Category: Interesting

To what extent was the Zionist movement successful in achieving its objectives in 1948?

**For those of you who do not know. I did a Master’s Degree in ‘International History and Politics’ at The University of Leeds and graduated in 2020. I got a Distinction. I was good. **

I haven’t posted on this blog in over a year (a surprise to myself)! I remember stopping because ChatGPT started to become regularly used and people were suspecting that I was using it to write my articles. I never have for my blog posts; I’ve never seen the point and I’ve never even thought ChatGPT is even that good. It is NOT AI. It is, what I like to call, ‘advanced Googling’.

But with the genocide currently going on in Gaza, conducted by Israel (let’s just call it what it is), I remembered this morning that I actually did a very long module on ‘The Israel-Palestine Conflict’ and completed it in 2019. This essay got 81/100 – so it’s bloody good. Of course, I was writing it 6 years ago so my views where tempered quite a lot compared to how they are now. But I thought I would share this, just as a brief history lesson of such a messy conflict.

I have a lot I could write here about Netanyahu being one of the worst dictators of the modern age. I could write about how Israel’s nuclear regime is suspect, with not even top cabinet members having knowledge of how many nukes they possess.

I just want to quickly recount Mehdi Hasan’s (a genius) debate with Danny Ayalon (former Israeli Cabinet Minister), in which Ayalon himself says that he has no idea how many nukes Israel has. Hasan points out the hypocrisy of this by stating: “Imagine if an Iranian Ambassador came onto this show and I asked how many nukes they had and he just shrugged and said, ‘I dunno’, would you not be outraged? Can you not see the blatant hypocrisy?”

Ayalon admits yes! Hassan then beautifully reminds Ayalon that Iran, and its’ surrounding Arab nations had subscribed to UN Resolution 487. Ayalon insists there is no such resolution concerning Israel’s nuclear capabilities; to which Hassan responds, quoting the resolution, stating that “This board furthermore notes that Israel has not adhered to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Making the area deeply concerned about the danger to international peace and security created by the premeditated Israeli air attack on Iraqi nuclear installations on 7 June 1981.”

I do not ignore the events of October 7th, horrific and monstrous as they were, but I ask – what about the events on October the 6th? What about the events on October the 8th, or 9th … or 10th? Or YESTERDAY? The essay beneath is an extremely tempered version of my views now, not only because the situation was vastly different 6 years ago, but also because (and I won’t lie about this) I wanted to secure a good grade in this module.

But for those of you who do not want to read the entire essay, here’s a summary: No, the Zionist movement WAS NOT WHOLLY successful in achieving its objectives in 1948. Zionists wanted to escape Europe and find a peaceful homeland. They wanted to escape the horrors placed upon Jewish people by the Holocaust and the Soviet Union.

Leaders of the Zionist movement even considered Argentina as a ‘homeland’ to be safe, they just wanted a recognised state that was AWAY from Europe! If leading Zionist thinkers, such as Theodore Herzl, could see what Israel is conducting today they would be appalled, ashamed and embarrassed by the horrific scenes they had created. There is a difference between being anti-Israel and antisemitic. Israel is a rogue, fascist, murdering state. Jewish people are Jewish people, from different places all over the world, most of whom, to their credit, have renounced the actions of Israel.

And that is why I have finally decided to post this essay, as I am reminded of Martin Niemöller’s brilliant poem (rather ironically, written by an initial supporter of Hitler, until he began to see how the Nazis were treating minorities withing Germany): “First they came for…”:

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the Trade Unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Trade Unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for ME
And there was no one left
To speak out for me.

And SO … (FINALLY) … MY ESSAY FROM 2019:

Candidate Name: Nesaar Uppal  
Candidate Number: ############
Module Name: The Israel-Palestine Conflict
Module Code: PIED5501M

The early modern roots of the Zionist movement emerged from the persistent persecution of Jewish people across Europe for hundreds of years (Halperin, 2015). This persecution caused Jewish people to be spread all across Europe and the Middle East in diaspora.[1] Seeing this persecution, diaspora and finding a religious right to create a Jewish homeland many believed that people of the Jewish faith deserved their own land and their own government (Herzl, 1895; Weizmann, 2005). Theodore Herzl, one of the first Zionist thinkers and perhaps the most influential, planned to create a homeland for Jews to escape persecution in Europe. The creation of an internationally recognised Jewish homeland was indeed the main aim of the Zionist movement, with Eichler (2016) noting that ‘the official goal of the Zionist movement … a Jewish national home to be secured by international law.’ However, a number of other Zionist objectives emerged causing divisions within the Zionist movement about which aims to pursue first. Along with creating a Jewish homeland and ending diaspora, Herzl genuinely wanted to also bring economic prosperity to the region, with better infrastructure and more finance Herzl hoped that Jewish immigration would ‘help them (Arabs) raise their own economic standard’ (Weinstock, 2011, p.50).

Herzl’s desire for a mass migration of Jews to the Middle East to end diaspora, referred to as Aliyah, took place in waves, with the first being between 1881 and 1903 (Greilsammer, 2011). However, as the third and fourth Aliyah’s took place in the 1920s and 1930s more and more communist Jews from Eastern Europe brought their communist ideas to the Jewish homeland, hoping to create a communist state (Greilsammer, 2011). After the devastating persecution which occurred during the Second World War the immigration of Jews to Palestine increased massively; Weinstock (1973, p.55) commented that ‘fascism in Europe gave considerable impulse … at the end of the Second World War the 583,000 Jews represented 1/3 of the Palestine population.’ This continued immigration, purchasing of Arab land and refusal to allow Arabs to work on Jewish-owned land led to increased tensions.[2] These tensions came to a helm in 1947 and 1948. In 1947 the United Nations issued resolution 181 which called for a partition plan of Palestine, effectively granting a Jewish homeland in the region and greatly angering the Arab League (Greilsammer, 2011, p.44). Following this, in 1948 a coalition of Arab forces invaded Israel in 1948, the day after the Israeli leader David Ben-Gurion declared independence for Israel. During the following ten months of fighting the Arab coalition eventually lost and was forced to retreat, with Israel taking control of the whole of Palestine and a large section of Transjordan, 60% more land than what they had been guaranteed by the UN (Rogan, 2008, pp.102-103).

In a number of ways, it could be contended that the Zionist movement was very successful in achieving its objectives in 1948. It became an internationally recognised sovereign state which was indeed the key aim of Zionism; it was also able to provide a safe homeland for persecuted Jews and whilst diaspora was never fully achieved and later referred to as ‘idealistic’ it still provided refugee for hundreds of thousands of Jews. However, in a number of other ways it failed in achieving its original objectives. Herzl envisaged a model society based on equality with Arabs, as Karsh (2006, p.470) demonstrates that ‘the archives show that rather than seek the expulsion of the Palestinian Arabs, the Zionist leaders believed that there was sufficient room in Palestine for both peoples to live side by side in peace and equality.’ This failure to assimilate with Palestinian Arabs was further compounded by Jewish settler’s hoarding land and wealth from Arabs, creating a Jewish elite and not an equal society. There are a number of reasons for the success of the Zionist movement in 1948. Support from the West, particularly the USA and the UN, was vital in securing their independence. Moreover, Britain’s withdrawal from the region and their simultaneous problems with India and Pakistan gaining independence meant that support for the Arab cause dwindled after the Second World War. Furthermore, Israel’s superior financial situation, technology and international support meant they were able to win the 1948 war and secure a sovereign state for themselves.

The primary Zionist objective was to create an internationally-recognised national home for Jewish people; Weinstock (1973, p.51) notes that when Herzl ‘convened the first Zionist Congress at Basle in 1897’ he described the Zionist aim ‘as being the establishment for Jewish people of a home in Palestine secured by public law.’ Certainly, this was achieved first with the UN resolution 181 in 1947 which guaranteed a partition plan but was then further emphasised by David Ben-Gurion’s declaration of independence in May 1948. Moreover, Zionists also wanted to see ‘the revival of the Hebrew language and culture’ and saw this ‘as one of the essential elements of a new society’ (Greilsammer, 2011, p.43). Indeed, there can be little debate about the success of Zionism with regards to this particular aspect of their objectives. Conforti (2011, p.572-573) reaffirms this success by analysing the UN’s actions after the British withdrawal from the region, concluding that ‘from the legal point of view, the resolution of November 1947 that decided the division of Palestine in a Jewish and an Arab state was the international community’s (UN and USA) endorsement of the creation of Israel’. However, the creation of a Jewish national home was not supposed to come at the expense of the Palestinian population. Numerous times, Herzl and other key Zionist leaders expressed their desire to share the land with Arab Palestinians. After analysing Herzl’s works, Karsh (2006, p.471) concludes that ‘there was no trace of such a belief (that Arabs should be expelled to allow Jews to enter Palestine) in either Herzl’s famous political treatise The Jewish State (1896) or his 1902 Zionist novel Altneuland (Old-New Land).’ Numerous political leaders shared this idea of peaceful co-habitation with the Arab population. Indeed, as early as 1934, ‘Jabotinsky’s Revisionist Party prepared a draft constitution for Jewish Palestine, which put the Arab minority on an equal footing with its Jewish counterpart ‘throughout all sectors of the country’s public life’ (Karsh, 2006, p.473). Thus, the apparent success in 1948 of creating an internationally recognised Jewish state is undoubtedly tainted by the fact that this came at the expense of a lot of Jewish and Arab lives and created a high level of animosity between the Jewish population in Israel and the surrounding Arab nations. The creation of the state was, as Greilsammer (1973, p.50) ‘on some levels, an incredible success’.

The success of the Zionists in creating a nation-state was due to a number of contributing factors and fortunate circumstances, including Western support, British withdrawal and Arab divisions. Eichler is perhaps the historian who places the most emphasis on Western aid benefitting Zionism, asking ‘how could we even think of the Zionist movement succeeding without support from Western colonial powers?’ (Eichler, 2016, p.8). After the end of the Second World War the British Empire was in full retreat and the British government could not afford to sustain its influence across the globe, it had also become heavily indebted to the USA who were very anti-imperialist. These factors forced Britain to retreat further from the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and the Middle East in general. Moreover, Conforti (2011, p.570-571) astutely comments that ‘it (Israel) emerged at the same time as independent India and Pakistan, a time when the British Empire was crumbling, and the Zionist movement was able to take advantage of British weakness.’ Zionist leaders, sensing this withdrawal, used an ‘armed insurrection’ to ‘force the British to turn over the Palestine file to the UN’ (Eichler, 2016, p.8).  Also, the Zionists were able to achieve their objective of creating and securing a Jewish homeland because of divisions within the Arab League.[3] These divisions were exploited by the Israeli armed forces. Indeed, Rai (2014, p.2) notes that Zionists were successful in 1948 because ‘the Arab governments all pursued their own objectives, with King Abdullah of Transjordan willing to accept a Jewish state in return for territorial gains.’ These divisions were further compounded by the fact that the newly formed Israel was more unified, better equipped and more financially able to sustain a war (Weinstock, 1973) Indeed, Weinstock (1973, p.58) estimates that, in the 1940s, ‘the Arab industrial sector amounted at most to 10% of the global Palestinian industrial produce’ and that ‘in 1942 … Arab industry in Palestine consisted of 1,558 establishments engaging 8,804 persons.’ Weinstock (1973, p.58) therefore concludes that the Zionists were able to create and protect their sovereign state because they were ‘possessing technological and financial advantages.’ Thus, the Zionist movement was successful in achieving its main objective of an internationally recognised Jewish homeland, to some extent. This new state did not allow Arabs and Jews to peacefully co-exist, as Herzl had originally intended, because of the nature in which Israel declared its own independence and sided with Western powers, who many Arabs saw as the enemy (Rai, 2014). Nevertheless, the creation of a safe Jewish homeland just three years after the Holocaust in Europe was an enormous success. The movement was also so successful in achieving this particular objective because of the extremely poor and divided Arab opposition and a large amount of political and economic support from the West.

Another objective of the Zionist movement, an extension of the creation of an internationally recognised home, was to re-define the stereotypical Jewish man and create a model socialist society based on democracy, law and equality. It could be said that in 1947 and 1948 Israel failed to achieve this objective. As Greilsammer (2011, p.41) repeatedly states, a secondary key objective for Zionists was ‘to form a new Jewish man, strong, healthy and free, both typical and universal, to be an example for other nations.’ Indeed, Lustick (1980, pp.131-132) accurately notes that ‘most Zionist founders dreamt of a modern, pluralist, secular, democratic state’ before concluding that they failed in this objective and, in 1948, ‘Instead of creating a new Jew and a state built on mutual tolerance and respect for the Other, Israel fixed certain behaviours and perpetuated divisions.’ Thus, Israel did not represent the model society that many Zionists had dreamt of prior to Israel’s independence in 1948. Indeed, some historians consider the desire to create a model state with model citizens as admirable, but a complete failure in the case of Israel. Because the Zionist movement had elected Palestine as a place to establish their homeland, the economic realities of the region became clear quickly. David Ben-Gurion was unable to improve the economy as quickly as had been expected and ‘general austerity was the rule’ with ‘the power of the Labour Party becoming overwhelming and Ben-Gurion’s autocracy was insufferable for many’ (Davidson, 2002, p.24). In fact, Greilsammer (2011, p.50) is especially critical of the failure of the Zionist movement to create a fair and modern state, commenting that ‘the gap between the ideal of the founders of Zionism and reality is even more striking as we consider the theme of ‘conquest of labor’ … and the desire to build a society where there would be no exploitation.’ The initial Zionist leaders expressed their desire to allow Arabs to continue living with the same rights that they had. It could even be claimed that Gurion was an idealist in the 1930s, as he claimed that this new Jewish state would have ‘one law for all residents, just rule, love of one’s neighbour, true equality. The Jewish state will be a role model to the world in its treatment of minorities and members of other nations. Law and justice will prevail in our state’ (Karsh, 2006, p.481).

However, the Zionist movement failed in this objective to create peace and harmony between Arabs who had lived in the region for generations and the newly created Jewish homeland. Herzl himself ‘did not envision the Jewish-Arab conflict’ (Eichler, 2016, p.6). Instead of the envisaged peaceful transition into a Jewish majority in Palestine, the 1948 war forced Israel to take a hard-line against any potential Arab enemies. This led to the creation of 700,000 Palestinian refugees. This brutal expulsion was not a reflection of the ‘future Jewish national home as an ideal society’ (Eichler, 2016, p.6). Whilst it is true that Israel remains a full democracy which is supposed to appeal to both Arabs and Jews, for example by having rules such as ‘in every Cabinet where the Prime Minister is a Jew, the vice-premiership shall be offered to an Arab and vice versa’ (Karsh, 2006, p.472). Glass (2001) comments that ‘Herzl did conceive of a diverse society’ and that ‘the Israeli political system in place over this time is a far cry from Herzl’s own vision.’ Thus, it is apparent that a key objective of the Zionist movement was to create a model society with model citizens that was fair and reflected the best practices of Western democracies. However, in 1948 its treatment of the Palestinian Arab population, combined with economic and social realities of governing such a new and impoverished state meant that Zionists ultimately failed to create a tolerant society and instead built a right-wing anti-Arab state; as Weinstock (1973, p. 43) concludes, ‘it is doubtful whether the founders of the Zionist movement would have relished this prospect.’

A third essential objective of the Zionist movement was to fully achieve an end to diaspora and group together all the persecuted Jews from across the globe in one nation to guarantee their safety. This was a goal right from the beginning as Jewish persecution was the essential reasoning for the necessity of a singular Jewish homeland in the first place. Indeed, Greilsammer (2011, p.41) states that ‘the first goal of this ideology was to end the Jewish Diaspora … and to bring them to Israel.’ Indeed, with regards to this particular goal the Zionist movement was extremely successful. The expansion of the Jewish community in Palestine was massive in the early 20th century, as the ‘Jewish population rose from 24,000 in 1882 to 175,000 in 1931’ (Weinstock, 1973, p. 55). These Aliyah’s involved the emigration of Jews from all over the world, including Jews ‘from communist countries after de-Stalinization; Jews from Egypt; Jews from post-Soviet countries, and Ethiopian Jews’ (Greilsammer, 2011, p.45). This growth in population continued and was accelerated by the Second World War so that, by 1948, the Jewish population was close to 500,000. This was a massive increase in population but did not reflect the initial Zionist ideal of all Jews living in one state.

Indeed, it would be impossible for every single person of the Jewish faith to relocate to Israel; some have found accepting new homes in Britain or the USA whilst some others fear for their own safety if they were to move to the Middle East. Indeed, as Neff (1995, p.6) highlights, ‘some Jewish communities, such as the one in Alegria, are not moving to Israel, but to other countries.’ After the mass migrations which took place prior to 1948 the Zionist leadership began to accept that ‘the likelihood of mass migration again is extremely low’ (Greilsammer, 2011, p.46). Indeed, Ben-Gurion himself privately stated that ‘the idea of the Zionist ‘triumph’, a definitive end to the Diaspora, is not believable anymore’ (Jensehaugen, 2012, p.289). Moreover, Eichler (2016, p.6) notes that ‘Herzl accepted that ending diaspora was unlikely’ but he still aimed to gather a majority of Jews in one state so that ‘Jews who were left in the diaspora would be respected because now the Jews would be a normal people with a normal political homeland.’

Thus, it could be deemed that this objective was successful because the Zionist movement adapted their definition to fit reality; they became aware that not every Jew in the world would want to live in that particular part of the world (Jensehaugen, 2012). However, the leadership still accepted the importance and necessity to encourage Jewish migration, which was effective prior to 1948, so that the Jewish identity and pride could be re-established (Klocke, 2014). The Zionist movement was able to achieve this particular objective with relative ease due to the fact that Jews across Europe had been persecuted terribly for hundreds of years (Morris, 2009, pp. 82-87). This was exposed with events such as the Dreyfus Affair in France, or the Holocaust in Germany or the Pogroms in Eastern Europe (Zollman, 2002). It was not hard for Zionists to convince persecuted Jews to unite together under one sovereign state because that is what a lot of them wished for anyway because of their poor treatment in Europe (Jensehaugen, 2012). Nevertheless, Weinstock (1973, p.53) does raise the important point that ‘it is thought that the wave of socialist Zionists (from Eastern Europe) was the main cause of hostility with the Arab population.’ The hostility towards these migrants came from Zionists as well as Arabs and ‘Russian Jews were considered by a number of Zionists and members of the Yishuv to constitute a major factor in arousing the hostility of the Palestinian Arabs’ (Weinstock, 1973, p.53). Thus, whilst the Zionist movement may have been as successful as possible in reducing Jewish diaspora around the globe, this may have made it a lot more difficult for Arabs to tolerate them and therefore reduced the success of some of the other Zionist goals.

In conclusion, it is difficult to assess the success of the Zionist movement in 1948 because it was ‘continually evolving and adapting during the first half of the 20th century’ (Conforti, 2011, p.570). Undeniably, the creation of a sovereign state in 1948 and a Jewish home which could unite any persecuted Jewish people from around the world was a huge success. Furthermore, the establishment of a democratic system and one of the finest legal systems in the world is no small achievement in such a short space of time, considering that mass Jewish migration into the region only really began in 1905 with the Second Aliyah (Morris, 2009, pp.142-144). However, the first Zionist leaders, such as Herzl or Weizmann, wanted to create a model society with model citizens and, perhaps most importantly, felt that their presence in the region would be ‘beneficial’ (Weinstock, 1973, p.49). The Zionist movement, for the most part, genuinely believed that there would be enough space in Palestine for new Jewish immigrants and existing Arab citizens (Herzl, 1895). After the 1948 war, however, these objectives completely failed. Hostilities between the Arab countries and Israel was extremely high, 700,000 Palestinian Arab refugees were displaced, and Israel became a right-wing autocratic state for a number of years in an attempt to boost its own economy (Margolick, 2008). However, as outlined by Herzl (1895) the main aims of the Zionist movement should always remain the creation of a Jewish homeland, the end of diaspora and the revival of Hebrew and Jewish culture. These key aims were achieved, to some extent, by the end of 1948.

Any successes that the Zionist movement enjoyed were down to a number of contributing factors. Most important of which was the support from the West (Rogan, 2008). Perhaps borne out of guilt from the atrocities of the Holocaust, or perhaps because the USA saw limitless benefits of having an allied democracy in the region, the West was very eager to support the Zionist movement (Rogan, 2008, pp.23-26). Britain’s withdrawal from the region and the takeover of the Palestine situation by the UN definitely benefitted the Zionist cause as it created the partition plan in 1947 and paved the way for a declaration of Israel’s independence in 1948 (Glass, 2001). Moreover, the disunity between the surrounding Arab states and ‘their lack of wealth and infrastructure also made Zionist’s objectives easier to achieve’, as they could buy land cheaply and during the 1948 war they were able to beat a coalition of forces simply due to their better resources and their ability to divide the Arab states (Karsh, 2006, p.479). Thus, the Zionist movement was successful in achieving their main aims in 1948 of ending diaspora and creating a sovereign Jewish state, but this success came at a price and that was the type of state they wanted to build. Israel in 1948 did not reflect the thinking of original Zionists who wanted Arabs and Jews to live side-by-side and wanted to build a model society (Rai, 2014). A more nuanced conclusion would suggest that the Zionist movement was very successful in achieving its objectives in 1948, but this success caused problems later on with surrounding Arab states which has largely tainted the view political historians have on Zionism and its success.

Any successes that the Zionist movement enjoyed were down to a number of contributing factors. Most important of which was the support from the West (Rogan, 2008). Perhaps borne out of guilt from the atrocities of the Holocaust, or perhaps because the USA saw limitless benefits of having an allied democracy in the region, the West was very eager to support the Zionist movement (Rogan, 2008, pp.23-26). Britain’s withdrawal from the region and the takeover of the Palestine situation by the UN definitely benefitted the Zionist cause as it created the partition plan in 1947 and paved the way for a declaration of Israel’s independence in 1948 (Glass, 2001). Moreover, the disunity between the surrounding Arab states and ‘their lack of wealth and infrastructure also made Zionist’s objectives easier to achieve’, as they could buy land cheaply and during the 1948 war they were able to beat a coalition of forces simply due to their better resources and their ability to divide the Arab states (Karsh, 2006, p.479). Thus, the Zionist movement was successful in achieving their main aims in 1948 of ending diaspora and creating a sovereign Jewish state, but this success came at a price and that was the type of state they wanted to build. Israel in 1948 did not reflect the thinking of original Zionists who wanted Arabs and Jews to live side-by-side and wanted to build a model society (Rai, 2014). A more nuanced conclusion would suggest that the Zionist movement was very successful in achieving its objectives in 1948, but this success caused problems later on with surrounding Arab states which has largely tainted the view political historians have on Zionism and its success.

Word Count: 3,557

Bibliography:

Conforti, Y. 2011. Between Ethnic and Civic: The Realistic Utopia of Zionism. Israel Affairs. 17(4), pp.563-582.

Davidson, L. 2002. Zionism in the US 1917-1948: Zionism and the betrayal of American Democratic Principles. Journal of Palestine Studies. 1(3), p.21-35.

Eichler, W. 2016. Theodor Herzl and the Trajectory of Zionism. [Online]. [Date Accessed 1 May 2020]. Available from: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia/theodor-herzl-and-trajectory-of-zionism/

Glass, C. 2001. The Mandate Years Colonialism and the Creation of Israel. [Online]. [Date Accessed 27 April 2020]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/may/31/londonreviewofbooks

Greilsammer, I. 2011. Zionism Between Ideal and Reality. Cairn Info. 47(3), pp.41-51.

Halperin, L. 2015. Origins and Evolution of Zionism. Foreign Policy Research Institute. pp.1-10.

Herzl, T. 1895. The State of the Jews. England: Tredition Classics.

Jensehaugen, J. 2012. Securing the State: From Zionist Ideology to Israeli Statehood. Diplomacy & Statecraft. 23(2), pp.280-303.

Karsh, E. 2006. Resurrecting the Myth: Benny Morris, the Zionist Movement, and the ‘Transfer’ Idea. Israel Affairs. 11(3), pp.469-490.

Klocke, Z. 2014. An Investigation into Zionism’s Inner Leadership. [Online]. [Date Accessed 24 April 2020]. Available from: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=younghistorians

Lustick, I. 1980. Zionism and the State of Israel: Regime Objectives and the Arab Minority in the First Years of Statehood. 16(1), pp.127-16.

Margolick, D. 2008. Endless War. [Online]. [Date Accessed: 23 April 2020] Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/books/review/Margolick-t.html

Morris, B. 2009. 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. Yale: Yale University Press.

Neff, D. 1995. The Palestinians and Zionism: 1897-1948. Middle East Policy Council. 4(1), pp.1-10.

Rai, S. 2014. What Were the Causes and Consequences of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War? University of Leicester. 12(2), pp.1-3.

Rogan, E. 2008. The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948. England: Cambridge University Press.

Weizmann, C. 2005. The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann (Series A: Letters): United Nations; Weizmann First President of Israel; The Prisoner of Rehovot. England: Transaction Publishers.

Weinstock, N. 1973. The Impact of Zionist Colonisation on Palestinian Arab Society Before 1948. Journal of Palestine Studies. 2(2), pp.49-63.

Zollman, J. 2002. The Dreyfus Affair. [Online]. [Date Accessed: 12 April 2020]. Available from: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-dreyfus-affair/

[1] ‘Diaspora’ is a term which refers to a scattered population that live beyond the borders of what they would consider their homeland. In this essay the term refers to Jewish people being spread beyond the borders of modern-day Israel.

[2] Early Zionists did not want Arabs working on their land because they thought this was too much like imperialism, but in actual fact it just served to create a Jewish elite with a great deal of wealth.

[3] Refers to the coalition of Arab forces which invaded Israel in 1948, included Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Egypt.

Marvel’s Not-So-Marvelous Decline

July 19th,2 / Leave Feedback / nezuppal

Ah, the grand tapestry of Marvel’s cinematic universe—a saga filled with heroes, villains, and more plot twists than a Spider-Man comic. From Hugh Jackman’s rugged Wolverine to the climactic showdown of “Avengers: Endgame,” Marvel’s journey from X-traordinary beginnings to universe-spanning epics seemed as unstoppable as the Hulk on a caffeine high. But as the saying goes, even the mightiest empires can suffer the occasional cosmic hiccup, and Marvel’s post-‘Endgame’ era has been a rollercoaster ride of success, failure, and more failure.

Let’s set the DeLorean to 2000, where Jackman’s abs and mutton chops first graced the screen, forever immortalizing Wolverine as the quintessential antihero. “X-Men” kicked off Marvel’s cinematic revolution, proving that superheroes could be brooding, complex, and, most importantly, incredibly bankable.

As the years unfolded like pages from the Collector’s vault, Marvel’s dominance only grew, with each film shattering box office records faster than Ant-Man can raid a snack cupboard. From Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark swagger to Chris Hemsworth’s thunderous Thor, Marvel’s ensemble cast breathed life into iconic characters, making them household names faster than you can say “Hulk smash!”

But every hero has their Kryptonite, and Marvel’s decline began with a series of misfires that would make even Deadpool cringe. Remember “The Incredible Hulk”? Despite Mark Ruffalo’s valiant efforts, the film failed to Hulk-smash its way into our hearts like its predecessor, leaving audiences wondering if they’d rather watch paint dry than sit through another gamma-radiated rampage.

And who could forget the cosmic snooze-fest that was “Thor: The Dark World”? A plot as tangled as Loki’s family tree and villains as memorable as generic henchmen left viewers wondering if they’d stumbled into a portal to a universe where compelling storytelling was just a myth.

But perhaps the greatest tragedy was the ill-fated “Fantastic Four” reboot. With a cast better suited for a CW teen drama and a plot as flimsy as Mr. Fantastic’s stretchy limbs, “The Fantastic Four” crashed and burned faster than the Human Torch at a fireworks factory.

Now, let’s talk numbers, shall we? While Marvel’s early films basked in the golden glow of box office success, their more recent endeavors have struggled to replicate the same financial feats. “Avengers: Endgame” raked in a staggering $2.798 billion worldwide, while “Eternals” barely managed to scrape together $402 million—a plummet from the glory days of Earth’s mightiest heroes worthy of a Stark Industries emergency board meeting.

But fear not, true believers! Even in the face of defeat, Marvel remains as resilient as Captain America’s shield. With new heroes, new adventures, and, hopefully, fewer cosmic misfires on the horizon, there’s still plenty of life left in the old Stark Industries yet.

So, as we bid adieu to the era of ‘Hulk smash’ and ‘I am Iron Man,’ let us remember that even superheroes have their off days. After all, what’s a hero without a few origin story hiccups along the way?

And remember, dear readers, in the grand tapestry of Marvel’s cinematic saga, every misstep is just another chapter in the never-ending story of heroism, humor, and the occasional facepalm-worthy flop. So, until the next Marvel movie graces our screens, let’s embrace the chaos and absurdity that makes the Marvel Cinematic Universe both marvelous and magnificently flawed.

‘The Big Short’ Says It ALL.

In a brilliant, and hilarious scene, in The Big Short – a movie about those outsiders who managed to predict the 2008/09 crash and short their positions (thereby making money) off of the collapse of the entire global housing market.

In this particular scene, Ryan Gosling is strying to convince Steve Carell to buy into his plan. His claim? That the tranches of ‘AAA’, ‘AA’, ‘A’ and ‘B’ had suddenly become full of rubbish debt obligations. This was partly due to the ratings agencies – if they did not give each tranche a maximum rating then banks could simply walk down to their competitiors. Also, the bankers did not care as they were earning commission for every mortage they sell.

It was corrupt from the ground up.

Again, as Gosling’s character says – “what used to be considered ‘A’s’ and ‘BBB’s as rubbish. They had:

  • Rock bottom FICO scores
  • No income-varification
  • Adjustable rates

Rather more interesting than my re-count of a great movie is something extremely interesting which Steve Carell says at teh end of the scene. He is obviously sceptical of this – assuming that they someone else would have surely noticed this before him.

He comments, “But default rates are already up from 1% to 4% and it will continue to rise …?

Gosling replies, “Exactly – and if they rise to 8% (and they will!) the triple B’s will default too!”

“I am standing in front of a burning building, AND I AM OFFERING YOU FIRE INSURANCE ON IT!”

Guess what the default rate at the end of 2023? It was 3.45% and without being too technical that is because every country is pumping money into their own economies and this obviously cannot continue forever. This seems like a no-brainer I have been searching for angel investors, mostly amongst friends and family but if anyone wants to get into this at the ground floor hit me up

In the intricate dance of economics, there comes a time when the music stops, and the party takes an unexpected turn. For the United States, that time may be fast approaching as ominous signs suggest the country is overdue for a recession. From economic indicators to historical precedents, the writing on the wall is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

Let’s take a closer look at the evidence.

  1. Economic Indicators: The economic indicators flashing red are hard to ignore. Despite periods of growth and resilience, recent signals hint at underlying weaknesses. For instance, while the unemployment rate has declined, wage growth has been sluggish, and labor force participation remains below pre-pandemic levels. Additionally, inflationary pressures are mounting, fueled by supply chain disruptions and increased demand as the economy reopens.
  2. Historical Precedents: History has a way of repeating itself, and the cyclical nature of recessions is well-documented. According to economic theory, expansions are typically followed by contractions, and the U.S. economy has been in expansion mode for an unusually long time. Since the Great Recession of 2008, the country has experienced one of the longest economic expansions on record, leading many experts to speculate that a correction may be overdue.
  3. Global Economic Trends: The interconnected nature of the global economy means that trends abroad can have ripple effects at home. Recent developments, such as slowing growth in key international markets and escalating trade tensions, could further exacerbate economic headwinds for the United States. Moreover, geopolitical uncertainties and the lingering impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to cast a shadow over the global economic outlook.
  4. Financial Market Volatility: Financial markets are often viewed as leading indicators of economic sentiment, and recent volatility in stock markets and bond yields has raised eyebrows among investors and analysts alike. While short-term fluctuations are to be expected, sustained market turbulence can signal underlying concerns about the health of the economy and future growth prospects.

In light of these factors, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the United States may be on the cusp of a downturn. While the timing and severity of a potential recession remain uncertain, prudent economic planning and risk management are essential for individuals, businesses, and policymakers alike.

However, it’s not all doom and gloom. Recessions, while inevitable, are also a natural part of the economic cycle and can pave the way for renewal and innovation. By recognizing the warning signs and taking proactive measures to address economic vulnerabilities, the United States can navigate the challenges ahead with resilience and determination.

In conclusion, while the prospect of a recession may be daunting, it’s a reality that the United States must confront head-on.

NEVER Have I been So Happy to Be So Wrong

November 11, 2022 / Leave Feedback / nezuppal

A few days ago, I wrote about, what was then, the upcoming mid-term elections. I suspected that the Republicans would run away with victories in the House and in the Senate. I imagined complete control of both houses for them and Biden becoming a lame-duck President with little power, just two years into his first (and likely) only term.

How wrong I was.

How happy you should be.

The results. In the House, the Democrats lost 9 seats. A minimal amount and fairly insignificant. The Republicans, meanwhile, gained 7 seats. An embarrassing amount to be honest as 218 seats are needed for a majority in the House and they now have only 218. Key battlefield states did not deliver fully for the Republicans in this election and that is fantastic news.

In the Senate, more surprisingly in my eyes, the Democrats actually managed to gain a seat. Whilst the Republicans lost one! This means that neither party has a majority in either the House or the Senate. With the final results of this election revealing that the Democrats had a total of 46 Senators, compared with the Republican’s 48. To get a majority one party needs more than 51 seats. The Republicans failed to secure even a small majority in either House. Party hats on!

midterm

In key battlegrounds, such as the 1st and 4th district of Nevada, were what I feared would lead to a direct and strong majority for the Republicans. But it has not turned out this way and the Republican voters did not show up as strongly as their leaders had hoped. In my eyes, this election was a failure for the Republicans and, perhaps, a demonstration of the end of the Trump era?

Is the left waking up? Well, it may be too soon to say that. But perhaps there is light at the end of this tunnel of madness. Trump brought anger and disruption to an already angry and disrupted political system. Whilst we are all quick, in Britain at least, to quickly claim that Biden is not doing enough or is making fiscally irresponsible policies. What we can at least say is that he has brought statesmanship back to the Presidency.

He may seem a bit old, with videos emerging of him being unable to finish speeches or being helped down flights of stairs, he is a respected man and he has earnt that respect. He does not shout, whine or cry – as Trump does – he focuses on the job at hand. At it has almost, rather sadly, come to the point where this is all we need from a President at the moment. We don’t need a great President like FDR to revolutionise the country. We don’t need powerful, loud leaders like the JFK or Robert Kennedy. Even if we did need Presidents like these. Where are they? What America and the rest of the world needs and has right now is a President who will not stoke more division and insight more hatred, just to gain a mass of support.

Biden has also gained more respect from myself and political commentators for coming out and praising one Republican governor who lost a crucial seat and accepted the result with good grace. Many of his supporters were spouting the same nonsense. Saying that the election was rigged or that there should be a re-count. But this politician was having none of it and Biden was quick to praise this. A small act, but an important one. As I have previously written, we cannot begin questioning the results of every single election result. It’s a slippery slope and one which does not end well.

By nipping this in the bud early, Biden has gained the headlines as political commentators begin to suggest that his brand of politics is changing the way the Republicans are seen, not just in America but across the world.

Since Trump, the Republicans have sought to hold on to their right-wing support base as it had previously brought them the Presidency and allowed them to gain power. The issue with appealing to this marginalised group of people, however, is that it tends to alienate the middle-ground “undecided” voters. Whilst it is true that the number of “undecided” voters is disappearing, with the country becoming more toxic and more divided than ever. It is no longer a case of deciding whether you like a certain President’s policies more than the other, or a Senators’, it is now just about which party they “represent”. You ARE a Republican. Or you ARE a Democrat. That is becoming how people define their political views in America and it is a great shame.

Nevertheless, we should still celebrate me being wrong about the mid-term disaster. These mid-terms were not a disaster, nor were they a triumph. Instead, we should view them with hope and sign of a better future for the USA.

I thoroughly hope that Biden has the good sense and grace to step aside in the next Presidential election. It is too far off to know whether he will or not, with politics changing so fast. But that fact that he is meeting with the Chinese Premier this week and establishing international relations suggests to me that they are on a path to a more united front.

And that’s exactly what the UK and USA need right now, to be united and to face global threats of Putin, Climate Change and China together.

I do not think this marks the end of right-wing fanaticism in America. Nevertheless, this election perhaps demonstrated to the world that, in the words of Churchill, “this is not the end. This is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” I truly hope this is the end of the beginning for a new, more unified United States.

Or maybe I’m dreaming.

Prime Minister. After Prime Minister. After Prime Minister. Would you take the job?

November 9th, 2022 / Leave Feedback / nezuppal

Wow. It has been a long time since I last posted an article. I’d like to say that I haven’t written on this blog for a long time as my last article came just after the news that the Queen had passed away and I wanted to show respect. But to be honest, politics has been moving so fast around me that I have barely been able to keep up.

So let me just start again by paying my respects to the greatest monarch in British history – certainly a debateable comment but that’s what this blog is supposed to be all about. Isn’t it?

And a brief note to follow on from that, before we get on to what I will now term the “Wild Westminster” (not great, I know, but Wild West … anyone?), is that we have all been given an extra bank holiday for King Charles’ coronation. Literally everyone I’ve spoken to about this is so happy to get an extra bank holiday, who wouldn’t be, but no one has mentioned anything about King Charles at all. Personally, I hope he acts like his mother and stays out of political situations. But I’m not holding my breath. But in my previous article I said that the monarchy died with the Queen and whilst it has not actually “died”, we are not French after all where a good revolution is always on the cards, but I sense that a lot of people simply to do not care about the monarchy or their business anymore.

sunak

Anyway, onto the madness of the Wild Wild Westminster. My last article, to the day was when Liz Truss was still Prime Minister. As mentioned before on this blog, I knew she would be incompetent, but even I could not predict a failing on this level. Yes, the lettuce thing was very funny. Yes, she was the shortest serving Prime Minister in British history. But seriously, the only reason she won was because the Tory membership felt that Rishi stabbed Boris in the back. That’s it. They did not consider her complete lack of political knowledge, economics, or common sense.

Instantly, with the release of her mini budget on the 23rd of September, there was a public outcry and complete confusion within Westminster. What was going on? The budget was nothing short of a calamity. Throughout the debates the main issue, on my mind and the mind of many I suppose was the economy and cost of living crisis which we are all now facing. Whilst I am no fan of Rishi Sunak, during these debates he showed that he, at the very least, had the political and economic nous which Liz Truss was clearly lacking. When repeatedly asked whether she would cut public spending or raise taxes, she “umm’d” and “arrr’d” about it, refusing to give a straightforward answer.

Following this she then decided to boldly claim that she would do neither. Continuing with high public spending whilst aiming to reduce taxation. Now, you do not have to be a genius, or even clever, to know that public spending comes from taxation. If you want high public spending, you need high taxation. If you want low taxation, then you must cut public spending. It is as simple as that. But Liz Truss still could not grasp this very basic principle. Shocking.

But alas, she did not “stab King Boris” in the back. Therefore, the Tory members proudly elected her in and what happened? The pound collapsed. It didn’t dip, it didn’t drop slightly. It collapsed. Her mini-budget was just a sign of pure ignorance on the part of Truss and her best-mate (not anymore, I imagine) Kwasi Kwarteng. As she suddenly noticed what an absolute disaster this was, she, like many other Tory leaders before her, instantly sacked a close friend and colleague and tried to place the blame on him. Yes, it was his fault and they are both clueless as each other. But I suppose there is no loyalty amongst thieves.

Her decision to then bring Jeremy Hunt into the fold was also a calamitous choice as he began to tear apart this shambles of a budget. An awful choice by Liz Truss, is that three in a row now (?), but even this served to undermine her position further.

I told Liz Truss she was going too fast, says Kwasi Kwarteng - BBC News

It was on the 6th of September that Liz Truss took over from Boris. She lasted 44 days. Obviously, following that Rishi Sunak became the first Prime Minister of Indian descent. To be honest, it is actually amazing to consider that we now have an Indian Prime Minister if one were to look back on the treatment of India by the British empire. But that’s another article for another time.

So that’s not 3 Prime Minister’s in as many months. And what I find personally annoying is that there is absolutely no shame amongst these ministers. The Conservative Party has been in power for 12 years now. 12 years, with a strong majority is enough time to do a lot of good for the country and if you read my article on Tony Blair, you will understand what can be achieved in this time. But instead, we now face a housing crisis, ANOTHER criminal Prime Minister, a cost-of-living crisis, and the Bank of England has now recently announced that Britain is officially in a recession and has predicted that it will be the longest in British history. Many of you may remember the aftermath of the 2008/2009 financial crisis caused by the housing market in the United States. This is not only a continuation of that but could well end up being even more damaging.

Boris, then Liz Truss and now Rishi Sunak. Dear God. And with Rishi now facing allegations of bullying within the workplace relating to Gavin Williamson’s text messages to Penny Mordaunt (article soon to follow) he is under intense pressure as well. He claims he did not know about the texts, but there’s something about these Tory Prime Minister’s that makes me think they are lying. They are always lying. They have always lied. And whilst, perhaps, he did not know the exact details of the texts, although I find that hard to believe, he was made aware that this man was a bully and not suitable for a Ministerial position.

Now we have Tory MPs, unsure of what to do or how to tie a pair of shoelaces, claiming that “this is in the past” and that it was a “one-off” incident. The text messages lasted for two days and used vulgar, disgusting language and threats. I am no fan of Penny Mordaunt, don’t mistake me, but bullying in the workplace is just unacceptable. This was unacceptable. The Tory party is unacceptable.

Prime Minister after Prime Minister after Prime Minister. And now it turns out that Boris did have the backing of 102 Tory MPs to allow him to stand for the leadership again. Just let that sink in. After all that Boris has put the country through, all of the scandals, crises, and utter shambles. And the Tory MPs still want him back. I sometimes feel like I’m the only person in the world who sees this as an utter disaster. What are they thinking?

What good can come from re-electing Boris. But as I mentioned in article a long time ago. Boris is not done with politics. He hasn’t sailed off into the sunset. However, that brings me back to the title of this article (sorry that I have been going round the houses but it has been a long time since I posted and I needed to vent. There will be additional, shorter, and more readable articles to follow, I promise). Why would anyone take the job?

At work we were asking each other if we would take the job, a few people said yes but with ridiculous ideas. I would personally take the job just so I could dissolve Parliament and call a re-election. Nevertheless, Boris is no fool. He plays the fool. He had enough votes to stand for the leadership again. And I believe that before the next General Election he will still be about, like a foul stench. But why would he take the job? He “delivered” on Brexit and left whilst still enormously popular with the Tory membership. Why would he want to lead the Party into the next election where surely, they must lose?

He’s too smart to take the job. Much like Trump, with the blonde floppy hair, the ignorance, arrogance, and self-entitlement, he also cannot stand to lose. If he were to take the leadership position, I honestly do believe that the Tory party would do reasonably well in the next election. But that’s not to say they would win. And Boris is not concerned with how the Tory party look, he’s not concerned about the cost-of-living crisis, the war in Ukraine, Brexit, or you. Boris is concerned about Boris. And his legacy. Nothing more.

There is a saying in British politics that the Labour Party don’t win elections, the Tory Party lose them. Think back to Thatcher and John Major. Together they were in power for 18 years and in that time, they had, arguably, created more division and economic crises than we are faced with even now. And they lost to Tony Blair in 1997. I believe they will lose to Starmer in the next election. But read that again. I am not saying that Starmer will “win it for Labour” – I just believe the Tories will lose. What a sorry state of affairs.

Boris Johnson, much like his chum David Cameron who called for the disastrous Brexit referendum and then immediately cut and run, is not interested in the country’s well-being. They are both only concerned about themselves. Liz Truss then taking over and destroying the pound, her own career and launching us further into a deep recession. She did not care about the well-being of the country or the poor. She just wanted to be Prime Minister. And now Rishi Sunak, a Prime Minister who is certainly competent when it comes to political knowledge. But there is only so much he can do. He is despised by a large portion of the Tory membership because he betrayed Boris. He is despised by most of the country for the current financial situation we are stuck with. He is despised by Boris.

Why do these people want the Prime Minister job? It’s a lose-lose situation, surely. How arrogant and un-self-aware do you have to be to want to take on this position? Well, we’re finding out.

No doubt by the time I post this article there will be more news about another Prime Minister but for now, I just cannot believe what is happening to British politics.

It is shocking.

Broken Boris, Broken Brexit, Broken Britain

August 7th, 2022 / Leave Feedback / nezuppal

Oh how it was only a month ago that people seemed to be celebrating the end of the Boris Johnson’s era, as he announced his “intention” to resign. As an article I wrote exactly a month ago outlined, this was never an official resignation. Nor was it a signal that Boris wanted to leave politics.

The man needs to be in the limelight, he needs to be seen, he needs to be adored. And thanks to a never-ending stream of media and millions upon millions of Boris fans, he will get to choose his moment to leave. And this is not it.

I am no fan of Tony Blair, but many will remember in his final PMQs speech in 2007 he displayed a level of grace and diplomacy that Britain had been lacking since he launched his illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. However, leaving that to one side, Blair’s final words during Prime Minister’s Questions to Parliament were moving, profound and entirely suitable for someone leaving such an important role in for such a long time. He said at last, and with almost a tear in his eye, “To all my colleagues from all of the different political parties. Some may belittle politics but we know, who are engaged in it, it is where people stand tall. And although I know it has its many harsh contentions – it is still the arena that sets the heart beating a little faster. And if it is on occassion the place of low skullduggery, it is more often the place for the pursuit of noble causes. And I wish everyone, friend or foe, well. And that is that. The end.” Met with a standing ovation from both sides of the House.

For all his mismanagement, his lies, his enemies, he still left the highest office in the country with dignity and respect. By this point, his party had begun to hate him, those around him had begun to conspire and eventhough he held a strong majority – he knew that his time was up. And so he resigned. This is not to say Blair held the office with any special dignity or treated it any better than those who had preceded him; in fact, he probably disrepected the role of Prime Minister and the Houses of Parliament more than any other leader in history. Except one.

Boris has nothing but contempt for the British people. He has no respect for the role of Prime Minister.  Attending those weird Downing Street parties (really, who wants to party with those over-grown prefects. I bet Jacob-Rees Mogg really knows his way around a 7 minute anechdote about paint drying). As wild and fun as I am sure these parties were, they were still illegal.

A further quick list – the Rwandan deportations, a vote of no confidence, two massive by-election losses, soaring inflation, a hike in interest rates, a hike in national insurance, mounting strikes from TFL which will soon spread to other working sectors (just believe me, it will), a cost of living crisis, a widening gap between the rich and the poor which is almost comparable to Dickenensian times, as one commentator posted. And Boris’ final words?

“Hasta la vista, baby.”

Are you joking? Your final words in Parliament are a quote from the Terminator? After all the mess, lies and fear you’ve created, those are your final words? Without a second of remorse or even an attempt to regain some form of bipartisanship … is it because you knew they wouldn’t be your last words in Parliament?

Directly translated “hasta la vista” does technically mean goodbye, but is usually said with a note of “see you later” or “I’ll see you again”. But I don’t think we should get bogged down in the direct nuances of what Boris said; half the time I don’t think he even knows what he’s saying so let’s put that to one side. There’s a possibility that studying his final speech may become like studying Shakespeare at school, endlessly analysing The Bard’s use of the word “red” until you drove yourself mad. By the way, Shakespeare described blood as “red” in Macbeth because blood is bloody red! But I digress.

A better way to judge Boris’ plans, and most people’s to be fair, is to look at the surrounding context, look at their past actions and then apply that to potential future contexts you can see coming. Let’s apply this.

Firstly, the context surrounding Boris’ “resignation”. It is essential that we understand that Boris has not resigned. He is still our Prime Minister; but as I said in a previous article, he is not an idiot. He plays the idiot.”All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players” as Shakespeare once famously wrote. (If only my English teachers could see me quoting the playwright now! Not that I’m still holding that grudge.)

To be quite honest, I don’t think Britain has really experienced a politician like Boris Johnson before. A man who not only knows when to seize an opportunity and run with it, as he did with Brexit as everyone around him was calling him mad. He saw the opportunity as a win-win. And it was.

But more importantly than seizing opportunities as they immediately arise, Boris also knows when to step back into the shadows if necessary and let others take control. After the Brexit vote, surely a Brexit-supporting politician should have immediately stood. Whilst Boris was essentially “stabbed in the back” by Michael Gove at this point, he did not cry or kick up a fuss – allowing the media to do this for him. But rather than this being an honourable act of stepping aside to let the better man stand (if you think Michael Gove is a better person than you just give up, genuinely just give up).

He did not even complain when Theresa May won the election, by the slimmest of margins, despite the fact that she was a Remainer. This was because Boris knows how to play the game. It was obvious, or seemingly so, that whoever took over as Prime Minister after David Cameron would face an incredible challenge over seeing Brexit through. And while all the Tory MPs rushed to get their names on the ballot, Boris potentially knew that his time would come later.

BROKEN BORIS

Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight, Boris’ plans did work out. Theresa May did make a mess of things, she did nearly bring the Tory party down and it was only due to the divided nature of the Labour party, coupled with the in-fighting over Jeremy Corbyn, that the Tories managed to stay in power.

Boris did then see an opportunity to strike, as the Labour party was unimaginably weak at this point. He led the bid and was successful – as a lot of people forget how immensely popular he is amongst the Tory membership. And, whilst the Tory members may share 3 brain cells between them, their voting powers are very strong when deciding who the next leader of the party will be.

Context. So whist everyone is clamouring to find out who the next Tory leader will be. *Sigh*. Will it be the well-informed, tax dodging criminal? Well … apparently he “stabbed Boris in the back”, according to many Tory party members, because he refused to work for a criminal…

But guess what? There’s no honour amongst thieves. Learn it the hard way. Or the next Prime Minister could be Liz Truss, who is possibly the most incompetent politician I have ever seen.  I am being entirely objective when I say Liz Truss is not fit to be the Prime Minister. That is not sexist. I feel the same way about Rishi Sunak too, as he is a criminal, but at least he is knowledgeable about the current situation of the country. But anyway, who knows who will win. The Tory members will let us know the bad news soon enough.

Rather more interesting than who will win out of those two losers. They are doomed to be one-term PMs as there is no way they can continue to lead the country without massively raising taxes, tackling the Unions and solving the housing crisis – a competent PM could not acheive this. Either one of these overgrown children could not and will not be able to do it, even if they had the best ministers around them and not a who’s-who of political ineptitude.

But who comes after that? If we assume that Labour will continue with its in-fighting and Starmer as their leader then I think it’s safe to assume they do not pose a threat to the Tories’ massive majority.

Increasingly, there have been demands within the Tory party for Boris to return. There are even reports that the PM has discussed and even broadly outlined a plan for his return. Indeed, a leaked report from one of his close aides suggests that Boris has gone so far as to say that he wants to be back as Prime Minister within a year. It really is incredible and, unfortunately, I cannot tell whether this manouvre is too far or whether he’s just a step ahead of every political commentator there is, as he has been throughout his career.

I’d imagine the former. Boris has been in politics long enough. As the famous Bible saying goes, “You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain”. Or maybe that’s Batman. Nevertheless, even as I write this there is a slight worry that Boris may be toying with us, yet again. His claims of returning to government, the fact that he hasn’t disappeared to become some millionaire adviser like Blair, Cameron, Clegg all have done is interesting to say the least. He has the option to ride off into the sunset with millions of pounds to sit with – but he isn’t. Why? Don’t tell me it’s out of some patriotic duty he must feel. Give it a rest.

But with over 8,000 Conservative Party Members signing a petition calling for Boris to be put back on the ballot paper, people should be concerned. Boris’ tenure has led to a failed Brexit, with strains on relations with Europe, the USA and the rest of the world as Britain seeks to isolate itself further. Added to that, the lies, the crimes, the wasted money on COVID schemes. Even as I research this article I come across new information that Norway could cut power to Britain, compounding the effect of the predictions that the UK’s energy prices are expected to jump by 70% in October.

Boris’ tenure has been marred by such headlines. And whilst the next PM will definitely be either Rishi Sunak or Liz Truss, don’t expect either to be around for long. In fact, don’t expect much from either of them – the situation will get worse before it gets better.

But “Hasta la vista baby” ??? All we can do is hope we never see you again Boris. Hope beyond hope.

Rats Leaving the Sinking Ship (But that “Ship” is the British Government!)

July 6th, 2022 / Leave Feedback / nezuppal

Why are we celebrating? Well, because last night Rishi Sunak (the Govermment’s Chancellor of the Exchequer) and Sajid Javid (Health Secretary), amongst others, handed in their official resignations as members of the cabinet. I suppose we all knew this would come at some point – it had too.

Here’s a quick list of the Ministers (different to being in the cabinet) who have also resigned:

  • Will Quince, Education Minister
  • Alex Chalk, Solicitor General
  • Robin Walker, Education Minister
  • John Glen, Treasury Minister
  • Victoria Atkins, Justice Minister
  • Jo Churchill, Environment Minister
  • Stuart Andrew, Housing Minister

But what is more interesting is the specific cabinet ministers who have resigned. And I expect more to come.

After 2 years of Covid lockdowns, restriction, changing financial policies and record-breaking cases of deaths we now have no Chancellor of the Exchequer or Health Secretary. Yes, Nadhim Zahawi will become the new Chancellor; there are even rumours that he was threatening to also resign if he was not given the Chancellor role.

It’s not what you know, it’s who you know. 

Steve Barclay will become the new Health Secretary. I hear you ask “who”? Good question. Well, after being elected he previously served as “Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union” from 2018 to 2020 and that went um … well. Essentially, they’re seat fillers, looking to get ahead and siding with the PM to make it seem as if Boris was prepared for this.

And to be fair, throughout his career Boris has always been a step ahead of the game. He plays the buffoon, the “loveable” (I use that word because I have heard others refer to him in such a manner) clown. But let’s not forget he was a very talented journalist. He then moved into politics at the exact right time, defeating Ken Livingstone in 2008. Ken Livingston was actually the first Mayor of London, elected in 2000, and was responsible for winning the UK’s bid for the 2012 Olympics. As well as implementing ride-and-go bikes for people to get around the city easier. They’re now called “Boris Bikes”.

During the Brexit referendum Boris chose the side of “leave” which I think shocked many because, if he were to tell the truth (highly unlikely in any circumstance), he would probably admit that he is not a Brexiteer. But he saw that through, eventually winning. Then, he allowed Theresa May to immediately take over and take the brunt of the Brexit anger. It was only after this had, to some extent, settled down that Boris saw his opportunity to reach the position of Prime Minister, something which he told his dad he was going to be when he was 9 years old.

It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.

So, as the cost-of-living crisis increases, COVID cases continue to rise and the UK is stuck with an unbelievable amount of debt, matched only by record levels of inflation and a recession which technically hasn’t begun yet if you follow the strict definition of what a “recession” is. But everyone knows it’s coming and they’re batting down the hatches.

Rishi probably had his resignation letter prepared as soon as the tax-dodging, non-domicile news about his wife was leaked. You cannot be Chancellor and a tax dodger. Although, there used to be a time when we would not have a convicted criminal as a Prime Minister and yet here, we are.

And I agree, I think it is no coincidence that these two Ministers in particular resigned. Because what can they do? Apart from leave it to the next guy to sort. Remember David Cameron after the Brexit Referendum? Cut. And. Run.

But what’s more pertinent, relevant, and perhaps scary in my eyes is that we are celebrating the collapse of our own government. This is madness, surely. Yes, they should all resign. But these are ministers and MPs who have backed Boris Johnson all the way; they were all biding their time and I feel like the Pincher scandal was the opportunity that they all seized. The Pincher scandal is disgusting. The man is disgusting. But the Tory Cabinet is disgusting too. Whilst you were in lockdown, doing those annoying Zoom quizzes with family you hadn’t seen in years, they were partying and lying and laughing at you. And me. Us.

But the celebrations that Boris may finally disappear need to be quick and then we need to focus back on politics. Our cabinet is resigning. Our PM is a liar, cheat, narcissist, and a criminal. I recently wrote an article on how Democracy is failing. Our government is failing. Whatever happens in the USA tends to happen in Britain 5/10 years later (if not sooner). Democracy is failing in this country. We can see it crumbling in front of us!

So, these celebrations must be quick, but then we must act to preserve the nature of democracy in this country. We cannot have a cabinet filled with criminals. We cannot have a Prime Minister who invites Sue Gray (the investigator of the “party-gate” claims) to his office to tell her not to produce the report. Then say she was never invited. Then suddenly remember she was. A liar through and through.

But much like how Boris has seen and picked his moments throughout his career – Starmer and Labour or The Liberal Democrats must see this as their chance to hammer the final nail in the coffin. They cannot be weak. They must strike at PMQs, they have to be on the streets. Now is not the time to watch the world burn, as Labour seem to have been doing over the last few years. The time is now for Starmer to prove his worth and prove that he is a better politician, leader, and human being than Boris.

For the sake of the country. Don’t screw this up.

America IS Breaking

June 27th, 2022 / Leave Feedback / nezuppal

At the beginning of June, following the worst elementary mass shooting since Sandy Hook, I wrote an article entitled “America’s Gun Culture Will Not End”. I was right, of course, but even I could not have predicted what would come next.

On Thursday 23rd June the Supreme Court, almost unbelievably, declared for the first time in the United State’s history that “the US Constitution protected an individual’s rights to carry a handgun in public for self-defence.” The decision was unbelievable and inexplicable. An analogy would be when the idea of arming teachers was floated in the USA – how ridiculous was that? In fairness, there are slightly stricter controls on background checks, but I don’t think anyone could have predicted an expansion in gun rights just weeks after children were murdered in school by a terrorist who had legally bought a gun.

Nevertheless, it has fundamentally changed gun laws in America. It is now no longer up to each state to decide their own gun laws – a policy which did not work anyway. Now gun laws are up to the Federal Government, a government which has chosen to expand gun rights just weeks after the worst mass shooting in decades.

What are you doing America?

More worryingly, however, are the three separate branches of government and how they will inter-link in the future. (I have an article on Roe vs. Wade coming up – prepare yourselves for that one). The Supreme Court’s decision was wrong; yes, it does include some minor extra background checks. But fundamentally it was the wrong decision.

But there are three separate branches of government. The President, Congress and The Supreme Court. And each holds checks and balances against one another to prevent one becoming too powerful. For example, if a President tried to stand for more than two terms The Supreme Court would deme this unconstitutional as it has been amended to follow George Washington’s precedent of only serving a maximum of eight years. (An interesting side note, this was always an unwritten convention until FDR managed to win four elections, before dying in office, upon which the Constitution was finally updated.)

What is more concerning about the change in gun laws, because America is never realistically going to sort out its gun laws, although I did not expect an expansion in gun rights. You have the NRA to thank for that. The major issue is that the branches of government no longer remain independent of one another – and this is the tipping point.

As mentioned above, each branch has checks and balances over the other branches. One key power the President possesses is his ability to appoint people to the Supreme Court. This must be approved by a Senate committee and Congress. However, when there is no bi-partisanship and one-party controls everything then it is easy to flood the Supreme Court – as is the case now. There are currently 6 Republican-appointed judges and 3 Democratic-appointed judges.

“Aren’t the judges supposed to be impartial and uphold the rule of law?”, I hear you wonder. Yes. Yes, they are. But they do not. If you were to look at the voting record of Clarence Thomas, the worst judge in my opinion who has previously been accused by attorney Anita Hill of sexual harassment, and compare it to that of Stephen Breyer it should be pretty obvious which party appointed which judge.

Whilst I, and indeed many Americans, disagree with these changes the gravest error, in my opinion, was Biden getting involved. On Saturday Biden signed a bi-partisan gun safety bill into law, it was the first major gun reform in three decades. He claimed that “God willing, it’s going to save a lot of lives.” He also commented after the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion laws, saying “”Is the Supreme Court broken? The Supreme Court has made some terrible decisions.”

Even the NYC Mayor, Eric Adams, has said that he will allow businesses to continue to restrict guns as he does not want New York to turn into the “Wild Wild West”. The fact that even a Mayor has come out publicly to denounce the Supreme Court’s decision and openly encourage citizens to ignore – and by association the rule of law – is shocking in itself!

Perhaps it has, but the President is literally pitting his branch of government against the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was designed to be impartial, above reproach and to uphold the American Constitution. Currently it is failing to do so, with worsening laws on abortion and gun laws. But for the President to comment on their decisions clearly demonstrates their lack of impartiality and perhaps is even a sign of how broken the American system is.

“Democracy has failed” or has America?

Johnny Depp vs. The S*n

July 20th,0 / Leave Feedback / nezuppal

Who still reads The S*n? Who still works for The S*n? Why? Journalistic principles, investigative work, or so you can add click-bait to my Facebook page?

Everyone I know, everyone I’ve met and anyone I respect knows The S*n is the worst newspaper in Britain. I have never read it once, I am ashamed to admit.  In fact, I can’t recall a time when I’ve ever seen anyone read it. Yet it remains a jewel in Rupert Murdoch’s journalistic crown as the third most-read newspaper in the country.

Hillsborough victim dies 32 years after UK stadium disaster | AP News

The paper that dismissed Liverpool fans as ‘drunken hooligans’ and blamed them directly for the Hillsborough disaster, whilst simultaneously protecting corrupt police officers and politicians. That’s the paper you really want to be seen reading? I suspect it is largely read in private, out of shame.

The new problem The S*n now faces is the claims about domestic abuse from Amber Heard and Johnny Depp. The saga began because The S*n’s Executive Editor, Dan Wooton, referred to Depp as a ‘wife-beater’ in 2018 and claimed there was ‘overwhelming evidence’ that he had been attacking his then-wife Amber Heard. It goes without saying that there was no evidence. Normally, that wouldn’t be a problem for The S*n. They throw mud, it sticks, do they have to prove anything? No. Johnny Depp’s career is ruined and they can move on to the next target.

It was actually J.K Rowling’s decision to cast Johnny Depp in her new ‘Fantastic Beasts’ that re-ignited The S*n’s irrational hatred of Johnny Depp. How dare Rowling cast an incredibly successful actor in a lead role? They’d accused him without any evidence, this was over.

But Johnny Depp had recordings, terrible recordings of Heard punching him in the face, slicing his hand with a bottle of vodka and (sorry for this) defecating in his bed. Their relationship doesn’t interest me at all, I’m sure there were problems on both sides. What’s more important than Depp vs Heard, to me, is Depp vs The S*n.

In America libel laws are the exact opposite to those in the UK. In the USA if a newspaper wants to print an article it needs to have actual verifiable proof, which could hold up in court, before they can print a ‘revealing’ or ‘investigative’ article. This is what makes it so hard for American newspapers to take down Trump or any other senior politician, because the pressure is on them to find the evidence.

Rather bizarrely, in the UK libel laws require the accuser to provide proof of their innocence. In this instance, Depp has to prove that he was not a ‘wife-beater’, rather than The S*n being forced to reveal their evidence (of which there is probably little more than hearsay). This is why victory in libel cases in the UK is so low – because so much effort, evidence and money has to be funnelled into a court case that you will probably lose anyway.

Innocent until proven guilty? Unfortunately, not for Johnny Depp.