"'Je prends mon risque,' he repeated." (MATHIEU CUGNOT/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

Une vidéo largement partagée, enregistrée mardi dans les couloirs du Parlement européen par Tomio Okamura, leader d’un parti tchèque de droite, le montre avec Geert Wilders du BVV néerlandais, Matteo Salvini de La Lega italienne et Marine Le Pen, tous collègues du groupe Identité et Démocratie, oui, des populistes de droite. Ils sont tout sourire, deux jours après les élections européennes qui les ont favorisés, à l’échelle du continent, au détriment de la gauche et du centre. Ils plaisantent sur la défaite probable de Macron lors du second tour de l’élection générale anticipée que le président français a convoquée après que son parti n’ait obtenu que 15% des voix aux élections européennes. ‘Il nous a été très utile !’, plaisante Wilders. ‘Oui, il va nous manquer !’ Le Pen, dont le Rassemblement National est arrivé en tête avec un tiers des voix, rit.
C’est la nouvelle réalité politique en Europe. Macron a immédiatement annoncé des élections législatives anticipées, qui auront lieu dans à peine trois semaines. Son pari électoral à haut risque a été annoncé à peine une heure après la fermeture des bureaux de vote, à 21h00 dimanche soir, lorsque la victoire de la liste du Rassemblement National menée par Jordan Bardella est devenue claire. Le Rassemblement est arrivé en tête dans 93% des 36 000 villes et villages de France, totalisant un tiers des voix du pays à partir de 38 listes distinctes.
Macron a convoqué, en plus d’une demi-douzaine de poids lourds de son gouvernement, les présidents de l’Assemblée nationale et du Sénat, qui sont tenus d’enregistrer la dissolution de l’Assemblée. Le Président (qui, depuis Charles de Gaulle, est élu séparément) avait planifié sa décision en secret, ne partageant sa confiance qu’avec quatre personnes : son ancien conseiller en communication, désormais vice-président de Publicis, la plus grande agence de publicité de France ; Pierre Charon, sénateur sarkozyste à l’ancienne; Richard Ferrand, le premier président macroniste de l’Assemblée nationale, ancien socialiste ; et un ancien journaliste devenu rédacteur de discours et conseiller le plus proche de Brigitte Macron, Bruno Roger-Petit. Aucun membre de ce conseil de guerre informel n’était connu des électeurs, à moins d’avoir une passion pour les rouages du pouvoir à Paris ; et aucun n’était susceptible de le contredire. La dissimulation, la décision imprévisible, la petite cour des ultra-fidèles : tout cela était typiquement dans le style de Macron.
Cela dit, leurs réactions ont été imprévues : peut-être pour la première fois depuis son élection en 2017, on lui a dit en face qu’il avait tort. Le Premier ministre Gabriel Attal, nommé seulement cinq mois auparavant, et la présidente actuelle de l’Assemblée nationale, Yaël Braun-Pivet, ont été choqués et en colère. Dans quel univers Macron pensait-il avoir une chance de remporter une élection législative ? Attal, déjà tombé en disgrâce à la Cour ces dernières semaines, a maintenant crié à son patron qu’il était « irresponsable ». (« Ils n’en sont pas venus aux mains, mais c’était proche », a déclaré un témoin.)
Braun-Pivet, ancienne avocate et la seule des femmes nommées par Macron à avoir fait ses preuves (Macron a toujours eu un problème avec les femmes : son cercle proche est entièrement masculin, à l’exception de sa femme Brigitte ; ses recrutements féminins étaient soit des inconnues, soit assez étranges pour ne pas représenter une menace) a argumenté qu’il avait dit qu’il resterait en fonction après ce qui était, après tout, un vote non national, et que renoncer nuirait à son gouvernement et à son parti. D’autres, dont le ministre de l’Intérieur Gérald Darmanin, qui s’attendait à passer la moitié de l’été à superviser les défis sécuritaires des Jeux olympiques de Paris 2024, ont convenu : ce serait un désastre.
Face aux souris rugissantes, Macron est resté imperturbable. Comme au cours des sept dernières années de son règne, il ne leur a pas demandé leur avis, il leur a simplement annoncé le sien. Il est ensuite apparu à la télévision, habillé comme un croque-mort provincial, affirmant qu’un nouveau vote serait plus ‘démocratique’, et a donné les dates des deux tours.
« Je prends mon risque », a-t-il répété. Il s’agit d’une expression étrange et favorite de sa part qui appartient à la table de roulette ou au jeu de poker : le destin de la nation réduit à un pari personnel aux enjeux élevés.
Ce qui est rapidement devenu évident était le piège de la course de vitesse qu’il avait tendu à tous. La loi électorale dicte un calendrier strict pour l’identification des candidats de toutes les 577 circonscriptions, chacun avec le nom d’un parti politique ou d’une alliance. Dans ce cas, tout a dû être réglé jeudi soir, dans un paysage fracturé où la nécessité de parvenir à un accord a forcé des partenaires politiques incompatibles à s’unir. Ces accords ont été conclus et les programmes publiés à temps pour être envoyés à chaque électeur du pays — ressemblant à des mariages forcés, avec des programmes de parti qui ressemblent à des contrats de mariage prénuptiaux.
Jusqu’ici, tout va bien. L’Alliance de Gauche, se faisant appeler de manière improbable le Nouveau Front Populaire, en référence au Cabinet Léon Blum de 1936, rassemble des personnes qui ont scandé chaque semaine « De la Rivière à la Mer » (et parfois « Mort aux Juifs »), avec ce reste de l’ancien Parti Socialiste de style ancien qui a illuminé l’Hôtel de Ville de Paris et la Tour Eiffel avec le drapeau israélien après le 7 octobre. Raphaël Glucksmann, fils du nouveau philosophe André, dont le mini-parti Place Publique avait tiré ses associés socialistes de la quasi-extinction pour obtenir 14,8 % aux élections, cinq points au-dessus de la faction mélenchoniste d’extrême gauche et à peine un demi-point derrière la liste de Macron, sur la promesse qu’il offrait une alternative sociale-démocrate aux extrêmes, a renoncé à ses principes et a accepté de rejoindre le NPF.
Le vendredi matin, après une nuit blanche, le Nouveau Front Populaire, encore lui, a fait apparaitre de son chapeau la plate-forme la plus à gauche depuis les vieux jours du Parti Communiste Français, bien plus radicale que celle de François Mitterrand en 1981. Elle inclut la nationalisation des services publics, l’annulation de la réforme des retraites (ramenant le départ à la retraite à 60 ans), le retour de l’impôt sur la fortune, l’augmentation de l’impôt sur les successions (qui atteint déjà 45 % au-dessus de 1,8 million d’euros pour les descendants directs, et au-dessus de 24 430 euros pour tout le monde), un plafond sur les successions maximales (cela fait partie d’un chapitre intitulé « Abolir les privilèges des milliardaires »), une « taxe sur la distance » sur les importations, une taxe de sortie (pour toute personne quittant le pays), et bien d’autres taxes encore. Le plan climat est « amélioré », avec la possibilité d’un « référendum populaire » sur l’énergie nucléaire (assez déconcertant puisqu’ils promettent également de réduire immédiatement toutes les factures de chauffage). La loi sur l’immigration de Macron serait annulée, les nouveaux immigrants recevraient « un meilleur accueil », et ainsi de suite : lorsque le programme de 12 pages a commencé à circuler, plusieurs journalistes ont vérifié s’il était réel ou s’il s’agissait d’une astucieuse propagande du Rassemblement National.
C’est probablement la seule bonne nouvelle pour les Républicains conservateurs, qui, contrairement à la Gauche, ont montré un manque dramatique de discipline. Ils sont divisés entre le président du parti, qui souhaite une alliance avec le Rassemblement National, et le reste des dignitaires, qui ne le souhaitent pas, et n’ont aucune chance de remporter un siège sans s’allier à Emmanuel Macron, le politicien le plus impopulaire en France en ce moment. (Leurs électeurs sont également assez divisés.) Macron lui-même a dit à son Cabinet sous le choc que le chaos actuel ramènera les électeurs vers lui.
La prémisse post-politique entière du macronisme a été anéantie : le mantra « en même temps » qui l’a fait élire il y a sept ans, à l’époque où il était un homme pressé de 39 ans, proclamant qu’il n’y avait plus de gauche ou de droite, juste de jeunes technocrates modernes réinventant des façons toute neuves de traiter le monde.
Comme la Gaule de Jules César, la France est divisée en trois parties : une gauche généreuse souvent tentée par la révolution, une droite divisée entre timidité et national-radicalisme, et un centre qui a historiquement été tout pour tous les électeurs, de la démocratie chrétienne résiduelle au réformisme social. Tous ont été en quelque sorte impactés par le Gaullisme, l’originalité politique interclassiste d’après-guerre qui est, à bien des égards, la plus proche du populisme français d’origine.
Évincé du pouvoir en 1946, Charles de Gaulle a construit son propre parti comme il l’avait fait avec la Résistance en exil : un but commun suffisait. À son retour au pouvoir douze ans plus tard, il a conservé certaines de ses racines populistes, de plus en plus diluées. La dernière version en date est le parti des Républicains, comme cela a été renommé sous Nicolas Sarkozy. « LR » ne vont pas bien depuis que Sarko a perdu après un seul mandat face au socialiste François Hollande en 2012. Lors de l’élection présidentielle de 2022, leur candidate, la présidente de la région parisienne, Valérie Pécresse, a obtenu 4,75 % des voix, des nouvelles désastreuses car les dépenses de campagne ne sont remboursées qu’au-dessus de 5 %. Cela a presque ruiné le parti, déclenchant une hargne interminable.
Les primaires les plus récentes des Républicains ont vu la victoire du député de Nice Eric Ciotti, un droitier à la langue acérée en accord avec l’ambiance Provence-Côte d’Azur (c’est la région d’où viennent la plupart des députés RN, et où Eric Zemmour a obtenu le plus de voix présidentielles). Le candidat aux élections européennes des Républicains a obtenu 7,25 % des voix dimanche dernier. Ciotti, de son côté, a passé des appels, rencontré Bardella et Marine, et a annoncé mardi que Les Républicains construiraient des alliances avec le Rassemblement National, brisant un tabou qui maintenait la Droite traditionnelle rigoureusement à l’écart de tout ce qui était dirigé par quelqu’un appelé Le Pen.
La tempête a éclaté. La plupart des grands du parti, passés et présents, ont tonné que Ciotti aurait dû les consulter, et un bureau politique convoqué en urgence a été appelé à l’expulser du parti, comme contraire à ses valeurs fondamentales. « La moitié des membres approuve. Cela me donne toute la légitimité dont j’ai besoin », a déclaré Ciotti, canalisant son Bonaparte intérieur. Les grands indignés ont dû se réunir dans un café voisin, car Ciotti, retranché au siège, avait verrouillé les portes. Il a répliqué que la réunion du politburo n’avait pas été convoquée selon les statuts, et était donc invalide ; il a commencé à présélectionner des candidats pour 80 circonscriptions, dont 20, a-t-il dit aux candidats pleins d’espoir, étaient gagnables car dans leurs négociations, le RN avait accepté de ne pas présenter de candidats contre ceux des républicains. « Il a le registre des membres, le compte Twitter, le logo et le carnet de chèques », m’a dit l’un des candidats potentiels. « Les autres sont nulle part. »
Un tribunal parisien délibérait la nuit dernière sur la légalité de tout cela. Et, pendant ce temps, ayant juré qu’ils ne le feraient jamais, les dignitaires des républicains ont finalement dressé des listes de circonscriptions avec des députés macronistes qu’ils ne contesteront pas, dans un pacte de non-agression qui profite bien plus au président qu’à eux.
Le Pen et Bardella sont aux anges. La manne Ciotti, qui les aide dans deux ou trois douzaines de circonscriptions, leur a également permis d’éliminer Éric Zemmour et son mini-parti concurrent, Reconquête, dont les 5 % d’électeurs pourraient gâcher plusieurs élections. Il y avait ici des raisons fortement ressenties et extrêmement personnelles en jeu. Le Pen a vu son héritage politique, le Rassemblement, qu’elle avait soigneusement remodelé pour servir sa candidature présidentielle, attaqué par un nouveau venu arrogant qui avait réussi à séduire sa propre nièce, Marion Maréchal.
Dès qu’il a fondé Reconquête, Zemmour, un journaliste talentueux, dont les livres sur le destin unique de la France et les dangers de l’immigration incontrôlée se sont vendus à plusieurs millions d’exemplaires, a décidé qu’il pouvait transmuter ses téléspectateurs et lecteurs en destin politique. Alors qu’il lançait son chapeau dans l’arène lors de la dernière campagne présidentielle, cela semblait fonctionner. À partir de l’été 2021, de longues files d’attente à la Trump l’attendaient à chaque étape d’une « tournée de promotion » alors qu’il signait ses pavés et parlait politique, avec son sourire caractéristique, son sens de l’ironie et sa convivialité démocratique. Une jeune et efficace équipe de réseautage social a balayé tous les canaux, un ancien organisateur de la victorieuse campagne de Sarkozy en 2007 a été engagé, et les chiffres de Zemmour ont grimpé en flèche – à un moment donné, on prédisait qu’il remporterait 21 % des voix au premier tour.
Tout cela a été anéanti par l’invasion de l’Ukraine par Poutine le 24 février 2022. Zemmour, qui ne parle qu’un français élégant, semblait soudain être un homme d’un seul sujet dans un monde dangereux et complexe. Il a commis l’erreur, interrogé sur l’accueil des réfugiés ukrainiens, de répondre qu’ils devraient rester dans les pays voisins de l’Ukraine plutôt que de venir en France. Cela semblait mesquin et peu généreux. (Il a admis dans un livre récent qu’il s’était trompé, mais avait essayé de rester cohérent avec ses propos sur l’immigration.) Ses chiffres ont chuté en flèche, et il a finalement obtenu 7 % au premier tour, encourageant immédiatement ses électeurs à voter pour Marine Le Pen au second tour « sans marchander ».
Longtemps avant de devenir homme politique, Zemmour a constamment plaidé pour ce qu’Éric Ciotti tente maintenant de créer, l’Union des Droites, une alliance entre tous les partis de droite. Il s’attendait à ce que sa déclaration généreuse soit bien accueillie par Marine Le Pen. Ce ne fut pas le cas. Elle avait pris note de chaque affront, de chaque plaisanterie, de chaque mention désobligeante alors qu’il était largement en tête d’elle. ‘Nous allons remplacer Marine !’, a-t-il plaisanté, reprenant l’expression inventée par l’écrivain Renaud Camus, qui croit qu’il y a un complot odieux pour remplacer les populations européennes indigènes par de nouveaux immigrants.
Zemmour était ravi d’avoir attiré Maréchal, qui après de premiers succès politiques a quitté le Front plutôt que d’être commandée par sa tante. Articulée, combative, plus intellectuelle, Maréchal, une oratrice fluide en anglais et en italien, a dirigé la liste Reconquête dimanche dernier, et a obtenu un peu plus de 5 %, permettant à son parti d’obtenir cinq eurodéputés.
À ce moment-là, Zemmour n’était plus intéressé par un accord avec le Rassemblement – mais Marion, pragmatique, l’était encore. Lorsque Zemmour a promis de présenter des candidats de la Reconquête contre ceux du RN, elle a ouvert ses propres négociations avec Bardella et sa tante ravie.
Mardi, Marion a annoncé une alliance devant un Zemmour béat d’admiration lors d’une interview télévisée – et qu’elle emmenait trois de ses députés européens nouvellement élus comme butin de guerre au Rassemblement. Zemmour l’a immédiatement expulsée, ainsi que ses acolytes de Reconquête, et l’a depuis qualifiée de ‘championne du monde de la trahison’. Non élu à aucun poste – il ne se présentait pas aux élections européennes, c’est sa partenaire et conseillère Sarah Knafo, une diplômée de l’ENA de 31 ans, qui l’était ; elle sera la seule députée européenne de Reconquête à Bruxelles – Zemmour fait figure de solitaire au siège du parti, rue Jean Goujon, à moins d’un kilomètre de l’Élysée. Il est le premier perdant évident du séisme politique façonné par Macron en France, mais il ne sera certainement pas le dernier.
Surveillant ce mélange toxique, avec ses marionnettes se précipitant comme dans un film muet accéléré à 30 images par seconde, imperturbable face à toute critique, se trouve Emmanuel Macron, le Destructeur de Mondes, convaincu qu’il peut tirer un miracle personnel du chaos. Il croit que l’accélération qu’il a provoquée forcera tout le monde à commettre des erreurs fatales. Il n’a aucun sens de la dette envers aucun des anciens politiciens qu’il a attirés dans son filet, ni envers les jeunes, comme son dernier Premier ministre, Gabriel Attal, présenté comme « le meilleur de sa génération », maintenant une gêne. Il n’a jamais été question que de lui-même, de toute façon. Et s’il devait perdre ce pari, avec une majorité Le Pen ou Mélenchon le soir du 7 juillet, il a déjà laissé entendre qu’il démissionnerait, plutôt que de vivre une « cohabitation » comme ses prédécesseurs, François Mitterrand ou Jacques Chirac, contraints de se battre avec une Assemblée nationale et un Premier ministre hostiles. Il a consulté discrètement le Conseil constitutionnel : il ne peut pas se représenter immédiatement, mais dans cinq ans, il n’aura que 51 ans. L’avenir lui appartient.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeJews for Kamala, Queers for Palestine, Chickens for KFC.
May your chains set lightly upon you ….
Let’s not forget “Homos for Hamas”. Kudos to them for alliteration.
“I believe that a Jew who votes for the Democrats is a damned fool.” So is Mamet going to vote for Trump?
Whatever one may think of Trump as a man, as a President, he’s always sided with Israel, without any ambiguity but still, it’s hard for old democrats to change their tune.
When you consider that bourgeois liberalism in general is based on guilt and fear, it’s understandable that an uncourageous segment of Jews would be attracted.
Curiously enough (I am Jewish, by the way), being Jewish is no guarantee of wisdom, virtue, or any other good character trait. No man is so foolish as he who thinks he already knows everything there is to be known, his mind is fixed in its place, and cannot be moved, though everything he once “knew” turns out to be untrue.
It states in Pirkei Avot: “Let your mind be light”, which is to say, be light of spirit and also be able to change your mind if that turns out to be the wiser course of action.
May these very well-meaning Jews learn wisdom before it is too late to make a positive difference. After all, it’s not enough to mean well – one must also do well.
Do you know any Jews who still support the Dems? I’m interested to know what the rationale would be.
In my circles, they are few. I’ll note that the more irreligious a Jew is, the more likely they are to vote Dem.
Being a non religious Jew did not save them from the Holocaust, nor will being members of the Democrat and Labour Parties.
They will be the first to be thrown to the Islamist crocodile.
The current problems in Israel aren’t down to Islamists. They’re due to Jewish Supremacists driving 3/4 of a million Arabs off the land they’d been living and working on for scores of generations, and those Arabs were both Muslim and Christian. ie, it’s the Zionists’ own racism that has created the “antisemitism” (really anti-Zionism) in the region and elsewhere.
Jews are as entitled to their own state as anyone else… ie, if they can’t come by it honestly (by buying the land) then they’ll be obliged to do it by force of arms and hold it until the original owners quit their claim.
But given how they came by “their” land, it’s a bit rich when Zionists whine about the displaced indigenes using the Zionists’ own methods against them; yes, Hamas’ “savagery” is a mirror of the “savagery” the original Zionists used to create their apartheid State in the first place.
10 million Zionists surrounded by 400 million people who see them as a European colonial imposition… as the West declines, I don’t see Israel’s odds of survival improving.
And meanwhile, because Jews like Mamet support Israel’s race-based savagery, and claim that resistance to it is antisemitism, people assume Jews like me (and Chomsky, Finkelstein etc) are racists too.
Your entire premise is based on a lie, a nasty Jew hating blood libel. Jews have always lived in the Land of Israel, and Jews indeed DID purchase land from Arabs, much of it desert and swamp land. This is all documented, but instead you choose to believe and promote the Big Lie. Arab displacement, as in any war, was caused by the Arabs themselves when they banded together to exterminate Jews, and specifically Jewish sovereignty which Muslims find intolerable and cannot let stand. It is Muslim intolerance of Jewish sovereignty in the cradle of Jewish civilization, land that was conquered and colonized by Muslims, that is the crux of the Arab/Iranian/Muslim conflict with Israel. You, and millions like you, have fallen hard for the Goebbles playbook—tell a lie big enough and repeat it often enough, and the people will come to believe it, especially if the lie further demonizes Jews. Your world is a sick and twisted world.
There is no other place in the Middle East where Jews, Muslims & Christians live peacefully, side-by-side than in Israel.
Where I live in the Washington DC greater Metropolitan area, the majority of jews appear to support the Democrats. It’s as if they are part of a tribe and don’t realize that the tribe (the democrats) actually can’t stand them.
Not sure that the segments of the religious right likes Jews much more except as bit players in the Apocalypse. Aside from the 144,000 who are saved, the rest are thrown into the Lake of Fire in the end times story that many believe.
Well, from now until a day before the apocalypse, I’ll remain grateful for their support.
They really appear to be accepting of their role as a scapegoat.
Except when they fight back and then they’re war criminals.
There’s plenty to suggest that the Democrats hate Jews, the Working Class, the Middle Class and races other than white people.
It’s remarkable that their PR campaign has convinced these groups that the Democrats are the party to vote for, and they do.
They hate Trump. That’s enough.
The only alternative is the Republicans.* They are recently the party of tax cuts for the rich, social welfare cuts, gun rights, pro-life and a bunch of other objectionable policies.
*(All of our problems come down to our form of democracy; two party. But unfortunately the two parties, aka the Uni-Party, have gained control of the details of governance; what proposals get debated or voted on, who writes the proposed laws, who gets to speak. And any attempt to amend the Constitution.
So we’re all screwed. Things are so bad that Trump is our only really hope for change.)
…pro-life and a bunch of other objectionable policies. Not killing babies is objectionable?
I have three cousins in the US, all Jewish and all vote Democrat.
The dishonesty of this piece is visceral. A mindset that cannot, will not see. This is what dooms Israel more than anything.
Will not see what? Your comment has no informational content.
“Visceral”? I have no idea what that means, nor how it pertains to your point, my dear friend.
“ I don’t know how one changes the minds of others” Well, one way would be looking at hard facts and learning some history. It worked for me at least to change my view of Israel from a benign colonizer ( forced by circumstances) to an apartheid state by design
You seem to have fallen for going from one lie to another. Which is some feat.
Perhaps you could back up your view with facts and suchlike? I’m convinced the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn’t make it so.
An apartheid state. Israel is not an apartheid state. Benign coloniser: how do you colonise your place of origin?
David Mamet is reading too much in to the Jewish and other Democrats ignoring of Netanyahu. The real reason is because he is “not a nice man” and has done some extremely “not nice” things to all but a few. Why should this monster get away with his treatment of Israelis and the world outside Israel by a welcome in the US Congress?
It would be interesting to hear from a devout Jew who supports the Dems. I wonder what the rationale would be.
You know, because it brings them, being on the ‘right’ side of history, quite literally, closer to heaven.
That’s right. Leftism is all about social justice and forever striving for a utopia that will never exist on this earth as humankind is forever fallible. No matter, Leftists will besmirch and kill us all whilst trying to achieve their dream, the impossible.
Typically, the more irreligious a Jew is, the more likely he is to vote Dem.
That’s kinda what I thought.
There has been a constant suspicion of Jews throughout history, deriving from their notion of ‘a chosen race’. I would advise dropping this, or better still, make the world a better place and drop the whole religious thing (and could the other believers of the supernatural do the same). Just to add, for those ready to hit the ‘down finger’ icon, atheism (the belief in a real world where humans aren’t a big deal), doesn’t have to lead to the current progressive nonsense.
But first of all they’re a race, aren’t they, not a religion.
Practicing Judaism is originally what made you a Jew, but as your children will also be considered “Jewish” even if they are atheists there’s a (purported) ethnicity to being “a Jew”.
Hence Falasha, Ashkenazim, and Mizrahim all being considered “Jewish” regardless of whether the practice Judaism and despite being clearly very different races.
I have a better idea. The entire world should convert to Christianity – the Lutheran version. Why should they choose to adopt your religion when they have the option of adopting mine instead?
Belief in reality isn’t a religion. It’s not a therapy, it’s rationalism.
Your projection is showing
There was a mistake in my comment – and I could not get the editing to work to fix it. Yours may not be a religion – but it is definitely a faith. And I, too, believe that my faith is very much superior to everyone else’s
.
There’s very little distance between the religious and progressives; both deny reality. Indeed, one could say that progressivism is the new religion.
I’ve no doubt some god-botherers would be horrified to think of themselves that way, but both outlooks spring from the same mindset.
Quite so!
The religious look at the world and envision intelligent design by a deity. Progressives look at the world and envision intelligent design by themselves.
Progressivism is also a religion that demands conformity and is willing to use violence in order to gain it. Hmmm; I wonder if that’s similar to any other religion.
Now you know why the progressives are so friendly with the Islamists.
Those is a good laugh in good spirit..
!
the belief in a real world where humans aren’t a big deal
.
You are not the first
Chosen only means we are chosen by G-d to follow his laws and act as a model for the rest of mankind. You could argue it is a burden as much as an advantage. Nothing in our religious doctrine make us special in any other way. We believe in the Golden Rule, the same as Christians.
Atheists killed more people between 1917 and 1980 than Christians have killed over 2000 years.
Did they kill in the name of atheism, or was it something else, like nationalism. Do people in khaki tunics kill more people because it’s khaki?
They killed in the name of Marxism which is definitionally atheist. Not coincidentally, that’s the same ideology behind our current “progressives”. They’ve merely changed the proletariat from factory workers to racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities, but it’s the same play book. The same hostility to markets, religion, family, and tradition that Marxists always have.
Shameful shameful shameful.
Ms Harris is married to a Jew and yet by forsaking Mr Shapiro for a freaky radical has indulged the anti-Semitism in her party and the wider Left.
Sadly, she will win anyway but at least America’s Jewish community are looking at the GOP now.
If only the same could be same for the UK, where the promotion of terrorism in the Middle East is defended by the government and police yet, I imagine, so many Jewish voters still came out for Labour.
If you can predict the future with accuracy, I’m wondering if you know a good stock for me to pick up?
I wouldn’t be so sure that Harris will win. The moment she opens her mouth in an unscripted situation she will be doomed. In fact I wouldn’t be confident in the current spate of polls showing that she is now in the lead. I suspect those polls are heavily weighted by models which display a tremendous amount of bias. It is hard to imagine that when the question of Harris vs Trump was posed before Biden dropping out, Harris was polling wose than Biden, but all of a sudden she is now in the lead from one day to the next. Something doesn’t smell right here.
Of all the ways of dividing the world into two types there are two types of polls. One type is to find out how people truly feel and the other type is (through participant selection and question construction) to confirm the pollsters biases.
One would think moving the American Embassy to Jerusalem, the Abraham Accords, and ending the foreign aid to Iran and other state sponsors of terrorism (against Israel, Jews, and the USA and Western nations) would be enough to convince Jewish Americans of which party has their best interests. (I say that as a Christian – having spent time in Israel in the 1977 where I made friends and had a very good time with no animosity shown towards me as a Christian.)
Well Harris is no different from Sir Keir who is also married to a jew and yet he and the Labour party are also ianti-semitic. Totally wierd but perhaps both are married to self-hating Jews.
Sadly, 100k Jews is almost a statistical blip for voting, they make no difference, especially when diluted across the UK
We therefore have regular antisemitic statements and actions taken in public (UK’s cancellation of certain weapon exports to Israel, open criticism of Israel, regular tolerance and even encouragement of Palestinian/Hamas matches etc) with zero consequences for anyone involved
I am not Jewish but I am ashamed of the regular anti Jewish/anti Isreal rhetoric in the UK, it’s so bad that even saying positive things in support of Israel at work might be risky. And to think we once had a Jewish PM. I can’t see that ever happening today
Don’t you think that Netanyahu – by his behaviour and his friends Smotrich and ben Gvir – has earned a few slights?
What behaviour?
The big one is that he aims for continuing a war he cannot win but refuses to end – probably because it is the only way he can avoid being sentenced for corruption.
As for details: Promoting Hamas over the years as a strategy to avoid being forced to negotiate a peace. Refusing to make any accommodation to avoid famine in Gaza. Continuing with war aims in Gaza (total destruction of Hamas) that are impossible to achieve and so gives no way for the fighting to stop. Backing Smotrich and Ben Gvir when they (or their people) defend soldiers who rape Palestinian prisoners, sabotage aid convoys into Gaza, and promote the idea that starving the Palestinians would be a right and just thing to do, if only the rest of the world did not insist on protesting.
War is hell, but I would not deny the Israelis the right to fight one – they did not start this round, and Hamas in deliberately hiding behind their own women and children and challenging Israel to go ahead and kill them. Still, my support for Israel is based on the idea that they are more willing to compromise and less murderous than Hamas. And that argument is becoming less convincing.
You sound very confused, They’re right to fight but they’re doing it the wrong way appears to be your position. So what would you approve of? Hamas can’t be defeated in your opinion, so give in to them. So much of what you mention is untrue. If there was famine in Gaza it would be all over, right? Between that and the sketchy death toll what could be left? Starving the Palestinians, you know that’s not true. A war he cannot win: so what’s the answer to a terrorist group free to come into your country and murder and kidnap its citizens? What exactly is your solution?
Hamas has millions of recruits waiting all over the Middle East. Israel being “less murderous than Hamas” will only serve to encourage them to “enlist”. You want to discourage those would-be holy warriors you hit them so hard their whole families feel it. There is no peace for Israel in playing nice.
@Brett, R.I., Hugh,
There seems to be four possible outcomes here: Ethnic cleansing or genocide (on either side), some kind of accommodation, or perpetual war. Which one are you proposing? Just getting ever harsher has not yet been enough to deter Hamas, and is unlikely to do so in the future if all you are offering is perpetual misery pending future expulsion. To refrain from fighting people do need to have something to lose. It seems to have worked with Hezbollah. Maybe no accommodation is even possible (I certainly cannot tell you how to get there), but Netanyahu is clearly no more willing to moderate his demands or accept a deal than Hamas is. If you have decideed that you will not even try to make a deal, then you do have an obligation to say openly which of the alternatives you prefer.
There was a fifth outcome that was working. By cutting its purse strings, Trump had defanged Iran and its minions. By turning the money flow back on, Biden and the Democrats re-empowered them. But Orange Man Bad.
So, you have no solution to offer, not even a position for yourself. But of course you have nothing to lose. So your comments are actually a little obscene. Others have to take a position and then act on it.
You offer possible four outcomes, all neatly bundled with their own built in defeat. So it’s just an idle, little, intellectual game for you.
Maybe another outcome would be a collective resistance to Hamas by the rest of the world. Maybe Egypt could accept Palestinians across the border, or maybe Iran could be persuaded to withdraw support for Hamas. Maybe the left could stop playing their little intellectual games.
The only acceptable outcome in a war against Nazis is their unconditional surrender. Israel really has no alternative but to fight to the bitter end.
Not really ….
David Mamet is a literary genius, but his political observations are lacking. I’m a Jew and an Israeli (amongst many other things), and I think that Netanyahu has ‘rightfully earned’ the right to be scorned and made a political pariah – that’s not antisemitic in the slightest, I would argue it’s the opposite. Yes, there is a lot of antisemitism in the Democratic party, and as Jews we need to demand it is dealt with in the same way Starmer dealt with it here in the UK – swiftly and without any compromise. But to say that “It is the party of antisemitism”, denying the rampant antisemitism on the Republican side, is absurd. Antisemitism is a disease that can affect any socio-political structure, and the worth of a candidate and party is in how they deal with it.
Out of curiosity, you make a few claims of fact, but your words lack any backing for the same. Support your words with logic and argument (opinion isn’t enough, I’m afraid) and they will be taken more seriously.
Specifically, what is the “bad thing” that Netanyahu did? What is the level of anti-semitism in the Democrat party, and where do you find it in the Republican party? Who said it, when, and what?
Your speech is filled with generalities, and once recognized, give the lie to your words.
“denying the rampant antisemitism on the Republican side, is absurd”
I deny it so i guess I’m absurd. The whole Far Left wing of the Democratic party, that is to say the whole Democratic party leadership, has abandoned Israel. None made a peep when Jewish students were being abused on American campuses. Bernie Sanders might as well join Hamas. You didnt see ANY Republican leaders skip Netanyahou’s address. Jewish businessmen saw the Democrats’ response and now vocally support President Trump . Unlike the Democrat party, the Republican party isn’t controlled by its zealots. In fact, the Republican zealots–aka the RINOs–hate Trump. You need to stop watching CNN.
You are in complete denial unfortunately. Perhaps time to stray off the Democrat party plantation and see the world as it is rather than as you would like it to be.
Yes, there is a lot of antisemitism in the Democratic party, and as Jews we need to demand it is dealt with in the same way Starmer dealt with it here in the UK
When is that going to happen? The party openly sided with the pro-Hamas campus protesters. The VP choice was an appeasement play to pander to the party’s domestic jihadi wing in places like Michigan and Minnesota. Those things would be true in the absence of Bibi, because they’ve always been true. Also, remind me who Starmer has attacked in recent days.
Please provide examples of the Republican Party’s rampant anti-Semitism. Congressional Republicans are among the strongest supporters of Israel and against the recent anti-Semitic actions on college campuses and elsewhere.
Jews have a long history of NOT protecting theselves. Why should this time be any different? Israel dares to do so only because its hard liners have a slim majority. If that werent the case they’d no doubt docilely board the railcars once again to pacify Hamas. American Jews who still support the Democrat party are no different.
Jews have a long history of NOT protecting theselves.
Possibly-but that all changed with the creation of Israel which ahs defended itself with ferocity against an existential crisis and will only become more ferocious as the Islamo fascists try harder to eliminate them.The assertion that only because its hard liners have a slim majority. is plain wrong.Post 07/10 Jews were volunteering from all over the world to come and fight-when the alternative is oblivion mealy mouthed politics goes out of the window and the Jews have just been reminded of that.
As a Jew and deeply patriotic Israeli, I felt betrayed by the shameful sight of repeated standing ovations in Congress for this chronic liar Netanyahu, a man on trial in Israel for 3 severe corruption charges, who for 15 years has disseminated his degenerate values to a population whom he in turn has populistically manipulated into feeding back support, even for the present shameful government he put together that is driving the country toward destruction, a man who since October 7 has been massively condemned here from left and right for the catastrophe he enabled, yet who has refused to admit responsibility, has refused across-the-board calls for an election, has repeatedly torpedoed deals that would bring home Israeli hostages and end a war with no clear strategic goal which daily sacrifices the lives of Israeli sons, just to keep his coalition together against the threats of his fascist partners to break it up if he ends the war. Netanyahu is not Israel, he is the enemy of Israel, and of the Jewish people. I and so many others here thank Gd for Joe Biden, a truly loyal, loving and beloved friend, as well as Chuck Schumann and others in Washington, who knew to duck clear of that hateful man’s spew of bulshit. David Mamet, you’ve been soaked with it! Wipe your eyes of it, for Gd’s sake!
How exactly did Bibi ‘enable’ October 7 and why do you refuse to hold the people who carried out those atrocities accountable? It does remain possible, even in this divided era, to hold two thoughts at once. A person can reasonably think Bibi has gone too far while also condemning Hamas and recognizing it for what it is. You are exactly what Mamet is talking about – a person ready to vote for the party that explicitly hates him.
Al ex, see my response to Unherd Reader.
The problem is that nuance is so hard in such a partisan world – your criticisms of Netanyahu may well be valid; by all accounts he’s a pretty terrible man and keeps unsavoury company, but you then find yourself in the company of antisemites who disguise actual hatred of Jews and/or Israel with dislike of Isreal’s leading figures or policy (see also: BDS).
Your.post also seems to blame Netanyahu for Oct 7 (no, that would be the actual fascists who murdered 1200 Isrealis and others) and fails to recognise that really in general the current policy of destroying Hamas is shared across the Knesset. I too support the destruction of Hamas and wish the UK was still supplying a full complement of weapons to help do so
I agree with the nuance issue, and there certainly is a dilemma. But what does one do given that Bibi is leading us to disaster?
As for responsibility: obviously Hamas are the murderous perpetrators, not Bibi. But he enabled the massacre by his policy of strengthening hamas in order to prevent all prospect of a peaceable arrangement with the Palestinian Authority; and bringing in a band of mean and incompetent clowns to his government. Enabler, not perpetrator.
When a party openly hates you, it’s a good idea to take that party at its word. Kamala made a political calculation: she chose the jihadis of parts of Michiganstan over the Jewish Americans who have never chanted “death to…” anything. And she did it knowing that most of the Jews will vote Dem just as they always have.
This dynamic was visible during the pro-Hamas rallies with one article after another from progressive Jews wondering “how could they do this?” Those Jews refused to see that the monster they supported when it was attacking whites, males, or Christians would also turn on them at some point.
David Mamet points out paradox after paradox in Jewish support for the Democratic party. They have left it too late to withdraw from a poisonous tradition.
Kamala isn’t anti-Israel and just like her predecessors, when the chips are down, she will ensure that they continue to receive US support.The problem is obviously Netanyahu and his cruel overkill in Gaza, where tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians have suffered because of his disproportionate response to the wicked Hamas attacks in October. As we know many American Jews, as well as many Israelies, agree with her.
Is there a law that states that all Jews have to support Israel? No there is not. It is possible to dislike specific Israeli politicians or policies or foreign policy activities and not be be anti-semitic or anti-zionist.
I dislike Israel’s activities in Gaza but I am not anti-semitic, anti-zionist or even anti-bibi.
I dislike the British people’s decision to leave the EU but I am not anti-British.
The first statement would be controversial in many places but the second pass unnoticed, there are no good reasons for this different treatment, only stupid ones.
When the contest is between Israel and forces bent on its destruction and the genocide of its people, then not supporting Israel is definitely anti-zionist, and almost certainly anti-semitic. If you don’t oppose the people who would kill all Israel Jews, you must be more or less OK with that outcome. If Iran and its Hamas/Hezbollah proxies were to win, every Israel Jew would be killed, and probably all the Christians and Druze too.
When I went to work in Romania in 1991 it was just after the revolution. The bullet holes were still fresh in the masonry of the public buildings. I had studied communism and security politics at university and read widely. I was much better informed than my peers. I thought I knew all about oppression, megalomania, direct action etc etc etc.
Bucharest airport was a revelation. It was made of a particularly grey shade of concrete and a particularly tacky kind of plastic. But it’s also made of despair, it’s the essential ingredient. Concrete, plastic and despair. Like the roads were made of cobbles, sand and sadness. The air was sad, the food hesitant and uncertain. The cars were apologetic. And the people absorbed all this grief and it informed everything they did, and every decision they made.
I learned more about Romania during the time I spent waiting for my passport to be processed than all the hours I had spent studying. The fact that everyone’s shoes were broken (that’s how they arrived from the factory.) That particular shade of distain expressed by the passport official.
If I were to fly into Tel Aviv this evening I’m absolutely sure that all my preconceived notions about right, wrong, up or down would be blown away in short order.
I am simply not qualified to say much about what is going on in the Levant other than killing bad, please stop. My feelings are my own and I have no right projecting them on to people who know better than I.
Politicians can be stupid, but I’m pretty sure they can hold apparent contradictions in their minds concurrently. Like loving idea of a Jewish homeland but being disappointed by the reality. Like hoping and praying for something better but trying to register a protest without breaking a lifelong commitment to a people who are perennially on the edge of oblivion.
Life is not a meme.
“I am simply not qualified to say much about what is going on in the Levant other than killing bad, please stop.”
This is incredibly naive. Not all killing is bad. When somebody attacks you and tries to kill you and your family, killing them is a positive good. Killing terrorists and would be mass-murders is good.
Nope, all killing is bad. Unfortunately some of it is unavoidable.
I have to disagree with this “if you are not with us, you are against us” mentality. There are plenty of shades of difference, and nuance should never be lost. This sort of attitude is part of what has us so damned divided here in the first place.
Unfortunately this piece reflects the blindness and bias of Unherd, which continues to baffle and appall me in equal measure as we witness Israel’s unspeakable atrocities, committed and celebrated with relish, against the Palestinians. Unfortunately such coverage is, I suspect, in some measure fueling the violence and Islamophobia in the UK and the backlash by Muslims outraged by the UK’s refusal to condemn Israel. Meanwhile we have the woe-is-me victimhood of this awful piece even as Israel via AIPAC forces out two Democratic Party members of the House of Representatives who refused to support it. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I noticed another, milder comment was removed even as I tried to support it, so I presume this will be censored as well.
Quite, the Jews in the UK have run back to Labour, they are mindlessly stupid if they think that will save them from Labours core voters the Muslims.
The only hope for them are the white working class protesters, protesters that Starmer has called racists and bigots.
Oswald Mosleys blackshirts were middle class Labour Party supporters it took the white work classes from the East End to put an end to his political life.
The only hope for Jews is the working poeple of this country, yet Jews think thay associating themselves with the sickening members of Labour will save them, they are like turkeys wishing it were Christmas Day.
Israel, in the present socio-political climate, was always going to have a difficult time eliciting support from people on the Left regardless of religion. As the German writer Michael Klonowski has observed, the fable of the fox and the grapes is useful to illustrate how we got here. When the fox can’t reach the grapes, he says “well, they were probably sour anyway”. This is normal human psychology. If he says “sweet grapes are bad”, then he’s arrived at a Leftist position. The sweet grapes in this case are any of the achievements of Western civilization. Israel, as an outpost of “the West”, will be regarded as another evil colonizer, its system of government, an unwelcome import for the “indigenous” Arab population, and its willingness to defend itself against implacable enemies, really the last straw.
Until and unless this fever of Western self-loathing breaks, Israel will have only grudging support, if any.
“we look around and see social ills — and believe it is the job of the government to eradicate them.”
Good point. The only thing government knows is “to eradicate them.” Where “them” is people: Nazis, Commies, Jews. When it comes to actually solving problems and thriving, governments know nothing. Only people know how to wive and thrive.
David Mamet is a real man. He calls things as he sees them and doesn’t adjust his opinions to fit fashion or political orthodoxy. Plus he can be killer funny. Tons of respect for Mamet. Wish there were more like him!
But what can a thinking person do in this situation? If the choice is only binary, which is what’s available in the US, you are presented with a choice of the least bad option. Third-party choices are an indulgent irrelevance.
Jew hatred is hard-wired into the oh-so-pliable, religious Muslim mind from birth. The various modern iterations of Islam are intellectual poisons, masquerading as a thoughtful and righteous lifestyle.
Are there Jew-haters on the left wing of the Democrats? Of course there are. Are there Jew-haters on the left of the Labour party? Yes again.
But here’s the thing – when I look at the details, all I see in Trump, Farage and their coteries, is bunches of hateful racists, whose sole objective is power for its own sake, violence against all “non-believers” and, in the case of Trump, tons of money for himself.
Have I missed anything?
Yes – you have missed the hard truth that most Muslims hate Jews and want them dead. If I were a Jew and was aware of the past results of antisemitism being fully unleashed in Jewish history this would be very important to me.
American Jews tend to be great supporters of the ideals of democracy… not just for reasons of self interest but as the system offering greater social good. Trump represents the negation of democracy in America, so there is no choice but to support the Democratic Party for them.
You’ve got it exactly backwards.
Since when did (the majority of these) Unherd readers who bother to comment on posts such as Mamet’s support state sponsored “genocide?”
Well said. My comment to said effect seems to have been censored. I can see it but no “ups” or “downs” available. And not included in My Comments list in my account. Thank you for speaking out. I will add my comment again here and see if it materialises.
It does not materialise. How does Unherd live with itself?
Unfortunately this piece reflects the blindness and bias of Unherd, which continues to baffle and appall me in equal measure as we witness Israel’s unspeakable atrocities, committed and celebrated with relish, against the Palestinians. Unfortunately such coverage is, I suspect, in some measure fueling the violence and Islamophobia in the UK and the backlash by Muslims outraged by the UK’s refusal to condemn Israel. Meanwhile we have the woe-is-me victimhood of this awful piece even as Israel via AIPAC forces out two Democratic Party members of the House of Representatives who refused to support it. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Well expressed! On really important issues such as, for example, free speech v the (again) state sponsored cancel culture, Russia v Ukraine and all matters COVID etc etc, Unherd has played an essential role in supporting those with contrarian views – the exception would appear to be the myopia with regard to Israel’s actions in Palestine…
Who’s celebrating it with relish?
Since they started to support HAMAS, Hezbollah, the PA. They are the only ones speaking and wishing of a genocide.
I certainly hope you will consider voting for RFK Jr