Leftist Jews are a strange lot: Michael Brull, for example
Most Leftist Jews are in the USA but there are quite a few in Israel too. Australia has one (though not the only one) in the person of Michael Brull, who writes for the far-Left "New Matilda". In a recent article he condemns Israel as "racist". The way Leftists use "racist", it usually means something like "normal" so that is of scant interest.
What got me was the way he wrote of Israel's most recent intervention in Gaza: "Israel invaded and bombed Gaza last year". No mention that it was an attempt by Israel to stop the constant rocketing of Israel from Gaza. It was even pretty successful at that. How does anyone manage to close their eyes to that? The man seems deep into Freudian denial, a serious neurosis. As an articulate Jew he can hardly be unaware of the whole story.
And we have this from him:
"In a way, Australia’s an extreme example. A lot of racism passes without comment or condemnation here. Perhaps this shouldn’t be too surprising: Australia’s history is among the most racist on the planet. Because of the White Australia policy, and the devastation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, Australia is still overwhelmingly white. Ethnic minorities have struggled to gain enough power, influence, and even visibility to successfully resist the kind of bigotry and prejudice that pervades our society, major institutions and halls of power."
He completely overlooks Australia's biggest minority -- about 5% of our population: The Chinese. There are people from various Asian sources in Australia but, regardless of source, most of them are Han Chinese. Why is that? Because the unfortunate Han are persecuted everywhere in Asia except in their homeland. There are Chinese minorities throughout Asia, particularly in SouthEast Asia. There are even Chinese restaurants in Bombay. I ate in one once.
But whenever there is some sort of political upheaval, the Han are blamed for what is wrong and get it in the neck. Their homes are burnt, their businesses looted and they are all to often killed or driven out: Quite reminiscent of Jewish history in Europe. And the Han are of course well aware of their marginal status in the countries concerned. So at every opportunity many who can do so get out -- mostly to countries with European populations, such as Australia.
Australia? That hotbed of racism? The Han clearly don't share the Leftist view that Australia is a hotbed of racism. They have been coming for many years so would have heard by now if Australia was indeed a hotbed of racism.
There have always been Han in Australia. My mother's grocer was a Chinaman. But the big influx started in the aftermath of the Vietnam war. Most of the "boat-people" from Vietnam were Han, fleeing racist Vietnamese. They got onto rickety boats and came to Australia at the risk of their lives. Many of them disappeared at sea.
Like John Howard, I was apprehensive about the Chinese influx. I was aware of the old "White Australia policy" from Federation days (abolished by the conservative government of Harold Holt in 1966) so thought that the Chinese influx might incite race riots. Both Howard and I were wrong. We underestimated our fellow Australians. The Chinese were absorbed without a murmur.
But were they? I personally have certainly seen no evidence of animus against them but statistical evidence is hard to find. I have been a keen reader of the news for most of my 72 years and I recollect no accounts of anti-Chinese riots. I have heard grumbles once or twice about them but that is all. And race-relations are after all a major interest of mine. I have had over 100 papers on the subject published in the academic journals. So neither in the popular nor the academic literature have I seen any mention of anti-Chinese upheavals in Australia. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but I think it is pretty indicative in this case.
There are of course tales of minor discrimination at school and such places but the "cool kids" at school discriminate against members of their own ethnic group so that means nothing if taken in context. The upshot is that the Han move unhindered among us as our medical specialist, our pharmacist and our restaurateur (etc.)
And something that is very vivid about race relations in Australia is the huge frequency of little Chinese ladies paired with tall Caucasian men. I see examples of it almost every day in the shopping centre I usually go to. Neither the man nor the girlfriend on his arm seem to realize that they are racists!
So why is all that important? Because it shows that Australians are NOT racist. If they were, a visibly different group like the Han would surely be persecuted. They are not. So if Australians are critical of other ethnic groups, it is because of something other than racism. Southeast Asians are demonstrably racist but Australians are not.
And it is far from clear that Australians were ever racist in any serious sense. As is set out extensively here, the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 was primarily devoted to protecting existing Australian workers from low-wage competition. Some of the speeches made in support of the Act utilized the racist beliefs that were common worldwide at the time but the basic motivation is perfectly clear if you look at all of what led up to the Act.
There were some anti-Chinese riots on the goldfields of the 19th century but they were again largely economically motivated. The Chinese miners were taking away a lot of the gold. And most of the people on the goldfields at that time were immigrants, not native-born Australians. A bit more on racial attitudes in Australia of the early days here
Now that I have looked at what Brull did not cover, let me look at what he did cover. The bulk of his article is an assemblage of criticisms of Islam. He rightly says that Islam is not monolithic and that the majority cannot be blamed for the deeds of a few.
Since it is clear that Australians are not racist, however, such criticisms cannot be taken as flowing from racism. Even more fundamentally, Islam is a religion, not a race. Muslims are of many races and you can change your religion but not your race. So on that ground also Brull's claim of Australian racism falls by the wayside.
But is criticism of Islam legitimate and proper? Brull clearly thinks not. But why not? Leftists sometimes make swingeing criticisms of Christians so why are similar criticisms of Islam not allowed? Both are major religions. I await Brull's article assembling and condemning Leftist criticisms of Christians.
So what is wrong with Brull? Why all the selective reporting? I cannot believe that he is unaware of the sort of thing that I have just covered and he seems too articulate to be a raving nutter. So I must conclude that he knows perfectly well that what he writes is propaganda, not balanced reporting. He knows that, in typical Leftist style, he is reporting only those things that suit him. He is a crook.
But why is he a crook? It is because his writing is a servant to his hate, not any attempt at an accurate picture of the world.
But why is he suffused with hate for the world about him? In his case it is moderately clear. He is a Jew. And the world that Jews inhabit has been incredibly hostile to them. Hating that world is understandable, if stupid. The world has changed. Outside Muslim lands, Jews are no longer endangered. But Jews do tend to feel the burden of the past heavily upon them, which is why a big majority of American Jews are Leftist. Leftists are people who, for whatever reason, hate the world about them: "the system" or the "status quo" if you like. Brull has joined that sorry fraternity.
But it is surely strange that, despite their great intellectual gifts, so many Ashkenazim seem incapable of truly critical thinking where politics is concerned. From Moses onwards, the Hebrew prophets condemned Jews for their whoring after false Gods. Not much seems to have changed. Emotion swamps reason still.