Caveman mentality of Israel's ‘might is right'

Arab News

10-07-2025

https://arab.news/zem7v
You might think there was little to connect the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, the Glastonbury music festival and conflicting opinions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but I beg to differ. Permit me to elucidate.
In his 'allegory of the cave,' Plato invites us to consider the effects of education and of its absence. Prisoners in the cave are chained by their necks and ankles, unable to turn around, facing a rear wall. Behind them is another inner wall, the height of a person, and beyond that a fire. People walk in front of the inner wall holding up objects that the fire projects on to the rear wall as flickering shadows. To the prisoners, who can see nothing else, the perception of these shadows is their only reality.
I thought of the prisoners in the cave during the furor that erupted in the UK after a performance at Glastonbury by the little-known rap duo Bob Vylan (I know, I know, is nothing sacred?). During their show, the pair led the audience in a chant of 'Death, death, to the IDF.' The response at the festival was muted: no one much cared. But Glastonbury is the BBC's biggest single livestream event in the calendar and, outside in the wider country, the reaction bordered on hysterical.
There were immediate shrieks of 'disgraceful antisemitism,' the row dominated the media for more than a week and continues to rumble on, politicians of varying persuasions issued angry condemnations from the floor of the House of Commons, and Somerset police launched an investigation into a possible hate crime and incitement to violence: although, to be fair, in Somerset they have little else to do.
Israel is no longer the plucky underdog, if it ever was; rather, it has become the bully of the Middle East
Ross Anderson
It was all quite inexplicable. For a start, surely for violence to be incited there must be some remote possibility of it being carried out. Video footage of the concert shows no evidence of festival revelers packing their tents and going off in search of an Israeli soldier upon whom to inflict grievous bodily harm. Why would they? They had paid the best part of £400 ($545) for a ticket and they hadn't even seen Olivia Rodrigo yet.
Moreover, if anyone at the festival had indeed formulated such a plan, there would have been certain practical difficulties in the manner of its execution: not least, finding an Israeli soldier to attack in the wilds of rural southwest England. It's not as if you could pop into Tesco in Yeovil and find an off-duty squaddie working a shift in the bakery section.
No, if you want to find an Israeli soldier, there are only two places to look. One is Gaza, where they have been busy killing at least 60,000 Palestinians, mostly defenseless women and children. And the other is the West Bank, where their main job is providing protection for gangs of psychopathic Israeli settlers while they murder yet more innocent Palestinians. Such vile conduct is already sufficient 'incitement to violence' against the Israeli army, without the need for more in England.
Some of the outrage directed against the hapless rap duo was confected and performative, but some of it was undoubtedly genuine, reflecting a widely held view in the British establishment that may be summarized as: 'Israel, right or wrong, regardless of the facts and however appalling its behavior.' This view is also prevalent in the US, but at least there it is understandable.
Many Americans have an instinctive sympathy for a people trying to expand their national borders by stealing land to which they have no right and killing those who already live there, because that is pretty much how most of the US was created in the 19th century. 'Manifest destiny,' the pompous and arrogant phrase they deployed to justify that homicidal land grab, was first used by the polemicist and propagandist John O'Sullivan in a series of newspaper articles in 1845, in which he advocated US annexation of Texas and Oregon, regardless of the wishes of the people who lived there, 'for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.' And because America's right to the land was ordained by God: an argument with which many Palestinians will be depressingly familiar.
On this issue at least, many British politicians are out of touch with the people who elected them
Ross Anderson
In the UK, there is no such historical perspective. 'Might is right' was certainly a British foreign policy staple in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, but Britain lost its might when it lost its empire. Since then, it has displayed a national tendency to support the plucky underdog, but that does not explain the blinkered, kneejerk backing for everything Israel does, however indefensible. Perhaps it is rooted in 1948 and the myth of indefatigable young Israelis carving a new country from unforgiving desert. But Israel is no longer the plucky underdog, if it ever was; rather, it has become the bully of the Middle East, intimidating its neighbors and bombing those who fail to succumb.
Despite all this, it may be that there is a hint of change in the British air. I do not care to criticize my fellow journalists. It's a tough old business and I am of the old school, in which dog does not eat dog. Permit me, however, to make a brief exception. The UK media campaign of vituperation directed at Bob Vylan, and at the BBC for failing to censor them, was led by The Times — a once-great British newspaper institution now sadly reduced to a tawdry competition for readers with the right-wing populist Daily Mail.
For The Times, this was a win-win: an opportunity to offer unqualified support for the Israeli army's right to commit mass murder, while indulging in its favorite pastime of bashing the BBC. The newspaper is owned by the media magnate Rupert Murdoch, a former employer of mine and a man for whose backing of journalism in general and newspapers in particular I have the utmost respect, but who has never been an enthusiastic fan of publicly funded broadcasting.
The Times published an excoriating leading article in which it berated, in equal measure, Bob Vylan for their irresponsibility, the Glastonbury audience for its apparent complicity and the BBC for 'gross failure of management.' But here's the thing. The Times remains a successful newspaper and, as such, it employs senior editors with the ability to gauge what its readers want to read: any newspaper that fails to do that will swiftly be out of business.
I therefore expected its editorial to draw the support of its audience. Instead, both online and in the letters section in print, reader after reader piled in to tell the newspaper it had missed the point — which was neither a rap duo's disobliging comments about Israel, nor the BBC broadcasting them, but rather the genocide being perpetrated against the Palestinian people.
On this issue at least, The Times is out of touch with its readers, and many British politicians are out of touch with the people who elected them. As Plato predicted, the 'prisoners of perception' have emerged from their cave, blinking in the sunlight, and are recognizing reality when they see it.