Wearing Religion As A Shield
If I think of David Miliband (something I try to avoid), it is as a particularly unctuous little squirt who, despite
never having held a proper job in his life, has risen without trace to the high office of Foreign Secretary. Until
yesterday, however, I had never for a moment thought of him as Jewish.
It is not as if he goes round wearing a yarmulke. If I had given any thought to his character and antecedents, what attracted my attention was the fact that his father was a noted (by those whose inclination is to note such things) Marxist theoretician, whose passion for his ghastly hero was so great that he had himself interred close by Marx’s grave in Highgate Cemetery. It was a fact that was far more informative of his character than any notional attachment to a particular religion might be.
That both his parents were of Polish-Jewish extraction had entirely escaped me until The Foreign Secretary petulantly thrust the fact squarely into the public domain yesterday in an extraordinary exchange with Michael Connarty the Labour Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee.
For those of you already bridling at what you think is about to be an anti-semitic rant, it is not: read the piece carefully.
The nub of the exchange came at a time when the Foreign Secretary was being given an extremely rough time (justifiably) by Mr. Connarty and his colleagues over the worth of the so-called ‘Red Lines’, the chosen totems of the Prime Minister and Mr. Miliband with which they seek to persuade us that they are defending British Independence and our National Interest. Mr. Miliband was extolling at some lengths the virtues of these ‘Red Lines’ such that he was making it sound as though the UK had indeed been close to servitude but had been saved by the adept manoeuvring of himself and his boss.
“You have come back here with this great deal!”, said the Chairman. This time Miliband caught the tone. As he did so he realised just how badly this session was going.
Thus far he had managed to treat his inquisitors with lofty disdain, making it plain as a pikestaff that he was far brighter and more clued in than all of them put together on the virtues of the Constitution Mark II and that he regarded their attacks as a elephant might the buzzing of a particularly irritating tsetse fly: several times he waved a dismissive paw at some proposition put to him that he felt was well beneath his concern. His facial contortions at his interlocutors’ obvious stupidity will have made him few friends on that particular committee.
In reality he was making a complete fool of himself for he had utterly misjudged the committee’s mood and bearing, so
satisfied was he with his own great skills and superior intellect. He had not realised that the Chairman and his
committee wanted answers of substance not wave-offs.
Read full article HERE