as he did. The behaviour of all Zionists, from their child killing troops, instructed after careful deliberation by their politicians, down to their clearly racist supports, is one of the most vile and extreme forms of politics one could ever hope to come across.
Please go to Palestine - you will come back angry that you have been conned and misled. It is as bad as it could possibly be. Zionists are beyond hope - their racism and defense of decidedly facist behaviour places them outside any political argument. Followers of a political belief that promotes and hustifies crimes and against humanity do not deserve peace or the right to practice their vile beliefs.
We should at the minimum impose the fullest of sanctions against Israel, including mining their ports and banning overflights. If they refuse to accept a South African style change (one man one vote, one value - equality before the law, we should yes go to war with them. Did you know their trained troops kill on average one Palestinian child every four days?
Their crimes and attitudes are just too far gone.
If you don't believe me, please I beg you, go and see for yourself. BUT, be prepared to be shocked, the situation is considerably worst than you could possibly imagine.
Please write to Ming in support of Chris Davies.
I think, David Ash, that your extreme and unreasonable views generally reinforce the point that I was making, that gross acts of moral equivalence are too commonly held by people who imagine that they are either liberals or democrats.
All this talk about 'moral equivalence' is fine but it distracts from the general thrust of what Chris Davies is saying. Bringing Auschwitz into it was unwise, politically incorrect but he is broadly right. What he is saying is: how can a nation/race treat the Palestinians so badly when they were so dreadfully persecuted themselves? He is not saying that the Israelis are treating the Palestinians as badly as the Jews were treated in Nazi Germany - he is not making an 'equivalence', merely that perhaps the Israelis ought to be more sensitive to persecuting others.
Anyone who criticises Israel these days is liable to be labelled as anti-Semitic. The nation has been put in a bubble seemingly - immune to criticism precisely because of the previous experience of the Jewish inhabitants at the hands of the Nazis. If newspapers publish articles critical of Israel, prominent advertisers boycott the paper. Floods of letters from Jews accuse the paper of anti-Semitism, although there are usually a few from Jews who are disillusioned with Israel's behaviour.
Davies' mention of the pro-Jewish lobby is incorrect as a general statement though in the USA, this is a reality. It is a combination of the Jewish vote and, oddly, the Christian Right. As far as the latter is concerned, I think it has something to do with Armagedon and the Last Trump. The integrity of the land of Israel is somehow essential for the Day of Judgement to take place. However, the USA provides protection and massive, continuing aid. She is no honest broker.
Chris Davies is an angry man, as am I, but having just read his emails, I agree his language was not acceptable. However, I wish that more people would speak up for the Palestinians and the gross injustices they have suffered. The Israeli (state) behaviour is characterised by greed and meanness. Even when they build an illegal security wall, they somehow manage to snaffle loads of Palestinian prime farming land. Yes, they returned Gaza but it was not theirs to take in the first place.
Gavin, I strongly recommend you read this article by Alan Dershowitz which deals with some of the issues that you raise.
I don't propose to dwell in detail with everything that you wrote, just a couple of things.
I think that the problem with Chris Davies is that it is far from clear that he did not intend to draw moral equivalence. But, giving him the benefit of the doubt (for the sake of argument), even if this were true the problem was that his comments were open to interpretation in precisely that way. When tackled via email by his infamous correspondent Davies responded - to her - in an inappropriate manner which might rather have obscured the fact that he has at no time clarified that he did not intend the moral equivalence. In a private email to Chris Davies I suggested to him that he ought to publically clarify his position with regard to this. At the current time of writing I have not seen such a clarification.
Indeed, it would be hard for Chris Davies to now adopt such a position. In a press-release from 11 April - before the recent debacle - Chris Davies decribes a meeting with a representative of Hamas:
I'm sure I don't need to point the well-meaning but naive stance that Davies takes. I'm glad there was not universal agreement - but exhorting a terrorist organisation to use non-violent means strikes me as being a little optimistic, but laudibly idealistic nonetheless. That said, I was particularly troubled by the following:
Given that for Hamas the scale of the injustice legitimates suicide bombing and a campaign of terrorism, obviously including the murder of innocent civilians, I sincerely hope that this is another example of Davies writing with a degree of imprecision.
My final point is to address your argument as to why America is broadly pro-Israel. There is a pro-Israel lobby; there is also, as you rightly state, a belief among some fundamentalist Christians in the USA about the need for Israel or the ancient Kingdom of Judea to exist in order for the second coming of Jesus Christ to occur, leading to support for Israel. But the most obvious reason for the USA and ordinary Americans to support Israel is that Israel is a liberal democracy. It strikes me that in this debate and all of the surrounding searches for explanation, causation and legitimation it is this elephant in the room which in fact should be seen to dominate.
Who can say that, having been subjected to the hate campaign Chris Davies was, they wouldn't react similarly? That he ended up lashing out at one of his more reasonable correspondents is regrettable, but this wouldn't have been an issue if he hadn't been the target of such vicious abuse merely for speaking out for something he clearly believes in.
I voted for Davies at the last European election (yes, I was one of the 20-something percent who bothered to vote) and will do so again next time if he stands for re-election. In no way is he a disgrace to the party. In fact, I'd go to the other extreme and say that politicians who are willing to take a stand on issues that they feel strongly about are *exactly* what we need. Whether their opinions are right should be decided by the electorate as a whole, not by a small group of insult-happy e-mail correspondents hounding them to breaking point.
I do not kill children or justify such actions.
... Neither do I build apartheid walls of land grab and dispossession. I do not support organisations that create societies in someone elses, by ignoring their right to exist. I do not particpate in or justify the expulsion of 70% of a countries population, razing over 500 villages and then, after denying those refugees the rights of return, describe this new society as democratic or liberal (how can it be if those who want to vote cannot?). I do not belong to a society which actively votes for political parties that support the crime against humanity of ethnic cleansing (64% is the fugure I believe). I do not judge people according to their race, neither would or do I excuse those who do.
My views Mr Mollan, are neither extreme or unreasonable, but solely expressed in support of a people who do yes, deserve them as much as you and I, or for that matter Jews in Palestine.
Crimes against humanity are worthy of sanctions, and if those do not work, then yes, war. Shame on you for assuming liberal values can be applied selectivly on the basic of race.
They are a right open to all human beings. The point of this issue is whether you believe human rights can be applied selectively. I submit they cannot.