Quantcast
Channel: Tony Greenstein's Blog
Viewing all 2415 articles
Browse latest View live

Brighton & Hove Council Threatens to Sell off its holdings of South Downs National Park Land

$
0
0
Brighton’s New Labour Council Displays its Hostility to Publicly Owned and Controlled Assets  

Plumpton Hill -  FOR SALE
Those who believe it is better having a ‘Labour’ council, despite it being dominated by New Labour, should think again.  It is clear that the current administration is seeking to sell off to private landlords, with the Duke of Devonshire’s Estates having first option, the 12,500 of  Downland that the Council owns.  Ironically, what a Conservative Brighton Council purchased in the 1920’s and 1930’s a ‘Labour’ Council will privatise today.

On the 8thDecember a Council committee will take the decision as to whether or not to begin the process of privatisation.  This was a process that was initiated by the previous Green administration which also bought into neo-liberal free market economics.  If the sell-off goes ahead it will have devastating implications for the future of the National Park.

In the email exchange below, Progress Labour Councillor Tom Bewick, who doesn’t seem to realise that all the land is part of the National Park ,asserts that ‘The council has no business owning non-national park downland.’  Private profit as oppose to public ownership seems de rigeur with these Tories in Labour clothing.

There is a campaign which has sprung up to ensure that Council land stays in public hands.  Join the KEEP OUR DOWNS PUBLIC (BRIGHTON) CAMPAIGN.

Tony Greenstein
Eastbourne Downs Combe Hill
KEEP OUR DOWNS PUBLIC (BRIGHTON)
PRESS RELEASE
BRIGHTON COUNCIL HALTS DOWNLAND SALES
24/11/16. Contact: Dave Bangs, T. 01273 620 815 bangs682@btinternet.com    Chris Todd, ecochris.todd@googlemail.com

We greatly welcome the reports that Brighton Council has withdrawn the remaining at-risk Downland sites from sale. These are: Plumpton Hill, an iconic high point on the South Downs Way commanding views of the Weald north to Ashdown Forest. It is an SSSI (nationally protected wildlife site) and has a Scheduled Ancient Monument (Bronze Age burial barrows) upon it, and Poynings Field which provided the traditional landscape setting for the Devils Dyke.

This is good news for all lovers of the South Downs. It is good news for Poynings Parish Council, who are not now faced with a threat of built development on the edge of their village. It is good news for lovers of nature, and all people who love Downland history, who can now rest assured that the ownership of these sites will remain democratically accountable

We now wish to engage with Brighton Council in a re-think of the way in which our 12,500 acre Estate is managed. We need to end the distant, unknowing, arms-length attitudes which have seen the Downland Estate as no more than a second rate commercial asset, and re-connect to this democratically owned public landscape, which can offer all of us good fun, healthy recreation, companionship in nature, solace, wonder, peace, education...and good, locally produced food!
We urge the Council to:
  • Commit to keeping all of its Downland estate and redrafting the Council's Asset Management Plan to say that no future sales should take place. 
  • Fully involve the public in the Estate’s management. 
  • Ring fence the Downland Estate revenues for the estates’ conservation and for public use, including sustainable access to the estate (the latter point a Labour manifesto commitment).
  • Designate all of the Downland Estate as statutory access land as the opportunities arise.
  • Adopt a long term strategy of landscape restoration for the whole estate for the social, health and economic benefits that this will bring.
Plumpton Hill
Flogging off the Sussex Downs

Text: 800 words.  27.11.16. Dave Bangs, Tel: 01273 620 815.   bangs682@btinternet.com

In the past months major storms have arisen on the Sussex Downs because of threatened large scale sales of local council owned Downland. On the Brighton Downs the City Council has been ‘reviewing’ its ‘non-core assets’ and attempting to dispose of a series of sites. These include part of a 50 year old nature reserve which is the last county site for the little native Juniper conifer (present on the Downs since the Ice Age); a cave with four resident species of bat; and iconic Plumpton Hill, commanding huge views over the forested Sussex Weald. On the Eastbourne Downs behind Beachy Head the Council has been moving towards the disposal of over 3,000 acres of public Downland which forms the backdrop to the town. It includes numerous prehistoric burial mounds and field systems, a Neolithic hillfort, and large, nationally important wildlife sites for orchids and rare flowers such as the Moon Carrot, which glows white in the darkest night.

On these Downs the local councils are major landowners, having acquired large tranches of land cheaply in the 1920’s, ‘30’s, and ‘40’s during the long agricultural depression. They did so to protect them from rapidly expanding urban sprawl, to protect the chalk aquifer which is the source of their drinking water, and to protect the ancient open sheep walks which walkers and naturalists loved. Whilst they largely failed with the latter objective (because agribusiness farmers ploughed up much archaic grassland that was tractor-accessible) they succeeded with the two former objectives.

The legacy of these conservation purchases is huge. Brighton Council owns some 12,500 acres, Eastbourne Council has 4,200 acres, Worthing Council has c. 500 acres, East Sussex County Council has about 700 acres at Seven Sisters, and Lewes and Adur Councils have several hundred acres between them. This 18,000 acres-plus public Downland forms the backbone public asset within the new South Downs National Park, together with the Forestry Commission’s estates. The National Park Authority itself owns no land. It doesn’t even own a public toilet.

Tragically, the loss of the open sheep walks (depriving the public of traditional access) and the conservative commercial management of the estates by arms-length land agencies like Savills and Strutt and Parker, has meant that the cultural memory of these free and open landscapes has been much eroded. Twenty years ago Brighton’s Labour Council tried to sell their Downland, but was forced to abandon the proposal by a vigorous campaign. Five years ago Tory Worthing Council abandoned similar sales proposals in the face of militant opposition.

Both councils, with Eastbourne, then ‘came good’ and designated huge tranches of their Downland as statutory ‘freedom to roam’ land. Major changes in Downland management brought in much wildlife and heritage conservation and partially re-created the great sheep walks which gave the South Downs its character. In some areas, such as behind Beachy Head, this amounted to superb measures of finely crafted landscape restoration. This was just what Labour Environment Minister Michael Meacher had in mind when he announced the creation of a South Downs National Park at Party Conference and proposed it would be of a ‘new type’- dedicated to the restoration of a landscape which had lost over 90% of its archaic grasslands.

Within the last two months ‘Keep Our Downs Public’ groups have kicked off in Brighton and Eastbourne. In Brighton we have secured a temporary STOP on the sales, and the policy will be reviewed on 8thDecember at the key council committee. There we face the current opposition of the Labour leadership (though the sales policy was initiated in 2014 under the Green Party leadership) but are hopeful that this can be reversed. In Eastbourne we face the opposition of the Lib Dem leadership. However, the new KODP group organised a feisty 120-strong town hall picket and a lively semi-public meeting with the Council Leader within its first fortnight. Activists face the task of helping the Council recover the lost memories of its progressive past.

If we lose the Duke of Devonshire Estates (the old property developers who built Eastbourne) will have a legal right to first refusal on much of the sold land. Rich new owners may exclude us, damage vulnerable wildlife habitat, turn the farms over to game shoots  and excluding land uses (like vineyards, solar arrays, private ‘parks’ and horseyculture, with their CCTV cameras and high fences) and press for incremental built developments .

If we win we can drive forward more huge gains in public access (over 2000 acres of new access land already around Brighton) and stitch back together the historic landscape’s shattered tapestry of archaic wildflower grassland in a sustainable pastoral economy.

Across the country similar battles are being fought in defence of public land – parks, open spaces and county council small holdings. The stakes are high.    

Thus does a Labour councillor announce his hostility to public ownership. 

What is "non-national park downland"?...this for-sale land is ALLin the National Park. The backbone of the National Park is the the local authority-owned Downland estates: of Brighton, Worthing, Eastbourne, East Sussex County Council, et al. The National Park Authority doesn't even own the public toilets.

Without those Council estates the NP would lose its main non-commercial partners to carry through it's main projects. Private owners chop and change, exclude the public, manage by private whims and fancies (or not manage at all) and wreck key habitats and features...often without even knowing they are doing so.

On its own, National Park status DOESN'T protect the Downs. It is merely one brick in the wall. Hands-on, accountable, democratic public ownership is the KEY tool we have for driving through the project of landscape restoration and full public access which Michael Meacher (in his speech to Party Conference announcing the South Downs National Park) put at the centre of his dream,

Dave Bangs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email Exchange Cllr. Tom Bewick to Various

----Original message----
From : Tom.Bewick@brighton-hove.gov.uk
Date : 24/11/2016 - 20:43 (GMTST)
To : Leslie.Hamilton@brighton-hove.gov.uk, bangs682@btinternet.com, Warren.Morgan@brighton-hove.gov.uk, Gill.Mitchell@brighton-hove.gov.uk
Cc : Karen.Barford@brighton-hove.gov.uk, Tracey.Hill@brighton-hove.gov.uk, Kevin.Allen@brighton-hove.gov.uk, Saoirse.Horan@brighton-hove.gov.uk, Daniel.Chapman@brighton-hove.gov.uk, michael.inkpen-leissner@brighton-hove.gov.uk, Peter.Atkinson@brighton-hove.gov.uk, Julie.Cattell@brighton-hove.gov.uk, Emma.Daniel@brighton-hove.gov.uk
Subject : Re: Downland sales: please make THIS STOP permanent

Thanks, Les

I'm pleased to hear that. The council has no business owning non-national park downland.

The whole point of the Labour Govt giving us National Park status was to protect the habitat that legally needs protecting.

The complete grandstanding and nonsense from the Greens is typical. We need to remind them it is Labour we have to thank for protecting the Downs in the first place.

T
Councillor Tom Bewick
Lead Member, Children, Young People and Skills
Labour and Co-operative Councillor for Westbourne Ward, Hove
@Lab_Westbourne
www.westbournehove.org

 
From: Leslie Hamilton
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 07:00 PM
To: bangs682@btinternet.com<bangs682@btinternet.com>; Warren Morgan; Tom Bewick; Gill Mitchell
Cc: Karen Barford; Tracey Hill; Kevin Allen; Saoirse Horan; Daniel Chapman; michael.inkpen-leissner@brighton-hove.gov.uk<michael.inkpen-leissner@brighton-hove.gov.uk>; Peter Atkinson; Julie Cattell; Emma Daniel
Subject: RE: Downland sales: please make THIS STOP permanent
 
You are mistaken. The selling of  land at Poynings and Plumpton has not been put on hold. This land was put up for sale by the Green administration in July 2014 and there is no change in the decision taken at that time.
Les
 
Plumpton Hill: -  FOR SALE               
Plumpton Hill 

Eastbourne Downs Combe Hill                                         

Victory as Keith Henderson Defence Fund Reaches Its Target - Tim Roache, GMB Gen. Secretary Tried to Bankrupt Union Member

$
0
0

The Fight for Democracy in the GMB Union 

Experts in attacking socialists and socialism

Some 6 weeks ago I posted an appeal on this blog for people to contribute to the Defence Fund of Keith Henderson, who had been an official of the right-wing GMB union.

I am pleased to say that the costs of £12,000 have now been met and that Keith Henderson won’t be rendered homeless by Tim Roache, the unelected or barely elected General Secretary of the GMB.
Keith Henderson - Victimised GMB Member
Below is a statement by Keith Henderson on some of the corrupt practices that took place around the election of Tim Roache for General Secretary.  An election in which only 4.4% of the membership took part.  An election in which determined efforts were made to keep Keith off the ballot paper.

Over the summer I exchanged tweets with Tim Roache over the ‘ballot’ of GMB members which decided to support Owen Smith against Jeremy Corbyn.  Barely anyone in the GMB voted for Smith, most of the ballot papers never reached the members but the result that Tim Roache wanted, support for New Labour’s candidate was obtained.

Read what Keith has to say about what was tantamount to ballot rigging in the GMB’s election.

Tony Greenstein
Tim Roache - did his best to prevent a socialist opposing him in General Secretary elections
Statement By Keith Henderson 

All legal costs have now been paid in full. I would like to take this time to thank everyone who donated to the appeal fund and give special thanks to John McDonnell and the LRC for all their support over the last five years. 

Everyone who donated will be aware that in September 2013 the Watford Employment Tribunal made a Judgment that I had suffered unlawful direct discrimination by my employer, the GMB trade union, on the basis of my left wing democratic socialist beliefs. The GMB has successfully appealed against this decision, right up to the Court of Appeal, which meant I had to pay the GMB costs of £12,000.

The Court of Appeal was of the opinion that the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) Judge could make a substitute finding of fact without hearing any further evidence or referring the case back to the Watford Employment Tribunal to seek clarification on their Judgment. 

My lawyer’s still believe this is wrong and the case should be referred back to the original Employment Tribunal Panel for clarification, but, it will cost too much money to pursue the case any further so I have had to accepted this decision.

Looking on the bright side Socialism is now a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 as a result of this case. This is a permanent gain for the labour movement that has been won.

This case will go down in the history books as having made the law to show discrimination against someone on grounds of left wing socialist beliefs is a breach of the equalities legislation and is therefore unlawful, that in itself is very important.

Paragraph 62 of the EAT judgment, which still stands, states

” At paragraph 48 it concluded that I am a ‘left-wing democratic socialist’ and held the beliefs identified. Moreover it found that “there were clear outward signs of those beliefs being manifested… particularly clear from the picketing incident…” The Tribunal concluded that left-wing democratic socialism is a protected belief for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 and this conclusion is not challenged on this appeal.”

Socialism is now a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.

It was outrageous that the GMB's right wing bureaucracy argued in court that there should be less protection in the law for a philosophical belief in democratic socialism as opposed to a religious belief. The GMB was arguing for less protection for socialists in the workplace. Thankfully they were unsuccessful. 

Despite this in a statement published by the GMB on 11 October 2016, the current barely elected GMB General Secretary, Tim Roache said “This is complete vindication for GMB. Mr Henderson has wasted time and money that belongs to our members by continuously pursuing a case which everyone knew had no merit. GMB will never allow anyone to drag our name through the mud, which is exactly what Mr Henderson tried – and comprehensively failed – to do."

This is a somewhat disingenuous statement from the current General secretary of the GMB to make. It was the GMB bureaucracy at each and every stage of the legal proceedings, time and time again, that spent union members money by having two barristers and two solicitors at each appeal hearing when I just had one junior barrister on a pro bono (free of charge) basis.

If it had really been the GMB's intention to avoid costs and save administrative time and tribunal time, involved in remitting the case back to the employment tribunal, as they claimed, this could have been achieved by asking the tribunal to reconsider the various matters that it relied on in respect of the appeal, (a process that used to be called a review), instead of which a disproportionate appeal was launched by the GMB effectively trying to buy themselves justice with union members money.

The GMB could have avoided paying out any money in legal costs when John McDonnell MP tried to secure a resolution to this dispute by agreement, but, Mr Roache rejected this after initially agreeing to it. Under Mr Roache's leadership of the union it was decided to spend nearly £30,000 in additional legal costs by going through with the appeal when the most they could get back from myself was £12,000.

This was not the first time that the unelected leadership of the GMB had an opportunity to settle the case. Over the course of the employment tribunal itself there were several attempts by myself, my lawyer and John McDonnell MP to broker a settlement.
Instead Sir Paul Kenny (the General Secretary at the time) refused all attempts at conciliation. Preferring instead to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of GMB members money on legal costs in an attempt to crush me.

It appears that the manifestation of my democratic socialist principles in acting on a members decision to place a picket on parliament, (on the day of action in the course of the public sector pensions dispute in 2011), had so offended the principles that drive and motivate the unelected bureaucracy of the GMB that a vendetta was launched against me.

It might have been this or the fact that my close comrades had administered a website pointing out that Sir Paul Kenny had never won a general secretary election in the GMB (losing the only one he had ever stood in back in 2003), yet he had been the general secretary for almost a decade (at the time). Surprisingly, or not so surprisingly as we were later to find out, nobody had ever secured enough nominations to get onto to the ballot paper to force Sir Paul Kenny to face another election.

Perhaps it was the fact I had co authored a draft manifesto arguing that the GMB should be democratised that had upset the unelected incumbents at national and regional level. Arguments that power finance and other resources should be devolved to a workplace and a branch level didn't play well with those whose employment depends on power, finance and resources remaining at a national and a regional level.

Perhaps it was the allegations of nepotism that upset the unelected bureaucracy of the GMB. It is a well known fact in the union that Warren Kenny, the son of Paul Kenny is now employed as the unelected London Regional Secretary.

It could have been any of these reasons or a combination of some or all of them that drove the leadership of the union to spend huge quantities of the members money on legal fees in an attempt to discredit me.

In addition it is the case that if it wasn't for the efforts of all of you comrades in coming to my assistance in helping to raise the £12,000 necessary myself and my family would have been made homeless as a result of the relentless drive with no expense spared to discredit me.

Once again many thanks to all of the comrades who helped out.

We still achieved a historical victory in making socialism a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and that is what we should take from this legal battle. Every shop steward who is victimised in the workplace for representing their members should bear this in mind.Now moving onto the up coming appeal being heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) regarding the GMB General Secretary election 2015.

The GMB General Secretary election 2015 in my opinion was a bureaucratic stitch-up of monumental proportions. 

The report Electoral Reform Services on the election for the General Secretary of the GMB, issued on 
12 November 2015, declared: 

Number of voting papers despatched: 610,023, Number of voting papers returned to the scrutineer: 26,658, Turnout: 4.4%, Number of votes found to be spoiled or otherwise invalid: 170, Total number of valid votes to be counted: 26,488. Tim Roache was declared the winner with 15,034 votes (56.7%) and Paul McCarthy got 11,454 (43.3%).

Tim Roache had been elected to the highest office in the third biggest union in the country, a union that wields massive influence in the Labour party, on the votes of 2.4% of the membership. The bureaucratic centralism of the GMB leaders, and particularly under the most recent leadership of Sir Paul Kenny, had led to a mass alienation of almost the entire membership.

I attempted to stand in the election on the basis of a socialist Manifesto (already referred to), which outlines the mechanics of reintroducing democracy, accountability and devolution of power in the GMB. Having contacted my branch to ask if the members of the branch could be informed of my intention to stand and to obtain their permission to do so and the branch nomination, in the first instance, moves were made by the unelected bureaucracy of the union to prevent my candidature.

Having made repeated requests my branch secretary and branch president were finally informed that the election had been called and what the timetable was. This was three weeks into the nomination period with the regional office claiming that the official notification to the branch had been sent to the wrong address.

Never the less a branch meeting was hastily organised and members were informed that I was seeking their nomination. The secretary and president were ordered by the unelected regional secretary to withdraw the notification claiming that it was in breach of the by-laws governing the election.

This they refused to do and both were suspended and subsequently disciplined. (Barred from holding office in the union for two and three years respectively) for breaching the rules that governed the election and for failing to comply with an instruction from the unelected regional secretary.

The by-law that the secretary and the president were said to have breached was by-law 13 that said that candidates could not communicate in writing or by electronic mail to promote their candidature.

As I was not a candidate and was seeking enough nominations (you required 30 branch nominations) to become a candidate it appeared to me that there was a grotesque manipulation of the rules and guidelines going on to prevent me or any other rank and file member from seeking nominations to stand in the election.

I sought to make my case within the union structures but to no avail.

Reluctantly I was forced to go to the Certification Officer because all my avenues of appeal were exhausted within the GMB. 

Once again the unelected/ barely elected bureaucracy in the GMB used members money to hire a Queens Council (QC) to defend their case while I had to rely on a junior barrister working on a pro bono (free) basis.

The GMB had reversed it's decision to discipline the secretary and the president of my branch, clearly on the advice of their QC. They won their internal appeal within the GMB. The original defence that the GMB had put to the certification officer in response to my complaint was then altered.

We were not allowed to alter our complaint as the certification officer deemed that our barrister submitted it to late.
Given that the certification officer must have been aware that my barrister was working on a pro bono (free) basis, would have had no solicitor support, unlike the GMB's QC and would have had other paid work to attend to, to deny me the opportunity to amend my case after allowing the GMB the right to amend theirs was most unfair

Since then a discrimination expert, barrister Nick De Marco, from the Blackstone chambers has come forward and offered to represent me on a pro bono basis at the appeal against the certification officer's decision that has been lodged at the EAT.

The facts of the case are as follows.

The Certification Officer made a decision on my case in March 2016 and decided to reject my complaints. My lawyer’s believe the reasons for rejecting my complaint are inadequate and perverse. 

This is some background to the case.

1) I wished to stand for the position of General Secretary in the 2015 election. On 
6 June 2015, the GMB published a number of by-laws governing the election, one of which prohibited candidates from certain communications in relation to the election (by-law 13).

2) I believed that this by-law was unlawful in that it prohibited lay members such as himself from contacting other branches to seek nomination. I made a complaint to this effect and was assured by the GMB that the by-laws were legal. I sought nomination from my own branch (only), during which process the GMB suspended and later removed two officers of my branch for breaching by-law 13, by circulating a newsletter advertising my intention to stand. The election concluded on 
12 November 2015

3) During the election period, I believed that - and the GMB acted as though - by-law 13 applied not only to candidates but also to persons in my position i.e. potential nominees. The GMB's initial formal response to the Certification Officer reflected this. The GMB applied by letter on 
5 February 2016 to amend its case to state that by-law 13 applied to candidates only and not to me. I only learnt of this amendment on 11 February and sought at the hearing on 01/03/2016 to amend my complaint accordingly. Permission was refused.

My grounds of appeal are:

(1) Unlawful failure to exercise discretion. The Certification Officer misdirected himself in law by failing to exercise his discretion, in the interests of justice and a fair hearing, to grant permission for amendment, further or alternatively;

(2) Procedural unfairness in breach of natural justice. The same failure to grant permission to amend was in the circumstances unfair, further or alternatively;

(3) Perversity. The decision was in the circumstances one which no reasonable Certification Officer properly directing himself could have reached.

In the opinion of my lawyer these are some of the reasons below we have a chance of this appeal being successful.

1) The Certification Officer considered my actions before by-law 13 was introduced, which cannot be relevant to his or the GMB's understanding or application of it.

2) The Certification Officer determined that I made no attempt to contact other branches “regardless” of the correct interpretation of by-law 13, which contention is illogical where by-law 13 evidently and necessarily operated on the GMB's understanding and the GMB's behaviour.

3) The Certification Officer failed to engage with the effect of the removal of the branch officers on my understanding of by-law 13 as applied by the GMB; and noted but did not answer my reasonable explanation for my failure to approach other branches, i.e. that I was waiting for the outcome of an official complaint which I had made to the GMB's Central Executive Council (CEC) seeking deletion of by-law 13.

At a recent rule 3 (10) hearing before the EAT that took place on 28th October 2016, an EAT Judge ruled that my appeal did have merit and should be immediately laid down for a full appeal hearing. Therefore, we have a real chance of getting an enforcement order that GMB General Secretary election has to be rerun, this could happen as early as next year in the summer.

I believe that this is why the current general secretary, Tim Roache, the man with a two point four per cent mandate,  has continued with the slur and smear campaign initiated by his predecessor Sir Paul Kenny, the man with no mandate whatsoever. Mr Roache has issued a statement attacking me in a further attempt to try and discredit my name as he knows that I could be a challenger for his position. If the turnout and the vote matched the last election (and it is my intention if the election is rerun that is not the case), the successful candidate would only need 2.5 per cent to storm to power with an increased mandate. 

Therefore it comes as no surprise that Mr Roache is very concerned about a potential challenge to his position. 

There can be no doubt that because of this the smears and distortions will continue.

New Statesman Bows to Zionist Censorship as they Delete Article on Israel’s Occupation

$
0
0

If the New Statesman boycotts the Palestinians we should boycott the New Statesman

Salah Ajarma on conditions under occupation

Salah Ajarma on the Right of Return

Founded in 1913, the New Statesman has long been identified with the Fabian Right of the Labour Party.  In the 1930’s under the influence of the Webbs, it became an uncritical supporter of Stalinist Russia, which it saw as socialist.  Censorship and the New Statesman have long gone together.   Wikipedia describes how, in 1938 under its longest serving editor, Kingsley Martin, it refused to publish George Orwell's dispatches from Barcelona during the Spanish civil war because they criticised the communists for suppressing the anarchistsand the left-wing Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM).  These later became famous in Orwell’s book Homage to Catalonia.
'It is an unfortunate fact,' Martin wrote to Orwell, 'that any hostile criticism of the present Russian regime is liable to be taken as propaganda against socialism'. Martin also refused to allow any of the magazine's writers to review Leon Trotsky's anti-Stalinist book The Revolution Betrayed.
The view from Aida refugee camp, the Apartheid Wall separates it from Gilo settlement on the hill above

Israeli forces raid Aida refugee camp Sep. 9. (Photos: Muhammad al-Azzeh)
Despite this record the New Statesman, with the endearing modesty for which it is famous, proclaims that it is ‘celebrated for its progressive politics, scepticism, free thinking and the intelligence, range and quality of its writing.’

Unfortunately its progressive politics, free thinking and humbug have not prevented it from taking down from its web site a moving account of life in Aida refugee camp, which is just outside Bethlehem.  Aida is surrounded by Israel’s Apartheid Wall, which has resulted in the confiscation of  much of its best land.  The Wall is a hideous and ugly structure that is taller than the Berlin Wall which the New Statesman regularly assailed.

The New Statesman was the traditional voice of the ‘enlightened’ wing of British imperialism and it is no accident that Sydney Webb, one of its founders, later became Colonial Secretary as Lord Passfield in the 1929-31 Ramsey MacDonald government.  Whereas the Tories were open about the British Empire being the basis of British power in the world, Labour’s imperialists spoke the language of trusteeship, bringing civilisation to the backwards people, holding the land in trust for them.  Unlike the Labour Left, the New Statesman steered clear of any whiff of anti-colonialism.
A child is arrested and detained by Israeli occupation forces in Aida camp
It is, therefore, unsurprising that the New Statesman was for most of its history the strongest supporter of the Israeli state.  Israel could do no wrong under a succession of fiercely pro-Zionist editors.  Only in 1982 under Bruce Page and his successor, in the wake of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, did the New Statesman wake up to the existence of the Palestinians and the transformation of Israel from an oasis of socialism in the Middle East to a war-mongering and expansionist state that was the close ally of US imperialism.
The article the New Statesman editors removed was by Salah Ajarma, a well known Palestinian activist and founder of the Lajee Cultural Centre.   The article is a factual account of conditions in the refugee camp and the difficulty Palestinian youth face growing up in such an environment.  Of course it is understandable that the Zionist lobby would take exception to such an article since they deny that there is any occupation.  Although I haven’t read the Zionist objections to the article, I suspect it revolves around ‘anti-Semitism’ which these days is another name for the truth.
The UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and the Lajee Center inaugurated the first ever child-friendly spaces – a football pitch and a playground – in Aida refugee camp in Bethlehem. Photo: UNRWA/Alaa Ghosheh
As I wrote in an earlier post, The New Statesman & the Perpetuation of the Myth of Labour ‘anti-Semitism’ Carrying on a tradition – The New Statesman, Zionism and Imperialism the New Statesman has given full support to the ‘anti-Semitism’ smear campaign in the Labour Party.   
According to Zionist mythology, Israel is merely reclaiming the lands it lost 2,000 years ago from the indigenous population!  The Palestinians, like all native peoples, are invisible except when they engage in resistance, which the Zionists term ‘terrorism’.  The traditional Zionist attitude was summed up in the slogan ‘A Land Without a People for a People Without a Land.’
As the Palestine Solidarity Campaign statement below states, having commissioned and put Salah Ajarma’s article up on its web site, as part of a partnership agreement between the New Statesman and PSC, the NS then took the article down again after objections by two Zionist blogs.  What is particularly damning is that instead of explaining their reasons, the New Statesman has refused to even communicate with PSC or Salah.
Aida refugee camp with the Wall ahead
The behaviour of the New Statesman is not an isolated example of political cowardice and concessions to Zionist settler colonialism.  In recent years the Guardian has undergone exactly the same metamorphosis such that it has been the leading campaigner in support of the ‘anti-Semitism’ smear campaign.  The liberal left is reverting to type as the Western ruling classes firm up their support for Israel.  The election of Donald Trump has been greeted with utter delight by Israel’s far-Right.  See for example Israeli Right hails Trump: 'The era of a Palestinian state is over' .
Our response to the New Statesman should be unequivocal.  We should support a boycott of this miserable paper that claims the affections of the Left.

 
Statement from Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Dear friend,

Palestinian voices are being censored and silenced. We cannot let this happen.
Earlier this month PSC commissioned an article from Salah Ajarma, the co-founder and Director of the Lajee Cultural Centre in Aida Refugee camp. The New Statesman published the piece as part of a two year partnership between the PSC and the New Statesman. Two pro-Israel blogs attacked the New Statesman for publishing the piece, shortly afterwards, the New Statesman deleted it without speaking to Salah or to PSC. They have since refused to offer any explanation or justification for the removal of the article.

This is a disgraceful attack on freedom of expression, a clear case of censorship, and a deliberate attempt to silence Palestinian voices. By doing this, the New Statesman have politically censored a human rights campaigner, who is living under very harsh conditions of military occupation in a refugee camp. We cannot stand by and let this happen. We cannot be silenced.


The red sloping roofs and lack of black water tanks identify the hilltop town as an Israeli settlement. It overlooks the Aida Refugee Camp, separated from it by the Wall.
It would appear the New Statesman have caved into political pressure to remove the article, and do not believe they owe Salah or PSC the courtesy even of a conversation: the editorial team won’t even take our phone calls. In an email to the PSC, the New Statesman stated that the article had been removed as a result of ‘reader complaints’, refusing any further elaboration and any editorial contact.

Salah's article describes the experiences of young Palestinian refugees in Aida camp and talks about how settlements impact his life and the lives of people in his community. New Statesman editors approved and published the article.

The New Statesman's actions are political censorship of a Palestinian human rights campaigner. We cannot stand by and let this happen.


This action does not align with the stated goals of the New Statesman to “hold our leaders to account and tell the stories that the world needs to hear”.
What is happening in Palestine is a story that the world needs to hear, and the account of a Palestinian should not be censored. The lack of explanation and refusal to speak to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign or Salah goes against all good journalistic standards and common courtesy
A giant key (said to be the world's largest) sits atop the entrance to the Aida Refugee Camp in Bethlehem, reminding residents to insist on their "right of return."

We did not want to make this public, we attempted to resolve the problem directly with the New Statesman, giving them the benefit of the doubt and attempting to speak to editors countless times.

However, we have now been told that the editors will not speak to us and that the decision to remove the article would not be explained or reversed.

We have a duty to stand up for justice, honesty, and integrity and so we must raise our voices about this.

Please join us to demand that the New Statesman
  • Republish the article
  • Offer an apology to Salah Ajarma for removing it without good cuase
  • Make a clear public statement as to your commitment to upholding the principle of freedom of expression
Please write to the editors of the New Statesman now – and show them that we will not be silenced and will not allow Palestinians to be censored.

In solidarity,
The team at PSC
Below is the article that the New Statesman has censored
The Frontline of Israel’s Settlement Regime by Salah Ajarma
Posted on November 18, 2016
Lajee Cultural Centre
By Salah Ajarma, the cofounder and director of Lajee Cultural Centre in Aida Refugee camp.

Aida refugee camp, in which I live and work, is on the edge of the famous town of Bethlehem. Our families established the camp in 1950 after being forcibly expelled from their homes by Zionist militias in 1948. Palestinians from our camp originate from villages in the Jerusalem and Hebron districts, just a few miles down the road. Those born since, still live in the refugee camp, and continue to struggle for the right to return to our homes.
In April 2000, me and a number of friends established the Lajee Centre, a community-based cultural centre for young refugees living in the camp. Through it we have sought to provide opportunities for the cultural, educational and social development of our young people, despite the violent military occupation under which we live. As an occupied refugee people, we are aware of the duty to educate our youth about their history and their rights. Only in this way will our struggle for freedom be carried to the next generation.

In 2002, Israel’s government began the construction of its illegal wall.[1] Its consequences are now perhaps well known – land confiscation, ghettoization, and an accelerated ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. In Aida the wall has been particularly obtrusive with its towering concrete blocks built directly opposite the Centre. The young people I work with have only ever known a life surrounded by this wall and under the constant surveillance of its ominous watchtowers. Before its construction, families and children would spend time in nature, in the olive groves that neighboured the camp. As one of the few green spaces available to us, I would often go there for picnics with my family when the weather was warm. This has now been shut off from us, creating a menacing, stifling atmosphere that we cannot escape. On the hill opposite, Israel’s illegal settlement of Gilo continues expanding onto land confiscated by the wall.

In October 2015, Aida Camp buried one of its sons, Abd al-Rahman Ubeidallah, who was shot in the chest by an Israeli sniper. He was 13 years old and killed on his way home from school. His peers, almost without exception, have all been arrested, beaten or fired upon. The head of Lajee’s film unit, Mohammad, was shot in the eye with a rubber-coated steel bullet whilst filming Israeli violations in the camp in 2013. We are routinely broken into by Israeli soldiers and border police who invade the camp, firing teargas indiscriminately and threatening our families over loudspeakers.
Mural in Aida depicting the Palestinian villages and towns from which the camp's residents were forcibly displaced after the Nakba in 1948
These intolerable conditions are particularly difficult for our young people who, in the midst of such cruelty, maintain an extraordinary optimism. It is difficult to understand how children raised in such an awful situation can remain so full of gentleness and hope. Lajee is always alive with laughter, dancing and singing and our youth have transformed this dreadful situation into a boundless love for our people and an insistent demand for freedom. Their resilience never ceases to inspire me, and it is for their future, and the future of my two young daughters, that I continue my work. These young people deserve to live with dignity and peace.

Our work in Lajee has found support from around the world. From the UK there has been a steady stream of delegations – teachers, trade unionists, students, doctors, politicians and academics – who have visited our Centre. Early this year I came to the UK with our dabke troupe, performing traditional Palestinian dance to packed out venues up and down the country. When Celtic supporters raised funds for Palestine in anticipation of a UEFA fine, it was to our football club that they donated over £79,000. Our experience of the generosity of the British people has left us in little doubt as to their values and their willingness to stand in solidarity with our just case.

The same cannot be said of the UK Government. As Palestinians, we know all too well the dishonourable history of Britain in our region, a legacy that has yet to be resolved. The UK Government, like many others, continues to support the discredited ‘peace process’ whilst taking very little meaningful action. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of Israel’s continued construction of colonial settlements. The UK regards settlements as illegal and a barrier to peace, whilst nevertheless continuing to trade with them.[2] The contradiction between their stated aims, on the one hand, and the on-going financial relationship between UK-based companies and charities, on the other, has led to the longstanding perception amongst Palestinians that the UK Government is not serious about its desire for peace. What other explanation could there be for this inconsistency?
For us, talk of peace is contradicted by our daily experience of an oppression that receives significant material and financial support from the ‘international community’. That the collective efforts of the EU, the US and the UN have failed to even freeze the construction of settlements, never mind begin to dismantle them, feels indicative to Palestinians of the regard with which our rights are held. Settlement construction has become a touchstone issue because it reflects the reluctance of the international community to take even the most minimal action to check the relentless march of Israeli colonisation.

We need a different strategy, one in which the international community takes measures to pressure Israel into meeting its obligations under international law. Ending settlement trade is the place to start as there is already broad international agreement on their illegality. This international consensus needs to be actualised by halting the building of settlements and dismantling those already constructed. This would lay the foundation for a just peace in which the rights of the Palestinian people to national self-determination and to return to their homes can be realised.

For us in Aida, on the frontline of Israel’s settlement regime, the situation is urgent. Ending trade with settlements would deny Israel the means of maintaining their occupation and give us some relief from its immediate, choking effects. This would provide our children and us with the first glimmer of hope for a future of justice, dignity and peace.




If Jews in Britain were treated as Israeli Palestinians then they could cry 'anti-Semitism'

$
0
0

It's Fun Being an Arab in Israel


There are very few good columnists on Israeli newspapers, i.e. one’s who are not racists and who empathise with Israel’s Palestinian population.  Ha’aretz, Israel’s sole liberal daily has two such journalists – Gideon Levy and Amira Hass.
Israeli Palestinians can still vote for their representatives in Israel (though nearly 50% of Israeli Jews want to strip them of this right) but once elected they are physically attacked by other members, treated with disdain, suspended from speaking and violently removed from the rostrum
Read this excellent article which gives you an insight into how Israel’s Arab population might feel as a population which is treated like unwanted guests in the Jewish state.  85% of Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948, the remaining 50,000 or so were put under military rule until 1966, by the Israeli Labour Party government. 

Israel’s Arab population has always been seen as a potential fifth column, traitors within.  In 1956 nearly 50 villagers in Kfar Kassem, a village in The Triangle in the Galilee, returning from work in the fields, were mowed down by the military.  A curfew had been imposed and they were unwittingly breaking it.  No Israeli soldier ever saw the inside of a gaol.  That is how it has always been.  Killing an Arab is no big deal.  
This is how Israeli hasbarah (propaganda) would like you to see it - Arabs exercising their democratic rights
Today the Israeli of the year for Israel Hayom, the largest circulation paper in Israel is Elor Azaria, a soldier who deliberately shot in the head a Palestinian in Hebron, while he was lying on the ground gravely injured.  It is standard practice in the Israeli army to 'check the kill' as it is called, to ensure that those wounded don't survive.  Unfortunately what happened was caught on camera by a Palestinian.  The army was forced to put him on trial but the charge was soon reduced to manslaughter and the murderer, an out and out Kach racist, is now a hero.  This is Israel 2016.

Tony Greenstein  
Jamal Zahalka - leader of the 3 strong Balad nationalist party in the Knesset - all of whose members have been suspended at least once in this parliamentary session

Arabs in Israel demonstrate amazing restraint and loyalty, but are the victims of appalling treatment by the state and other Israelis. One day, this is all going to explode.

Gideon Levy Nov 27, 2016 1:35 AM

It’s fun being an Arab in Israel. If you’re a pharmacist at a high-street drugstore, you can wake up to discover that you’re a potential arsonist. A nursery-school teacher in Shfaram gets up and finds she’s a member of the Islamic State group. Every construction worker from Taibeh is part of a fifth column, and every nurse at the Hadassah hospitals in Jerusalem is a demographic threat. That hummus vendor may just be a hummus vendor, but he could be spreading poison, too; that dishwasher could come out of the kitchen with a knife. And you can’t even count on an Arab doctor, which is reason enough to ask for a Jewish one.
An Arab teenager being arrested in the north of Israel
Whether they’re an educator, insurance broker, banker or technician, every Arab citizen on the street is considered an object of suspicion. Better that they not speak their language – and anyway, the day is fast approaching when it will be made illegal to speak it in public. It unnerves the Jews and scares them. Some are even disgusted by it. And then there’s that proposed bill to silence the Muslim call to prayer from mosque loudspeakers.

It’s fun being an Arab in Israel, a state the Arab citizens are a lot more loyal to than it is to them. Your country is abusing members of your people. It’s fun to be an Arab in Israel, because you can’t even define your identity as you would wish. You’re an “Israeli Arab,” and there’s no argument about it. Palestinian? That’s only if you live in the occupied territories. Even if he’s your first cousin, he’s not the same.
Umm el-Fahm in the Triangle - in any peace settlement the Israelis propose to transfer this city into any proposed bantustan 
You can and must be an American Jew and work on Israel’s behalf. But you are not allowed to be an Israeli Arab and work on behalf of the Palestinians. You’re not a member of the same people. Just dare to think otherwise.

Also, you are not allowed to remember what you’re not allowed to remember: the past. Israeli Independence Day is a national holiday! Anyone who wants to observe the Nakba (or “catastrophe,” the Palestinian term for the establishment of Israel), should go to Gaza – or to jail. Anyway, if you don’t like it here, you can always move to Gaza. And just look what’s happening in Syria.

It’s fun being an Arab in Israel. Try flying on an Israeli airline – Arkia or El Al – and you’ll understand why. Try that encounter with the security guard who’s checking your accent at the entrance to Ben-Gurion airport. “Profiling,” as it’s called in security parlance. Try renting an apartment in Safed, or even Ramat Aviv. Try finding work. Send your résumé and wait for an answer.

It’s fun being an Arab in Israel. You can see other Arabs on television – after every domestic “honor killing,” but only then. No television repairman will come to your house, because “it’s dangerous.” And the television ratings bureau won’t include your viewing habits, because it focuses only on “Jewish households.”

It’s fun being an Arab in Israel and hearing about the demographic danger presented by the Arab womb. There’s a danger that the Galilee “could be lost,” and we need to “Judaize” the Negev before it’s too late. That’s totally acceptable talk in Israel. Europe has a problem with foreigners, and so do we: the Arabs are our foreigners. People from Burma who are descendants of the Tribe of Benjamin get automatic citizenship. But your brothers, natives of the country who were expelled or fled in 1948, can’t even come for a visit.

It’s fun being an Arab in Israel because you’ll be able to see how your representatives in the Knesset are humiliated and excluded.

It’s fun being an Arab in Israel, because no Jew could imagine what you experience on a daily basis. Masses of people for whom leaving their ghetto means constant humiliation and suspicion, moments of hostility and insults both big and small. Think about the experience of a young Arab woman leaving Jaffa with her head covered, or that young Arab man going to the movies.

With the growing incitement by the prime minister and his cabinet colleagues, every Arab is now considered a potential terrorist, arsonist, murderer or rapist – unless proven otherwise. They are also voting in their droves.

And after the current wave of fires, their situation has gotten even worse: after all, they’ve already caught one Arab with toilet paper in his pocket. Rabin assassin Yigal Amir might not represent every Yemenite Jew, but every Israeli Arab going to fight in Syria represents all Arabs. This segment of the population, which demonstrates amazing restraint and loyalty and a desire to integrate, is absorbing blow after blow. This is all going to explode some day.

On Friday in Haifa’s Romema neighborhood, where a large number of homes sustained fire damage, the predominantly Arab sanitation collectors were collecting the trash. I tried to imagine what was going through their minds.


New Statesman Feels the Heat as Hundreds Protest The Censorship of Palestinian Article - Zionist UK Media Watch Denies Its Role

$
0
0
New Statesman Editor Jason Cowley Personally Rings Up Long Time Subscriber to Find Out Why He Cancelled 
Editor Simon Cowley - feeling the heat
The New Statesman Editorial Collective is feeling the heat over their decision to comply with the demands of UK Media Watch to remove an article.

I received this message today from a long-time subscriber.

----- Forwarded Message -----

Sent: Thursday, 1 December 2016, 20:17
Subject: Re: Sign the Petition to Boycott the New Statesman

For what it's worth, I cancelled my decade long subscription to New Statesman today, and to my great surprise promptly received a phone call from editor Jason Cowley.

First up he proffered an alternative explanation to the censorship story, claiming that the article in question had been a paid commercial piece inconsistent with the eligibility criteria. He denied all knowledge of outside intervention and insisted that PSC were acting in bad faith.

But more interestingly from my point of view, I had the opportunity to air long felt grievances about NS positioning on the Israel-Palestine issue more generally.

He didn't attempt directly to contradict my assertion that the magazine is liberal Zionist in its editorial and selection of content. He merely stated support for "the Jewish State" and a two state solution.

He did seem to take on my gravely articulated suggestion that Israel is becoming ever more extreme in its behaviour and that sooner or later, a publication that defines itself by left progressive values may have to reassess its position. I was surprised by his, almost humble, acknowledgment of this, but I'm sure this conciliatory stance is primarily a damage limitation exercise. Who knows how many other long term subscribers like me are pulling the plug!
Keeping quiet - Clinton supporter Laurie 'ex-red' Penney
It is clear that the campaign against the New Statesman's censorship is having an effect if the editor rings up someone who has cancelled their subscription.  I have also heard from other sources that there are ructions within the editorial board of the New Statesman as a result of what has happened. In particular some of its more left-wing contributors (no not Owen Jones!) are also unhappy about the heavy handed censorship of Cowley and Helen Lewis.

The attempt to suggest that the article was an 'advertorial' is merely smoke and mirrors.  The article that was pulled clearly said 'Presented by Palestine Solidarity Campaign' - there was a partnership between PSC and the New Statesman.  The nature of that partnership is irrelevant.  This was an article by Salah Ajarma, a well known Palestinian activist and founder of the Lajee Cultural Centre in Aida refugee camp outside Bethlehem. 

The fact is that an article by a peace activist living under a 50 year old military occupation by the world's fourth major military power was pulled at the behest of an organisation which is a propaganda and lobby organisation acting on behalf of the same military power.  Imagine in the days of South African Apartheid, an article by an anti-Apartheid activist being pulled at the instigation of John Carlisle MP, a well known Tory MP who supported the South African state or an article on Chile by an opponent of the Pinochet regime being pulled at the behest of the military regime there.

What happened is a disgrace.  Israel operates two legal systems on the West Bank.  One, a military regime and military law for the Palestinians and another is the civil Israeli legal system for Jewish settlers.  In military courts there is a 99.7% conviction rate.  Palestinians have no right to a lawyer, cannot see a lawyer for weeks on end, are subject to torture as a matter of course and are convicted in a language that they don't even understand.  This is the system that the New Statesman, in bowing to the demands of an quasi-Israeli government organisation has upheld.

The strangulation of Bethlehem, the birthplace of the Christian religion, by Israel and its Apartheid Wall, an ugly structure over twice as high as the Berlin Wall, is a matter of fact.  The commercial life of Bethlehem is slowly being squeezed out of it by Israel's occupation.  In its place we see settlements like Gilo, which UK Media describes as a 'neighbourhood of southern Jerusalem.' The New Statesman took silenced the voice of the oppressed living in a refugee camp created by Israel's ethnic cleansing, at the behest of an Israeli funded McCarthyist organisation.  Next time the New Statesman and its writers discusses identity politics and cultural racism it can reflect on its own practices.  Or maybe not.


The article that was pulled at the behest of Israeli funded McCarthyist organisation UK Media Watch
UK Media Watch used to be called CIF Watch after the Guardian's Comment is Free.  UKMW boasts about the fact that it helped neutralise CIF's original balanced coverage of Palestine ['Indeed, our transition to UKMW was prompted by the general consensus that, partly due to our efforts, the Guardian’s malign obsession with Israel had somewhat abated, and their legitimization of antisemitic tropes (above and below the line) had at least diminished].  UKMW is now trying to repeat the same trick with other media outlets and it is clear that it has gained a scalp with the pusillanimous Jason Cowley and Helen Lewis of the New Statesman.

In its first tweet UKMW address Deputy Editor Helen Lewis thus:

Lewis jumped as UKMW barked.  In its next tweek UKMW boasted that 'Following a @UKMediaWatch post & @CAMERAorg campaign, @NewStatesman removed an article published in collaboration w/ anti-Israel group PSC!'

CAMERA is a US based McCarthyite organisation, one of a stable of organisations whose sole purpose is to close down Palestinian voices.   That the New Statesman jumped to the UKMW/Camera bark is in itself a betrayal of the values it purports to espouse.

First they boast of their success at another media scalp with REMOVED across the erased article
However, following the campaign of this Blog, PSC and Electronic Intifada, UKMW began to deny its role.  When you stand up to these organisations they back off.  Unfortunately magazines like the NS lack the requisite backbone to stand up for free speech, which is why it takes blogs like t his one to do so on their behalf.  Now the story is that apparently the decision of the New Statesman to censor  Salah Ajarma's article had nothing to do with their campaign or lobby - it was coincidental!  Such are the lies of the Zionist lobby.

Now UKMW pretends that it didn't LOBBY the NS.  It took its own decision without any pressure at all!

We should not however let up because the NS occupies a pivotal position in the Labour Party and Trade Union spectrum. It not only has writers like Laura Penny and Owen Jones who purport to be on the Left but it is very much part of Labour's Fabian tradition (don't forget Tony Benn was also a Fabian). For it to actually pull an article which it has already put up, at the behest of a settler colonial regime and its propaganda outlets is a first.

Over 400 people have signed the petition so far but we need at least a thousand if not more. If you haven't signed please do so now.

Also please share it on FB, Twitter etc.  What we are defending is the right to speak out on Palestine, a right which is under attack, not only by UK Media Watch, CAMERA and other Zionist lobby groups like Conservative/Labour Friends of Israel and people like Eric Pickles/Tom Watson MP, but by the cowardly behaviour of so-called friends of the free press like the New Statesman.

We not only expect this article to be reinstated but for the New Statesman to print an apology.  The best form of apology would be for Cowley and Lewis to depart.

Tony Greenstein


*******

If you want to write to the editor and assistants at the NS then their email addresses are:

Editor
Jason Cowley
@JasonCowleyNS
Deputy Editor
Helen Lewis
@helenlewis
Features editor
Xan Rice
xan.rice@newstatesman.co.uk
Political Editor
George Eaton
george@newstatesman.co.uk
Culture Editor
Tom Gatti
tom.gatti@newstatesman.co.uk
Arts Editor
Kate Mossman
kate.mossman@newstatesman.co.uk
Assistant Editor
Michael Prodger
michael.prodger@newstatesman.co.uk
Assistant Editor
Caroline Crampton
caroline.crampton@newstatesman.co.uk
Creative Editor
Gerry Brakus
gerry.brakus@newstatesman.co.uk
Editorial Assistant
India Bourke
india.bourke@newstatesman.co.uk
Chief Sub-Editor
Nana Yaa Mensah
nanayaa@newstatesman.co.uk
Sub-Editor
Thomas Calvocoressi
tcalvocoressi@newstatesman.co.uk
Sub-Editor
Yo Zushi
yzushi@newstatesman.co.uk
Design/Graphics
Dan Murrell
dan@newstatesman.co.uk
Digital Editor
Serena Kutchinsky
serena.kutchinsky@newstatesman.co.uk
Deputy Web Editor
Anoosh Chakelian
anoosh.chakelian@newstatesman.co.uk
Special Correspondent
Stephen Bush
stephen.bush@newstatesman.co.uk
Staggers Editor
Julia Rampen
julia.rampen@newstatesman.co.uk
Online Writer (pop culture)
Anna Leszkiewicz
anna.Leszkiewicz@newstatesman.co.uk
Online Writer (tech and digital culture)
Amelia Tait
amelia.tait@newstatesman.co.uk


Editor, citymetric.com
Jonn Elledge
jonn.elledge@citymetric.com
comments@newstatesman.co.uk
editorial@newstatesman.co.uk
gerry.brakus@newstatesman.co.uk

Just Another Example of Everyday Israeli Racism - Announcements will no longer be made in Arabic on Be’er Sheva Buses

$
0
0

All it took were a few  complaints for the Government’s Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz to act 

A bus going to Be'er Sheva stops in the Bedouin town of Hura, August 4, 2016. Eliyahu Hershkovitz
In Israel Arabic is officially a language alongside Hebrew.  However like all things in Israel, equality is more a matter of public relations than actuality.  When the Mayor of Be’er Sheva Rubik Danilovich asked Transportation Minister Katz to ban announcements in Arabic, he was more than willing to comply.
Illustrative photo of a Dan bus. (Yossi Zeliger/Flash90)
You see Israel is a Jewish state and what can be more natural than to ban announcements that aren’t in Hebrew?  This comes hot on the heels of government legislation to ban the use of loud speakers in the Muslim call to prayer.  This was classified as ‘noise pollution’.  You will be happy to know that the fears of Orthodox Jews that this could also be used to ban similar announcements by Jewish religious authorities were soon allayed.  The bill made a specific exception for announcements for the Jewish religion!

It's interesting that Breibart News, the far-Right news site associated with the Alt-Right and Trump's government covered this under the heading Israeli Bus Company Suspends Arabic-Language Announcements Amid Complaints


The conduct of the Transportation Ministry and Be’er Sheva’s mayor creates a dangerous precedent, whereby the writers of a few posts are given the power to withhold other citizens' basic rights.

Haaretz Editorial Dec 01, 2016 1:28 AM
An Israeli bus company has removed Arabic from its buses in a southern city following public pressure [File: Ammar Awad/Reuters]
Be’er Sheva Mayor Rubik Danilovich is extremely sensitive to the needs of his city’s Jewish residents. When a few of them wished to see a halt to the use of Arabic announcements on the Dan company’s Be’er Sheva bus lines, Danilovich quickly implored the Transportation Ministry to remove the offending “hazard.” The Transportation Ministry, headed by MK Yisrael Katz, willingly complied and ordered the bus company to cease using Arabic-language announcements.

It took just one week, since this bus company began operating in the city, for Be’er Sheva residents, the mayor and the Transportation Ministry to erect a dam to keep Arabic out of the city’s public space. All it took was a few angry posts from residents – “As far as I know, Be’er Sheva is not an Arab city;” “It looks like I’m living in Hebron,” and others – to spur the mayor to action. Danilovich’s explanation: “When bilingual announcements are implemented throughout the country, they will also be implemented in Be’er Sheva.”
Al-Omeri mosque in Lod, Israel, a city of Arabs and Jews. A proposal backed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would authorize the government to ban the use of loudspeakers by mosques and other houses of worship across the country.Credit Rina Castelnuovo for The New York Times        
Be’er Sheva, a metropolitan center for tens of thousands of Arab citizens, is not keen to serve as an example for other cities. The Arab citizens who live in and around the city will continue to “enjoy” the status of tourists who aren’t entitled to announcements in their language, which is also an official state language.

The problem with the conduct of the Transportation Ministry and Be’er Sheva’s mayor isn’t just that it removes an important aid for Arab citizens who use the city’s public transportation. It also creates a dangerous precedent, whereby the writers of a few posts are given the power to withhold other citizens' basic rights. This is certainly a basic right, also considering that some of this population is not literate and is not adequately served by the written signs in Arabic.

Worse, this precedent is a warning signal to all public transportation companies that dare consider introducing Arabic announcements on their buses. The position taken by the Transportation Ministry — that signs and announcements in Arabic will be implemented in locales where more than half of the residents are Arabic-speakers, is also unacceptable. Arab citizens also use bus lines outside of Arab areas.

This stance shows that the Minister Katz and the Transportation Ministry are trying to circumvent the law concerning the status of the Arabic language, and in so doing serve as an example to other government ministries. The position taken by Mayor Danilovich, who takes pride in his activity on behalf of the Bedouin in the Negev, is also disappointing. This wrongheaded policy should be immediately reversed. The Transportation Ministry should rescind its directive to the Dan Be’er Sheva bus company, and Be’er Sheva’s mayor should restore the Arabic language to the city’s buses

See Israeli bus company bows to pressure, drops announcements in ArabicPalestinians in Israel decry removal of Arabic on buses

Forward to Nuremburg as Israel’s Quest for Racial Purity Demands that Refugees Must be Imprisoned or Deported

$
0
0

Israel: A State where ‘Death to the Arabs’ Mavet la’aravim is the National Slogan


Despite all the racist stereotypes, the crime rate among foreigners in Israel was 2.04% in 2010 compared with 4.99% among Israelis. Photograph: AP 
When Miri Regev a Likud MK stated that ‘"the Sudanese are a cancer in our body." she sparked off a pogrom against refugees in South Tel Aviv.  Later she apologised to cancer victims, for having compared them to refugees!  She also apologisedfor comparing the refugees to human beings.
Today Miri Regev is Israel’s Culture Minister!


Fence erected between Egypt and Israel to keep out refugees
The attitude of Regev is no different from that of her government.  Refugees are called ‘infiltrators’ not refugees in order to compare them with Palestinians who tried to return to Israel after being expelled in 1948.  Not one Syrian has been given refugee status despite the country being Israel’s neighbour.  As Professor Gideon Kunda explained:

 “Infiltrator” is a very loaded word, and it was not chosen by accident. It’s part of our collective memory, going back to the early period of the state, to Ma’aleh Akrabim [a 1954 attack on a bus in the Negev in which 11 Israelis were shot dead by cross-border marauders] and to Palestinians who tried to return to their land.  'It's No Accident That African Refugees Are Called Infiltrators' 

Large numbers of African refugees, mainly from Eritrea and Sudan, began arriving in Israel in the second half of the 2000s and accelerated from between 2010-2012.   There were an estimated 60,000 refugees at one time though the numbers today are thought to be no more than 46,000.  Large numbers have been ‘persuaded’ via a bribe of some $3,000 to ‘self-deport’ and via long periods of detention at Holot.  As The Times of Israel reportsIsrael has recognized fewer than 1% as asylum claims, and since 2009, less than 0.15% — the lowest rate in the Western world.’   Although most refugees from Eritrea and Sudan are recognised internationally as refugees, in Israel virtually none are given refugee status.


In every country in Europe there is anti-refugee feeling.  But in Israel it is qualitatively different as opposition to refugees isn’t about competition for jobs, social or other economic issues.  It’s about race and ethnicity.  Israel is a Jewish state and the refugees aren’t Jewish.  They dilute the Jewishness of the Jewish State.  As Netanyahu remarked:[Israel PM: illegal African immigrants threaten identity of Jewish state, Guardian, May 20 2021]

"If we don't stop their entry, the problem that currently stands at 60,000 could grow to 600,000, and that threatens our existence as a Jewish and democratic state... This phenomenon is very grave and threatens the social fabric of society, our national security and our national identity."

This is an objection on explicitly racist grounds.  Israel is prepared to take any Jewish immigrant from any country.  Sometimes, as with the Iraq Jews in the 1950’s and the Soviet Jews in the 1970’s/1980’s it is prepared to force them to come, even against their own wishes, but in the case of non-Jewish African refugees they are a threat to ‘national identity’, that is Jewish national identity because Israel’s Arab population are themselves barely tolerated guests.  And of course they are a threat to ‘national security’ because a threat to ‘national identity’ is an existential threat and therefore a security threat.

Israeli Labour Party
The Israeli Labour Party has been no better than Netanyahu and Likud.  Indeed they have tried to outflank them from the Right.  As David Sheen wrote, in May 2012, their leader, Isaac Herzog wrote an opinion piece, challengingarguments by human rights groups that Eritreans in Israel deserved protection as refugees.  In March 2015, Herzog repeatedthis refrainon the eve of the Israeli national elections, saying, “We need to negotiate with Eritrea on the return of the Eritreans back to Eritrea.”   We should bear this in mind when the Jewish Labour Movement boaststhat the Israeli Labour Party is its ‘sister party’ in Israel. 

Refugee Killed Because He Approached Jewish Girls as Arabs hunted down in Jerusalem by Lehava’s Jewish neo-Nazis 

Below is the horrific case of a refugee who, after being thrown into Israel’s Holot detention camp in the Negev desert for a year, was eventually released, making his way to Petah Tikvah.  One evening he made an approach to 3 Israeli Jewish women which they rejected.  He wasn’t violent or threatening but the idea of a non-Jewish African man approaching Jewish women was enough for his attackers who took nearly an hour to beat him to death.  Not only did no one intervene to put a stop to this but those who were around sympathised with the attackers.

It was not until an article in Ha’aretz nearly two weeks later that they got around to arresting two Jewish youths.  It is unlikely that they will face a murder charge because their offence was ‘spontaneous’.  Of course if it had been the opposite way around then it would have been called ‘terrorism’, police raids would have ensued, loud headlines and no doubt Tom Watson MP would pontificate about terror in Israeli streets.    See The Legal Attacks by Government on Refugees
The article on Lehava by Jonathan Cook, a journalist based in Nazareth, is equally horrific.   Lehava, an openly fascist organisation whose leaders derive from the Jewish Nazi Kach party, which was banned in Israel in the 1980’s openly organise groups of young thugs to attack any Arab in a ‘Jewish’ area.
Protestors outside Eritrea's Embassy in Tel Aviv  holding posters showing Eritrean refugees, who were forced by Israel to leave, being executed by ISIS in Libya
Lehava’s purpose is to ‘dissuade’ Arabs from having any social or sexual relations with Jewish women.  This stuff is out of Nuremburg but it is also at one with the idea of a Jewish state.  Lehava isn’t just a fringe fascist group like Britain First.  It is based in the settlements, it has hundreds of young supporters but more than that, it has political support in the government.
It was Tzipi Hotoveli, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel who invited Lehava into the Knesset to explain how to prevent the appalling vista of intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews.  As the Guardian noted

In her capacity as chairwoman of the Status of Women Committee in the Knesset in 2011, she invited the racist group Lehava to explain how they prevent romantic contacts between Jews and Arabs. Responding to criticism, Hotovely said it was "important to examine procedures for preventing mixed marriages, and Lehava members are the right people for that"
The Hemla hostel in Jerusalem, a safe house for 'troubled' Haredi girls.
One of the consequences of this invitation to the Knesset was that the ‘charitable’ wing of Lehava, Hemla (Mercy) has received government funding totalling about half of its income.  As Ha’aretz observed: [A Strange Kind of Mercy]:  ‘The right-wing organization Lehava is noted for its vehement anti-assimilation views, and many of its members are disciples of Meir Kahane. Yet Hemla (Mercy), a group closely linked to Lehava, receives state funding for its rehabilitation work with Jewish women.’  And who are these women who need rehabilitating?  Jewish women who have had affairs with Arab men. 

Although not spoken of, there is an unwritten consensus across the Zionist spectrum that relationships between Arab males and Jewish women (miscegenation an ugly word used in the Deep South of America) should be prevented.  An obsession with inter-racial sexual relations has been a characteristic of all movements for national purity – whether it is the KKK, the Nazis, Apartheid South Africa or Zionism.  Israel unlike South Africa does not enact Immorality Laws, it relies on moral and social pressures to prevent such liaisons. 

An opinion poll on YNet found that over half the Jewish population believed that marriage to an Arab was ‘national treason’.  Many religions historically, whether Jewish or Catholic, have frowned upon inter-marriage.  This is religious chauvinism not racism but when that becomes the policy of a state then that is racism.  It becomes a quest for racial purity. 
Dorit Rabinyan - author of Borderlife - banned for endangering Israeli 'national identity'
When Israeli author Dorit Rabinyan wrote ‘Borderlife’ about the relationship between a relationship between a Palestinian man and a Jewish woman, it was banned from Israel’s high school syllabus.  As Education Ministry official Dalia Fenig explained:

“Adolescent youth tend to romanticise and don’t have, in many cases, the systematic point of view that includes considerations about preserving the identity of the nation and the significance of assimilation,”

Imagine a book in Britain depicting a relationship between Black and White people being banned because youth were impressionable and wouldn’t understand ‘considerations about preserving the identity of the nation’ there would be uproar.  It is only the National Front and fringe fascists who believe that ‘the nation’ doesn’t include Black people.  Yet in Israel it is a majority Jewish and Zionist viewpoint that ‘the nation’ does not include Palestinians, because Israel is the state of the Jewish nation, not the Palestinian or Arab nation.
Israeli fascist groups like Lehava march to the drumbeatof ‘Death to the Arabs’ and the equally lovely ‘A Jew has a soul, an Arab is a son of a whore’.  Lehava, which organises gangs of thugs to attack Arabs in the street and who hand out ‘kosher’ certificates to employers who refuse to employ Arabs, feed into an already existing national consensus.   It is a consensus whereby 90% of Israel’s Jewish population don’t even recognise the concept of a non-Jewish African refugee.  A consensus whereby nearly 80% of Jews take it for granted that Jews in a Jewish state are entitled to preferential treatment over Arabs.  Israel’s Religiously Divided Society

This is why the Israeli state is reluctant to ban Lehava as a terrorist organisation whereas it has no compunction in banning the Northern Islamic Movement, which was a political and welfare association  that had massive support amongst Israeli Palestinians and which had led the political/religious struggle against Zionist attempts to take over the Temple Mount and the area of the Golden Dome in Jerusalem.
Dareen Tatour - gaoled Palestinian poet
It is the same reason that Israel gaoled Palestinian poet Dareen Tatour who posted a poem to social media [Dareen Tatour, Palestinian poet imprisoned by Israel for social media posts, shares her story].   According to +972 MagazineThe main clause of the indictment was based on a poem that she (or somebody else using her name) posted on Youtube under the title: “Qawem ya sha’abi, qawemhum” (Resist my people, resist them).’  Whereas Jewish racists who post death threats and worse on social media are never troubled by the Israeli police, a Palestinian poet who calls for resistance is dragged from her home, at 3.30 in the morning, by a large group of policemen who have no warrant and is then held for 6 months in prison and 6 months under house arrest far from her home.  The much vaunted ‘independent’ Israeli court system is complicit in all of this, before an international campaign fronted by Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein and others forces Dareen’s gaolers back off and allow her to transfer to house arrest in her home town. 


December 5, 2016 By Richard Silverstein 

Bibikir Adham-Abdo, murdered in Petah Tikvah in brutal hate crime
Bibikir Adham-Abdo fled his native Darfur  nine years ago during the civil war.  During one especially savage battle, he lost several fingers.  Eventually, he made his way across the Sinai desert to Israel, where he found work in the resort hotels of Eilat.  Because he is a refugee with no legal status (which Israel refuses to offer), he was picked up by the Border Police and thrown into the Holot detention camp in the Negev desert.  He was released, but told he could not go back to Eilat or move to Tel Aviv.  That left other smaller cities, where he might find pockets of other refugees with whom he might some sense of community.  So he went to Petah Tikvah, a central Israel town near Tel Aviv.

19 year-old, Dennis Barshivetz, suspect in the murder of a Darfur refugee
Two weeks ago, Bibikir, age 40, joined his roommate for an evening of drinking and socializing downtown, where other young people and foreign workers congregate.  According to Ynet (Hebrew), three Israeli girls were sitting and chatting when Bibikir approached them.  They fled (he was inebriated according to the Haaretz account) from him screaming that he should get away from them. 

Suddenly, an Israeli Jewish youth appeared, approached Bibikir and yelled at him.  The victim then raised his hands in resignation and turned away.  With his back turned, the attacker kicked him and threw a bottle of beer at him.  He kicked him more till he fell on the ground.  The kicking continued. He beat him all over his upper body including his back and head as the victim lay defenseless on the sidewalk.
As the victim tried to get up, Barshevitz arrived on the scene and gave him such furious kicks that Bibikir fell back on the pavement and struck his head.  After the victim’s body began making frightening rumbling sounds showing physical distress, they fled.

Security cameras show them beating him mercilessly for almost an entire hour.  Whenever the victim attempted to raise his head, they beat him more.  Clearly, no one came to his aid.

At 2AM, emergency services found him mortally wounded and brought him to the hospital.  There he lingered for eight days before succumbing to his wounds.  Though the crime happened two weeks ago, until Haaretz published a story about it no one had even been arrested.  Curiously, two days later the two suspects were arrested.  One is 19 years old and the other a minor, age 16.

The State prosecutor is already damping down expectations of a murder conviction, arguing that the cold-blooded murder was actually a “spontaneous” act.  Since the coroner could not attribute with specificity which blow killed Bibikir, each suspect is blaming the other for the fatal one.  Haaretz quotes a Jewish resident of Petah Tikvah justifying the violence: “Look at the streets here.  It’s like Harlem!  A fifth column.”

Comments on Facebook have been even more disgusting and virulent:

No matter how racist or threatening, Jewish racism on Facebook never faces any legal sanctions - they are reserved exclusively for Palestinians
David Elimelech: “Now’s the time to exterminate all the refugees. They’re the ooze from the garbage.

Nechama NB: “…If they want Jewish girls they should die.  Or send them back to their jungle!  The Sudanese infiltrator is no refugee.”

Sara Malul: “One less, wonderful.  This is the way to send them packing back to from where they came.  Most are terrorists.  Sudanese are even worse than Arabs.”

Oved Sason: “[They’re] garbage created by Satan, these infiltrators.”

Add to this the incitement from Bibi Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders during last week’s raging forest fires, when they accused Palestinians of acts of arson.  Israel Arrests 22 Over Wildfires, as Arson Is Suspected.  Netanyahu was quoted as saying that “a considerable number” of the fires were set and described them as “terror,” a term usually given to militant attacks by Palestinians.  “There is a price to crime, and there is a price for terror and incitement, and we will exact it,”  Unfortunately in Israel there is no price to pay for racial incitement, especially when it comes from the Prime Minister. 

Though 30 people were arrested for arson, only one has been indicted. That person had no terrorist motive at all.  Most of the others have been released.  This is the state of current affairs in Israel.  A nation seething with hate, ready at a moment’s notice to blame the weak and vulnerable for the most savage crimes.  When in reality, it is Israeli hate which leads to the most savage crimes against the victims.

Jonathan Cook 4 December 2016

The far-right group stokes hatred and incites followers to violence against Palestinians, say analysts

Four youths in black T-shirts, bearing a distinctive yellow-flame insignia, approached “A” in July as he got out of a taxi in central Jerusalem to meet friends. They asked him the time. Suspicious of his accent, they confronted him directly: “Are you an Arab?”

The moment I said, ‘yes,’ one of them punched me in the eye. The others jumped on me and started hitting me all over my body. There were many people in the area, but no one took any notice or tried to help.”

“A” managed to break free and fled to a nearby restaurant, where a friend worked, and hid inside. “If I hadn’t been able to run away, they would have killed me,” he said.

His filmed testimony is one of several taken of Palestinians in Jerusalem who have been violently assaulted recently by far-right Jewish activists. Fearing reprisals, most of the victims agreed to testify only on condition that their real identities were not disclosed.

The attacks were carried out by an extremist group called Lehava, or Flame in Hebrew, an acronym for the Organisation for the Prevention of Miscegenation in the Holy Land. Run by a rabbi, Ben-Zion Gopstein, Lehava rejects any interaction between Jews and Palestinians.

Opposed to intermarriage

Founded in 2009, Lehava is distinguished from other far-right groups by its official focus on stopping miscegenation and intermarriage between Jews and Palestinians. In addition to the 300,000 Palestinians in Jerusalem, some 1.7 million of Israel’s citizens are Palestinian by origin, making them nearly a fifth of the population.

In 2014, some 200 Lehava supporters –protested outside the wedding of a Palestinian man and a female Jewish convert to Islam in the city of Jaffa, near Tel Aviv. Some carried placards with the slogan: “Miscegenation is a Holocaust”.

Jerusalem’s streets, meanwhile, are littered with fliers and stickers in Arabic warning, “Don’t even think about a Jewish girl”and in Hebrew stating, “Beware the goys [a derogatory term for non-Jews] – they will defile you”.

Lehava’s hardcore supporters number in the hundreds, according to the Religious Action Centre, the advocacy arm of the Reform Judaism movement, which filmed the testimonies. But it believes Gopstein can draw on the open support of thousands more.

David Sheen, an Israeli journalist who has reported on far-right groups for many years, told Al Jazeera: “Lehava’s aim is to rile up Jewish youth on the streets, to create a strike force that can help ethnically cleanse Palestinians from the main areas of Jerusalem.”

‘Rescuing’ Jewish women

Aviv Tartasky, a field researcher with Ir Amim, an Israeli group advocating fair treatment for Palestinians in Jerusalem, told Al Jazeera: “The idea of rescuing Jewish women from Arabs – bringing them back to Judaism – has wide support from Israelis, including from the left. The attitude among most Israeli Jews is that, even if we don’t support your methods, your violence, we approve of your goals.”

Gopstein, in a speech last year calledfor “action” to stop coexistence, calling it a “dangerous cancer”. Lehava leaders were all formerly active in Kach, an anti-Arab group that was outlawed in 1994 after one of its followers, Baruch Goldstein, murdered 29 Palestinians at worship in Hebron’s Ibrahimi mosque.
Rabbi Meir Kahane - the Judeo-Nazi who inspired Lehava's founders
Last month, Gopstein attendeda memorial event in Jerusalem for Kach’s founder, Rabbi Meir Kahane. At the rally, he waved a cleaning rag with the face of Lucy Aharish, the only prominent TV presenter from Israel’s Palestinian minority, saying he would wash the floor with her. He added: “She compared me to Hamas. So we’ll make her nightmare come true.”

Gopstein, who lives in Kiryat Arba, an Israeli settlement next to the Palestinian city of Hebron in the West Bank, was a student of Kahane. He was arrested in 1990 on suspicion of murdering a Palestinian couple, in what appeared to be retaliation for Kahane’s assassination, but was later released.

Before its banning, Kach openly supported the violent expulsion of Palestinians from the region under the slogan: “Arabs to the Arab states and Jews to Zion”. Like Lehava, one of its main activities was preventing mixing between Jews and Palestinians.

New version of Kach

Sheen said Lehava had created “an instantly recognisable brand that is all about racial purity. This is just a new version of Kach. They can’t use the same slogans without breaking the law, but the similarities are unmistakable.” He noted that both organisations used the same colours of black and yellow in their emblems – Kach’s was a fist, while Lehava uses a flame.

When Kach existed in the 1980s, it was seen as so racist that it was likened to the Nazis and boycotted by other parties in the parliament. It was seen as beyond the pale,” said Sheen. “Now it’s in the mainstream. It even has supporters in the Likud party [of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] who are happy to whitewash it.”

Blind eye from police 

As Lehava’s supporters have grown in numbers and confidence, large parts of Jerusalem’s city centre have rapidly become a no-go area for Palestinians after dark. The victims, as well as human rights groups and religious leaders, have complained that the Israeli police are turning a blind eye to the wave of intimidation and violence.

There are racist lynch mobs roaming the streets of Jerusalem, driven by a hatred of Arabs, and the police are showing no interest in investigating,”

Steven Beck, a spokesman for the Israel Religious Action Centre, told Al Jazeera. The centre, which promotes equality and social justice in Israel, video recorded the testimonies of Lehava’s victims as part of a campaign called “Lehava is Burning Jerusalem”. It warns: “Jewish terror is not created out of thin air. It is fueled by ideological incitement and hatred that is spread by extremist rabbis.”
“H”, who was assaulted twice this year, filed a complaint with the police after he was knifed in the back and shoulder by a Lehava gang. “Until now, no action has been taken,” he said. “The police are with them, covering for them.”

Another victim, Jamal Julani was left in a coma by a Lehava group in 2012, when he was 17. Investigators told him none of the security cameras were working in the area of the assault, even though it took place close to two banks. “How that’s possible? I don’t understand,” he said. “There are maybe 10 cameras there. How did none of them work?”

Like others, “H” said he had been left emotionally, as well as physically, scarred. Fearful of further attacks, he said: “Now, I’m scared to go out alone. Even if I try to fight back, everyone will shout, ‘Terrorist, terrorist’. If a policeman is passing by and sees the incident … I’ll be the one who gets shot.”

Calls for ban grow

The 300,000 Palestinians of East Jerusalem, which Israel annexed after 1967 in violation of international law, have residency permits that entitle them to live and work in Israel. Many travel into Jerusalem’s city centre for the nightlife and shopping not available in their own deprived neighbourhoods, or to work in Jewish-owned restaurants and shops.

This is when many of the attacks occur, with Lehava claiming that the Palestinian men use the visits to consort with Jewish women.

Calls for proscribing Lehava have grown since three followers were found guilty last year of an arson attack on Jerusalem’s only binational school, for Jewish and Palestinian children. Walls were daubed with racist slogans, such as “End miscegenation” and “No coexistence with cancer”.

Early last year, Moshe Yaalon, then defence minister, was reported to be considering outlawing Lehava. By August, however, the Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic intelligence service, said it had no evidence on which to recommend banning the group. The current defence minister, Avigdor Lieberman, of the far-right Yisrael Beiteinu party, is considered unlikely to try to curb Lehava’s activities.

Meanwhile, Lehava has called for boycotts of city businesses that hire Palestinian workers. Critics say the group also intimidates landlords who rent to Palestinian families. Dan Biron, owner of the Birman restaurant in central Jerusalem, said Palestinians among his staff had been attacked on four separate occasions.

One time, he said, a mob came to his restaurant demanding that he hand over Palestinian workers. “Send them out so we can kill them,” he recalled. He stood his ground until they left. “There is anarchy in Jerusalem. The police do not enforce the law here,” he said. “There are serious criminals who wander around freely, criminals who beat up people, and the police do nothing.”

Christians attacked

The city’s Christians have found themselves increasingly targeted, too.

Last December, Gopstein called Christians “blood-sucking vampires” and demanded they be expelled from Israel. A few months earlier he told a meeting he supported torching churches to prevent “idol worship”. Church leaders suspect Lehava supporters are behind a recent wave of vandalism against Christian sites in Jerusalem and intimidation of priests and nuns.

Dozens of Lehava youths, led by Gopstein, rioted in September at a performance by a Palestinian Armenian choir at a music festival in a Jerusalem shopping mall. The singers were forced to leave after the youths shouted “Jew murderers!” and “Go to Syria!”.

The Vatican filed a complaint last year on behalf of local bishops to Israel’s attorney general, demanding that Gopstein be indicted for incitement to violence.

Wadie Abu Nassar, spokesman for the Latin Patriarch in Jerusalem, told how the Israeli authorities had not responded. “Gopstein is continuously saying racist and inciteful things in public, so one has to wonder why no measures have been taken against him. He seems immune.”  He added: “There is a clear backing among members of this government for far-right groups like Lehava.”

Government funding

Lehava has in the past received significant funding from the Israeli government – as much as $180,000 annually through a sister charity, Hemla. The latter runs a hostel in Jerusalem for the “rehabilitation” of Jewish women “saved” from marriages to Palestinians.

The Israeli media revealed last month that funding to Hemla has nearly doubled this year, to $350,000. Gopstein formally severed Lehava’s connections to Hemla two years ago. However, the registrar of non-governmental organisations is reported to have warned that secret ties between the two may have continued and has recommended an investigation.

There have also been suspicions of close ties between Israeli police and Lehava. They were fuelled in February when it emerged, following an investigation of Gopstein’s activities, that a Border Police officer had supplied the group with details of Jewish women dating Palestinian men.

Tartasky, of Ir Amim, told how: “The dominant culture in the police regards the Palestinians as not proper residents of the city. The police see their role as defending Jews from Palestinians, not the other way around.”

He said Jerusalem’s politicians also contributed to an impression that Palestinians had no place in the city. “The mayor [Nir Barkat] has not made a single statement against Lehava, even though they are inciting and carrying out regular attacks in the heart of his city. That has sent a clear message that Lehava has protection.”

That impression was underscored by statements from Barkat’s deputy, Meir Turgeman, in September, following the arrest of a Jerusalem resident, Mesbah Abu Sabih, on suspicion of killing two Israelis. Turgeman saidhe would “punish” the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem for their “animal behaviour … There are no carrots left, only sticks”.

Micky Rosenfeld, a police spokesman, denied that the police were failing to take Lehava’s violence seriously. “There has been a significant rise in the number of patrols in the centre of Jerusalem to prevent such incidents,”. He added that the police were “dispersing” gangs of Lehava youth as soon as they were identified.

Hotline to stop mixed dating

The legal authorities have been accused of failing to rein in Lehava, too. Beck said the Religious Action Centre had submitted 25 complaints to the attorney general against Gopstein for incitement but had not received a response.

In April, a Jerusalem judge ruled that Gopstein had made an “honest mistake” in beating up two left-wing Jewish activists when they entered a West Bank settlement. Gopstein claimed he had believed they were Palestinians. Video footage showed Israeli police arresting the two victims rather than Gopstein.

One of Lehava’s public services is a hotline so that Israeli Jews can inform on family or friends who are dating non-Jews. Beck said: “Lehava has perpetuated a lie that thousands of Jewish women are being held against their will by Palestinians in abusive marriages. It stokes hatred and incites followers to violence.”

In reality, official figures showthat only a tiny number of marriages between Israeli Jews and Palestinians occur. In 2011, the year for which official figures were released, there were only 19 such marriages. Nonetheless, the group has quickly pushed miscegenation on to the political agenda. Back in 2011, Gopstein was invited by Tzipi Hotovely, now the acting foreign minister, to advise a parliamentary committee set up to investigate the issue.

In 2013, similar numbers said they wanted Palestinians, including those with Israeli citizenship, expelled from the region.

Counter-protests launched

However, some Israeli Jews in Jerusalem have started to fight back against Lehava. Since 2014, a group named “Talking in the Square” has been organising counter-demonstrations in Zion Square, where Lehava stages a weekly rally.

One of their activists, Ossnat Sharon, said they tried to “keep an eye on [Lehava], curbing their attempts at violence as best we can.”

Palestinians were venturing into the city centre in bigger numbers, he said, because their own neighbourhoods had been cut off from nearby Ramallah and other Palestinian cities of the West Bank by Israel’s completion of its so-called separation barrier.


Better public transport links after Israel opened its light rail system have also contributed to the trend of Palestinians seeking work and entertainment in Jerusalem’s city centre. “Lehava’s growth indicates how uncomfortable some Israelis have become with seeing Palestinians in what they consider to be their city,” he said. “It has given them a sense of grievance and increased their extremism.”

Neo-Nazi Audience Selector for Question Time, Alison Fuller-Pedley Invites EDL to Take Part

$
0
0

The BBC's Idea of Balance - One Fascist for Every Anti-Fascist

One of fascist Pedley's retweets - a celebration of a nauseating 'patriotism' and militarism
Even more nauseating - retweeting a group that would have supported the Nazis and which denies the Holocaust  

Thomas Mair - Jo Cox's killer is in the centre of the group whose message Fuller-Pedley retweeted
Ever wondered why no MPs supporting Jeremy Corbyn ever appear on Question Time?  

Ever wondered why the audiences these days seem full of UKIP types and bigots like the one who tangled with Laurie Penney last week.   

He was a ‘primary school’  teacher, or so he said, who hated hearing school children speaking other languages and managed to tie this in with waiting lists in the NHS.  

Ever wondered why Nigel Farage seems to appear virtually every week, something like 34 appearances in all, even though he is not an MP?
Our Alison gets around
Well step forward Alison Fuller-Pedley.  It would seem that our Alison has been retweeting Britain First posts as well as making her Brexit views clear on social media.  For those who are unaware, Britain First is the group that Thomas Mair, Jo Cox MP’s killer was a member and activist for. 

She even went to the Event Page for the EDL's demonstration in Boston to invite them onto the audience.  She didn't do this with any other group on social media.
Getting the credit for fixing the audience
Britain First, whose tweets she retweeted, was the group that Thomas Mair was an activist for and in. Pedley should be treated like someone who was a member of an ISIS supporting group - a political terrorist - and booted off the programme.
Fuller-Pedley contacted the EDL's Event Page for the demonstration in Boston asking them to help pack the audience for Question Time
No doubt this is another example of BBC Balance!

Tony Greenstein

by Mike Small 5th December 2016 
Pedley all at sea
The parlour game of raging at the goggle-box every week as the BBC reeled out another panel of right-wing eejits for Question Time was getting a bit tired. We’d had wall-to-wall Farage and even Nick Griffin; trainloads of right-wing ‘think-tanks’ and ‘pressure groups’ you’d never heard of; programmes dislocated from place, attempts to shut-down speakers talking about Scotland in Scotland; bizarrely imbalanced panels and chairing that seemed to favour the hosts own chummy predilections. And the audiences seemed to be like cross-sections of a world you’d just never been in. Eventually I assumed that this just was the world outside my own bubble and that conspiracy notions about fixing BBCQT audiences were just my own daft lefty paranoia.

But – thanks to an alert reader – it seems that might not be so.

Step forward Alison Fuller Pedley job title  ‘Audience Producer at BBC Question Time’, and member of the British Patriotic Front Facebook group. She also promotes ‘Britain First’ online.
Pure Aryan Alison
The role of the Audience Producer is to select the people who will form the audience, as this ‘Behind the Scenes’ article confirms:

“According to the the Question Time website, the heart of the programme is its audience. “We don’t invite anyone” said Hopkin. “We have a dedicated producer who chooses a representative audience that reflects the demographic length. It is an honestly picked audience.” Every week audience producer Alison Fuller has to select the audience and, depending on the city they are in, this can mean considering more than 4,000 applications. This process involves checking the background of every applicant against their political affiliations, campaign involvements, advertising intentions, and many other factors. As the 150 people she selects are intended to embody the image of their city in the eyes of the programme’s nationwide audience, her job is one of the most important for the programme’s production.”
Alison's Linked-in Foto
Her own Twitter account appears to be a muddle of BBCQT stuff and Leave endorsements.


— Alison Fuller (@Fullhouse21) May 16, 2016

She even invited the English Defence League to join the audience. As the Daily Politik wrote back in September:

“You might ask, ‘what does it matter? She is an Audience Producer. She probably advertises to all sorts of social media groups, from the far right to the far left, trying to attract people to be part of the Question Time audience’. If that were true, I would not be writing this. Fuller Pedley posted the above post on the EDL Demonstration Page and her own Timeline only. She did not advertise audience positions to any other social media groups. Why would a BBC producer be encouraging members of EDL, exclusively, to apply to be in the Question Time audience?”
Thomas Mair in a patriotic mood
Perhaps it is simply the cynical realities behind tv production? Invite an audience and pepper it with extremists, it just makes for better telly? Is that what’s going on here?

We’ve heard a lot about fake news in recent days, maybe we have fake audiences too?
Mentorn Media has produced Question Time since 1998. We approached them for a response and will update you if and when we receive one.



The Nauseating Hypocrisy of Stephen Pollard, Editor of the Jewish Chronicle

$
0
0

Pollard's Crocodile Tears over Luciana Berger MP’s experience of anti-Semitism

Stephen Pollard, whose only claim to fame is having destroyed the reputation of the Jewish Chronicle as well as its circulation (down from over 32,000 when he began his reign of destruction in 2008 to under 20,000 and falling now) wrote to me and the Jewish Chronicle's readership earlier today saying that he can't imagine what Luciana Berger, the New Labour MP for Wavertree and ex-Director of Labour Friends of Israel went through when she was on the receiving end of anti-Semitic tweets and social media posts from the fascist Joshua Bonehill-Paine. 
Pollard's nauseating letter to the Jewish Chronicle's readership
Like most other people I welcome the aptly named Bonehill's prison sentence of 2 years and only wish it had been for life.  However Pollard's chutzpah and hypocrisy cannot be allowed to pass without comment. 
Pollard's attitude to anti-Semitism can best be judged by this defence of the anti-Semitic MEP Michal Kaminski
This is the man who wrote, in The Telegraph, of former neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic MEP Michal Kaminski, that "Far from being an anti-Semite, Mr Kaminski is about as pro-Israeli an MEP as exists."  Pollard wrotethat
“Jonathan Freedland attacked Michal Kaminski, the Polish MEP; Roberts Zile, the Latvian MEP; and me (Once no self-respecting politician would have gone near such people, 7 October). Freedland seems to have decided that Kaminski is an antisemite; but, far from this, Kaminski is – as his record in Brussels shows clearly – one of the greatest friends to the Jews in a town where antisemitism and a visceral loathing of Israel are rife.”

 Joshua Bonehill-Paine was found guilty of racially aggravated harassment. 
Kaminski is the fascist who, as MP in the Sjem, opposed a national Polish apology for the burning alive in 1941 of up to 900 Jews in the village of Jedwabne by fellow Poles.  Undoubtedly this was under the aegis and probably instigation of the SS but the hands that committed this foul deed were Polish.  After books by Polish-Jewish historian Jan Tomasz Gross.[Neighbours: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland, May 2000] and latterly Anna Bikont’s ‘The Crime and the Silence’ which was originally published in 2004 and won the European Book Prize in 2011, a movement grew up to re-examine what happened 60 years previously. 

Kaminski was in the forefront of those opposing an apology.  Pollard’s other hero, another MEP Robert Zile from Latvia’s LNNK distinguishes himself each March by marching in Riga, the scene of the first executions of German Jews in October 1941 when 5,000 were machine gunned as they descended from the deportation trains from Germany, with the veterans of the Latvian SS.  See Jedwabne – The Polish Village Where Up to 900 Jews Were Burnt Alive by Fellow Poles

Luciana Berger - the Jewish MP and ex-Labour Friends of Israel Director who received anti-Semitic posts from Bonehill-Paine

We should not be surprised by Pollard’s embrace of anti-Semites, after all his fellows in the Zionist Organisation of America and AIPAC have welcomed another anti-Semite, Steve Bannon, who has been appointed as Trump’s Strategic Advisor.  As more liberal Zionists are learning, Zionism has never had any problem with anti-Semites as long as they are pro-Zionist. See Israel Welcomes Donald Trump and his anti-Semitic advisor, Steve Bannon - Zionism has never had a problem with anti-Semitism

Pollard wrote to the Jewish Chronicle’s readership today thus: 

Dear Reader,It's difficult to imagine what Luciana Bergerwent through while she was under attack from Joshua Bonehill-Paine and his fellow thugs. No one should have to endure such behaviour, let alone a public servant. In this week's paper she talks exclusively about the emotional toll it took, and why others should follow her in reporting all incidents.Best,  Stephen Pollard, Editor



Pollard, who purports to be outraged at the social media posts that Berger received, is the same creature, who I wrote to over 6 years ago suggesting that maybe the Jewish Chronicle would like to cover, as part of its mission to tell the truth to its Jewish readers, a story about a 21 year old American Jewish girl, Emily Henochowicz.

It was a story that many papers had covered, not least Israeli newspapers.  What possible objection did the Jewish Chronicle have to running a story about an American Jewish teenager Emily Henochowicz?  Emily had lost an eye at the Qualandiyah checkpoint in Israel, where Palestinians routinely cross to the West Bank and back again, when she participated in a demonstration against the iniquity of forcing Palestinians to wait for hours in the hot sun for the ‘privilege’ of being able to cross over to work or return to their home again.  A soldier of the Israeli army, that beacon of moral righteousness, the most benign occupation in the world, had fired a tear gas shell directly at her face, blinding her in one eye.  And just to show just how wonderful the ‘Jewish’ state is, the government insisted that her family should pay the bill for her hospital treatment.

And what was the response of Pollard?  Bear in mind that Luciana Berger has suffered no injury or physical hurt.  She may have been upset, but she is a powerful person, who can call on protection from the media, the Police and her powerful friends, unlike the American Jewish girl who had been blinded in one eye for the ‘crime’ of demonstrating for justice?

Pollard wrote back to me that

Dear Mr Greenstein,
Thank you for your email, which will make a fine addition to my 'delete' folder.
StephenPollard

From that day on I had nothing but contempt for this vile lump of lard who is the confidant of the Express’s owner, Richard Desmond, Britain’s largest commercial pornographer. 

For Pollard, a member of the far-Right Islamaphobic Henry Jackson society, any display of concern over Berger’s experiences of anti-Semitism is just a calculated act of hypocrisy designed to sell his tawdry newspaper.



Lansman’s Scorched Earth War Against Democracy in Momentum

$
0
0
Owen Jones – the Nick Cohen of Tomorrow 
According to his spin merchants, Lansman is defending the youthful activists of Momentum against their Trotskyist elders!


Running with the hares and hunting with the hounds - Jones is on the side of the Palestinians and the Zionists


It was not so long ago that Owen Jones, the Guardian’s hero-in-residence of the Left and Jon Lansman’s knight in shining armour, was dithering as to whether to support Jeremy Corbyn’s re-election as leader. Everything, he felt, seemed to be heading towards the precipice.  The dreams and hope of the previous year were turning to dust and what was worse, Jones himself, despite his obvious talents, not least his innate sense of modesty, had been excluded from Corbyn’s inner circle of advisors.  Owen Jones Reveals His Despair About Labour Party Under Jeremy Corbyn[Huffington Post 1.8.16.]What’s Going on With Owen Jones? [Morning Star 3.8.16.]Questions all Jeremy Corbyn supporters need to answer[31.7.16.]

Matt Wrack - leader of the FBU and one of the main opponents of Lansman's attempts to destroy democracy in Momentum

Back in May 2016, I wrote a somewhat prescient article Labour’s Election Results Give Corbyn only a Temporary Reprieveand captioned Owen Jones’picture ‘Owen Jones - the future Nick Cohen’.  I have to confess that the five years I gave Jones before he crossed over to the dark side was in retrospect rather generous.  It seems that 5 months were more than enough.   


Before people say that I was being uncharitable, let me explain.  In the first years of New Labour in 1997, Nick Cohen was my favourite columnist.  No one excoriated Blair and co. more forcibly or with more passion in his weekly Observer column over the question of refugees than Nick Cohen.  He was a supporter of Tribune.  He was no Zionist or neo-con.   He condemned the introduction of Holocaust Memorial Day, rightly seeing it as a hypocritical and self-serving gesture by a racist government that demonised asylum seekers.  It was 9/11 and the Iraq war which saw Cohen become a warmongering neo-con and Islamaphobe. 

Laura Murray - not quite a political innocent
Laura Murray's badly written disingenuous article

Jones has always been a lightweight compared to Cohen but without the latter’s self-doubt.   I lost confidence in Jones in the summer 2014.  At a time when over 2,000 Palestinians, including 551 children, were massacred in a duck shoot by the Israelis, who launched high ordinance missiles into Gaza’s residential areas, schools, hospitals and refugee camps, the most overcrowded area in the world, Jones was more concerned about traces of anti-Semitism in Britain.  It is like being concerned about the common cold during a smallpox epidemic.

Nick Wrack was viciously attacked in Owen Jones' Comment article but the Guardian are refusing to allow him a right of reply!

No doubt a few people made comments during Israel’s Operation Protective Edge accusing British Jews of responsibility for what was happening in Gaza.  This is of course as wrong as it is understandable.  When Jewish communal organisations like the Board of Deputies of British Jews openly proclaimed their support for Israel on behalf of all British Jews, is it any wonder that some people took them at their word and saw Jews as a legitimate target? [The Board of Deputies of British Jews is condoning genocide in Gaza. They don’t represent us].

In August 2014 I did a blog post ‘Gaza Reveals the Empty and Vacuous Heart of Owen Jones’s writing about Jones’ obsession with ‘anti-Semitism’ at the height of Israel’s attack on Gaza.  I followed this up with Owen Jones’ Obsession with ‘anti-Semitism’ The Lacuna in Jones’ head in March this year as the ‘anti-Semitism’ witch-hunt in the Labour Party reached its climax.
What?  Me a lyin', cheatin' conspiracist?
It was clear that Jones, deep down, despite being articulate and personable, was shallow and superficial in everything he wrote about.  When the Zionists began deploying anti-Semitism as a cynical weapon against solidarity with the Palestinians, hundreds of whom were dying or lying injured in the streets of Gaza, Jones was more interested in the by-product of the reaction to these attacks. 

Instead of devoting his columns to the deliberate gunning down by an Israeli war plane of four young children playing on Gaza’s beach and the self-serving lies of the Israeli military, which ludicrously classified this as a ‘tragic accident’ or the use of white phosphorous against UN schools, or exposing the last defence of the war criminal – that Gaza’s people were being used as ‘hostages’ by Hamas – all we got from Jones was an article ‘anti-Jewish hatred is rising – we must see it for what it is which began‘anti-Semitism is a menace’ 11.8.14. 
Owen Jones has driven the witch hunt of Ken Livingstone, Jackie Walker and Naz Shah - all the while pretending it has nothing to do with Palestine
It is a measure of Jones’ lack of originality that 18 months later he wrote another equally fatuous article on anti-Semitism, in the middle of the contrived media anti-Semitism campaign of the Zionists in the Labour Party, Antisemitism is a poison – the left must take leadership against it 15.3.16. It also began ‘anti-Semitism is a menace’  It is as if, having nothing new to say, Jones believed that repetition would suffice.
Owen doesn't take kindly to criticism - like Progress he blocks at the drop of a hat!

It is therefore no surprise that Jones should leap to the defence of Lansman in an article whose inversion of reality puts Joe McCarthy to shame.  In Momentum is a beacon of hope. It must be saved from the saboteurs Jones argues that:


i.               Criticism of Lansman is all down to the Trotskyists of the Alliance for Workers Liberty – all one hundred of them.  Apparently ‘Momentum... is currently facing a takeover bid by Trotskyist sectarians.”

ii.             By way of contrast, the opponents of these veteran Trotskyist sectarians are ‘younger, idealistic, campaign-oriented and pluralistic, lacking Machiavellian strategic ability – all of which the sectarians exploit.’

iii.           The opposition to Lansman’s attempts to prevent the democratisation of Momentum, which is the real issue, is all down to the machinations of Trotskyists who, he declares, have an unbroken record of failure outside the Labour Party.  He takes delight in quoting Nick Wrack who, after the death of Tony Benn and Bob Crow, said that ‘There’s no life for the left in the Labour party. 

Many of us believed this.  I do not remember anyone, Jones included, who seriously thought back in May 2015, after Ed Miliband had been defeated, that the Left and Jeremy Corbyn in particular, would win the leadership of the Labour Party.  The Right at that time went on to the offensive with their talk of ‘aspiring Waitrose shoppers.’  Liz Kendall, she of the 4.5% was all the rage.

The reasons for Corbyn’s victory have still not been sufficiently analysed or understood.  I think it is fair to say that there was a popular revulsion at Cameron’s unexpected victory on the second lowest national vote ever.  A reaction, both inside and outside the Labour Party, including a very large People’s Assembly demonstration in June 2015, that helped create the mood of hope that swept Corbyn to victory.

What happened was certainly not Owen Jones or Jon Lansman’s doing.  They were simply, as members of the Labour Party, better positioned to benefit from events that took them by surprise.   That is all. 

iv.           What Jones does is to caricature the debate over democracy in Momentum as being between ‘younger Momentum protagonists aligned to Lansman– ... “movementists” and cynical old Trots who know that direct, delegate democracy will benefit them .  Opposition to Lansman’s OMOV is  portrayed as empowering Momentum’s 21,000 members.  The problem of course is that OMOV will enable Lansman and his small coterie to retain the levers of power and ensure that Momentum remains the dog that never barked in the night.
In 2012, appearing on Question Time, Jones was an articulate defender of the Palestinians but then he got bitten by the bug of identity politics - even Zionists have an identity
About the only thing in his article that even comes close to the truth is Jones’ statement that ‘this article will be dismissed as the work of a rightwing establishment careerist in the service of a Guardian conspiracy to destroy the left.  It seems, even when he penning his conspiracy theories, what is uppermost in Jones’ mind is how his actions will appear to others.  Last year when telling us how the Left was teetering on the brink of disaster, Jones recognisedthat he risked being labelled a “Blairite, Tory, Establishment stooge”. 

If Brighton and Hove Momentum is anything to go by then meetings are not small.  Our monthly meetings are 60-70 people.  The meeting we held just before Brighton and Hove Labour Party AGM on July 2nd attracted around 800 people.  It was so full that it overflowed back into the coffee bar and onto the street.  Momentum’s candidate for Chair, which the meeting supported, Mark Sandell, was a member of AWL.  Together with the other Momentum candidates he achieved victory by a 2-1 margin at the AGM on July 2nd.  What was the reaction nationally?  The AGM vote was cancelled as a result of false allegations of harassment and spitting and Mark was expelled.  We received no support from Momentum nationally and this attack on democracy, in Brighton and Hove and Wallasey, by McNicol and the Compliance Unit was not deemed worthy of an article by Owen Jones.

Over a hundred attendees at the Brighton and Hove AGM gave written evidence to say that the meeting had been peaceful and calm.  It is true that the number of participants was so great that there had to be 3 sittings in order that everyone could vote but that the fault of the old Executive which was reimposed!  Karen Buckingham, who conducted the NEC Inquiry, refused even to look video evidence that proved that there was no spitting in the meeting because it showed absolutely nothing had happened.  Her reasons?  The Data Protection Act!  The DPA doesn’t stop the Compliance Unit leaking peoples’ details when they are suspended, to the national press, but it precludes them examining evidence!

Lansman’s One Member One Vote proposals are a passive form of democracy.  Instead of debating in meetings and voting accordingly, you vote on a computer in isolation, distanced from others whose arguments and debates you can listen to.  It atomises people.  It is capitalist democracy.  That is why Thatcher legislated for secret ballots for unions rather than mass meetings of workers.  This not only destroyed the strength of the trade unions it also put power in the hands of trade union barons, the Jon Lansmans of their day.  Lansman and his acolytes want OMOV because they are at the Centre, pulling the strings and using OMOV to ‘consult’ the membership.  It confirms them in power permanently.  That is why dictators from Hitler to De Gaulle to Sisi have favoured the plebiscite and referendum. 


Jones was extremely dishonest.  Lansman was happy to work closely with Jill Mountford and the AWL when it came to removing Jackie Walker as Vice-Chair of Momentum.  Without their votes, Jackie would still be Vice-Chair of Momentum.  Lansman  needed the AWL’s support in order to satisfy Israel’s Jewish Labour Movement.

Whilst Lansman and Jones, are determined to portray the battle over democracy as one between the AWL and Lansman’s activists, Nick Cohen gives the game away in the Tory Spectator.  In an article entitled Marxist-Leninists are now the Labour party’s moderates Cohen sees through the nonsense that has been written about the AWL.

The AWL are unique on the Left because they are pro-Israel/Zionist and pro-war.  Alone on the Left, they refused to call for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq and supported the wars in Afghanistan and Serbia.  They are incorrigibly reformist.  As Cohen notes, they come from the Shachtmanite wing of Trotskyism.   Max Shachtman ended up supporting the CIA’s invasion of the Bay of Pigs in Cuba and the US in Vietnam!  Cohen writes:

‘The Alliance for Workers Liberty is... resolutely anti-Stalinist. Its origins lie in Trotskyism.... named after Max Shactman.... I will say this for the AWL, amid its totalitarian theory and regimented thinking, it has a record of honourable opposition to modern dictatorships, and has not joined the rest of the far left in supporting any secular or clerical variant of fascism as long as it is anti-Western. Naturally, the heirs to the Stalinists of the 20th century hate it.

Cohen finds the long ‘ill written’ blog by Laura Murray amusing.  I find it sad.  Not only in the lack of originality in the title.  Momentum v Inertia (duh!)  Far from being an innocent abroad, Murray is the daughter of Unite’s Political Chief of Staff Andrew Murray and former political advisor to Graham Morris MP.   She is certainly a sore loser.  Her long and badly written article is also extremely dishonest (mentioning the pro-Israel stance of AWL but ‘forgetting’ to mention that the same was true of Lansman). 

It contains the same caricatures as Owen Jones, regarding Trotskyist take overs and adds for good measure comments about how ‘unrepresentative local groups elect delegates’.  Local groups are the heart and soul of Momentum.  Without them Momentum will fade and wither on the vine.  Databases and social media do not a movement make.

What Murray means is that nearly all the delegates from local groups at the Momentum National Committee held last week opposed Lansman’s attempts to retain power through OMOV.  The the only reason Lansman’s proposals were defeated narrowly, by one or two votes, was that the NC was stuffed with people personally appointed by Lansman.  His own Left Futures web site, which is accountable to no one, consisting of no one bar Lansman, had 2 delegates to the Committee.  Lansman makes Tammany Hall a model of virtue.

Neither Murray nor Owen Jones mentioned that in the run up to the long delayed December NC, Lansman had repeatedly tried to cancel the meeting and to usurp all power to the Steering Committee.  Only a revolt by Momentum’s branches prevented this manoeuvring. 

A comment by Ben Sellers on Facebookgives the lie to Jones claim that Lansman wants to hand power to the rank and file of Momentum.  Sellers asks: 

Is it the Jon Lansman who only wants a "pluralistic", democratic, grassroots organisation facilitated by a new era of digital democracy?

Or the Jon Lansman who told me to my face just a year ago that Momentum groups should be banned from having social media accounts and encouraged a completely unaccountable 'helper' to take over regional Facebook pages from local Momentum activists?

The idea that Lansman’s only desire was to hand power to the young idealistic movementeers is a cynical lie peddled by someone who has made a good living off the activities of others.   The idea that Jones would even emulate Russell Brand, who got his hands dirty and marched with and organised with ordinary people facing eviction, is a dream too far. 

Jones suggestion that this is a generational battle between the youth, backed by the anything but youthful Lansman and veteran Trotskyists, is one more lie.  There is a good articleon this in the New Statesman by Rida Vaquas.  Strange as it may seem, young people disagree with each other just as vehemently as older socialists!

It is no accident that Jackie Walker, a rank and file activist in Thanet who helped organise Nigel Farage’s defeat at the General Election and who has been active in opposing the fascists in Dover, genuine anti-racist work that would see Jones, Lansman and their Zionist supporters running a mile, was deposed at the instigation of the Israel lobby which welcomed to power Donald  Trump and the Breitbart anti-Semites.

Lansman and his supporters are openly calling on the same capitalist media, in particular the Guardian, which has led the fight against Corbyn, to support them against the Left in Momentum.  The Guardian’s record is particularly shocking.  It has run article after article attacking Momentum and instigating the false anti-Semitism campaign.  For example:


Jonathan Freedland has written a number of articles such as Labour and the left have an antisemitism problem,  Labour and the left have an antisemitism problem and My plea to the left: treat Jews the same way you’d treat any other minority.  Not for nothing has Corbyn called him ‘subliminally nasty’. 

There was what purported to be a review of Dave Rich’s book on ‘left anti-Semitism’ ‘The Left’s Jewish Problem: Jeremy Corbyn, Israel and Anti‑Semitism and Nick Cohen’s Why I’m becoming a Jew and why you should, too which is a rewrite of an earlier article in the Jewish Chronicle  Hatred is turning me into a Jewby Nick Cohen. 


The Guardian and its hack journalist Jessica Elgot were used by Lansman in order to undermine Jackie Walker before her suspension and removal by selective leaking.  Guido Fawkes, the anti-Corbyn Tory blogger, was more than happy to join Lansman’s attacks on the Left see e.g. Trotskyist Super Faction Organising to Take Over Momentum .

It was perhaps inevitable that Lansman, who personally ‘owns’ Momentum in the sense that the database and contacts are the property of a Momentum company on which there is just one director, Jon Lansman, would come into conflict with those who do want to develop Momentum into more than just a body that can be summoned into action if Corbyn is again threatened but otherwise should remain a political version of the undead. 

Momentum needs to develop as a living and breathing organisation not a stage army controlled by a few at the top.  Momentum has now outgrown Lansman and his political fixers.  It is time for a new leadership from the rank and file of Momentum, young and old.  Whether they are Trotskyists, Stalinists or hopefully just socialists is irrelevant.  Our goals are to see a Labour government that can be radical and reforming.  That is not impossible but it won’t be easy eiter.  To achieve that there has to be a decisive defeat of Labour’s right wing which includes CLP having the right to deselect their existing MP where they have one.

It is fear of Momentum eventually leading the challenge to the overwhelmingly right-wing PLP which is at the back of this dispute over the internal democracy of Momentum.  How it pans out will ultimately decide the fate of Jeremy Corbyn himself.

Tony Greenstein

Open Letter from 93 members/supporters of the Labour Party to the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party Tom Watson MP

$
0
0

 Labour Members ask Watson why he has no criticism of Israel's racist Occupation of Palestine


Accompanying Letter

Dear Mr Watson
I attach a letter signed by 88 members/supporters of the Labour Party, Jewish and non-Jewish, in respect of your speech to Labour Friends of Israel last month.
Not once in your speech did you utter any criticism or condemnation of Israel's military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the daily killing of unarmed Palestinian civilians, the horrific levels of racism in Israel itself towards its own Palestinian citizens, the routine use of torture, the abuse and imprisonment of Palestinian children or the Apartheid situation that pertains in the Occupied Territories themselves.

The fact that you campaigned so vociferously against the abuse of British children yet you have nothing to say about the imprisonment and shackling of Palestinian children, the use of violence and tortureagainst them speaks volumes about your racist outlook. 
 
Yours sincerely,

Tony Greenstein
  


To:          Tom Watson MP tom.watson.mp@parliament.uk
                Deputy Leader of the Labour Party
   House of Commons
   London SW1 1AA


Dear Tom Watson, 

We write as both Jewish and non-Jewish members/supporters of the Labour Party.

We read with interest your speechto guests at the Labour Friends of Israel luncheon recently and watched the video of you singing ‘Am Yisrael Chai’.  Perhaps you are not aware that this is the favourite chant of West Bank settlers and the fascist/neo-Nazi Jewish Defence League when attackingPalestinians and those they disagree with?

You began your speech by saying that you supported Israel because ‘our consciences dictate it’.  If you had a conscience you would not have spoken of your ‘special pleasure’ at the presence of Mark Regev, Israel’s Ambassador who, as-Chief Spokesman for Benjamin Netanyahu, defended Operation Protective Edge in Gaza in 2014 when 2,251 Palestinians were killed, including 551 children.

You said that you were ‘ashamed’ at the ‘anti-Semitism in our midst’.  Let us reassure you that although you have much to be ashamed of, anti-Semitism is not one of Labour’s sins.  Anti-Semitism does not exist as a political force in the Labour Party.  It never has and never will.  Those who have been suspended for ‘anti-Semitism’, in particular Ken Livingstone, Jackie Walker, and Tony Greenstein, have been suspended for supporting the Palestinians, not because of anti-Semitism.  It is no coincidence that both the latter two are Jewish anti-Zionists.

You mentioned your recent, expenses paid trip to Israel recently, where you met the Chairman of the Israeli Labour Party Isaac Herzog. You spoke of his ‘determination to continue to push the path of peace’.  Is this the same Herzog who, Ha’aretzreports, pushed for ‘Separation From Palestinians as (the) Party Platform’?  In other words an apartheid solution with a Palestinian Bantustan?

We find it difficult to understand, in view of your purported opposition to anti-Jewish racism, why you turn a blind eye to Herzog’s virulent anti-Arab racism?  Herzog recently spoke of his fear of waking up to a Palestinian Prime Minister in Israel.  He said:

‘I want to separate from the Palestinians. I want to keep a Jewish state with a Jewish majority. I don’t want 61 Palestinian MKs in Israel’s Knesset. I don’t want a Palestinian prime minister in Israel.’ 

The Jerusalem Post reported how Herzog had spoken about dispelling the false impression that the ILP were ‘Arab Lovers’

If a member of our Labour Party had spoken about their nightmare of a Jewish Prime Minister or had talked about ‘Jew lovers’ then you would certainly have had cause to complain of anti-Semitism.

You quoted Yehuda Bauer: “thou shalt not be a bystander.”  Unfortunately you then went on to demonstrate just how lightly the lessons of the Holocaust weigh upon your conscience.  You stated that Israel was ‘A vibrant democracy… a state which strives for equality between … Jew and Arab.’

Perhaps you would care to explain how this is compatible with the pending demolition of Umm al-Hiran, a Bedouin village in the Negev, in order to make way for a Jewish town? Or why half the Arab villages in Israel are ‘unrecognised’ and therefore liable to demolition at a moment’s notice? 

According to Defence for Children International between 500 and 700 Palestinian children a year, as young as 12, are arrested, interrogated and beaten without any right to see a parent or lawyer.  Held indefinitely, they are deprived of sleep, shackled and charged in a language they don’t understand.

Because there are two separate legal systems on the West Bank, this cannot happen to Jewish children.  Perhaps you could explain how this is compatible with a ‘vibrant democracy’ and why this is not an apartheid society?

Israel is a Jewish state, i.e. a state in which Jews have privileges over and above non-Jews.  This manifests itself on Jerusalem Day in mobs chanting ‘Death to the Arabs’ as they march through the Arab quarter.  Fascist groups like Lehava, which campaign against sexual relations between Arabs and Jews are state-funded.  Today in Jerusalem, without interference from the police, gangs of Jewish fascists go around attackingArabs under the pretext of ‘protecting’ Jewish women. 

Because Israel is a Jewish state opposition to African asylum seekers has taken the form of pogroms and lynchings.  According to Netanyahu, illegal African immigrants threaten identity of Jewish state.  In the wordsof Culture Minister Miri Regev "the Sudanese are a cancer in our body."  Later she apologised to cancer victims for having compared them to asylum seekers!  Your good friend Herzog has been part of this racist consensus, attackingEritrean refugees as bogus asylum seekers.

Apologists for Zionism always refer to Israel’s Arabs having the vote.  This is of course true but Israel is a state of its Jewish citizens and democracy doesn’t simply mean having a vote every few years but civic and political equality regardless of ethnicity or religion.  When you are treated as an alien in your own country that is not democracy but ethnocracy.  A state where torture is legal, censorship is routine and detention without trial for one ethnic group is routine (Arabs) is not a democracy.

It is therefore no surprise that in Israel’s ‘vibrant democracy’ a plurality of Jewish Israelis (48%-46%) [Pew Research Centre Survey, Israel’s Religiously Divided Society], favour the physical expulsion of Israel’s Arabs and no less than 79% believe that Jews are entitled to preferential treatment. 

You refer to your and LFI’s support for 2 States.  After 50 years of occupation and settlement, a Palestinian state is not possible.  2 states is a smokescreen for the continued military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and a pretext for Israeli Apartheid.  At no time have either you or LFI ever called for an end to the military occupation of Palestinian territories.

You condemn Boycott Divestment and Sanctions but the Boycott of repressive and racist regimes has a long pedigree.  From the Boycott of slave grown sugar in the West Indies to the Boycott of Nazi Germany (which the Zionist movement broke) to the Boycott of South African Apartheid, BDS has always been the most moral of movements.  Just as Thatcher and Reagan opposed the Boycott of Apartheid South Africa yesterday, so you and LFI oppose the Boycott of Zionist Apartheid today. 

Perhaps you have forgotten that it was Israeli Labour governments who supplied weapons to South Africa in breach of the UN Arms Embargo?  That it was an Israeli Labour government which invited John Vorster, the South Africa Premier, who had been interned during the war for Nazi sympathies, on a state visit to Israel? [Brothers in arms - Israel's secret pact with Pretoria]

If you were at all sincere in your support for a Palestinian state, then you would support pressure upon Israel via a Boycott.  The fact that you, the Israeli Ambassador and Labour Friends of Israel, an uncritical Israeli support group, oppose Boycott demonstrates your insincerity and hypocrisy. 

You said Let’s have no more parallels drawn between today’s tragic conflict in Israel-Palestine and the bloodlands of central and Eastern Europe.’  You appear to forget that it is the advocates of Zionism who make such comparisons.  From Menachem Begin equating Yassir Arafat in the siege of Beirut to Hitler in his bunker to Netanyahu’s comparison of Iran with Nazi Germany orDeputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai promising the Palestinians of Gaza a ‘bigger Shoah’

Zionism has always equated the Palestinians with the Nazis.  When the Israeli Right marches to the drumbeat of ‘Death to the Arabs’ it is difficult not to recall similar marches in Europe when the chant was ‘Death to the Jews’. 

Despite your attempts to equate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism it is clear from what is happening in the United States that anti-Semites are the most fervent supporters of Israel.  Donald Trump, whom Herzog has welcomed to power, has appointed open anti-Semites like Steve Bannon of the alt-Right as his advisors.  This does not appear to trouble you or Labour Friends of Israel for some reason.

When you say that ‘The BDS movement is morally wrong’ you betray you real concern is to support the US’s watchdog in the region.  BDS is an entirely moral response to Israel’s immoral Occupation.

Yours sincerely,




 

Tony Greenstein                          Brighton & Hove DLP
Barry Ackerman                          Enfield & Southgate CLP
Mo Akram                                  Newcastle East CLP
Jackie Alsaid                               Fareham CLP
Mo Aziz                                      Dulwich and West Norwood CLP
Claude Baesens                           Warwick and Leamington Spa CLP
Graham Bash                              South Thanet CLP
Labina Basit                                Uxbridge and South Ruislip CLP
Mary Beaman                              Wimbeldon CLP
Lisa Bell                                      Forest of Dean CLP
Tas Bhatti                                    Nottingham CLP
Simon Brace                                Gedling CLP
Haim Bresheeth                           Hornsey and Wood Green
Karen Brett                                  New Forest East CLP
Tarin Brokenshire                       Cambridge CLP
Neil Cameron                              Sheffield Central CLP, Unite and Sheffield Momentum
Marilu Cavaliere                          Luton South CLP
Trevor Challenger                       Taunton Deane CLP
Carl Clarke                                  Richmond CLP/Unite
Mike Craig                                  Mid-Ulster Branch Northern Ireland
John Davies                                Liverpool Riverside TULO/Liverpool Momentum
Helen Dickson                            Liverpool Riverside CLP
Ajay Domun                               Pimlico CLP/Westminster Momentum
Mark Elf                                      Barking CLP
James Ellis                                  Brighton & Hove DLP/Secretary B&H Momentum/Unite/Unison
Yousuf Farooq                            Rushcliffe CLP
Pete Firmin                                  Hampstead & Kilburn CLP
Jenny Flintoft                              Meon Valley CLP
Michael Foulkes                          Brighton & Hove DLP
Philip Foxe                                  Enfield South gate CLP/Enfield Momentum 
Kathlyn Gadd                              Stoke North CLP
Terry Gallogly                             York CLP
Yvonne Gibbins                          Grantham and Stafford CLP
Lynda Gilbert                              Milton Keynes North CLP
Stephanie Grant                           Basingstoke CLP
Sue Grant                                    Exeter CLP
James Hall                                   South Cambridgeshire CLP
Jenny Hardacre                           South Cambs CLP
Abe Hayeem-                              Harrow East CLP
Rosamine Hayeem-                     Harrow East CLP
Rosemary Hedges                       Calder Valley CLP
Deana Heywood                         Ealing and Central Acton CLP
Dave Hill                                     Brighton and Hove Momentum
Carl Hodgson                              Delyn CLP
Doug Holton                               Hackney North and Stoke Newington CLP
Ian Hunter                                   Gaston and Halewood CLP
Zaed Hussein                              Hyndburn CLP
Cliff Jones                                   Sefton Central CLP
Markus Keany                             Luton South CLP
Martin Kemp                               Lewisham West and Penge CLP 
Fee Khan                                     Brandwood CLP
Beverley Krell                             Stockport CLP
Geoff Lee                                    Holborn and St Pancras CLP
Leah Levane                                Hastings and Rye CLP
Rachel Lever                               Hastings & Rye CLP
Debbie Litchfield                         Don Valley CLP
Jo Manning                                 Leeds NE CLP
Patrick Mansfield                        Bristol South CLP
Miriam Margolyes                      Clapham CLP
Helen Marks                               Riverside CLP
Becky Massey                             Hove and Portslade CLP
Suzanne McCallum                     Dumbarton CLP
Faye McCardle                            North Herefordshire CLP
Jane Mills                                    Brecon and Radnorshire CLP
Anne Mitchell                             Hove and Portslade CLP
Brendan Morgan                         County Down CLP
Elizabeth Morley                         Ceredigion CLP/Member of Wales Grassroots/Momentum
Kevin Neil                                   Plymouth Sutton and Devonport CLP, Momentum National Committee
Tony O'Neill                               Northern Ireland Labour Party
Caroline O’Reilly                        Brighton & Hove DLP
Pam Page                                    Brighton and Hove DLP
Susan Pashkoff                           Unite/Redbridge Trades Council
Allan Pearson                              South Ribble CLP
Jonathan Pullman                        Edinburgh North and Leith CLP
Mike Rahr                                   Camberwell CLP
Roland Rance                              Unite; former secretary Waltham Forest Trades Council
Elaine Rigby                                Bury South CLP
Leon Rosselson                           Brent Momentum
Ali Samhan                                 Penarth CLP
Matt Scott                                    Islington South CLP
Mark Sedgway                            Ilford North CLP
David Selzer                                Chester CLP
Ali Sendall                                  Birkenhead CLP
Sam Semoff                                Riverside CLP
Reverend Dr Philip Stephens      Swansea West CLP
Stephanie Sykes                          Woking CLP
Pauline Thomas                           Momentum South Birmingham
Andrew Todd                              Hexham CLP
John Tymon;                               Hampstead & Kilburn CLP
Jackie Walker                              Thanet CLP
Adam Waterhouse                       Southampton and Ramsey Labour Party
Stewart Whitehead                      Arundel and South Downs CLP
Nola Wolley                                North Somerset CLP
 
 

 

Chomsky at the Massachusetts's Institute of Technology

$
0
0

Between the war scientists and the anti-war students

A guest post by Chris Knight



It is now fifty years since Noam Chomsky published his celebrated article, 'The Responsibility of Intellectuals'. Few other writings had a greater impact on the turbulent political atmosphere on US campuses in the 1960s. The essay launched Chomsky's political career as the world's most intransigent and cogent critic of US foreign policy - a position he has held to this day.

No one could doubt Chomsky's sincerity or his gratitude to the student protesters who brought the war in Vietnam to the forefront of public debate. On the other hand, he viewed the student rebels as 'largely misguided', particularly when they advocated revolution. Referring to the student and worker uprising in Paris in May 1968, Chomsky recalls that he 'paid virtually no attention to what was going on,' adding that he still believes he was right in this. Seeing no prospect of revolution in the West at this time, Chomsky went so far as to describe US students' calls for revolution as 'insidious'. While he admired their 'challenge to the universities', he expressed 'skepticism about how they were focusing their protests and criticism of what they were doing' - an attitude that led to 'considerable conflict' with many of them.[1]


As is well known, Chomsky's university was the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught and researched linguistics in one of its research laboratories funded by the military. Although he sometimes understates MIT's military role, Chomsky has never made a secret of its Pentagon connections. Referring to the 1960s, he explains that MIT was 'about 90% Pentagon funded at that time. And I personally was right in the middle of it. I was in a military lab. If you take a look at my early publications, they all say something about Air Force, Navy, and so on, because I was in a military lab, the Research Lab for Electronics.'[2]

By the late 1960s, MIT's various laboratories and departments were researching helicopter design, radar, smart bombs and counterinsurgency techniques for the ongoing war in Vietnam. In Chomsky's words: 'There was extensive weapons research on the MIT campus. ... In fact, a good deal of the [nuclear] missile guidance technology was developed right on the MIT campus and in laboratories run by the university.'[3] One of the radical student newspapers of the time, The Old Mole, expressed things still more bluntly:

'MIT isn't a center for scientific and social research to serve humanity. It's a part of the US war machine. Into MIT flow over $100 million a year in Pentagon research and development funds, making it the tenth largest Defense Department R&D contractor in the country. MIT's purpose is to provide research, consulting services and trained personnel for the US government and the major corporations - research, services, and personnel which enable them to maintain their control over the people of the world.'[4]



In the light of this, it is hardly surprising that, according to one former MIT student, 'most radical students, as well as many liberal students, wanted first and foremost to stop the war research.'[5] But in 1969, in a contribution to an official MIT report, Chomsky took a significantly different position. Resorting to the language of defense and deterrence favoured by the university's war scientists, he proposed that, rather than closing down the military laboratories, 'they should be restricted to research on systems of a purely defensive and deterrent character.' One of the leading student activists at MIT at the time, Michael Albert, later described Chomsky's cautious position as, in effect, 'preserving war research with modest amendments.'[6] (I should point out, however, that despite their disagreements, Albert remains supportive of Chomsky to this day, as do other student radicals who have known Chomsky personally over the years.)


Back in 1969, MIT's student radicals were keen to take direct action against the university's war research by, among other things, occupying the office of its president, Howard Johnson. Again, Chomsky took a different position and at one point, according to one of his academic colleagues, he joined with other professors in standing in Johnson's office to prevent the students from occupying it. As he said later about the 1960s student tactic of occupation, 'I wasn't in favor of it myself, and didn't like those tactics.'[7]

MIT's radicals not only organised occupations, they also organised a mass picket of the university's nuclear missile laboratories. Determined to put a stop to this kind of disruption, the university eventually had six students sentenced to prison terms.[8] One of these students, George Katsiaficas, served time for the crime of 'disruption of classes'. To this day, he remains indignant about his treatment and says that the phrase, the 'banality of evil' - famously used by Hannah Arendt to describe Nazi war criminals - applies equally to President Howard Johnson. Adopting a quite different tone, however, Chomsky told Time magazine that Johnson was an 'honest, honourable man' and it seems he even attended a faculty party held to celebrate Johnson's success at containing the student protests.[9]


Chomsky has acknowledged that some students did suffer from incidents 'that should not have happened'. But, while student leader Michael Albert described MIT as another 'Dachau' whose 'victims burned in the fields of Vietnam', Chomsky has again and again defended the university's role.[10] In view of the imprisonments, expulsions and job losses suffered by MIT's radicals, it is hard to know what to make of Chomsky's claim that MIT's anti-war activists 'had no problems' from the university. Nor is it easy to recognise his description of MIT as 'one of the most free universities in the world' with 'the best relations between faculty and students than at any other university.'[11]


CHOMSKY AND THE WAR CRIMINALS

Still more puzzling was Chomsky's attitude when Walt Rostow visited MIT in 1969. Rostow was one of those prominent intellectuals whom Chomsky had so eloquently denounced in his 'Responsibility of Intellectuals' article. As an adviser to both President John Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson, Rostow had been one of the main architects of the war in Vietnam. In particular he was the strategist responsible for the carpet bombing of North Vietnam.

Against this background, it was hardly surprising that when Rostow arrived at MIT, his lecture was disrupted by students furious at his presence on their campus.[12] Far from associating himself with such student rage, however, when Chomsky heard that Rostow was hoping to return to his former job at MIT, he actually welcomed the prospect. Then, when he heard that the university was poised to reject Rostow's job application for fear of more student disruption, Chomsky went to Howard Johnson and threatened to lead MIT's anti-war students to 'protest publicly' - not against - but in favour of Rostow being allowed back to the university.[13]

Rostow wasn't the only powerful militarist at MIT to receive support from Chomsky. Twenty years later, Chomsky was, as he says, 'one of the very few people on the faculty' who supported John Deutch's bid to become university President.[14] Deutch was particularly controversial because, as MIT's radical newspaper, The Thistle, explained, he was both an 'advocate of US nuclear weapons build-up' and 'a strong supporter of biological weapons, and of using chemical and biological weapons together in order to increase their killing efficiency.' In fact, by the late 1980s, Deutch had not only brought chemical and biological weapons research to MIT, he had apparently 'pressured junior faculty into performing this research on campus'.[15]

Fearing that the university was about to become even 'more militaristic', MIT's radicals - with the notable exception of Chomsky - joined others on the faculty to successfully block Deutch's appointment. Then, later, when President Clinton made Deutch No.2 at the Pentagon and, in 1995, Director of the CIA, student activists demanded that MIT cut all ties with him. Chomsky once again disagreed, The New York Times reporting him as saying of Deutch that 'he has more honesty and integrity than anyone I've ever met in academic life, or any other life.... If somebody's got to be running the CIA, I'm glad it's him.'[16] Of course, the most remarkable thing about all this is that, throughout this entire period, Chomsky was churning out dozens of brilliantly argued articles and books denouncing the CIA and the US military as criminals, their hands dripping in blood.

One way of making sense of Chomsky's various contradictory positions is to view them in the light of the public statements made by MIT's managers at the height of the student unrest in 1969. At this time, President Howard Johnson described his university as 'a refuge from the censor, where any individual can pursue truth as he sees it, without any interference.'[17] Underlying such statements was Johnson's anxiety lest MIT's war scientists suffer 'interference' from protesting students and Johnson himself wasn't too consistent in defending this position, readily abandoning it when he declined Rostow's request to return to MIT. Unlike Johnson, however, Chomsky stuck to the university's principles. He remained true to the MIT's non-interference stance, even to the point of defending the right of a potential war criminal, John Deutch, and an actual 'war criminal' (Chomsky's description of Walt Rostow) to hold important posts at the university.[18]

Part of the explanation for all this may have been Chomsky's reluctance to fall out with fellow faculty members, especially those with whom he associated regularly. As he remarked at one point, 'I'm always talking to the scientists who work on missiles for the Pentagon.'[19] But there must have been more to Chomsky's thinking than this.

In 1969, one MIT student is reported to have justified his opposition to the university's military research on the grounds that 'one doesn't have the right to build gas chambers to kill people', adding that 'the principle that people should not kill other people is more important than notions of freedom to do any kind of research one might want to undertake.'[20] Chomsky, by contrast, extended the principle of academic non-interference to unusual lengths. It was crucial to him that MIT held strictly to the management ideal of the university as 'a refuge from the censor'. After all, a less libertarian policy might have undermined his own conflicted position as an anti-war campaigner working in a laboratory funded by the US military.

None of this makes Chomsky's opposition to US militarism any less genuine or admirable. If anything, his dissidence was all the more remarkable given the context in which it was expressed. My aim here is simply to highlight how conflicted Chomsky must have felt, being a committed anti-militarist in an institution so closely associated with a war machine that was inflicting so much death and misery across the globe.

Chomsky's moral qualms were particularly apparent at the height of the war in Vietnam when, in October 1968, Chomsky told The New York Times that he felt 'guilty most of the time'.[21] One way to assuage this guilt might have been to resign and, as it happens, around the time that the New York Review of Books published 'The Responsibility of Intellectuals' in its February 1967 edition, Chomsky was thinking of doing just that. The March edition of the Review included a letter from Chomsky saying he had 'given a good bit of thought to ... resigning from MIT, which is, more than any other university associated with the activities of the Department of "Defense"'. However, Chomsky soon had second thoughts which he expressed in a follow-up letter published in the April edition. Whereas in his original letter he had complained that MIT's 'involvement in the war effort is tragic and indefensible', in the follow-up he claimed - in a surprising about-turn - that 'MIT as an institution has no involvement in the war effort. Individuals at MIT, as elsewhere, have direct involvement and that is what I had in mind.'[22]

So it appears that, despite his sincere and often courageous opposition to the US military, Chomsky felt a simultaneous pull in the opposite direction, prompting him to tone down criticisms of MIT in order to protect his ability to continue with the job he loved. My own view is that the intensity of Chomsky's anti-militarist dissidence can be explained in part by his need to square his continued MIT employment with a political conscience that refused to lie down.

I have no space in a short article to explain how such moral dilemmas influenced not only Chomsky's political work but also his linguistics. Suffice it to say that Chomsky was hired to work at MIT by Jerome Wiesner, a military scientist who, in the 1950s, was arguing 'fervently for developing and manufacturing ballistic missiles.' Wiesner was an adviser both to the CIA and to President Eisenhower and it is hard to think of anyone in US academia who was more deeply involved in both the technology and the decision making of nuclear war than he was.[23]

Wiesner initially employed Chomsky because, as he said, '[We wanted to] use computers to do automatic translation, so we hired Noam Chomsky and Yehoshua Bar-Hillel to work on it.' In this Cold War period, the US military were investing millions of dollars in linguistic research not only to automatically translate Eastern bloc documents but also to enhance their computer systems of 'command and control' both for nuclear war and, later, for the war in Vietnam.[24]

Chomsky, therefore, found himself from the very beginning of his career working in a largely conservative institutional milieu among colleagues more or less happy to conduct advanced weapons research. Given his own political commitments, on the other hand, he needed to ensure that his own particular contribution would not assist the military in any way. He solved this problem by extricating linguistics from practicalities altogether. Language, under Chomsky's novel definition, became non-communicative, non-social and, in effect, little more than a Platonic abstraction. In short, for fifty years, much of linguistics was driven into an academic dead-end from which it has taken decades to emerge. But all that is another story ....[25]

Chris Knight is author of Decoding Chomsky: Science and revolutionary politics (Yale University Press, 2016).



NOTES

1. R.Barsky, Noam Chomsky, a life of dissent, p122, 131.

2. G.D.White, Campus Inc., p445.

3. M.Albert, Remembering Tomorrow, p97-99; C.P.Otero, Noam Chomsky: Language and Politics (2004), p216. Any university that restricted its research to the development of military technology would soon run out of new ideas so MIT does a lot of pure science, including linguistics. But, as Michael Albert says, 'War blood ran through MIT's veins. It flooded the research facilities and seeped even into the classrooms.' In the late 1960s, some 500 students worked in MIT's military laboratories. Most of these students worked in the Instrumentation Laboratories that were part of the engineering school and which, in Chomsky's words, were only 'two inches off campus' with people going 'between them all the time'. MIT also did military research 'on campus' for both the Navy and the CIA. Albert p99; MIT Review Panel on Special Laboratories, Final Report, p59-69; Works And Days 51-4: Vol. 26/27, 2008-09, p533; <em>MIT Bulletin
, Report of the President, 1969, p237-40, 255; The Tech, 31/10/69, p1, 10.

4. 'Why Smash MIT?', in I.Wallerstein, The University Crisis Reader, Vol.2 p240-3; Albert p113-4.

5. Stephen Shalom, New Politics, Vol.6(3).

6. MIT Review Panel on Special Laboratories, Final Report, p37-8; Albert p98.

7. J.Segel, Recountings; Conversations with MIT mathematicians, p206-7; N.Chomsky, 'MIT 150 Infinite History Project'.

8. The Tech, 14/12/71, p8 and The Tech, 4/8/72, p1.

9. www.eroseffect.com/articles/holdingthecenter.pdf</a>; Time, 21/11/69 p68 and 15/3/71 p43; H.Johnson, Holding the Center, p202-3.

10. N.Chomsky, Chomsky on Democracy and Education, p311; Albert p9, 16. Chomsky's discomfort with any kind of illegal or confrontational action at MIT was shown again, in 2011, when the university cooperated with the prosecution of Aaron Swartz for the 'crime' of downloading Jstor journals from MIT's library. Although Jstor agreed to a deal whereby Swartz would avoid prison, MIT apparently rejected this deal and the threat of decades in prison helped drive Swartz to suicide. When asked about this tragic event, Chomsky did say that MIT should have acted differently. However he also implied that Swartz should have been prosecuted - if only for a 'misdemeanour' - and he then said: 'If you take Jstor and make it public, Jstor goes out of business ... [and] nobody has access to the journals. ... You can't just liberate things, pretending you don't exist in the [capitalist] world.''Noam Chomsky at the British Library' (video, at 1hr.30mins.); The Boston Globe, 15/1/13; The Atlantic, 30/7/13. See also: 'Passing Noam on My Way Out, Part 2: Chomsky vs. Aaron Swartz'.

11. The Tech, 14/12/71, p8; N.Chomsky, Class Warfare (1999), p137; White p445-6; R.Chepesiuk, Sixties Radicals, p145; S.Diamond, Compromised Campus, p284-5.

12. D.Milne, America's Rasputin; The Tech, 11/4/69, p1, 8.

13. Barsky p141; >'TV debate between Noam Chomsky and William Buckley'.

14. Chomsky, Class Warfare, p135-6.

15. The Tech, 7/3/89</a>, p2, 16 and 27/5/88, p2, 11; The Thistle, Vol.9 No.7.

16. The Thistle, Vol.9 No.7; The New York Times, 10/12/95.

17. <em>MIT Bulletin
, Report of the President, 1969, p3.

18. J.Wiesner, Jerry Wiesner, p582; Johnson p189-90; Barsky p141.

19. N.Chomsky, Understanding Power (2013), p10.

20. The Tech, 22/4/69, p1.

21. The New York Times, 27/10/68.

22. New York Review of Books, 25 March and April 1967.

23. The New York Times, 23/10/94; D.Welzenbach, 'Science and Technology: Origins of a Directorate', p16, 21; L.Smullin, 'Jerome Bert Wiesner, 1915-1994, A Biographical Memoir', p 1, 7-10, 20; D.L.Snead, Eisenhower and the Gaither Report, p189; M.Rosenberg, Plans and Proposals for the Ballistic Missile Initial Operation Capability Progam, piii-iv, 6-11, 17-22.

24. S.Garfinkel, 'Building 20, A Survey'; J.Nielsen, 'Private Knowledge, Public Tensions: Theory commitment in postwar American linguistics', p 39-42, 194, 338-42; F.J.Newmeyer, The Politics of Linguistics, p84-6. Wiesner went on to say, 'It didn't take us long to realize that we didn't know much about language. So we went from automatic translation to fundamental studies about the nature of language.' Wiesner later became critical of US policy on both nuclear weapons and on the Vietnam war but this did not stop him from continuing to oversee MIT's huge military research program which he, naturally, justified on the grounds of 'academic freedom'. The Tech, 28/4/72, p5; L.Kampf, 'The University in American Power' (audio, at 48mins.).

25. Another academic dead-end, in the form of postmodernism, befell cultural theory and it is notable that MIT also played a formative role in that intellectual disaster. See: B.Geoghegan, 'From Information Theory to French Theory', Critical Inquiry 38 (2011).

The Government's new definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ is an attempt to criminalise support for the Palestinians and opposition to Zionism

$
0
0

Jeremy Corbyn’s acceptance of this Tory definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ is shameful and must be reversed

Tzipi Hotoveli is a virulent racist who believes it is a crime for Jews and non-Jews to have sexual relations or marry.  This is what the Nazis also believed in yet Theresa May is happy to be photographed with her. 
On Monday the Guardian reported that the government was going to ‘formally adopt a definition of what constitutes antisemitism, which includes over-sweeping condemnation of Israel.’  According to Theresa May this would ‘help efforts to combat hate crime against Jews.’

Britain would ‘become one of the first countries to use this definition of antisemitism’ and the intention was to “ensure that culprits will not be able to get away with being antisemitic because the term is ill-defined, or because different organisations or bodies have different interpretations of it”.
Theresa May is happy to keep company with Tzipi Hotoveli, Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister, a religious nut-case
The idea that because there is no agreed definition of anti-Semitism that people will get away with arson at a synagogue or attacking someone who is Jewish is ludicrous.  Jewish self defence against the pogromists in Czarist Russia did not depend on an academic definition of anti-Semitism!

Sajid Javid, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government issued a statement saying it was ‘legally non-binding’and should be seen in the light of the Home Affairs Select Committee Report on anti-Semitism, which recommended that ‘For the purposes of criminal or disciplinary investigations, use of the words ‘Zionist’ or ‘Zio’ in an accusatory or abusive context should be considered inflammatory and potentially antisemitic.’  In other words, if you equate Zionism and racism in the same breath you could be guilty of a ‘hate crime’. 
Tzipi Hotoveli, Theresa May's friend invites Lehava, a fascist group into the Knesset and  secures them a grant to prevent mixed marriages
Although this definition will be ‘legally non-binding’ it will be part of the operational policy of the Police and other statutory bodies and it will begin to take on the force of a legally accepted definition.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions except that neither May nor Javid have any good intentions.  
Having being attacked himself as 'anti-Semitic' it is baffling that Corbyn refuses to call out May's abuse of anti-Semitism as a weapon against the Palestinians
Corbyn retreats again from facing up to the Zionists

What is staggering, stupefying, unbelievable is that Jeremy Corbyn simply accepted this new definition without demur.  It is as if he has learnt no lessons from the past year.  Simply repeating 'I condemn anti-Semitism' just encourages those who accuse anti-Zionists of 'anti-Semitism'.  Corbyn should know since he himself has been called it enough.

If Corbyn were to combined condemnations of anti-Semitism with a condemnation of those who make bogus accusations of anti-Semitism against supporters of the Palestinians then he would call the bluff of those who will never be satisfied by his protestations.

If Corbyn or his team thinks he is going to avoid accusations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party by signing up to this bogus definition of anti-Semitism then he should think again.  Theresa May used the introduction of this new, Orwellian definition of anti-Semitism to attackCorbyn for the increase in anti-Semitism:
“It is disgusting that these twisted views are being found in British politics,” May said, adding that “of course, I am talking mainly about the Labour Party and their hard-left allies.” 
What was Corbyn’s feeble response?  ‘A spokesman for Corbyn said in a statement that he fully supports the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.’ 

If Corbyn had called out May for her opportunism, if he had attacked her for using the issue of anti-Semitism for narrow party political purposes and for a defence of the indefensible racist Zionist policies of Israel, Corbyn would have gained respect rather than contempt.  This feebleness by Corbyn just makes a rod for his own back.  It encourages May and the Right to continue to attack him rather than putting them on the defensive.  It bodes ill for other areas of policy that Labour is ambiguous on.

What is this definition?  Well the first part of it reads:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The Government's new definition of anti-Semitism is based on this old, discredited 'working definition' that the EU junked
This is a rewording of the discredited EUMC’s Working Definition on Anti-Semitism which was junked by its successor body, the Fundamental Rights Agency, in 2013.  EU body disowns antisemitism ‘definition’ endorsed at NUS conference  

EUMC is the Undead of Anti-Racism

The EUMC was junked because it had become embroiled in controversy.  Draw up by an openly Zionist group, the American Jewish Committee, it consciously sought, not to combat anti-Semitism, but to redefine opposition and hostility to Israel, the ‘Jewish’ state as anti-Semitism.  The EUMC Working Definition is like Dracula and the Undead.  However many times a stake is driven through its heart, it seems to revive, because US imperialism and its satraps have a vested stake in it.  Anti-Semitism is the 'anti-racism' that justifies imperialist barbarism.  That is why those who most oppose the 'new' anti-Semitism, like the Zionist Organisation of America, AIPAC and our own Board of Deputies, President, Jonathan Arkush, are so effusive in welcoming Donald Trump and his Breibart allies into government in the USA.

The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism followed on naturally from what was called the ‘new anti-Semitism’.  Ideologues such as the former Canadian Minister Irwin Cotler believed that Israel was the ‘new Jew’ and that opposition to Israel had nothing to do with the fact that it was a barbaric, racist state, the world’s only settler colonial and Apartheid state.    

The argument that Israel is attacked because it is a ‘Jewish’ state is fundamentally flawed.  It rests on the assumption that if Israel had been a Christian state which had occupied the West Bank and introduced different set of laws for the occupied Palestinians and for the Christian settlers, then no one would have objected!  If a Christian Israel had demolished ‘unrecognised’ Arab villages like Umm al-Hiran, a Bedouin village in the Negev, in order to make way for a Christian settler town, then no one would have objected.  If two weeks ago born-again Christian Prime Minister of Israel , Benjamin Netanyahu, had blamed Israeli Arab terrorists for the fires that had spread out of control in Israel and threatened to revoke the citizenship of all those found guilty, then no one would have objected to this racist pillorying of a minority community.

Even the introduction to the IHRA definition is unsatisfactory.  There is no need to include discrimination against a non-Jew in a definition of anti-Jewish hatred.  What is called ‘associative’ discrimination, which is when someone wrongly believes that a person is Jewish and therefore discriminates against them, may be appropriate in employment law but it serves no purpose in a definition which is aimed at defining what anti-Semitism is.  For example in Israel a year ago, an Israeli Jew stabbed another Jew mistakenly believing him to be an Arab!  That is associative discrimination.

The inclusion of Jewish property is also unnecessary since hostility to Jews will cover this e.g. an arson attack at a synagogue.  But the destruction of property belong to a Jew will not always be anti-Semitic, it depends on the circumstances.  The inclusion of Jewish communal organisations is even more absurd.  The Board of Deputies for example should be attacked for its support for the attack on Gaza.  Yet a definition such as this is likely to catch in the net quite genuine political criticism. 
Brian Klug is a Philosophy lecturer at Oxford University and an expert in anti-Semitism as well as being Jewish.  His article in Patterns of Prejudice [Vol. 37, No. 2, June 2003, Routledge The collective Jew: Israel and the new antisemitism is well worth reading.  In it he defines anti-Semitism much more simply.  It is ‘a form of hostility towards Jews as Jews, in which Jews are perceived as something other than what they are.’ The ‘Jew’ towards whom the antisemite feels hostile is not a real Jew at all. In short anti-Semitism can be defined as ‘hostility to Jews’.

Brian Klug goes on to argue, quite persuasively, that anti-Semitism is not just hostility to Jews but also envy and even admiration of them, sometimes called philo-semitism.  We saw an example of this in the summer when Owen Smith MP, the hapless anti-Corbyn candidate was asked what he admired most about the Jews and he said their ‘entrepreneurial skills’ which is a classic anti-Semitic trope! 

But if your intention is not to define anti-Semitism but to redefine it in order to outlaw and criminalise criticism of Israel and to provide an ideological comfort blanket for British foreign policy in the Middle East, then it makes sense to dress it up as opposition to racism.  There were those who said our opposition to the Iraq war was a form of anti-Americanism and that opposition to Apartheid in South Africa was anti-White prejudice.  These arguments never got very far because they were so transparent.

In the case of Israel however, there are much more powerful and determined forces seeking to outlaw any criticism of Israel that challenges the state itself.  Yes you can criticise individual policies but it is verboten to criticise the Jewish state itself.

The IHRA definition does this by saying that ‘Contemporary examples of anti-Semitism... could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to’ the examples listed below. 

1.             Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

But this is what Zionism does all the time.  It would be amusing if it were not so serious.  Ha’aretz, a liberal Israeli paper reported in an article:  Israel Asks U.S. Jews, Israelis: Where Do Your Loyalties Lie? that:

it's strange that representatives of Israel’s immigrant absorption and foreign ministries have just distributed a questionnaire to tens of thousands of Israelis living in the United States and Jewish Americans, which includes problematic questions on exactly these issues, and asks them to indicate where their allegiance would lie in the case of a crisis between the two countries....

One question in the survey asked specifically which side the respondents would support publicly if there was a crisis in the relationship between the United States and Israel.

Israel proclaims itself as a Jewish state, a state of the Jewish people throughout the world not just Israeli Jews.  The Jerusalem Program of the World Zionist Organisation speaks of ‘the centrality of the State of Israel and Jerusalem, its capital, in the life of the nation.’ The Jewish nation means all Jews wherever they live.  Dual loyalty is part of the Zionist’s DNA. 

2.             ‘Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination (e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour).’

This is a non-sequitur.  Saying that the existence of the State of Israel is racist is not a consequence of a denial of Jewish self-determination.  The argument that Jews or anyone has a ‘right of self-determination’ is founded on the idea that they are a nation.  It used to be the anti-Semites who claimed that Jews were a nation.  When Theodor Herzl, founder of Political Zionism set out to establish a Jewish state, he freely conceded that:

It might more reasonably be objected that I am giving a handle to Anti-Semitism when I saw we are a people – one people; that I am hindering the assimilation of Jews where it is about to be consummated and endangering it where it is an accomplished fact.’ [The Jewish State, H Pordes, London 1972, p. 17]

3.             ‘Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.’ 

This of course assumes that Israel is a ‘democratic nation’.  The definition therefore depends on whether you accept Israel is a democratic state, which is a politically contentious issue.  It is a strange basis on which to rest a neutral definition of anti-Semitism.  In any case the definition is flawed in itself, since it refers to ‘any other democratic nation’.  There is no Israeli nationality.  In the case of Tamarin v State of Israel 1972 and Uzzi Ornan v State of Israel 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court made it crystal clear that there was noIsraeli nation.  Judge Agranat ruled in the former that:

‘the desire to create an Israeli nation separate from the Jewish nation is not a legitimate aspiration. A division of the population into Israeli and Jewish nations would … negate the foundation on which the State of Israel was established.... There is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish People. The Jewish People is composed not only of those residing in Israel but also of Diaspora Jewry.” [see O. Kraines, The Impossible Dilemma: Who Is a Jew in the State of Israel? (Bloch Publishing Company, 1976), p.67.  Supreme Court Rejects Citizens' Request to Change Nationality From 'Jewish' to 'Israeli', Revital Hovel , Ha’aretz 3.10.13]. 

This is the root of Zionist and Israeli racism.  Israel is not a state of its own citizens but a state of its Jewish citizens and Jewish nationality is not confined to Israeli Jews.

4.              ‘Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.’ 

This is the most ludicrous and hypocritical of all.  There are numerous examples of where Israelis have identified with the Nazis when engaging in the repression of the Palestinians. 

For example Israeli soldiers called some of their companions 'Our Nazis' meaning those who like to beat. [Hotam, 24 June 1988, Sara Ben Hillef] They identified themselves with the Nazis and the Palestinians with their Jewish victims: [Israeli Soldiers Called Themselves the Mengele Unit’], Al Hamishmar 24 July 1989, Ha'aretz27thJuly 1989 and 24thJuly 1989 and Hadashot 25 July 1989].Ha’aretz described how groups of soldiers who “were called the Auschwitz 10” and “Demjanjuks’ had plotted to kill Arabs.”[Ha’aretz, 1.10.10. The Mengele Squad, see also Tom Segev, The Seventh Million, p. 408, Hill & Wang].

Many comparisons of Israel’s actions to the Nazis between 1933 and 1939 are extremely valid and have nothing to do with anti-Semitism.  Is it seriously claimed that when Jewish mobs in Tel Aviv chant ‘death to the Arabs’ that this is not similar to what took place in the Europe of the 1930’s?  Or when the Chief Rabbi of Safed, Shmuel Eliyahu, supported by dozens of Jewish rabbis, forbidsthe renting of Jewish flats and apartments to Arabs that this doesn’t smack of the Third  Reich?

Labour Prime Minister David Ben Gurion responded to a call for his resignation by an Israeli professor by asking ‘Is he not aware that the Mufti [a leader of the Palestinian before the war] was a counselor and a partner in the extermination schemes and that in all  Arab countries the popularity of Hitler rose during World War II?’ [Israel’s Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood, Idith Zertal, p.101 CUP, 2011].  Netanyahu accusedthe Palestinians of having been partners with the Nazis in the Final Solution.  These claims were false but the Palestinians and Arab leaders have repeatedly been called ‘new Nazis’ by Zionist leaders.

5.             ‘Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.’ 

I agree with this but it is Zionist organisations in Britain which regularly claim that Israel’s actions are undertaken on behalf of all Jews.   Running through this definition is an institutionalized form of ruling class hypocrisy. See for example The Board of Deputies of British Jews is condoning genocide in Gaza. They don’t represent us.

The key question is why the focus on anti-Semitism and not Islamaphobia and anti-Muslim racism?  In 2015 Tell Mama reported that  Incidents of anti-Muslim abuse were up by 326% in 2015.  They spoke of an ‘exponential growth’ in anti-Muslim hate crimes.  Even the Daily ‘Hate’ Mail recognised that anti-Muslim hate crimes have doubled in London between 2013 and 2015.

Yet we don’t have a new definition of Islamophobia nor any statements of concern shown by Theresa May or lapdog Sajid Javid at the real incidents of anti-Muslim racism which have resulted in death, serious injury, firebombing of mosques etc.

The level of anti-Semitic incidents is trivial and mainly confined either to social media or verbal attacks on Jews because of the actions of Israel.  In Antisemitic Incidents Report 2015, the Community Security Trust’s recorded the third-highest annual total, 924, of antisemitic hate incidents in the UK during 2015. This was a 22 per cent fall from 2014’s record high of 1,179 incidents, which had been caused by antisemitic reactions to the conflict in Israel and Gaza during July 2014 (316 incidents) and August 2014 (228 incidents).  The CST noted that ‘the second-highest annual total of 931 incidents came in 2009, also a year when there was a major conflict in Israel and Gaza.’    

The 924 antisemitic incidents in 2015 included 86 violent antisemitic assaults, an increase of 6 per cent from 2014 and the highest number of violent incidents since 2011. This is the only antisemitic incident category that increased in 2015. Four of these violent incidents were classified by CST as ‘Extreme Violence’, meaning they involved potential grievous bodily harm (GBH) or threat to life.
In the Antisemitic Incident Report January-June 2016 it was stated that in the first six months of 2016 there was an 11 per cent increase in antisemitic hate incidents, 557, compared to the same period in 2015, 500.  However if one looks beyond the bare statistics one finds that there were 41 violent antisemitic assaults in the first six months of 2016, ‘a 13 per cent fall from the 47 violent assaults recorded in the first half of 2015’ and none of these 41 ‘were serious enough to be classified as Extreme Violence.’  In other words the 2016 anti-Semitic incidents were a distinct improvement on 2015 yet the government, like the Home Affairs Select Committee has used an alleged increase in anti-Semitic incidents in order to justify adopting a bogus new definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ which conflates anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
If we want to get some form of perspective for the approximately 1,000 anti-Semitic incidents, most of them either verbal abuse or abuse on social media, then one can look at the Report‘Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2015/16’ by Hannah Corcoran and Kevin Smith, in which it states that the number of hate crime offences in 2015/16 were:
·        49,419 (79%) race hate crimes;
·        ·7,194 (12%) sexual orientation hate crimes;
·        · 4,400 (7%) religious hate crimes;
·        3,629 (6%) disability hate crimes; and
·        858 (1%) transgender hate crimes.

In other words, not only are anti-Semitic hate crimes less serious than other hate crimes, but they constitute at most 2% of the total yet they command 90%+ of the political attention that hate crimes receive.  The only explanation for this is that anti-Semitism is being used to justify British foreign policy that is related to Israel.

Tony Greenstein 

Guardian Publishes Letter Criticising New Bogus Definition of anti-Semitism

$
0
0
Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism Say 63 Signatories to Guardian Letter


The Guardian has publisheda letter signed by 63 people, about half of whom are Jewish,  condemning the ‘new’ IHRA definition of anti-Semitism [see The Government's new definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ is an attempt to criminalise support for the Palestinians and opposition to Zionism]. This was sent in response to an article that appeared on Monday 12th December UK adopts antisemitism definition to combat hate crime against Jews on the new definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ that the Government has decided to adopt. 

It doesn’t take a genius to know what anti-Semitism or hatred of Jews is.  It really is simple:  ‘hatred of Jews as Jews’ and it is best expressed as hatred, violent and discrimination against Jews.  That is it in a nutshell.

Of course you could have another sentence to elaborate that this includes a belief in the international Jewish conspiracy theory, which is a relatively unique feature of anti-Semitism and associated stereotypes (which are not unique to Jews). 

In short you can define anti-Semitism quite satisfactorily in under 50 words.  By my calculation the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is 413 words!  In other words a short essay. 

Why the need for so many words?  Because that is how many words it takes in order to try and conflate and confuse anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism.  In order to try and pretend that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are really the same, a sentiment the British National Party and National Front will really concur with, it takes all these extra words in order to produce a multitude of spurious examples.!

But for most people, anti-Semitism will be someone shouting ‘dirty Jew’ ‘kike’ and ‘Jew boy’ or perhaps the Zionist favourites of ‘self-hater’ and ‘kapos’.  A boot or a fist and a reference to circumcision will suffice in most circumstances.

Most people will also understand that criticism of Israel, just like criticism of all states, for their treatment of the Palestinians is not anti-Semitic and they will also understand that a criticism of the racist ideology, Zionism, that underpins Israel as the world’s only apartheid state is not anti-Semitic.

Instead we have a parade of reactionaries and racists, including those who have praised and justified real anti-Semites like Sir Eric Pickles and the Jewish Chronicle’s own Stephen Pollard going to town on the new definition of ‘anti-Semitism’.
Tony Greenstein


False Zionist Allegations of Anti-Semitism and the Boy Cried Wolf Syndrome

$
0
0

How the Chuka Ummuna and fellow Tories on the Home Affairs Select Committee used ‘anti-Semitism’ as a weapon against Corbyn and NUS President, Malia Bouathia.

I confess that despite being an avid letter writer to the press, I didn’t spot this letter in the Independent two months ago!  The reason is that the Indie is no longer printed (a great shame!) but also that it has a crap search facility.  I’ve probably had 50 letters or so in the Indie over the years but I can find only one on its internal search facility.  I used Google to try and see if they had published another letter and came across this one just by chance!

However it is highly relevant at the present time as it was the House of Commons’s Select Committee on Home Affairs which first gave legs to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism, which Theresa May and the clueless Corbyn has now endorsed.
Tony Greenstein



A Constitutional Coup? Donald Trump and the Unthinkable

$
0
0

Below is an article that was circulated by my friend and comrade Moshe Machover.  I don’t agree with all of it by any means and suspect it would be rather difficult to get the electoral college to vote against at Trump Presidency.  Nonetheless there is no doubt that people in the United State Establishment are thinking the unthinkable.

Trump and his anti-Semitic adviser Steve Bannon from the alt-Right Breibart News
The CIA has been telling it that the Russians intervened to secure Trump’s election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee’s computers.  You may remember that the appalling Deborah Wasserman-Schultz, the Zionist Chair of the DNC was busy secretly fixing the Democrat’s Primary Elections when they were supposed to be the referee holding the ring.  When it came out they cried that the Russians were responsible.  If the article below is correct, then it could have been anyone.
Unfortunately Bernie Sanders didn’t take the opportunity to say that as the elections had been fixed, he would have been standing as an Independent.  What is interesting is the current spat between Trump and the CIA and the siding of much of the Republican establishment, McCain and others, with the CIA and Democrat senators like Charles Schumer.
Sanders bottled the chance to break the Democratic establishment
There is no doubt that large chunks of the US establishment are extremely unhappy at Trump’s election and given that Clinton won the popular vote by some 2.8 million votes, it wouldn’t be a surprise if there was a constitutional challenge to the legitimacy of a Trump Presidency.  I will say no more.

Tony Greenstein
Jewish demonstration against Steve Bannon being invited to address the far-Right Zionist Organisation of America luncheon

By Moon Of Alabama
  • There is an "elite" coup attempt underway against the U.S. President-elect Trump.
  • The coup is orchestrated by the camp of Hillary Clinton in association with the CIA and neoconservative powers in Congress.
  • The plan is to use the CIA's "Russia made Trump the winner" nonsense to swing the electoral college against him. The case would then be bumped up to Congress. Major neocon and warmonger parts of the Republicans could then move the presidency to Clinton or, if that fails, put Trump's vice president-elect Mike Pence onto the throne. The regular bipartisan war business, which a Trump presidency threatens to interrupt, could continue.
  • Should the coup succeed violent insurrections in the United States are likely to ensue with unpredictable consequences.
The above theses are thus far only a general outlay. No general plan has been published. The scheme though is pretty obvious by now. However, the following contains some speculation.
The priority aim is to deny Trump the presidency. He is too independent and a danger for several power centers within the ruling U.S. power circles. The selection of Tillerson as new Secretary of State only reinforces this (Prediction: Bolton will not get the Deputy position.)  Tillerson is for profitable stability, not for regime change adventures. The institutional Trump enemies are:
Shallow & insubstantial - Clinton lost because of her vacuous establishment politics not because of the Russians
  • The CIA which has become the Central Assassination Agency under the Bush and Obama administrations. Huge parts of its budgets depend on a continuation of the war on Syria and the drone assassination campaigns in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. Trump's more isolationist policies would likely end these campaigns and the related budget troughs.
  • The weapons industry which could lose its enormous sales to its major customers in the Persian Gulf should a President Trump reduce U.S. interference in the Middle East and elsewhere.
  • The neoconservatives and Likudniks who want the U.S. as Israel's weapon to strong arm the Middle East to the Zionists' benefit.
  • The general war hawks, military and "humanitarian interventionists" to whom any reduction of the U.S. role as primary power in the world is anathema to their believes.
Israel's wild West Bank settlers celebrate Trump's election
The current CIA director Brennan, a leading figure of the CIA torture program and Obama consigliere, is in the Clinton/anti-Trump camp. The former CIA heads Hayden and Panetta are public Clinton supporters as is torturer king and former CIA deputy director Michael Morell.

It is thereby no wonder that the CIA is leading the anti-Russian campaign. Its task now is to implant the idea in the U.S. public that Russian intervention skewed the U.S. election towards Trump. The purpose is the delegitimization of the Trump victory in the eyes of the media and public but even more so in the eyes of the electors within the electoral college.

The CIA is heavily supported by the same mainstream media that pushed for Clinton during the election. (These are, not by chance, also the same media that pushed the CIA's earlier "Saddam's Weapon of Mass Destruction" campaign.)

The Democratic partisan and Harvard law Professor Lawrence Lessig is pushing the electors and offers them free personal legal support. He says the electoral college vote is now close.

Could 37 Republican electors, put there by voters in their states to vote for Trump, be convinced to move from electing Trump to abstain or vote for someone else, Trumpwould miss the needed 270 votes. The whole election of the president would then by kicked up to the House of Representatives.

Should the electors vote for Trump there is still a possibility that members of the House and the Senate could officially question that vote and cause delays or Congressional probes and legal challenges.

Here are the detailed general proceedings and specifics for the electoral college as explained by the National Archives and Records Administration.

Though neoconservatives have no genuine support within the U.S. electorate they have a strong hold on significant parts of Congress and the relevant MSM commentariat. Many leading neoconservatives and war hawks like Robert Kagan, Max Boot and the Washington Post editorial board came out for Clinton during the campaign. Clinton even ran campaign advertisements with Republican Congress luminaries like Lindsay Graham, Sasse and Flake.

The House and the Senate majority may well be on the anti-Trump side if push comes to shove. But whatever the outcome there surely would be intense legal challenges and I expect the case to go up to the Supreme Court.

As an alternative to legal shenanigans Trump's inauguration could be delayed by Obama's order to the intelligence community to create a formal review of Russian intervention in the election by January 20. That is not by chance the official inauguration date! The selling point:

By ordering a “full review” of allegations of Russian into the 2016 election process, President Barack Obama is essentially asking the IC to make an analytical judgment about the validity of the election that will place Trump in the Oval Office.
A "compromise" in Congress could be to wait for the Intelligence Community's analysis and then discuss it before certifying Trump as president. That would end up with no result as National Intelligence Estimates are notoriously vague. Meanwhile the Vice President-elect would sit in as acting President:

If the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment states that the Vice President-elect will act as President until such a time as a President has qualified.
If the congressional or legal process around the Trump election gets delayed, that may be a state for a long time. The ruling Washington blob or borg could well live with an acting President Pence while Trump would have no official say in any government business. (Could Clinton then become acting VP or qualify as the new president?)
The media intervention on the anti-Trump side is heavy.

But first keep in mind that there is no public evidence, ZERO, that Russia indeed had anything to do with the DNC or Podesta or other leaks and the publication of emails by various outlets like Wikileaks.

Craig Murray assures us that he knows that these were not hacks but insider leaks and that he knows the leaker(s). Indeed he now tells us that the emails were handed over to him during a visits in Washington. Former intelligence officials including the technically very knowledgeable former NSA official William Binney concur that the hacking story is false.

All we have heard or seen so far are hearsay rumors and allegations of evidence. To me as experienced IT professional the case is technically laughable just as Murray explains here. If the claimed hacks occurred at all the alleged methods were so common that anybody could have done these. There is not even one claimed fact yet that is technically halfway acceptable as evidence that "Russia did it".

But still the NYT runs a big package of pieces telling us that "Russia did it" based on the non-factual CIA rumors and unprofessional IT assertions by Crowdstrike, the self-promoting IT security company the DNC hired and paid. Before that the Washington Post published major claims of Russian interference by anonymous officials. NBC News now tops that with "intelligence officials" saying Putin himself ran the hacking campaign. Authors of the story are the long time insider hacks Bill Arkin and Ken Dilanian known for clearing his stories with the CIA before publishing. The next story will tells us that Vladimir Valdimirovich himself was punching the keyboard.
Many news outlets and editorials follow these "leads".

Part of the scheme the Clinton campaign has worked out was explained by a former opposition research consultant to the Democratic National Council, the Ukrainian-American Alexandra (aka Andrea) Chalupa, in this thread:

Andrea Chalupa ‏@AndreaChalupa Dec 11

1.) Electoral College meets Dec. 19. If Electors ignore #StateOfEmergency we're in, & Trump gets elected, we can stop him Jan. 6 in Congress

2.) If any objections to Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing, signed by at least 1 House member & 1 Senator

3.) If objections are presented, House & Senate withdraw to their chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law.
...
Editorials and op-eds in the major papers are pushing the scheme along. Just for example from a long list A.J. Dionne in the Washington Post:

The CIA’s finding that Russia actively intervened in our election to make Trump president is an excellent reason for the electors to consider whether they should exercise their independent power. At the very least, they should be briefed on what the CIA knows, and in particular on whether there is any evidence that Trump or his lieutenants were engaged with Russia during the campaign.

The New York Times editorial laments about Trump ridiculing the CIA fairy tales it promotes.

Many people who have voted for Trump would be disgusted and outraged if or when Trump will be denied his office. Many of them are armed and would protest. Violence is ensured should the coup succeed.

Trump selected four former generals to joins his cabinet and staff. Should the troubles escalate we might be roughly in for a scenario as laid out in the 1992 military paper: The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 (pdf) by Charles J. Dunlap.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Information Clearing House editorial policy.

Israeli Labour Party Leader Isaac Herzog Extends a Warm Welcome to Donald Trump

$
0
0

Jewish Labour Movement refuses to condemn leader of its Israeli sister party

Note the Contrast
What a contrast between the reaction of Jeremy Corbyn to the election of Donald Trump and that of Isaac Herzog, the leader of Israel's Labour Party.  Corbyn wrote that “Many in Britain and elsewhere will be understandably shocked by Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election, the rhetoric around it and what the election result means for the rest of the world, as well as America."and that it was 'an “unmistakable rejection” of the political establishment and an economic system that has delivered escalating inequality.'

Contrast this with the Isaac Herzog, the leader of the Israeli Labour Party:

“Warm congratulations to the president of the most powerful nation in the world: Donald J Trump!” Israeli Labour Party leader Isaac Herzog, wrote on his Facebook.' Herzog to Trump: Your win shows elites are thing of past



This poses a dilemma for the Jewish Labour Movement, which is the British wing of the ILP.  The JLM only recently brought over ILP members to the Labour Party conference.  The JLM likes to portray itself as the 'Jewish section' of the Labour Party, despite its exclusion of non-Zionist/anti-Zionist Jews.  It has even obtained a representative on the Party's Equalities sub-committee.

Almost 200 Jews, including members of the JLM (but not its Chair Jeremy Newmark) sent a letter criticising the statement by the President of the Board of Deputies, Jonathan Arkush welcoming Trump's election Board president defends congratulating Trump amid criticism.  Even the JLM's Director Ella Rose, a recent transfer from the Israeli Embassy, tweeted her criticism of the statement. However the JLM has maintained a stony silence about the welcome for Trump by Herzog.  

Indeed the JLM has said nothing at all about the wall to wall welcome in Israel for Trump's election. The only Zionist party not to have welcomed Trump's election is the tiny Meretz Party, which has 5 seats in the Knesset.

It is doubly ironic that Herzog should welcome Trump and his anti-Semitic Breitbart entourage given that it was not so long ago that he wrote to Jeremy Corbyn to say that he was '"appalled and outraged” that the Labour Party tolerated 'anti-Semitism' i.e. anti-Zionism in the British Labour Party.  Indeed he threatened to sever links between the ILP and the Labour Party.  Unfortunately he didn't follow up on his threat!

Isaac Herzog himself is no slouch when it comes to racism and bigotry.  Herzog recently declared that his nightmare was waking up to find that Israel had a Palestinian Prime Minister and 61 Palestinian Members of Israel’s Knesset (Parliament).  Who needs the Right when we have Isaac Herzog?  Herzog also recently declared that he wanted to dispel the false impression that the ILP were ‘Arab Lovers’ Herzog slammed for remark about ‘Arab lovers’ 

Bigotry runs right through the Israeli political system - every Government Minister is a Donald Trump
Imagine if someone in Britain had said that their nightmare was waking up to a Jewish Prime Minister in this country?  Or if people talked of ‘Jew lovers’.  Anti-fascists used to get accused by the neo-Nazi National Front of being ‘nigger lovers’.  Herzog's rhetoric however goes virtually unnoticed in a country where Prime Minister Netanyahu talks about Arabs outside Israel being ‘wild beastsNetanyahu plans fence around Israel to protect it from 'wild beasts'
Leading by example - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
When it comes to racism in Israel you are spoilt for choice.  The Deputy Defence Minister Eli Dahan talks about Arabs thus:   To me, they are like animals, they aren’t human.”

Eli Ben Dahan, who is evidently an expert when it comes to the racial hierarchy of souls, also told Ma'ariv that homosexual Jews were superior than gentiles — gay or straight.  “A Jew always has a much higher soul than a gentile, even if he is a homosexual,” he said.  New deputy defense minister called Palestinians ‘animals’
Deputy Defence Minister Eli Dahan is an expert in the racial hierarchy of souls
Herzog gushed that “Today American democracy chose … an American leader who showed the commentators and the skeptics that we are in a new era of change and replacing the old elitist regimes!” he said “You did the unthinkable, against all the odds, polls, research and the prophets of the old era. I’m convinced that the defense and financial alliance with our strongest and most powerful ally will continue with a vengeance under your presidency.”

Note the words ‘financial alliance’.  Even the best anti-Semites would be hard put to better that.  And why shouldn’t Herzog flatter Trump.  After all the Israeli Labour Party was the founding party of racism in Israel.  Their trade union, Histadrut barred Arabs from membership from 1920-1959 and even then put them into a separate Arab section, under the leadership of a Jew!

At every election the Labour Party warns Netanyahu of the consequences of not reaching a peace settlement based on the bantustanisation of the West Bank.  The Arabs will continue to multiply until the Jewish state is swamped.  Their policy with regard to the Palestinian Arabs is one of segregation. It is a party which would not have been out of place in the Deep South of America.  That is why they support reaching a ‘peace’ settlement.

Contrast this with Jeremy Corbyn’s principled statement that sexism and racism have no place in politics.  Yet the Jewish Labour Movement under Jeremy Newmark, which is formally affiliated to the World Labour Zionist Movement, an organisation in name only, and the settlement funding World Zionist Organisation, is a socialist society affiliated to the Labour Party and entitled to send delegates to Labour Party conference and constituency Labour Parties.  It even has a representative on the Labour Party’s Equalities sub-Committee!  Mind there is a weird kind of logic in having representatives of racist organisation on anti-racist committees.  It helps us to get to know them better!

Tony Greenstein

Israeli Soldier and National Hero Elor Azaria Goes on Trial For Executing Palestinian Lying Prostrate

$
0
0

I have already posted about Elor Azaria, the soldier who was named by Israel’s most popular free paper, Israel Hayom, as Israeli of the year. THIS IS Israel – Call to Kill All Arabs at Tel Aviv Rally in Support for Killer Soldier

 What did Elor do to earn this accolade?  In most countries it might be rescuing a group of people in danger of their life.  Going into a fire and rescuing a child or some such act of bravery.  Not in Israel.
Elor’s accolade was earned by murdering Abdel Fattah al-Sharifa, who was only a Palestinian, who had already been badly wounded in the settlers’ terrorist enclave in Hebron.  Abdel Fattah al-Sharif was already lying face down in the street as a Magen David ambulance tended to a soldier lightly wounded.  Thus Israel’s ambulance service ignored the first and basic rule of triage, to ascertain who is in most need of medical attention first.   This is practiced in all British hospital A&E’s as a queueing system might lead to someone badly injured or hurt dying.

Not in Israel though.  Arabs do not fit into a triage system where the priority is on the Jewish race.  In the occupied territories this is doubly so.  An Arab wounded by the security forces, is automatically deemed a ‘terrorist’ and receives attention last, if at all.

Our Elor, who is a supporter of the late neo-Nazi Rabbi Meir Kahane, was seriously disturbed by the wounded Palestinian.  Why is he allowed to live he was saying and he took a rifle and nonchalantly shot him in the head.   Normally this would go unpunished by the army.  Indeed it is in the rules on dealing with ‘terrorists’ (people who resist the occupation in normal language).  It is called ‘confirming the kill’. 

The only problem was that some annoying Palestinian, who was later threatened and severely harassed, had captured the scene on a camera kindly supplied by the Israeli civil rights group, Btselem, which is itself under attack for ‘supporting terrorism’.

The army therefore had to arrest Elor and the Minister of Defence, Moshe Yalon supported this.   So did Netanyahu until his far-right Minister of Education, Naftali Bennet started kicking up and condemning the attacks on Elor.  Soon a full scale public campaign was under way to make Elor a national hero.  A large demonstration was held in Tel Aviv under the banner ‘Kill them all’ (i.e. all the Arabs) and a lovely poster ‘My honour is my loyalty’ made up the occasion.  Probably the idiot who carried it was unaware that this was the slogan of the Nazi SS!

Now our Elor is coming up for trial.  My bet is that he won’t see gaol time and if, a big if, he is convicted of manslaughter he will soon have that downgraded to some minor offence.  Either way Elor will be free very soon at the very worst.

The article below seems to consist of a great deal of wishful thinking.

Tony Greenstein
Azaria’s conviction will end a totalitarian ideology

Sgt. Elor Azaria, surrounded by army friends 
This is one in a series of columns by Yakov Hirsch on Hasbara Culture, and its impact on discourse and politics in Israel and the U.S. You can see the other columns here.

In the beginning of January 2017, Israeli sergeant Elor Azaria is going to be found guilty for the execution of Abd al Fatah Al-Sharif lying prostate on the ground in Hebron last March 24. And the Israeli political reaction to that verdict will be transformative. It is then that the hasbara culture cultivated by Benjamin Netanyahu will at last be confronted by a sane Israel led by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

The discourse that will resound in Israel in defense of Azaria will be incoherent to anyone who is not an adherent of the hasbara culture that now permeates that society. Naftali Bennett, the education minister under Netanyahu, has already been saying that Azaria needs to be pardoned if convicted.
We have already heard from soldiers who say they will go “AWOL” or even desert should their fellow combatant be convicted of manslaughter charges by the military court.

Jeffrey Goldberg epitomizes Hasbara Culture (Photo: Riccardo S. Savi/Getty Images)
The saga of the Murdering Medic is so important because it has revealed the way that “hasbara” – or the Israeli tradition of spinning its actions to try and make them acceptable to the world – has so deeply affected the spinners themselves that hasbara has hardened into an Israeli construction of reality, so much so that the many participants in that reality no longer think it is necessary to even spin bad events.

Observers who think the Israel of 2016 is an Israel of Netanyahu “cowering before the settlers” are wrong in my opinion.

The real struggle in Israeli leadership is who can control a sacred ethnocentric discourse of Jewish persecution and innocence. That is what has shaped Israeli politics in recent years: the heavyweight battle between Netanyahu and Bennett over control of the reins of hasbara culture.

Let us recall the Israeli government reaction to the video of the killing when it came out last March. Here, after all, was irrefutable evidence of the IDF behaving as its worst critics around the world claim that it does. The whole scene in its hideous naked glory — with the indifferent Israeli soldier “bystanders” to the shooting, as well as the congratulatory hand shake for Azaria from his friend the settler leader Baruch Marzel at the end (as Larry Derfner revealed)—was a nightmare for the difficult business of hasbara.

The video gave the lie to the carefully cultivated image of the world’s most moral army.
We all braced ourselves for the Israeli effort to spin the video: if only to argue that it was an aberration from the IDF norms.

But that is not what happened. What happened is that high officials in the government said, we saw exactly what you saw in that video, and it is fine.

Let’s go back to the timeline. A couple of days after the killing, Amos Harel in Haaretz described it as a “coldblooded execution” and an inevitable one, but he anticipated official condemnation.
Scene of the murder
The chief of staff, who was once a brigade and division commander of soldiers in the territories, knows [that]… Animal-like behavior like that seen in Thursday’s incident in Hebron can quickly become the unwritten procedure for units in the field. That is the reason that the shooter was immediately arrested, an unusual move for the IDF these days, and the reason for the sharp public condemnations issued by [chief of staff Gadi] Eisenkot and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon…”
Meanwhile, we’ve seen no right-wing campaign in support of the shooter.”

Even Netanyahu was on board at this point. He said

“that the soldier’s conduct does not represent the army’s values and even insinuated that the soldier failed to act in accordance with the military’s open-fire rules.”

This story might very well have ended there were it not for hasbara culture. Azaria would have been a bad apple. Even the most moral army in the world has a bad apple or two!

But then Education Minister Bennett came into the picture. Three days after the killing, he began lecturing Netanyahu in the very way Netanyahu lectures human rights groups.

“This soldier was sent by the State of Israel to defend against terror during war,” he said before entering the [Cabinet] meeting. “That some of this country’s leadership has jumped to conclusions before the trial is a mistake and are dancing to the tune of B’Tselem…”

Once the Azaria incident got defined as a story of “us” vs our “enemies,” Netanyahu had nowhere to go except to agitate with Bennett. Because it is Netanyahu himself who has cultivated the world view that the Palestinian on the ground should be killed.

Netanyahu can’t be on the B’Tselem side of this fight!

It should be stressed what the environment is in Israel since the so called “knife intifada” started.
Naftali Bennett states that “terrorists must be killed, not freed”; Yair Lapid clarifies, “You have to shoot to kill anyone who pulls out a knife or a screwdriver”; Bezalel Smotrich cries, “A terrorist who sets out to murder Jews, whatever his age, must not return alive”; and Gilad Erdan declares, “Every terrorist must know he won’t survive the attack he is about to commit.”

Bennett best summed up the government line on Azaria:

“Talk of a murder charge against a combat soldier during a combat operation is a moral mistake that blurs the lines between good and evil. I expect this mistake to be mended.”

Netanyahu then reversed himself. He called the parents of the accused medic, and described Azaria as “one of our children.” He later compared his empathetic call to calling a parent of an IDF soldier fallen in combat.

In Netanyahu’s Israel, hasbara culture is the only game in town. You’re either on the side of hasbara culture and all that’s good in the world, or you’re on the side of the devil. Remember what hasbara culture ideas Netanyahu most champions. From his speech at the teens’ funeral in 2014:

“A deep and wide moral abyss separates us from our enemies. They sanctify death while we sanctify life. They sanctify cruelty while we sanctify compassion.”

That statement and Bennett’s statement of a moral mistake” in blaming Azaria is why I insist that we are dealing with hasbara culture.

Hasbara began as the need to make sense to outsiders, to spin reality. But these leaders are no longer concerned with that project: they will not convince unindoctrinated outsiders that Azaria doesn’t belong in prison with this type of talk. Any ordinary person seeing that video realizes that Elor Azaria does not represent “good” and his going to prison is not a “moral mistake.”

But for the indoctrinated these statements fall on fertile soil. Bennett is reflecting the Israeli experience of reality when he says that the idea of charging Azaria “blurs the lines between good and evil.” We are good, they are evil. Bennett is saying that the scene of the Azaria shooting of Abd al Fatah Al-Shari is “sacred.” It’s part of the us vs them, good vs bad, narrative that is at the heart of hasbara culture. Hasbara culture understands Jewish history as one long morality tale. It is the foundation of an extreme Jewish ethnocentric narrative, which in its telling, started over two millennia ago and runs through all of hasbara culture’s tendentious telling of Jewish history up to today.

We are going to be hearing a lot more of this kind of talk after the inevitable guilty verdict for Azaria in early January.

But we will also be hearing pushback from Israelis who understand how the rest of the world sees reality.

To understand the other side of this ideological battle, you must recall Gen. Yair Golan’s Holocaust memorial speech of last May, when, alarmed by the rising chorus of voices that excused Azaria’s conduct as the appropriate way to treat Palestinians, he warned that Nazi currents are alive in Israeli political culture today. The speech resulted in the sacking of Golan’s former boss, Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon, who had defended the speech to Netanyahu.

This duality is also what the whole circus surrounding the Amona settlement is about. Once Bennett agitates and defines the struggle on behalf of the Amona settlers as being the same as the sacred struggle in Jewish and Zionist history, Netanyahu becomes Bennett’s hostage.

Ideological moderation is no longer an option at this late date of Benjamin Netanyahu’s political career. His Manichean scorched earth holy wars against his “leftist” political and cultural enemies is Netanyahu’s signature use of toxic hasbara culture for his personal gain; for electoral success.
And Netanyahu’s big political problem these days is Bennett wanting to become the new overseer of hasbara culture. Netanyahu can never let that happen – or he is done.

This is not just about securing the support of the pro-settlement voters. It’s about securing the support of the entire political culture of Israeli society.

And Naftali Bennett is no ordinary right-wing politician. He has constantly been trying to wrest control of hasbara culture from Benjamin Netanyahu.  He knows that it is the key to Netanyahu’s success.

This also explains the state of the left in Israel today. The left in hasbara culture is on the side of “them” and the “bad” of Jewish history.

As a recent poll has shown, nearly half of Israelis think the left are “traitors.”

In short, there is no place for the “left” in the totalitarian ideology of hasbara culture.
Jeffrey Goldberg by Steve Voss, Bloomberg

It is one thing for Netanyahu and Bennett to drag Israeli politics into the narrow and confined space of hasbara culture. The state of Israel must work these things out for itself.

But as an American and a Jew, my concern is the fact that hasbara culture also dominates our discussions of the conflict.

That is the achievement of Jeffrey Goldberg and his followers, who are ready to use the Holocaust and anti-Semitism and other smears against any mainstream voice that is out of line.

Goldberg has said that Jill Stein is crazy for supporting Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. For the same alleged crime, going to a BDS rally, he has accused a Norwegian rock band of being Nazis.
What Netanyahu has done with hasbara culture in Israel Jeffrey Goldberg has done with it here: created a sacred discourse that no one in the mainstream can contradict. In fact, ever since Andrew Sullivan left the scene, no one has confronted hasbara culture directly here.

And therefore, the Elor Azaria case is a crisis for Goldberg, too. The video of the murdering medic set off a chain of events in Israel in which hasbara culture is NOW facing a serious confrontation. Leading figures have become dissidents, accusing Netanyahu and Bennett and others of fostering fascistic strains in Israeli society. This drama is only going to accelerate when as I believe, Azaria is convicted in January.

Goldberg has had almost nothing to say about Azaria. The reason is obvious. Azaria executing someone because the hasbara culture voice in his head told him to may not be a problem for Naftali Bennett and Israeli leaders, but it is a big Stop sign here. Azaria exposes Goldberg’s achievement: Because in the sacred and tribal socially-constructed reality Goldberg has created, all Palestinian resistance is motivated by hatred for Jews. That is why they attempt to stab soldiers.

But the video of the medic calmly killing an incapacitated Palestinian on the ground exposes what is really going on there. Haaretz’s Gideon Levy described the Israeli policy in the territories:

a policy – to kill, kill and kill. No taking prisoners, no arrest procedures, no rules of engagement. Every knife or scissors wielder, every stone or firebomb thrower and every car rammer – or anyone who is seen to resemble one – must die.

Jeffrey Goldberg has attacked Haaretz as a dissident publication, but his career ambitions do not allow him to say what he really thinks about the “plight” of the Israeli soldier while the world is looking at the Azaria video. Because what Elor Azaria thinks about Palestinian resistance is what Jeffrey Goldberg thinks about Palestinian resistance: It’s all about the Jews. Jeffrey Goldberg’s whole career has been one long tendentious effort to define opposition to Israel as opposition to Jews, as being motivated by a hatred of Jews. And that “social construction of reality” about Abd al Fatah Al-Sharif, which Elor Azaria experienced when he said “the terrorist must die” is what Jeffrey Goldberg has been preaching to the Jewish community and everyone else for the past twenty years.

But when even Israeli leaders have said that the case exposes fascism and Nazi currents in Israel, it is too dangerous for an ambitious “liberal” like Goldberg to say a word in Azaria’s favor.

It is not a surprise that the only thing Jeffrey Goldberg had to say about the case was to retweet a Shmuel Rosner article, whose only coherent message is that the Azaria trial is a PR disaster for Israel. Rosner repeated former defense minister Moshe Arens’s warning about the case:

“Elor Azaria’s Trial Should Never Have Become a Public Affair”

That is precisely Goldberg’s feeling. The case should never have become a public matter because it has only exposed the fact that Hasbara Culture is now run amok in Israel. And when Azaria is convicted, all hell will break loose. A broad segment of society will be outraged; a few sane Israelis will plead for the rule of law. Netanyahu will defend the medic. And Barak will try to unify an anti-Netanyahu coalition.

Goldberg must have felt like the luckiest person in the world when he got promoted to being editor in chief of The Atlantic two months ago. Who could expect the new editor with his huge workload to share his opinion about what was going on in Israel!

I have done my best to show how the Elor Azaria story and its reverberations in Israel have been spun by the hasbarists here. The people who have made a career out of obfuscation and obscurantism about all things Israel (from Max Boot to Bret Stephens to Eli Lake) continued to do so in our discourse. We will return after the Azaria verdict to assess how these “journalists” who claim to be the biggest experts America and the Jewish community have to offer on Israel did on their real life quiz about what the Azaria story was really about.

Meanwhile we can only cross our fingers and hope that Jeffrey Goldberg– “no greater journalist writing in the country today,” and our biggest expert on Israel– will take a break from his busy schedule and share his wisdom with the rest of us. What has Elor Azaria wrought?



A Constitutional Coup? Donald Trump and the Unthinkable

$
0
0
Below is an article that was circulated by my friend and comrade Moshe Machover.  I don’t agree with most of it and it would be very difficult to get the electoral college to vote against a Trump Presidency.  Nonetheless there is no doubt that people in the United State Establishment are thinking the unthinkable and that this heralds an unprecedented war against the legitimacy of the Trump Presidency.

Trump and his anti-Semitic adviser Steve Bannon from the alt-Right Breibart News
The CIA has been telling it that the Russians intervened to secure Trump’s election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee’s computers.  You may remember that the appalling Deborah Wasserman-Schultz, the Zionist Chair of the DNC was busy secretly fixing the Democrat’s Primary Elections when they were supposed to be the referee holding the ring.  When it came out they cried that the Russians were responsible.  If the article below is correct, then it could have been anyone.
Unfortunately Bernie Sanders didn’t take the opportunity to say that as the elections had been fixed, he would have been standing as an Independent.  What is interesting is the current spat between Trump and the CIA and the siding of much of the Republican establishment, McCain and others, with the CIA and Democrat senators like Charles Schumer.
Sanders bottled the chance to break the Democratic establishment
There is no doubt that large chunks of the US establishment are extremely unhappy at Trump’s election and given that Clinton won the popular vote by some 2.8 million votes, it wouldn’t be a surprise if there was a constitutional challenge to the legitimacy of a Trump Presidency.  I will say no more.

Tony Greenstein

Jewish demonstration against Steve Bannon being invited to address the far-Right Zionist Organisation of America luncheon

By Moon Of Alabama
·                     There is an "elite" coup attempt underway against the U.S. President-elect Trump.
·                     The coup is orchestrated by the camp of Hillary Clinton in association with the CIA and neoconservative powers in Congress.
·                     The plan is to use the CIA's "Russia made Trump the winner" nonsense to swing the electoral college against him. The case would then be bumped up to Congress. Major neocon and warmonger parts of the Republicans could then move the presidency to Clinton or, if that fails, put Trump's vice president-elect Mike Pence onto the throne. The regular bipartisan war business, which a Trump presidency threatens to interrupt, could continue.
·                     Should the coup succeed violent insurrections in the United States are likely to ensue with unpredictable consequences.
The above theses are thus far only a general outlay. No general plan has been published. The scheme though is pretty obvious by now. However, the following contains some speculation.
The priority aim is to deny Trump the presidency. He is too independent and a danger for several power centers within the ruling U.S. power circles. The selection of Tillerson as new Secretary of State only reinforces this (Prediction: Bolton will not get the Deputy position.)  Tillerson is for profitable stability, not for regime change adventures. The institutional Trump enemies are:
Shallow & insubstantial - Clinton lost because of her vacuous establishment politics not because of the Russians
·                     The CIA which has become the Central Assassination Agency under the Bush and Obama administrations. Huge parts of its budgets depend on a continuation of the war on Syria and the drone assassination campaigns in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. Trump's more isolationist policies would likely end these campaigns and the related budget troughs.
·                     The weapons industry which could lose its enormous sales to its major customers in the Persian Gulf should a President Trump reduce U.S. interference in the Middle East and elsewhere.
·                     The neoconservatives and Likudniks who want the U.S. as Israel's weapon to strong arm the Middle East to the Zionists' benefit.
·                     The general war hawks, military and "humanitarian interventionists" to whom any reduction of the U.S. role as primary power in the world is anathema to their believes.
The current CIA director Brennan, a leading figure of the CIA torture program and Obama consigliere, is in the Clinton/anti-Trump camp. The former CIA heads Hayden and Panetta are public Clinton supporters as is torturer king and former CIA deputy director Michael Morell.
Israel's wild West Bank settlers celebrate Trump's election
 It is thereby no wonder that the CIA is leading the anti-Russian campaign. Its task now is to implant the idea in the U.S. public that Russian intervention skewed the U.S. election towards Trump. The purpose is the delegitimization of the Trump victory in the eyes of the media and public but even more so in the eyes of the electors within the electoral college.

The CIA is heavily supported by the same mainstream media that pushed for Clinton during the election. (These are, not by chance, also the same media that pushed the CIA's earlier "Saddam's Weapon of Mass Destruction" campaign.)

The Democratic partisan and Harvard law Professor Lawrence Lessig is pushing the electors and offers them free personal legal support. He says the electoral college vote is now close.

Could 37 Republican electors, put there by voters in their states to vote for Trump, be convinced to move from electing Trump to abstain or vote for someone else, Trump would miss the needed 270 votes. The whole election of the president would then by kicked up to the House of Representatives.

Should the electors vote for Trump there is still a possibility that members of the House and the Senate could officially question that vote and cause delays or Congressional probes and legal challenges.

Here are the detailed general proceedings and specifics for the electoral college as explained by the National Archives and Records Administration.

Though neoconservatives have no genuine support within the U.S. electorate they have a strong hold on significant parts of Congress and the relevant MSM commentariat. Many leading neoconservatives and war hawks like Robert Kagan, Max Boot and the Washington Post editorial board came out for Clinton during the campaign. Clinton even ran campaign advertisements with Republican Congress luminaries like Lindsay Graham, Sasse and Flake.

The House and the Senate majority may well be on the anti-Trump side if push comes to shove. But whatever the outcome there surely would be intense legal challenges and I expect the case to go up to the Supreme Court.

As an alternative to legal shenanigans Trump's inauguration could be delayed by Obama's order to the intelligence community to create a formal review of Russian intervention in the election by January 20. That is not by chance the official inauguration date! The selling point:

By ordering a “full review” of allegations of Russian into the 2016 election process, President Barack Obama is essentially asking the IC to make an analytical judgment about the validity of the election that will place Trump in the Oval Office.
A "compromise" in Congress could be to wait for the Intelligence Community's analysis and then discuss it before certifying Trump as president. That would end up with no result as National Intelligence Estimates are notoriously vague. Meanwhile the Vice President-elect would sit in as acting President:
If the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment states that the Vice President-elect will act as President until such a time as a President has qualified.
If the congressional or legal process around the Trump election gets delayed, that may be a state for a long time. The ruling Washington blob or borg could well live with an acting President Pence while Trump would have no official say in any government business. (Could Clinton then become acting VP or qualify as the new president?)

The media intervention on the anti-Trump side is heavy.

But first keep in mind that there is no public evidence, ZERO, that Russia indeed had anything to do with the DNC or Podesta or other leaks and the publication of emails by various outlets like Wikileaks.

Craig Murray assures us that he knows that these were not hacks but insider leaks and that he knows the leaker(s). Indeed he now tells us that the emails were handed over to him during a visits in Washington. Former intelligence officials including the technically very knowledgeable former NSA official William Binney concur that the hacking story is false.

All we have heard or seen so far are hearsay rumors and allegations of evidence. To me as experienced IT professional the case is technically laughable just as Murray explains here.If the claimed hacks occurred at all the alleged methods were so common that anybody could have done these. There is not even one claimed fact yet that is technically halfway acceptable as evidence that "Russia did it".

But still the NYT runs a big package of pieces telling us that "Russia did it" based on the non-factual CIA rumors and unprofessional IT assertions by Crowdstrike, the self-promoting IT security company the DNC hired and paid. Before that the Washington Post published major claims of Russian interference by anonymous officials. NBC News now tops that with "intelligence officials" saying Putin himself ran the hacking campaign. Authors of the story are the long time insider hacks Bill Arkin and Ken Dilanian known for clearing his stories with the CIA before publishing. The next story will tells us that Vladimir Valdimirovich himself was punching the keyboard.
Many news outlets and editorials follow these "leads".

Part of the scheme the Clinton campaign has worked out was explained by a former opposition research consultant to the Democratic National Council, the Ukrainian-American Alexandra (aka Andrea) Chalupa, in this thread:

Andrea Chalupa ‏@AndreaChalupa Dec 11

1.) Electoral College meets Dec. 19. If Electors ignore #StateOfEmergency we're in, & Trump gets elected, we can stop him Jan. 6 in Congress

2.) If any objections to Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing, signed by at least 1 House member & 1 Senator

3.) If objections are presented, House & Senate withdraw to their chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law.
...
Editorials and op-eds in the major papers are pushing the scheme along. Just for example from a long list A.J. Dionne in the Washington Post:

The CIA’s finding that Russia actively intervened in our election to make Trump president is an excellent reason for the electors to consider whether they should exercise their independent power. At the very least, they should be briefed on what the CIA knows, and in particular on whether there is any evidence that Trump or his lieutenants were engaged with Russia during the campaign.

The New York Times editorial laments about Trump ridiculing the CIA fairy tales it promotes.

Many people who have voted for Trump would be disgusted and outraged if or when Trump will be denied his office. Many of them are armed and would protest. Violence is ensured should the coup succeed.

Trump selected four former generals to joins his cabinet and staff. Should the troubles escalate we might be roughly in for a scenario as laid out in the 1992 military paper: The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 (pdf) by Charles J. Dunlap.

How Israel's Censorship Covers Up Its Role in Genocide & the Idiocy of Chakrabarti

$
0
0
Yair Auron - Professor of Holocaust Studies at Israel's Open University
According to the Chakrabarti Inquiry Report on Racism and Anti-Semitism comparisons between the actions of Israel and Zionism with those of Hitler, the Nazis or the Holocaust.  'can only be intended to be incendiary rather than persuasive.'

In fact Chakrabarti uses the term 'Jewish people or institutions anywhere in the world'when referring to Zionism and Israel.  The Chakrabarti Report, which sections of the liberal left have abandoned all sense of critical judgement over, conflates Jewish' with Zionist, itself an example of its political and terminological confusion over this subject.  It is one of my major disagreements with the group Free Speech on Israel, where I held a minority position.  See A marred report.

What therefore would the liberal apostles of Chakrabarti, FSOI and other well meaning people have to say to Yair Auron, Professor of Holocaust Studies at Israel's Open University, who has just brought a failed action at Israel's Supreme Court to try and have the files at Israel's state archives opened in respect of the arms trade conducted with the perpetrators of the genocide in Bosnia?

Do they think Auron is an anti-Semite for comparing Israel's actions to those who supplied help and weapons to the Nazis during WW2?  Or is he just being 'incendiary'?  Certainly in the Labour Party comparisons between Israel and the Nazis is considered a prime example of 'anti-Semitism'.  This is why Ken Livingstone has been suspended.

Perhaps because he lives in Israel, a state which is moving so far to the Right that many people identify with the actions of the Nazis even whilst wishing that they had targeted someone else other than the Jews, it is permissible to make such comments.  Auron was quite clear about why he and fellow petitioner Itay Mack had brought the action:

“We betrayed the legacy of the Holocaust when we’re committing acts like this,” Professor Yair Auron said. “To sell weapons to Serbia or to Rwanda during the genocide is similar to selling weapons to Nazi Germany during the Second World War. No country has the right to do it and especially not Israel.” 

No one should think just because the Palestinians are the primary victims of the most moral army in the world and the large Israeli arms industry, that they are the only victims.

Throughout Central and South America, from the 1970’s onwards, Israeli democracy ensure that the death squad regimes of El Salvador, Guatemala and other countries received the training and armaments that they required.

Jan Pieterse in State Terrorism on a Global Scale:  The Role of Israel in 1984 described how Israel was ‘the largest supplier of arms to Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. But Israel's activities in Third World countries are in fact far more wide-ranging than just military sales. Israel has become active in all the dimensions of the global counterinsurgency business. Thus, for example, in Guatemala, "Hit lists used by the death squads have been computerized. Technologically sophisticated murder is coordinated by a Regional Telecommunications Center built and managed by Israeli Army experts."

Israel's multifaceted relations with Guatemala include the following items:  Since 1976, Israel has been the main provider of arms, aircraft, and military training to Guatemala.  It has trained 800 Guatemalan air force pilots to fly Israeli-supplied Kfir fighters and Arava transport planes.  It has supplied radar systems throughout the country.  It has trained the military and G-2 police units in the use of interrogation techniques, modern intelligence methods, psychological warfare, and terror. 

Israel sponsored an Army Electronics and Transmission School in Guatemala which opened in November 1981.  The 300 Israeli advisers present in Guatemala assisted in the coup of March 1982 that brought General Rios Montt to power, and trained officers backing him.  These Israeli advisers assisted in the design of the Program of Assistance to Conflict Areas (PAAC), put into effect from August 1982; developed jointly with advisers from South Africa and Taiwan, the program involves the creation of "model villages" that combine features of the "strategic hamlets" implanted in Vietnam and Israeli kibbutzim.

Israeli experts train contras, and also serve El Salvador, Honduras, Haiti, Chile, and Bolivia and Argentina (at least before their return to civilian government) at a training camp in Guatemala.  In the northern province of Alta Verapaz, Israel constructed a factory which produces 5.56 caliber munitions and Uzi machine guns that is to supply all of Central America.  Israel is in the special position of having recent combat experience as well as current counterinsurgency experience (in the West Bank and Gaza). The lessons of the Middle East, as a testing ground for Western military equipment against Soviet-supplied armies, are disseminated through the world via Israel.  Especially during the past decade, Israel has come to specialize as a strong arm of the Pax Americana, and it has been performing this role not simply regionally but also on a global scale.

Virtually anywhere in the world, where atrocities and mass murder is being committed, you can be sure to find the Israeli state providing state-of-the art weaponry.  This was also true in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia.  Here is an article from Israel’s +972 magazine we see how Israel’s Supreme Court helps in covering up the details of what Israel during the time when concentration camps renewed their acquaintance with Europe.


Citing potential damage to Israel’s foreign relations, the Supreme Court rejects a petition calling to reveal details of the government’s arms exports to the Serbian army during the Bosnian genocide.
By John Brown* (Translated by Tal Haran)

A mass grave in Bosnia. (ICTY)
Israel’s Supreme Court last month rejected a petition to reveal details of Israeli defense exports to the former Yugoslavia during the genocide in Bosnia in the 1990s. The court ruled that exposing Israeli involvement in genocide would damage the country’s foreign relations to such an extent that it would outweigh the public interest in knowing that information, and the possible prosecution of those involved.

The petitioners, Attorney Itay Mack and Professor Yair Oron, presented the court with concrete evidence of Israeli defense exports to Serbian forces at the time, including training as well as ammunition and rifles. Among other things, they presented the personal journal of General Ratko Mladić, currently on trial at the International Court of Justice for committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Mladić’s journal explicitly mentions Serbia’s ample arms ties with Israel at the time.

The exports took place long after the UN Security Council placed an arms embargo on various parts of the former Yugoslavia, and after the publication of a series of testimonies exposing genocide and the creation of concentration camps.

The Israeli State Attorney’s reply and the court’s rejection of the petition are a de facto admission by Israel that it cooperated with the Bosnian genocide: if the government had nothing to hide, the documents under discussion would not pose any threat to foreign relations.

The most horrific acts of cruelty since the Holocaust

Between 1991 and 1995 the former Yugoslavia shattered, going from a multi-national republic to an assemblage of nations fighting each other in a bloody civil war that included massacres and ultimately genocide.

The Serbs waged war against Croatia from 1991-1992, and against Bosnia from 1992-1995. In both wars the Serbs committed genocide and ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the areas they occupied, leading to the deaths of 250,000 people. Tens of thousands of others were wounded and starved, a multitude of women were raped, and many people were incarcerated in concentration camps. Other parties to the conflict also committed war crimes, but the petition focuses on Israel’s collaboration with the Serbian forces. The horrendously cruel acts in Yugoslavia were the worst Europe had seen since the Holocaust.
Ratko Mladić. Evidence of Israeli arms deals was found in his journal. (Mikhail Estefayev)
One of the most notorious massacres was perpetrated by soldiers serving under Serbian General Ratko Mladić around the city of Srebrenica in July 1995. Serbian forces commanded by the general murdered about 8,000 Bosnians and buried them in mass graves in the course of a campaign of ethnic cleansing they were waging against Muslims in the area. Although the city was supposed to be under UN protection, when the massacre began UN troops did not intervene. Mladić was extradited to the International Court of Justice at The Hague in 2012, and is still on trial.

At the time, prominent Jewish organizations were calling for an immediate end to the genocide and shutting down the death camps. Not so the State of Israel. Outwardly it condemned the massacre, but behind the scenes was supplying weapons to the perpetrators and training their troops.

Attorney Mack and Professor Oron have gathered numerous testimonies about the Israeli arms supply to Serbia, which they presented in their petition. They provided evidence of such exports taking place long after the UN Security Council embargo went into effect in September 1991. The testimonies have been crossed-checked and are brought here as they were presented in the petition, with necessary abbreviations.

In 1992 a former senior official of the Serb Ministry of Defense published a book, The Serbian Army, in which she wrote about the arms deal between Israel and Serbia, signed about a month after the embargo: “One of the largest deals was made in October 1991. For obvious reasons, the deal with the Jews was not made public at the time.”

An Israeli who volunteered in a humanitarian organization in Bosnia at the time testified that in 1994 a UN officer asked him to look at the remains of 120 mm shell — with Hebrew writing on it — that exploded on the landing strip of the Sarajevo airfield. He also testified that he saw Serbs moving around in Bosnia carrying Uzi guns made in Israel.

A concentration camp in Bosnia. (ITN)
In 1995 it was reported that Israeli arms dealers in collaboration with the French closed a deal to supply Serbia with LAW missiles. According to reports from 1992, a delegation of the Israeli Ministry of Defense came to Belgrade and signed an agreement to supply shells.

The same General Mladić who is now being prosecuted for war crimes and genocide, wrote in his journal that “from Israel — they proposed joint struggle against Islamist extremists. They offered to train our men in Greece and a free supply of sniper rifles.” A report prepared at the request of the Dutch government on the investigation of the Srebrenica events contains the following: “Belgrade considered Israel, Russia and Greece its best friends. In autumn 1991 Serbia closed a secret arms deal with Israel.”

In 1995 it was reported that Israeli arms dealers supplied weapons to VRS — the army of Republika Srpska, the Bosnian Serb Army. This supply must have been made with the knowledge of the Israeli government.

The Serbs were not the only party in this war to which the Israeli arms dealers tried to sell weapons. According to reports, there was also an attempt to make a deal with the anti-Semitic Croatian regime, which eventually fell through. The petition also presented reports by human rights activists about Israelis training the Serb army, and that the arms deal with the Serbs enabled Jews to leave Sarajevo, which was under siege.

While all of this was taking place in relative secrecy, at the public level the government of Israel lamely expressed its misgivings about the situation, as if this were some force majeure and not a manmade slaughter. In July 1994, then-Chairman of the Israeli Knesset’s Foreign Relations and Defense Committee MK Ori Or visited Belgrade and said: “Our memory is alive. We know what it means to live with boycotts. Every UN resolution against us has been taken with a two-thirds majority.” That year, Vice President of the US at the time, Al Gore, summoned the Israeli ambassador and warned Israel to desist from this cooperation.

Incidentally, in 2013 Israel had no problem extraditing to Bosnia-Herzegovina a citizen who immigrated to Israel seven years earlier and was wanted for suspicion of involvement in a massacre in Bosnia in 1995. In other words, at some point the state itself recognized the severity of the issue.

The Supreme Court in the service of war crimes

The Supreme Court session on the state’s reply to the petition was held ex parte, i.e. the petitioners weren’t allowed to hear it. Justices Danziger, Mazouz and Fogelman rejected the petition and accepted the state’s position that revealing the details of Israeli defense exports to Serbia during the genocide would damage Israel’s foreign relations and security, and that this potential damage exceeds the public’s interest in exposing what happened.

A mass grave at Srebrenica, where Serbian forces massacred around 8,000 Bosnian Muslims in 1995. (Adam Jones)
This ruling is dangerous for several reasons. Firstly, the court’s acceptance of the state’s certainty in how much damage would be caused to Israel’s foreign relations is perplexing. Earlier this year, the same Supreme Court rejected a similar claim regarding defense exports during the Rwandan genocide, yet a month later the state itself declared that the exports were halted six days after the killing started. If even the state does not see any harm in revealing — at least partially — this information regarding Rwanda, why was a sweeping gag imposed on the subject a month prior? Why did the Supreme Court justices overlook this deception, even refusing to accept it as evidence as the petitioners requested? After all, the state has obviously exaggerated in its claim that this information would be damaging to foreign relations.

Secondly, it is very much in the public’s interest to expose the state’s involvement in genocide, including through arms dealers, particularly as a state that was founded upon the devastation of its people following the Holocaust. It was for this reason that Israel was, for example, willing to disregard Argentina’s sovereignty when it kidnapped Eichmann and brought him to trial on its own soil. It is in the interest not only of Israelis, but also of those who were victims of the Holocaust. When the court considers war crimes, it is only proper for it to consider their interest as well.
When the court rules in cases of genocide that damage to state security — which remains entirely unproven — overrides the pursuit of justice for the victims of such crimes, it is sending a clear message: that the state’s right to security, whether real or imaginary, is absolute, and takes precedence over the rights of its citizens and others.

The Supreme Court’s ruling might lead one to conclude that the greater the crime, the easier it is to conceal. The more arms sold and the more genocide perpetrators trained, the greater the damage to the state’s foreign relations and security should such crimes be exposed, and the weight of such supposed damage will necessarily override the public interest. This is unacceptable. It turns the judges — as the petitioners have put it — into accomplices. The justices thus also make an unwitting Israeli public complicit in war crimes, and deny them the democratic right to conduct the relevant discussion.

The state faces a series of similar requests regarding its collaboration with the murderers of the Argentinian Junta, Pinochet’s regime in Chile, and Sri Lanka. Attorney Mack intends to present additional cases by the end of this year. Even if it is in the state’s interest to reject these petitions, the Supreme Court must stop helping to conceal these crimes — if not for the sake of prosecuting perpetrators of past atrocities, at least in order to put a stop to them in our time.

*John Brown is the pseudonym of an Israeli academic and a blogger. This story first appeared in Hebrew on Local Call, where he is a blogger. Read it here.
Viewing all 2415 articles
Browse latest View live