3 thoughts on “The world’s most dangerous man?”

  1. I think most of your subscribers value a cool objective look at ME issues. But describing Israeli cabinet members as fascist, talking about the ‘stench of hypocrisy’ and appearing to support without question South Africa’s highly political ICJ case that Israel is engaged in genocide suggest a somewhat emotional and partisan approach.

    Of course it’s frustrating that the US and UK are not doing more to bring about a ceasefire in Gaza but in reality we are a minor player, hardly an ‘enabler’ of the dreadful things the IDF is doing, able to help a bit in the region and in the UNSC and keep banging on, as Cameron has, about a two state solution as the only way forward, even though this will not advance until Bibi is gone.

    It’s also odd not to recognise that there is a valid reason under international law to reduce the threat of Huthi attacks on Red Sea shipping and that the Huthis are acting in an entirely opportunistic way, seeking to boost their regional status at the expense of others.

    1. In answer to Edward Chaplin’s comment: consider the letter published in the New York Times on 4 December, 1948 that Hannah Arendt, Albert Einstein and 26 other Jewish dignitaries signed that denounced Menachem Begin’s Herut Party and which reads in part that Herut was “a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.” For more on the letter see this Haaretz article:


    2. Reading Edward Chaplin’s thoughtful comment on ‘The World’s Most Dangerous Man?’, I found that I have a different perspective on several of the points he made.

      First, if one steps back from the immediate crisis and examines the conduct of the current Israeli government more generally – and in particular its attempts to politicise the judiciary – one should, in my view, have no difficulty seeing fascism at work (albeit that Mr Netanyahu himself may be more opportunistic and personally motivated than he is a fascist).

      I also think it questionable simply to label South Africa’s case to the ICJ as “highly political” (except insofar as such cases are, by their very nature, political). The ICJ’s (in my view) very balanced and clever ruling which effectively legitimises South Africa’s going to the court speaks for itself.

      I also think it questionable to dismiss the Huthi as “opportunistic”. As Arab Digest has made clear, the Huthi are deeply anti-semitic; while an element of opportunism is almost certainly in play (which Arab Digest has also conceded in noting that they are enjoying the international limelight) principle is too.

      As for the US/UK action, Mr Chaplin is certainly correct about international law. But when it comes to UK policy we should not ignore the dangerous nonsense which the US is peddling in the form of Washington’s denial of any link with Gaza. Lord Cameron is hardly using constructively whatever weight the ‘Global Britain’ does have by parroting the US’s stance.

Leave a Comment

Scroll to Top

Access provided by the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford

Copy link