Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Supporting Israel in the multi-pronged war begun by Hamas on October 7th shows that a politician has a robust moral compass
The single-issue voter often gets a bad rap, seen as blinkered, selfish, and, it is implied, not very bright. Usually, however, this kind of voter is genuinely worried about something really important to them in an actual, applied sense – whether that is material and local, or emotional and moral.
The post-October 7th landscape has produced a swathe of single-issue voters, for whom key points of morality and a basic sense of respect and perceived safety are at stake. On the Left, we have seen one side of this, with many casting their vote in the general election for candidates that condemned Israel’s campaign in Gaza with punitive zeal, and away from those seen as supporting “Israeli genocide”.
As the Conservative leadership election enters its final stage with a choice between Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick, I find that I too have become a single-issue voter.
My guiding question is this: who best supports Israel’s cause? Who actually grasps its righteousness and importance beyond the vague boilerplate required as a minimum by officialdom? Who understands why “calling for de-escalation” is just another way of telling Israel not to defend itself against its mortal enemies, who happen to be ours too? Who, I want to know, gets that it is entirely meaningless to say “Israel has the right to defend itself” followed by a big fat “but” and some kind of demand that is entirely incompatible with that right? And who understands that in turning a blind eye on the virulent anti-Zionism that produces torrents of anti-Jewish abuse, Britain is actually normalising a level of everyday anti-Semitism not seen in several generations?
The stance I am looking for shows that its holder is not going to give in on any of these points simply because a baying mob of people who have it in for the Jewish state try to paint them as far-right, fascist, or ‘Zionist’ stooges. And, in the ability to see through the layers upon layers of respectable lies that shroud almost all mainstream coverage of the conflict, this person demonstrates some degree of intellect and discernment.
Of course it is easy to pillory the pro-Israel Jewish person for her “obsession” with Israel – a country 2000 miles away and a central concern of people that, at best, make up 0.5 per cent of the UK population. But if candidates’ attitudes to Israel’s campaign in Gaza was enough to determine the voting patterns of Muslim voters and many voters on the Left in the general election, then it is not only enough for, but also of paramount importance to, us as well.
In fact, the political case for this single issue is much stronger than it might sound, and should preoccupy everyone, not just those with a vested interest in the safety of the Jewish homeland. Supporting Israel in the multi-pronged war begun by Hamas on October 7th – in deed as well as word – shows that a politician has a robust moral compass. That they can distinguish between aggressor and retaliator, between the systematic, murdering sadism of a terrorist army that puts children and women in the line of fire, and generally proper wartime conduct (with some foul exceptions, as the ongoing trial of eight IDF soldiers for rape of a Palestinian makes clear).
Support for Israel also has applied significance. A leader with a pro-Israel stance is more likely to take seriously, and thus prepare for, a bigger confrontation involving Iran and its “axis of resistance”. They are also more likely to be alive to the anti-Semitism that often pours from the anti-Israel cause – sometimes leading to terrorism. On both counts, Britain would be safer.
So: moral integrity, intelligence, and realism – all qualities that can be pinned to this single issue.
All of which is why I am glad that James Cleverly, who was mealy-mouthed on Israel, is out. He would also have been a muddled, ineffectual leader on all counts.
And now we find ourselves in the lucky position of having two good candidates to choose from. Both have been pretty clear and unequivocal in their understanding of and support for Israel’s case over the past year.
Robert Jenrick’s appears ironclad. He is willing to go the extra mile, sporting a sweatshirt reading “Hamas are terrorists” – words that got a counter-protester at a Gaza rally back in April briefly arrested. Jenrick was roundly mocked for this, and perhaps it was unstatesmanlike. But it was thrillingly refreshing to see. He also, to the rage of many, proposed putting the symbol of the Israeli flag – the star of David – on all e-gates (“airports and every point of entry of our great country”) to show support, in part by enabling Israelis to get through passports in the same queues as EU citizens, Americans, Swiss, Australians, and Japanese. Though this isn’t quite what Jenrick was proposing, I’ve long thought foisting the existence of Israel on incomers through its symbolic star would be a neat way to ruffle the right feathers.
I’m confident in Kemi too on my single issue. She may be less committed than Jenrick, but while she has (accurately) referred to the terrible suffering of the Gazans “stuck in the middle” of the conflict, she has never, to my knowledge, said anything weaselly about Israel’s defensive campaigns since October 7th. More important still, she grasps the terrible geopolitical significance of the tendency, in condemning Israel’s actions, to appease Iran.
If a second issue were allowed in, it would be philosophy of the market and the fight against Britain’s slide into an anti-wealth, anti-growth, anti-profit business nightmare. Kemi is the winner here.
But I digress. Both contenders pass muster on my single issue and the rest – to maul Hamlet – is bonus.