Quantcast
Channel: Tony Greenstein's Blog
Viewing all 2429 articles
Browse latest View live

Defend Academic Freedom – Defend David Miller – Defend the right to speak out on PALESTINE and ISRAEL

$
0
0

What was David’s crime? Calling for an End to Zionism an Ideology of Racial Supremacy & Apartheid

Register here

https://tinyurl.com/5y7bsbx9

The Union of Jewish Students, in conjunction with the far-Right Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, has been running a campaign targeting anti-Zionist academics at a number of universities. To date we know of academics under threat at Bristol, Sussex, Edinburgh, Leeds and Warwick Universities. There may be more.

At Bristol University in February 2017, the CAA waged a similar campaign, this time against Rachel Gould, who is Jewish herself, because of an article she had written in 2011 'Beyond Antisemitism'. The article dealt with how the memory of the Holocaust is used to deflect support for the Palestinians and how groups like the CAA are very much adept at doing just this.

The misnamed Campaign Against Antisemitsm launched a similar campaign to that against David Miller against Rachel Gould

Once again there was a similar hue and cry. Gould argued that it was time to "stop privileging the Holocaust", arguing that the memory of the Nazi genocide was susceptible to "manipulation"by politicians.

Immediately Sir Eric Pickles, as he was then, (later Lord Pickles, President of Conservative Friends of Israel) claimed that Rachel Gould's article was "one of the worst cases of Holocaust denial". Michael Ribbeck in the Bristol Post described this as

'quite frankly ridiculous and inflammatory. Perhaps Sir Eric should read up on the discredited historian David Irving before he starts throwing around accusations and trite soundbites.'

Soon after Rachel Gould left Bristol for Birmingham University. 

David Miller may have been singled out in publicity but this has been a nationwide campaign. To their shame, the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs have been conspicuous by their silence, Corbyn included. Some traitorous Labour MPs like Andrew Gwynne have added their signatories alongside a roll call of racist Tories and Ulster Unionists.

Even more shameful Caroline Lucas, the sole Green MP, who has previously called herself an anti-racist, signedan Open Letter calling on the Vice-Chancellor of Bristol University, Professor Hugh Brady, to dismiss David Miller at the behest of Israel’s Apartheid Lobby.

Although the letter to Brady says ‘You must act now before any further damage is done’ there is no doubt as to the meaning. If Lucas did have any doubt then a meeting of the Education Select Committee should have cleared away the cobwebs in her brain. The Guardian reportedthat

Jonathan Gullis, MP for Stoke-on-Trent North, asked the government to impose tougher sanctions on universities which do not address accusations of antisemitism. He cited as a further example the investigation into Goldie Osuri at Warwick University, whose speculation on Israel’s role in spreading accusations of antisemitism against the Labour party was cleared on grounds she was exercising her right to free speech.

“We need to start sacking people … until we start bringing that kind of scrutiny and action into our university sector,...  these incidents will keep happening,” Gullis said.

These are the kinds of people Caroline Lucas now holds hands with and whom the Campaign Group -  McDonnell et al, refuse to criticise.

Ray Honeyford - the racist Bradford Headteacher who 'Fat Lump' Pickles and the BNP Supported (the description comes from Alan Duncan's recent book!) 

Caroline Lucas had no problem signing the letter with the racist homophobe, Ian Paisley, the virulently Islamaphobic Bob Blackman and the anti-Roma Lord Eric Pickles, who once gave support to the BNP campaign in Bradford in support of racist headmaster Ray Honeyford. Honeyford had penned an articlein the Salisbury Review, a publication bridging the gap between the Tory Right and fascist groups. A sample of Honeyford’s article was this description of Black people:

Cultural enrichment’ is the approved term for the West Indian’s right to create an ear splitting cacophony for most of the night to the detriment of his neighbour’s sanity, or for the Notting Hill Festival whose success or failure is judged by the level of street crime which accompanies it.

Pickles went to the ends of the Earth as Council leader to defend Honeyford’s right to insult Black and Asian parents but he sees no inconsistency in supporting a BNP campaign in Bradford and leading the attack on David Miller for calling for an end to Zionism and stating that Israel and the Union of Jewish Students are using Jewish students as pawns, which they are.

There is a simple reason why the Israeli Embassy funded UJS resents a call for the end of Zionism and that is because UJS, like the JLM which controls UJS, are affiliated to the World Zionist Organisation. The WZO in the words of Ha'aretz has a Land Theft Division. It funds the settlement movement.

UJS is controlled by the JLM. Ella Rose, a past President of UJS was the first Director of the JLM. Luciana Berger was another past President.

The Jewish Labour Movement describes the racist Israeli Labor Party as its 'sister' party

The JLM on its website describethe Israeli Labor Party as its ‘sister party’. The ILP has just gone into coalition with 3 far-Right Zionist parties – Yamina, whose leader Naftali Bennett will be Israel’s new Prime Minister, New Hope led by Gideon Saar, a former Likud Interior Minister who led the campaign to deport Israel’s 40,000 Black refugees and Avigdor Lieberman of Yisrael Beteinu, the new Finance Minister.

Lieberman is a true thug. He was convictedof assaulting a child in the settlement he lives in. He has also called for the drowningof Palestinian prisoners in the Dead Sea.

However he also made another statement, which is in line with a consensus in the Zionist movement stretching from left to to right.  

“The vision I would like to see here is the entrenching of the Jewish and the Zionist state…I very much favour democracy, but when there is a contradiction between democratic and Jewish values, the Jewish and Zionist values are more important.” (Scotsman, October 23, 2006)

This consensus includes the Jewish National Fund which, in response to a High Court ruling in Kadan that it could not refuse to sell or lease land to a non-Jew respondedthat:

A survey commissioned by KKL-JNF reveals that over 70% of the Jewish population in Israel opposes allocating KKL-JNF land to non-Jews, while over 80% prefer the definition of Israel as a Jewish state, rather than as the state of all its citizens.'

In 2018 this was put into practice with the Jewish Nation State Law, which Netanyahu explicitly statedmeans that Israel is a state of its Jewish not all of its citizens.

It is Zionist ideology which believes that Israel should be a state of its Jewish rather than all its citizens. It is the ideology of Apartheid. It is the racist ideology that hypocrites like Caroline Lucas, Neil Kinnock, and the Labour and Tory Right support. And of course which the Union of Jewish Students and the JLM support.

David Miller is being attacked, not for anti-Semitism as his critics would have it but for anti-racism and that is why it is incumbent upon everyone to defend him.  I look forward to seeing you tomorrow at the meeting.

Tony Greenstein

Facebook event here: https://bit.ly/3ceU3ep

Speakers include:

- Norman Finkelstein, author, ‘The Holocaust Industry’ 

- Salma Yaqoob, anti-war activist

- Dr. Deepa Driver, union activist and academic

- Moshe Machover, author, expert on Middle East

- Saladin Meckled-Garcia, UCU UCL vice president

- Ilan Pappe, Israeli socialist, University of Exeter 

- Tom Hickey, a leading member of BRICUP 

- Tony Greenstein, blogger, expert on Middle East


Meet Nicola Doward - the Thief who is also Head Teacher at Stretford High School

$
0
0

 Money intended for the victims of Israel’s merciless bombing of Gaza is being stolen and given to Israel’s racist Magen David Adom

The students of Stretford High School decided that they would get together to raise funds for the Palestinian victims of Israel’s genocidal bombing of Gaza. The Head Teacher, Nicola Doward decided otherwise. The funds would be split between those who murdered and those who were killed.

Nicola Doward - Headteacher at Stretford High

Let us recall what started the attack on Gaza. It began in Sheikh Jarrar in East Jerusalem. Palestinian refugees who have lived there since 1948, for 73 years, found that they were subject to legal proceedings under the Legal and Administrative Matters Law 1970 to evict them because the properties were originally owned by Jews who fled to Israel when Jerusalem was partitioned.

This is part of the Master Plan to ‘Judaise’ Jerusalem and ensure it has a large Jewish majority. See Systematic dispossession of Palestinian neighborhoods in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan by Israel’s Peace Now.

However the 45,000 Palestinians who fled West Jerusalem cannot evict the Jews who took over their homes. Why? Because Israel is a Jewish state and it is also why it is a racist state.

Israeli Police have since been laying siege to Sheik Jarrar and acting with vicious brutality. On Saturday the veteran Al Jazeera reporter, Givara Budeiri, was arrestedfor the crime of reporting. During her arrest she was kicked and beaten and suffered a broken arm.

Stretford High School

There was the attackon worshippers at Al Aqsa mosque. There was no equivalent invasion of a Jewish synagogue by Palestinian protestors. This was totally one sided and relates to the continuous attempts by Jewish settlers to encroach on Al Aqsa Mosque. Their desire is to demolishthe mosque and build a Third Temple on the site.

Imagine if Iranian police, firing stun grenades and sponge-tipped bullets, which have taken the eyes of 3 Palestinians out, were to invade a Jewish synagogue in Tehran. The cries of ‘anti-Semitism’ would resound far and wide. Yet the White House, Keir Starmer et al said nothing.

This is the background to the firing of rockets from Gaza, though most of them are just fire crackers. Just 12 Israelis died, of whom 2 were Israeli Arabs and two Thai workers. Jews have air raid shelters in Israel unlike non-Jews. At least 265 Palestinians were murdered by ‘precision’ bombings, including 67 children. 22 Palestinians were murderedin the West Bank where there has been a reign of terror.

This is the background to Doward’s decision to steal money collected for the Palestinians. Doward has explainedher actions on Facebook and on the school’s website. She says it is untrue:

i.              That I have donated money raised by the school to 2 charities: 'one supporting Palestine, the other supporting Israel'…. We are donating the money to ONE charity: Red Cross Occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel Crisis Appeal.’

This is dishonest. The Red Cross itself says that it is

supporting the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross and our partner organisations the Palestine Red Crescent, and Magen David Adom in Israel.’

In other words it is going to support both the Palestinians and their killers. Israel does not need assistance. None of its hospitals were bombed. Israeli bombing deliberately targeted Palestinian hospitals, schoolsand clinics in Gaza. This included Gaza’s only COVID testing clinic. The one hospital they did not bomb Al Shifa had the roads to it destroyed preventing ambulances reaching it. Israel took care to kill as many doctors as possible. Dr Ayman Abu al-Auf, Shifa head of internal medicine and head of its coronavirus response.

ii.           Nicola Doward says that ‘people who want to sow seeds of hate will not deter us.’ The only hateful person is Ms Doward. The Israeli charity Magen David Adom, the Israeli Red Cross, is a thoroughly racist organisation. It has a history, when attending to the shooting of Palestinian ‘terrorists’ i.e. civilians who resist the occupation of only attending to the Israeli wounded not Palestinians. This includes Palestinian children.

Amazingly in 2012 MDA set up a religious ethics committee headed by Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, Chief Rabbi of Safed. Eliyahu is a vicious racist who in 2010 issued an edict forbidding Jews in Safed to rent homes to Arabs. Even worse he statedthat MDA must refuse to treat wounded ‘terrorists’ (for which read Palestinians) and if necessary should poison their food in prison. Rabbi Eliyahu also advocated the hangingof Palestinian children yet MDA saw fit to appoint him nonetheless.

iii.        Jonathan Cook, a former Guardian Reporter and winner of the Martha Gelhorn award, reportedthat:

There is mounting evidence that Israeli ambulance crews are withholding treatment from Palestinians injured during a wave of attacks over the past six months, according to rights groups.

Physicians for Human Rights in Israel, a medical watchdog group, found that wounded Palestinians had been left untreated for as long as two hours.

In some cases, medical teams are suspected of failing to tend to the injuries of suspected attackers as revenge, in the expectation that they will die from their wounds….

Physicians for Human Rights (an Israeli body) accused Israel’s leading medical bodies – the Israeli Medical Association, which lays down ethical codes, and Magen David Adom, which supervises ambulance services – of ignoring the evidence it has collected of such abuses.

Ha'aretz, a liberal Israeli paper askedWhy Wasn't the Hurt Palestinian Assailant Treated?it went on to say that

Footage of terror attacks show Israeli medical staff standing by as Palestinian assailants lie wounded on the ground; the incidents put the national rescue service, which officially isn't meant to operate in the territories, in an embarrassing position.’ As one Israeli medic said on Twitter

“To all who ask, when I got to the scene today in Jaffa Gate, I helped the wounded [Israelis], but not the hateful terrorist, although he suffered more critical wounds.”

All Palestinians who resist the occupation are routinely called ‘terrorists’.

Dr. Tslil Regev writingin Israel’s +972 Magazine described how:

The video clip released Thursday of an Israeli soldier shooting in the head an incapacitated Palestinian man, who had stabbed and wounded a separate soldier, doesn’t leave much room for speculation. Maybe it’s because I’m a doctor, but when I watched the video I couldn’t take my eyes off the Magen David Adom (MDA) medical team at the scene — treating the wounded soldier, completely ignoring the man lying wounded on the street, evacuating the soldier in an ambulance, and then boom. A murder.

Doward’s statementwent on to say that:

The appeal will help provide medical and humanitarian assistance in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank including East Jerusalem, supporting the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross and our partner organisations the Palestine Red Crescent, and Magen David Adom in Israel.

Ms Doward equates the Israeli superpower with its victims who have been under occupation for over 70 years (including Israeli Palestinians). Doward goes on to say that the ‘Red Cross is a 'neutral, impartial, independent humanitarian Movement' who 'respond when people need us, no matter who or where they are.’

This is nonsense. The Red Cross was set up to provide help for imprisoned soldiers, not civilians. It refuses to condemn the racism of MDA and Israeli soldiers who, according to Medical Aid for Palestine deliberately delay Palestinian ambulances at check points.

The Red Cross never reveals information about human rights abuses which is why the Americans uniquely allowed them access to Guantanamo on condition they remain silent. The Red Cross is trusted by the most brutal regimes for this reason.

Ms Doward is guilty of ‘bothsidism’. Treating the oppressed and oppressor as equals. As Paulo Freire, the famous Brazilian educator and philosopher wrote:

‘Washing one’s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.”

Desmond Tutu, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, Archbishop of Johannesburg and hero of the anti-apartheid wrote:

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor”

That is precisely what Doward has done. She has chosen the side of the oppressed, donating money to a racist Israeli organisation which, unlike the Palestinian Red Crescent, is overburdened with money.

Elie Wiesel, an Auschwitz survivor in his speechaccepting the Nobel Peace Prize conveyed the same message:

“We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented”

And if Doward is hard of hearing perhaps the wordsof Martin Luther King Jr. will resonate:

“The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict…[an individual] who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it” –

In her smug and self-righteous statement Doward said that ‘people who want to sow seeds of hate will not deter us.’ In subverting the desire of her students to help the Palestinians, who are the real victims in favour of a bogus neutrality, it is she who is guilty of hatred. Her liberal piety is neutrality in the face of injustice. Doward has projected her own hate onto others.

For more about how Palestinians in Israel are subject to lynchings and racist attacks as the Police look on see Zion Square assault

Doward’s students may be younger than her but they are wiser.

The International Committee of the Red Cross

As someone who is Jewish I have never given a penny to the Red Cross and never will.  Why? Because during the Holocaust it refused to give any aid or comfort to the victims of the Nazis until the very end, in Hungary in late 1944. Indeed it was worse than that. It conducted visits to the Thereisenstadt and Auschwitz concentration camps and then gave them a clean bill of health.

The ICRC refused to provide any protection for Jews since they accepted the Nazi designation of them as stateless criminals.[i]According to its President Max Huber they could not be seen to be ‘intruding into the domestic policy’ of the Nazis. 

There were discussions throughout August 1942 about the murder of Jewish civilians yet at the ICRC executive of 14th October 1942 the pro-Nazi former foreign minister of Switzerland, Philip Etter, ‘opposed even the anodyne Huber draft’ calling for the humane treatment of civilians, not even Jews, arguing that it could be interpreted as a violation of neutrality.’ Etter’s view prevailed.[ii]The Dutch Red Cross made no effort to communicate with deported Jews although they did send an ambulance to the Eastern front ‘to comfort the Dutch Waffen-SS volunteers.’ [iii]

The ICRC attitude changed only at the very end of the war. Louis de Jong condemned the IHRC for its ‘almost total lack of concern for the Jews’ disasters.’[iv]

As the US Holocaust Museum detailsthe ICRC allowed itself to be taken in by ‘beautification’ of Thereisenstadt. Just before their visit most inmates were deported to Auschwitz and after the visit more were deported. The ICRC made no attempt to document the names of the inmates or to ensure that those they spoke to were protected.

As Samuel Moyne wrotein the Wall Street Journal Carl Jacob Burckhardt, the effective head of the ICRC,

harbored a traditional anti-Semitism and such hatred of communism that he regarded German Nazism as a bulwark of civilization and a necessary evil. As early as April 1933, the ICRC was receiving desperate letters from inmates of German concentration camps, including one from Dachau pleading: “‘I beg you again in the name of the prisoners—Help! Help!’” Yet ... during this period Burckhardt was given an inspection tour “and officially lauded the commandant of Dachau for his discipline and decency.”

It wasn’t just willfully repeating the Germans’ propaganda that stained the ICRC. Nor was it only the fact that, knowing the Nazis had confirmed their policy of mass extermination of the Jews at the 1942 Wannsee Conference, the ICRC did nothing to intervene. What was more difficult to defend was Burckhardt’s sympathies with and efforts on behalf of Nazi actors after Germany’s defeat. He opposed the Nuremberg trials, labeling them “Jewish revenge.” ... After the Holocaust, the ICRC—by then helmed by Burckhardt—even abetted the flight of Nazis such as Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele by providing them with travel papers.

See  How the Red Cross Failed Europe's Jews & American POW's

This is the organisation that Nicola Doward has entrusted with money meant for the Palestinians

Tony Greenstein


[i]           Arthur Morse, p. 38, While 6 Million Died, Secker Warburg, London 1968

[ii]          Lacquer, The Terrible Secret,  pp. 62-3.

[iii]          Henry Mason, Testing Human Bonds Within Nations: Jews in the Occupied Netherlands, p. 338.

[iv]          Louis de Jong Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog, 862-864 cited by Henry Mason, Imponderables of the holocaust, p. 105.

Why Anti-Semitism is no longer a form of racism –it’s a Marginal Prejudice confined to the fascist fringe

$
0
0

 The major cause of anti-Semitism in Britain today is the Board of Deputies & those who claim to represent Britain's Jews whilst supporting Zionist War Crimes


The Medieval Blood Libel and Abe Foxman

If anti-Semitism was still a form of racism in Britain today then the equation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism would not find an echo amongst the majority of Jews.

If anyone is in any doubt that supporters of Israel routinely make false accusations of anti-Semitism, then the reaction of Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, when the New York Times publishedpictures of the 67 Palestinian children murdered by Israel should put those doubts to rest, Foxman saw red. This was a ‘blood libel’.

The medieval blood libel was an accusation that Jews killed Christian children and used their blood for Jewish religious rituals. Thousandsof Jews perished as a result of such baseless accusations.

To suggest, as Foxman did, that publishing Palestinian children’s faces was a ‘blood libel’ means that he believes the original blood libel was true.

Separating genuine anti-Semitism from its fake imitation

Labour’s anti-Semitism witchhunt involved the suspension and expulsion of dozens of anti-Zionist Jews. You wouldn’t expect a campaign against Islamaphobia to focus on Muslims. Yet because Labour’s ‘anti-racism’ was not about the fight for justice or equality but purging peoples minds it led to the purging of people themselves.

The problem is separating genuine anti-Semitism from what Zionism calls ‘anti-Semitism’. I except Eastern Europe from much of the following as anti-Semitism there is more central to the political base and ideology of the ruling class in countries like Poland and Hungary.

Just over a year ago, three academics – Ben Gidley, Brendan McGeever and David Feldman – wrote Labour and Antisemitism: a Crisis Misunderstood. They talked of a

‘historical parting of the ways between antiracism and opposition to antisemitism. An antiracism defined solely by conceptions of whiteness and power… has proven unable to fully acknowledge and account for antiJewish racism.’

What Gidley et al were saying was that though Jews were politically White and economically privileged in the West they were nonetheless oppressed. It begs the question - how are Jews are oppressed?

Their argument is the logical outcome of the Zionists’ ‘anti-Semitism’ smears. Zionist and right-wing opposition to ‘anti-Semitism’ never had any connection with opposition to racism. It had everything to do with support for racism and Zionism in Israel.

Why Does the Board of Deputies Invite Attacks on Jews?

According to the Community Security Trust, which collates & manipulates statistics on anti-Semitism, in the 11 days when Israel was attacking Gaza, there was a 500% rise in anti-Semitic incidents. There was also a 430% increase in anti-Muslim incidents but this was given little publicity. Dave Rich of the CST was quotedas saying:

“It is a depressingly familiar pattern that antisemitism rises whenever Israel is at war, but this does not make it any less disgraceful that British Jews are being threatened, harassed and abused.

The CST describedthe rise in anti-Semitism as ‘utterly predictable” which renders it strange that the Board of Deputies did everything in its power to increase the number of such attacks.

Attacks on Jewish people in Britain because of Israel’s attacks on the Palestinians should be condemned unreservedly. Such people are not helping the Palestinians, quite the contrary. But who is to blame for these attacks? The BOD and Zionist groups which claim that British Jews are supporting Israel.


At a time when Israel is attacking Palestinians in the name of ‘world Jewry’ you might think that the BOD would emphasise that Israel’s attacks have nothing to do with British Jews. Quite the contrary.

When Israel was deliberately wiping out whole families, what does the BOD do? It issues a joint statement supporting Israel’s ‘right to defend its citizens’and condemning Hamas for retaliating.

Even worse the BOD organised a demonstration in supportof Israel’s attack on Gaza stating that :

This was an important moment for Jews from all parts of the community to come together to show our support for the state of Israel.’

The actions of the BOD in associating Jews with Israel’s attacks were an open invitation for people to attack Britain’s Jews. Yet the liar who edits the Jewish Chronicle, Stephen Pollard, in a Readers Letter pretended to be perplexed at what was happening:

Quite why people going about their daily lives in parts of North London should be linked to Israeli military action is something which lies in the mind of the Jew haters and their fellow travellers.

However there is a very simple remedy if Pollard and the BOD oppose anti-Semitic attacks then next time Israel wages war against the Palestinians there can be a joint statement by the different Zionist groups deploring Israel’s attacks and informing the public that British Jewry dissociates itself from Israel’s actions and that it bears no responsibility for them. Until then they should put up or shut up.

The link-up between Zionists and the neo-Nazi right was demonstrated at the demonstration when Tommy Robinson was welcomed onto the demonstration with a hug and cheers.

Do Jews bear any responsibility for anti-Semitism?

“Anti-Semitism as an ideology has nothing to do with the behaviour of even one single Jew , let alone of all Jews.’

wrote Steve Cohen, in That’s Funny You Don’t Look Anti-Semitic.

Zionism was founded in the belief that Jews were to blame for anti-Semitism. The founder of Political Zionism, Theodor Herzl wrote in The Jewish Statethat it was the Jews who were carrying Anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America.’ Chaim Weizmann, Israel’s first President, likewise believed that

‘‘Whenever the quantity of Jews in any country reaches saturation point, that country reacts against them.’

Nathan Birnbaum, who coined the term ‘Zionism’ ascribed anti-Semitism to the

The base spirit of usury that has kept our hand from the labor of the plow and the hammer, the senseless deceit that eagerly anticipates the undoing of others...’ [Selbst-Emancipation‘Our Drawbacks’]

Anti-Semitism had a great deal to do with what Jews did. Jews were the agents of money in pre-capitalist society. They performed an intermediary role as tax collectors, money lenders etc. to the nobility, arousing the hostility of the peasantry.

Today the majority of Jews are performing a similar role, politically not economically. Barnaby Raine wrotethat

Once they saw us as dangerous Semites infesting European society. Now instead we are their favourite pets: heroic colonists in the Middle East and successful citizens in the West…. Jews are conscripted as the alibi of white society. We are the useful props for a moral panic

Jews, not the ‘wrong sort’ of course, were used as a battering ram against the Left in the Labour Party with the complicity of the BOD and the majority of British Jews.

In August 2019 I overheard in a Brighton supermarket two people discussing how ‘the Jews’had tried to stop Chris Williamson speaking in Brighton.  One wonders where they got that idea if not from the Board of Deputies which claimed that it is ‘the voice’ of British Jews.It was reasonable for people to believe ‘the Jews’were engaged in trying to silence critics of Israel. If that is anti-Semitic then the responsibility clearly lies with Jews who did not speak out.

Not only the Board but a host of Zionist groups, claiming to be Jewish, such as the Jewish Leadership Council and the Holocaust Education Trust joined in the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn. Why should people not assume that this was in the name of all Jews?

Is it anti-Semitic to ask Jews to dissociate themselves from Zionism?

As the Institute of Race Relations observedin their submission to the Chakrabarti Inquiry, identity politics ‘personalises the political and individualises the social’. Thus it is claimed that it is anti-Semitic to expect Jews to dissociate themselves from Israel’s actions. Erica Burman, a liberal Zionist wrotethat it was ‘objectionable’ for people

‘to demand that Jews uphold a specific, deemed ‘correct’, position because they are Jews… This demand is antisemitic.

Steve Cohen also asked

 ‘Why should we be obliged to speak out ‘as Jews’ about what is happening in the Middle East any more, for example, than Italians should speak out ‘as Italians’ (p.50  That’s funny You Don’t Look Anti-Semitic)

There is a very obvious answer. The Italians are not carpet bombing Gaza and Italian organisations in Britain are not declaring their support for such atrocities. Jewish organisations are. When the Israel state, which declares that it represents, not its own citizens but ‘the Jewish people’ ethnically cleanses the Palestinians and Zionist organisations that claim they are Jewish, like the BOD, give Israel unconditional support then it is incumbent upon Jews to speak out. There is nothing anti-Semitic about such an expectation.

Racism and anti-Semitism has always been the preserve of the Right including the Labour Right

Some of the main actors in Labour’s ‘anti-Semitism’ purges, such as Tom Watson and John Mann, were to the forefront in demonisingasylum seekers, defendingracist Labour MP Phil Woolas and supportingthe Tories 2014 ‘hostile environment’ Immigration Act which led to the Windrush Scandal.

Racism is the preserve of the Right not the Left. It is how capitalist society divides its opponents. When the Czarist pogroms spread across Russia it was the Bolsheviks who outlawed them. When Jews were persecuted in Germany it was the left which fought it.

Brendan McGeever has recently published a book which argues that the Bolsheviks used anti-Semitism and launched pogroms in order to maintain power. McGeever has rewritten the history of the Russian Revolution.

It is the Left which has always opposed Anti-Semitism

The narrative that says that the Left is anti-Semitic began with the ex-Trotskyist Alliance for Workers Liberty. Many of the neo-cons in the US, such as Nathan Glazerand Irving Crystal, also began life as Trotskyists under the influence of Max Schachtman, who ended up supporting the Vietnam War and the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.

Opposition to anti-Semitism has always been confined to the Left. Historically the Right has been the mainstay of anti-Jewish racism. Of course some on the Left such as Proudhon, especially in its earlier years, were anti-Semitic. That the Right today purports to oppose anti-Semitism is an indication that not only has anti-Semitism been redefined but that it has also changed. Holocaust historian Ian Kershaw wrote of his

admiration for the courageous minority – overwhelmingly communist workers – who fought uncompromisingly against the Nazis… is boundlessthe vast proportion of them workers’ were put in ‘protective custody’after 9 March 1933. [Popular Opinion and Dissent in Nazi Germany]

Zionist historian Robert Wistrich of Tel Aviv University wrotein Socialism and the Jews that ‘opposition to anti-Semitism had become a badge of honor for the workers movement (in Germany).

Anyone who doubts this should read my reviewof ‘Anti-Nazi Germans’ by Steve Cushion and Merilyn Moos. Whilst Tory MPs from the Anglo-German Fellowship were wining and dining Nazi diplomats, communists and trade unionists were placed in concentration camps, tortured and beheaded. It was only the working class and the Left who provided any resistance to Hitler.

The Right and its academic fellow travellers have adopted Jews as if they were pawns in an attack on the Left. Foremost amongst these is David Feldman of the Institute of Anti-Semitism.

Remember the confected hysteria against Corbyn for not mentioning, in his introduction to John Hobson’s Study of Imperialism, his anti-Semitism? Feldman penned The historical left really was ‘for the many, not the Jewin the anti-Palestinian Jewish Chronicle. It was academic prostitution. Writing what you want others to hear. As Black intellectual Claude MacKay wrote, Bolshevism:

“is the greatest and most scientific idea afloat in the world today… Bolshevism has made Russia safe for the Jew. It has liberated the Slav peasant from priest and bureaucrat who can no longer egg him on to murder Jews to bolster up their rotten institutions. It might make these United States safe for the Negro… If the Russian idea should take hold of the white masses of the western world… then the black toilers would automatically be free.”

It was conservatives not socialists who supported Hitler

It was Germany’s conservative parties which put Hitler in power and supported him until they perceived he was a threat to their own interests. Prime amongst the supporters of Hitler when he came to power were Winston Churchill and Lloyd George. Churchill proclaimed that

if our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.

American Consul General Kehl wrote, on March 31 1933, that 

‘It must be admitted that the National-Socialist organization before it came into power and since then the Nazi-Nationalist Government, have rendered invaluable services to the world at large in crushing Communism in Germany.’

Lloyd George was lyrical writing that:

‘Whatever one may think of his methods – and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary country, there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvellous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other and in their social and economic outlook.’

‘He rightly proclaimed at Nuremberg that in four years his movement has made a new Germany.’ (Daily Express, 17.9.36.)

The Daily Mail of 20 August 1938, warned that

"The way stateless Jews from Germany are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage:  the number of aliens entering the country through back door - a problem to which the Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed"German Jews Pouring Into This Country’

Daily Mail Lord Rothermere, the Mail’s owner, visited Hitler and wrotein the Daily News on 4 September 1933 that

‘I WRITE from a new country on the map of Europe. Its name is Naziland. Of all the historic changes in our time, the transformation of Germany under Hitler has been the swiftest, most complete,’

 ‘They have started a clamorous campaign of denunciation against what they call 'Nazi atrocities,' which, as anyone who visits Germany quickly discovers for himself, consists merely of a few isolated acts of violence.’

These ‘few isolated acts of violence’ included gaoling thousands of communists and trade unionists in concentration camps. In 1933 alone 60,000 communists were gaoled, of whom 2,000 were killed.

In Britain Moseley’s British Union of Fascists conducted a reign of terror in the East End of London. My father told me that there were certain streets where Jews could not walk down without taking their life in their hands. Yet it was the left, the Communist Party and the ILP, not the right, who organised physical opposition in the Battle of Cable Street (4 October 1936) which stopped the fascists. Yet the BOD, now so ‘concerned’ about ‘anti-Semitism’, told Jews to stay at home and not oppose them. Labour too did nothing.

The Tories were hostile to the entry of Jewish refugees. In 1905 Arthur Balfour, the Zionists’ hero, introducedthe Aliens Act whose purpose was to prevent the entry of Jews.

Weizmann described a conversation he had with Balfour, who told him that he had met with Cosima Wagner, the widow of Richard Wagner. Balfour explained that ‘he shared many of her anti-Semitic postulates.’ Instead of protesting Weizmann

pointed out that we, too… had drawn attention to the fact that Germans of the Mosaic persuasion were an undesirable and demoralizing phenomenon…

The Police and the civil service were infested with anti-Semitism and fascists. The Labour Party expelled Bevan, Foot and Stafford Cripps for working with the Communist Party’s Popular Front.

Although my dad moved to the right he never forgot or forgave the Tories for their sympathy for Moseley and remained till the end of his life a Labour voter. When anti-Semitism was a real and living phenomenon in Britain, the Tory Party was the enemy of the Jews.

Tory and right-wing labour opposition to ‘anti-Semitism’

Why are right-wing Labour and Tory MPs concerned about ‘anti-Semitism’? Why should a White Supremacist like Donald Trump attackRashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar for being anti-Semitic? Clearly their real concern is not anti-Semitism but anti-Zionism.

Historically Zionists and the Zionist movement had no problems with anti-Semitism. In the wordsof Jacob Klatzkin,

‘If we do not admit the rightfulness of anti-Semitism we deny the rightfulness of our own nationalism... Instead of establishing societies for defence against the anti-Semites who want to reduce our rights, we should establish societies for defence against our friends, who desire to defend our rights.’

If you don’t believe Jews belong where they live and that they should live in Israel then you are either an anti-Semite or a Zionist (or both). Trump combined ardent support for Israel with the beliefthat Israel was the ‘real home’ of American Jews.

In 2004 Boris Johnson wrote 72 Virginswhich depictedJews as controlling the media and fiddling elections. Yet those who were busy digging up tropes and quotes of Corbyn were not concerned about Johnson because he supports Israel.

The campaign to paint Labour as anti-Semitic was about as genuine as an 11 bob note. Statistically a party of over ½ a million was bound to have a few anti-Semites in it but it was no more overrun by anti-Semitism than it was by paedophiles, who it was also bound to have.

It was not a left wing Labour MP who consigned thousands of Jews to Auschwitz by refusing to admit them as refugees to Britain but Peter Mandelson’s grandfatherHerbert Morrison. [Excuses Excuses The Failure to Amend Britain's Immigration Policy Lesley Clare Urbach].

Ramsay MacDonald when visiting Palestine in 1922 spoke of

‘the rich plutocratic Jew, who is the true economic materialist. He is the person whose views upon life make one anti-Semitic. He has no country, no kindred... he is an exploiter of everything he can squeeze. He is behind every evil that Governments do... He detests Zionism because it revives the idealism of his race.’

And where was this printed?  In a pamphlet published by Poalei Zion, (today’s JLM)! Yet somehow Feldman failed to spot it.

State Racism and Anti-Semitism

The Editors of Jewish Currents wrotethat

Though some may regard every oblique—or even straightforward—trope as a track laid on the way to an American Auschwitz, it’s difficult to point to a contemporary state-backed or structural regime of antisemitism to stake it in the ground. In this context, antisemitic tropes seem to function largely as vacant signifiers—the shed skins of venomous snakes.

Racism is structured into the State and how it operates. It is about oppression and discrimination not tropes or stereotypes. The great trope hunt by Labour’s staff was about anything but racism. When you redefine racism, from objective actions to subjective feelings then anything and anyone can be racist, including the victims of racism.

Posts additional to Labour’s Leaked Report showed John Stolliday, head of the Compliance Unit, referring to Ed Miliband as ‘beaker’. Referring to Jewish people by their noses is normally anti-Semitic.

According to Black writer Jewish Currents John Stolliday, head of the Compliance Unit, referring to Ed Miliband A Sivanandan there is “The racism that discriminates, and the racism that kills.” Yet for Jews in the West, anti-Semitism neither discriminates nor kills. There is a third type of racism. The racism that offends. Except that it isn’t even racism. What offends establishment Jews in Britain is opposition to Zionism.

Are Jews oppressed as a minority?

Geoffrey Alderman’s The Jewish Community in British Politics(1983) was subject to a concerted effort by the BOD to persuade him to censor the parts concerning racism in the Jewish community. What Alderman showed was that nearly 400 Hackney Jews had voted for the neo-Nazi National Front compared to zero for the Communist Party candidate.

Compare this to 1945 when an estimated half the votes for Phil Piratin in the Mile End constituency were Jewish resulting in the election of England’s first communist MP.

Alderman noted (p.137) that in 1961 40% of British Jews were to be found in social classes A&B compared to less than 20% nationally. It is this, not Israel, that explains both Jewish voting habits and also the fact that British Jews are not the targets of state racism. There is no reason to believe that British Jews are poorer today than 60 years ago.  If anything the trend has probably been reinforced.

According to the Pew Report for 2016 44% of American Jews earn more than $100,000 a year compared to 19% of the general population.  By 2020 this had increased to 54% with 23% of Jews earning $200,000 a year compared to just 4% of non-Jews. At the other end of the scale 10% of Jews have incomes of less than $30,000 a year compared to 23% of non-Jews. Does anyone serious suggest that America Jews are oppressed, deprived or go hungry?

Jonathan Freedland, in one of his regular apologetics for the Israeli state, asked that Jews should be treated ‘the same way you’d treat any other minority.’ In other words because the majority of Jews identify with Israel people should accept Israel’s legitimacy.

82% of American Jews say caring about Israel is either “essential” or “important” to being Jewish.‘Anti-Semitism’ has become a defence of Jewish privilege, which is itself bound up with support of Israel. Perhaps we should accept the identity of Hindu racists with India’s occupation of Kashmir because they too are a minority?

But the Kashmiris too are a minority so what we have is a clash of minorities! The problem of identity politics is that there is no means of resolving such clashes. If everyone has the right to define their own oppression then the oppressor too can become the oppressed.

There are no guiding anti-racist principles because identity politics accepts all identities as equal. All is subjective. It becomes a clash of subjective opinions. This leads, as David Feldman wroteto ‘conceptual and political chaos’.

Freedland is adept at using the language of identity politics to protect Zionism and Jewish Supremacism. That is why Zionism hates intersectionalitywhich relates oppression and exploitation to objective factors such as race and class. Oppression isn’t one dimensional.

It’s true that Jews are a minority but they are not an oppressed minority. Millionaires are also a minority but they are not oppressed. Racists are also a minority which is why the far-Right identitarian movement uses the language of identity politics.

In the United States police violence is a leading cause of death for young Black men, 1 in every 1,000 of whom can expect to be killed. Despite being only 13% of the population  Black men make up nearly a quarter of those murdered by the Police. The names – Eric Garner, George Floyd, Michael Brown, Breonna Taylor trip off the tongue.

In 2020 out of a total of 1021 people killedby the Police 241 were Black. In the first 5 months of 2021, 71 out of 371 killed were Black.

I don’t recall the names of Jewish people murdered by the US Police. I’m sure that some Jews were killed but not because they are Jewish. There was a time, in the 1930s and 1940s when Jews too were targets for state violence. However that was then not now.

There is no offence of driving whilst Jewish but driving whilst Black is a crime. Jews are not victims of police violence, imprisoned or found dead in police custody because they are Jewish. There is no discernible discrimination against Jews.

Of course there is individual prejudice, a legacy of the past. Occasionally, as with the shootingdead of 11 Jews at the Pittsburgh synagogue, Tree of Life, that can turn fatal. This was a consequence of Trump’s campaign against Latin American refugees.

Israel immediately sent over Education Minister Naftali Bennett to provide political cover for Trump along with Israel’s Ambassador Ron Dermer. As Alison Kaplan wroteAmerican Jews May Never Forgive Israel for Its Reaction to the Pittsburgh Massacre.

British Jews have changed. They no longer live in London’s East End. This is best symbolised by the demise of Blooms the famous kosher restaurant in Whitechapel. I remember as a child queuing half an hour for a table. Yet in 1996 it closed its doors. Why? Because Jews have migrated to north London and Golder’s Green.

There is no longer a specific Jewish working class. Jewish voters gave up voting for Labour long ago. It had nothing to do with Corbyn.

In April 2015, well before Corbyn became Labour’s leader Marcus Dysch wrote Blame toxic Ed for Labour's loss of support. According to Dysch 69% of Jews intended to vote for the Tories compared to just 22% for Labour.

Jewish Racism and Islamaphobia

The misnamed Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, a Zionist organisation published in April 2016 a reportBritish Muslim anti-Semitism.” It included a graphic “profile” of the ‘typical Muslim male’. If such a profile had been written about Jews it would have been called anti-Semitic. The CAA alleged that:

On every single count, British Muslims were more likely by far than the general British population to hold deeply antisemitic views. It is clear that many British Muslims reserve a special hatred for British Jews... yet astonishingly British Muslims largely do not recognise antisemitism as a major problem.

It has long been suspected that sections of the British Muslim population harboured hatred towards British Jews. This survey goes some way to identifying pockets of prejudice, but it also shows that the prejudice is horrifyingly widespread. [see Campaign Against Antisemitism is a campaign against Palestinians]

The Elephant in the Room – Jewish Racism

The elephant in the room is the attitude of British Jews to Arabs and Muslims. In my experience it is extremely high. I wouldn’t be surprised if more than 50% of the Jewish community could be characterised as anti-Arab racists and Islamaphobic. An Opinion Poll has never asked British Jews about their views of Muslims because opinion polls are reserved for the victims of racism, Muslims.

Anti-Semitism as a form of Anti-Racism?

When the French National Assembly and President Macron declaredthat anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism what they were telling people was that to support the Palestinians they must support anti-Semitism. Some people will accept that as a price worth paying. They are being forced to make a binary choice between opposing Zionism and Israeli racism or opposing anti-Semitism.

Since the suffering of the Palestinians, at the hands of those calling themselves Jewish, is infinitely greater than that of Jews, the choice is not a difficult one. The false ‘anti-Semitism’ allegations force people into becoming or considering themselves as anti-Semites.

At the same time the Zionist movement consolidates its alliance with anti-Semitic US Evangelists and people like Viktor Orban.

Displaying Israeli flags inside & outside synagogues

It might seem like a no-brainer. Surely if someone attacks a synagogue then that is an anti-Semitic attack? In most cases yes but not necessarily so. There is a growing tendency among synagogues in the United States to display Israeli flags, not only inside but outside the synagogue.

To Palestinians the Israeli flag is the equivalent of the swastika to Jews. It is the flag of a state that has massacred and ethnically cleansed them. If during the recent Israeli attack on Gaza a Palestinian who had lost friends or relatives had attacked a synagogue because it was flying the Israeli flag, would that have been an anti-Semitic attack or revenge for the death of loved ones? The motivation for the attack would have been because of the identification of the synagogue with his friends’ killers not because it was a place of Jewish worship.

When Zionist organisations deliberately conflate Jewish premises with the actions of the Israeli state they are inviting anti-Semitic attacks. One does not have to be cynical to realise that Zionist organisations will not be unhappy at such a scenario.

Herzl wrote in his Diaries that ‘the anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.’ Joachim Doron in Classic Zionism and modern anti-Semitismdescribed this as the Zionist dialectic: ‘anti-Semitism was the historic force that “would always strive toward evil but work for the good.

The rise of anti-Semitism has always meant Jewish emigration to Israel which is one reason why we should oppose anti-Semitism. Ordinary people, horrified at Israel’s actions towards the Palestinians, will understandably blame Jews when Jewish organisations go out of their way to support and identify with the Israeli state. See Why Israeli Flags Don't Belong in Synagogue — or American Ones, Either

Why does the far-Right oppose ‘anti-Semitism?

There is no more fervent opponent of ‘anti-Semitism’ than Alternative for Germany, a party riddled with neo-Nazis. AfD calls itselfIsrael’s one true friend in parliament’as it pushes for stronger legislation against BDS. This is not without consequences.

The President of the Bundestag, Wolfgang Schäuble, summed upthe reactionary character of the State’s anti-Semitism campaign. He agitated against immigrants “calling for the destruction of Israel,” spoke of the “problem of an imported anti-Semitism from Islamic-dominated countries,” and denounced the “anti-Semitism of the far-left.”At the same time, he defended the AfD against the accusation of anti-Semitism and praised them as an ally in the struggle against it!

 In parliament, the AfD is also awkwardly attempting not to be pushed into the anti-Semitic corner. Like all other parties, it voted unanimously for the establishment of an anti-Semitism commissioner for the federal government and for a resolution on anti-Semitism.

German neo-Nazis are integrated into the political mainstream via their support for Zionism. Meanwhile the German Jewish community is left facing two ways – they support Israel but oppose the AfD. See Once more on the issue of anti-Semitism in Germany

Conclusion

Anti-Semitism is not a form of racism and it hasn’t been for well over half a century. There is no evidence that Jews are subject to discrimination or singled out for violence. Ipso facto anti-Semitism is no longer a form of racism. Anti-Semitism of course persists as a form of prejudice and should be condemned on that basis but as the IRR argued, it is necessary to

“distinguish(ing) between ideas/ attitudes/prejudices – which are all subjective and ‘not provable’ – and the objectiveacting out of such prejudice – in discriminatory acts, physical violence, institutional bias…

It is because Jews don’t experience racism that Tory Ministers, the Labour Right and the Tory press are concerned about ‘anti-Semitism’. If anti-Semitism was a form of racism today does anyone seriously believe that the Mail and Telegraph would be concerned about it?

The CAA claimed that more than half of British Jews felt that anti-Semitism today echoed that of the 1930s. As Ha'aretz’s Anshel Pfeffer observed, if the CAA and British Jews

actually believe that, then it’s hard to take anything they say about contemporary anti-Semitism in their home country seriously.”

Pfeffer added that such a belief showed

a disconnect bordering on hysteria … not only are they woefully ignorant of recent Jewish history but have little concept of what real anti-Semitism is.

The majority Jewish identity today is bound up with Israel. Jews in Britain are neither an ethnicity nor a religious group. Synagogue going Jews form a political community. Identification with Israel is their religion. The ‘anti-Semitism’ they experience is the same as that which Muslims experienced when Salman Rushdie brought out Satanic Verses. It is an anti-Semitism of offence not persecution.

Challenges to identity may be offensive but giving offence is not racist although racism is always offensive. For a majority of British Jews, opinions which they find offensive are deemed racist. Witness the hysterical reaction of Jewish students when Ken Loach was invited to St Peter’s College, Oxford. They felt their safety was jeopardised because he was invited to speak. The young ruling class snowflakes of Wadham College were more than happy to supportthem, even while the statue of Cecil Rhodes is allowed to stand.

To Marie van der Zyl, President of the BOD, the decision of St Peter’s College to invite Loach to speak was “entirely unacceptable.” If anything causes anti-Semitism it is arrogant behaviour such as this.

The campaignto dismiss David Miller at Bristol University is based on having given offence to the Israeli funded Union of Jewish Students. British Jews define anti-Semitism, not in terms of violence or discrimination but in terms of Zionism i.e. the oppression of others. This in itself proves that anti-Semitism is barely alive. 

Anti-Semitism like Jews themselves has changed. As Hajo Mayer observed, ‘An anti-Semite used to be a person who disliked Jews. Now it is a person who Jews dislike.’ As anti-Semitism has changed so have the Jews. Zionism is likely to be the last Jewish identity since there is now no distinctive Jewish socio-economic role in society.

Tony Greenstein

Below is a petition by Jewish people. Please sign it.

Open Letter Take Down the Israeli Flag

We Jewish people internationally appeal to Jews and Jewish organizations around the world to remove Israel flags from communal spaces, whether at Jewish schools, Jewish Federation offices or synagogues. It is clear to us - and much of the world - as the reports of B’Tselem and Human Rights Watch have demonstrated - that the Israeli State is an Apartheid regime and therefore, as international law correctly confirms, it is an ongoing crime against humanity.

The government of Israel, since its start, has been determined to totally subjugate or remove the indigenous Palestinians from the land they’ve lived in for centuries. The Jewish supremacist state of Israel is deeply discriminatory and necessarily violent towards Palestinians who naturally resist oppression and expulsion. Israel logically allies itself with Far Right and Anti-Semitic forces even though this endangers Jews worldwide. That may seem astounding, but these noxious alliances have long been the practice of the Zionist organizations that worked to create Israel.

It is increasingly important for Jews to distinguish between Judaism and the State of Israel and its policies. By featuring an Israeli flag prominently in our communal institutions we permit anti-Semites to believe that our interests are inextricably linked to those of a state whose policies we abhor.

The Israeli flag has the status of the Confederate flag.

We are appalled at the idea that it represents us.

It should be taken down.

A Coalition Whose Only Common Factor is Opposition to Netanyahu - Meet Israel's New Prime Minister

$
0
0

The Zionist 'Left' Joins Hands with the pro-Transfer Far-Right in Israel's New Government

The following article first appeared in Weekly Worker 10 June 2021 as House Built on Sand


On Sunday, assuming the coalition of eight parties holds together and there are no defections, the hardline, former settler leader, Naftali Bennett, will be sworn in as the new Prime Minister of Israel. However if anyone believes that this coalition will put an end to the run of four General Elections in two years, then they are likely to be disappointed. It would be a brave person who gave this government even a year before it breaks up.

Netanyahu doing his best to play the Arab card with the inclusion of the conservative Ra'am Party in the new coalition

Netanyahu, the original Donald Trump, whose incitementis widely believed to have led to the assassination of Israeli Labor Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, is not going quietly. With his imminent departure from office, Netanyahu can hear the sound of prison doors clanging behind him. Currently he is facing 3 charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust.

On June 3 Netanyahu tweetedthat ‘Bennett sold the Negev to RAAM! All right-wing Knesset members must oppose this dangerous left-wing government.’ RAAM is a reference to the one Arab party in the coalition, the United Arab List, a conservative Islamist party headed by Mansour Abbas, which broke away from the left wing and nationalist Joint List dominated by Hadash, the Israeli Communist Party.

Speaking to the right-wing Channel 20 Netanyahu calledBennett “a habitual liar” and that the emergent government was “more dangerous than the [2005 Gaza] Disengagement and Oslo [Accords].” For Netanyahu to call anyone ‘a liar’ is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Mansour Abbas and Netanyahu with whom he had previously been negotiating

Netanyahu accused Bennett of engaging in a “liquidation sale” of the country and claimed the incoming government was in league with the so-called “deep state.” All the paranoid racism and conspiracy theories of Trump rolled into one by the master thief himself.

When his back is against the wall then Netanyahu has no hesitation in playing the ‘Arab card’ as he did six years ago when on his Facebook page he warned, in a videothat

“The right-wing government is in danger. Arab voters are heading to the polling stations in droves. Left-wing NGOs are bringing them in buses.”

None of it was true and in fact the turnout by Jews was higher than that by Arabs but it did the trick. Right-wing voters did come out in droves and they voted for Likud.

Bennett has responded by asserting that the government he hopes to lead “is 10 degrees to the right of the current one” whilst appealing to Netanyahu to “let go” that “People are allowed to vote for a government even if you do not lead it.” Netanyahu, is Israel’s longest serving Prime Minister at more than 15 years.

Israel is a Jewish Supremacist state and it is natural for political leaders to argue as to who is the most anti-Arab. In is this is what right-wing means. All parties, including the Israeli Labour Party do it.  Isaac Herzog, the new President of Israel, when leader of the ILP was a past master at dog whistling. He toldLabour MKs that

“A false impression exists that we take the needs of Palestinians into account before the needs of the State of Israel,”

He also told Labor activists that

“his faction’s MKs needed to correct an impression that they are always “Arab lovers…. God forbid, and without giving the impression – from what I have heard after meeting with the Israel public – that we always like Arabs.”

Of course this was true. The Israeli Labour Party was the original party of anti-Arab incitement and the Nakba, the expulsion of ¾ million Palestinians in 1947/8. The ILP was the party that instituted military rule over Israeli Palestinians until 1966.

But what is the truth? Is Bennett about to lead the Tel Aviv Soviet? Is he preparing to storm Israel’s equivalent of the Winter Palace?

The new Israeli government, if it comes to power, is no less right-wing than Netanyahu’s putative coalition government with the exception of the neo-Nazi Jewish Power led by Itamar ben Gvir, a disciple of Rabbi Meir Kahane, who believed in the expulsion of all Palestinians from Israel and the Occupied Territories.

What has infuriated Netanyahu and the Israeli Right is that, for the first time in its history, an Arab party is a formal part of a government coalition, albeit that it won’t be taking ministerial posts. The irony is that Netanyahu also held talks with Mansour Abbas, in order to persuade him to support his coalition whilst remaining outside the government. This however was vetoed by Bezalel Smotrich, leader of the Religious Zionism bloc which includes Jewish Power. They refused to have ‘terrorists’ (for which read Arabs) associated with the government.

Bezalel Smotrich - leader of Jewish Zionism

Netanyahu and Likud have therefore focussed on ‘persuading’ individual MKs from Yamina, the party that Bennett heads, to refuse to support the new government. For Netanyahu, ‘persuasion’ should be interpreted in the same sense as the mafia would use the term when convincing their clients to had over ‘protection money’.

Bennett has already been depictedin a kaffiyeh and with a swastika and his picture has been burned. Social media is full of death threats against him and his family. He is being called a traitor and a court Jew. At least 4 members of Yamina have been provided with extra security by Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service.

Protests outside Yamina MK Orbach

Idit Silman MK can’t even send her son to school because of the threats. Six leading religious-Zionist rabbis, led by Chaim Druckmanissued a letter on Saturday calling on the public to do everything in their power to prevent the new government taking power as the religious right and the Ultra-Orthodox parties – Shas and United Torah Judaism - try to come to terms with the fact that they will not be in government for the first time in a generation.

Yitzhak Rabin is widely believed to have been assassinated as a result of his decision to rely on the support of an Arab Party

‘Everything in their power’ should be interpreted as meaning just that. There is no doubt that Yigal Amir, Rabin’s assassin had received authorisation from unnamed rabbis, as well as the declarationthat he was a din rodef, a traitor.

Silman complained that a car with a loudspeaker on the roof followed her vehicle around town. The Army Radio reported that her children had been “banned” from attending their youth movements. In Zionism attacking children is seen as a legitimate way of getting at their parents. Not for nothing is Israel known as ‘the only democracy in the Middle East.’

Silman and Orbach MKs Yamina

Those who think I am exaggerating should recall Richard Goldstone, the South Africa Jewish Judge who chaired the UN Inquiry which issued a Report accusing Israel of war crimes in Operation Cast Lead in 2008/9 was banned from attending his grandson’s bar mitveh. It was only after an outcry that South Africa’s Zionists backed off and Goldstone was allowed to attend. But one result of the attacks was that Goldstone attempted to have the Report withdrawn although the other two members of the Inquiry refused to support him.

The head of Shin Bet, Nadav Argaman, issued a rare warning this week that Netanyahu’s campaign of incitement could lead to political violence.

“This discourse may be interpreted among certain groups or individuals as one that allows violent and illegal activity and could even lead to harm to individuals,”

It is a measure of how far to the racist right the Israeli state has gone that what is in effect a choice between two far-right coalitions is subject to such tactics. The proposed coalition government consists of

right wing settlers in Jeruslem

Yamina, a religious settler party which has 6 seats, one MK Amichai Chikli having already defected. Bennett was former head of the Yesha Settlers’ Council. When it comes to anti-Arab comments Bennett can outdo anything that Netanyahu has to offer.

In 2013 he saidthat Palestinian “terrorists should be killed, not released”, and in 2018 – the same year Israeli snipers were murderingunarmed Palestinian demonstrators at the Gaza fence – Bennett saidIsraeli troops should have a “shoot to kill” policy, including for minors. Asked about the army targeting children, he replied: “They are not children. They are terrorists. We are fooling ourselves.”

Bennett is also famous for saying ‘I’ve Killed Lots Of Arabs In My Life And There’s No Problem With That”

Gideon Saar’s New Hope, a breakaway from Likud has 6 seats and is to the right of Netanyahu.

Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beteinu has 7 seats. A secular party of the far-Right, it depends mainly on Russian voters. Lieberman can only be described as a fascist who is on record as saying that Israeli Palestinians who don’t take a loyalty oath should be either expelled or beheaded. He has also said that it would be better to drown thousands of Palestinian prisoners in the Dead Sea if possible, ‘since that’s the lowest point in the world.’

Yesh Atid with 17 votes is headed by Yair Lapid. In Israeli terms it is described as a ‘centrist’ party but in Britain it would be on the Tory Right.  Lapid is, in the unlikely event that the coalition lasts, scheduled to take over as Prime Minister in two years time. However that is highly unlikely.

Benny Gantz, leader of what is left of Blue and White with 8 seats, entered the last government as Defence Minister with Netanyahu. He was supposed to become Prime Minister by rotation but Netanyahu outwitted him. He is supporting the new government and will retain his position as Defence Minister.

The Zionist Left, or what’s left of it, has had no compunction in entering the coalition with the sole purpose of removing Netanyahu. The Israeli Labor Party, led by Merav Michaeli, the grand daughter of the famous Zionist collaborator with the Nazis in Hungary, Rudolf Kasztner, has 7 seats.

Meretz, led by Nitzan Horowitz, which in Zionist terms is seen as far-left but in Britain would be seen as right-wing Labour, at best, has 6 seats. It too has agreed to go into coalition even though gay rights are supposed to be its hot issue and the coalition includes anti-gay parties.

It says everything about the Zionist ‘left’ that it is prepared to enter a coalition of the far-Right under a hard right former settler leader who has no intention of agreeing to any peace deal with the Palestinians and who is on record as favouring the annexation of the West Bank.

Mansour Abbas, who just scraped into the Knesset with 4 seats, has signed the coalition agreement but he is effectively supporting the government from the outside. It is after all too much to expect an Israeli Arab party to actually hold ministerial posts.  Abbas will instead accept the Chairmanship of two Knesset Committees.

What Abbas hopes to gain is extra funding for Israel’s Palestinian communities, the recognition of three ‘unrecognised’ Bedouin villages in the Negev, which means they will then receive basic facilities such as electricity, schools and running water, and a repeal of a law which heavily penalises illegal construction in Arab towns. Since land is so scarce in Palestinian Israeli towns, and since building permits are hard to come by, people build homes regardless and the authorities regularly demolish them. Whether or not he manages to secure these concessions remains to be seen.

I have little doubt that if Bennett manages to survive to the weekend and no further Yamina MKs are peeled off that the government is not likely to last. The pressure from those even further to the right will be immense. Abbas too is likely to come under massive pressure from Israeli Palestinians, especially if there are further attacks on the Al Aqsa mosque and worshippers.

Already Netanyahu has supported a new March of the Flags by thousands of settler youth through Arab East Jerusalem. The march has been rerouted away from  the Arab quarter for the time being but there will be pressure for the right to demonstrate that they have every right to hold a pogrom in Arab Jerusalem.

Also the question of the evictions at Sheikh Jarrar is looming. Already Attorney General Mendelbit has announced that the government will not be opposing the evictions as the racist laws which allow the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem are quite clear. Which is true. Jews can reclaim houses they once owned in East Jerusalem before Jerusalem was partitioned between East and West in 1948. However Palestinians are not able to reclaim homes they abandoned in West Jerusalem.

The justice of evicting Arabs for the crime of not being Jewish poses no problem to Israel’s Supreme Court. Whether the new governing coalition will step in seems doubtful but if Jerusalem explodes as a result, then Abbas may yet be forced to pull his support for the coalition.

Tony Greenstein

Israel’s Campaign of Repression & Terror Included a ‘Torture Room’ in Nazareth Police Station

$
0
0

 Despite Video of the Beating Up of 50 Palestinian Prisoners in Ketziot Prison Israeli Police Were Unable To Find Out Who Was Responsible!


When Human Rights Watch’s Report ‘A Threshold Crossed - Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution was published the Board of Deputies, who style themselves‘the Voice of the UK Jewish Community’ leaptinto action.

Marie van der Zyle described the Report as ‘a sham which puts rhetoric above fact.’ Van der Zyl emphasised that Israeli Palestinians were ‘fully-enfranchised’and that

‘Israel’s Arab citizens have been appointed as ambassadors, professors, Supreme Court judges, hospital directors, and other key roles throughout Israel’s socio-economic landscape.’

This is the usual excuse for Israeli Apartheid, as if the appointment of a token Israeli Palestinian as ambassador to a nondescript country justifies the entrenched discrimination against Israel’s Palestinian citizens and the violence that it metes out to them.

Israeli police chase protesters

The reportby Adalah, the Israeli Palestinian Legal Centre, What happened in the ‘torture room’ at Israel’s police station in Nazareth?’ makes disturbing reading.

Israel is the only country in the world where torture is legally sanctioned. As Amnesty International noted, Israeli judges are complicitin the use of torture. Only in very rare cases where the same methods are used against Jews are Israel’s judges prepared to rule that such confessions are inadmissible.

The pretext for torture is the ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario, a pretext that Israel’s colonial judges dreamt up in order to allow Shin Bet, the Internal Security Service and the Police to continue to torture Palestinians. That the so-called representatives of the Jewish community in Britain are prepared to justify all actions of the Israeli state, calling their critics ‘anti-Semitic’, is shameful but not surprising.

The Board of Deputies Constitutionenjoins it to ‘Take such appropriate action as lies within its power to advance Israel's security, welfare and standingregardless of what it does. By claiming to speak on behalf of all British Jews the Board actively does its best to increase anti-Semitism.

The IHRAmisdefinition of anti-Semitism says that it is anti-Semitic to ‘Holdi(negligence) Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel’. I agree and its equally anti-Semitic to support Israel on behalf of all Jews.

The Torture Room in Nazareth Police Station

Adalah’s attorneys describedthe violence handed out to Palestinians in Nazareth during the attack on Gaza and the attacks on them. Palestinians were grabbed off the street and held in the station:

Israeli “police officers led the detainees to a room located on the left side of the entrance corridor to the station, forcing them to sit on the floor handcuffed, to lower their heads towards the floor, and began to beat them on all parts of their bodies, using kicks and clubs, slamming their heads against walls or doors, and more. Officers wounded the detainees, terrorized them, and whomever dared to lift his head upwards risked more beatings by officers. According to affidavits, the floor of the room was covered in blood from the beatings.”

The report says that

Most of the violent arrests of and attacks on Palestinian citizens of Israel in the city were carried out by Israeli special police forces, including undercover mista’aravim officers posing as Palestinians. Israeli officers would continue beating, shoving, and choking detainees while walking them from the scene of their arrest to the city’s police station.

Israeli police in Nazareth even attacked Palestinian lawyers attempting to provide legal help as well as children. This is the answer to apologists for Apartheid like Marie van der Zyl Given the Israeli police record of exonerating their colleagues, we can be sure that no action will be taken or prosecutions brought.

Israeli Prison Violence

Torture in Ketziot, an Israeli Prison

This comes in the wake of an articledescribing what happened in Ketziot Prison in 2019 ‘Israeli Officers Were Filmed Beating Palestinian Inmates. No One Arrested, Case Closed:

‘At least 10 officers were filmed beating prisoners and dozens more were present, in one of the most violent events to ever take place in an Israeli jail. Only four officers were questioned, none were arrested.’

The evidence is on camera, as you can see, but the Police Investigation Unit was only concerned to protect the prison officers. In the videos the faces of at least 2 prison officers can clearly be seen.

If it was impossible to identify those involved then the obvious action would have been to dismiss every single prison officer. The continued employment of these thugs as prison guards could not be tolerated. But the authorities were not interested in punishing those responsible.

Guards at Haifa Court seal off the entrance whilst an Administrative Detention hearing was taking place

Administrative Detention

Under Israel’s ‘emergency laws’ which date from the British Mandate, prisoners can be gaoled without trial for up to 6 months renewable at a time. This is a law that only police states possess.

Until recently this had been used mainly against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories but now it has begun to be used again Israeli Palestinians (not Jews of course).

Demonstration against Administrative Detention

It was reportedthat on June 4, as part of a mass detention campaign in Umm al-Fahm, the police arrested Zafer Jabareen, a former security prisoner. Benny Gantz, the Defence Minister, then signed a four month prison sentence. This is the face of Israel’s new government. But when your judge is your oppressor, to whom do you complain?

Israel is engaged in a policyof mass arrests against its Arab citizens (& a few left wing Jews). Three Jewish racists who took part in a brutal mob attack on a Palestinian man in Bat Yam this month were chargedwith attempted murder and aggravated assault. More than 20 attackers were seen on video beating the victim but only four have been arrested and just three charged.

Since May 9 Israeli police and Shabak (security services) have detainedmore than 2,000 Palestinians inside Israel. The detention of Sheikh Kamal al-Khatib in Kafr Kanna (north of Nazareth) on May 14 was the most dramatic. As the police surrounded the Sheikh’s home, local residents spontaneously organized a mass demonstration against his detention, and soon there were clashes with the police. The police used live ammunition to disperse the crowd, and Mako reportedthat eleven of the demonstrators were evacuated for medical treatment, at least four of them in severe conditions.

The Israeli Police never use live fire against Jewish citizens. Even in the case of Shira Banki, the 16 year old girl who was murderedat Jerusalem’s gay pride demonstration in 2015 by Yishai Schlissel,a religious Zionist fanatic, the Police physically tackled him despite him wielding a knife, rather than shoot him. When Palestinians wield knives they are always shot at.

A ‘Death to the Arabs’ march – no one ever gets arrested for incitement at these marches

Sheikh al-Khatib, the Deputy Head of the Northern Islamic Movement, which Israel made illegal as part of its Islamaphobic policy, was arrestedfor ‘incitement’ remarks . No Jews are ever arrested, for racial incitement and Lehava, which physically attacks Israeli Palestinians suspected of sexual relations with Jews, is a legal organisation. Israelis whose Facebook name includes‘Death to the Arabs’ are legally untouchable. This is Israeli Democracy in action.

'Maavet La'aravim' (Death to the Arabs) is Israelis favourite Facebook Moniker

Following the attack on Gaza and the General Strike of Palestinians, inside Israel and the West Bank, the Zionist pretence that Israeli Arabs are equal citizens has been abandoned. Apartheid is becoming more and more obvious as Israeli security forces engage in overt repression . This demonstrates, not their strength but their weakness.

The solidarity movement needs to recognise what is happening to argue that the Israeli state as a Jewish state is an illegitimate state.

Tony Greenstein


What happened in the ‘torture room’ at Israel’s police station in Nazareth?

Lawyers from Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israelhave collected multiple sworn affidavits testifying to rampant, systemic Israeli police attacks and brutal beatings of Palestinian protesters, innocent bystanders, children, and even attorneys inside Nazareth’s police station during the period of protests in the city in May.

The graphic testimonies from victims, attorneys, and paramedics on the scene tell a story of systemic Israeli police brutality and physical, verbal, and psychological abuse of Palestinian citizens of Israel in the northern city, and indicate that Israeli officers ran a “torture room” inside the Nazareth police station – an informal term whose initial use may be traced to the recent detainees and lawyers on the scene.

Adalah submitted a formal complaint to senior Israeli officials today, Monday, 7 June 2021, regarding serious failures on the part of Israeli police and investigators in Nazareth that amount to grave criminal offenses, starting on 9 May 2021 and continuing for a number of days.

In their letter, Adalah attorneys Nareman Shehadeh-Zoabi and Wesam Sharaf highlighted brutal, overt Israeli police violence in Nazareth in breach of the rights of Palestinian citizens grabbed off the street and held in the station, including the rights to liberty, dignity and bodily integrity, as well as the right to counsel and due process.

Israeli “police officers led the detainees to a room located on the left side of the entrance corridor to the station, forcing them to sit on the floor handcuffed, to lower their heads towards the floor, and began to beat them on all parts of their bodies, using kicks and clubs, slamming their heads against walls or doors, and more. Officers wounded the detainees, terrorized them, and whomever dared to lift his head upwards risked more beatings by officers. According to affidavits, the floor of the room was covered in blood from the beatings.”

Most of the violent arrests of and attacks on Palestinian citizens of Israel in the city were carried out by Israeli special police forces, including undercover mista’aravim officers posing as Palestinians. Israeli officers would continue beating, shoving, and choking detainees while walking them from the scene of their arrest to the city’s police station.

Additional testimonies indicate Israeli police prevented Palestinian detainees in the Nazareth station from receiving urgent medical care for wounds resulting from beatings and attacks by officers, also another extremely serious criminal offense.

Almost every night during the Nazareth protests, ambulances were summoned to the police station and wounded Palestinian detainees were evacuated to the city’s hospitals. Other detainees appeared in court following their arrests displaying clearly visible signs of abuse and violence, including stitches on their head, facial swelling, scratches, and extensive bruising.

Sworn testimonies collected from attorneys on the scene indicate Israeli police in Nazareth also attacked them and their colleagues, who were seeking to provide legal aid to Palestinian detainees, used force to distance them from the station, seized telephones and even detained a lawyer.

Adalah demands immediate criminal probe of Israeli police torture

“What happened inside the police station in Nazareth amounts to torture and ill-treatment, and requires the immediate opening of a criminal investigation to examine the circumstances and conditions of the protesters’ detention at the station – including the investigation and prosecution of police officers involved in the violence,” Adalah attorneys wrote in the letter.

Faiz Zbedeiat, 21, university student, Nazareth resident

The protesters stood in a circle … and I stood about 6-7 meters away from them. After a while, a police officer approached the scene and announced over the loudspeaker that the gathering was forbidden and demanded that the participants disperse. When I heard this, I stepped back so that it was clear that I was not part of the rally. I was on the phone with a friend, and a second after I hung up, the cops threw a stun grenade into the street. Suddenly, I noticed a Border Police officer running towards me, and when he got to me he punched me in the nose. I immediately said: “I’m standing far away [from the protest], what have I done? I didn’t do anything.” He suddenly started yelling at me, cursing me, hitting me again, and he said, “Don’t talk to me, talk to the interrogator.” I immediately said that I was not resisting… Two more policemen arrived, grabbed me and pushed me towards another Border Police officer who grabbed me, hit me, and tried to slam my head against the wall. I asked why they were hitting me when I’m not resisting. I even I put my hands behind my back even though they didn’t handcuff me. Nevertheless, the same Border Police officer hit me in the nose with the walkie-talkie that he was holding. I raised my hands above my head to protect myself, and this angered him and he started cursing and threatening me.

The cops dragged me, grabbing me by the head and forcing me to look down. I was taken to the police station a few minutes’ walk away. On the way to station, the same cops continued beating me even though I wasn’t resisting at all. On the way, we met a policeman who appeared to be an officer, and he started laughing and said to them: “Did you only arrest him? That’s not enough. We need more.”

[In the Nazareth police station], police brought more detainees into the room, some of them minors who were nevertheless held together with us rather than being separated. At this point, the cops started beating us and kicking us with their feet and batons. [My friend] who was next to me, received a blow that caused a head wound which began to bleed. The blood could be seen on the floor. I told him he should ask for immediate medical attention, but he was afraid that if he asked for help they would beat him again. The cops kept saying “Close the door.” No one was allowed to raise their head; whomever raised his head or spoke was beaten more. I saw one guy who had a broken nose, his face covered in blood, and yet they kept hitting him inside the room. One of the police officers had an M-16 rifle and I saw that he used it to hit detainees. There was a moment when I could take a glance back and see that a police officer who was beating the detainees was masked.

The cops hit us in the back, slapped us in the face. I personally was hit in the back. They tried to hit me in the head but I dodged the blow, so they hit me in the stomach and slapped me in the face. I remained calm and composed the whole the time, but those who resisted or reacted were beaten more. The cops kept trying to provoke us, they cursed and threatened us. For example, during the adhan (Muslim prayer), they started laughing and saying “Pray that God will get you out of here.” After awhile, a police officer approached me and whispered in my ear, threatening me. He cursed my mother, my sister, and my wife. He then asked, “Did you understand?” I didn’t answer, and he immediately slapped me in the face. He asked me again: “Do you understand?” I still didn’t answer and he slapped me again in the face. Finally, he said “Go explain to your friends”. He pushed me back down to the floor and hit me again.

I saw deliberate humiliation of the detainees. I saw one of the cops kicking a detainee in the leg. Another officer came over and said to him “That’s not how you beat someone,” and kicked the detainee harder. The two cops started laughing.

Omaiyer Lawabne, Nazareth resident

On the eve of Eid el-Fitr and the last day of Ramadan, my brother and I and two other friends decided to go out and celebrate with two friends. We left the house around 21:00, and went to the “Checkers” store near the parking lot on Hagalil Street in Nazareth. I parked the car there, and we went to withdraw money from an ATM. I immediately noticed many police forces in the area, some of whom were well-equipped and looked like special units, as well as a demonstration that was taking place nearby. When I saw this, I started to walk away slowly in order to distance myself a bit. At one point, I looked to my right and saw a police officer in full gear running towards me with his fist raised in the air. The officer hadn’t appealed to us, hadn’t called out to us, hadn’t demand that we identify ourselves or stop. As soon as he saw us, he came running towards me with his fist raised in the air. But the thing is, we were just standing there, away from the demonstration, in a place where no one was gathering.

When I saw the police officer running towards me, I was scared, and I knew he was going to hit me. Out of fear, I started running. I wanted to stop and explain to him that I hadn’t done anything, but when I looked back I heard someone call out “Throw it, throw it,” and I realized that they were referring to stun grenades. The cops started throwing grenades at me, and I kept running because I knew that if I stood still I could be badly wounded by the grenades… While I was still running, one of the policemen raised his hand and hit me in the left eye, and I fell to the ground.

I covered my face while begging the cops who surrounded me to release me because I hadn’t done anything. Suddenly, one of the cops started kicking me in the face and head, stepping with his boot on my head and then on my shoulder. Several cops gathered around me as I lay on the ground. They began to hit me, both kicking and punching. I felt intense pain all over my body, from my head to my legs. One of them started kicking me in the artery behind the ear. At that moment, I thought I was going to die.

After a few minutes, two of the cops dragged me to the city police station. I tried to explain to them that I hadn’t done anything, but when I tried to speak they started punching me in the stomach… I saw that every detainee they brought into the station, they would slam his head against the door. I tried to keep my head away from the door as I didn’t want a scar that would stay with me for life but they still tried to slam my head against the door.

When we entered the station, we continued straight and turned left through a doorway. One of the officers immediately started cursing me and my family, and another slapped my face. There were a lot of detainees in the room, and I was shocked to see that they looked like prisoners of war: They were forced to sit on the floor, with their legs folded under their bodies and their heads held down. One masked officer was walking around the room with an object in his hand – I couldn’t tell if it was a club or something else – but everyone who raised his head was hit on the head with this object. They pushed me down into a corner and I lowered my head and curled up. Nevertheless, the same police officer hit me hard on the head with that object.

Seconds later I felt a great pain in my head, I saw that there was a large amount of blood coming down from a head wound, and I felt very dizzy… When they saw this, the police dragged me out, and ordered me to put my head under a tap of water. I told them I wouldn’t put my head under the tap because it would aggravate the pain and aggravate the bleeding, that they are also not doctors, and I didn’t need diagnosis by cops but rather professional medical treatment. One of the cops told me to shut up and hit me on the stomach. I felt threatened so I followed his orders and put just part of my head under the tap, so that it wouldn’t harm the wound. The officer then told me to “put my whole head under the faucet”, held me by the neck, and forced me to put the wound under the faucet.

A few minutes later two paramedics came to me. As soon as they saw me, they immediately decided to take me to the hospital… When the ambulance arrived, the officer who hit me in the head demanded to explain to the paramedics what had happened. I replied that the officer had beaten me with some object, but the officer – in an attempt to cover up my accusation – rejected my explanation and said, “Wrong. You were hit by a rock” [thrown during the demonstration]. I replied that I was not at the demonstration at all, and that police had in fact photographed me at the entrance to the station without any wounds and without bleeding, so it could be seen that I was therefore wounded only after being brought into the station.

That night I was released from hospital directly home rather than back to the police station. I couldn’t sleep for two nights because of the pain and dizziness. I couldn’t eat because of pain from the blows to my stomach. If I tried to eat, I would start vomiting. My chin hurt and I couldn’t speak well. It was the first time I had been arrested, an arrest that I believe was illegal, pointless, and very violent. Since then, I have not been summoned to the police station for any questioning or to provide testimony.

See‘Death to Arabs’: Israeli ‘Flag March’ features racist anti-Palestinian chants and further examples of torture from Adalah 

https://twitter.com/AdalahEnglish/status/1405145853820559363 

2 Years Ago I Sued Dartford Councillor Josh Jones for Slander for Accusing Me of Being a Holocaust Denier - I Lost on a Legal Technicality – However He was Landed With £20,000 Costs!

$
0
0

Today Jones Claims He Was the Victim & Suffered Depression as a Result – the Evidence Shows That Not Only Is He a Liar But That He Obtained Money by Deception

Knowing how sensitive readers of this blog are, I recommend that before you read any further that you have a box of paper tissues handy.

Earlier this week my attention was drawn to an articlein the Weekly Liar about an action for slander that I brought against ex-councillor Josh Jones of Dartford Labour Party.

According to the Weekly Liar I brought a bogus legal action against Jones alleging that he had called me a holocaust denier. Despite JJ denying my accusations I nonetheless proceeded with my claim forcing him to hire expensive lawyers, Peter Carter-F*** of Private Eye fame. When the High Court came to examine my allegations they threw them out and awarded Jones £20,000 costs.

As my courts costs were zero, being on benefits, I suffered no financial loss whereas Jones was let footing the bill. It is, as you will appreciate, a tale of wickedness and malice on my part. I picked on an innocent man who only wanted to do his bit fighting anti-Semitism.

As a result Jones became depressed at having to spend his entire savings defending his reputation. According to the WeeklyLiarmy actions had ‘a significant impact on his mental health and forced him to delay his dream of buying a house.’ At this point you are probably reaching for those tissues as this is nothing if not a morality tale.



However this story has a happy ending. After having suffered in silence for over a year, afraid of bringing his plight to my attention, Jones launched a crowdfunder. Helped along by an articleFury over £20k bill after failed Greenstein lawsuit Jones crowdfunder reached its £20K target in 4 days. His savings are now safe thanks to the gullibility of British Zionists!

It is noticeable that the main donor is ‘anonymous’. Most donors being too ashamed to give their names. The largest donor, Sir Trevor Chinn, who funds Labour Friends of Israel and other Zionist causes, was not so shy. He gave £1K. Chinn has previously given£50K to Starmer’s leadership campaign.

So is it true that I harassed and nearly bankrupted an innocent man? Should I hang my head in shame and forever shun polite company? Or is Josh Jones a liar, a conman and a fraud?

The evidence below makes it quite clear that JJ is all of those things and more. He is now employed by John Lewis. They might like to consider whether employing a fraudster, who has obtained via his crowdfundermoney by deception, is a fit and honest person.

What happened in Dartford LP on Friday 27 April 2018?

A motion was brought by the Labour Group to Dartford General Committee that the racist Jewish Labour Movement should be asked to conduct ‘anti-Semitism’ training. Which was like asking Tommy Robinson to give a talk on the fight against Islamaphobia or the late Harold Shipman giving a lecture on how to care for the elderly!

The last time I made the front page of the Weekly Liar was some 14 years ago when I successfully proposed to UNISON’s conference that it should adopt BDS. This was the pre-Stephen Pollard era when the Jewish Chronicle was still a newspaper as opposed to a propaganda rag. Its reporter, Bernard Josephs, came up to congratulate me on what he termed my excellent speech.

However Bernard was a journalist of the old school who had this annoying habit of ringing you up before writing a story about you.  Under the Stephen Pollard, a friendof fascists and anti-Semites everywhere (as long as they are Zionists) such quaint habits have long since died a death.

The motion from the Labour Group was amended by Paul Field to add Jewish Voices for Labour and the Jewish Socialist Group to those who should be invited to help train people in anti-Semitism.

My own view is that this ‘anti-Semitism training’ is a complete nonsense. If you don’t know what anti-Semitism is then you should consult the OED‘hostility to or prejudice against Jews.’You don’t need to define racism to fight it. Those who want to define anti-Semitism have a hidden agenda – conflating anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism. That is the purpose of the IHRA.

Replying to Paul JJ opposed the amendment because the JLM didn’t contain holocaust deniers. The implication was that JVL did contain holocaust deniers. The meeting then voted to reject the Councillors’ motion in favour of Paul’s amendment. Paul then got up to say that he hoped JJ was not implying that JVL contained holocaust deniers.

It was at this point that Jones got up to directly allege that both Tony Greenstein and Alan Bull were holocaust deniers and members of JVL. In fact neither Alan nor myself are members of JVL.  Nor are we holocaust deniers.

What is the truth?

Whoever took the minutes excised Jones’ naming of Tony Greenstein and Alan Bull. A subsequent meeting failed to amend them for the sake of accuracy. However the minutes nonetheless confirm that Josh Jones did make the comments about holocaust deniers. They quote Paul Field as saying:

Paul Field believes that Josh Jones earlier comments regarding holocaust deniers not being part of the membership of the JLM is slanderous as it infers that there are such deniers in other groups, such as the JSG.

The minutes then go on to quote Josh Jones:

He (JJ) states that only the JLM is affiliated to the Labour Party, is the only group without holocaust deniers.’ (my emphasis)

It is clear beyond doubt that JJ was making an allegation that Jewish anti-Zionists were holocaust deniers, contrary to all his protestations.

Paul emailed me after seeing the Jewish Chronicle article to say:

The perpetrator presenting himself as victim again!  8 of us signed witness statements (including the then Chair of the Party) saying we heard Jones call Tony a holocaust denier. He managed to get that struck from the minutes but the fact that Jones also said JVL should not be asked to talk to members because it 'harboured holocaust deniers' was not removed. It prompted JVL to complain that this was grossly offensive and that many of its members had relatives who died in the holocaust.

In fact there were 9 not 8 independent witnesses. Graphical extracts from their statements are below. All names have been removed.

The statement of the Chair encapsulates what happened:

1.            At the start of the meeting Steve Nunn, Chair of Dartford Labour Party, stepped down from the Chair because he wished to contribute to the debate....

2.            When Paul Field’s amendment inviting Jewish Socialist Group and Jewish Voice for Labour as well as Jewish Labour Movement to a future meeting came up for discussion, Councillor Joshua Jones spoke against extending the invitation beyond the JLM which he said was the only group which is formally affiliated to the Labour Party and does not contain holocaust deniers. 

3.            Paul Field then spoke, and said he hoped that Joshua Jones’ earlier comment regarding Holocaust deniers not being part of the membership of the JLM was not intended to infer that holocaust deniers are among the membership of JVL and Jewish Socialist Group as it would be offensive and defamatory for him to suggest that they were.

4.            Joshua Jones, then replied directly to Paul Field in the debate, saying JVL contains “holocaust deniers such as Alan Ball and Tony Greenstein.”    Paul Field objected that his comments were defamatory and said “I hope you have a good lawyer”....

6          On 20 May 2018, I emailed Paul Field supporting his amendment to April minutes as as a true and accurate account of what was said in the meeting.  A Copy of Mr Field’s amended minutes are at Exhibit One and a copy of my email to Mr Field is at Exhibit Two of this statement.


Jewish Voice for Labour Complaint

Not only was I defamed by JJ but Jewish Voices for Labour too were accused by this pathetic liar who parades himself as a ‘victim’, of being holocaust deniers. JJ personifies the fake Labour ‘anti-Semitism’ allegations of the Labour Right. The bigger the lie, the more they play victim. Except that in this case I didn’t let the lie pass quietly by.

JVL also submitted a complaint to Dartford Labour Party complaining about JJ. However the party chose to do nothing about what was an anti-Semitic attack. It is difficult to think of anything more disgusting than calling Jewish people holocaust deniers. But that is the irony. Non-Jewish supporters of Zionism, like Trump and Orban, are usually anti-Semites just as some of the most ardent Evangelical opponents of gay rights in the United States turn out to be gay!

Starmer’s Racism May Rebound in Batley & Spen

Today we are seeing Keir Starmer, who promised to ‘root out anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party on the brink of losing Batley and Spen by-election as Muslim voters turn against Labour for its Islamaphobic and anti-Palestinian stance. Starmer’s war against anti-racism and anti-Zionism have proved disastrous. In his efforts to cuddle up to the British Establishment he has failed to lay a punch on Boris Johnson despite the COVID disaster.

This is where the poisonous politics of Blair, Mandelson and Starmer are leading. In the Chesham and Amersham by-election last Thursday, according to the BBC‘Labour had the worst by-election result in the party's history, with 622 votes’ and 1.6% vote. At the 2019election Labour was in 3rd place with 7,166 votes and 12.9% of the vote. And that was after two years or right-wing sabotage. In 2017, Labour gained second place with 11,374 votes and 20.6%.

As I pointed out in the middle of the attacks on Corbyn, attacks which he failed to stand up to, the Labour Right has nothing to say and nothing to offer. It is in danger of going the way of much of European social democracy. That is why the refusal of the Campaign Group and Momentum to call for Starmer’s resignation is so pathetic and cowardly.

What Happened Next?

I immediately sent (28 April 2018) what is known as a pre-action letter to JJ threatening him with legal action unless he apologised and withdrew his comments. On 13 May 2018  JJ sent me what can only be described as a pathetic reply blaming everything on Paul Field!

I therefore decided that I would sue him. As I was also involved in litigation with the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism I had little spare time and it was not until 25th April 2019, two days before the time limit expired, that I issuedmy claim form. I was fortunate in securing the services of an excellent pro-bono barrister Carol Addy.

Although leaving it to the last minute was not deliberate, the arrival of my claim must have been a shock to Jones who thought he had got away with it and that I was bluffing!

Immediately Jones solicitors applied to strike out my application as having no reasonable prospects of success. The 3 grounds were particularised in their skeleton argument.

3.1.    C is unable to particularise the words complained of with the precision necessary to found a successful slander claim and, even if amendment is permitted, C will remain in a position where he is unable to prove the actual words spoken.

3.2.    The words that C complains of in these proceedings are not words that are actionable without proof of special damage, and C has put no evidence forward throughout this litigation to evidence such damage.

3.3.    C’s position (both pleaded and actual) on serious harm to reputation is such that C is unable to fulfil the “serious harm” requirement as set out in section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013.

Although Jones application failed on the 1stand 3rd grounds he succeeded on the 2nd. For slander to succeed it must constitute ‘the commission of a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment’.

Jones legal team then applied for £27K costs but because they had failed on 2 of the 3 grounds this was cut by Master Eastman to £20K.

Suffice to say that when his solicitors wrote to me asking for a cheque I pleaded poverty.  Even if I had had the money wild horses would not have persuaded me to cough up a penny!

According to the Weekly Liar Jones claimed he had suffered from stress, anxiety and depression:

The stressed caused by Mr Greenstein taking him to court meant he needed to take time off work due to anxiety and depression.

“It got so bad at one point I was put on medication. I was having to use all my savings to defend myself, I closed down my ISA and I was living pay cheque to pay cheque,” Mr Jones said.

“Nothing like that has ever happened to me.”....

 “I suppose it was just old fashioned standing up to bullies. The whole experience has been an education for me and I’ve learnt .. about antisemitism and how it manifests itself.”

Mr Jones, who now works for John Lewis in their head office, was reluctant to go public about his case or ask for help at the beginning because he didn’t want to draw attention to Mr Greenstein.

I have no knowledge as to whether JJ did indeed suffer depression. Given his record of lying I wouldn’t believe anything he says. But even if he did then that is nothing compared to the suffering of the people in Palestine whose torment JJ was defending. 

False allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’ have but one purpose. To deflect support from the victims of Israeli Apartheid to bogus accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’.

As for the suggestion that JJ was ‘standing up to bullying’ I can only suggest that he consults a dictionary. Responding to false allegations is not evidence of bullying.

As for his having ‘learnt .. about antisemitism and how it manifests itself’ this unstable narcissist has clearly learnt nothing at all if he thinks making false accusations of anti-Semitism against Jews is combatting anti-Semitism.

I have also sent a letter to the Jewish Chronicle but since they don't print letters from anti-Zionists I let it expand to 800 words as I told a few home truths to its editor Stephen Pollard!

Tony Greenstein

Redacted Witness Statements 

Witness 1

Witness 2

Witness 3

Witness 4

Witness 5

Witness 6

Witness 7


Witness 8

Witness 9

Witness 10

Why the Labour Party Candidate Kim Leadbeater Deserves to Lose in the Batley & Spen By-Election

$
0
0

Why I Support George Galloway as the best placed Left Candidate to Defeat Starmer Labour on July 1st

This is what Starmer Supports When He Sayshe is a Zionist ‘Without Qualification’

Today the Labour Campaign for Free Speech Steering Committee unanimously issued the following statement:

The statement from a ‘senior Labour source’ during the Batley & Spen by-election that Labour was “haemorrhaging” Muslims voters, because of “what Keir has been doing on antisemitism” implies that Muslims are antisemitic – when in fact many voters oppose Starmer’s Labour, because he is bowing to the Israeli government and refuses to support the Palestinian struggle. That is not antisemitism, it is anti-Zionism. 

That this statement was issued has not been denied by Angela Rayner and the suspicion must be that it emanates from Starmer’s office if not Starmer himself. In the forthcoming Batley & Spen by-election, we refuse to support the Labour candidate, an incredible apolitical and nondescript candidate who was chosen by Keir Starmer directly.

There is no doubt that Starmer and his apparatchiks have been suspending and expelling people for supporting the Boycott of Israel and anything that is seen as critical of Israel. Calling Israel a racist state is guaranteed to get you expelled even though it’s true.

In the Daily Mail of 19th June, Dan Hodges quoteda ‘senior Labour source’ as saying that:

'We're haemorrhaging votes among Muslim voters, and the reason for that is what Keir has been doing on antisemitism. Nobody really wants to talk about it, but that's the main factor. He challenged Corbyn on it, and there's been a backlash among certain sections of the community.'

The implication is clear. Muslims are anti-Semites who resent Starmer’s promise to ‘root out anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party. Except of course that Starmer has done no such thing. There is no anti-Semitism to root out.  He has been ‘rooting out’ supporters of Palestine and anti-Zionists and he has been doing so at the behest of the Israeli state and its local pawns, the Board of Deputies.

If Starmer was seriously concerned about ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party he wouldn’t have suspended and expelled dozens of Jewish members of the Party or in my case welcomedmy expulsion (which was the first time that this apology for a mannequin came to my attention!). In an interviewwith the Times of Israel Starmer gave away his real motives, namely that he is a ‘Zionist without qualification’.  In other words a racist without qualification.

The reasons are clear as to why Labour is going to lose another Red Wall seat. To all intents and purposes, the Labour Right acts like it is on a suicide mission. They lost working class Scottish voters under Ed Miliband, they forfeited much of the support of the Northern working class at the last election and now Starmer is determined to say goodbye to the votes of Britain’s 3.3 million Muslims.

At first glance it might seem as if Starmer is more concerned with the 300,000 Jews in Britain than a Muslim population over 10 times as big. However that would be a misreading. The Labour Right’s concern is not with the Jewish vote, not least because for 60 years (with the temporary exception of 1997 and 2001) the Jewish community has voted heavily for the Tories.

The real reason is that New Labour is wedded to slavishly following US foreign policy which is to support Israel as imperialism’s armed watchdog in the Middle East. Batley & Spen is the price they are going to pay for Starmer’s craven submission to imperialism.


police beat man

In addition, at the very beginning of his misleadership, Starmer tore up Labour’s policy to support Kashmiri independence. He preferred to cuddle up to Hindu racists who, like the Zionists, wish to colonise Kashmir and who have put it under martial law for the past two years. Starmer was more interested in supporting the communalist government of Narendra Modi of the BJP than supporting self-determination for the Kashmiris.


In the forthcoming Batley & Spen by-election, we are taking a leaf out of the Jewish Labour Movement’s book. The JLM refused to support Labour candidates who were seen to be pro-Jeremy Corbyn. They were supported in that by the Labour Right so they can’t complain now the boot is on the other foot.

Angela Rayner did not deny that the statement emanaged from the Labour Party. Indeed she all but admittedthat the comments were genuine when she said that

“I will be ensuring that the party investigates this reported comment in line with our party’s rules and processes. Anybody who has made these comments should and will be dealt with in line with our independent disciplinary procedures, which I have no role in as deputy leader.””

However there is no need for an investigation. Dan Hodges is on good terms with Starmer and the Labour leadership. A ‘senior Labour source’ is code for either Keir Starmer himself or his advisers. Perhaps the hapless Rayner could have a quiet word with Sir Keir?

As the Guardian reportedLabour’s candidate Kim Leadbeater,

received a hostile reception from voters who are unhappy with the party’s stance on foreign policy issues such as Palestine and Kashmir, amid a perception that the party takes some forms of racism more seriously than others.

The accusation “you’ve taken our votes for granted” was repeatedly levelled at Leadbeater and Lisa Nandy, the shadow foreign secretary and Wigan MP, who joined her on the campaign trail.

Perhaps the final straw was Starmer pulling out of a virtual Iftar event on the last night of Ramadan. The Jewish Chronicle had engaged in its usual Islamaphobic witchhunting. It reportedthat the CEO of the Muslim group which had organised the event, Omar Salha, supported the prisoner support group CAGE. Even worse, he had supported a boycott of Israeli dates!

In Starmer and the Board of Deputies view, boycotting Israeli Apartheid is anti-Semitic. Presumably boycotting the produce of South African Apartheid was also racist?  He might be a QC but Starmer is an intellectual lightweight.

Starmer and the Labour Right simply expected Muslims to take these insults on the chin and still support the Labour Party at the ballot box. They are in for a rude shock.

When a couple of idiots shouted anti-Semitic slogans, allegedly, in North London, Starmer rushed to condemn it in a joint statement with Boris Johnson and yet he had nothing to say about the hundreds of Palestinians killed by Israel in Gaza, including 67 children, the pogroms against Palestinians in Israel itself and the massive Israeli Police violence in Jerusalem against worshippers.  To say nothing of the ethnic cleansing of Sheikh Jarrar and East Jerusalem. 

As a group of prominent Palestinians in the Labour Party wrote:

“The leader is practically treating the whole community as outcasts and is refusing to meet or even respond. We cannot separate this from the alarming shift in Labour’s approach to issues of race, or the shift in Labour’s position on Palestine.

“The message is loud and clear: I don’t care about you or your issues.”

Labour has elected not only a liar but an open racist in Starmer  A man who hid the funders of his leadership election campaign until it was over. Starmer received hundreds of thousands of pounds from rich businessmen including £50,000 from Trevor Chinn, a prominent Zionist. Labour simply doesn’t deserve to be supported as and until Starmer and Rayner are removed from the leadership and the posts are occupied by socialists.

I support George Galloway but not without criticisms. George has without doubt capitulated to a backward political consciousness amongst the white working class with his attack on ‘woke’ politics. His opposition to free movement of labour and his support for Brexit is a capitulation to British chauvinism.  In particular his previous supportfor Nigel Farage’s Brexit party.

Nonetheless George has been a staunch opponent of the Iraq War, US imperialism in the Middle East and above all a supporter of the Palestinians. Weighing all this in the balance I have no doubt that George Galloway, who let it not be forgot was expelled by Tony Blair, would make a good MP in comparison with the appalling Leadbetter. I also share his detestation of identity politics which alienate working class voters.

I have no hesitation in supporting George Galloway and I hope anyone living in Batley & Spen reading this does likewise.

Tony Greenstein

Kim Bolton, Hove Labour Party's racist Chair, thinks nothing of using Jews as a political football in pursuit of her right-wing agenda

$
0
0

Bolton decided that debating a motion on Sanctions Against Israel would make Jews feel ‘unsafe and unwelcome’ –why should that be? Are they not British?



Soldiers enter Hebron homes at night, order to wake children, 24/02/15

Goldsmid and Hove Park branch of Hove and Portslade CLP passed the motion below at their meeting last week:

 “The Hove and Portslade CLP call upon the leader of the Labour Party and the Shadow Foreign Secretary to strongly urge the government to (1) Call on the Israeli government for an end to its violation of the human rights of Palestinians and for an end to the illegal occupation of the Gaza strip and the West Bank (2) Impose legal sanctions on Israel for its repeated violations of international law, and, in particular, place an embargo on arms sales and end trade with illegal settlements”

Support for Sanctions against Israel, as with South Africa in a previous era, is hardly controversial in the Labour Party. A surveyby You Gov in March 2021 found that 61% of Labour members support BDS against Israel against only 8% opposed to it. (even if the Survey Questionnaire called it ‘Boycott, Diversity and Sanctions’ movement)

The faces of the child victims of Israel's latest attack on Gaza - American Zionist leader Abe Foxman accused the NYT of a 'blood libel'  i.e. anti-Semitism

Even Keir Starmer, Labour’s Zionist leader without qualification’, as far as I know, hasn’t claimed that 61% of Labour Party members are anti-Semitic. Perhaps the purge is about to take on new dimensions.

In the normal course of events democracy would take its course and the motion would have been discussed at the next General Committee of Hove Labour Party. However, led by their pro-privatisation MP Peter Kyle, the Zionists immediately sought to stop the motion from even being discussed.

Peter Kyle is also Vice-Chair of Labour Friends of Israel which, as Al Jazeera’s documentary The Lobby demonstrated, is both funded and controlled by the Israeli Embassy.

The child victims whose murder Kim Bolton is defending

The Political Education Officer of Hove is Jon Pike, a Zionist fanatic and member of Engage, a group formed directly as a result of the Association of University Teachers (UCU) supporting the Academic Boycott in 2005.

One of the characteristic features that distinguishes the Left from Right in the Labour Party is their attitude to democracy. I know of no example where the Left has banned the Right from moving a motion.

What we are seeing, both locally and nationally in the Labour Party, is an attempt by the Right to clamp down on all discussion and debate. And always the excuse is... the Jews!! We have become the Right’s political football, pawns on their chessboard.

This is what Kim Bolton & Peter Kyle MP are defending

In Israel the Police use tear gas, water cannon, bullets and batons against government opponents if they are Palestinians. Palestinians cannot demonstrate without the dogs of war being let loose upon them. 3 worshippers at the Al Aqsa Mosque lost an eye when the Israeli police invaded firing sponge tipped bullets directly at them.

The Labour Right don’t shoot their opponents, at least not yet. They simply forbid the discussion of certain topics. They even outlaw motions calling for freedom of speech! Regional Officials literally pull the plug on zoom meetings they don’t like. You might remember the days when they called us ‘conspiracy theorists’ for suggesting that ‘anti-Semitism’ allegations were really about Israel.

This is what Bolton & Kyle are defending

Kim Bolton’s Outlawing of Discussion of BDS on the grounds of ‘Anti-Semitism’ is itself Anti-Semitic

Kim Bolton prevented the Goldsmid resolution from even being discussed. In the Executive Committee minutes it states:

"“As CLP chair , on the advise (sic!) of Scott Horner , Labour South East officer, I rule the motion on Sanctions Against Israel out of order

Scott’s email stated

“While we encourage comradely debate, I feel that this discussion would act as a flashpoint for the expression of views that would undermine the Party’s ability to provide a safe and welcoming space for all members, in particular Jewish Members.” (my emphasis)

I support that view. The motion from Goldsmid and Hove Park branch requesting Sanctions against Israel risks opening a debate that will stir up internal conflict in our CLP and may lead to further anti-Semitic behaviour. At a branch level it maybe a safe space can be created to debate this motion.

That will not be the same in the CLP GC meeting"

Another casualty of Israel's 'right of self defence' which Bolton & Kyle are defending

Exceptionalising Jews in this way as especially vulnerable if Israeli war-crimes are debated (has this ever been applied to resolutions on other oppressive states?) is clearly and obviously anti-Semitic. It assumes that Jews form one monolithic bloc. That Jews all think the same way when it comes to Israel. This is the continuation of the idea of the ‘wrong sort of Jew’.

But of course it’s not about Jews at all. It’s about British foreign policy in the Middle East which is based on Israel’s role as a strategic watchdog and its industrial-military complex

How you might ask does a resolution calling for sanctions against Israel make Jewish people in Britain feel unsafe? In The Attitudes of British Jews to Israel survey in 2015 of British Jews and their views on sanctions against Israel, 24% supported sanctions and 66% were opposed. But amongst secular Jews this rose to 40% and amongst under 30s support for sanctions was 41%.

Palestinians also face repression from Israel's subcontractor - the Palestinian Authority

So the reactionary non-Jew Kim Bolton decided that she knows better than British Jews themselves what is and is not anti-Semitic. Some might say that this kind of arrogance is, in itself, a demonstration of racial supremacy.

According to the IHRAmisdefinition of anti-Semitism that was foisted on the Labour Party, ‘Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel’ is anti-Semitic. That is the one of the few things in the IHRA we can agree on.

It therefore follows that saying that Jews will suffer from some kind of trauma if sanctions against Israel is discussed assumes that they bear some responsibility for what Israel does. Bolton is hoist by her own petard.

Minutes of Hove CLP's Executive Committee

If Bolton had any integrity or honesty she would resign forthwith along with the rest of her Executive Committee. But in the present purge, when lies and dissembling become the new truth, integrity and honesty among Labour’s Right is as rare as snow in the Sahara.

Bolton and Scott Horner are also anti-Semitic for assuming that Jews, are uniquely incapable of debating the question of Israel rationally. What is shocking is how Jews are treated by the Right as their moral alibi. This is how Jews were used by French colonialism as intermediaries and scapegoats in Algeria.

Members of Hove Labour Party's Executive Committee

Imagine that there was a debate on Northern Ireland becoming part of a United Ireland. Northern Ireland was a Protestant Supremacist State just as Israel is a Jewish Supremacist State (see the recent B’Tselem Report). Would anyone rule out the motion on the grounds it would offend Protestants? So why the pretence that Jews would be offended if sanctions aganst Israel were discussed.

The real question is what have Bolton and Kyle got to hide?  And the answer is, of course, quite a lot. How do you defend the military arresting, blindfolding and beating, in the middle of the night, children as young as 12? You don’t. You cry ‘anti-Semitism’.

Both B’Tselem and Human Rights Watch have this year described the Israeli regime as one of Apartheid. Imagine 30 years ago a motion calling for sanctions on South Africa being ruled out of order because White people might be offended.

The racist Right, not just in Britain but in Germany too, carry around with them guilt about their role in the holocaust. They relieve their consciences on the backs of the Palestinians who are caricatured as the new Nazis.

In Germany Alternative for Germany, a far-Right party which contains neo-Nazis, pushed for legislation making BDS illegal. Whilst many of their members deny the holocaust altogether it nonetheless describesitself as ‘Israel’s one true friend in parliament’. I have no doubt that Kim Bolton would find a home in the AfD!

Jews today are seen as a stand-in for the holocaust dead, whereas the truth is that to most Jews the holocaust is a memory kept alive by the way Zionism uses it politically as a justification for its war against the Palestinians.

Scott Horner - Labour's racist Regional Organiser

If Labour was a democratic party Horner would be dismissed. Hove Labour Party members should take steps to remove an open racist from being Chair. I was told by one member that:

Goldsmid and Hove Park Labour Party branch discussed a motion calling for the Israeli government to end its violation of the human rights of Palestinians. 

After a good and healthy discussion it passed with a huge majority. 

As a result Labour Party rules mean the motion should go to the General Committee of the Hove and Portslade Labour Party for members to discuss and vote upon. 

The CLP Chair (Kim Bolton) ruled that members are not even allowed to discuss this motion. Regional Labour Party backed up Kim Bolton. 

What a sad day for “democracy” in the Labour Party. 

Kim Bolton was also the chair of the November 2020 meeting of Hove Labour Party where she took the decision to ban a resolution of the Unite SE/6246 branch calling for the reinstatement of Jeremy Corbyn. Bolton simply left it off the agenda and didn’t bother to inform members that such a resolution existed. When challenged by Unite delegate Ben Armstrong, she then explained why she had not tabled the motion as part of the agenda. It was not ‘competent’.

The decision of Bolton was later condemned unanimously by Brighton and Hove Trades Union Council at its 2021 A.G.M which demanded free speech for trade unionists.

The excuse given by David Evans, the unelected General Secretary of the party, for ruling that motions supporting Corbyn are ‘non-competent’ was that Jews might be offended! The assumption that Jews are all right-wing bigots in hoc to nonentities like Evans (who previously suggested that the Labour Party should dispense with members and simply have supporters) is also anti-Semitic.

Those of us with longer memories in Brighton and Hove remember Jewish councillors like the late Jo Townshend who considered himself anti-Zionist. Anti-Zionism has always been strong amongst Jewish socialists in the Labour Party. Supporters of Poale Zion (JLM) have always been in a minority for the simple reason that if you are a Jewish racist the Tory Party is your natural home.

The video belowshows the routine search, in the early hours of the morning, of a Palestinian home. This happens to thousands of Palestinians each year. They have no recourse against this behaviour. Children are expected to get out of bed. This is what is called a ‘training’ exercise whose sole purpose is to intimidate the population.

The idea that Jews will be upset by criticism of such behaviour is anti-Semitic. If there are some Jews who are upset by exposure of Israel’s war crimes, so what? They deserve to be offended and left to ask simple questions such as whether they would like it if they and their families were subject to such behaviour.

Today the majority of Jews in Britain are right-wing and pro-Zionist. That is why they voted for the Tory Party by large majorities even before Jeremy Corbyn became leader.

Under Ed Miliband, Labour’s first Jewish leader, 69% of British Jews votedTory and only 22% Labour. That reflects the fact that British Jews are overwhelmingly White, prosperous and privileged.


Soldiers enter Hebron homes at night, photograph kids, 24/02/15

The documentation of Israeli human rights abuses is commonplace today. The idea that Jews will be upset by such discussion suggests that Jews are especially fragile. See for example the latest Amnesty Report in the Guardian.

Streatham Labour Party, which is controlled by the right wing, unanimously passed last Thursday a resolution supporting sanctions on Israel. The All Member Meeting was attended by over 250 members. Even this group of Starmer loyalists realised that Labour can’t abstain from calling for justice and peace in Palestine.

Perhaps there are no Jews in Streatham?  Or maybe they are made of sterner stuff?  Who knows but I haven’t heard of any Jews fleeing Streatham in terror!

 Streatham AMM welcomes the announcement of a ceasefire in Palestine/Israel and a halt to the deaths of civilians

This AMM notes that the ceasefire does not address the incidents that triggered the recent round of fighting and the serious underlying issues it revealed.

1.       The attempted seizure of Palestinian homes in Shaikh Jarrah by militant Israeli settler organisations while Palestinians are denied rights to tier property seized by Israel following the Nakba

2.       The attack on rights to religious observance by assaults on worshippers in the Al Aqsa mosque

3.       The intimidation of Palestinians by denial of the right to assemble in the open space by the Damascus Gate

4.       The deep and pervasive inequality in ‘48 Israel that led to unprecedented uprisings in the Al Aqsa Damascus Gate, and the the deep and pervasive inequality in ‘48 Lydd, Yafa and other ‘mixed cities’

5.       The failure of Israeli Police to defend Palestinian citizens of Israel against violent assault by ultra-right-wing Jewish mobs.

6.       The continuing immiseration caused by the blockade of Gaza and the intensification of misery resulting from the destruction of so much property and infrastructure by the recent bombardment

This AMM believes that progress can only result from negotiations but that negotiations in good faith will not happen while Israel feels it has external support from Europe and the US for its intransigence.

Consequently this AMM proposes that the Labour leadership put pressure on Israel to negotiate a settlement that enshrines the rights of Palestinians in Israel, the Occupied territories and the diaspora as well as the rights of Jewish Israelis to a peaceful life whether through one-state, two-state or any other arrangement. The leadership should:

1.       Support the Palestinian call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

2.       Call for the end of arms sales to and from Israel

3.       Support the ICC in investigating war crimes by all parties in the conflict.

4.       Demand an immediate end to the settlement programme

5.       Support Palestinians who are seeking immediate free and fair elections to the Palestinian Authority

There are a couple of other articles on the racist activity of Bolton and Horner. There is a short report in Skwawkboxand an article by Asa WinstanleyLabour bans Israel sanctions debate on Electronic Intifada which points out that it was Hove CLP that in 2019 proposed a landmark motion on Palestine to Labour Party conference, which passed almost unanimously.

Asa also quotedBecky Massey, a former member of Hove CLP, who was expelled from Labour after the Board of Deputies of British Jews– a pro-Israel lobby group – sent the party a hit list of activists. The Board demanded that she be kicked out of Labour. Now some would say that the BOD, by calling for the expulsion of left activists on behalf of all Jews is doing its best to promote anti-Semitism.

Tony Greenstein


Why We Need a Genuine Palestine Solidarity Movement

$
0
0

The Failure of PSC to Oppose Zionism and the Jewish Supremacist Nature of the Israeli State Renders it Politically Incoherent



Palestinian thugs attack demonstration

In 1982 I was among a group of people who foundedPSC in a meeting at the University of London Union. It was shortly before Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. It gives me no pleasure to say that the organisation we formed is today incapable of building a mass solidarity organisation in the same way as the Anti-Apartheid Movement [AAM] did a generation ago.

As Bob Dylan said The Times They Are A Changing. The old lies about Israel being ‘the only democracy in the Middle East’ or the Israeli army being ‘the most moral army in the world’ don’t have quite the same ring to it when you see police firing stun grenades inside a mosque or children being battered.

Today there is a real possibility of building a mass movement in support of the Palestinians and engaging with the thousands of young people who demonstrated last summer for Black Lives Matter. The narrative around Israel is changing however many times robots like Keir Starmer claimthat they are ‘Zionists without qualification.’ The production of two reports this year, by B’Tselemand then Human Rights Watch, describing Israel as an apartheid state, is a game changer. Coupled with Israel’s ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem and its mass murder spree in Gaza, it is no longer possible to hide the reality of Israel no matter how many times false accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ are made. There is no longer any stopping the process of Israel’s ‘delegitimisation’.

There is no Palestine

But as long as PSC is controlled by two tiny, quasi Stalinist groups, Socialist Action and the Communist League, Israel will have little to fear. Both SA and CL fear, quite correctly, that if a mass movement developed they would lose control. In short they have a vested interest in not building a mass movement around Palestine.

You only have to ask what steps did PSC’s leadership take to link up with Black Lives Matter or Extinction Rebellion? Or what steps did PSC take to support the demonstrations against the Police & Crime Bill. PSC is not interested in linking up with other movements.

Nick Georges

What is the political basis of PSC’s failures?

Quite simply it is that PSC is not anti-Zionist. To be pro-Palestinian and not anti-Zionist is like opposing the oppression of Black people in South Africa without being anti-Apartheid. Zionism is the cause of all the Palestinian ills. It cannot be ignored because it is tactically convenient to do so.

PSC refuses to allow anything to get in the way of subordinating its politics to the trade union bureaucracy. In practice that means supporting the two state solution which is the antithesis of anti-Zionism. By definition supporting 2 states means accepting a Zionist State of Israel.

If you have a look at PSC's 2020 Annual Report or the previous one you will search in vain for the words ‘Zionism’ or 'Zionist'. It must be a complete mystery to much of PSC’s membership why Israel behaves as it does. Perhaps the Israelis are particularly malevolent. PSC calls Israel an apartheid state but it never explains why Israel is an apartheid state or how it became one.

Still less does PSC talk about Israel as a Jewish Supremacist state ,a conclusion that even B'Tselem came to, because of its fears of being called anti-Semitic.

In practice, PSC has always supported a two state solution. In 1993 it supported the Oslo Accords (which didn’t even promise a Palestinian state). As has become clear to most people, the two state solution was never other than a smokescreen under cover of which Israel’s settlements expanded. It was always an illusion because the Zionist movement always claimed the entire Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael).

It was Oslo which created the monstrosity that is the Palestinian Authority. In October 1993. In a debatewith Julia Bard of the Jewish Socialists Group I wrote:

The agreement provides for a Palestinian police force up to 30,000 strong. Their first duty will be to suppress Palestinian dissent and any resistance to the Accord. Little wonder that this provision evokes such Israeli enthusiasm....This is an agreement built on shifting sands. It represents a massive victory for imperialism

Virtually everything that I predicted has come true. It did not need a crystal ball to predict that Oslo would be a disaster. All you needed to understand was the nature of the Zionist settler colonial movement.

PSC has never abandoned Oslo. Instead it accepted the ‘Peace Process’ and the legitimacy of the PA. With the recent murderof Nizar Banat by the thugs of the PA PSC has been forced to criticisethe actions of the PA for the first time. But it has never questioned its legitimacy.

Even now their statement merely demands that ‘the PA should be severing all security cooperation with the occupying state.’  It says that  ‘PSC has raised these issues in the past with the PA and is doing so again in relation to the death of Nizar.’ It is as if the French Resistance had written a letter to Marshall Petain asking Vichy France to join the ranks of the Resistance!

Nowhere in its statement does PSC demand that the PA disbands itself or even that its armed thugs be disarmed. Instead it treats the PA as a legitimate institution rather than the bastard fruit of Oslo.

Contrast this with Joseph Massad’s Why the PA's days are numberedwhich describes the PA as ‘a collaborating body’ with the Israeli apartheid regime under US sponsorship.’ Massad describes how

‘The PA police arrangement in fact replicated, and was perhaps inspired by, the South African apartheid state’s use of the Black police to suppress Black resistance before 1994, an arrangement that reduced the danger to the lives of white policemen.

If you compare Massad’s incisive analysis to PSC’s statement it is clear that PSC has no analysis. PSC is not only politically but intellectually bankrupt. It treats what is happening in Palestine as a human rights not a political question. PSC fails to understand that the PA is an adjunct to Israel’s occupation. It is its military subcontractor.

In 2014 I proposed a motionwhich said:

PSC should sever all relations with the Palestinian Authority, which is a quisling government, whose role is to police the Palestinians on behalf of Israel.

Betty Hunter, the General Secretary and now President of PSC, blew a gasket at my describing the PA as a ‘quisling’ organisation. In her view and PSC’s, the PA was a legitimate representative body of the Palestinians.

Compare this with what Ali Abunimah, the editor of Electronic Intifada,wrotein the wake of Abbas’s withdrawal of support from the Goldstone Report following Operation Cast Lead:

Naming collaboration — even treason — for what it is has always been a painful taboo among Palestinians, as for all occupied peoples. It took the French decades after World War II to begin to speak openly about the extent of collaboration that took place with the Nazi-backed Vichy government.

Tommy Robinson is welcomed onto the pro-Israel demonstration

PSC – An Ideas Free Zone -

The internal publications of PSC are an ideas free zone. They do nothing to educate or raise people’s consciousness. Palestine solidarity for PSC is a human rights issue not a political issue. It campaigns on human rights abuses but never connects them. There is no explanatory narrative.

The word ‘Zionism’ never crosses the lips of the PSC leadership and its Director Ben Jamal or Chair Kamal Hawwash. The obvious conclusion is that Israel is a legitimate state which can be reformed.

This has major implications for the solidarity movement. Israel can withstand criticism of its human rights record (using ‘security’ as its excuse) but it reacts wildly to those who question its legitimacy.

In 2010 in response to BDS, the Reut Institute produced a Report Building a Political Firewall against the Assault on Israel's Legitimacy. In the section London as a Case Study it explained that ‘

The assault is increasingly perceived to be a strategic concern for Israel, with potentially existential implications. This understanding underlies the recent mobilization by the Government of Israel (GOI) to offer a systemic response to this challenge.

What the Zionist movement and the Israeli state fear most of all is the questioning of the very concept of a Jewish state. To them this is an ‘existential’ problem. PSC simply ignored this document. And because there is no forum within PSC to debate or discuss such issues, the organisation continued to blunder along blindly.

The Zionist response to questioning ‘Israel’s right to exist’ as a racist state was to launch the campaign to paint Israel's opponents as ‘anti-Semitic’. It didn’t begin with Jeremy Corbyn but his accession to the leadership of the Labour Party lent a new urgency to the Zionists campaign.

Jeremy Corbyn

Corbyn himself is an example of the poverty of PSC’s politics. He was extremely close to PSC’s leadership. He attended every AGM for a decade or so. He was PSC's human rights ambassador but he simply mouthed 2 state platitudes. PSC never provided him with any explanation of Zionism.

I knew Jeremy well in the early 1980s when I was Chair of the Labour Movement Campaign on Palestine. He was a sponsor. Our motion to the Labour Party conference in 1982 supporting a Democratic Secular State in Palestine passed. Jeremy chaired the Labour Movement Conference on Palestine which called for the disaffiliation of Poale Zion (JLM).

Thornberry at LFI

When the right-wing in Labour under Kinnock and Blair took over the LMCP disappeared. PSC took Corbyn under its wing and he began spouting 2 States nonsense. Jeremy too treated Palestine as simply a human rights question. Hence when he took part in the JLM leadership debate with Owen Smith he praised the independence of Israel’s judiciary! The very judges that have legalised the theft of Palestinian land since 1948. PSC depoliticised a young and enthusiastic MP because it had no anti-Zionist politics.

PSC engages in routinism. It is happy for people to stand on street corners handing out leaflets and lobbying MPs. All very worthwhile as we have to win public support but it is not enough.

We have to transform support on the streets into political support and on this PSC has hopelessly failed. In fact PSC hasn’t even tried.

PSC has a ‘strategy’ of mainstreaming Palestine which has led it to putting Emily Thornberry, a patron of Labour Friends of Israel, on its platforms. Thornberry is a vitriolic Zionist who declaredthat those who deny Israel’s right to exist as a racist state should be expelled. In a groveling address at Labour Friends of Israel annual dinner’ in November 2017, Thornberry declared that

‘even today... modern Israel stands out as a beacon of freedom, equality and democracy, particularly in respect of women and LGBT communities.’

That must seem like a sick joke to those who are being evicted in Silwan and Sheikh Jarrar today as part of the Master Plan to increase Jerusalem’s Jewish majority. Or those who are confronting pogromists in Bat Yam. Thornberry is an open racist. Yet PSC put both her and Lisa Nandy, a self-declared Zionist on its platforms.

Trade unions and Two States

PSC says that it doesn’t support any solution – 2 States or 1 State. Its excuse being that it’s up to Palestinians to decide what they want. This is a problem because when people ask what we want to see in Palestine PSC has nothing to say. PSC has no vision to offer whereas the AAM had no hesitation in declaring that it wanted a unitary South Africa.

It is also disingenuous since Palestinians today have no representative organisations. The PA, which PSC supports, believes in 2 states. Indeed it believes it has already achieved a Palestinian state!

Yet all surveys of Palestinians showthat today a very clear majority – 66% in the West Bank and 56% in Gaza support a unitary state compared to 14% in the West Bank and 31% in Gaza supporting a 2 state solution. But even if Palestinians still supported a two state solution a solidarity movement should reject it. The reason why some Palestinians support 2 states still is because they are desperate for anything that relieves their plight.

A two state solution is an apartheid solution which leaves Israel in place as a Jewish Supremacist state. We speak to British supporters of the Palestinians not the Palestinians. Our job is to persuade people here that Israel is illegitimate. Our end goal must be a state where all people live together not a continuation of apartheid by other means.

But PSC leadership are dishonest. They are not concerned about Palestinian opinion. Some 53% of Palestinians now supportHamas compared to 14% for Abbas and Fateh. The real reason why PSC clings to a 2 state solution is that the affiliation of trade unions to PSC has been obtained at a political price. That price is not adopting a position which opposes Israel’s right to exist as a ‘Jewish’ ie racist state. The trade unions support 2 states. So does LFI and the JLM because they know it won’t happen!

The trade union leaders support 2 states because they want to support both sides of the ‘conflict’. It’s as if, 30 years ago, they had supported the White Nationalists and the Black liberation movements. In situations of colonisation you can’t support both sides and supporting 2 states is exactly that.

PSC or rather Socialist Action, is happy to cuddle up to trade union leaders and accept their money in return for silence. It is a faustian bargain, a deal without principle or any semblance of morality.


An article in Oxford Student in response to the attempt to ban Ken Loach from speaking at St Peter's college

The IHRA

The IHRA was drawn up at the initiative of Dina Porat of the Stephen Roth Institute at Tel Aviv University in 2004. Kenneth Stern, its principal drafter, described at a conference in 2010 in Paris ‘The Working Definition of Anti-Semitism [WDA] and Six Years After’ its genesis in an articleThe Working Definition – a Reappraisal’. As Stern makes clear the intention all along was to redefine hostility to Zionism as anti-Semitism. What Stern didn’t support was using it to brand individuals as anti-Semites, especially on campus and chill free speech. Whether Stern was naive or duped is an open question.

The IHRA has been the main instrument by which anti-Semitism has been weaponised. It has been the sword of defamation and has been responsible for numerous anti-racists and anti-Zionists being traduced as racists. It is an example of racists accusing anti-racists of racism in an Orwellian world where words have lost all meaning.

PSC has dropped any campaign against the IHRA. It is difficult to understand what exactly PSC has done apart from funding a legal opinon from Hugh Tomlinson QC and writing a round robin letter to local authorities. Perhaps the one initiative they did take up was when the Big Ride was bannedfrom meeting in a park in Tower Hamlets by their Blairite Mayor. That was a brief respite from doing nothing.

However PSC has not taken up the IHRA on campus. At the end of last year Gavin Williamson, the Education Secretary, threatenedthat Universities who refused to adopt the IHRA would have their funding cut. PSC has been completely inactive over this. It isn’t a priority.

The IHRA has been used to attack anti-Zionist academics at a host of universities including Bristol, Sussex, Leeds, Warwick. There are more. At Warwick at least 4 staff have been targeted by the  Union of Jewish Students as ‘anti-Semites’. The University adoptedthe IHRA in October of last year. The attack on the staff prompted the Warwick Assembly, which over 200 staff attended, to reject the IHRA by over 93%. As a result the adoption of the IHRA has been suspended.

The most egregious case of a witchhunt is at Bristol University. Four years ago the misnamed Campaign Against Anti-Semitism targeteda Jewish lecturer, Rachel Gould over an article she had written. They called for her dismissal. Tory Cabinet Minister Eric Pickles called her a holocaust denier. The attack on her was described by Kenneth Stern in testimonyto Congress as ‘egregious’ chilling and McCarthy-like.’

On 13 February David Miller, a Professor at Bristol University, called for an end to Zionism and described how Zionist organisations were using Jewish students as pawns. Immediately the the Zionists demanded that Miller be dismissed. Two weeks later 100 MPs and Lords, including Caroline Lucas MP, wrotean open letter to the Vice Chancellor of Bristol University demanding that Miller be removed.

Caroline Lucas’s Tory friends on the Education Select Committee then demandedthat Miller be sacked. These McCarthyists called Bristol University a “hotbed of antisemitism” and fostering a climate similar to “1930s Nazi Germany”. If anyone else made comparisons with Nazi Germany they would be called anti-Semites! Jonathan Gullis MP went further attacking Goldie Osuri at Warwick University. ‘“We need to start sacking people’ Gullis said.

I wrote to Ben Jamal demanding that they issue a statement supporting David Miller. Well they issued a statement Protecting Palestinian Rights and Academic Freedom but they offered not a word of support or solidarity. Instead PSC accused David Miller of failing

‘to apply depth, context, and clarity, and to avoid narratives that oversimplify the interlinks between groups which oppose actions in support of Palestinian rights, and Israeli state actors.... it can risk drawing on anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish power.’

They didn’t even have the courage to make these criticisms directly. Instead the following weasel words appeared:

Whilst some have criticised Professor Miller for lacking such depth and clarity in the way he has couched his remarks...’

The push by the Tories for the adoption of the IHRA has gone hand in hand with a campaign by various Zionist organisations - the Board of Deputies, UJS and the CST to target anti-Zionist academics.

Compare PSC’s response to the forthright statement of BRICUP:

BRICUP is not qualified to comment on Professor’s Miller’s scholarly work but affirms the responsibility of all academics, irrespective of discipline or political view, to defend his right to teach and research without the threat of external intervention.

PSC has forgotten what the word solidarity means.

Trade unions

In 2010 PSC refusedto support a resolution to boycott Histadrut, Israel’s Apartheid Union. From its inception in 1920 Histadrut supported a policy of Jewish Labour i.e. a boycott of Arab labour. It took 39 years to admit its first Arab member. Even then Arabs were put into a separate section. Histadrut was, with the JNF, one of the main organisations of Zionist colonisation.

Whilst UNISON voted to boycott Histadrut, PSC and its trade union officer Bernard Regan opposed boycotting it.

PSC, far from encouraging unions to take the boycott of Israel seriously is happy to confine boycott to settlement goods only, which is a nonsense since they are marketed as the produce of Israel.

PSC has refused to raise the IHRA in the unions. When I leafleted delegates at PSC’s trade union conference, I was told to leave by Ben Jamal. PSC refused to include the IHRA on the agenda. If PSC had campaigned for the unions to oppose the IHRA then Labour would not have adopted it. The witchhunt of Palestinian supporters in Labour would have been halted in its tracks.

I wrote on behalf of my union branch to Len McLuskey asking that Unite’s Executive stop supporting the IHRA. On 16 May 2021 McLuskey wrote back indignantly stating that:

‘In the meantime Unite will continue to support PSC and I dismiss out offhand your suggestion that we are betraying PSC.’

The strange thing is that I had not mentioned PSC. What had triggered this response? Clearly McLuskey believed that PSC supported the IHRA. This is understandable because PSC had refused to campaign in the unions against the IHRA.

The Labour Party and the False Anti-Semitism Campaign

Throughout his leadership Corbyn and the Labour left was accused of anti-Semitism. The purpose of the campaign was to brand anti-Zionism and support for the Palestinians as anti-Semitic.

Yet as activists were being picked off PSC kept silent. It never defended Corbyn from allegations of anti-Semitism. It issued no leaflets explaining why anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. I wroteto Secretary Ben Soffa on 11 April 2016 asking why the silence. Ben respondedon 20 April in what was a master class in complacency. He wrote that ‘I make no apology for the fact that we do not engage in every debate some would wish to involve us in.’

As activists were being picked off for any mention of Israeli Apartheid many others were intimidated into silence. The campaign against ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party spread into virtually every area of society. PSC still seems unable to come out and say that the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign had nothing to do with anti-Semitism.

PSC has nothing to say about Zionism since it is afraid of being accused of anti-Semitism. It has never mentioned the links between the Zionist movement and the far Right, people like Viktor Orban, the anti-Semitic Hungarian Prime Minister and friend of Israel or the support of Germany’s neo-Nazi party AfD or even Tommy Robinson’s recent appearanceon a pro-Israel demonstration. PSC is unable to go on the offensive against the Zionist lobby. It resembles David Low’s depictionof the TUC as a slow-witted carthorse.

PSC is an ideas free zone – a political vacuum

The campaign against Israel is different in one crucial respect from that against Apartheid in South Africa. Whereas the latter had no domestic support base apart from the capitalists, right-wing Tories and fascists, the Israeli state has a lobby that is strong and powerful.

Israel has support in the Jewish community. The last survey by Yachadof British Jews in 2015 found that 59% identify as Zionists. However 31% said that they weren’t Zionists. This was down 13% on a similar survey 5 years previously.

Despite the attempt to label BDS as anti-Semitic 24% of British Jews support some form of sanctions on Israel. Among secular Jews this rises to 40% and among the under 30s it is 41%. Compare this with the Board of Deputies which purports to speak for British Jews, which never criticises Israel. Zionist organisations have hijacked the  voice of British Jews. British Jews are in the wordsof Barnaby Raine the Establishment’s ‘favourite pets: heroic colonists in the Middle East and successful citizens in the West.'

British Jews are, as David Miller asserted, treated as pawns by Zionist organisations. They fulfil the same role in support of Israel as Algerian Jews did under French colonialism. What is surprising is not that there is anti-Semitism as a result of the identification of British Jews with Israel but that there is so little anti-Semitism.

PSC could, if it had any internal democracy or discussion forums, take advantage of these divisions amongst British Jews to challenge British Zionist organisations. But since there is no discussion of strategy in PSC there was no discussion about how to combat the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign except maybe inside Socialist Action or the Communist League.

There is a great deal of debate about Palestine in Britain yet within PSC there is no attempt to debate strategic issues such as how how to advance BDS. There is no internal discussion bulletin or forum to debate how to combat the pro-Apartheid lobby.

Discussion about strategy or tactics is left either to individual branches or ad hoc groups like Palestine Action. There was a strategic review some years ago by Ben Jamal but it was top down. When it comes to internal debate PSC is an arid desert.

Palestine Action and direct action

In 2020 a staff member of PSC and former student activist, Huda Ammori, was forced to resign. She alleged bullying by the Director Ben Jamal that forced her to go sick with depression. When she submitted a grievance letter she was pressurised by PSC Chair Kamel Hawwash into withdrawing her complaint.

In the wake of Huda being forced out 4 members of PSC Executive resigned. Quite amazingly at its 2021 Conference there was no mention of the resignations in the Annual Report, presumably on the basis that if it didn’t get mentioned it didn’t happen!

Huda and others then formed Apartheid on Campus which PSC did its best to destroy despite doing nothing on campus itself. The failure of PSC to make any impact amongst students is itself a disgrace.

PSC and Palestine Action

Palestine Action was formed late last year with a focus to campaign against companies complicit in Israel’s colonisation of Palestine, Elbit Systems in particular. Elbit has some 10 factories in Britain. You will have seen news of many of its actions. The state has spent enormous resources trying to criminalise its activists.

Having done little itself you might imagine that PSC would welcome a group campaigning against Elbit. Wrong. In February PSC circulated a boguspiece of legal advice to branches warning against supporting PA. It warned that those who supported it financially could be prosecuted. This was nothing more than scare mongering. The real reason for PSC’s hostility was its opposition to direct action and confronting the British state. In addition to its fear of competitors.

PSC contacted the Boycott National Committee and got them to warn PA not to use the term BDS!! Despite PA receiving massive support PSC has not let up in its hostility. When Brighton and Hove PSC wanted to move an emergency motion at PSC AGM supporting PA Socialist Action’s Louise Regan ruled the motion out of order. Regan, PSC’s Vice-Chair, told the AGM that people had a choice – they could support PSC or Palestine Action. They could not do both.

PSC should have welcomed Palestine Action. They weren’t obliged to fund them but there was absolutely no reason to try and destroy them. PSC objected to the minor criminal damage that PA caused to Elbit’s factories like breaking windows or painting its buildings red!

I wroteto Omar Barghouti of the BNC in March this year suggesting that Palestinians in Gaza were unlikely to protest at PA damaging Elbit Factories given the reign of terror they face from its drones.

If PSC prioritised Palestine solidarity rather than empire building they would have offered legal help to PA. They could have publicised PA actions and begun a campaign themselves against Elbit, which boasts that it is the backbone of Israel’s military. They could have supported the pickets of courts where defendants, myself included, have been arraigned to face trial. Instead it has done nothing.

During the recent attack on Gaza PA activists occupied the roof of the Elbit factory in Leicester. The occupation received massive publicity both nationally and internationally from the BBC, TheIndependent, Al Jazeera, Jewish News, Novara Media and Electronic Intifada to name but a few. When the Police arrested those involved hundreds of local people surrounded the police vans to prevent them being taken away. The Fire Brigades Union refused to aid the police attempts to bring down the occupiers. When have PSC ever gained the support of workers on the ground for an activity?

The occupation of Elbit, like the refusal of dockers in Italy, South Africa and California, to unload ships belonging to Zim, was a concrete act of support for the people of Gaza. What was PSC’s reaction? Nothing except embarrassed silence. Not one word emanated from PSC nationally. The only emails I got during the Gaza attacks from PSC were appeals for money.  The attack on Gaza was its opportunity. Solidarity there was none.

Why then the hostility to PA? There was similar hostility to InMinds. PSC wants to preserve Palestine as its monopoly. It therefore resents other groups trespassing on what it considers its territory. This is a product of the political sectarianism of those who control PSC.

Mainstreaming Palestine

But it’s more than this. PSC’s whole strategy is what it calls ‘mainstreaming’ Palestine. In other words winning over the British Establishment. PSC doesn’t understand why the British government supports Zionism and Israel. The reasons, as anyone who has any awareness of the linkup between British and Israeli political and military echelons knows is because of shared interests between British imperialism and Israel. Israel is the West’s strategic watchdog in the Middle East. It conducts joint exercises with NATO. That is what lies behind the support of the most reactionary sections of the Tory Party, Eric Pickles et al – for Israel. It certainly isn’t love of Jews.

Direct action that involves spraying blood red paint on a factory goes against PSC’s ‘strategy’ of winning over the Establishment. PSC have difficulty understanding that British imperialism has no principled objection to Israel’s human rights abuses. The British Army hardly had a spotless record in Iraq, Afghanistan or Ireland. Human rights abuses and imperialism go together.

PSC’s mainstreaming ‘strategy’ has been a disaster. Apart from Corbyn it has no MPs as sponsors. It got rid of Baroness Tonge sometime ago. It has not  even tried to persuade MPs to form a BDS lobby. It lacks support from the Establishment yet it attacks direct action.

Since May there have been two huge demonstrations in support of the Palestinians, the last one 200,000 strong. They were called by 6 organisations including CND, Al Aqsa, Stop the War Coalition and the Muslim Association of Britain. MAB in particular mobilised huge numbers. It is doubtful, given its previous record, that PSC would have mobilised even a tenth of these numbers by itself.

What it does prove is that the cause of Palestine has massive potential. If PSC were a genuine solidarity organisation then membership would be 20,000 not around 5-6,000. It would be a movement at the forefront of direct action, linking up with groups like BLM, Xtinction Rebellion and the recent Campaign Against the Police Bill.

What PSC does have is a number of active branches nationally. It would have even more if there was an effective branch development policy. The list of branches on its website is hopelessly out of date.

Branches receive little support from the national office. When Brighton and Hove PSC waged a 2 year long campaign against Sodastream in Brighton, which successfully closed the shop down, we received no support from PSC nationally. The same was true of the successful campaign against Ahava in Covent Garden. PSC nationally mobilised nobody. Direct action simply does not fit into PSC’s plans.

The question is whether sufficient branches will be the kernel of a new and healthier Palestine solidarity movement which can build on the enormous support for the Palestinians today. A group which isn’t controlled by tiny sects, leftovers of the International Marxist Group, who believe that China is a socialist utopia. The question for activists is how to go about building such a movement.

Tony Greenstein

A Big Thank You To All Those Who Donated To My Sponsored Walk from Exceat to East Dean

$
0
0

 Thanks to your generosity I raised  £1,132.00 for the victims of torture

I spent nearly 3 hours walking from what was the ancient village of Exceat (now the 7 Sisters Country Park) to East  Dean helping to raise money for East Sussex Freedom From Torture. Walking up and down 5 of the Sisters or hills with my son, Daniel.

Whilst I was puffing and panting Daniel barely had a bead of sweat! There were about 15 of us on this particular walk and at least the same again on two other walks.

Below are some pictures of the scenery along the walk.

Tony Greenstein















Colombia – a Model US Client State and a Dangerous Place to be if you are a Trade Unionist

$
0
0

What is the British Police Involvement in Supporting Colombia's State Repression?

Police arrest a protester during clashes in Cali, Colombia, 10 May 2021. (Photo: Gabriel Aponte / Getty Images)

It is one of the mysteries of US Foreign Policy that it applies sanctions against Cuba and Venezuela for ‘human rights violations’ but Colombia, next door to Venezuela, as America’s favoured child, is immune.  Maybe what Roosevelt is reputed to have said about Nicaragua’s dictator Somoza, is applicable: ‘he may be a son of a bitch but he’s our son of a bitch.’

Although there has been a decline in the number of murders in recent years, Colombia is still one of the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade unionist. At least 14 trade unionists were murdered in Colombia between January 2019 and March 2020.

The National Crime Agency building in Westminster, central London. (Photo: Dan Kitwood / Getty Images)

Perhaps that is why Britain’s National Crime Agency was attracted to the idea of training Colombia’s murderous police. An article in Declassified UK by Matt Kennard reveals that the NCA has spent £2.3 m in the past 5 years training a police force that has killed 63 people since May whilst suppressing protests over the government’s proposed tax reforms.

Kennard describes the NCA as ‘UK’s secretive law enforcement arm that operates globally but which is shielded from any transparency.

The NCA “engaged” with “Colombian law enforcement agencies to improve their capability”. However the NCA refuses to answer any questions as to what that engagement means, its own role or even which police units it is training.

An articlein the Guardian on 7th July ‘I just need my son’: the people who disappeared amid Colombia’s protests’ reveals how 77 people have disappeared since April as the people have risen up in protests.  Of course disappearances are nothing knew when it comes to American client states in Latin America but what it does demonstrate is the thread of hypocrisy which runs through US foreign policy.

Only Cuba and Venezuela are subject to sanctions whereas in the case of Colombia and similar death squad regimes, the West trains, funds and supports their military – all in the name of human rights!

Dolores Barros is lookingfor her 17 year old son, Duvan, who disappeared on 5 June.  The disappearances have evoked memories of some of the darkest days of the country’s civil war’.


In several Colombian cities the Police have detained protesters in extrajudicial sites, using football grounds and shopping centres to hold people without formally charging them. People with long memories will remember how Chile’s Junta detained people in Santiago’s football ground prior to murdering them. Folk singer Victor Jara had his hands and fingers crushed or chopped off by soldiers who then riddled his body with bullets.

Colombia is a good response to groups like If Americans Knew who believe that United States support for Israel is because of the Israel lobby which distorts the true, peace-loving nature of US foreign policy. 

Kendrick Sampson

Kendrick Sampson, the actor and Black Lives Activist describedhis experience of a trip to Cartagena, Colombia where he hada traumatizing experience with police brutality. Earlier this year in Cartagena, local civil rights organizations declared a local emergency because of the number of young Black men being killed by police. And during protests in Bogota last autumn, at least 13 people were killed in clashes with police after thousands flooded the streets in protest of the police murdering Javier Ordoñez. Sampson wrote that:

In the U.S., we need to keep pushing our leaders to move billions of our taxes out of fundamentally violent systems like military, police and prisons and move that money into community led and operated systems that repair the harm done, and center care of those who need it most. That is what will keep us safe—care and repair. The U.S. has zero legitimacy in speaking out against abusive policing and militarization if it continues funding it, here and abroad.

We have to understand the struggle for Black liberation is an international struggle in solidarity with all oppressed peoples. From Palestinians in Shiekh Jarrah facing ethnic cleansing, to the Rohingya people, to police brutality in Brazil and Colombia. We must commit to stand with all people fighting against state-sanctioned violence and continued imperialism and colonialism. Our liberation is inextricably linked together. None of us are free until everyone is free. Let’s get free together.

The situation in Columbia has deteriorated markedly since "President" Ivan Duque came to power in 2018 (through fraud & backed by narco paramilitary funding). He is known to be a puppet front under the influence of ex-president Alvaro Uribe Velez, listed as trafficker #82 in declassified US official documents. Uribe is still free despite having hundreds of legal cases against him for narcotrafficking, paramilitarism, and massacres of civilians.

The most horrifying genocide which was perpetuated under his presidency (2002-2010) was the assassination of 6402 innocent young men who were enticed under promise of work in distant regions and assassinated and then passed off as guerrillas(known as 'false positives' but more correctly extra-judicial executions) in exchange for benefits and holidays for military officials and to demonstrate to the public that Uribe's "democratic security" policy was effective against the FARC guerrillas.

The mothers have formed a networkto look for their disappeared sons. See Colombian military accused of 6,400 extrajudicial killings

The rate of unionisation in Colombia is less than 4% but trade unionists are still threatened and killed yearly. According to the latest ITUC report Colombia is among the 10 worst countries for working people.

Even after the signing of the Peace Process in 2016, social and environmental leaders have been murdered at the rate of approximately 1 nearly every day. ie more than 200/year as well as trade unionists, indigenous and black leaders and women leaders, adding up to 1180 in the last 5 years

Paramilitary armies which the state uses to carry out state terrorism are still in their thousands free to roam the country now that the FARC guerrillas have left. The government blames "armed drug trafficking" groups but these are not the main assassins of social leaders. The government turns a blind eye when the police or army are found to be collaborators with these groups.

Colombia has extreme land concentration, environmental deprivation, underfunding in health education, pensions etc.. In other words a savage neoliberalism coupled allied to a police state. A horror which the mainstream media keeps pretty silent on.

Hence there are plenty of reasons for the General Strike which has gone on continuously since the 28th April 2021 and is now in its 61st day.

Over the last month during the strike 67 people were murdered by the riot police, more than 1500 injured, about 50 young people have had permanent eye injuries and sexual assaults by the police. The number is increasing as the strike has not stopped.

Further Information on the situation in Columbia

Colombia Solidarity has a revamped web-site which has some good all-round analysis of the situation in Colombia.

There are also some good recent articles in the Jacobin magazine

Also the US NGO Wola

You can find articles in Open Democracy such as Why Colombia has erupted in protest and Alvaro Uribe, the Colombian ex-president, faces judicial worries in the US

See also ‘I just need my son’: the people who disappeared amid Colombia’s protestsGuardian 7.7.21.

Justice for Colombia has info on trade unions and the demobilised FARC combatants.

You can also have a look at ABColombiawhich is the umbrella body for NGOs

Tony Greenstein 


This is how they Rewrite History - the Daily Mail Excised from the Life of Auschwitz Survivor Esther Béjarano her Support for the Palestinians

$
0
0

 German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas paid tribute to Esther Béjarano’s Fight Against Anti-Semitism – Whilst voting to describe BDS, which she also supported, as anti-Semitic


Esther Bejarano as a teenager

Esther Bejarano and the Microphone Mafia

If you want to learn about the life of Esther Béjarano then there’s no point in turning to Wikipedia, The Times of Israel or German news outlet DW.com still less the Daily Mail. Although it has to be said that they are all an improvement on the Guardian which doesn’t seem to have realised that Esther died early Saturday morning.

The Independentis typical of the coverage of Esther’s life. It reported that ‘Bejarano emigrated to Israel after World War II but returned to Germany with her husband in 1960.’ Presumably it didn’t occur to ask why Esther should return to the country which nearly murdered her. Perhaps she fancied a change of scenery?

For an understanding of Esther Béjarano’s life after 1945 we have to turn to an interviewover two years ago in the Palestinian Electronic Intifada. All the obituaries focus on the fact that Esther survived Auschwitz by playing in the orchestra which all those going to the gas chambers heard as they arrived in Auschwitz.

Of course what the Mail didn't say was that Esther Bejarano emigrated from Israel because she couldn't stand its racism

Auschwitz however was not the totality of Esther’s life. To deliberately excise a part of someone’s life because it doesn’t fit with an establishment narrative about ‘anti-Semitism’ demonstrates why the mainstream media is institutionally dishonest.

Esther described in Adri Nieuwh’s interviewWhy Auschwitz survivor Esther Bejarano supports BDS how, despite being a holocaust survivor, she has been called an anti-Semite for supporting the Palestinians.

It should make even the stupidest Zionist sit up and ask how it is that the false ‘anti-Semitism’ narrative ends up calling holocaust survivors who universalise the lessons of the holocaust, ‘anti-Semitic’.

Birkenau, where the gas chambers were situated and Esther played the accordion

Esther also called Israel’s government ‘fascist’. In her interview we learn that because she was classified as a mischlinge ‘mixed race’ (she had a Christian grandfather) she was transferred to the women’ concentration camps of Ravensbruck and thus survived.

Esther spent 15 years in Israel, marrying Nissim Bejarano, a truck driver. She tells how “My husband and I could not stand Israeli politics. It was a catastrophe. Life was difficult because we did not agree with the terrible things that were done to the Palestinians.”

Israel “fought against them, threw the Palestinians out. They didn’t leave on their own, they were forced to leave. We just could not stand that.” Esther fought in Israel’s War of Independence so this is not speculation.

In 1960 she and her husband left Israel for Germany. “It was very difficult because it was the country of the perpetrators.”What is surprising is that none of this appears in our prostitute press, which falsified the news to fit its political agenda. Esther described how in Germany

They also have called me an anti-Semite. I always say I am against the inhuman policies towards the Palestinians, and against war. With war you cannot achieve peace. Then they frame me as an anti-Semite.”

“It is a scandal because the terrible policies of Israel need to be clarified,”.

Referring to Israel’s former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the current Finance Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Bejarano says,

They are fascists. It is a fascist government. I have no other name for it.”

The space to debate BDS – boycott, divestment and sanctions – activism is very limited in Germany.

“Whether it [BDS] helps, that’s another issue. For many people here it is out of the question,”

 “But I say, if it helps to put anything in the way of the terrible [Israeli] policies, then I am for it. Because I have experienced what fascism is.”

 “In Germany, and many other countries, one does not distinguish between Judaism and Zionism. They think Israel, Zionism and Judaism are all the same.”

“It’s all lumped together and that’s where anti-Semitism comes from,”

“And the harshest thing is that the Germans now, to cleanse themselves so to speak, say the new anti-Semitism comes from the Muslims.”

Esther puts her finger on why the German capitalist class and its politicians are so eager to label opponents of Israel and Zionism as anti-Semitic. Given the record of complicity in the holocaust and the Nazi dictatorship by Germany industry – Siemens, Krupps, Bosch, IG Farben – the German Establishment is only too happy to use support for Israel to expiate its guilt whilst pointing the fingers at the victims of Israeli aggression.

Esther Béjarano’s goes on to explain why so many young Israelis leave the country.

“They [young Israelis] simply cannot live in Israel anymore. That is why so many have moved to Berlin.”

Germany's Bundestag voted to describe BDS as 'antisemitic' and therefore according to them Esther was antisemitic too

The Daily Mail had an Obituary on Esther Béjarano. It told readers how ‘'German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas called Esther Bejarano 'an important voice in the fight against racism and antisemitism' without telling us that Herr Maas also supported the resolution of Germany’s Bundestag (parliament) which passed a motion on 17th May 2019 calling BDS ‘anti-Semitic’.

Heiko Mass, Germany's Foreign Minister

It follows therefore that Herr Mass was calling Esther Béjarano an anti-Semite whilst at the same time saying that she was a fighter against anti-Semitism! These are the knots that the supporters of Israel and Zionism tie themselves up in when they label anti-racists, anti-fascists and anti-Zionists as anti-Semitic.

However when I first read the Daily Mail’s Obituaryby Kate Dennet I was prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps Kate was simply as ignorant as the rest of the Mail’s ‘journalists’. So I made a short contribution to the Comments underneath. I wrote:

'German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas called Esther Bejarano 'an important voice in the fight against racism and antisemitism' but Herr Maas also called her an anti-Semite.  Maas voted for a resolution in Germany's parliament that said that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel was anti-Semitic.

Esther was a strong supporter of the Palestinians.  She supported BDS.

Esther had been called an anti-Semite for speaking out against Israel’s inhumane treatment of Palestinians observing that 'the Germans now, to cleanse themselves so to speak, say the new anti-Semitism comes from the Muslims.”

The real lesson of Esther's life is that one should oppose all forms of racism, not anti-Semitism selectively.

An anti-fascist friend of mine also wrote a Comment on her. Both of our contributions were moderated out of existence. What I had written did not accord with the lies that the Mail and other papers perpetuate, viz. that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. To point out that Esther was both an opponent of fascism and anti-Semitism andZionism was too much for the liars who run the paper that supported Hitler before the war. Although my first comment was worded diplomatically, my next comments were anything but diplomatic:

How pathetic. You have censored my comment and that of xxx. Why? Because I paid tribute to her (Esther’s) support 4 the Palestinians and xxx paid tribute to her anti-racist and anti-fascist activism.  All 3 causes the Daily Mail doesn't approve of.  So you have deliberately omitted detail's of Esther's life which conflicts with the Daily Mail's own bigotry.

I understand. After all how does a paper that had Katie Hopkins as a columnist also print an obituary of an anti-fascist and anti-Zionist who by its definition is antisemitic?  By eliminating part of her life & pretending she was really 'like us' rather than being someone who detested everything that the Mail stands for.

After all if Esther had tried to escape to the UK as a child the Mail would have been foaming at the mouth at the very thought given that it waged a campaign to PREVENT Jewish immigrants coming in prior to 1939. And of course we should not forget Lord Rothermere, the Mail's Hitler owning proprietor

How the Daily Mail Supported Hitler During the 1930s

I followed up my 2 previous comments with an explanation of how, when Hitler took power in Germany, there was no more avid supporter of his than – the Daily Mail! I wrote, in a series of comments (the Mail assumes that their readers are stupid and confines them to about 200 words).

It is no wonder that comments are 'moderated' on the Mail. You didn't want people to discuss Esther Bejarano's life. You wanted people to say 'amen' and RIP and for the Mail to bask in the reflected glory of Esther's life long fight against racism and anti-Semitism, even though the Mail - bigoted and racist as it is,- stands for everything she opposed.

Esther was an anti-Zionist, a communist, a fighter who drew the lesson from the Holocaust that all racism was wrong. For you Zionism, racism against the Palestinians, is the lesson you draw from the Holocaust.  In other words Hitler's anti-Semitism justifies Israeli Apartheid and the ‘death to the Arabs’ demonstrations that successive Israeli governments have fostered. 

The Daily Mail has moved from supportingOswald Mosley’s Blackshirts and Hitler to ardent Zionism. There is of course no contradiction in this. The Nazis too supported Zionism, even though it is heretical – as Ken Livingstone found out – to mention this fact today. 

As Alfred Rosenberg, the Nazis’ main theoretician wrotein 1919:

‘Zionism must be vigorously supported in order to encourage a significant number of German Jews to leave for Palestine or other destinations.’

Rosenberg went on to say that the Nazis:

 ‘intended to use Zionism as a legal justification for depriving German Jews of their civil rights’ and ‘eventually the Jewish presence in Germany.

You can find both these quotes in Francis Nicosia’s The Third Reich and the Palestine Question. In May 1935 Schwarze Korps, the paper of the SS, wrote:

‘the Zionists adhere to a strict racial position and by emigrating to Palestine they are helping to build their own Jewish state.... The assimilation-minded Jews deny their race and insist on their loyalty to Germany or claim to be Christians because they have been baptised in order to subvert National Socialist principles.’

Today it is the far Right and anti-Semitic politicians from Germany’s AfD, Tommy Robinson, Trump, Bannon and Orban who combine anti-Semitism with support for Zionism.  So it is perfectly understandable that you can't allow the facts of Esther's political life to contradict the editorial line of the Mail. Of course your readers will be kept in ignorance basking in their own prejudices. But then that was always the secret of the Mail’s ‘journalism’.

If Esther Bejarano had tried to escape to England then she would have come face to face with articlessuch as the following:

"The way stateless Jews from Germany are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage:  the number of aliens entering the country through back door - a problem to which the Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed" Daily Mail, 20 August 1938.

Or if we go back further to the beginning of the 20th century we will readthat Jewish immigrants from Russia: [Daily Mail 3 February 1900]

" fought, they jostled to the foremost places at the gangways. When the Relief Committee passed by they hid their gold and fawned and whined in broken English asked for money for their train fare."Daily Mail, 3rd February 1900.

Throughout the 1930’s the Mail and its owner Lord Rothermere supported Hitler and our home grown National Socialists. In January 1934 appeared the famous ‘Hurrah for the Blackshirts’ articleon the Mail’s front page. 

There was no greater supporter of Hitler than the Mail’s owner, Viscount Rothermere. In an articleNAZI YOUTH IN CONTROLfor the Daily News in Perth on Monday 4 September 1933 Rothermere wrote:

 ‘Of all the historic changes in our time, the transformation of Germany under Hitler has been the swiftest, most complete, and most momentous. This nation of 65 millions stands behind him united as it never was before.

... I urge all British young men and women to study closely the progress of this Nazi regime in Germany. They must not be misled by the misrepresentations of its opponents.  They have started a clamorous campaign of denunciation against what they call 'Nazi atrocities,' which, as anyone who visits Germany quickly discovers for himself, consists merely of a few isolated acts of violence....

JEWISH OFFICIALS IN KEY POSITIONS

'THE German nation, moreover, was rapidly falling under the control of its alien elements. In the last days of the pre-Hitler regime there were 20 times as many Jewish Government officials in Germany as had existed before the war. Israelites of international attachments were insinuating themselves into key positions in the German administrative machine. Three German Ministries only had direct relations with the Press, but in each case the official responsible for conveying news and interpreting policy to the public was a Jew.

It is from such abuses that Hitler has freed Germany.

It would be both futile and unfair to resent this revival of German spirit. Each nation has the right to make the most of its own resources. ...

The world's greatest need today is realism. Hitler is a realist. He has saved his country from the ineffectual leadership of hesitating, half-hearted politicians.

It is no surprise that the Daily Mail feels the need to rewrite history given its own history.  When the Mail and the Tory papers, none of whom were interested in Hitler’s anti-Semitism before 1939, condemn ‘anti-Semitism’ today we should not be surprised that they have difficulty understanding the difference between anti-Semitism and opposition to racism. 

Tony Greenstein

Sadism and Cruelty are Embedded in the DNA of Zionism

$
0
0

The Decision to Refuse Khalida Jarrar, a Political Prisoner, Permission to Attend Her Daughter’s Funeral is an act of Judeo-Nazis

Nothing emphasises the cold, racist contempt that Zionism holds for Palestinians than the decision to prevent Khalid Jarrar permission to attend her daughter’s funeral. It is inconceivable that a Jewish prisoner in Israel would be treated in the same manner.

Khalid has been repeatedly gaoled for her political activity, membership of the Marxist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Most of the time this has been ‘Administrative Detention’ i.e. what was called in Ireland, internment without trial. From 2ndJuly 2017 to 28 February Khalida was held under Administrative Detention.

The PFLP has a political and a military wing.  Khaled belongs to its political wing. She is an elected member of the Palestinian parliament but that has not prevented the ‘democratic state’ of Israel from gaoling her for nakedly political reasons. There is no ‘security’ issue, the usual justification for racism in Israel.

As Omar Shakir of Human Rights Watch said

‘Depriving a mom long unjustly detained from saying goodbye to her daughter reflects pure cruelty, which underlies Israeli govt's apartheid’

Israel claims to be a democratic state but it gaols hundreds of Palestinians on the West Bank (and a few now in Israel too) without even the formality of a military trial, for 6 months at a time. This includes children. No offence need ever be committed. Political opposition to the occupation is all that is required.

Israel, which helped create Hamas, has no problem with conservative Islam (despite the pretence that Hamas is the devil incarnate, Netanyahu had an informal agreement with them) as demonstrated by the inclusion in a governing coalition, for the first time ever, of an Arab Party Ra’am, the offshoot of Egypt’s Moslem Brotherhood.

Secular and in particular leftist Palestinian groups are anathema to all wings of Zionism, left and right.

Contrast this with Elor Azaria, the Kahanist soldier who executed an unconscious Palestinian, Abdel Fatah al-Sharif, lying on the ground.  Azaria became a heroto the majority of Israelis on his release from prison. They even printedhis ugly face on supermarket bags.

The face of murderer Elor Azaria decorated plastic bags in Israel

As Ha’aretz put it, Azaria became a ‘poster child for Israel’s moral erosion.’ Because of the international attention that the case aroused, the Israeli Military was forced to jail him for 9 months.

If you want a comparison, remember Ahed Tammimi, a 16 year old girl who was gaoledfor 8 months for slapping a soldier who was trespassing in the grounds of her house, after her cousin had been shot in the head. Slapping a soldier was worth one month less than murdering a Palestinian.

Azaria was let out of prison 2 days before his official release date in order that he could attend his brother’s wedding. Yet a mother who had lost her daughter was refused, on the whim of a sadistic prison service and political echelon, even the most basic kindness that one would expect in the face of the bereavement of one’s child.

Sadism and cruelty are institutionalised in Israel in the all embracing fight against Palestinian resistance, which they term ‘terrorism’.

I remember a talk some years ago by Raja Shehada in Brighton and his description of the ‘meanness’ of Israelis who, during the Palestinian hunger strike in April 2017, set up a barbecue outside Ofer prison in order to torment the prisoners.

Even during the IRA hunger strikes of the 1980s, no Loyalist engaged in such a calculated act of sadism. And then there were the Israelis who set up sofas and a coffee machine on the hills above Gaza in order that they could get a better view of the bombing of civilians below. ‘Israelis Watch Bombs Drop on Gaza From Front-Row Seats’, NYT, 14.7.14.

People sometimes gib at comparing Nazi Germany to Zionist Israel but is there any more exact comparison? Some even call it ‘anti-Semitic’!

When the holocaust began in the wake of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941 Jews were murdered by the Einsatzgruppen killing squads under the heading of ‘bandits’ or ‘terrorists’. Calling one’s opponents ‘terrorists’ has long been the siren call of colonialists.

Zionists often say that Israel cannot be compared to Nazi Germany because, after all, whatever else they have done they have not exterminated the Palestinians.  But that misses the point. A large section of Israeli Jewry, certainly larger than the equivalent part of the German population, would have no hesitation in exterminating the Palestinians if the political opportunity arose and they thought they could get away with it.

When thousands of settlers, young and old, take part in Jerusalem’s annual March of the Flags and then parade through the Arab part of East Jerusalem chanting ‘Death to the Arabs’ (Ma’avet La’Aravim) we should take them at their word.  Even if Israel cannot find the opportunity for mass murder on an industrial scale no one should pretend that the mentality that enables such acts isn't already present.

Although Khalida was not able to attend the funeral of her beloved Suha, thousands of Palestinians took her place in Ramallah before demonstrating outside Ofer prison. In so doing they ensured that in her mother’s absence, Suha was laid to rest with the love of thousands. The squalid hatreds of Zionism was met with the love of the people.

The following letter from Khalida was read out at her funeral:

Ami Popper - murdered 7 Palestinians

As Anat Mater and Jonathan Pollak wrote in Ha’aretz:

If the despicable, racist murderer Ami Popper can be granted furlough, the freedom fighter Khalida Jarrar must also have the right to bury her daughter and part from her with dignity.

Jarrar is one of the greatest feminist, socialist and anti-colonial revolutionaries the Palestinian people have been blessed with, and she is recognized and respected by the international community. Irrespective of the death of her daughter, she should be released immediately from her political imprisonment, which will be ending, one way or another, in three months anyway.

Of course there is a difference. Ami Popper is a Kahanist who murdered 7 random Arabs whose only crime was their ethnicity. Originally sentenced to a whole life imprisonment, his sentence was reduced first to 40 years and he will now be released after 33 years. Palestinians who kill a single Israeli Jew can expect 40 years in prison.

The Zionists, like their Afrikaaner allies before them, are nothing if not stupid. Indeed they are even more stupid because at least the Afrikaaners knew when it was time to give up on a system based on racial superiority. They also released another ‘terrorist’ by the name of Nelson Mandela. The Zionists prefer the ways of their hero who who died in a bunker in Berlin.

The reason why the Zionists are particularly stupid is that in their unreconstructed vengeance it isn’t Khalida, with her quiet and poignant suffering who has suffered the most but the Zionists themselves. They have shown themselves to be a slow-witted and vicious cult whose only delight is in tormenting the vulnerable. Politically they have done themselves more damage than Khalida could ever have managed.

Below is an appropriate article from Gideon Levy in Ha’aretz.

Tony Greenstein

 

Damn Them All

Palestinian lawmaker Khalida Jarrar attending a court session at an Israeli military base near the West Bank city of Ramallah, in 2015.Credit: Majdi Mohammed / אי־פי

Gideon Levy

 Damn them all. Damn Rafael Gana, the deputy head of the Israel Prison Service, who wrote to the interior minister: “Your request does not meet the prerequisites for consideration.” Damn Katy Perry, the head of the Israel Prison Service, who approved the decision. Damn Public Security Minister Omer Bar Lev, the heartless coward, who didn’t lift a finger to change this evil decision. And above all, damn the Shin Bet, which probably stands behind the decision, as it stands behind far more than we know.

Damn all those who are partner to this sadistic decision not to release Khalida Jarrar from prison to attend her daughter’s funeral. Damn this new government, which presumed to herald a change, and none of whose ministers acted to oppose the evil institutions that decided to leave Jarrar in prison. Not even ministers Merav Michaeli and Tamar Zandberg, who presumably have far more in common with the secular feminist freedom fighter Jarrar than with their colleague Ayelet Shaked.

And damn the Israeli media, which, with the exception of this newspaper, took no interest in the story, which was reported worldwide but not in Israel. Jarrar is a political prisoner. After a sequence of arrests without trial, she was sentenced to two years in prison for “belonging to an illegal organization,” in a land where there is no organization that is permitted to Palestinians. Jarrar is scheduled to be released September 25, about two months from now. All the existential dangers that lie in wait for the country upon her release will be ready to pounce in another two months.

On Sunday, her daughter Suha was found dead, apparently from cardiac arrest. Suha’s body was found about five hours after her death, after her sister in Canada was unable to reach her by phone and asked friends to break into the house. Suha’s father Ghassan was in Jenin at the time and rushed to her home. The Khalidas have two daughters: Suha, who completed a master’s degree in climate change in Canada and worked for the Al Haq human rights group in Ramallah, and Yafa, who completed a doctorate in law in Canada and lives there.

I will never forget that moment in the military court in Ofer in the summer of 2015: Yafa, Suha and Ghassan in the audience, Khalida in the dock, and the Israel Prison Service officer, Bassam Kashkush, suddenly allowed the two young women to approach their mother and embrace her. Even the warden teared up. It was forbidden, against regulations, but what Officer Kashkush dared to permit, in a rare moment of humanity and compassion, the State of Israel, the head of the Prison Service and the interior minister failed to do.

All that was needed was a tiny degree of humanity. All that was missing was a minimal amount of humanity. “He had a mother, after all,” wrote poet Nathan Alterman. They are also parents, after all, Katy and Omer and the Shin Bet agents. Are they capable of imagining what it means to lose a young daughter and not be able to go to her funeral? Not to be with her father and sister during their tragedy? To mourn in grief in a cell in Damon Prison? To hear about the death of their daughter on Radio Palestine?

What else? What else needs to be said about Israeli insensitivity, except for one thing: Jarrar is a human being. But to most Israelis, she isn’t. She’s a terrorist, although she has never been convicted of terrorism, and she is a proud Palestinian, and that is even worse, apparently.

The day after Suha’s death, when there was still hope that Jarrar would be released, the banquet hall in the center of Ramallah was filled with people. The entire secular left of the city came to be with Ghassan, who remained so alone in his mourning. He cried and cried, and everyone cried with him. Fadwa Barghouti, Marwan’s wife, who sat next to me, said their son Aarab was at this moment visiting his father in prison for the first time since the outbreak of the coronavirus. He is the only one in the family allowed to visit Marwan. Fadwa is not allowed to visit her husband, and Khalida is not allowed to attend her daughter’s funeral. Israeli malevolence, how awful it is.

Whitewashing the role of the British Empire during the Palestine Mandate. What is the Balfour Project’s agenda?

$
0
0

 Eugene Rogan’s Theory Neither Pro-Zionist nor Pro-Arab but Pro-Empire’ whitewashes the role of the British in Palestine


The Balfour Project was formedin January 2017 during the 100th year since the Balfour Declaration. Its purpose was to counter the Zionist celebrations. Much of the material it produced was excellent. In any event the Zionist celebrations turned sour very quickly.

Jeremy Corbyn, in one of his few principled actions as leader, refusedan invitation to attend a Zionist celebratory dinner and sent Lady Emily Thornberry in his place. Her Ladyship believes that ‘Modern Israel is a beacon of freedom, equality and democracy".

Formally the  Balfour Project’s objectives are

the advancement of education, human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation’, by ‘a process of education, to advance public understanding of Britain’s role in the Middle East in the 20th Century, and thereby to seek to advance reconciliation in Israel and Palestine’.

Suppressing the Palestine Revolt

Whenever I hear the term ‘conflict resolution’ and ‘reconciliation’ I reach for  my pistol! The ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians wasn’t a ‘conflict’ and the word ‘reconciliation’ is another word for ‘surrender’ by the Palestinians. ‘Conflict resolution’ assumes that if only well meaning people gather together in one room then any little problems like the eviction of Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrar can be resolved within the existing Zionist paradigm of settler colonialism.

What is the purpose of the Balfour Project? The centenary has gone but under the baleful influence of Sir Vincent Fean, a minor diplomat and former Consul-General in East Jerusalem, it would seem that the BP has settled on rewriting the history of British crimes in Palestine.

On 3rd June Eugene Rogan, an American academic at Oxford University, gave a lecture on Britain’s role during the Mandate, ‘Neither Pro-Zionist nor Pro-Arab but Pro-Empire’.

Nial Ferguson - right-wing British historian

Rogan’s thesis was that throughout the Palestine Mandate Britain was neither pro-Zionist nor pro-Arab but it was solely concerned with maintaining the Empire (which, in one of those deceptions for which imperialism is famous, the Mandate system was officially not part of the Empire).

Kipling's 'The White Man's Burden'

Suffice to say that as I listened I grew more and more restless at this attempt to rewrite the history of the Mandate. Rogan’s thesis was a revisionist one, on a par with the attempts of British conservative historians such as Andrew Roberts and Nial Ferguson, to rehabilitate the reputation of the British Empire and pretend that it was, in the words of Rudyard Kipling, the white man’s burden.’

Sir Herbert Samuel

On 3 June I wrote to Diana Safieh of BP making the following points:

1.     Eugene Rogan's thesis, that the British were honest brokers, holding the ring in Palestine, is not a new one. Nicholas Bethel's. 'The Palestine Triangle', Yiga Hurewitz's 'Struggle for Palestine' and Christopher Sykes 'Crossroads to Israel' plough the same furrow. Eugene's argument was a Tory version of history, an attempt to sanitise the British Empire.

2.     Eugene made no mention of the Woodhead Commissionthat reversed the Peel Commission proposal for partitioning Palestine. He made no mention of the Hope Simpson Report which is required reading for anyone seriously interested in the mechanics of Zionist colonisation. 

3.     Quite remarkably Rogan made no mention of Sir Herbert Samuel, the first High Commissioner and father of the Balfour Declaration.

Irregulars fighting in the Arab Revolt

4.     There was no mention of the Arab Revolt 1936-39 which saw the British create the Jewish Settlement Police which was controlled by the Zionist terror group, Haganah. There was no mention of the Special Night Squads or of their commander Col. Orde Wingate, a highly influential Christian Zionist officer.

5.     The suggestion by Rogan that the idea of a Jewish state only originated during the latter stages of the First World War, that dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, the 'sick man of Europe' began then, is remarkable.  Christian Zionism had existed for nearly a century, indeed longer. Palmerstone, Shaftesbury, Disraeli, Ernest Laharanne, Napoleon I and III to mention but a few. Discussions about a Jewish State in Palestine began as early as January 1915 when Weizmann met Lloyd George with Samuel (see Chapter 8 ‘Weizmann, Samuel and Lloyd George’ in Leonard Stein’s The Balfour Declaration.

Sir Ronald Storrs

6.     Sir Ronald Storrs, Britain's first Military Governor, was explicit as to what Britain's purpose was in Palestine and it wasn’t a neutral one. Storrs wrote in his autobiography ‘Orientations’ that

the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine “blessed him that gave as well as him that took, by forming for England ‘a little loyal Jewish Ulster’ in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.” 

British soldiers engaging in day to day repression of the Arabs

That was the policy of the British from the start.  Almost the first thing Churchill in 1921 was to sendthe Black & Tans, from Ireland to Palestine. And it wasn't to suppress the Zionists.

7.     Of course there was a debate between the British civil service and the military as to Zionism. It may amaze people now but both the Daily Mail and the Express opposed Zionism on the grounds of cost. Politicians were more favourable to the Zionist alliance since they took the longer view of British imperialism’s interests. I refer for example to Doreen Ingram’s Palestine Papers for the debate within the British Establishment.

The Jewish Settlement Police

8.     1.     I suggested that with such a contentious title there should have been a debate on the topic not a one-sided, pro-British imperialist thesis.  I also remarked on a tendency in the BP to excuse Britain's record with Sir Vincent Fean, a minor former diplomat as its Chair.

2.     Rogan's thesis is an attempt to whitewash Britain's role in Palestine and should not go unchallenged in an organisation which is pro-Palestinian.

I followed up with a second email the following day to Diane saying that I had had a lot of responses to my original email, all agreeing with what I had said, viz. that Rogan was engaged in an exercise in excusing Britain's role in Palestine, the exact opposite of holding Britain accountable as the BP claims to be doing.

I gave as an example British support for Zionist colonisation. It was the British Police who when the JNF purchased land then evicted the Palestinian peasants and I referred to the introduction of the ‘criminal gang of misfits and cut throats’, the Black and Tans, led by Douglas Duff after whom 'duffed up' is derived. See e.g. The Irish Times.

 Black & Tans

Rogan’s quotes from British officials, although interesting were out of context and it seemed that ‘the good professor was unable to see the wood for the trees.’

I also remarked that the chat facility was disabled during Rogan’s talk which prevented attendees commenting or making points. This is a Command and Control approach which inhibits genuine discussion.

Sir Vincent Fean

I received no reply to this email but having copied it to Eugene Rogan, he replied. I don’t have his permission to post his replies so I have to paraphrase them. Rogan’s main points were:

1.            My comments surprised him as he didn’t think we disagreed!

2.            The British armed the Zionists in order to make them more ‘reliable’ in upholding the British Mandate.

3.            That he is a ‘staunch critic’ of both the British and French empires.

My response was that:

1.            By arming the Zionist settlers you were not making them more reliable but potentially your own adversaries.

2.            In any event by arming one side only the British were clearly supporting the Zionists against the Palestinians much as they had used the Unionists in Ireland against the indigenous Catholic Irish.

if you go and arm one side then what you create is not reliability but a rod for your own back and that is exactly what happened.  Orde Wingate effectively created Palmach and taught the Zionists the rudimentary skills of counter insurgency and they used them to good effect after 1945.

3.            That the British denied the Palestinians any semblance of self-government, until the Zionists were in a majority. This was unlike India where the British conceded majority control of the provincial assemblies.

4.            Rogan made great play of the restriction of Jewish immigration in the 1939 White Paper to 35% of the total population, 15,000 a year for 5 years. However this restriction wasn’t part of a long term plan to keep the Zionists in the minority but a necessity brought about by the imminent conflict with Germany. The British could not afford to keep large numbers of troops in Palestine to deal with another Arab rebellion.

5.            That the British allowed almost unlimited Jewish immigration, with the only proviso being the economy’s absorptive capacity. That it was the Zionists who practiced a policy of selective immigration, turning away 2 out of 3 immigrants – the poor, elderly, etc. In fact in 1926 there was a net outflow of Jewish immigrants because of the dire economic situation.

6.            That the British wanted another White Dominion along the lines of Canada and Australia. Of course the Zionists had other ideas but at no stage had the British chosen neutrality.

Rogan followed this up with one final email of 22nd June in which he made the following points:

1.            He was not an Anglophile but an Irish-American!

2.            He now accepted that we did have some disagreements. He also accepted that British officials were aware of Zionism before WW1 but queried whether they had ever contemplated ‘wrenching it’ from the Ottoman Empire to give to the Zionists.

Of course it is true that the British had not intended to ‘wrench’ Palestine from the Ottoman Empire, not least because up till 1914 the British saw it as a bulwark against French expansion from Syria to the Suez Canal. And not only France but Germany too. There is though an intriguing comment of Julian Amery MP to Leonard Stein that ‘the disruption of the Turkish Empire was a matter of continuous speculation at this time’(fn. 88, p.25)

3.            The British were alive to the threat from Mehmet Ali in Egypt to British interests by his attack on the Ottoman Empire and his invasion of Syria. As Leonard Stein wrote ‘British interests required that everything possible should be done to prop up the Sultan.’ (p.5) However they also, as with Palmerstone in 1840, attempted  to interest the Turks into sponsoring a Jewish settlement of Palestine to ward off the French.

4.            The argument that the British were not interested in a Zionist settlement of Palestine or adjacent territories is unsustainable. In 1903 Herzl and Joseph Chamberlain, the Colonial Secretary, discussed the El Arish scheme. 

5.            Rogan suggested that I should not overstate the influence of Herbert Samuel’s paper The Future of Palestine present to the British Cabinet in January 1915. That is arguable however it clearly won over Lloyd George.

6.            Rogan asked why, if the immigration restrictions in the 1939 White Paper were only a war-time necessity, why then uphold these limits after the war to the extent of turning back shiploads of refugees and holocaust survivors. The answer is of course that circumstances had changed.

The Haganah, the Zionists' semi-official army

The Irgun had declared war on the British in February 1944. They were joined by the main Zionist terror organisation, Haganah in Autumn 1945. The Zionists wanted a Jewish state not a British Dominion. The centre of gravity in the Zionist movement had shifted during the war from Britain to the United States. Ben Gurion represented the alliance with the United States and Weizmann the orientation towards Britain. It was the consequences of the 1939 White Paper that led to the Zionist breach with the British. But throughout the war the British and Haganah had cooperated very closely with the British effectively arming Haganah and creating a Jewish Brigade at the end of 1944.

Of course the British were intent on retaining their foothold in Palestine as they were in the Middle East as a whole but they never, at any stage, contemplated arming the Palestinians in the same way as they had armed the Zionist militias. This is similar to the American War of Independence when the British refused to contemplate arming the Black slaves in the South in order to bolster their own forces. The fight between the British and the Zionists was an inter-imperialist fight not unlike the Boer Wars. It was a sacred principle that Britain would not arm the indigenous people. Hitler also foreswore the idea of arming the natives against British imperialism which is why talk of a Nazi-Arab alliance is rubbish.

British wanted posters for the Irgun

7.            On the positive side Rogan liked my comparison between the Boers and the Zionists and agreed that many Britons supported Zionism for anti-Semitic reasons. But he argued that this did not mean that Britain was going to sacrifice the interests of the Empire for the sake of Zionism.

I agree. Of course the British were primarily interested in maintaining the Empire. However up till 1945, despite disagreements, they saw their alliance with the Zionists as one way of doing this. At no stage did they think of forming an alliance with the Palestinians.

In a short rejoinder I pointed out that there were some British politicians, the most notable of whom was the future Labour Cabinet member Richard Crossman MP, but also the Tribune group of Labour MPs, who did support the Zionist militias against the British army.

We also had a short exchange on Irish Republicanism but I will desist from copying it here. Suffice to say we agreed on that subject at least!

Tony Greenstein

Mass Lobby of Labour’s NEC Tuesday July 20th 12.00 - Stop the Purge of Socialists

$
0
0

 Starmer to Expel Thousands of Socialists while ReAdmitting Islamaphobe Trevor Phillips


It is clear from reports in the yellow press that Starmer is embarking on a purge of socialists and anti-racists in the Labour Party. This comes after Trevor Phillips quietly had his suspension liftedabout a month ago. Phillips was suspended in March 2020 after a series of racist comments such as Muslims were ‘a nation within a nation’.

Phillips was also quotedin the Guardian as saying that it was correct for Muslims to be judged collectively: “You keep saying that I make these generalisations,” he said. “But the truth is, if you do belong to a group, whether it is a church, or a football club, you identify with a particular set of values, and you stand for it. And frankly you are judged by that.”

It is accepted by all that blaming all Jews for the actions of an individual is racist, yet when it comes to Muslims this is perfectly acceptable to Starmer and Evans. If ever there were proof that Starmer’s commitment to ‘rooting out anti-Semitism’ was a vicious anti-Palestinian hoax this is it.

Four groups are going to be proscribed – Labour Against the Witchhunt(LAW), Labour in Exile Network (LIEN), Socialist Appeal and Chris Williamson’s Resist.

These measures only affect the aforementioned 3 groups.  LAW is a longstanding group first formed in the 1980s when Jeremy Corbyn was its Secretary.  It was refounded in 2017 to fight back against the bogus ‘anti-Semitism’ witchhunt which Corbyn succumbed to.

LIEN was formed in the wake of Corbyn’s suspension last October. Despite being reinstatedto the Party Sturmer refused to reinstate the Whip forcing him to sit as an independent MP.  Over a hundred Constituency Labour Parties passed motions of no confidence in Sturmer and his glove puppet Evans and demanded the reinstatement of Corbyn.

Keir Starmer has none of the above three!

Starmer and the unelected Evans reacted in the way we have come to expect of the Labour Right. Evans declared that CLPs were ‘not competent’ to discuss such resolutions. This Stalinist approach to democracy will be warmly applauded by the capitalist press, not least the Mirror and Guardian.

Those CLPs and officers that refused to be intimidated were suspended and their officers either suspended or expelled if they refused to accept the dictate of Starmer and his big business buddies. 

Starmer was elected leader on a pledge of being the ‘unity’ candidate who would take forward the manifesto pledges of Corbyn. These were lies as was his reason ‘anti-Semitic conspiracy theories’ for sackingRebecca Long-Bailey as Education Shadow and then Corbyn himself.

Starmer was fundedin his leadership campaign by a bevy of wealthy individuals – Bob Latham (£100K), Waheed Ali (£100K), Martin Taylor, a hedge fund manager (£95K), Clive Hollick (£50K), Trevor Chinn, a long-time Zionist & owner of Kwik Fit (£50K), Peter Coates, owner of Bet365 (£25K), Martin Clarke, former AA finance director (£25K) and a former  funder of the defunct Change UK/Independent Group. One of the few examples of a rat joining a sinking ship and Paul Myners (£10K). Just 8 rich individuals contributed nearly half a million pounds yet Starmer used various legal stratagems to hide the fact from Labour members that it was wealthy businessmen who were funding his campaign until the election was over. It might have given the game away if members had been aware that he was funded by a ratbag of Blairite entrepreneurs.

Sir Keir is repaying the debt he owes Chinn and the Israel Lobby by expelling and purging socialists from the Labour Party. He intend to complete what Blair started.  To remake Labour into a second party of capitalism and to purge it of any trace of socialism.

Except that when Blair began his campaign to repeal Clause IV he was riding high in the polls as was Kinnock before him.  Starmer by contrast is in a dire position electorally. He lostone by-election in Hartlepool, a seat Labour had never before lost, nearly lost another by-election and in a third by-election Labour got the worst ever election result in its history, 1.6%.

Starmer is taking Labour down to what will be a historic political defeat at the next election. Why  Because he has nothing to say.  As the Tories introduce a new NHS reform bill Labour sits silent because under Starmer Labour does not oppose private companies taking over more and more of the NHS.  The same is true for the Labour Party on the Police and Crime Bill.  Starmer has no concept of what opposition is because he and the Labour Right have no fundamental differences with the Tories.

It is time for the Campaign Group of MPs to get off their knees and start fighting back. If Sir Keir is successful socialism inside the Labour Party will be dead. It is regrettable that Jeremy Corbyn has taken the legal route in fighting back rather than campaigning for the removal of Starmer.

We also have to be honest and say that much of the Labour Left under Lansman, Corbyn and McDonnell helped bring this situation about when they introduced the ‘fast track’ system of expulsions. It should be a lesson to all that when you appease Labour’s Right they only demand more.  It is also highly unlikely, given he has already had one legal setback, that Corbyn will be victorious.

Last night representatives of LAW, LIEN, LRC, LLA, Socialist Appeal and JVL met to plan the fightback which will start with the Lobby this Tuesday July 20thoutside the Labour Party headquarters  at 105 Victoria St, London SW1E 6QT.

Unfortunately despite Socialist Appeal making it clear that they wanted to fight it politically by calling for Starmer’s sacking, the majority in the meeting did not agree.

The Right are proposing to revive the McCarthyist list of proscribed organisations that was abandoned in 1973. Anyone who is a member or supporter of the four groups will be automatically expelled.

Membership of the above groups will be held to be “incompatible with membership of the Labour Party”, as they have their own programme, membership, and structures. Three of the four organisations on the list do not do that whereas the right-wing factions Progress, Labour First and the Jewish Labour Movement do qualify. Indeed the JLM is affiliated internationally to the World Zionist Organisation and is the overseas wing of the Israeli Labor Party. All 3 of the above right-wing organisations openly campaigned against Labour under Corbyn’s leadership and the JLM went so far as to refuse to support Labour candidates at the 2019 general election.

We were informed at the meeting that Momentum’s National Coordinating Group will be issuing a statement tomorrow opposing Starmer’s proposals. Apparently the man who did more than anyone to weaken the Labour Left, Jon Lansman, has also made clear his opposition to what is being proposed by the Right.

When Keir Starmer promisedto ‘root out antisemitism’ in the Labour Party what he was really saying was that he was going to root out the left. Unfortunately the present Momentum leadership still hasn’t come to terms with this despite dozens of Jewish members being suspended.

 False charges of ‘antisemitism’ have been used to prevent any discussion or expression of solidarity with Palestinians of which the ruling out of order of a motion to Hove Labour Party on the advice of Labour’s racist and anti-Semitic South-East Regional Organiser Scott Horner is but the latest example.

The position of LAW and LIEN is quite clear. There should be no automatic expulsions.  Everyone is entitled to a fair hearing and due process. The National Constitutional Committee, an elected body, which is there to hear disciplinary cases has been totally sidelined.

If you have been suspended or expelled you or they are trying to silence your local party then you should come to this protest-lobby of the NEC at 12 noon this Tuesday 20 July and tell your story.  Email Norman on info@labour-in-exile.org to let us know.

Norman Thomas, who founded LIEN said in a statement:

“There is wide agreement Starmer is pretty pathetic at fighting the Tories, but he’s in overdrive when it comes to attacking his own members. He has destroyed democracy in Labour to get rid of the thousands of people who joined after Jeremy Corbyn became leader.”

Thomas said there would be more action to come – including at the conference in September.

 “This is just the beginning of the fightback. We are fighting for the future of the Labour party,” he said.

The whole left must stand in solidarity with these four organisations and oppose this latest purge. If Starmer succeeds on Tuesday then other groups will be added to the list.  

See also Labour’s planned purge is an act of self-sabotage and Sir Keir set to expel 1,000 leftwing members in four ‘poisonous’ groups in the Morning Star and in Canary Labour wants to ban left wing members, but they’re taking the fight to party HQand on Skwawkbox Exclusive: the FOUR left groups Labour plans to outlaw – and the ‘Labour’ MP who wants left-wing Jews added to the list. 


Hundreds Attend Demonstration outside Labour HQ against the proscription of 4 groups as Momentum pleads for unity with Starmer

$
0
0

 The NEC's decision that those seeking office must undergo ‘anti-Semitsism training’ by the JLM is like asking Tommy Robinson for advice on race relations



Although it only came together at the last minute, the joint demonstration outside Labour’s Party in Victoria Street, London organised by Labour Against the Witchhunt, Labour in Exile Network, Jewish Voices for Labour and the Labour Representation Committee, was an unqualified success. It was a demonstration that people want an end to Starmer and Evan’s dictatorship and to see a return of democracy, free speech and justice in the Labour Party.

Up and down the country there are reports of rigged elections of conference delegates, suspensions and expulsions coupled with false accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’. The desperation of Starmer to expel and exclude the left is obvious to anyone with eyes to see.

Esther Giles of LIEN and friend

It was also reported  that the Labour Party is facing a financial crisis as a result of Starmer’s decision to destroy Labour Party democracy and expel and exclude members, resulting in a loss of over 100,000 members since his election. This was of course exacerbated by Starmer’s decision to pay £700,000 to John Ware and the ‘Whistleblowers’ of the infamous Panorama programme ‘Is Labour Anti-Semitic’.

As Corbyn remarkedthis was a political not legal decision. It was taken in order that the EHRC could produce a damaging report about Labour ‘anti-Semitism’. This was despite advice that Labour would win the court case. Starmer literally threw away £700K.

I understand that the party only has money for next month’s salaries. Yesterday the NEC also approved plans to sack 90 staff, one quarter of its total staff.

new leaflet from Labour in Exile Network - why Labour never had an antisemitism problem - it had a Zionism problem

Picket of  Regional Labour HQ in Bristol last month

Under Corbyn   thanks to an unprecedented membership growth, party finances were healthy.  Under Starmer they are dire. As Andrew Fisher, a former Executive Director of Policy under Corbyn wrote:

Starmer is running out of other people to blame. By inspiring no one, he has plunged the party into financial crisis and damaged the party’s electoral prospects. 

There was real energy today amongst the 200+ people who attended and there was no sense of demoralisation. Tina Werkman was the first speaker from Labour Against the Witchhunt and then I spoke. I made a number of comments about the situation as I see it.

Starmer has nowhere to go and nothing to say which is why he is attacking the membership. Starmer is not Blair and the times are completely different between now and 1997. Starmer is a particularly wooden representative of capitalism within the Labour Party.

Although he was not there in person, Starmer was represented by a cardboard cut-out. As many people observed, the cardboard version had more of a personality than the living version!

There was the usual lying and distorted report in the Jewish Chronicle, a propaganda rag that seems to take pleasure in providing false news. For example it is true some anti-vax/covid conspiracists turned up with Piers Corbyn. We were unaware they would come and they brought their own PA, though in fairness they didn’t disrupt proceedings. We weren’t working together in some conspiratorial fashion even though the Jewish Chronicle would love us to do so.

Momentum statement on proscriptions

All groups at the demonstration, from LAW to JVL expressed their disappointment at the weak and flaccid statement from Momentum. Their appeals for unity with Starmer are frankly pathetic given Starmer’s attacks on the left and his inability to lay a glove on Johnson. Momentum offered no solidarity in their statement, did not suggest actually doing anything and failed to support yesterday’s demonstration. Despite the change in leadership there has been no real change in Momentum’s politics. It is simply refusing to face up to the crisis caused by Starmer’s leadership.

I posted a statementlast night criticising Momentum’s statement. One typical response from John Brown said:

An EXCELLENT reply  Tony  - I can't be with you in London but you all have my TOTAL solidarity - I cancelled my membership of Momentum 3 months ago after hoping for a change but it is clearly beyond repair  !!

I'm not disillusioned or giving up  - the exact opposite is true - I been through defeats and partial victory before as we all have BUT I finally gave in to HOPE only to see it yet again cut down - Lansman was the warning sign but I held on  - now this begging for acceptance approval and accommodation of OUR views is a step to far for me !! So I resigned - but I will NEVER abandon my principles  - they've kept me sane for over 55 years  !!

It is clear that we have a  lot of work to do. There is the Rialto Resist Event from September 26-28, during Labour Party Conference in Brighton where we will be hosting a series of alternative social and political events that are immune to Zionist attempts to close down.

We need to follow up yesterday’s demonstrations with a series of pickets of the regional mafia that the Labour Party employs to police its membership. Assuming that there will be many of them left after Starmer’s purges.



Employing Racists to Conduct ‘Anti-Semitism’ Training is like asking Tommy Robinson to lecture on racial harmony

Perhaps the most disturbing decisionby Labour’s NEC, was to make all candidates standing for public office or office in the party undergo ‘anti-Semitism’ training by the https://www.jewishlabour.uk/ 

The JLM is affiliatedto the World Zionist Organisation. It describesthe Israeli Labor Party as its ‘sister party in Israel.’ The ILP supports the separation of Jew and Arab. It has drawn up a separation plan. Separate development was what Apartheid in South Africa was.

What the ILP envisage is South Africa’s bantustanisation. As Ben White noted, when the ILP’s previous leader Isaac Herzog (now the President) ran for prime minister Labour had an advertboasting about how he “understands the Arab mentality”. On another occasion, Herzog declared: “I want to keep a Jewish state with a Jewish majority...I don’t want a Palestinian prime minister in Israel”.

Herzog also toldhis MKs that Labor needed to stop giving the impression that they were ‘Arab lovers’ and that “a false impression exists that we take the needs of Palestinians into account before the needs of the State of Israel.”

Greg Hadfield from Brighton

As +972 Magazine put it, the ILP’s “glory days included the Nakba [the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948]”, as well as “conquering and settling the West Bank and East Jerusalem”.

The World Zionist Organisation has what Ha’aretz describedas a ‘land theft division’.  This is who the JLM works with.

In other words the group that is going to lecture on ‘anti-Semitism’ is itself racist. It is like asking Tommy Robinson to run a training course on Islamaphobia. Or asking Dr Harold Shipman for advice on care for the elderly. The decision is an affront to Palestinians since according to the JLM, calling Israel racist is anti-Semitic.

It is as if Starmer and his clones hadn’t heard of the report by B’Tselem, Israel’s largest human rights organisation in January of this year describingIsrael as ‘A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid’.

Human Rights Watch followed this up with their own reportA Threshold Crossed - Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution’.

It is as if, in the days of Apartheid in South Africa, the Labour Party  had asked supporters of Apartheid to run a training session on combating racism. The decision by Labour’s NEC is racist and yet Momentum still refuse to call out the fake ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign despite 70%of Labour Party members refusing to believe the lies of the Israel lobby that Labour had an anti-Semitism problem.

One of those pushing for the JLM on the NEC is another racist, Luke Akehurst, who works for We Believe in Israel. When Israeli snipers were mowing down unarmed demonstrators in Gaza, children and medics included, he supportedthe murderers.

Andrew Feinstein

We now have open racists running the Labour Party and still Momentum sits on its hands as their co-chairs Andrew Scattergood and Gaya Sriskanthan pretend that they can unite with Starmer, a racist without qualification’.

The guest speaker was Andrew Feinstein, the Jewish former ANC MP under Nelson Mandela, who gave a powerful speech in our support.

Mad Mel Gharial, Tommy Robinson supporter with friend

There were a handful of Zionists present of the fascist variety led by Mad Melanie Gharial. They were sporting ‘For the Many not the FewJew which I explained to them was anti-Semitic as it implied that British Jews are all part of the wealthy few. Mad Mel also told me that she has ‘two beautiful children’. My response was that it was fortunate that they didn’t resemble their mother! Melanie always looks as if she was unhappy. Supporting war crimes all day must take its toll, even on this supporter of Tommy Robinson!

Tony Greenstein

EXCLUSIVE: The Labour Party has threatened to sue me for libel because I called Regional Organiser, Scott Horner, a racist and anti-Semite!

$
0
0

 This is Chutzpah– after falsely accusing thousands of members of ‘anti-Semitism’ Labour sends me a 4 page solicitor’s letter - this is how Labour turns Zionists into victims

Warning - not for the squeamish!

Imagine my surprise when I recently received a letterfrom solicitors for the Labour Party threatening to sue me for libel. What was my crime? I had posted a blogon 27 June accusing Kim Bolton, the Chair of Hove CLP and Scott Horner, Labour’s South-East Regional Organiser, of being racists and anti-Semites. Which they are!

At this point you may feel unsteady on your feet. After expelling, suspending and putting thousands of members under investigation for the merest mention of Israel or Zionism (‘anti-Semitism’) they have the brass neck to turn round and threaten to sue me for daring to accuse them of anti-Semitism. As Thatcher once said ‘it’s a funny old world.’

So why has Starmer’s Labour to react so aggressively? Is Horner innocent? Am I unfairly traducing a young member of staff?

Condemning and sanctioning Israel for killing infants and children is 'antisemitic' according to Scott Horner

Background

Goldsmid and Hove Park branch of Hove and Portslade CLP passed the following motion at their June meeting. It read:

“Hove and Portslade CLP call upon the leader of the Labour Party and the Shadow Foreign Secretary to strongly urge the government to

(1) Call on the Israeli government for an end to its violation of the human rights of Palestinians and for an end to the illegal occupation of the Gaza strip and the West Bank

(2) Impose legal sanctions on Israel for its repeated violations of international law, and, in particular, place an embargo on arms sales and end trade with illegal settlements”

This motion would, apparently, according to Scott Horner, threaten the safety of Jews and make them feel unwelcome.

If you call for sanctions on Israel to protect Palestinians you are making racist Jews feel 'unsafe' according to Scott Horner

According to the most recent You Gov survey, 61% of Labour members support boycott, divestment and sanctions [BDS] and only 8% are opposed. So it is a pretty mainstream view in the Labour Party yet the Labour Right in Hove scrambled to prevent the motion being discussed. They sought the backing of Labour’s Southern Region Organiser Scott Horner, who naturally agreed. Horner wrote to Bolton stating that:

Minutes of the Executive of Hove Labour Party June 2021

“While we encourage comradely debate, I feel that this discussion would act as a flashpoint for the expression of views that would undermine the Party’s ability to provide a safe and welcoming space for all members, in particular Jewish Members.” (my emphasis)

Hove’s Chair, Kim Bolton then ruled that:

I support that view. The motion from Goldsmid and Hove Park branch requesting Sanctions against Israel risks opening a debate that will stir up internal conflict in our CLP and may lead to further anti-Semitic behaviour. As CLP chair , on the advise (sic!) of Scott Horner, Labour South East officer, I rule the motion on Sanctions Against Israel out of order.”

What Horner was saying was that a debate on BDS will cause people to express anti-Semitic views. In other words BDS is motivated by anti-Semitism not sympathy for the Palestinians. Horner doesn’t say this openly of course, because like all Labour’s regional mafia, he is politically dishonest.

What Horner and Bolton are doing is casting the Palestinians as the villains and the Zionists as the victims. That is the function of the ‘anti-Semitism’ libel. It reminds me of those John Wayne movies that I used to watch as a kid which showed the cowboys as the victims of the Native Indians who, for unknown reasons, kept attacking those honest, god fearing cowboys such as John Wayne and Clint Eastwood.

By formulating his words in this cunning and deceptive way, Horner is showing how quickly he has grasped how political language must be phrased in such a way as to hide its real objective. The art of politics lies in how best you can hide your real aims. Horner has a promising career ahead of him!

Paddy O'Keefe of Brighton Kemptown CLP was suspended for quoting an article by a child survivor of the holocaust - Ze'ev Sternhell in Ha'aretz - apparently this is anti-Semitic!

When the CIA wanted to torture people they explained it away as ‘enhanced interrogation.’ When the Nazis referred to the holocaust they used euphemisms such as ‘special measures’ and ‘special treatment’.

In 1946 George Orwell wrote an essay"Politics and the English Language" describing this phenomenon.

‘Political language …is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.’

Orwell described how

‘political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible… The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.’ That was why ‘political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.’

In 1949 Orwell wrote 1984about a dystopian future in which terms such as Newspeak and Big Brother entered the English language.

Horner doesn’t come out and say that opposition to Israel’s war crimes and support for BDS is anti-Semitic. Instead he says that discussion of such a motion would act as a ‘flashpoint’, a suitably incendiary noun, for the expression of views that ‘would undermine the Party’s ability to provide a safe and welcoming space for all members.’ Adding at the end ‘in particular Jewish Members.’ Of course he never says why.

Labour Conference under Corbyn

This is a classic way in which the roles of the oppressed and oppressor are reversed. It is deeply racist. It harkens back to the days when the British Empire was called the ‘White Man’s Burden.’

What Horner is saying is that in order to prevent ‘anti-Semitism’ no support whatsoever must be given to the child languishing in an Israeli prison, having been beaten to a pulp. Palestinians whose homes have been demolished or parents whose children have been torn to shreds by Elbit’s drones must understand that ‘anti-Semitism’, the feelings of well heeld Jewish Labour Party members, must take priority. These are the same people who bitterly denied that the ‘anti-Semitism’ allegations were about Israel!

Horner didn't like my last blog - he'll like this even less!

Neither Horner nor Starmer are genuinely interested in anti-Semitism. What they really want is to dispense with the idea that Labour’s foreign policy should consist of solidarity with oppressed peoples. Anti-imperialism must give way to the interests of western imperialism.

It is part of the unfinished Blair Project that on foreign affairs there should be no differences between Labour and the Tories. Foreign policy should be bipartisan just like in the United States.

What then of Jews? Well in the words of Barnaby Raine, we are the Western Establishment’s favourite pets.’ and ‘heroic colonists.’ As I wrote in my first article Jews are the moral alibi, the political football of Labour’s racist right which is unconcerned with any form of anti-racism which challenges their own political and economic interests.

There is no Israeli war crime that Peter Kyle, MP for Hove, a new LFI Vice-Chair won't support

Let us take Scott Horner at his word and accept that there are some Jews who would be disconcerted or feel unwelcome because of solidarity with the Palestinians. Clearly the racist Jewish Labour Movement and people like Peter Kyle MP and Kim Bolton would feel very uncomfortable.

The answer is so what? Is international solidarity, the essence of socialism, to be sacrificed to the subjective feelings of racists, be they Jewish or non-Jewish? Who cares about such snowflakes when compared to the agonies of families thrown out of their homes in order to satisfy the desire of settlers to see an Arab-free Jerusalem?

Imagine that in 1933 a resolution was proposed to Hove Labour Party calling for support for the Jewish Boycott of Nazi Germany. The only Jews who opposed this at the time were bourgeois Jews and the Zionists, who preferred to reach a trade agreement, Ha’avara, with the Nazis.

Just suppose that there were German members of the Labour Party who said that they felt uncomfortable with the proposed motion because they said it made them feel unwelcome and that it was anti-German. No doubt Scott Horner’s ghostly ancestors would have ruled the motion out of order.

Of course any socialist worthy of the name would ask why pro-Nazi supporters were even members of the Labour Party. That should be our approach to the idea that some Jews will feel discomfited by criticism of Israel and support for the Palestinians.

If there are Jews within the Labour Party who genuinely feel that resolutions opposing Israeli Apartheid make them feel unwelcome then my response is this. ‘Why the hell are you members of a party that purports to be socialist?’ Should the views of racists be the reason for suppressing free speech and failing to give solidarity with the victims of ethnic cleansing? Yet that is what has happened.

Letter from the Labour Party’s solicitors

The letter I received was headed ‘Not for Publication’ but clearly it is in the public interest to publish it and also my reply. Labour’s solicitors listed 11 complaints regarding what I said about Horner:

(i) That he is a racist;

(ii) That he exceptionalises Jews as especially vulnerable if Israeli war-crimes are debated;

 (iii) That he is clearly and obviously anti-Semitic;

 (iv) That he assumes all Jews think the same way when it comes to Israel;

 (v) That he is also anti-Semitic for assuming Jews are uniquely incapable of rationally debating the Israel question;

 (vi) That he follows a right-wing political ideology

 (vii) That he uses Jews as a moral alibi in the same way French colonialism used Jews as intermediaries and scapegoats;

 (viii) That he stated sanctions on Israel would make Jewish members feel unwelcome;

 (ix) That he would be dismissed from his employment if Labour were a democratic party;

 (x) The (sic) he suggested Jews were especially fragile as they would be upset by discussions on Israeli human rights abuses; and

 (xi) That he engages in racist activity.

The allegations boiled down to saying that Scott Horner

i.              Is racist and anti-Semitic

ii.            Exceptionalises Jews.

iii.         Assumes all Jews think the same when it comes to Israel.

iv.         Believes that Jews are exceptionally fragile (‘the weak Jew’) and cannot rationally debate Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians without upset.

v.            Uses Jews as a moral alibi for Israel’s war crimes.

vi.         Is right-wing.

vii.       Would be dismissed if Labour were a democratic, socialist party.

For all the bluster there is no denial that Horner said that debating BDS would result in the expression of anti-Semitic views and that Jews would feel unwelcome and unsafe.

Horner assumed that all Jews, even anti-Zionist Jews, support Israel’ war crimes. What he is saying that Jews are extremely fragile and as such is making a generalisation about Jewish support for Israel. What is that if not anti-Semitism?

Horner equated opposition to Israeli war crimes with anti-Semitism. That too is anti-Semitic because it conflates Jews and Israel. Horner made no exception for anti-Zionist or socialist Jews.

It is difficult to comprehend why someone who holds anti-Semitic beliefs should profess to be concerned about anti-Semitism unless he is using Jews for another agenda altogether. In other words Jews are being used as a political football or moral alibi.

I fail to see how calling someone right-wing is defamatory. It is a matter of opinion. Likewise saying that a democratic, socialist party would dismiss Horner is a statement of the bleeding obvious!

I don’t expect the Labour Party to sue me. Not only because they have no case but because they are in a deep financial crisis thanks to Sir Starmer’s catastrophic leadership. However if I am wrong then I will be more than prepared to join battle!

The Labour Party’s letter to me was a chutzpah, a Yiddish word that doesn’t translate easily into English. Wikipedia describes it as:

a total denial of personal responsibility, which renders others speechless and incredulous ... one cannot quite believe that another person totally lacks common human traits like remorse, regret, guilt, sympathy and insight. The implication is at least some degree of psychopathy in the subject.

I can’t think of a better description of Horner and the Labour Party’s behavior when it comes to making false allegations of anti-Semitism.

However no-one can accuse solicitor, Gerald Shamash, of lacking a sense of humour. He write of Horner that ‘He acts as a facilitator of their democratic expression, rather than using his position to express his own views.’ And how did he facilitate a democratic debate on sanctions against Israel? By recommending that there be no discussion!

Sanctions

Perhaps if I was taught logic I might ask my students to see if they could reconcile the following 2 statements:

Our client has never suggested, expressly or by implication, that sanctions against Israel would make Jewish members feel unwelcome.

our client exercised the necessary vigilance of that expected of a public serving party member and advised that pursuit of the motion on sanctions would only serve to pour fuel on the fire of current tensions.

Notwithstanding this I was told that ‘Our client does not presume to know the thoughts of all Jews on the subject of Israel.’ As if recognising that he was writing total nonsense, Shamash let slip that Horner’s

true concern was that Jewish members should not be made to feel unwelcome by particular language used not in the written motion but liable to be uttered verbally during the discussion of the motion, and aggressive behaviour and body language liable to be used by members during that discussion. You are no doubt aware that there have been many reported instances of Jewish members feeling unwelcome as a result of such language and behaviour/body language in similar debates, regarding similarly anodyne written motions.

Actually I’m not aware of any Labour Party members feeling unwelcome by discussions on Palestine. Why should they? But if there are a few Jewish racists in the Labour Party so what?

But it wasn’t the motion itself that was the problem but the predicted body language! Horner has amazing foresight. But surely this must apply to all debate in the Labour Party? In other words members must stop debating issues in case someone is offended. And to be fair Starmer and his glove puppet David Evans have done their best to outlaw debate!

Of course assertions about body language are evidence free. The kind of dishonest political language that Orwell warned of.

In case anyone is in doubt as to the seriousness of these matters I was told

‘of the extremely high profile of the recent scandal concerning Anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, and the wider backdrop of rising Anti-Semitic hatred across the UK.’

Just as 4 legs are better than 2, so 2 lies are better than 1.

Tony Greenstein

The History of Zionism’s Attempts to Deny the Armenian Holocaust

$
0
0

 How the Israeli State Did Its Best to Destroy an Academic Conference which included the Armenian Genocide

For Zionism the Jewish holocaust is a unique event unlike any other genocide. Whilst accepting that some 1.5 million Armenians killed by Turkey was a ‘parallel, or a holocaust-related event’ Zionist historian Lucy Dawidowicz cited ‘the uniqueness of the fate of the Jews experienced’[i] Yehuda Bauer, the dean of the Zionist historians, also argued that there was ‘an element of uniqueness in the history of the (Nazi) holocaust.’ Nazi ideology saw the Jews as beingthe ‘incarnation of the Devil.’ [ii]

The role that the Armenians played in the Ottoman Empire as a ‘middleman minority’ was very similar to that of the Jews.[iii]The Armenians were largely concentrated in eastern Anatolia, many of them merchants and industrialists,

Just as the Nazis had invented the stab-in-the-back legend alleging that the Jews had caused their defeat in WW1, so too did the Turks, holding the Armenians responsible for their defeats in World War 1.[iv]

On 24 April Joe Biden formally recognized the Armenian holocaust, 106 years after it happened. Israel however refuses to recognize the genocide. To the Zionists the only genocide that matters is the Jewish one.

Despite having ignored and downplayed the Jewish holocaust when it was taking place, the Zionist movement reacts angrily to holocaust deniers. Unfortunately the Zionists are not motivated by opposition in principle to genocide denial other than when it comes to the Jewish genocide. This is because the Jewish holocaust lies at the core of Zionism’s narrative of self-justification.

If the Zionists had any principled objection to genocide denial then they would apply that principle to the Armenian genocide which is widely recognised to be the first holocaust of the 20th century. Yet far from recognising and remembering the Armenian holocaust, which prefigured the Jewish holocaust, Zionism has gone out of its way to play down what happened or even pretend that it did not happen.

The Zionist whitewashing of the record of the Turkish state vs the Armenians began with the founder of Political Zionism, Theodor Herzl. In order to secure a charter for Palestine, Herzl agreed to support Ottoman Turkey in the wake of its massacre of the Armenians in the mid-1890s. Herzl wrote how

Yesterday I telegraphed the N. Fr. Presse, a rather long Entrefilet (notice) presenting the local, undeniably critical situation in a manner friendly to the government.[v]

 

 

Bernard Lazarre, who led the campaign to exonerate Dreyfus was a prominent supporter of the Armenians. Lazare resigned from the Zionist Actions Committee as a result of Herzl’s actions. He ‘could find no place in Herzl’s essentially reactionary movement.’ [vi]In an open letter to Herzl Lazarre asked:

‘How can those who purport to represent the ancient people… extend a welcoming hand to murderers, and no delegate to the Zionist Congress rises up in protest?’’[vii] 

To be fair the Zionist Congress of 1933 in Prague didn’t rise up in protest at the rise to power of the Nazis either! Israeli diplomats and politicians supported Turkey’s opposition to a memorial day to commemorate the Armenian genocide.[viii] Israel opposed the concept of the holocaust expanding.[ix]

In How Israel Quashed Efforts to Recognize the Armenian Genocide – to Please TurkeyHa'aretz demonstrated how, in the summer of 1982, the Israeli Foreign Ministry made strenuous efforts to destroy a Conference on Genocide in Tel Aviv which included the Armenian holocaust. No expense was spared in order to please the Turkish regime.

Yad Vashem, the Zionist holocaust propaganda museum, agreed to withdraw its sponsorship of the conference.

“Our first objective is to neutralize Yad Vashem as an official national body from taking part in including the Armenians in the conference,”

a recently released Foreign Ministry document revealed.

The Ministry’s next target was Tel Aviv University rector and future president Prof. Yoram Dinstein. Moshe Gilboa reported that he met with Dinstein and explained to him “the background for our objection to the inclusion of the Armenian issue.” The result was that Dinstein’s office sent a letter detailing their concerns about the event. Tel Aviv University declined to take part.

The Ministry also attacked the funding sources of the conference and the Henrietta Szold Institute agreed not to provide funding for it. Elie Wiesel, the Auschwitz survivor and future Nobel Peace Prize winner also agreed to withdraw as Chair of the Conference. 

After Wiesel pulled out he shared internal information about the conference with the Foreign Ministry. Wiesel met with Naphtali Lau-Lavie, Israel's general consul in New York and discussed ways “to cancel the Armenian section" of the conference. One idea being “to prevent such a discussion in the plenum” and to transfer it to “workshops” on the sidelines, so it would not be given publicity.

Wiesel, together with Arthur Hertzberg of the American Jewish Committee and Yad Vashem, attempted to destroy the conference. Wiesel lobbied other delegates into not attending.[x]A number of prominent historians, including Zionist holocaust historian, Prof. Yehuda Bauer, agree not to attend. 

“We continue to act to reduce and diminish the Armenian issue to the extent of our ability by every possible means,”

according to one Foreign Ministry document from the summer of 1982.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry also tried to get the conference canceled outright. Negotiations were conducted with the conference organizers, headed by Israel Charny, an American-Israeli psychologist, who was offered compensation if he agreed to cancel it.

Turkish soldiers standing over the skulls of dead Armenian villagers

Israeli embassies around the world tried to persuade potential participants to cancel their attendance. One document stated that

“We are currently trying to dissuade the invitees from taking part.” “I propose that we instruct the general consul to contact Wiesel and request that he disassociate himself from the conference,”

wrote Elyakim Rubinstein, the legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry, now a Supreme Court justice who, along with fellow judges, repeatedly rule that information on Israel’s links with repressive regimes abroad should be concealed.

Because they couldn’t prevent the conference from taking place, the Foreign Ministry proposed to plant articles in the press that would be critical of Israel’s attempts to prevent the conference from taking place. These articles would “serve as our alibi, in the Turks’ eyes,”ministry officials hoped. When the conference did eventually take place, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spied on the event and reported back.

Alon Liel, the Foreign Ministry’s representative in Turkey, warned that

“if the Armenian section is included in the conference, it will have grave implications for Israeli-Turkish relations.”

The Israeli government’s excuse was that if the conference went ahead as planned then Turkey would retaliate by not allowing Jewish emigrants to Israel to pass through Turkey. 

Professor Charny has just published a book"Israel’s Failed Response to the Armenian Genocide: Denial, State Deception, Truth Versus Politicization of History." Charny argues that the Turkish threat was “an invention”. He bases this view on a 1982 document in which Israel’s general consul in Istanbul at the time, Avner Arazi, wrote that the fear of a severe Turkish reaction was highly exaggerated.

Charny described the Armenian genocide as a ‘dress rehearsal for the holocaust’. Israeli historian Bat Ye’or described how the Germans, allies of the Turks in WW1, were present at the massacres and that ‘this history lesson was remembered one generation later, when Hitler planned a genocide…[xi] Bernard Lewis a prominent Zionist historian was convicted in a French court of denying the Armenian genocide.[xii]

Michael Birnbaum, one of the founders of the US Holocaust Museum wrote in Charny's new book that people at the Israeli Embassy tried to convince him “not to include the Armenians in the museum."

Charny described how the Foreign Ministry’s conduct made him

put an end to the naivete with which we ascribe good intentions to our leadership… seeing the dirt, the contemptible behavior, the manipulations, the wickedness and destructiveness of a key division of government – it's just astounding.”

In 2007 a scandal erupted surrounding the Anti-Defamation League's refusal to support a bill calling on the Bush administration to recognize the 1915-17 Turkish massacre of its Armenian minority as genocide. The ADL itself was split over the issue; firing its New England regional director Andrew Tarsy for telling The Boston Globe that, "I strongly disagree with the ADL's national position." The ADL, which has a history of anti-Black racism, including arranging the training of US police forces by Israeli police, has a long record of attacking anti-Zionists as ‘anti-Semitic’.

How Israel Quashed Efforts to Recognize the Armenian Genocide – to Please Turkey

Decades before the U.S. president formally recognized the horrors of 1915, Israel's Foreign Ministry sought to foil an academic conference on the subject, fearing reprisal from Turkey. 'We continue to act to reduce and diminish the Armenian issue to the extent of our ability by every possible means'

Ha'aretz, Ofer Aderet, May. 2, 2021

In the summer of 1982, Israel's Foreign Ministry set to work on a special mission. “We continue to spare no effort on this issue, which is currently a central one on our agenda,” an internal ministry document says of the mission. “We shall leave no stone unturned, whether or not this thing succeeds,” another document says. “Intensive treatment that encompasses both institutions and public figures in Israel and abroad… feverish and tireless efforts… at the highest diplomatic levels,” other documents add.

The mission that so occupied the Foreign Ministry personnel 40 years ago had nothing to do with the First Lebanon War, which had just begun, but with another much larger and deadlier war: the Armenian genocide in 1915, during which an estimated 1.5 million people were killed by the forces of the Ottoman Empire.

Following U.S. President Joe Biden’s formal recognition on April 24 of the genocide, it’s particularly interesting to see how Israel not only denied the horrific mass murders – a policy to which it still adheres – but also tried to influence others to act in the same manner.

‘We continue with intensive and comprehensive efforts to get the conference canceled or to at least have the Armenian section removed from the agenda’

A recently released file from the National Archives reveals Israeli efforts during that summer four decades ago to thwart an academic conference due to be held in the country, focusing both on the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide. The documents in question offer a lesson in realpolitik and the willingness to sacrifice fundamental values of the type that any democratic society – especially one established after the calamity of the Holocaust – is supposed to hold dear, on the alter of political and security-related interests, among other reasons.

Beginning in April 1982, from the day the conference was first announced, the Foreign Ministry’s efforts to sabotage it never ceased. These efforts, which went on for two months, bore fruit.

The Yad Vashem Holocaust Remembrance Center in Jerusalem withdrew its initial sponsorship of the event, Tel Aviv University declined to take part, the Henrietta Szold Institute pledged not to provide funding for it, Holocaust survivor and then-future Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel resigned his post as conference chairman, and a number of prominent historians, including Prof. Yehuda Bauer, said they would not to attend. The conference did ultimately take place, but in a much watered-down and unofficial framework.

“We continue to act to reduce and diminish the Armenian issue to the extent of our ability by every possible means,” according to one Foreign Ministry document from the summer of 1982.

Removing the 'Armenian section'

“Reduce and diminish” – as if this was not about the murder of well over a million people that also involved uprooting, plunder, expulsion and death marches.

“We continue with intensive and comprehensive efforts to get the conference canceled or to at least have the Armenian section removed from the agenda,”

 the document adds. The “Armenian section” – two simple words that stand for a huge genocide.

Aside from the successful attempts to damage the prestige of the event by making the list of participants shrink significantly, the Foreign Ministry also tried to get it canceled outright. This is evident from the negotiations conducted by ministry personnel with the conference organizers, headed by Israel Charny, an American-Israeli psychologist. The talks were an attempt to reach a compromise whereby the event would be canceled, but the Foreign Ministry would provide organizers with “compensation for the actual damage – on the basis of receipts.” But the proposal didn’t go very far.

'I propose that we instruct the general consul to contact Wiesel and request that he disassociate himself from the conference,' wrote Elyakim Rubinstein

Meanwhile, the ministry enlisted embassies around the world to help persuade potential participants to cancel their attendance in the conference, as one document states: “We are currently trying to dissuade the invitees from taking part.” The most important guest was Elie Wiesel, who was supposed to chair the event. “I propose that we instruct the general consul to contact Wiesel and request that he disassociate himself from the conference,” wrote Elyakim Rubinstein, the legal adviser of the Foreign Ministry at the time, and the future attorney general, cabinet secretary and Supreme Court justice.

After Wiesel agreed to pull out, he shared internal information about the conference with Foreign Ministry personnel, and even took part in the effort to foil it. For one thing, Wiesel met with Naphtali Lau-Lavie, Israel's general consul in New York and a Holocaust survivor himself, and discussed ways “to cancel the Armenian section" of the confab. One idea proposed was “to prevent such a discussion in the plenum” and to transfer it to “workshops” on the sidelines, so it would not be given publicity. “We could say that the conference did not designate the Armenian issue as a subject for discussion,” Lau-Lavie suggested.

'Our first objective is to neutralize Yad Vashem as an official national body from taking part in including the Armenians in the conference'

Israeli ambassadors around the world were called upon by the ministry in Jerusalem to use their ties to keep the conference organizers from finding a replacement for Wiesel. “We request that you call [Lewis] Samuel Feuer and convince him not to accept the presidency of the conference,”Ambassador to France Meir Rosenne was told. Feuer, an American sociologist, has “an international reputation and broad personal authority and his non-participation in the conference will lower the level of the conference and reduce its dimensions to the minimum,” Rosenne was informed.

For his part, Lau-Lavie reported to the ministry that he had spoken with Jack P. Eisner, who fought in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and was actively involved in Holocaust commemoration. Eisner had received an offer to chair the conference but Lau-Lavie said he turned down the offer, “ceased funding the conference and had just halted a transfer of money for the event.”

The Israeli consulate in Stockholm was asked, meanwhile, to contact Per Ahlmark, a renowned Swedish writer and politician, and to let him know that Wiesel “would be greatly appreciate it if he did not attend the conference.

Targeting Yad Vashem

The list of people whom Foreign Ministry emissaries contacted to persuade them not to participate included local officials such as Yad Vashem chairman Yitzhak Arad and Yad Vashem council chairman Gideon Hausner, the prosecutor in the Eichmann trial two decades earlier. The idea was to try to persuade the Holocaust remembrance center of the problematic nature of the conference, which, in dealing with both with the Shoah and the Armenian genocide, would detract from the uniqueness of the former.

 “Our first objective is to neutralize Yad Vashem as an official national body from taking part in including the Armenians in the conference,” one of the newly publicized documents says.

“This should be possible because the inclusion of other peoples in the same line with the Jewish Holocaust would place Yad Vashem in a controversial position in the world and in terms of international public opinion. If we succeed in getting Yad Vashem out of the conference in which Armenian issues will be discussed, it will be an important and significant achievement since no official public government body will then be standing behind it.”

The next target was Tel Aviv University rector and future president Prof. Yoram Dinstein. Moshe Gilboa, director of the Foreign Ministry’s Diaspora Department, reported that he met with Dinstein and explained to him “the background for our objection to the inclusion of the Armenian issue.” The meeting was a success, and yielded a letter from Dinstein’s office detailing concerns about the event.

Behind the scenes, Israel boasted to Turkey about its activities, according to one archival document:

“We put an emphasis on our efforts to cancel the conference completely or to at least remove the Armenian issue from it… It was explained to the Turkish representative in Israel that, in the present circumstances, the conference has shrunk to tiny proportions and will be run by a small group of private individuals, without any official government or public support.”

Ministry officials also instructed Israel’s representatives in Turkey to inform their local counterparts about the efforts being made and to add – perhaps apologetically – that “in a democratic regime, as we have here [i.e., in Israel], we cannot prevent private individuals from holding conferences and discussing any subject they wish.”

Prof. Israel Charny. Argues in his new book that the Turkish threat to holding the 1982 conference in Israel on the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide was “an invention.” Credit: Emil Salman

To assuage the Turks, the Foreign Ministry also proposed to plant articles in the press that would be critical of Israel’s attempts to prevent the conference from taking place. These articles would “serve as our alibi, in the Turks’ eyes,” ministry officials hoped.

Eventually, as in a military operation, the Foreign Ministry even “spied on” the event that was held:

“No Armenian clergy were spotted… A certain Armenian speaker gave a talk about the Armenian issue. A film on the subject that was supposed to be screened was not shown because the projector didn’t work. No more than six or seven people were seen in the conference rooms. The [Armenian] Patriarch was seen walking around,”

according to a report.

There is no one clear answer as to what was behind the Foreign Ministry’s obsession with foiling this academic conference. Officially, ministerial representatives told people that Turkey could potentially harm Jews from Iran and Syria who would try to immigrate to Israel via Turkey.

“All of the Foreign Ministry’s activity to prevent the holding of the conference is intended solely to save Jews from lands where they are in distress,” one of the archival documents says. That account is supported by another source, describing how a Foreign Ministry representative in Turkey, Alon Liel, was summoned to the Foreign Ministry in Ankara, in April 1982.

Elyakim Rubinstein, Foreign Ministry counsel in 1982. "There was a constraint here, a concrete interest, that we had to pay attention to, because the Turks could be tough,” he says today.Credit: Olivier Fitoussi

“Turkey cannot conceive of a conference being held in Israel in which it will be presented in the same category with Nazi Germany,” Liel was told.

“The Turkish people find this especially surprising given the fact that Turkey aided Jewish refugees who managed to escape the arms of the Nazis in World War II,” the summary of the meeting says. “The Turks display extreme sensitivity, bordering on irrationality, regarding the Armenian issue, and are unwilling to admit that the events of 1915 constitutes the Armenian genocide."

The bottom line, as Liel warned in his report to Jerusalem, was that “if the Armenian section is included in the conference, it will have grave implications for Israeli-Turkish relations.”

Historian  Eldad Ben Aharon, whose areas of expertise include Israel-Turkey relations and who published a paper in 2015 about efforts to torpedo the 1982 conference, says that the reason for Israel's policy lies in how important it sees ties with Turkey, because of both defense considerations and geopolitical realities. 

'An invention'

Last week, Elyakim Rubinstein recalled his involvement on behalf of the Foreign Ministry in preventing the event from taking place. “I would have been much more comfortable, as a proponent of academic freedom, to sit on the other side of the barricade. But there was a constraint here, a concrete interest, that we had to pay attention to, because the Turks could be tough,” he told Haaretz. “I think we acted correctly. Israel has responsibility vis-a-vis the Jewish issue everywhere.”

But where did the threat to hurt would-be Jewish immigrants passing through Turkey come from? Prof. Charny, the organizer of the 1982 conference, has just published a new book entitled "Israel’s Failed Response to the Armenian Genocide: Denial, State Deception, Truth Versus Politicization of History." In it, Charny argues that the Turkish threat was “an invention.” He bases this view on a 1982 document in which Israel’s general consul in Istanbul at the time, Avner Arazi, wrote that the fear of a severe Turkish reaction to the conference was highly exaggerated.

“I would like to touch on a point that I believe served as the basis for our concerted efforts to get the conference canceled, i.e., the hints about the passage of Iranian and Syrian Jews via Turkey,”

Arazi wrote

“I was not aware of this issue. Here in Turkey, there were no signs of a connection between this issue and the conference. Anyone familiar with Turkey’s dedication to its tradition and its principles, which include not extraditing refugees, would never imagine that it could endanger Jews’ lives by turning them over to the Syrians and Iranians… At a time when Turkey is making every effort to improve its image in the world, it is not reasonable to think it would commit such an injustice and thereby also invite harsh criticism from the Free World,”

he added.

Other evidence shows that the Israeli “handling” of the confab was just one front where Israel was active on the subject of the genocide: Michael Birnbaum, one of the founders of the U.S. Holocaust Museum in Washington, writes in Charny's new book that people at the Israeli Embassy tried to convince him “not to include the Armenians in the museum."

Charny, who is today 90, told Haaretz that the Foreign Ministry’s conduct in the episode made him “put an end to the naivete with which we ascribe good intentions to our leadership,” and that “seeing the dirt, the contemptible behavior, the manipulations, the wickedness and destructiveness of a key division of government – it's just astounding.”  

See Zionist leader colluded with Armenian genocide


[i]        Lucy Dawidowicz, The holocaust and the Historians, Cambridge, p.13 cited by Vahakn Dadrian p. 159.

[ii]       Bauer, Rethinking the holocaust, p.44.

[iii]      Helen Fein, Accounting for Genocide, p. 10.

[iv]       Helen Fein, Accounting for Genocide, p.17.

[v]       Diaries p. 392.

[vi]       Hannah Arendt, The Jew as a Pariah, p. 171.

[vii]      How Herzl Sold Out the Armenians, Rachel Elboim-Dror Ha'aretz, May 01 2015, https://tinyurl.com/y7dc34cd  Herzl complained that Lazarre had written ‘“a mean, malicious article against me”Diaries of Theodor Herzl, p. 1201, ed. Ralph Patai, 13 Jan  1902.

[ix]       Holocausts and Politics, Akiva Eldar, Yediot Aharanot, 1975. See also Armenian Genocide Debate Exposes Rifts at ADL, Jennifer Siegel, August 22, 2007. https://tinyurl.com/ybzcra6c-/

[x]       Norman Finkelstein, The holocaust Industry, p. 69.

[xi]       Vahakn Dadrian, p. 159.

[xii]      Finkelstein p. 69.

 

USHM, Charny, Wiesel, Armenian Genocide, Anatolia, holocaust, Yehuda Bauer, Lucy Dawidowicz,

Terror in Palestine as Israel’s Military Death Squads Join the Settlers in Killing Palestinians

$
0
0

 “If the soldiers had shot a dog... it would have attracted more attention. But a dead Palestinian child?... Why should it interest anyone, why is it important?”Gideon Levy





Al-Harika, central Hebron: Settlers throw stones at Palestinian passersby and homes in presence of soldiers, who raid home and harrass inhabitants on pretext that one threw stones

The news has been dominated by the defection of a Belorussian athlete and the Olympic games. The terror campaign being waged by the Israeli military and settlers against the Palestinians isn’t considered fit to grace the screens of the BBC or the press. 

To gain the attention of the BBC or ITN we would need the Palestinians in Gaza to fire a few firecrackers into Israel and see the Israelis disappear into their bomb shelters.  Palestinian deaths are not news because politically they are not White (and don't have bomb shelters).

That is why I am highlighting just a few of the many terrorist attacks by Israel on an unarmed civilian population.

The incidents speak for themselves and require no commentary. However to vile creatures like Keir Starmer, who is gracing the dining tables of Israeli Embassy front group, Labour Friends of Israel, in November, what matters is non-existent anti-Semitism.

Tony Greenstein

The Media Yawns at the Israeli Army's Death Squads

Gideon Levy, Haaretz

Israeli terror is at it again. The Israel Defense Forces’ death squads chalked up another successful week: four bodies of innocent Palestinians piled up between the two Fridays. There doesn’t seem to be a connection between the four incidents in which four sons were killed, but the link cannot be broken.

In all these cases, soldiers chose shooting to kill as the preferred option. In all four cases another way could have been chosen: Arrest them, aim for the legs, don’t do anything or simply don’t be there at all. But the soldiers chose to kill. It’s probably easier for them that way.

They come from different branches of the army with different backgrounds, but they share the incredible ease with which they kill, whether they have to or not.

They kill because they can. They kill because they’re convinced that this is how they’re expected to act. They kill because they know that nothing is cheaper than the life of a Palestinian. They kill because they know that the Israeli media will yawn and not report a thing. They kill because they know that no harm will come to them, so why not? Why not kill a Palestinian when possible?

They killed a 12-year-old boy and a 41-year-old plumber. They killed a 17-year-old youth and a 20-year-old young man attending a funeral, all in one week. An Israeli slogan during the 1948 war went “To arms, every good man,” leading later to the concept of the IDF’s “purity of arms.” Four in one week, for no reason, with no hesitation, with no terrorist facing them. Four executions of young men with dreams, families, plans and loves.

None of the four endangered the soldiers, certainly not in a way that justified lethal fire. Thirteen bullets at a car driving by innocently, carrying a father and his three small children. Shooting a plumber holding a wrench and claiming that he was “moving rapidly toward the soldiers.” Three bullets at the stomach of a 17-year-old who was on his way to take his brother home.

All this can be called terror; there is no other definition. All this can be called the actions of death squads; there is no other description. It sounds horrible, but it really is horrific.

It could be less horrific if the Israeli media bothered to report on it, possibly shocking Israelis. It could be much less horrific if IDF commanders took the necessary steps given their army’s murderous recklessness. But most of the media believed that the killing of a child interests no one or is unimportant, or both, so this shocking incident wasn’t reported on.

If the soldiers had shot a dog – also a shocking act, of course – it would have attracted more attention. But a dead Palestinian child? What happened? Why should it interest anyone, why is it important?

Are you working for the Arabs?” journalist Yinon Magal maliciously tweeted, addressing Haaretz’s Hagar Shezaf, virtually the only journalist who covered the boy’s funeral. This is the new journalistic ethos: Reporting the truth is tantamount to working for the Arabs.

Let’s leave aside the media of trivia and nonsense that was busy to the hilt with the modeling agent suspected of sexual misconduct and with lists of pedophiles – what does the media have to do with the killing of children? The question is: Where are the military commanders and the political leaders?

Their disgraceful silence leads to only one conclusion: They believe that this killing is acceptable. It’s exactly what they expect of soldiers: the killing of innocents. There is no other way to explain everyone’s silence without even a semblance of condemnation.

If the killers of the boy Mohammed al-Alami are still not in custody, then the IDF under Chief of Staff Aviv Kochavi – a person known to speak in lofty terms about values – is saying that the soldiers acted correctly. If the paratroopers who killed Mohammed Tamimi by firing three bullets into his body from their armored jeep are still walking around freely in the West Bank, this means the army salutes them.

And if the IDF salutes them, we really are talking about death squads, just like in the most dreadful regimes.

Mohammed Was Looking for His Little Brother When Israeli Soldiers Shot Him Dead at Close Range

The door of an Israeli army jeep that had entered the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh for no apparent reason suddenly opened and a soldier shot 17-year-old Mohammed Tamimi, while his cousin looked on in shock

Jul. 30, 2021 10:47 AM

Mahmoud Tamimi climbs the trunk of the dead olive tree in the yard of his house, and hoists the flag of Palestine. He’s a boy of 13 who last Friday lost his older brother, 17-year-old Mohammed, who was shot to death by Israel Defense Forces soldiers while he was on his way to fetch Mahmoud. Their younger brother, Mustafa, is named for another Mustafa Tamimi, their cousin, who was killed by soldiers in 2011.

Mohammed Munir Tamimi was the fifth person killed in recent years in the village of Nabi Saleh, not far from Ramallah in the West Bank....

Of all the killings in Nabi Saleh, the death of Mohammed is perhaps the most criminal of all. The soldiers had no apparent reason to enter the village a week ago, when it was quiet – and even less of one to open the armoured door of their jeep, shoot the youth in the stomach from close range and then close the door. And if that wasn’t enough, soldiers who were walking behind the vehicle fired more bullets at the wounded teen who was trying to flee for his life into an adjacent house, but collapsed, bleeding, on the way to its entrance.

Nabi Saleh called off its regular Friday anti-occupation demonstrations in 2016, after six years, when the IDF started to use snipers and live ammunition against the unarmed inhabitants. But more people have been killed there since the demonstrations ended than during the period when they were taking place.

On Friday the first rumor that spread was that it was Mohammed, the brother of Ahed Tamimi, the young activist-heroine of the Palestinians’ popular struggle, who had been killed. There are dozens and perhaps hundreds of people named Mohammed (or Mohammad or Muhammad) Tamimi. The teen who was shot was not Ahed’s brother, but her cousin. Ahed’s brother was with him when he was killed; the two youths were close.

Ahed’s father, Bassem Tamimi, one of the leaders of the struggle in Nabi Saleh, joined us during our visit to the events hall where the grieving family was receiving condolences in Deir Nidham. The bereaved father, Munir, speaks fluent Hebrew, having worked for decades in Israel and in the settlements. For 30 years, he’s worked as a home renovator and air-conditioner technician in the settlement of Beit Aryeh. He has many friends there who wanted to pay their condolences, he tells us, but he suggested that they refrain from visiting during the tense grieving period in the village.

Munir Tamimi, Mohammed's father. Credit: Alex Levac

They are friends-brothers who wanted to come, but I want to make sure that no one will be hurt,” he says.

Bassem Tamimi relates that a jeep arrived in Nabi Saleh around 4:30 P.M. and stopped at the gas station at the village’s entrance before proceeding. It was quiet at the time. During the years of the demonstrations, the IDF arrested about 400 locals, most of them adolescents and children, and including 16 women, out of a total local population of about 600. When the jeep drove in this time, youngsters began throwing stones at it. The soldiers fired tear-gas canisters, and a cloud of gas covered the village – a familiar experience. But Mahmoud, the younger brother of the deceased, recently recovered from cancer of the eye, and his mother, worried that the gas would endanger the recovering eye, sent Mohammed to the home of relatives where Mahmoud had been told to go, in order to bring him home. Their father was installing an air conditioner in the neighboring village of Deir Abu Mash’al at the time.

The home of the Tamimi family in Nabi Saleh, this week. More people have been killed since the protests ended there in 2016 than during the six years when they took place.Credit: Alex Levac

Munir, 52, has four remaining children. He’s a solidly built man, suited to his livelihood. He met his wife, Baraa, 40, in Jordan. Her family immigrated long ago to the United States, and she too has American citizenship. During the first 13 years of their marriage, Israel did not allow her to enter the West Bank, and the family was divided between Zarqa in Jordan and Nabi Saleh. Munir’s work is in the West Bank but his wife was not permitted to go there. He divided his life between here and there, crossing into Jordan every two or three months to see his family and then going back.

Friday, July 23, Mohammed got up around 8:30 A.M. and went to work in the family’s olive grove ahead of the fall harvest. In the afternoon, as tear gas spread through the village, his worried mother sent him to find his younger brother Mahmoud and try to bring him home. According to his father, Mohammed didn’t do anything to provoke the soldiers. The IDF jeep stopped near him, its door opened and the one shot fired from it hit Mohammed. He doubled over in pain and tried with his remaining strength to flee, but then four soldiers on foot felled him with two more bullets.

The physicians who treated him later told his father that one of the three bullets exploded in the teenager’s stomach and did not leave a single internal organ intact. Everything is torn apart inside, they told him. The cousin Mohammed, Bassem’s shocked son, told his father that he “saw the rice spill out of Mohammed’s stomach.” According to Munir, who saw his son’s body in the small hospital in Salfit, one bullet struck him in his right hip, another entered via the back and exited through the stomach – or vice versa – and the deadliest bullet of all slammed into his buttocks and hurtled upward throughout his body, wreaking havoc.

Three videos were shot by three local eyewitnesses. In one clip, the armored door of the IDF vehicle is seen opening for a split second and the soldier next to the driver fires a shot and shuts the door; another soldier then opens the back door and closes it immediately. In the second clip, the jeep is seen in the street, being pelted by villagers with plastic chairs and rocks, without doing any damage. The third clip shows the bloodstains and people evacuating Mohammed from the path leading to a nearby house. It’s not clear what preceded what, but it’s even less clear what the jeep was doing there and why it stopped so provocatively in the middle of the village. The red-and-white flag of the Paratroops Brigade flaps in the wind above the fortified tower that looms over the entrance to the village, a sign that the soldiers who shot Mohammed also wore the telltale red berets.

Graffiti on a wall in Nabi Saleh depicts Mohammed Tamimi.Credit: Alex Levac

Haaretz asked the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit why the army vehicle entered the village in the first place and why Mohammed Tamimi was shot. Why with live ammunition? And why with three bullets to the gut? The reply:

“Following the incident in question, an investigation has been opened by the Criminal Investigations Department of the Military Police, after which the findings will be transferred for examination to the office of the military prosecution.”

Mohammed was apparently still semi-conscious when the neighbors rushed him in a small shared taxi to the hospital in Salfit; he mumbled that his stomach hurt. He died on the operating table. By the time his stunned father reached the hospital, it was too late.

When we visited this week, his brother Mahmoud, a pale boy with a sickly looking eye, took us to the place where Mohammed was killed and showed us the bloodstain on the road and another at the place where he fell, en route to the house.

As we left Nabi Saleh, we saw Ahed Tamimi returning from her studies at Birzeit University in her small car. In March 2018 she was convicted on four counts of assaulting an IDF officer and a soldier, and sentenced to eight months in prison. Her aunt and uncle were killed by the army. Another relative named Mohammed, 15, was shot in the head in 2017 across from her house by soldiers using a rubber-coated metal bullet; he lost an eye and remains disabled. Now her cousin Mohammed Munir Tamimi has been killed, too.

Settler Shoots at Palestinians With Israeli Soldier's Weapon, Footage Shows

Israeli settlers attack Palestinians & Soldiers escorting them fire at them, South Hebron Hills

On Saturday, 26 June 2021, some 20 settlers invaded the village of a-Tuwani, stoned residents and beat some with sticks, injuring one. Soldiers then escorted the settlers to other communities. A settler fired at Palestinians and several others torched an agricultural structure of an a-Tuwani resident and damaged his olive grove. After the settlers retreated, other soldiers arrived and fired live fire and tear gas at the Palestinians and their homes. This is life for Masafer Yatta residents, whom Israel works to expel from their land.

Israeli soldier kills Husam 'Asayrah during violent settler raid on 'Asirah al-Qibliyah, 14 May 2021

On 14 May 2021, settlers and soldiers came to the village in Nablus District. The settlers threw stones at homes and residents and fired in the air, and residents threw stones at them. The soldiers used force against the residents instead of distancing the settlers. After the party moved to a distant hilltop, a soldier shot and killed 'Asirah and injured another resident although they posed no danger. Such collaboration between soldiers and settlers is part of Israel’s unofficial policy to drive Palestinians out and take over West Bank land. Read full incident report:

Israeli settlers and soldiers harass residents of al Harika neighborhood central Hebron

Al-Harika, central Hebron: Settlers throw stones at Palestinian passersby and homes in presence of soldiers, who raid home and harrass inhabitants on pretext that one threw stones



Joint militias: How settlers and soldiers teamed up to kill four Palestinians

A Local Call investigation reveals how on a single day in May, Israeli settlers and soldiers cooperated in attacks that left four Palestinians dead. The unprecedented spate of joint assaults has inaugurated a new era of terror.

By Yuval AbrahamJuly 15, 2021

Nidal Safadi was a quiet man, his neighbors said. He lived in Urif, a Palestinian village of several thousand people in the West Bank. Just 25, Safadi had three children with his wife and a fourth, a girl, on the way.

Urif is not always quiet. With the Palestinian city of Nablus less than 10 miles away, the occupying Israeli military established a base on a nearby hilltop in 1983. A year later, it was turned over to civilian purposes: part of Israel’s illegal settlement program in the Palestinian territories. Since 2000, the settlement, called Yitzhar, has been home to a yeshiva known for its hard-line Jewish nationalist views; the settlement has become known for its extremism. The so-called outpost settlements it has spurred — illegal even by Israeli law, but nonetheless defended by the Israel Defense Forces — have gradually encroached on villages like Urif. Over the past 10 years, settler aggressions have given rise to violent recriminations between the Israelis and Palestinians living nearby.

 “There were many protests in the area, but Urif was quiet,”said Mazen Shehadeh, head of the village council. “It is a small village and the residents stayed indoors. Had the settlers not arrived to attack the houses, nothing would have happened.”

Shehadeh said a group of settlers arrived at about 2 p.m., along with six soldiers, and began wreaking havoc. “The settlers uprooted almost 60 fig and olive trees,” he said. “Then they attacked the school with stones and broke its solar panels.” The damage was still evident when I visited a month after the attack. “While the settlers did all of that, the soldiers covered for them by gunfire,” Shehadeh continued.

“The soldiers led, gave orders, everything looked coordinated. The soldiers pointed for the settlers, where to go, where to uproot, and then they shot at anybody who tried to get close. After a few minutes, residents came to protect the village.”

One of the villagers who arrived was Nidal Safadi. “Nidal arrived at the school terrified,” said his brother, who asked that his name not be used for fear of retribution. “We have relatives who live nearby, and the mosque’s loudspeaker announced that the settlers were attacking, so he ran.”

Photos and videos from the scene show settlers and soldiers from the IDF aiming their weapons toward the Palestinian villagers. One video, obtainedby the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, shows a shirtless settler with a face covering walking around and chatting with nearby soldiers. At one point, the settler, armed with an automatic rifle, stands directly in front of a soldier, takes aim toward the villagers, and opens fire. Other photos show settlers and soldiers alike with weapons raised.

Amid the chaos, Safadi was struck by four bullets in the chest and abdomen, according to Shehadeh. He died of his wounds.

“We do not know whether it was a settler or a soldier who shot him,” Shehadeh said. “We had many who were wounded by gunfire that day. Nine people were hurt: one in the abdomen, another was shot three centimeters from his heart. And there was Nidal, who got killed.”

Shehadeh went on,

“It was a planned attack. Revenge, not a confrontation. We used to have clashes every day and it never looked like that. They didn’t use live ammunition before, only tear gas and rubber bullets. Also, more soldiers used to be present.”

Joint attacks

Safadi’s death was one of 11 violent killings of Palestinians in the West Bank on May 14, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry. While Israeli media reported that the killings occurred amid “clashes” — implying the widespread protests over Al-Aqsa and the Gaza bombings — at least four of the deaths occurred during deliberate attacks by settlers and soldiers on Palestinian villages, an investigation by Local Call and The Intercept found.

The joint attacks by Israeli settlers and soldiers were not linked to protests in the targeted villages; no demonstrations preceded the violence in three of the four locations. The incursions all occurred at almost the same time, around 2 p.m., and all involved the settlers destroying agricultural land, including by setting fires, as well as stone throwing and the use of live ammunition.

Attacks on Palestinians by stone-throwing settlers, as Israeli soldiers stand idly by, are a common occurrence in the occupied Palestinian territories. But scenes like those from May 14 — settlers and soldiers attacking villages in apparent cooperation, with live ammunition — are unprecedented.

The only way I can describe this is by calling it militias,” said Quamar Mishirqi-Assad, an attorney and a partner in Haqel-Jews and Arabs in Defense of Human Rights, an organization that works in the Israeli court system to represent Palestinians who have faced settler violence. “These cases, in which soldiers enter villages together with settlers, and in which there is massive gunfire by settlers — this is unprecedented.”

Five such attacks on May 14 left four Palestinians dead. One was killed in the village of Asira Al-Qibliya, in the Nablus area; another in Iskaka, near the Israeli settlement Ariel; a third in the village Al Reihiya, in South Mount Hebron; and Nidal Safidi in Urif. In the fifth village, Burin, which is also near Nablus, a similar attack ended without any deaths.

View of the Palestinian village of Urif, near the settlement of Yitzhar, in the West Bank, on December 1, 2019. (Sraya Diamant/Flash90)

Videos, photographs, and villagers’ testimonies of the attacks indicate that, in at least three cases, Israeli settlers and soldiers acted as a combined fighting unit, effectively working as a joint militia attacking civilians and firing interchangeably at Palestinian residents. Coordination between the military and settlers is a burgeoning political issue in Israel: On Tuesday, 100 former combat soldiers sent a letter to Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz demanding he take action against settler violence that they themselves had witnessed during their service.

“In the past year, settler violence has intensified and manifested in, among other things, property destruction, stone throwing, and physical violence against Palestinians,”

the former soldiers wrote.

“We are the ones who witnessed how the ‘lords of the land’ behave unrestricted and what this violence looks like on the ground. We were sent to defend them but were not given the tools to deal with them.”

Palestinian women mourn at the funeral of Nidal Safadi in the West Bank village of Urif, near Nablus, on May 14, 2021.Photo: Majdi Mohammed/AP

Local Call and The Intercept sent a detailed description of our findings to an IDF spokesperson, including photographs and footage. The spokesperson said the cases “are under processes of checking and investigating.” Though the IDF spokesperson declined to comment on many of the specifics, they acknowledged, in response to one of the photographs showing a settler closely interacting with an IDF officer in Urif, that the settler was in the area without permission.

No autopsy was carried out on Safadi’s body, nor on those of the other Palestinians killed that day, so there is no way of determining whether soldiers or settlers were responsible for the deaths. Israeli police have not announced any inquiries into the killings.

Update [July 18]: Following publication of this story, the IDF Spokesperson announced that the Investigative Military Police launched an inquiry into the death of Nidal Safadi in Urif. Neither the army nor the Israeli police have announced any inquiries into the other three killings described below.

Despite the common timeframe and modus operandi, there is no evidence that the May 14 attacks were coordinated. Some settler ideologues, though, did note the confluence of events. Zvi Sukot, a spokesperson of the settlement Yitzhar and a rising online star of the movement, posted photos from some of the incidents on Facebook. The photos he shared show, amongother things, a dead Palestinian with a bullet in his head and another with a bleeding chest, as well as a host of bodies lying prone in various settings.

“The security situation in Samaria is excellent. No need for protests!!” Sukot wrote in his Facebook post, asking his fellow settlers to stay at home. He used the common Israeli term “Samaria” to describe the northern West Bank. There are “casualties, lots of people injured and serious trauma on the Arab side,” he wrote. “In all my years in Samaria, I do not remember the army being that determined.”

A settler, armed with an automatic rifle, aims and opens fire at Palestinian villagers, Urif, May 14, 2021. (Mazen Shehadeh)

Many village residents interviewed by Local Call and The Intercept attributed the attacks to “revenge” by both soldiers and settlers — apparently for protests against the Israeli assaults on Al-Aqsa and Gaza, as well as unrest in “mixed” cities inside Israel. The incursions fit into a pattern of so-called price tag attacks, where settlers launch retributive assaults on anyone deemed to be even remotely viewed as an obstacle to their movement.

The yeshiva in Yitzhar, near Urif, was instrumental in formulating the religious justification for “price tag” attacks. The concept gained notoriety among some Israeli Jews because it rationalized attacks against the Israeli military in rare cases where, for instance, the IDF was used to evacuate settlement outposts. The most common targets of “price tag” attacks, however, are Palestinian civilians. On May 14, soldiers were far from being targets or even ineffectual bystanders. Instead, they were active participants and collaborators in the joint assaults.

“The army now perceives the settlers as an auxiliary fighting force,” said Mishirqi-Assad, the human rights lawyer.

“The cooperation is more transparent. No one is ashamed of it. The soldiers see the settlers as a backing force, it is very noticeable. And the settlers, too, are more fearless. It’s clear that things have become more organized over the last year.”



Women sob during the funeral of Hussam Asaira, killed the day before during a demonstration in West Bank against Israeli attacks, in Nablus, West Bank, on May 15,
2021. 
Photo: Issam Rimawi/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Palestinians trying to extinguish the fires sparked by Jewish settlers on agricultural land in the southern West Bank village of Safa, near Hebron, on July 13, 2009. (Najeh Hashlamoun/Flash90)

Sexism, homophobia and harassment by settlers and soldiers: life’s routine in Hebron (video)

Mondoweiss

Israeli soldiers make sexual threats to Palestinian women in videos from occupation

ByPhilip WeissJuly 15, 2021

In January, the Israeli human rights group B’Tselemcharged Israel with maintaining an “apartheid… regime of “Jewish supremacy” from the river to the sea.

Now the organization has released two videos from the occupied territories that document this reality in chilling ways– as they show Israeli occupiers, some in uniform, abusing Palestinians in sexually degrading terms during the recent Gaza war. Published July 12, the videos capture the racist, homophobic, and misogynist abuse of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers and Jewish settlers.

Both videos were shot by Palestinians in occupied Hebron on May 13, during the Muslim holiday of ‘Eid al-Fitr. (And B’Tselem issued a press release about the dehumanizing language.)

Here are excerpts of some of that abuse. Warning, the language is highly offensive.

In the first video, Israeli soldiers raid a home in the Palestinian neighborhood of Al-Harika in Hebron. The soldiers break windows and threaten residents as they look for a young stone thrower. The soldiers ignore settlers who throw stones at Palestinians.

The soldiers abuse a Palestinian woman who bravely holds a camera, documenting the raid for B’Tselem, and threaten to break her camera:

Palestinian woman: I didn’t see anyone throw a rock.

Soldier: Because you are very fat. And ugly.

Palestinian: I do my job, I work for B’Tselem.

Soldier: One more time, I break your camera. Alright? You understand me?

Palestinian: I’ll take another camera. It’s not a problem. I have many cameras.

Soldier: Mother, why is your son throwing stones at the soldiers?

As the soldiers leave the house, one blows a kiss to her, a second says, “Happy holiday,” and a third sings, “Hey, sexy lady!”

Screenshot of B’Tselem video of Israeli raid on Palestinian home in occupied Hebron, May 13, 2021.

Screenshot of B’Tselem video of Israeli raid on Palestinian home in Hebron, May 13, 2021.

The second video records events that night in the same neighborhood. Israeli settlers from the illegal colony of Kiryat Arba, built on the eastern side of Hebron, shout racist abuse and sexual threats at Palestinians from a fence, as Israeli soldiers raid the Al-Harika neighborhood.

Settler: Come on, you snitches, you whores.

Settler: I’ll fuck up this entire village. What do you call this fucking family? All by myself, you asshole. Listen, you dog. Listen up, you pig. I’m fucking you, you dog. I’m fucking your mother and your sister.

Settler: Death to Arabs.

Settler: You dog, you dog. Muhammad’s a pig.

Settler: Muhammad’s a son of a bitch.

Settler: Come, come, I’ll fuck you.

Settler: Muhammad’s dead, you asshole.

Settler [hearing boy’s voice]: You’re hiding behind kids, you faggot. I’ll fuck you. You tranny, you coward.

Settler: Come on, I’ll fuck you, you faggot.

Settler: Come on, I’ll open up your ass.

Settler: Gaza’s on fire, you coward, you faggot.

The same video captures an encounter that day outside a Palestinian home, this time with an Israeli soldier hurling abuse.

Soldier: I spit on Palestine. Fuck your mother.

Soldier: I don’t give a fuck. I’m the Israeli army.

Soldier: Throw it, you faggot.

Soldier: Palestine, you assholes.

Soldier: Go get your mother, you faggot. Come on, bring her here, I’ll fuck her. Come on.

Of course these encounters with occupying forces are often deadly. Here is a new report from 972, also based on a B’Tselem video, about Israeli soldiers coordinating attacks on Palestinian villages in the northern West Bank with masked Jewish settlers, including a half-clad sniper.

The attacks took place on May 14, a day on which four Palestinian villagers were killed in what appear to be “pricetag” attacks– retribution against Palestinians for protests against Israeli actions.

Open Letter to John Alcock, Leader of Brighton & Hove Labour Group – The Stench of Hypocrisy Over Labour Islamaphobia is Overpowering

$
0
0

 Brighton’s ‘Left’ Labour Councillors Endorse the Purge of Socialists by accepting False Anti-Semitism Allegations against 3 former Councillors



In May 2019 Labour became the largest party on Brighton & Hove Council. It gained 20 seats to the Green’s 19 and ran the Council. The response of the right was to make false allegations of anti-Semitism resulting in the suspension of Kate Knight and Anne Pissaridou and an ‘investigation’ into Nicki Brennan.

Kate resigned from Labour and Nicki Brennan soon followed. Instead of defending their colleagues Council leader Nancy Platts and now Labour Group leader John Alcock chose to side with the right. This whole affair was orchestrated by Peter Kyle, MP for Hove, ex-leader Daniel Yates and Fiona Sharpe of Sussex Friends of Israel, a group whose co-chair Simon Cobbs has demonstrated with the EDL.

The result was that the Green Party became the largest group and took control of the Council. The allegations were part of the war against the left by Starmer, as detailed in Labour’s Leaked Report. The Forde Inquiry into that report has been put on ice after Starmer bought off those Labour officials who had spent their time undermining Corbyn.

The result, after the Green Party won a byelection is that the Greens now have 20 seats to Labour’s 17 (or 16 depending on the position of Anne Pissaridou).

None of the 3 councillors are anti-Semitic. Nicki was investigated for having participated in a picket of the Council in October 2018 when the Council decided to support the IHRA misdefinition of anti-Semitism. Kate was suspended for saying that anti-Semitism had been weaponised against the left and Anne for sharing a post referring to the Rothschilds and saying that it was an ‘interesting article’.

The use of the IHRA to attack critics of Apartheid Israel and supporters of the Palestinians has even been condemned by the person who drafted it, Kenneth Stern, in testimony to Congress. He stated that ‘The definition was not drafted, and was never intended, as a tool to target or chill speech.

Strangely enough Rachel Reeves tweet praising Nancy Astor, a notorious supporter of Hitler and the Nazis didn't merit any disciplinary action by Starmer, who became angry when it was raised at Labour's NEC

That is why a group of academics, supported by over hundreds of other, mainly Jewish academics, drew up the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism. Unlike the IHRA, the JDA is about anti-Semitism not a defence of Israel or Zionism.

Daniel Yates, right-wing former Labour and Council leader - a privatisation enthusiast who confines his anti-racism to 'antisemitism'

Kate’s offence is denying that there ever was an anti-Semitism problem in the Labour Party, a point of view held by 70% of Labour members. They call it ‘denialism’. Free speech on the issue has been banned. Israeli ‘democracy’ has now been imported into the Labour Party. Racists like Daniel Yates and Peter Kyle, Hove’s MP, know very well that there is no substance to these allegations of anti-Semitism, hence they seek to ban any contrary narrative.

Unfortunately Anne decided to confess. She is reported as saying:

“I am deeply sorry for my actions and any distress I have caused to the Jewish community.

It is well known that many victims of false allegations decide to confess. False confessions are a subset of criminology. In 1989 the Central Park 5, who were Black, confessed to the rape and murder of a white jogger. Trump took out adverts in the New York Times calling for their execution. In 2014 they were awarded $41 million compensation. They were wholly innocent.

In the 1930s the victims of Stalin’s purges nearly all confessed, see the Innocence Project. You create a paradigm in which the existence of ‘anti-Semitism’ is accepted as the taken for granted norm and if you challenge it you are some kind of freak. Hence why Momentum and much of the left shies away from challenging Starmer.

However Anne should have saved her breath. Jews in Brighton and Hove were not concerned with her post. The only group that was concerned was Sussex Friends of Israel, (aka Sussex Jewish Representative Council). In December 2004 SFOI organised a meeting with an Israeli speaker, Mordechai Kedar, who advocates raping Palestinian women at times of war. That is who Yates, Kyle and Appich’s friends are.

Instead of Anne apologising to the Jewish ‘community’ SFOI should apologise to women in Sussex for hosting an advocate of rape.

Contrast that with Luke Akehurst, on Labour’s National Executive who works for We Believe in Israel. In 2018 Akehurst openly supported the Israeli army using snipers to kill unarmed protestors at the Gaza fence. Over 300 were killed, including 50 children. Has Akehurst been suspended or expelled? Of course not. Racism against Palestinians or Muslims in Labour is rewarded not punished.

Anti-Semitism is simple. The Oxford English dictionary defines it as ‘hostility to or prejudice against Jews.’ the JDA defines it as ‘discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews.

It should be obvious, even to the most cowardly Momentum supporter or Labour Councillor that opposition to Apartheid is not the same as anti-Semitism. Historically most Jews opposed Zionism as form of Jewish anti-Semitism (its belief that Jews are one nation/race whose ‘real home’ is in Israel not where they live.

I have therefore decided to write an Open Letter to John Alcock, the co-leader of the Labour Group with Carmen Appich. Carmen is an open Zionist/racist. Alcock, who was a supporter of Peoples Assembly, presumably still says he is a socialist

Addendum

I find it difficult to understand the report that Anne Pissaridou is no longer a member of the Labour Group but still takes the Whip. 

In over 40 years I have seen come and go many Brighton (& then Brighton & Hove) Labour Groups. The first leader is the now long forgotten Ian McGill, a fine speaker and a good socialist. I knew many councillors, many of whom I disagree with like Andy Durr but I can't think of a Labour Group that is as weak and flaccid as this particular one.

It is no surprise that someone so patently weak and insubstantial as Nancy Platts became leader. Like Keir Starmer what she lacks in personality she makes up for in duplicity.

Quite why Anne Piassridiou hasn't done what Nicki Brennan and Kate Knight have done and resign the whip and leave the Labour Party is a mystery. Both resigned the whip and left the Labour Party. If Anne believes she is going to be reinstated and allowed to restand for Council then she is whistling in the wind.

Tony Greenstein

Open Letter to John Alcock

Dear John Alcock,

It is said that‘those whom the gods wish to destroy they first drive mad’. It is difficult to find any other explanation for the Labour Group’s political suicide. The decision to force two councillors to leave the Party and a third to inhabit the political equivalent of purgatory resulted in the Green Party becoming the largest group on Brighton and Hove Council and gaining office.

From 20 councillors in 2019 Labour went to 17 today (in reality 16). The allegations of anti-Semitism are so fraudulent that they make Philip Greene seem honest by comparison. Nicki Brennan’s ‘crime’ was holding a placard calling Israel an apartheid state on a lobby outside a Council meeting in October 2018.

If Brennan’s actions were anti-Semitic then so were those of B’Tselem, Israel’s human rights group and Human Rights Watch which this year described Israel as an Apartheid State. There is copious evidence for this.

For example Israel’s 90 strong Olympic team in Tokyo contained not a single Israeli-Palestinian despite them constituting 20% of Israel’s population. Why? Because Olympic standard sports facilities, like so much else, are not located where Arabs live in Israel.

Israel has vaccinated most of its Jewish population yet it refuses, contrary to the Fourth Geneva Convention to vaccinate Palestinians living under occupation. In Jerusalem Israel seeks to ethnically cleanse Palestinians in East Jerusalem on the grounds that their homes were abandoned by Jews in the 1948 war.  However homes in West Jerusalem that Palestinians abandoned cannot be reclaimed. That is what a ‘Jewish’ state means.

There is barely a dictatorship in the world that Israel doesn't supply with arms or whose military Israel doesn't train

Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the leaders of the ANC have described Israeli Apartheid as worsethan that in South Africa. Yet today in Labour Israel is seen as the equivalent of Reagan’s city on the hill and its opponents castigated as anti-Semites.

Jewish Voices for Labour has just issued a reportshowing that Jewish members of the party are being disproportionatelysingled out for disciplinary action. Whereas 0.29% of Labour members have faced accusations of anti-Semitism, the proportion of Jewish members subject to false accusations is 1.4% - 6 times higher. Even worse 6% of JVL members are being subjected to false accusations of anti-Semitism  20 times the average rate.

What kind of campaign against anti-Semitism is it which singles out Jews? It should be obvious to even the most stupid Labour councillor that this is about Zionism and Israel not anti-Semitism. As JVL note:

It appears that as a population share, almost five times more Jewish than non-Jewish Labour members have faced complaints of antisemitism which have been investigated. We estimate that Jewish JVL members have been subject to actioned antisemitism complaints at a rate 20 times greater than non-Jewish Labour members;

In November Keir Starmer will be the guest of honour at the Labour Friends of Apartheid Israel Annual Dinner. Starmer previously described himself as a ‘Zionist’ i.e. a Racist Without Qualification. The same Starmer who pulled out of a Ramadan even after being told to by the Board of Deputies, because one of its organisers supported a Boycott of Israeli dates and CAGE, which defends prisoners.

Of course if you have to defend arresting Palestinian children as young as 12, blindfolding and beating them whilst denying them access to lawyers or their own parents, whilst Jewish children are afforded full legal protection, then it’s easier to cry ‘anti-Semitism’.

Kate Knight’s ‘offence’ was ‘denialism’, a Kafkaesque word that means denying that there is a problem of Labour anti-Semitism. It’s akin to being prosecuted and pleading innocent only to be told by the judge that this is proof of your guilt! It is the ‘justice’ practiced under Hitler and Stalin.

‘Denialism’ is what those who conducted the witch trials in 17th century Salem, New England practised. As Elizabeth Reis wrote:

“During examinations, accused women were damned if they did and damned if they did not. If they confessed to witchcraft charges, their admissions would prove the cases against them; if they denied the charges, their very intractability, construed as the refusal to admit to sin more generally, might mark them as sinners and hence allies of the devil.”

The only women who were hanged at Salem were those who denied their guilt. You and Cllr Nancy Platts, have learnt your trade well.

Platts, who formerly worked in Corbyn’s office, makes Judas seem like a model of probity and loyalty. A year ago she saidthat she was ‘deeply sorry to the Jewish community on behalf of the council’s Labour Group.’ What for? An innocuous Facebook post that Anne Pissaridou shared 5 years ago?

Former leader Daniel Yates, the man who helped implement TTIPas part of the government’s privatisation agenda in the NHS, went one further. He said that he was ‘ashamed of being a Labour city councillor’. Yates can rest assured that he’s not the only one who is ashamed of the fact that he is a Labour councillor!

Nancy Platts, former Labour leader who handed control of B&H Council to the Greens, makes political cowardice into an art form

But if you and Platts want to do some apologising, then I’m more than happy to help you. You could start by apologising to the Palestinians for having supported the Balfour Declaration in 1917, even before the Liberals and Tories under Lloyd George. The British Empire gave Palestine, which did not belong to them, to the Zionist Organisation to ethnically cleanse.

You could also apologise to Black people for Alan Johnson, Blair’s Home Secretary, having pioneered the use of the term‘hostile environment’ when describing Labour’s immigration policy.

John Mann, the author of the fake antisemitism campaign brought out a pamphlet explaining how to deal with the anti-social problem of Gypsies

And you could also apologise for having supported the Immigration Act 2014 which led to the Windrush Scandal. Just 6 Labour MPs voted to oppose it. Strangely enough Tom Watson, John Mann, Louise Ellman and those behind Labour’s false ‘anti-Semitism’ allegations abstained.

Another apology is due for Labour’s recent reinstatement of Trevor Phillips. Philips believesthat Muslims are ‘a nation within a nation’ and that allowing a non-Muslim child to be adopted by Muslims is ‘akin to child abuse.’ Just imagine that Pissaridou or Knight had said this about Jews? The heavens would have fallen in yet neither you nor any Labour councillors, still less Kyle, have seen fit to comment.

Free Speech in the Labour Party has been abolished - all in the name of fighting 'antisemitism'

As Rachel Shabi wrotein the Independent ‘The stench of Islamophobia in the Labour Party is getting stronger’. And the stench of hypocrisy from you and Platts is also becoming overpowering.

Despite his openly racist remark about Travellers Starmer and Evans have made no attempt to expel Luke Stanger - only 'antisemitism' merits expulsion

You could also apologise to Brighton’s Gypsies. 3 years ago Luke Stanger, a member of Hove Labour Party and friend of Kyle and Cllr. Henry, tweetedthat Travellers ‘were a nasty blight on society.’ Stanger was suspendedin 2019. He has also sexually harassed a number of women. Why hasn’t this racist reprobate been expelled?

Ann Mitchell, a member of Hove Labour Party Executive was expelled for tweeting that ‘privileging anti-Semitism above other forms of race hatred is nothing to be proud of’ and quoting Asa Winstanley’s ‘the Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party’s anti-Semitism crisis.’ There was nothing racist about what she said. She spoke about the Israel lobby, a veritable fact, yet she was a victim of the fake anti-Semitism campaign.

Why is it, when there are so many groups to whom Labour owes an apology that only one group, Jews, receive an apology? It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Jews are being used as a political football as part of an altogether different agenda, which is support for Israel and its role in British foreign policy in the Middle East. Jews are a prosperous section of the White community. They are not oppressed.

Jews are neither economically discriminated against nor the subject of state racism. Back in 1961 Geoffrey Alderman’s The Jewish Community in British Politicsfound that40% of British Jews were to be found in social classes A&B compared to less than 20% nationally.

Tom Watson went out on a limb to defend racist Labour MP Phil Woolas

I am unaware of the name of the Jewish Geoffrey AldermanStephen Lawrence. Nor am I aware of any Jews deported in the Windrush Scandal. Driving whilst Jewish is not an offence. Jews are not subject to stop and search or disproportionately imprisoned. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Labour’s concern over ‘anti-Semitism’ would disappear if Jews were Black and there were no ‘Jewish’ state in the Middle East.

Of course if Sussex Jewish Representative Council (Sussex Friends of Israel), the Board of Deputies are genuinely concerned about anti-Semitism they have a very simple remedy. The next time Israel attacks the Palestinians they can issue a joint statement condemning the attacks and informing people that British Jews condemn Israel’s actions. Furthermore that British Jews bear no responsibility for the actions of a ‘Jewish’ state. Until then they should put up or shut up.

Like many neo-Nazis Tommy Robinson is a strong supporter of Zionism he was given a hero's welcome at this demonstration

What happened though is that as soon as the latest attacks on Gaza started the Board of Deputies rushed to support them and then organised a demonstration in support of Israel’s genocidal attack which killed 67 Palestinian children. It is little wonder that Tommy Robinson turned up to a hero’s welcome. The death of over 260 Palestinians must have seemed like Xmas come early.

Genuine Labour anti-Semitism has always been the property of the Labour Right. It was not the left wing which was responsible for thousands of Jews being sent to Auschwitz but Peter Mandelson’s grandfather Herbert Morrison. Morrison refused to admit all but a trickle of Jewish refugees from Nazi occupied Europe. [Excuses Excuses The Failure to Amend Britain's Immigration Policy Lesley Clare Urbach].

Ramsay MacDonald wrote after a visit to Palestine in 1922 about

‘the rich plutocratic Jew, who is the true economic materialist. He is the person whose views upon life make one anti-Semitic. He has no country, no kindred... he is an exploiter of everything he can squeeze. He is behind every evil that Governments do... He detests Zionism because it revives the idealism of his race.’

Isaac Herzog, former leader of the racist Israeli Labor Party, the 'sister party' of the Jewish Labor Movement

And where was this published? In a pamphlet by Poalei Zion, (today’s JLM!) Far from opposing anti-Semitism, Zionism with its belief that Jews are not at home where they live, is its greatest supporter.

John Alcock, you are no more than the bag carrier for the Labour Right. You could at least have left the dirty work to your co-leader Carmen Appich, a racist Zionist. Appich’s only claim to fame is callingKate Knight a ‘bitch’ when she assumed that she was muted on Zoom. Yet what was the reaction of Platts? She was saidthat ‘Cllr Appich apologised for the "horrible mistake" and has promised that it will not happen again.

Well Anne Pissaridou has also apologised. Why the difference in treatment? Zionists like to extract their pound of flesh. In Israel over 300 families of Palestinians murdered by the army are unable to bury the bodies of their loved ones because Israel has stolen the bodies. The latest victim is an 11 year old boy gunned down this week. Zionists live up to the worst caricatures of the anti-Semites.

Racist Labour MP Phil Woolas was defended by Tom Watson, John Mann and all those involved in the fake 'antisemitism' allegations

Brighton Momentum spent over 2 years gaining a majority on Labour’s Campaign Forum putting forward left candidates such as Amanda Evans, Nick Childs and John Alcock. Yet today it is impossible to differentiate between Momentum and the Right on the Council. They have merged into one. As Orwell wrote:

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

You are not the only left councilor to have made the journey to the right. It is a well travelled road. It is noticeable that all of the Momentum supported candidates – Amanda Evans, Nick Childs and others – have remained silent.

Tommy Robinson standing on an Israeli captured tank - what the Labour Right can't answer is what it is about Israel that the far-Right so loves

But there are councilors who stayed true to their principles and remained true to their principles and socialistm. Francis Tonks, a former miner and mayor, who is now over 90 and Jack Hazelgrove, broke ranks with their colleagues over plans to transfer the council’s housing stock to an ALMO.  In a ballot in February 2007 of Council tenants 77% rejected New Labour’s privatisation plans under Council leader Simon Burgess, today part of Lloyd Russell-Moyle’s team.

You have chosen to go along with these utterly fake allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’ by the supporters of Israel, the world’s only Apartheid state. Both you and the Momentum supported councillors should hang your heads in shame. Assuming you understand the meaning of the word.

In solidarity

Tony Greenstein

Viewing all 2429 articles
Browse latest View live