Thursday, 25 August 2016

Corbyn is not just a liar, he is massively incompetent

All politicians lie. Even the ones that claim never to lie, lie and sometimes, as Jeremy Corbyn discovered, they get found out. Most politicians will, much like he has done, deny ever having lied or justify the lie in the face of overwhelming evidence that they lied. Nothing new about the character of many politicians in the face of train-gate then. They are a bunch of manipulative liars with political agendas and will willingly lie to advance their agenda and when it becomes apparent they have lied, they will deny ever having lied and blame virtually everyone else but themselves. To single Corbyn out is only to single him out as what he is: a stereotypical politician, who is elected to a safe seat with minimal trouble and goes around banging on about how he is going to change everything when really he hasn't a ruddy clue how he is going to do that and spends half the time lying and the other half lying about lying. 

It does not even matter that Corbyn claims to be an honourable man and this proves him to be anything but. It does not matter that this scandal has merely proved him to be just like every politician he claims to be nothing like. Obviously, it smacks of hypocrisy but who amongst us is not somewhat hypocritical. So really, it does not matter that he lied and lied about being honest in the process. What matters, from his perspective, is that his lie smacks of sheer incompetence. We can, and people do, argue all day long about whether the railways should be renationalised or whether there is some other solution to the awful state of the trains in this country. There is a valuable debate to be had on that question. It is clear where Mr Corbyn's opinions lie and he is, of course, free to make his point in any way he chooses. 

However, given the point he is making, did he not think it prudent to be on an actually busy train to make it? What did he expect would happen if he sat on the floor of a train that had empty seats and claimed it was ram-packed? Is he so stupid that he thought he could get away with this publicity stunt? And, of course, in the ultimate irony, he is correct. Having to sit on the floor or stand wedged between three people or take refuge in the toilet because there is no space anywhere else is a problem people face every day. Given that, why did he choose a train that was fairly empty? I'm not an expert, but I am sure if you want to argue trains are busy, you should be on a busy train to make the point. He could have picked a Virgin Train on a match-day at Old Trafford. Or Thameslink any weekday morning or afternoon. Or virtually any other train.

And therein lies the problem. Corbyn is so unbelievably incompetent, so unbelievably stupid, that he managed to pick one of the very few trains in Britain that was not massively overcrowded to make a point about overcrowded trains. So we can argue all day long about how much of a hypocrite this makes him (and it does). We can discuss how this proves him a liar and a manipulative one at that, which it does. We can debate the role of the media in criticising Corbyn and whether it is fair, missing the point of course given he could have chosen not to lie and avoided this criticism, but whatever.  And, of course, we can discuss the trains and how awful they are, which is what we should be doing had Corbyn managed to choose a busy train to film his video on. We can do all of those things but it would massively miss the point. The biggest problem here is not that he is a liar but that Corbyn is so unbelievably useless that he tried to argue the trains were busy on a train that was not busy. And that takes some doing.

Wednesday, 10 August 2016

So, where do you stand on Israel-Palestine?

There must be a formula for working out how long it takes between finding out someone is Jewish and asking them about Israel-Palestine. If there is not, might I humbly suggest Levy's Law:

"Once you've found out someone is Jewish, the chance you ask him/her about Israel-Palestine increases exponentially until it becomes virtually certain."

This is not a criticism at all, far from it. Jews, rightly or wrongly, carry an important responsibility in the eyes of others when it comes to Israel. Perhaps not to justify or explain Israel's actions, though one might try, but to justify or explain one's position. And maybe it comes from an internalised anti-Semitism that says Jews cannot be loyal to their country of birth/naturalisation or that their loyalty primarily is to Israel and therefore they have, presumably a positive, opinion on Israel. Both loyalty tropes, of course, are false. I suspect, however, it comes from a genuine desire to gain a better understanding. After all, those with their minds made up would not ask, they would merely tell.

But I do not care what the reason is. What matters is they asked and what matters more, I think, is my response. And my response, perhaps long-winded and convoluted in those discussions, is actually remarkably simple:

"Please remember that for every single news article you read on one side, there is a corresponding one on the other; for every single "fact" thrown at you, there is a corresponding "fact" that disputes it; for every statistic, for every argument, for every claim, for every damn thing you can say about the entire conflict there is a corresponding response."

Perhaps it is even simpler. Perhaps I just mean don't believe anything you read. Such is the way with complicated conflicts that are little to do with what armchair activists will have you believe they are about. We could get into a really nuanced discussion about what Israel and what the Palestinians need to do and believe me it would not get us anywhere. We could prove Israel acts disproportionately or we could prove that Israel does not and believe me, it would not get us anywhere. I could spend the next hour going through everything the questioner has read from "pro-Palestinian" sources and offer the response or, where required, state you cannot defend the indefensible and believe me, yes you guessed it, it would not get us anywhere.

So I don't bother with any of that. That anti-Israel activism and opinion so often spills over into anti-Semitism, that modern-day anti-Semites have a more acceptable hate to hide behind requires all of us to stand up and speak out against it. But beyond that, I am sick and tired of this all. Sick and tired of the world's focus on one conflict. Sick and tired of being told that Israel does this or does that. Sick and tired of being told that the Palestinians do this or do that. Sick and tired of the whole damn thing because really, when you look beyond the hate, there are Daniels and Ahmeds; Rivkas and Fatimas; and a whole bunch of others that just want to earn money to buy groceries to feed their families and, ideally, not be shot at by anyone.

And really, it is as simple and, perhaps, as complicated as that.

Tuesday, 2 August 2016

The Nice Guy Illusion

If Jeremy Corbyn happened not to be a vile anti-Semite, whose continued leadership of Labour makes it an unsafe place for Jews and justifies anti-Semitism under the classic guise of anti-Zionism, I might just be perfectly happy for his leadership to result in the destruction of Labour. I might be quite happy for the unbroken Tory rule that would almost certainly necessarily follow his likely victory in the upcoming leadership election. I might enjoy the hypocrisy and irony of the serial rebel for whom loyalty seems to have an entirely different definition, suddenly demanding that loyalty he never showed. I would not delight in the damage to our democracy that the lack of an effective opposition would cause, but I wouldn't pretend not to enjoy their demise under his leadership, proving, perhaps, that good things really do not come to anti-Semites.

But he is a vile anti-Semite. So I cannot delight in any of those things, I cannot enjoy Labour's demise and the Tory dominance it will cause. Part of me, of course, mourns for our democracy as Corbyn turns Labour into the ultimate protest group, somehow forgetting that he is meant to lead a Parliamentary Party. But that feeling would surely dissipate once an effective opposition took Labour's place, which it surely would. So no, my overriding feeling watching Labour implode whilst the Tories, quietly and quickly moved on after Brexit and gave us our second female Prime Minister, is one of concern as I watch the hard left gain increasing power and the anti-Semitism, misogyny and bullying it has brought with it.

We heard repeatedly what a nice guy Corbyn was, how principled he was and, whatever you thought of his policies, that he was thoroughly decent. We have learnt, in the past few weeks, none of that to be true. None of it comes as a surprise to Jews, like me, who have long been concerned of his love for Hamas and Hezbollah and his support for Assad and Iran. We saw it plain and clear with his shambolic showing at Labour's sham anti-Semitism inquiry that seemed aimed at establishing not that anti-Semitism was wrong, but rather, just how much anti-Semitism could be tolerated. We saw it made evident with his reaction to a Jew being abused at the presentation of the results of that inquiry. Whether he likes it or not, he has made this situation all about him, turning any criticism of his policies into a personal critique. When you do that, you fire up your supporters to defend you mercilessly, not the party or the party's best interests, and that's when MPs who dare oppose Corbyn get threatened and abused and face death threats. Whether he condemns it or not, he must bear responsibility for the actions made in his name.

Hugo Rifkind asked a question on Twitter. I hope he will forgive me for not searching for the link, for it was a while back, but he asks if Corbyn's supporters ever get the nagging feeling that they and Trump's supporters are the same. They both have a passionate commitment to their Leader rather than the party they are supposed to represent. They both find bullying people they disagree with the solution. They both seem to be vile racist misogynists. I would go one step further. I wonder if Corbyn ever looks at Trump and wonders how on Earth he ended up so like the maverick billionaire when Trump is everything Corbyn claims to stand against. Trump, like Corbyn, is a racist though Trump's racism seems to permeate across far more ethnic groups, rather than being limited to the Jews. Trump, like Corbyn, is causing shockwaves through the party they are supposed to represent, with senior figures refusing to back him. Trump, like Corbyn has proved to be, is a power hungry narcissist. And Trump, like Corbyn, has made it all about him. You may balk at the comparison. You may claim Corbyn stands for much more noble virtues. Perhaps he does. Equally, however, perhaps his anti-Semitism and terrorism apologism means that's all irrelevant. What does standing for noble values even mean if you deny Jews, or any ethnic group, any right to those values?

Corbyn claims he will not betray Labour Party democracy, pointing towards an undeniable mandate from Labour Party members. In his blind stubbornness he forgets two crucial things. First, he forgets that he leads a Parliamentary Party, one that aims to secure the principles he claims to support through parliament. Without MPs he simply cannot do that, no matter what Diane Abbott, a woman so odious that I struggle to find the correct words to describe her, might tell him. Second, and more importantly, he forgets that Labour Party democracy is irrelevant when it comes to the democracy we live in. He may have never seen the Labour Party as ideal, nor really bought into its aims or ideals - that much is quite evident - but the millions of people he claims rely on the Labour Party to beat the Tories, if he is right, absolutely do. They rely on Labour to win elections, not to hold mass rallies in Liverpool and claim this proves his electability. They rely on Labour to be an effective opposition when they are in opposition and to be able to defeat the Tories when elections come around. As Labour implodes and the opinion polls show the Tories pulling further away, is it not time he woke up and accepted defeat. Accepted that whatever his aims and intentions - and I do not think them honourable at all, but that's besides the point - he cannot win and he condemns the very people he apparently claims to care about to decades of Tory rule he warns everyone against. Of course, I disagree and look forward to the years of Tory rule he will surely usher in.

My politics differs from Corbyn's but if he believes even a word of what he says, surely it is time he did the first honourable thing he has done in a career littered with disloyalty, support for terrorism, Hamas, Hezbollah, the IRA, Assad, Iran, anti-Semitism and justifications of it and now stubbornness and bullying and stood aside.
Looks perfectly harmless, doesn't he?

Saturday, 23 July 2016

The EU Ideal

A month ago, Britain voted to leave the European Union and we have been arguing about what exactly this means ever since. No one seems to have a clue and the vast majority of those who were the face of the campaigns, both Leave and Remain, have disappeared leaving the rest of us to clear up the mess of their making. Which was nice of them. The aftermath has left us squabbling over the latest statistics and figures and therein lies the problem. The campaign to remain in the EU should never have been about the economy; it should never have been about the virtues of immigration or the lies about immigration Leave were telling; it should never have been about the undemocratic nature of the EU or where our Laws are made; it should never have been about EU regulations; and it should never, even, have been about what the EU has done for us such as, for example, flooding money (if you'll pardon the pun) into areas, especially in northern England, impacted by flooding.

No, as I sit here in a Parisian cafe, having popped over on the Eurostar, wandered around the Louvre and enjoyed the sunshine, I realise it should always have been about what Europe represents and means. The economy, believe it or not, is likely to be okay and, regardless, we simply could not have known what would happen. Yes, perhaps that is an argument for staying in and avoiding the unknown, but Remain should never have tried to win the argument on the economy, especially when there are enough people for whom the current situation, whoever is to blame, is not working. It was never going to work. The same goes for immigration and regulations and EU Laws and all the rest of it. The argument that immigration is a good thing was never going to trump the fear posited by Leave. The argument that if we want to trade with the EU our products will have to meet those dastardly EU regulations anyway was never going to trump, "BUT OUR TOASTERS ARE SHIT NOW BECAUSE OF THE EU. LEAVE TO TAKE CONTROL." The argument that only X% of our laws come from Brussels (where X is quite a small number) and our laws are already dictated to us by the City and large corporations anyway and we have the Queen and the House of Lords that are both massively undemocratic but no one seems to care was never going to trump the screaming about how all our laws come from unelected officials in some foreign country.

Those things are neither here nor there. They might be arguments and debates to be had but to place them at centre stage is to completely miss the point of what the EU is all about. The EU, for all its flaws, is, at its heart, about cooperation between countries. Yes that has extended into initiatives on the environment and is about free trade and free movement of people and all the other things that we can argue about all day long but the EU transcends that. The EU, and the argument for remaining, should always have been about being under 26 and wandering into the Louvre free of charge. It should always have been about cheaper flights and free data-roaming across the EU. It should have been about Erasmus and having the opportunity to go and study across Europe and the opportunity to meet all those Europeans who have that same opportunity to come to the UK to study. It is about moving forwards together because we've tried that thing where we colonise and/or invade the Other and we've tried that thing where we close ourselves off from the Other and we discovered neither of them work.

Maybe I am being idealistic and maybe I am being naive, but I genuinely believe it is a shame that an argument based on a fear and hatred of the Other, whether consciously or not, is what we allowed to win. The United Kingdom will be just fine from an economic perspective in or out of the EU. We will have trade deals and export and import products and all the rest of it. We will not be protected from the economic shocks on the continent any better or worse. We will figure out how to ensure all those complicated agreements we have with Europe that no one really fully understood nor, indeed, should have been expected to understand, somehow endure and Brexit will probably be a bit of a fudge. But that's all a bit irrelevant because of what this argument, what this result symbolises. Human history follows a familiar, if depressing, pattern. Throughout it we have been afraid of the Other, those that look different or sound different or simply are different from us. We have built great walls to keep the Other way. We have invaded their lands, killed their people and stolen their resources. We have exported them across the world and sold them for our own gain. Europe, on a smaller scale, has followed a similar pattern. We have been at war for centuries, one empire being replaced by another, one war ending and another beginning. The only thing Europeans could agree on for centuries was that the rest of the world was our oyster, its resources and its people ours to do with as we pleased. But that was changing. Slowly. But it was changing.

It's a crying shame that Leave won the argument, not by actually winning any arguments but by framing the discussion in terms that never truly mattered. That was Leave's big victory. And their legacy won't be an economy in ruins or borders that we can effectively control (currently non-EU immigration alone exceeds our overall target, so do not tell me we will suddenly become immigration control experts) or all these amazing trade deals that we can now apparently negotiate. It won't be a country that flourished nor will it be a country that was entirely left behind. Their legacy will be that generations of British youngsters may never experience what the EU was meant to represent. And that might just be the biggest travesty of them all.

Wednesday, 15 June 2016

Are you sure you're not better?

A few weeks ago, I wrote a blog, almost entirely tongue-in-cheek, about how my therapist does not like people I speak about. It was meant as an amusing title rather than an accurate description of her opinions towards anybody. After my application to intermit, however, was initially declined, she made her disdain for my university and department quite clear. Understandably too. I've learnt a lot this year. I've learnt some Philosophy, of course. A lot about my Judaism. The capacity of humanity to show complete inhumanity. A selection of random facts. How to make a pun about virtually anything. Yes, Mr Cainer, I am looking squarely at you. But perhaps what I've learnt most clearly is a lot of people just do not understand mental illness. I don't mean other young people. Everyone I have confided in or spoken definitely seems to understand. Unfortunately, it would appear that universities, at least mine, simply do not.

Having decided to intermit just before Pesach (insert religiously relevant yet incredibly tenuous comparison between being freed from slavery and freed from the slavery of a dissertation here), I set about beginning the formal process. I was assured that applications on medical grounds are rarely declined. I was informed that I should submit the application by 9th May and to intermit for Easter, but indicate that I would restart from the beginning of my course. My therapist and I discussed what needed to be included so that we played by their rules. My advisor immediately approved the request with a supporting note that stressed that he concurred that my essays had been negatively affected. All seemed to be going well. I received an email whilst I was bombarding you all with photos of me in New York (why I was in NY might make a little more sense now!) telling me that my application, however, had been declined by the degree committee and my Head of Department. I include the email here:

"Since the medical documentation that you supplied concerned your health problems during the period of November 2015 to March 2016, the Degree Committee felt obliged to treat your request as a backdated request to intermit for last term. The Degree Committee was reluctant to grant backdated requests when the work had already been marked, but felt unable to make a final decision until receiving further guidance from the University about this type of situation. The Degree Committee has since discovered from Student Registry that there is a norm that intermission requests can only be backdated by 30 days, and your request was made more than 30 days after the health problems mentioned in the medical documentation. Consequently, I regret to inform you that the Degree Committee has not granted a request for a backdated intermission in your case."

I had three immediate issues:

  1. I specifically asked when to submit my application and was told 9th May. Had I been told otherwise, had this norm of 30 days been mentioned, I would have submitted within 30 days
  2. I was told to intermit for Easter and never told about the possibility for backdated intermission
  3. Most troublingly, my application was declined based on a technicality that has nothing to do with my condition or mental health. In fact, my mental health was completely ignored when making the decision. What was important was whether it was made within 30 days of my health problems. 
I say I had three immediate issues. I freaked out and blabbered to my Dad about not being told about 30 days. He phoned them up. The reality was much much worse. It's one thing to have rules and to misinform someone about those rules and then stick rigidly to those rules. What transpired to be the case is another thing entirely. 

Apparently, one of the world's best universities does not distinguish between a physical injury and mental health difficulties. Apparently, when I submitted my essays at the end of last term, that was taken as proof that I was completely better. The long and detailed letter my therapist wrote, explaining the difficulties I had been having and the impact it was having on my work and focus was completely ignored because, given I was able to eventually submit the work, clearly I was well. My department thought I simply had the equivalent of a broken arm and once I was no longer stopped from physically being able to write, I had fully healed. That's why my application was backdated. That's why 30 days was relevant. My problems ended the date I submitted my essays and even without considering what my problems were, given they apparently ended 30 days before I submitted the application, it must be declined. 

Except, mental health and physical health are not the same. Not even a little bit. As any sensible person would know. Not my department, though. Not the very people for whom it would be vital to be able to distinguish between the two. The ignorance was startling. Despite a 3 page letter clearly detailing the profound impact the period had had on me and my work, the notion that maybe the essays I submitted, though submitted, were not a reflection of my best work was not even entertained for a minute. I had been penalised for not giving up in February but instead trying to continue. The irony that my therapist explained in the letter that my inability to see exactly how bad it was characterised my condition has not been lost on me. Given my desperate life long search for irony, you can imagine that this made everything okay.

I struggled to explain it to my therapist the next day. Struggled to explain that she needed to inform supposedly the brightest Philosophical minds in the world that mental illness and physical health are two different things. That a broken arm and anxiety were not the same thing. That an absence of physical symptoms does not mean an absence of mental symptoms. That the brute fact I was able to write a few sentences did not mean I was completely healed. Because apparently, the basic knowledge that I - and the majority of my friends that I have spoken to about this - had acquired by not being complete morons had somehow managed to escape them. 

Perhaps I should have more sympathy. If you google 'misunderstand mental health' it returns 767000 hits. They range from the most misunderstood mental illnesses to general articles on the misunderstood nature of mental illness. So they are not alone. But I struggle to forgive them even a little bit. I am not the only one - as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands of hits - that has suffered as a result of the ignorance. All too many people think depression is something to just be gotten over it; that stress is something that we can always control; that if we are struggling we should just go for a walk. As my therapist detailed in the thoroughly redundant addendum to her letter, mental illness is hugely prevalent amongst university students (unsurprisingly). Universities, therefore, are precisely the entities that should be getting this right. First time round. Without the need for addendums to letters. For bullet-pointed clarifications. My college's response to the request sums up just how wrong my department managed to get it: "Any other outcome [i.e. any outcome other than approval for my request] risks the charge of unfair treatment, with prejudice, in the fact of compelling medical evidence"

I was not sure how to end this post. In better news, my application has since been re-examined and approved by the Degree Committee and I await rubber stamping from Student Registry. I should be restarting my MPhil in October. I would say all is well that ends well but given I will not be the last to suffer as a result of the ignorance, I struggle to be upbeat about this. Something needs to change. 

Friday, 27 May 2016

An open letter to Malia

Dear Ms Bouattia,

I write to you as a Jew, a Zionist, a critic of Israeli policy, a student, a human being.

You will no doubt have seen the result of Cambridge's disaffiliation referendum and, indeed, of Warwick's, where I was previously a student. You will also no doubt be glad that neither institution voted to disaffiliate. As a student that voted for disaffiliation and (still) strongly believes it to be the only option to combat the anti-Semitism that has festered in your organisation for decades, I have one simple request. Well two, but I figure asking you not to be an anti-Semite and to apologise for your anti-Semitism might be asking too much.

Instead, my simple request is as follows: Do not view this result as validation of your election or an indication that Cambridge does not believe the NUS has a problem with anti-Semitism. I refuse to believe that the 3000 or so students that voted against disaffiliation did so because they do not think the NUS has a problem with anti-Semitism. I refuse to believe that they listened to the concerns of the Jewish students who supported disaffiliation and dismissed them. Ultimately, I refuse to believe that they do not care about anti-Semitism. Some students won't fit that description. I am not naive. Some students completely buy into the idea that describing Birmingham University as a Zionist outpost because it has a large Jewish Society is not anti-Semitic. Some students celebrate anti-Semitism and support Malia precisely because of her views. But I refuse to believe that over 3000 students at Cambridge all believe that. Somewhat because if that is true, then the problem is even bigger than even I could have imagined, but mainly because I have faith in my fellow students and I have hope that that faith is rewarded. Maybe I am wrong.

So please Malia and the NUS at large, do not take this result and the results of any future referendums that go the same way as vindication. Rather, look at it as a last chance to reform and to change. I strongly believe that the vast majority of the 3183 Cambridge students that voted against disaffiliation agree with me when I say there is a problem with anti-Semitism in the NUS and that we cannot just ignore it or hope it goes away, but we have to do something about it - and fast. We just disagree on how exactly we should go about tackling this problem.

I sincerely believe this and I hope that the promises that we can reform the NUS from within are proved to be correct. My doubts about this should not get in the way of all the students who claimed that the NUS has an anti-Semitism problem but argued that we need to remain in the NUS to eradicate it from beginning their work.

Yours sincerely,


Sunday, 22 May 2016

We've Forgotten What Anti-Racism Campaigning Means

I wrote about anti-Semitism a year ago. With the NUS disaffiliation referendum this week, a couple of sentences from that post seem, unfortunately, particularly appropriate:

"Jews, almost unique in their historic persecution, are equally unique in their inability to define what constitutes anti-Semitism. For some reason Jews have no say in what is anti-Semitism, rather forced to sit idly by as non-Jews...tell us to get over ourselves...[and] suggest it is basically all fair game because, you know, Israel."

The NUS debate, unfortunately, has been no different. Once again, when Jews have come together and complained that something is anti-Semitic we have been told a) that it isn't and then given a nice, helpful explanation of what anti-Semitism is and b) that actually, it's all anti-Zionism, not anti-Semitism and given a long, helpful lecture on how one can deplore Zionism and Israeli policies yet remain not an anti-Semite and to stop shutting down the debate. Our complaints and concerns were, as they often are, dismissed and explained away. This, however, is nothing new. Perhaps the best response to this came from two Cambridge students. Perhaps disaffiliating isn't the answer, but that's beside the point here. We can argue all day long about whether Malia is an anti-Semite. We probably won't get anywhere. For what it is worth, I think she is. I think she has a serious issue with Jews and with Israel that borders on the psychotic. Disturbingly, however, whether or not she is an anti-Semite, is no longer the problem. The most troubling thing to come out of all of this, for me, are the claims that the campaign against her leadership is not about her anti-Semitism or anti-Semitism amongst student politics in general, but a racist one. The claims that instead of celebrating the election of a black, female Muslim, Jews, and others, are leading a racist smear campaign. 

This, I am afraid, stinks. Believe me, I wish I could celebrate her election in good faith. I wish I could be happy about such a historic event. But in the same way that, should it happen, I will struggle to celebrate the election of Hilary Clinton as the USA's first female president (ironically because of her record concerning women), I cannot celebrate Malia's election. As if it weren't enough to be told that Jews, as the victims of anti-Semitism, cannot define anti-Semitism, we have now been accused of racism for fighting against what we perceive as anti-Semitism. I could understand being told that I was wrong about Malia and that she is not an anti-Semite. I would disagree, of course, and ask what other minority group would face the double discrimination of the initial racism and subsequent explanation of what is and is not to be counted as discrimination against them, but I would at least understand. We simply disagree on what anti-Semitism is and, believe it or not, that is okay. What I cannot understand and what is not okay is being told that it does not matter at all, it is irrelevant because my campaign against what I perceive to be anti-Semitism from someone who happens to be black, female and Muslim is racist. We only suddenly care because of Malia's race or religion. Ignoring the fact that I was amongst many voices who were incredibly vocal when it came to Ken Livingston, a white, non-Muslim, male,'s fascination with Hitler, this makes it seem that anti-Semitism does not matter anymore. Quiet Jews, we have a president who is black and a woman and Mulsim. Stop spoiling our party. 

Forgive me if I choose to judge Malia, not on the colour of her skin or her religion, but on the content of her character and the comments she has made. Is that not what anti-racism campaigning used to be all about?