Major new survery of British Jews shows overwhelming support for Israel, proves how isolated anti-Zionist Jews truly are
A major new survey by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research suggests that British Jews are overwhelmingly supportive of Israel, with a very large proportion indicating that Israel forms a significant component of their Jewish identity. The report simultaneously represents a devastating blow to anti-Zionist Jews who are given huge prominence in the British media — particularly in the BBC and the Guardian — in order to give the impression that significant sections of Britain’s Jewish community are as hostile to Israel as much of the non-Jewish population.
The survey was conducted among 4,081 respondents in January and February 2010. The following are selected results taken from the report.
** “For 82% of respondents, Israel plays a ‘central’ or ‘important but not central’
role in their Jewish identities”.
** “90% believe that Israel is the ‘ancestral homeland’ of the Jewish people”.
** “72% categorize themselves as Zionists; 21% do not see themselves as Zionists,
and 7% are unsure”.
** “An overwhelming majority (87%) agrees that Jews are responsible for
ensuring ‘the survival of Israel’— over half (54%) the non-Zionist respondents
also agree”.
Taken together, such figures are indeed devastating to the claims of anti-Zionist Jewish groups in Britain such as Independent Jewish Voices that they speak for significant sections of Britain’s Jewish community. Given the kind of attitudes represented above, they would be hard pressed to claim the support of more than 10-15 percent of British Jews. In other words, they are very much on the fringes of the Jewish community with the percentiles in which their opinions fall being roughly similar to those of people in wider British society who sympathise with the far left or the far right.
On policy issues in Israel, British Jewish opinion tends be slightly more dovish than Israeli opinion. Nonetheless, their views fall well within the Israeli mainstream. Here is a selection of other findings from the report:
** “Two-thirds (67%) favour giving up territory for peace with the Palestinians;
28% disagree”. Religious respondents are less likely than secular respondents to
agree”.
** “Almost three-quarters (74%) are opposed to the expansion of existing
settlements in the West Bank (Judea/Samaria). Even among those who define
themselves as Zionist, 70% are opposed”.
** “A large majority (78%) favours a two-state solution to the conflict with the
Palestinians; 15% are opposed, and 8% are undecided”.
** “Just over half (52%) think that Israel should negotiate with Hamas, while
39% do not”.
** “Half the sample (50%) agrees that ‘Israeli control of the West Bank (Judea/
Samaria) is vital for Israel’s security’, while a sizable minority (40%) disagrees.
** “There is still stronger support (72%) for the view that the security fence/
separation barrier is ‘vital for Israel’s security’”.
** “Most (72%) agree that the Gaza War was ‘a legitimate act of self-defence.’
Religious and Zionist respondents are considerably more likely to agree with
this than secular and non-Zionist respondents”.
** “Fully 87% of respondents agree that ‘Iran represents a threat to Israel’s
existence’”.
** “A large majority (80%) feels that ‘Democracy is alive and well’ in Israel.
** “By contrast, 67% agree that ‘there is too much corruption in Israel’s political
system.’ Only 13% disagree, while 20% are uncertain”.
** “About three-quarters (74%) think that ‘Orthodox Judaism has too much
influence in Israel’s society’. Close to half (45%) of ‘Religious’ respondents also
agree with this assertion”.
** “60% of respondents agree that Jewish minority groups in Israel, such as people
of Russian or Ethiopian origin, ‘suffer from discrimination’, and only 20%
disagree. Similarly, 56% agree that non-Jewish minority groups ‘suffer from
discrimination’ in Israel, while 27% disagree”.
** “Over three-quarters (76%) of the sample feel that Israel is relevant to their
day-to-day lives in Britain. Even so, 67% do not feel any conflict of loyalty
regarding Britain and Israel”.
** “Just over a quarter (26%) say that they ‘feel uncomfortable living in Britain
because of events in Israel’. Respondents living in parts of the country with
fewer Jews are the most likely to feel uncomfortable”.
** “A majority (60%) says that Israel is either not an issue or only one of several
issues that influences their voting behaviour. 36% say that Israel is either ‘the
central issue’ or a ‘high priority issue but not central’”.
** “Almost a quarter (23%) of the sample had witnessed some form of antisemitic
incident in the previous year. Of these, over half (56%) believe that the incident
was ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’ related to the abuser/assailant’s views on Israel.
** “More than one in ten respondents (11%) said they had been subjected to a
verbal antisemitic insult or attack in the 12 months leading up to the survey.
Over half of the victims (56%) believe that the incident was ‘probably’ or
‘definitely’ related to the abuser/assailant’s views on Israel”.
** “Over a third (35%) think that Jewish people should ‘always’ feel free to
criticize Israel in the British media; a further 38% say that there are some
circumstances when this would be justified. Only a quarter says this is ‘never’
justified”.
————————
Tags: Israel
July 16th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
‘72% categorize themselves as Zionists; 21% do not see themselves as Zionists, and 7% are unsure.’
Some interesting notes about this (”Zionists and non-Zionists - page 14/42):
‘What distinguishes “non-Zionists” from “Zionists” is not so much their view on the status of Israel as a Jewish national homeland, but their tendency to be far more critical of certain policy decisions made by Israel’s government. For example, “non-Zionists” are roughly a third as likely as “Zionists” to see the Gaza war as legitimate act of self-defence by Israel. Similarly, they are far less likely to see Israeli control of the West Bank as a vital security measure (27% versus 58%). Thus, it is apparent that many of those who define themselves as non-Zionist are using the term to mark their disagreement with contemporary Israeli government policy, rather than to signal a lack of support for the concept of Israel as an expression of Jewish nationhood.’
July 16th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
It is painfully obvious a sizeable minority of British Jews are on the lower spectrum of Jewish intelligence.
Only 90% believe Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. How dumb is that? Or they?
July 16th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
to wolf.t
when you have to justify to yourself why you are still living in a more and more anti-jewish country,you can convince yourself of anything.
July 16th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
“to wolf.t
when you have to justify to yourself why you are still living in a more and more anti-jewish country,you can convince yourself of anything.”
This short two-liner deserves the Academy Award! And don’t think at all that I’m sarcastic. Yaakov’s comment partly encapsulates the problem. The 10 per cent, or the majority of this 10%, of course do know what the truth is, the minority of them are of the fringe lunatic Jewish anti-Semitic variety.
July 16th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
“Independent Jewish Voices” is a despicable and suspect fringe group. The only things they are independent of are common sense, Zionism, fair evaluation of Israel in the fface of their gentile anti-Semitic counterparts. These are the things the “Independents” are really independent from. And even perhaps anti-anti-Semitism, too.
July 16th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
Hello, Robin. Just a note from an avid reader to thank you for your support of israel and Jews worldwide. As a Jew, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your support. In a world where there is so much vicious, irrational hatred against Israel and Jews, the support of non-Jews like you helps me get through my day.
Sincerely,
Peter
July 17th, 2010 at 9:08 am
Mainstream anti-Semitism is now just so much more mainstream. A non-Jewish friend was at a non-Jewish function the other night. The ‘turn’, a well-known comedian, told a virulently anti-Semitic ‘joke’, Disgusted with him, she upbraided him after he had finished, telling him in no uncertain terms how she felt about ‘jokes’ of this kind. He was, she says, shocked at being criticised.
July 17th, 2010 at 10:49 am
‘ “Independent Jewish Voices” is a despicable and suspect fringe group.’
No surprise then to see that Jon Snow is an avid supporter:
“Civil rights in Israel - the crisis, the way forward?”
Independent Jewish Voices Meeting, 5th July 2010
Chair - Jon Snow.
http://www.ijv.org.uk/
————
A little about Jon Snow
Jon Snow’s Explosive C4 Attack on Israel
“Rockets – pretty pathetic things, nobody gets injured,”
http://www.honestreporting.co.uk/articles/critiques/Jon_Snows_Explosive_C4_Attack_on_Israel.asp
Snow must have been talking about Dr. Mirella Sidrer
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3742111,00.html
To watch the Snow interview, please go to this link:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/188108/jon_snow_interviews_the_israeli_ambassador/
Liar and charlatan - Zac Goldsmith had it just about right.
July 17th, 2010 at 11:13 am
“Only 90% believe Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. How dumb is that? Or they?”
I’m not so sure about that. Mark Steyn, one of the world’s most eloquent supporters of the Jewish state, has said on more than one occasion that he doesn’t care about that issue. He doesn’t believe that nations exist because they are right or wrong, good or bad, but because they are stronger than their enemies. As regards that point, I tend to agree. A JC columnist has argued on her blog that the Jews deserved to be sent into exile because they had behaved badly, and furthermore some prophet or other had confirmed that this was also God’s view. Nah. Jews were exiled because they lost and the Romans won. It’s that simple. Similarly, Israel exists not because God is supposed to have made us a promise or the United Nations passed a resolution but because we defeated the Arabs.
If we were to try and ascertain who really has a right to possess a certain land and then do something about putting the world’s affairs in order, we would be in a hell of a mess. For a start, we’d probably have to dismantle the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand and all of Latin America. And who are the Arabs but mere invaders? Then we’d have to deal with the infinite complexities of Europe. Who does Poland really belong to? Can Britain reclaim Normandy? Do the Basque, Galician and Catalan separatists have a justifiable claim? Should Corsica be given independence?
July 18th, 2010 at 12:28 am
I’ve noticed an interesting contradiction and one strange outcome in the responses to the survey :
Firstly, “half the sample (50%) agrees that ‘Israeli control of the West Bank is vital for Israel’s security’, while a sizable minority (40%) disagrees.”
And then, two-thirds (67%) favour Israel giving up territory “in exchange for guarantees of peace with the Palestinians.” ; 28% disagree.
The territory that will have to be given up is going to be the bulk of the West Bank. We all know that. So a segment of respondents think that it’s vital for Israel’s security, but are prepared to give it up in exchange for peace. Can’t be all that vital then.
Alternatively, the vague use of the term “territory” has produced the contradiction. Maybe people had in mind Israel returning a few remote villages in northern Samaria.
The “guarantees of peace” element is also vague. Who provides them ? The Palestinians, the wider Arab world, the United States ? Might be important.
The item that surprised me was that “just over half (52%) think that Israel should negotiate with Hamas, while 39% do not.” It’s important to point out that the statement was phrased, “The government of Israel should negotiate with Hamas in its efforts to achieve peace.”
The emphasis on the virtuous aspiration of “efforts to achieve peace” has produced a skewed answer. The statement could have been phrased differently to produce a very different outcome, for example, “Israel should negotiate with Hamas, even though the Hamas Charter calls for Israel’s destruction and is overtly anti-semitic”. Hmm, maybe not then.
July 19th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
A very damaging report. Reinforces the canard
of dual loyalties. No wonder Jews are so poorly
represented in national institutions like GCHQ.
July 19th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Please check out this article, cause you ALL may have not seen such in your life!
A one of the Britain’s mainstream newspaper (albeit one with the smallest circulation) writes this trash. In a modern democracy if such racism is fit to be printed then it’s not a stretch to claim that Britain is not just increasingly losing its remaining sanity, but is rapidly sinking into the total moral degeneration and fascistoid abyss. Deeds are now not far away from words.
I wonder if Italy’s left-wing “La Repubblica” or France’s Le Monde (or even the far-left Liberation) would use such a language.
Britain is slowly but surely inching forward to being a FASCIST country, imho. And I’m not joking.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-theyre-all-grovelling-and-you-can-guess-the-reason-2028720.html
This is the language, complete with little sinister insinuations galore, used by fringe Hungarian, Polish, Russian and Ukranian neo-Nazis. A newspaper that is printing such anti-Semitic racist drivel is not too far from total perversion.
Surely, something should be done. Or if I were British, I’d do…
Very sorry.
Robin Shepherd says: Thanks for pointing this out Gabor. I have been travelling and missed it. Truly obscene stuff…
July 19th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Either on screen/thread or outside of it depending on Robin’s choice:
Couldn’t you Robin Shepherd (or someone who is erudite and skilled in the world of words) please send them a reader’s letter in reaction, at least? I am dead serious. I think they could easily throw away a small “grey ” citizen’s complaint, but maybe not of a respected journalist’s. Perhaps-perhaps. (But if I thibk about that the Independent intentionally refused to publish Prof. Benny Morris’ letter in reaction to Johan Harri’s piece 1-2 years ago, I am not that optimistic.)
- Yours Truely,
F.G.
July 20th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Unsurprisingly, the Guardian’s Anthony Lerman said that the results of this survey showed British Jews becoming increasingly critical of Israel.
His article, a masterpiece of spin, obfuscation and selective quoting, is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/16/survey-jews-britain-israel-attitude
July 21st, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Thanks indeed Gabor for the pointer to that immensely revealing article by Fisk. I suspect Fisk has always been that way, but the one difference now is the extent to which he feels free to put his hatred on display. He really spells it out. The guy hates all Israel-supporting Jews, ie. the vast majority, and he’s happy that everyone knows. Soon someone like him will be proclaiming it on billboards. Racial hatred ? Can’t possibly be. It’s only against “Israel-supporting” Jews.
It’s good news that people like Fisk and Oborn are abandoning all pretence and the anti-semitism that forms part of their worldview is now glaringly apparent. I previously doubted whether anti-semitism was a factor, but I appear to have been wrong. It doesn’t matter whether someone identifies themselves with the right, the left or the centre. Generic dislike of Jews is anti-semitism.
As is only to be expected, he does append the tiniest, weeniest of fig leaves in the incongruous statement that “the only good guys in this story are the courageous Jewish Americans who oppose the thieves in Netanyahu’s government”. Calling them ‘courageous American Jews’ would clearly stick in his craw. Note how by calling Netanyahu’s government ‘thieves’, he uses the terminology of radical Arabs who childishly name-call the Israelis as ‘criminal, Zionist aggressors’. He doesn’t discriminate between Likud and Labour in that name-calling.
Fisk is an extreme example of the intellectual sickness described in “A State Beyond the Pale. His hatred of Israel and its supporters, the scale of historical and factual distortion he employs and his utter self-righteousness, put him beyond the pale as far as I’m concerned. This is someone who would feel comfortable drinking tea with Nasrallah, Mashaal or Haniyeh, but would choke on his biscuits sitting with Netanyahu or Barak.
We’re facing a problem of language here. Old terms no longer suffice. In Western societies, the old political spectrum stretching from socialist left to fascist right belongs to the last century and is now too outdated. Real socialists and fascists are now just nutters on the fringe. Likewise the scale stretching from libertarianism to total state control is largely irrelevant. Only a handful of bods call themselves ‘anarchists’ and monolithic state control has been discredited by history. And yet to me, Fisk is clearly at the far end of a spectrum which is difficult to describe using existing language. So what is he ?
Let’s assume that Israel did not exist. What conflict or perceived injustice in the world would then become the obsessive focus of people like Fisk ? The suffering of the Pashtuns under US and allied bombardment in Afghanistan ? Doubt it. Too remote, too dangerous. The suffering in various parts of Africa ? Not really, they don’t make much fuss at the moment, so why should that change. Again it’s remote and tribal. Ditto the oppression of the Kurds, who’ve never been a fashionable cause. Oppression by Iran, Syria and Iraq just doesn’t register with people like Fisk. The scale of these issues is every bit as important as the Israel / Palestinian conflict, if not more so.
This angle of analysis leads me to conclude that Fisk’s obsessive anti-Israel hatred can only be anti-semitism in modern packaging and indeed, this latest article makes it abundantly clear. For want of a better word, he and Peter Oborn are neo-fascists.
They won’t think of themselves as such, because people with distorted, dangerous ideologies and prejudices never ascribe pejorative terms to themselves. Words only acquire pejorative connotations over time. Germans and Italians in the 1930s will have happily described themselves as Nazis and Fascists respectively. Fisk takes pride in being an anti-Zionist. Hopefully that term will acquire a thick covering of muck as time moves on.
Another angle is to look at the defective logic employed by Fisk in his analysis of history and events. Fisk makes no serious attempt to understand the historical circumstances that have led to Israel being the type of society that it is with the cultural, political and attitudinal characteristics that it has. People like him will dismiss or disregard the centuries of oppression in Europe and Muslim lands. They will dismiss the profound imprint left by the Holocaust. They will dismiss or rationalise away the Arab and Palestinian rejectionism that led to the wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973. For Fisk, Israel is ‘colonialist’, end of story. Its citizens were born in sin and should therefore pay the price.
But the United States, Canada, Australia and the countries of South America are amongst many countries that have arisen as a result of colonialism. These countries do not cause the likes of Fisk any particular qualms. At least the people of Israel have a longstanding historical connection to the Land of Israel / Palestine going back over two thousand years. Unlike the other colonial nations, the Jews have re-colonised their ancient homeland. And they did it in circumstances when they had little choice in the matter, given the pogroms, discrimination and eventual mass slaughter in Europe. So Fisk’s depiction of Israel as an artificial colonialist implant on ‘Arab land’ is highly faulty. And his accompanying hatred brings me back to the only immediate explanation, which is anti-semitism.
A third angle is to ask how would someone like Fisk behave if Israel were somehow able to withdraw from the West Bank and a Palestinian state were established. Would the hatred stop ? This would depend largely on who’s in charge of that state. If due to corruption and the lack of a new generation of leaders, Fatah were displaced by Hamas, then there would be a real problem. Any peace agreement will stipulate that the future West Bank state be demilitarised. The Jordanians would insist on that just as much as the Israelis. Assuming that it remains an Iranian client, Hamas would inevitably try to break that part of the agreement. Any security actions taken by Israel to enforce it would be jumped on by the likes of Fisk. Any Israeli responses to sporadic acts of terror from Palestinian factions would also be jumped on.
So although I believe the hatred would be considerably dampened, I think the bias and the bigotry would still lurk in the background. Even more so if the Israeli economy continues to flourish. The obsessive focus would probably turn towards the situation of Israel’s Arabs. I just can’t imagine the Independent going a fortnight without a massive front-page splash condemning the iniquities of Israel. It would have lost its raison d’être as a newspaper.
Anyway, back to my search for new terminology. In addition to the anti-semitism, there is a wider philosophical base which underpins Fisk’s rationalising and effectively justifying the 9/11 terror attacks. It would also account for his vituperative opposition to the wars against Saddam Hussein, Al-Qaida and the Taliban, although I’m sure he would blame ‘neo-cons’ and American Jews for those wars. It has to be an ‘–ism’ to register with journalists, academics and politicos. (As an aside, I enjoyed the way Fisk stupidly invented the word ‘Likudist’ in his article. Hasn’t he heard the term ‘Likudnik’ ? Plonker.)
How about ‘inversionist’ ? Someone who inverts facts and morality to come out with a philosophy in which backwardness and stupidity is praised, whereas modernity, democracy and liberalism are condemned. Further suggestions gratefully received.
July 22nd, 2010 at 2:24 pm
“…in order to give the impression that significant sections of Britain’s Jewish community are as hostile to Israel as much of the non-Jewish population.”
Is there any survey evidence that proves the statement that the non-Jewish population is hostile to Israel? I don’t remember anyone asking me!
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Off-topic, but it seems today Britain is to change the absurd Universal Jurisdiction law, under which anti-Zionist lawyer Daniel Machover prevented former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni from entering Britain with a magistrates court order.
Could this be just in time to avert further similar embarassment for Britain prior to the Pope’s visit, as Robin has previously discussed?
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:26 am
“Britain is slowly but surely inching forward to being a FASCIST country, imho. And I’m not joking.”
You may well not be joking but I can assure you that you are completely wrong. Not only is this a misuse of the term, I can assure you that in terms of anti-Zionism/anti-Semitism Britain might not be a lot better than anywhere else in Europe but it is certainly no worse. As a Jew, I have certainly not felt real fear in Britain. I certainly cannot say the same about countries like Hungary, Poland and Lithuania. The results of a recent ADL poll on anti-Semitism in Europe certainly do not provide any comfort on this score (see link below).
Oh, and if you care to use Google, you’ll find articles much worse than Fisk’s from all over Europe over the last decade. In actual fact, quite possibly the most anti-Semitic article I have read this year at a mainstream news site was today at Israel’s Ynet:
The tragedy of arrogance
[Extracts]
1) ‘Arrogance is “built into” the people of Israel from its very inception. We are the chosen people. The whole world is against us. God is on our side. God willing. We forget how briefly we enjoyed independence throughout our history, despite our national arrogance and God’s support.
The Biblical arrogance gained momentum with the State of Israel’s inception, which gave rise to nationalism and turned security into a supreme value. Our Air Force is the best. The IDF is the world’s most moral army.’
2) ‘The religious and ethnic arrogance we see in Emmanuel and in Lithuanian yeshivas stems from the same source: Our arrogance towards the Arabs, and towards the gentiles in general. This arrogance threatens our existence to the same extent. It breeds wars, which are the gravest human tragedies: At times we see them in Lebanon or Gaza, and at times they take place in Emmanuel or Beit Shemesh.’
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3924014,00.html
If you wish to complain about the Ynet article these are the relevant e-mail addresses:
Ynetnews Editorial Department: news@ynetnews.com
Editor-in-chief, Ynet: editor-in-chief@y-i.co.il
http://my.ynet.co.il/englishynet2/
Source:
1) ADL - Attitude Toward Jews in Seven European Countries
http://www.adl.org/Public%20ADL%20Anti-Semitism%20Presentation%20February%202009%20_3_.pdf
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:37 am
‘This angle of analysis leads me to conclude that Fisk’s obsessive anti-Israel hatred can only be anti-semitism in modern packaging’
Some years ago, when Fisk was threatening to sue a number of people over this charge of anti-Semitism, he claimed that he couldn’t possibly be anti-Semitic because his mother helped man an anti-aircraft gun during World War II. Go figure.
July 23rd, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Hello from sunny California. It is great to hear a scarce friendly voice (Robin’s) in the disappearing Western European cultures. And it is great to see that so many UK Jews manage to keep themselves sane.
July 28th, 2010 at 4:47 am
This survey represents just over 1.3%(4000) of the Jewish Population of the UK (300,0000..
Hardly representative.
Re ‘Jewish Homeland’ See The Bible Unearthed, (Silberman and Finklestein) and The Invention of the Jewish People (Zands)
joshua..
You epitomise the problem..
You really believe that nothing you and yours do can ever be wrong..
Logically, factually and actually that is ridiculously position.
Even an Israeli newspaper can’t cricise what jews do… Jeez!!!
How will you ever learn to be real people?
Robin Shepherd says: Your comments on the Taliban made no sense at all — at least not to me. But this is just stupidity, and smacks of desperation. A professional poll conducted by trained academics of more than 4,000 people is going to be very accurate indeed. Most opinion polls — usually of 500-1,000 — have a margin of error but in this case it’s going to be very small. These results may be very disconserting to you, but you’ll just have to deal with it. The truth hurts.
July 28th, 2010 at 9:00 am
Reading the Methodology there is enourmous room for sample error.
But thats OK..
Taliban??
Robin Shepherd says: You’re clutching at straws, and I suspect you know it. This report marks the end of any claim to credibility among anti-Zionist Jews. It proves they are eccentrics on the far fringes. And as to your other comment on the Taliban, it just didn’t make sense so I simply can’t respond…
July 28th, 2010 at 11:33 am
I simply disagree with your conclusions..
Anybody will tell you the limits to any survey.
1.3% (4000) can not reliably be extended to 100% (300000) . Only further surveys can confirm that..
You do not understand my other comment re ‘Taliban hiding amongst the population’ and you are from a think tank..?? Really.
Robin Shepherd says: Yes, really. It makes no sense to me. On the other note, I repeat that you’re clutching at straws, very thin ones indeed. Opinion polls in the UK for example are usually conducted among 1,000 people or less. The UK population is 60 million. They’re usually correct to within plus or minus 3 percent.
4,000 out of a Jewish population of 270,000 or so is a massive sample, about 1.5 percent of the Jewish population. It would be like a UK-wide opinion poll with 900,000 respondents (1.5 percent of the UK population), which I think would be a record. You’ll just have to accept that the game’s up, I’m afraid…