Thursday, 9 October 2025

This Is Not The Way

"In the six decades of its existence, the State of Israel, far from solving the problem of anti-Semitism, has exacerbated it, and failed to increase the collective security of its Jewish citizens or alleviate the existential anxiety of Jews around the world."

So writes David Goldberg, Rabbi Emeritus of the Liberal Jewish Synagogue in London in his book This Is Not The Way: Jews, Judaism and Israel. I read it after a reference in an article by Max Hastings in the Times recently, knowing that I have strong instinctive and long-standing feelings about the actions of Israel in the Middle East but conscious that could represent an anti-Semitism which I didn't think I possessed.

“When Jewish representatives insist, as the Israel PR Lobby does, on an axiomatic linkage between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, as though they are two aspects of the same seamless, linear continuity, not only are we guilty of sloppy, ahistorical oversimplification but we are also failing to treat a subject vital to our well-being with the intellectual rigour it deserves.”

This book aims to apply that rigour and that is what attracted me to it; I needed to find out what Jews thought of the behaviour of the State of Israel. I have been shocked by its recent actions in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon but am I guilty of not understanding how Jews throughout the world feel existentially threatened?

Right from the beginning, Goldberg makes the distinction between the Diaspora and the state of Israel. Chapter 1 (of 8) is entitled “Zionism triumphant, the Diaspora subservient”. 

In Chapter 3 the author explores the history of anti-Semitism, firstly over centuries in Christian culture and more recently (particularly post-Holocaust, post-settlement) in the Muslim tradition, concluding that “we Jews do have justifiable cause to be concerned. Anti-Semitism has always been a light sleeper and requires constant monitoring." Nevertheless he asserts that "it should be possible to distinguish between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, particularly when the latter is not questioning Israel's right to exist but asking critical questions of government policy vis-à-vis Israel being the Jewish state rather than a state for all its citizens".

Goldberg scurries through the centuries to assess the causes and effects of declining Jewishness, through "marrying out", conversions to Christianity and the perceived need to sidestep (real or imagined) anti-Semitic barriers to acceptance, promotions and the like. He discusses the "absurdity" of the Law of Return granting automatic Israeli citizenship to such as immigrants from the Soviet Union but denying them the rights to Jewish marriage or burial. Israel's first government in 1948, under the secularist Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, "granted control over Jewish status to the [ultra-Orthodox] religious bloc as its price for entering his coalition cabinet...hence the unseemly horse-trading that regularly ensues when a coalition government needs to to strike a deal between religious demands on the one hand and the civic expectations of the overwhelming majority of the Israeli electorate and world Jewry on the other...even though less than 20 per cent of the Israeli electorate ever votes for a religious party and in the USA, Israel's staunchest Diaspora ally, about 90 per cent of Jewry is resolutely non-Orthodox."

There are some middle chapters - "Who is a Jew?", "God is dead, long live Behaviourism" and "How 'holy' is Holy Scripture?" - which stretched my patience, being a philosopher-historian's analysis of what Judaism is all about. The author even ventures into whether and in what way God exists and the existence of the universe, things which interest me but which I can find discussed in other sources if I choose to. My primary interest was elsewhere and addressed by the final chapter "Jewish ethics and the State of Israel", which was central to my search for an answer to the question "I abhor the actions being taken by Israel; does that make me anti-Semitic?"

In order to decipher whether I am anti-Zionist I need to understand what Zionism is.

"For more than sixty years now, Judaism as the religion of the Jewish people has been sustained by Zionism, its secular alter ego. The early Zionists, led by Herzl, were adept at appropriating the metaphors of faith - the promise of a 'land flowing with milk and honey', the yearning for 'next year in Jerusalem' - and adapting them to their own secular purposes. In that way, Zionism, the newcomer among Jewish responses to modernity, positioned itself in the mainstream of Jewish history as a fulfilment of, not a rupture with, the Jewish past."

Returning to chapter 1, Goldberg asserts that "the voluntary liquidation of the Diaspora and the ingathering of the exiles in their ancestral homeland would be the consummation of the Zionist vision, not merely achieving Lebensraum but bolstering numbers. Since the state was established in 1948, the constant plaint of its leaders has been 'If only we had more Jews.' More Jews to populate the Galilee; more Jews to make the Negev bloom; more Jews to counter-balance the increasing numbers of Arab citizens of Israel; more Jews to provide a bulwark against the three-times-higher Palestinian birth rate in Gaza and the West Bank. All this because the greatest threat to Israel's long-term viability in a hostile environment is not the military but the demographic one."

He concludes that there comes a point at which all Jews worldwide that want to come to live in Israel have done so. Hence Zionism morphs from the original desire for a Jewish homeland in Palestine to an assertion of its national identity by pushing robustly against any perceived boundaries to its geographical and philosophical existence. He analyses the development of West Bank settlement into effectively an unwarranted land grab. In June 1967 Israel "conquered the Territories [Sinai, Gaza, the Golan Heights and the West Bank] in a justified war of self-defence....settlement building began almost by default...soon though religious zealots overturned the likelihood of selective settlement construction based on military requirements....ever since then, settler pressure groups either of the aggressively nationalist or the religiously fundamentalist variety, or a combination of both, have been the tail wagging successive government dogs. The natural order has been overturned...an original settler population of a few hundred on the West Bank in 1968 has grown to around 230,000 today."

Israeli politicians of all hues have backed themselves into a corner from which they don't know how to extricate themselves, after years of lazy acceptance of the status quo, sneaky admiration for the new breed of Zionist pioneers planting the Israeli flag on remote West Bank hilltops... [so can they] face down settler-posturing and convince a dubious public that a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict is at least attainable; that it is in Israel's best interests to have for a neighbour a stable, demilitarised Palestinian state [that] marginalises the the irredentist agenda of extremist factions such as Hamas?

The author concludes that only a "leap of the imagination" in the form of a partnership of its own citizens and Diaspora Jews can change the mindset of the nation.

For me, this has been a been a very worthwhile read. Despite the author's obvious despair at so much of Israeli government policy and action, he analyses all the issues as fairly as he is able and gave me a great deal of enlightenment on an issue which has been brought so vividly to the world in these last two years.

"Whether a Jewish state was the solution to the 'Jewish problem' or merely the new Jewish problem has yet to be decided."

Peru or Ecuador?

My "go to" chocolate preference is plain and dark. Tesco has own brand Finest offerings from Peru (85%) and Ecuador (75%) and milk chocolate from the Ivory Coast (48%). They are unusual in identifying the source of their cocoa. I carried out extensive research in the chocolate aisle of the store (yum) and no other brands did this. Lindt? No. Green&Blacks? Also No.

ChatGPT, in a style which I appreciate, is at its most cynical in saying why:

Because they don’t want you to think too hard about where it comes from.

Here’s the blunt truth:

Most big chocolate brands deliberately leave out the source country because transparency would expose uncomfortable facts about their supply chains — child labour, deforestation, and unfair pay being the main ones. The majority of the world’s cocoa (around 60–70%) comes from West Africa, mainly Ivory Coast and Ghana, where working conditions are often poor and traceability is patchy at best.

So shout out to Tesco, which displays the following information in their packaging:

We work with the Transparence Cacao programme and the Rainforest Alliance in Peru, Ecuador and Côte d'Ivoire to help ensure that every bar of Tesco Finest chocolate supports sustainable practices in the cocoa industry and contributes to the livelihoods of farming communities.

I couldn't find any evidence of any other major chocolate brands using Transparence Cacao, although they all make claims to sustainable practices. So why not tell us where your cocoa comes from?

I need to undertake a taste test. Will the winner be Peru or Ecuador?

Wednesday, 8 October 2025

I'm a Progressive Activist

The pollster More in Common has produced a new segmentation of the British public, "based on extended research into Britons' core beliefs, their values and behaviours". The seven segments are:

  • progressive activists
  • incrementalist left
  • established liberals
  • sceptical scrollers
  • rooted patriots
  • traditional conservatives
  • dissenting disruptors
Based on an initially flimsy understanding of what these mean, I'd say that I am naturally either a sceptical scroller or a dissenting disruptor. Given that the sequence looks as though it is fundamentally left through the centre to right, I think I'll go for being a sceptical scroller.

moreincommon.org.uk helpfully provides a detailed description for each category and, even more helpfully, a "Which segment are you? Take the quiz" button. So I did.

There are 21 questions; it took me 13 minutes. Started with a really tricky one:
I went for option 1. I hope they're not all this hard.

Turns out, as the title says, I'm a Progressive Activist - "A highly engaged and progressive group, uncompromising on the issues they care about and striving for global social justice".

Key words
Idealistic, radical, uncompromising, political, woke.

What they worry about
Global issues such as the war in Gaza or climate change, inequality in Britain, the power of billionaires, the rise of Reform UK, the rise of Donald Trump, Brexit, affordable housing, racial justice.

Where you might find them
In university campuses and cities; in Labour and Green Party meetings; on Bluesky; in flatshares or living with their parents; in third sector workplaces; in constituencies such as Hackney South and Shoreditch, Edinburgh South and Bristol Central.

How they get their news
High engagement with the news: from notifications from multiple news apps (likely The Guardian and the BBC), independent digital news outlets such as Novara, directly from political commentators on social media, from podcasts such as The News Agents or Pod Save the UK.

You can read a full description of me and the other PAs here.

Honestly, this is completely wrong about me. Which means (a) I'm too stupid to understand the questions or (b) their model is completely flawed and verges on clickbait. I believe the biggest defect is that they conflate feeling strongly about something with being emotionally and practically active about it. Believing in one of two strongly worded options (because you can't stomach the other) is not the same as caring about it. I'm the sucker that does online quizzes but despises their tendency to put people into boxes.

Looking at the details of the other segments, I think I actually fit Established Liberal more than anything but "less empathetic to those who are struggling" means it's a No. I have no natural home in their segmentation.

I suspect my reservations won't encourage my readers to try the questions but you could just treat it as a bit of fun. Do what I did - instinctive reaction first then do the quiz and post your answers in the Comments.

Tuesday, 7 October 2025

Genius Act

The USA passed the Genius Act on 18th July. Did you know? Me neither. Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) is its title.

I have been struggling for literally months to figure out how to write a blog post about stablecoins, given that I don't know what they are and I don't understand any explanation offered. But, in the Reithian spirit of inform, educate and entertain, I am trying. Today is not the first time that Mehreen Khan, the Economics Editor of the Times, has written about this subject and today's article is headlined "Fear of missing out may convince central banks to embrace stablecoin". She writes "A stablecoin is a digital asset whose value is meant to be guaranteed by a peg to a traditional currency such as the dollar". She compares this with cryptocurrency, which has no such (notionally) intrinsic value.

Through the Genius Act the US government seeks to regulate, enable, perhaps even promote the issuance of stablecoins by non-governmental bodies - perhaps the likes of Amazon. But it's the central banks that are now considering the "opportunities". The Bank of England, initially sceptical, is now pursuing the possibility of a "digital pound". Khan asserts that the Bank "changed its tune...probably driven by the potential fiscal and financial benefits of the goldrush into stablecoins, which seems too lucrative to miss".

It seems to me that "goldrush" should raise a huge red flag. Isn't it true that the 2008 financial crisis was caused by the creation of new financial instruments which ultimately fell apart? Is the world at risk of doing it again? Why is the stablecoin concept necessary?

Another of my regular TV programmes has been Dragon's Den and the "dragons" frequently make the criticism of a pitch that "it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist". Could stablecoins be one of those? The cynically minded amongst us would ask "who benefits from their existence?" The answer is almost certainly not you or me.

The whole thing is like those theoretical concepts in maths and physics - the square root of minus one, imaginary time, the Higgs Boson, multiple dimensions - which have no reality or meaning except in the minds of weird people.

I used to want to be one of those weird people - existing only in a non-corporeal state - but my natural patience and low boredom threshold make it an impossible dream. However, I shall continue trying to bring difficult concepts to you, dear readers. Mostly in the hope that one of you can explain better than I can.

Latest quiz night

Last night on BBC2:

7:30 Mastermind

This week's specialist subjects:

  • The Jurassic Coast - not too far away from me but I really have no idea.
  • The major plays of Molière - I may as well snooze until the next contestant; but this one scored barely more than me.
  • Queen (that's the band, not the Queen) - this is more like it but I still got zero.
  • Mickey Mouse cartoons 1928 to 1935. He should get out more.
The second half of the show is general knowledge questions, in which I have a chance of scoring higher than zero. I should probably just switch on at 7:45.

I'm baffled as to why people watch this programme but it's been going since the 1980s when it got over 20 million viewers. Latest viewership is around 1.5 million. I imagine it's pretty cheap to produce so it'll still be going in the next century.

8:00 Only Connect

Whereas I know that I know nothing on Mastermind, on this programme I expect to be able to solve the mind puzzles but I think, like cryptic crosswords, untangling them is a matter of practice and familiarity. Sadly I'm not there yet. Whereas I don't care about Mastermind, I do care about this impossible quiz.

8:30 University Challenge

I rather like the range of personalities in the teams, and occasionally I'll shout out some answers  - particularly if I know the answer and they don't. For some reason I find it enjoyable. When the team members introduce themselves, I pay attention to the discipline each is studying, in order to assess the balance of knowledge you need to cover all sorts of questions, much as you would to build a pub quiz team. If you have four mathematicians, you're going to struggle. I don't know if this is a recent pattern but it seems as if there are more postgrad students than in earlier years. Not sure that's a good thing.

Fortunately there are plenty of Monday evenings when there is football, so that gets preference.

Of the three questionmasters/mistresses/persons, Clive Myrie doesn't really have much to do except ask the questions so his unassuming persona is what's required, Victoria Coren Mitchell is clever but annoying and Amol Rajan is perfection.


Monday, 6 October 2025

Things I can't find out #2

The French government has fallen (again) because they decided to get rid of two of the country's 11 bank holidays. Non!

It seemed to me I should know a bit more about bank holidays. Why do they exist? Who invented them? Given economists consider poor productivity to be a key driver of the UK's weak economy, shouldn't we ban them? How much does a bank holiday cost the country?

We can blame Sir John Lubbock, who introduced the Bank Holidays Act of 1871, which created the first official bank holidays in England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. I asked ChatGPT why?

In addition to the “sacred” days (Christmas, Good Friday, Sundays), the Act designated Easter Monday, Whit Monday, first Monday in August and Boxing Day (Scotland has always had different days, let's ignore that for the moment). Funnily enough, Christmas Day (a traditional holiday) didn't become an official Bank Holiday until 1974, although banks had always closed on that day.

Later additions to the list were New Year's Day, May Day and the last Monday in August. The Spring Bank Holiday replaced Whit Monday.

What is it with bankers? Are they so rich they need extra time in which to spend their money? Just get back in, get rid of all these unnecessary holidays except Christmas Day and GET THE COUNTRY BACK TO WORK! (I know, I've gone all Trumpish).

Given that we all bank online nowadays, do we need high street banks at all? Maybe we should call these holidays Public Entitlement Days instead of Bank Holidays; perhaps that would cause people to think about whether we need them.

I'm with Boris on this; in 2022 when England's women won the European Championships, there was a (public? media?) clamour for a one-off bank holiday but he said No on account of the "big economic cost of an extra bank holiday". Good for him. Although he did say he'd consider it if the men's team won something, which is (a) typically Boris sexism and (b) an easy promise because there is no chance of it ever happening.

The French government wanted to scrap Easter Monday and VE Day and that didn't end well. So perhaps beware.

I should probably, in the cause of complete transparency, declare an interest. As a pensioner, every day is a holiday.