An Analysis of the Fiaz (antisemitic?) Dog Whistle Statement
From Newham Labour Facebook
Readers will note that we have been critical of Mayor Fiaz in the past. Generally, the criticisms have been about her ability (or lack of it); her willingness to abandon promises made only weeks before; her flip-flopping in her personal politics from Blairite to Corbynite and now somewhere on the way back again; and her personal behaviour towards subordinates.
There is plenty there to be critical of but never have we thought that she would overtly sink to crude sectarian dog whistle politics.
The wisdom of engaging in politics rooted in societies thousands of miles away must be questionable. In Newham, unresolved conflicts in far-away places can lead to sectarian strife nearer to home, (think Kashmir, Bangladesh/Pakistan, Khalistan, or Hindu/Muslim relations in India).
But there are fewer than 1000 Jews still living in Newham and around 100,000 Muslims, (one Jewish councillor and 20 Muslims) so even if they do not all agree with her, she must be hoping for a fairly positive reception amongst those who instinctively sympathise with the Palestinian population. A Tweet that took a few minutes to put together may go some way towards reversing the damage of several months.
Even if it creates controversy, better that the politicians are talking about something over which they have no influence and has nothing to do with a budgetary crisis, filthy streets and stabbings of young men on Newham streets. It provides the opportunity for virtue signalling without the requirement for meaningful action.
But there is something more insidious in the ‘statement’. At first reading it is fairly bland, but on closer inspection there are several parts that give us cause for concern. Given that the mayor was called out for failing to oppose antisemitism on a Newham Labour Party Facebook page, we must ask to what extent she is willing to engage in as well as permit antisemitic influence.
She is “alarmed” by the violence in Jerusalem, but not the violence in Ashkelon or Lod. Nor does she seem to be concerned about 1000 plus rockets and missiles that have been fired from Gaza into population centres in Israel.
Her alarm extends to the death of civilians. How, one might ask, can her concern be criticised, we should all be concerned about innocent deaths? She attempts the language of neutral concern, but her sympathies are apparent for anyone with eyes to see, the civilians were killed by “airstrikes”. Only the Israeli forces use airstrikes. Arab lives do matter, but so do the lives of Jews killed by terrorists in Gaza or rioters in Lod.
She is, it seems, a member of the “Mayor’s for Peace” group (we presume that she means Mayors). MfP is an anti-nuclear group and seem to have no locus in the current conflict so why she has included this reference is beyond us, unless it is meant simply as a piece of virtue signalling.
“International Law must be respected”. Again, who could disagree? But this is not about international law, international law would require that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah (Martyrs Brigade) et al stop firing rockets into Israel but Mayor Fiaz does not seem to see this as a problem. Moreover, Israeli air attacks are in response to these rocket attacks and have targeted the missile sites and the command and control structure. No rockets, no air strikes. As this BBC map shows, Hamas is able to launch missiles as far as Tel Aviv.
Added to this is Israeli military doctrine. Whilst the supposedly pro-Palestinian commentators bewail the death of civilians, they do not express any concern for the practice of terrorist groups to position their launch sites, or arms dumps and command facilities in civilian areas. Israel operates a targeted response in line with Western military doctrine and international law; it goes beyond this so far as to warn households of impending attacks. Inevitably this means that both civilians and terrorists escape. Mayor Fiaz feigns neutrality but this cannot drown out her partiality and her intention to project that partiality to essentially Muslim voters.
5. She is “pained” by the storming of the Al Aqsa Mosque. Them nasty Jews “stormed” a place of “peace” as “worshippers prayed”. Shame on them. No further comment needed. But some geographical knowledge is required. Al Aqsa sits in the Haram al Sharif, the high point in Jerusalem known to Jews as the site of the ancient temple, who refer to it as the Temple Mount. It sits about 20 metres above the area currently used by Jews to pray at the western wall. Even so, the stockpiling of rocks and fireworks in Al Aqsa was unimportant to Mayor Fiaz, notwithstanding that these were used to throw down on Israelis below. Nor was the fact that the men in the area around Al Aqsa were not actually praying they were part of a militant mob intent on harming Jews. The mob were chanting “Bomb, bomb, Tel Aviv” or “With our soul, with our blood, we’ll redeem you, Al Aqsa”, which is something of an irony given that the site has been under the supervision of the Islamic Waqf for over 50 years. But back to Fiaz, she is pained when police clear rioters who have taken over Islam’s third holiest site. The fact that they were rioting didn’t concern her. She calls upon Israelis to respect the holy site, the rioters not be constrained by any similar obligation.
6. Lastly, she appeals to international law to stop the eviction of Palestinians from homes in East Jerusalem. What is essentially a dispute over “a decision by a lower court to evict Palestinian squatters living rent-free on Jewish-owned land in … eastern Jerusalem” has been portrayed and has therefore become an international incident.
There are times when politicians should simply keep their mouths shut if they are unwilling to take the time and trouble to look at the facts. This might be one of them. Except that the purpose of her intervention was not to spread light or even express solidarity; it was to shore up her waning support by an appeal to those whose sentiments for the eradication of Israel exceed their desire for good governance in Newham.
Antisemitic? Dog Whistle? You decide.