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

Contrast the Eviction of a Jewish Settlement and the Demolition of the Arab village of Umm al-Hiran

$
0
0

The Eviction of Amona is a form of Zionist Street Theatre


racist Israeli Jewish youth help the Amona settlers defy a court order - if they were Palestinians they would have been dispersed with the utmost violence
What a contrast between the eviction of the illegal West Bank settlement of Amona and the destruction of the Palestinian village of Umm al-Hiran, which is inside Israel.  The Guardian reported that when the illegal settlement of Amona was evicted, 'At least 13 police officers were injured in sporadic clashes with the settlers as teenagers set fires, threw objects and scuffled with officers as they swamped the outpost.
Settlers are treated with kid gloves because they are Jewish
Israel's Police fire a rubber bullet at the leader of the Palestinian Joint List in the Knesset - hatred of elected Arabs is strong amongst Israeli state forces in the world's 'only democracy'
And just in this sentence you see the racism of the Israeli state.  When Palestinians throw stones the Police open fire.  They open fire, as we saw in the eviction of Umm al-Hiran recently, even when there is nothing thrown, at a moving car.

In Amona the Police went out of their way not to violently assault what were violent settlers.  In Umm al-Hiran the Police shot, without warning, a rubber bullet directly at the leader of the Joint List, Aymen Odeh, injuring him in the back and then lying about what they did.


Aymen Odeh MK injured by racist Israeli police

Israel's Police claim that this was a stone - whereas it is clear it is a blunt injury caused by a rubber bullet
 Of course the BBC's coverage of the eviction focused on the 'trauma' caused by evicting fellow Jews and how this demonstrates how democratic Israel is.  In fact this is one of the very few examples of the eviction of Jewish settlers in the West Bank.  The case was blatant because the settlement was on private Palestinian land that the State had not yet confiscated.  As a result of this 'trauma' another 3,000 settlement units have been agreed - all on  'confiscated' land.






More False Allegations of Anti-Semitism - their purpose is to shore up position of Progress MP Peter Kyle

$
0
0

Death Threats Sent to Labour's Rebecca Massey because of vile accusations by the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism

According to the CAA, anyone who opposes Zionism and supports the Palestinians is anti-Semitic

The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism's scurrilous post that has led to death threats against Becky 

This scumbag is the person behind much of the CAA output - let him know how u feel

Apparently it is anti-Semitic to say what Ehud Olmert, Israel's last Prime Minister said viz. Israel controls the US and British foreign policy

Hove's far-right Progress MP Peter Kyle - his career is what these allegations are really about
2 weeks ago Becky Matthews, an activist in Brighton and Hove Momentum, an anti-Zionist and supporter of the Palestinians as well as being a long-standing anti-racist campaigner, was elected by 3 votes as Chair of the Hove Central and Brunswick and Adelaide ward.  This is the ward of Hove’s Progress MP Peter Kyle.  Panic set in amongst his supporters.

On Friday the right-wing Zionist charity, the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism printed a scurrilous article on their web site, Just another day for racist Labour as antisemitic tweets of Party’s Chair in Hove, Brunswick and Adelaide revealed.  The basis of this allegation of anti-Semitism were two tweets. 
The CAA insist that the Israel lobby is a 'misnomer' - 'she means a 'Jewish lobby' in other words Israel/Zionist=Jew.  Strangely the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee describes itself as 'America's bipartisan pro-Israel lobby' - strange that!!

Cllr. Caroline 'Poison' Penn - her only talent is a willingness to stab fellow Labour members in the back
Fascist Fitch - Cllr Caroline 'Poison' Penn's housemate
One was a well researched article by Asa Winstanley on the Electronic Intifada web site How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party’s anti-Semitism crisisAs the title says, it shows how the allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn was elected Leader were manufactured by the Zionist lobby and its allies, including as we now know from the Al Jazeera programmes, The Lobby, the Israeli Embassy.  The article shows for example how early allegations against Vicky Kirby, who had allegedly tweeted about Jews having ‘big noses’ were entirely false.  She was in fact tweeting the script from a satirical play, Infidels, which was written by a Jewish playwright, David Badiel.  Guido Fawkes, the Tory blogger, had photoshopped her tweets and this was picked up by the mainstream media and other assorted liars.
Greg Hadfield, himself suspended on bogus charges, announces Becky's triumph which sent the libellers and defamers wild with fear
The other heinous offence of Becky was to tweet a comment to an article Corbyn's Victory Could Make Israel a Partisan Issue in British Politics in Israel’s Ha’aretz by Anshel Pfeffer, of September 12th 2015, was ‘an interesting insight into how Israel has Tory and Labour parties under control’.  This isn’t a conclusion I would draw from reading the article which was more of a potted history of how Labour and the Tory party, up to the expected victory of Corbyn in the Labour leadership elections had been pro-Israel/Zionist.  Nonetheless it was a valid interpretation to make.  There is nothing whatsoever anti-Semitic about either of her tweets.
Caplin was busy tweeting his normal racist rubbish
War criminal and Junior Defence Minister at the time of Iraq War - Ivor Caplin
Israeli politicians themselves and their well-funded lobbies like AIPAC claim that they can control American foreign policy.  Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made exactly this claim when he said that he had forced Condoleeza Rice, the Secretary of State, to abstain in a UN vote.  Olmert Says He Made Rice Change Vote  Netanyahu made a very good attempt to exert control of US foreign policy last year when he flew to the US to address Congress as to why it shouldn’t endorse Obama’s Iran agreement. 
unpopular in Brighton & Hove - Crask is always willing to accuse others of his own sins
I consider Becky Matthews a good and close friend.  I have stood with her on anti-fascist and anti-racist demonstrations, I can  honestly say she hasn’t got a racist bone in her body.  Her detractors are people who wouldn’t be seen dead on a refugee demonstration or in opposition to the English Defence League.  It is those who make vile accusations of racism against sincere anti-racists who should hang their heads in shame.  First and foremost the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism which was formed at the height of Israel’s murderous war on Gaza when over 500 Palestinian children were murdered by Israel’s intense bombardment of the defenceless Palestinian population in the summer of 2014.  It has unbelievably been registered as a charity.  It is a Zionist political propaganda group, consisting of 3 people, who put out a volley of abuse against mainly labour and left-wing supporters of the Palestinians alleging anti-Semitism.  There is nothing charitable about it and it offers no public benefit, which is the test of a charity.
There is no doubt that the digging up of an 18 month old tweet served one purpose and one purpose alone.  It was to shore up the increasingly shaky position of Labour’s far-right Hove MP Peter Kyle.  A man who supported the bombing of Syria, who supported Blair’s war in Iraq and who opposed Caroline Lucas’s Reinstatement of the NHS Bill last year because he is in favour of the involvement of the private sector in the NHS.  I can remember, when hearing about his victory in Hove in 2015 over the Tory candidate by 700 votes remarking that the most right-wing candidate had won!
Apparently it is 'anti-Semitic' to accuse Chuku Umunna of  conflating Zionism and being Jewish!  the absurd Alice in the Wonderland position of the CAA - anything we disagree with is anti-Semitic
Suffice to say his supporters have been tweeting and retweeting the CAA’s libellous accusations.  Why?  Because the AGM of the newly established Hove Labour Party was due to be held tomorrow.  Kyle feared that his supporters would lose control over Hove Labour Party and that the continuation of his career as a Labour/Tory MP might be in jeopardy.
Cllr. Cattell  known for being a few sandwiches short of a picnic
Cllr. Julie Cattell combines a viperous tongue and stupidity in equal measure
Amongst the retweeters were former junior Defence Secretary at the time of the Iraq War and war criminal Ivor Caplin @ivorcaplin (reputedly an ex-partner of Kyle) and Progress Councillors Julie Cattell @cooljool80 and Caroline ‘Poison’ Penn @thepennydrops and @CllrCaroline.  Poison Penn despite her opposition to anti-Semitism allowed BNP supporter Fascist Fitch to use her address for Labour Party registration purposes.   See Revealed: The anti-Corbyn “moderate” in Brighton and Hove who stands accused of the hate-crime against Seema Chandwani
Another of the mockers and defamers was Edward Crask @edwardcrask, who stood for Treasurer of Brighton District Labour Party last July and lost only to have the election result annulled.  Never a popular figure he stood as delegate to Hove General Committee coming 31st in the elections for 30 places!  Nonetheless the Zionist Jewish Labour Movement found him a place. 
Ralli Hall objects to 'anti-Semitic' supporters of the Palestinians but has no problems with advocates of rape
The Hove AGM was cancelled because the Jewish communal centre, Ralli Hall, where the meeting was supposed to take place, unilaterally terminated the booking.  This is the same Ralli Hall which staged a meeting 18 months ago featuring Professor Mordechai Kedar of Israel’s religious University Bar Ilan.  Kedar is a retired colonel in the Israeli army.  See The Zionist Federation and Sussex Friends of Israel Invite an Advocate of Rape to Speak
The CAA particularly didn't like Becky's defence of Ken Livingstone
Kedar is famous for his advocacy of rape against Palestinian women as a weapon of war.  Israel’s Ha'aretz newspaper in an article Israeli Professor's 'Rape as Terror Deterrent'Statement Draws Irequoted him as saying that:  ‘'The only thing that deters a suicide bomber is the knowledge that if he pulls the trigger or blows himself up, his sister will be raped'. (22.7.14.). 
Palestine Solidarity Campaign picketed the meeting.  Many Jewish venues, including schools and synagogues, such as Finchley, cancelled their meetings when Kedar’s comments became known.  Even the Board of Deputies of British Jews dissociated themselves from Kedar but not Ralli Hall, which was quite happy for the rally to go ahead.  Their cancellation of the Hove AGM smacks of utter hypocrisy and Labour should never use this venue again.
As a consequence of the activities of Kyle’s supporters, Becky Matthews has received death threats and has referred these to the Police, as well as making a complaint to the Charity Commission about the scurrilous article on the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism website. 

Rape is fine for Ralli Hall's Owners but Support for the Palestinians is Verboten

$
0
0

Ralli Hall - Zionist Centre in Hove Permits Meetings for Advocate of Rape but not Supporters of the Palestinians

Kedar was a welcome guest for Ralli Hall unlike supporters of the Palestinians and anti-Zionists
I can remember the demonstration well, because I was in the throes of advanced liver disease.  However I was determined to turn out on a bitterly cold evening to protest at the Sussex Friends of Israel/Zionist Federation meeting being held there.  The speaker was Mordechai Kedar, Professor at Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv, a racist religious institution.  Kedar was a retired colonel in the Israeli Occupation Forces.

Kedar had an unusual theory.  As I reported at the time 'The statement by Kedar that the mothers or sisters of ‘terrorists’ should be raped breaks new ground, even for the religious Orthodox.'
Advert for Kedar meeting in Brighton December 2014 held by the far-Right Sussex Friends of Israel
On Friday, the far-Right Zionist group, the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism posted a nasty little article accusing Becky Massey, a member of the Labour Party and Palestine Solidarity Campaign of anti-Semitism.  'Anti-Semitism' is the normal Zionist accusation directed against supporters of the Palestinians so nothing new there.
Synagogues barred Kedar but Ralli Hall was happy to host a rape advocate
What makes this different is that the  owners of Ralli  Hall cancelled the pre-booked AGM of Hove Labour Party on the basis of the CAA's scurrilous and lying little article.  They took it upon themselves to support the allegations in the article without having any way of knowing whether or not the accusations in it were true or not.

So we can only conclude that the Zionists who run Ralli Hall are quite happy with the idea that the sisters or  mothers or wives of men who are accused of 'terrorism' should be raped, but are unhappy with someone who is falsely accused of anti-Semitism.  Perhaps they think that this has some biblical justification, since Zionists usually resort to the Bible to justify most of Israel's abominations.

Even the Zionist Federation cancelled Kedar's meetings in schools and Finchley synagogue abruptly cancelled Kedar's meeting when it heard about his views on rape and war.  However the good Zionists of Ralli Hall were made of sterner stuff.  They couldn't see anything wrong with the idea of raping women in war, despite approaches which were made to them at the time.
Rape supporters are welcome but opponents of Israeli Apartheid are forbidden
But when a false accusation of 'anti-Semitism' is made against someone on the basis of their views on Israel then the meeting of the Labour Party is banned because she will be in attendance.  No allegation was made that Becky had made any derogatory remarks about Jews as individuals but that Israel had an unhealthy influence on British and American foreign policy - something confirmed by the recent programmes 'The Lobby' on Al Jazeera.  You can read the details of what Becky is alleged to have done and the background to it here
Even the Zionist Federation realised it could not have an advocate of rape speaking in Jewish schools
I have sent the following email to Ralli Hall's organisers.  We shall see what they have to say or not as the case may be!

Tony Greenstein

Dear Ralli Hall, 
I intend to give this as much publicity on social media as possible.  Your hypocrisy is quite staggering.
You cancelled a meeting of Hove Labour Party today because of a nasty little attack on an anti-racist woman, Becky Massey, who is an anti-Zionist and supporter of the Palestinians.

Perhaps you like to justify why you object to a supporter of the Palestinians but you were happy in December 2014 to host Mordechai Kedar of Bar Ilan University who advocates rape of women as a weapon of war? 
http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/picket-meeting-of-israeli-professor.html
I and others will be most interested in your answer.  Meanwhile I have posted the details of your hypocrisy here: 
http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/more-false-allegations-of-anti-semitism.html 
Tony Greenstein
Tony Greenstein
Email announcing that the Hove AGM had suddenly been cancelled by the racists and misogynist of Ralli Hall 

The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism Smears Veteran Israeli Anti-Zionist Professor Moshe Machover

$
0
0

Why is CAA a Registered Charity – What Public Benefit does this McCarthyite Organisation Confer?

Senator Joe McCarthy
One of the heroes of CAA Chair Gideon Falter
It is clear that the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism is not a charity but a Zionist propaganda organisation masquerading as a charity.  I have set up a petition on change.org calling for the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism to be deregistered – please sign

Some of the 70 entries for Jeremy Corbyn - notice how this politically neutral 'charity' uses the term 'racist Labour'

The so-called CampaignAgainst Anti-Semitism is a Zionistpropaganda organisation out of control.  Ever since its formation during Operation Protective Edge in the summer of 2014, it has sought to tarnish supporters of the Palestinians and anti-Zionists with the smear of ‘anti-Semitism’.  The fact that it is an officially registered charity is an outrage which we should turn our attention to as a matter of some urgency.  The Tories may use it to burnish their credentials but it has nothing to do with either the fight against anti-Semitism nor does it provide any Public Benefit.  Its activities have nothing to do with any Charitable Purposes.
Fresh from its attackon Hove Labour Party and Momentum supporter Rebecca Massey the misnamed Campaign Against Anti-Semitism has gone onto smearveteran Israeli anti-Zionist Emeritus Professor Moshe Machover as ‘anti-Semitic’.  With its attack on Machover, the CAA has reached a new low. 
The CAA's vicious libellous attack on Moshe Machover
It accuses Professor Machover of ‘voicing support for Hamas, a genocidal antisemitic terrorist organisation.’  Even this is a lie.  As a Marxist Machover is unlikely to support a politically backward Islamic organisation.  In their quote, which I assume is accurate, Moshe says:
‘I’m not opposing their [Hamas’] armed struggle — they have a perfect right to resist with arms. I don’t condemn them. Who is responsible for the rise of Hamas in the Gaza strip? Israel.’  
That is my position too.  I support Hamas’s right to conduct an armed struggle.  That is the right of any oppressed people living under occupation.  That has nothing to do with supporting the organisation politically.  If Hamas is indeed a ‘genocidal antisemitic terrorist organisation’ [they try to pack as many pejorative adjectives as possible into one phrase!] then one has to ask why Israel helped create Hamas? 
The CAA's McCarthyite Chair - Gideon Falter
Rather than being a genocidal etc. organisation, Hamas are a politically backward and conservative Islamist organisation.  They condemned the Charlie Hebdo killings and in practice make a distinction between Jews and Zionists.  But when people come to your home and kill your relatives and attack your children in the name of the ‘Jews’ then it’s not surprising that they may not have a progressive attitude to Jews ideologically.

Hamas have a charter which is anti-Semitic but which plays no part in their political struggle today.  It is a part of their history just like Theodor Herzl’s Jewish State, which was certainly anti-Semitic and racist, is part of the Zionist tradition.  The difference is that Zionism is still anti-Semitic and racist.  The 'racism' of Hamas is minute compared to the everyday racism of Israel, where a plurality, 48% of the population according to the most recent Pew Information Survey  Israel's Religiously Divided Society, supports the physical expulsion of the Palestinians from Israel.
Hamas is on record as condemning the extermination of the Jews in the Holocaust.  Something that a 'genocidal anti-Semitic' etc. etc.  group is hardly likely to do.  Bassem Naeem, a spokesman for Hamas, in an article in the Guardian entitled Hamas condemns the Holocaust stated that
it should be made clear that neither Hamas nor the Palestinian government in Gaza denies the Nazi Holocaust. The Holocaust was not only a crime against humanity but one of the most abhorrent crimes in modern history. We condemn it as we condemn every abuse of humanity and all forms of discrimination on the basis of religion, race, gender or nationality.
Why did Israel Create Hamas?
The truth that Zionists hate to hear - THEY created Hamas and now use it to demonise the Palestinians
But if Hamas are all the things that the CAA say they are then the obvious question to ask is why Israel was responsible for creating Hamas?  In an article in the Wall Street Journal, an official in Israel’s Military Administration in Gaza, Avner Cohen, told how "Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation."
The article describes how Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, ‘Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel's destruction.’
Washington Post article - wikileaks have produced extensive evidence that Israel wanted Hamas to succeed 
‘Instead of trying to curb Gaza's Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat's Fatah. Israel cooperated with a crippled, half-blind cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, even as he was laying the foundations for what would become Hamas.’ Another official David Hacham, who worked in Gaza in the late 1980s and early '90s as an Arab-affairs expert in the Israeli military told how "When I look back at the chain of events I think we made a mistake, but at the time nobody thought about the possible results."  [How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas, ANDREW HIGGINS, Jan. 24, 2009]

In an article How Israel helped create Hamas in the Washington Post we are told of Hamas's ‘curious history’. ‘To a certain degree, the Islamist organization... has the Jewish state to thank for its existence. Hamas launched in 1988 in Gaza at the time of the first intifada, ... for more than a decade prior, Israeli authorities actively enabled its rise.’

‘At the time, Israel's main enemy was the late Yasser Arafat's Fatah party, which formed the heart of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). Fatah was secular and cast in the mold of other revolutionary, leftist guerrilla movements waging insurgencies elsewhere in the world during the Cold War. …’
 ‘Meanwhile, the activities of Islamists affiliated with Egypt's banned Muslim Brotherhood were allowed in the open in Gaza — a radical departure from when the Strip was administered by the secular-nationalist Egyptian government of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Egypt lost control of Gaza to Israel after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, which saw Israel also seize the West Bank. In 1966, Nasser had executed Sayyid Qutb, one of the Brotherhood's leading intellectuals. The Israelis saw Qutb's adherents in the Palestinian territories, including the wheelchair-bound Sheik Ahmed Yassin, as a useful counterweight to Arafat's PLO.’
Which of course was the story of the Americans and how they helped create the Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS.  Hamas is the democratically elected organisation of the Palestinians in Gaza.  But none of this complexity is of any interest to a McCarthyite organisation like the CAA.  Their only interest is in shutting down free speech on Palestine and Israel.  The activities of the CAA have nothing to do with anti-Semitism.  Monitoring and smearing anti-Zionists as anti-Semitic is their only goal. 
The CAA has 8 entries for Theresa May -  Britain's racist anti-refugee Prime Minister - all of them complementary
What they are doing is using what they call ‘the International Definition of Antisemitism recently adopted by the British government’ (what they mean is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition which has no legal validity) to define all anti-Zionism as ‘anti-Semitic’.  Opposition to what is called Israel’s ‘right to exist’ is now anti-Semitic.  The new definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ which in fact has nothing at all to do with anti-Semitism, is nothing more than a thinly disguised means of attacking freedom of speech.  That is why it has to be fought and that is why Jeremy Corbyn was wrong to stupidly and meekly go along with Theresa May’s cynical adoption of it. 

Most people think of violent attacks on people who are Jewish as anti-Semitism.  Now there is a concerted attempt by Zionist groups to label any opposition to Israel as a Jewish supremacist state as ‘anti-Semitic’.  This has to be resisted.  Denying ‘Israel’s right to exist’ as if a state is a human being and accusing Jews of being part of a conspiracy is apparently antisemitic.  Well we know from the recent Al Jazeera programme The Lobby that some Jews who are Zionists are very much involved in conspiracies against democratic political organisations.
Of course the CAA and Israel’s apologists in Britain have nothing to say about the outrageous racism that is quite normal in Israel because they are too concerned with digging out traces of ‘anti-Semitism’.  Anti-racism is the last thing they are concerned with.
For example Israel’s Deputy Defence Minister Eli Dahan was reported by Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper as saying that:
‘Homosexual Jews have "higher souls" than gentiles, gay or straight, the deputy minister for religious services told the Israeli daily Maariv.
As Reuven Hammer, a former president of the International Rabbinical Assemblycommentedin the Jerusalem Post:
‘Imagine for a moment that the religious affairs minister in some democratic country – England or Switzerland for example – were to make a public statement that “the souls of all Christians are superior to the souls of Jews.” Would Israel not make a fuss? Would not the ADL and the Weisenthal Center cry out in protest? Would not Jews in that country demand the immediate resignation of such an official? But in Israel, the man who fills such a slot – Deputy Religious Services Minister Rabbi Eli Ben-Dahan – recently said just that about Christians. He is quoted as saying in an interview which he knew would be published that the souls of all Jews are higher than those of Christians or Muslims or anybody else, yet his job is secure.

The Times of Israel, in an article
New deputy defense minister called Palestinians ‘animals’ reported thatWhile discussing the resumption of peace talks in a radio interview in 2013, Ben Dahan said that “To me, they are like animals, they aren’t human.”  Dahan is not the only member of the Israeli government to talk about Palestinians as animals.  Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu is on record as describing Arabs surrounding Israel as being ‘wild beasts’.  Netanyahu plans fence around Israel to protect it from 'wild beasts'  As far as I’m aware lions, tigers and such creatures aren’t known to roam the deserts of the Middle East!
There are 70 entries for Jeremy Corbyn - none of them complimentary
The CAA has a long record of attacking people on the Left and in the Labour Party.  It has been allowed to get away with it for far too long.  For example It attacked Labour MP Gerald Kaufmann over his use of the term ‘Jewish money’ even though it’s a phrase widely used in the Jewish community.  I googled the Jewish Chronicle archive and got nearly 600 occurrences.  When I searched the CAA’s website I got up 21 result for Kaufman.  I got 70 results for ‘Corbyn’ – nice little charitable articles such as ‘Corbyn’s hypocrisy exposed yet again by Labour’s latest stealthy readmission of suspended antisemite
The CAA has 29 search results on Gerald Kaufman - a Jewish Labour MP who supports the Palestinians - all of them attack him
When I searched under ‘British National Party’ I got 19 results.  Good I thought, at least they are covering the far Right which even the Home Affairs Select Committee’s flawed report on anti-Semitism conceded was responsible for the majority of anti-Semitic attacks.  But no, all of them were concerned with other parties and the BNP were mentioned tangentially.  The Liberal Democrats were also attacked by the CAA.
There are 29 entries for that well-known anti-Semite Shami Chakrabarti - the Shadow Attorney General
Shami Chakrabarti, who conducted an Inquiry into anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, has been a particular focus of the CAA’s ire.  There are no less than 29 articles concerning her, all of them hostile.  In CAA response to Jewish Labour Movement’s decision to invite Shami Chakrabarti to address antisemitism rally they write that:
‘The Labour Party has become a political home of antisemitism and the Jewish Labour Movement has fought hard to save their Party from its grasp. Nothing has undermined that effort more than Shami Chakrabarti’s whitewash of a report which cleared the Party of antisemitism, a feat for which she was rewarded by ennoblement by Jeremy Corbyn to the very institution that he promised never to promote anyone to.
As a matter of policy we do not comment on the work of other organisations engaged in the fight against antisemitism, but in this case we must make an exception. The Jewish Labour Movement’s decision to invite Shami Chakrabarti to address a rally against antisemitism is misjudged to the point of surrealism. Indeed, the very idea that it is possible to hold a rally in a pub to heal antisemitism in the Labour Party is absurd because the Labour Party, under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, continues to deny that its antisemitism problem even exists. That is perhaps why the Jewish Labour Movement’s own poll of its members found that only 4% of them back Jeremy Corbyn in the current leadership election.
When antisemitism reaches the levels it now has within the Labour Party, the only effective strategy is to stand up and defy it with dignity.

Corbyn's Disastrous Brexit Strategy - Labour’s slow moving car crash

$
0
0

Support for Article 50 is a failure of principle and strategy

  
The current members of the European Union
If love is blind, then falling out of love can seem like an emotional roller coaster.   So it is with Britain's relationship with the EU and Labour members relationship with Jeremy Corbyn.  Corbyn was the Accidental Leader of the Labour Party.  He only became Leader because no one thought he’d actually win and because Ed Miliband believed that allowing all of Labour’s members a vote would guarantee that the Left would never come to power.

There was, of course, a third factor.  The unexpected victory of David Cameron in the 2015 General Election on 36% of the vote, which caused a political backlash in the Labour Party.  If Labour’s Right misjudged the chances of Corbyn winning they also misjudged the mood of the country with their talk of aspiring Waitrose shoppers.  The mood music was more that of the Clash than D:Ream.  For most people things could only get worse.
The EEC before the accession of Eastern European countries
Indications of the changing mood were the Peoples’ Assembly march in June 2015.  Large numbers of people felt that Cameron’s victory had no legitimacy.  The Tories had only achieved a majority on the backs of the collapse of the Lib Dem vote.  Cameron had no escape route from his rash promise of a referendum on the European Union.  This backlash manifested itself in the doubling of Labour’s membership and the thousands of people who became registered supporters.
Robert Schumann and Jean Monnet - founding fathers of the European Union
Corbyn is the first person to admit that he was not cut out to become Leader of the Labour Party.  He might have been a serial rebel but he was also seen as a genuinely nice guy.  Unfortunately this had its negative consequences as well.  Although his niceness has been spun as straightforward, honest politics it has also meant that he lacks the killer instinct.  This was painfully obvious when pitted against David Cameron, the Flashman of British politics, at the dispatch box each week.  With Theresa May Corbyn has had an easier task, but still he hasn’t landed any killer blows despite her wooden performance.
Wishful thinking
But even more seriously is Corbyn’s inability to take control of the Labour Party.  In the aftermath of his victory last September, he had the golden opportunity to send Iain  McNicol, Labour’s treacherous General Secretary packing.  This was a man who had not only tried to fix the vote but had gone out of the way to prevent him even standing.  For a Labour leader not to have any control over his civil service is a fatal mistake.  His failure to support the Left in the party has meant that the Right, although a minority, has managed to keep control of the Conference and the NEC.

There have also been policy failures.  Corbyn should have made it clear that the railways would be nationalised within the first six months of a Labour victory and that compensation would be capped.  Instead there is the absurdity of waiting for 15 year contracts to expire.  He should have come up with a radical programme on housing – immediate return to security of tenure in the private sector, controlled rents and massive council house building.  On utilities there has also been nothing in terms of the massive fuel poverty that people are suffering from.  On all of these issues and more Labour’s message is muffled.  The attack on benefits – from the abolition of Council Tax Benefit to the Bedroom tax – has been met with silence.
seat of high authority Luxembourg
It should have been obvious, as Al Jazeera’s The Lobby has demonstrated, that the ‘anti-Semitism’ crisis was wholly manufactured.  His failure to call the anti-Semitism witch-hunt what it was, allowing a destabilising campaign to take hold just before the local elections, has severely weakened his leadership.  Furthermore, Corbyn’s repeated proclamations that he will not tolerate anti-Semitism in the Party can only give the impression that there is a problem.  He has completely played into the hands of his political enemies and it was embarrassing at the Zionist debate with Owen Smith for him to declare that he admired Israel’s ‘spirit and verve’  given his long work with the Palestine solidarity movement.

The biggest policy failure is the decision to support triggering Article 50 and to accept the inevitability of Brexit (which despite all the punditry may not be inevitable).  As the article below from Socialist Action argues, the result of pulling out of the Single Market will be a serious decline in working class living standards.  If May chooses to make Britain a tax haven then this will mean that with far less tax revenue not only will there not be enough resources to fund an expansion of the welfare state but a Labour government would be a rerun of previous austerity governments. 
It was New Labour's failures that gave Farage his chance
Access to the single market, both for manufacturing and the financial services is crucial.  London faces the prospect of losing its role as the world’s leading financial sector to New York, Frankfurt and Paris.   Companies which are located in Britain because of tariff free access to Europe will simply move.  The fact that a narrow majority of people were fooled into voting against their own interests, for good reasons, by nationalist bile is not a reason to accept the decision.  Parties exist to change peoples’ minds not to pander to their prejudices. 

Those who thought that Lexit was a nice phrase will find out that hitching your wagon to Nigel Farage can only lead to disaster.  That that is the position of Britain’s two far-left parties, the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party, demonstrates how out of touch modern day Trotskyism is.  It should have been obvious from the rash of racist attacks in the wake of the Brexit vote that the political mood was not one of an independent socialist Britain but a retrograde and nationalist little England (& Wales). 

The idea that an independent British capitalist state is preferable to European capitalism is nothing more than an attempt to march backwards into history.  Marx and Engel’s described this best in the Communist Manifesto when they wrote that feudal socialism was ‘half lamentation, half lampoon; half an echo of the past, half menace of the future; at times, by its bitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to the very heart’s core; but always ludicrous in its effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history.’
The Mail, like most of the Tory press is all in favour of Brexit
A beautifully poetic description of the belief that there is a nationalist road to socialism.  National or nationalist socialism isn’t exactly a road paved with glory, be it in Germany or Israel.  The attempt to unify Europe economically and politically, which is the proclaimed goal of the European Union cannot succeed under capitalism.  That should be obvious.  But the attempt to try and attain that goal is progressive.  For socialists to oppose it is backward and reactionary.  The attempt to form a single currency is progressive but without economic and fiscal and thus political union, it is doomed as the recent crises have shown. 

The debate around leaving the EU was never going to be about anything else other than the wonders of an independent British capitalism.  Theresa May’s humiliating itinerary, from Trump to Erdogan and Netanyahu shows how absurd this belief is that Britain can go it alone.

Socialism has not been advanced one iota by Brexit or Lexit.  Unfortunately Tony Benn was wedded to the idea that Parliament could regain its sovereignty. It was an illusion then and it still is today.

What should be the position of Corbyn?  He should be implacably opposed to withdrawal from the Single Market as it will have a devastating effect on the welfare state or what is left of it.  Socialism is not best served by advocating policies that lead to a recession.  The only argument that May has for leaving the single market is one of the EU’s three pillars – freedom of movement for workers.  It isn’t an argument that Labour should avoid.  There is no mileage in competing with Farage.  We should be saying loud and clear that the reasons people voted for Brexit, the industrial wastelands of the Midlands and the North were not caused by immigration but the free market principles of Thatcher.  It wasn’t immigration that closed the mines and the shipyards but Tory economic policies.  The same policies that UKIP represent.

It is no accident that the most reactionary section of the American ruling class, as represented by Trump, also favour Brexit.  They want to see the break up of the EU because it will enable the US to gain privileged access on its terms to the European market. 

The wiser members of the Labour left, including Dianne Abbot with her diplomatic illness can see this.  Corbyn thinks that he will gain something by trying to compete with May and Farage on the terms of our exit from the EU.  It is an utter delusion.  What Labour should be doing is   pointing out that the referendum campaign was won on the basis of a lie that can never be delivered.  Our bonus from Brexit,  £300m for the NHS turned to dust the minute the result was announced.  With a base of 48%, it should be clear that a principled stance in opposition to Brexit can very soon, if not already be a majority position in the country.  Corbyn could have won respect for a clear stance on this and not left it to the Labour Right.  It is a failure of leadership of immense proportions.

The European Union came about because the capitalist leaders of Germany and France, Robert Schumann and Jean Monnet, wished to create the economic, political and social conditions that would prevent a recurrence of world war.  At first this was via the Iron and Steel Community and the 1951 Treaty of Paris which morphed into the European Common Market via the 1957 Treaty of Rome and then the European Union with the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht when Euro-scepticism first began to poison the British body politic.

Corbyn has been heavily influenced by the petty nationalism of the Communist Party’s British Road to Socialism.  There is still time for him to change course but I suspect not much time.

Tony Greenstein

Posted: 30 Jan 2017 02:33 AM PST

By Pat Tanner
It is clear, and becoming increasingly publicly evident, that in the coming period the living standards of the British population and British workers cannot be maintained without membership of the European Single Market. The inflation that will be created by the plunging pound will significantly cut living standards, while refusal of companies to invest without free access to a European market which is many time bigger than any UK one will lead to heavy job losses. The significantly lower economic growth that will result will put further pressure on social spending.
It is for this reason that May’s only threat to try to maintain Britain’s economic growth is to make it what is called by the media and the Tories a ‘tax haven’. But this conceals the reality, a ‘tax haven’, a country without an adequate tax base, is one in which social protection and social services would be slashed. The economic path May proposes outside the European Single Market is actually one of a low wage, low job security country with massively reduced social protection.
These economic forces are so powerful they would overwhelm in their effect of living standards measures which are desirable in themselves proposed by Labour such as a National Investment Bank, and rational industrial policy etc. There must therefore be no illusion – if Britain leaves the European Single market living standards will fall and substantial job losses will occur. Labour, therefore, cannot really defending working class living standards without maintaining membership of the Single Market.
It is because of this economic reality that there are significant divisions even within the Tory Party on the Single Market. For the time being Theresa May can unite her party by making the reduction of immigration the priority. But not merely is such a course to be rejected because it is racist but because it cannot solve the negative economic effects on living standards and jobs of leaving the Single Market..
These objective economic realities mean that Labour needs to unite around membership of the EU Single Market.
Labour has tabled seven amendments to the parliamentary Bill authorising Article 50 to be triggered (and is supporting two others on workers’ rights). They should all be supported and the first two are particularly important. They give parliament a vote on the terms of the Brexit deal that the Tory government agrees with the EU. Secondly, they “establish a number of key principles the Government must seek to negotiate during the process, including protecting workers’ rights, securing full tariff and impediment free access to the Single Market.” This corresponds to the actual requirements of the British economy and would protect jobs and living standards. Labour’s priorities are the correct ones.
But the political process has been mishandled and the major effect could be to undermine Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party. Corbyn’s leadership is decisive in maintaining the Labour party’s opposition to war, austerity and racism, and its policies in favour of peace, investment and equality.
The imposition of a three-line whip on the Article Bill is a blunder. It is widely understood that Labour MPs have strongly-held views on opposite sides of the Brexit debate. The imposition of any three-line whip was always going to cause divisions, splits and resignations. It stands in contrast to the free votes on Trident and on bombing Syria, which was in the most literal sense a matter of life and death. It also does not correspond to the views of Labour’s members, as 90 per cent of them voted to Remain or to the views of Labour voters, as 63 per cent also voted Remain.
It is the imposition of a minority position that has provoked the splits. Corbyn’s enemies within Labour have now been handed a cause celebre to rally around. This was totally unnecessary and self-inflicted. Because of Labour splits and the Tories’ temporary unity, Labour’s vote was never going to be decisive on this issue. Article 50 will pass whatever Labour does.
Instead, Labour should fight for its amendments, attempting to get the other opposition parties to support them and trying to draw in pro-EU Tories. For Labour, the paramount issue must be jobs and living standards.
It is becoming increasingly public that leaving the Single Market will be deeply damaging. A large number of international businesses announced they would be seeking to relocate jobs after Theresa May’s clearly ‘Hard Brexit’ speech as she confirmed she would be looking to leave the Single Market. The chair of Toyota said the carmaker would have to ‘examine how it would survive’, if the UK leaves the Single Market. Many other businesses will be doing the same.
Derby and Deeside, the locations for the big Toyota plants both voted to Leave, as did Sunderland. But they did not vote for unemployment. Labour can unite and build a majority by opposing the devastation caused by leaving the Single Market. The same point applies in numerous sectors and locales.
The fantasies swirling around the referendum campaign are being blown away. The vote is already lowering living standards and cutting investment. The sole realistic prospect for the economy outside the Single Market is not a free trade land of plenty, but a trade deal with Trump. This would destroy the NHS, abolish environmental protections, devastate farming and remove food safety standards. Most sectors of the economy would face severe disruption. The sole major sector where the UK is arguably more competitive than the US is finance.
This is not a perspective Labour can accept or embrace. It has to fight for the interests of the majority, which for the foreseeable future must mean remaining in the Single Market.

There will be two parliamentary by-elections on Thursday 23rd February. To assist Labour's campaigns activists are encouraged to participate in the events in Copeland hereand Stoke here. Also Momentum are organising carpools for activists (see the Facebook groups: Carpool to Copeland and Carpool to Stoke).



Four must-watch video interviews with Israeli Professor Avi Shlaim and Jackie Walker about the fake anti-Semitism controversy

$
0
0
These four interviews were conducted by another Israeli Professor (professors seem to be Israel's main export!) Haim Bresheeth of the University of East London.  They are eye opening and well worth watching.
Professor Avi Shlaim of Oxford University

Jackie Walker (part 1)

Jackie Walker (part 2)
Jackie Walker (part 3)

Campaign Against Anti-Semitism tries to intimidate Change.org to remove Petition criticising them

$
0
0


CAA is running scared that their ‘charitable’ status will be revoked

The disgusting Islamaphobia of the CAA should be more than enough to debar them from human society let alone as a charity
I came home last night to an urgent email from Change.org.  Readers will know that I have sponsored a petitioncalling on the Charity Commission to deregister the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism because it is a nakedly political Zionist group. 
Naturally a Black-Jewish woman who is an anti-Zionist is just too tempting a target for the CAA's bile
Its letter to Change.org is clearly very rushed and shows every sign of panic.  They list 6 points and fail to number the first point.  They then repeat the first point in the 6th point.  They also can’t spell ‘documented’ and their grammar is extremely poor throughout.  It would seem that panic has set in among the arrogant threesome at CAA.  It has just dawned on them that vehement and persistent attacks on what they call ‘racist Labour’, their allegations that Jeremy Corbyn is personally anti-Semitic, their attacks on Jackie Walker, Shami Chakrabarti and Gerald Kaufman, have nothing whatsoever to do with charitable activities and are highly partisan.  Hence their panic attack.
Ludicrously they claim that they don’t libel opponents of Israel when that appears to be their main if not sole activity.
This was one of a number of threatening tweets sent to Becky Massey the day the CAA publicly attacked her as an anti-Semite - it doesn't take a genius to work out what 'an armed Jew' means - the CAA refused as a matter of policy to condemn or even acknowledge the consequence of their McCarthyite tactics
The CAA say that their charitable activities are recognised by the Charity Commission which rather begs the question as to whether the Charity Commission actually know what the CAA are up to.  Either way they are going to find out!
The claim by the CAA that they are ‘scrupulously not partisan’ apart from being an example of their awkward English is laughable.  I have compiled just a few examples of their partisanship and bias.
The CAA is a vehemently anti-Muslim organisation - the above pamphlet clearly implies that Muslims support Hitler
They claim not to have elicited or provoked death threats.  There is no doubt that they have caused death threats.  Whether they have elicited them is a mute question.  Certainly they haven’t condemned them. 
Jackie Walker merits 19 posts accusing her of being an anti-Semite.
Jeremy Corbyn merits no less than 73 posts!
Gerald Kaufman can only rack up 21 posts.
Steven Silverman - one of 3 CAA workers, their 'enforcement officer' and a loudmouthed bigot
Silverman's words of wisdom

Silverman's racist anti-Palestinian rhetoric

Theresa May also appears on the CAA's site but there is a slight difference in the treatment of her and Corbyn
Theresa May also has 8 posts but unlike Corbyn they are complimentary for example CAA CONGRATULATES THERESA MAY and then they expect us to take seriously their claim that they are non-partisan.
When Netanyahu's ex-adviser called America's Jewish Ambassador, Daniel Shapira, a 'Jew Boy' - which is as anti-Semitic as it gets, I emailed the CAA asking for their reaction.  Judging by their non-response they didn't have any!
You might say that the Tory Party today is not anti-Semitic.  But that is not true.  Eric Pickles, the Chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel is a good example of an anti-Semitic Zionist.  He was Tory Party Chairman when they decided to abandon their alliance in the European Parliament with the Christian Democrats and instead form the European Conservatives & Reform group with far Right parties, at least 2 of which were anti-Semitic.  The Chairman of the ECR was Michal Kaminski of the Polish Law & Justice Party.  He was an ex-neo-Nazi who had opposed a national apology for the burning alive of up to 900 Polish Jews in the war by fellow Poles.  Another member was Robert Ziles of the Latvian LNNK, who spent a Sunday every March marching with the veterans of the Latvian Waffen SS who helped guard concentration camps. 
As even David Miliband observed:  “Eric Pickles, the Chairman of the Conservative Party, explained without a hint of shame that we should not condemn one of their new allies, the ‘For Fatherland and Freedom’ party, who every year celebrate the Latvian Waffen SS with a march past of SS veterans, because they were only following orders.’ 
You will not find even a cursory mention of this type of genuine anti-Semitism on CAA because their sole concern is anti-Zionism. 
There are no less than 73 posts attacking  Corbyn as an anti-Semite
The latest ‘non-partisan’ post of the CAA PALESTINE SOLIDARITY CAMPAIGN SPEAKER CALLS ON JEWS TO “OVERCOME” SUFFERING OF THE HOLOCAUSTis an attack on Bruce Kent, the former Catholic priest who spoke at the picket of Netanyahu on Monday.  The CAA are ‘appalled’ because Bruce Kent called on Jews to “overcome” the trauma of the Holocaust. Apparently ‘it cannot be overcome’.  Instead they should continue to suffer and non-Jews should understand that ‘one of its principal lessons is that Jews absolutely must have the right to self-determination, as embodied in the state of Israel’. I can’t think of anything more guaranteed to increase anti-Semitism than the pronouncements of the CAA.  The non-political CAA assert that ‘It is prejudiced to expect Jews to renounce all connection to Israel or be judged to be in some way deficient.’  On the contrary, it is a sign that Jewish communities outside are coming of age in rejecting the poisonous doctrines of Zionism.
There is nothing on the CAA site about the BNP, the main holocaust denying organisation in the UK
Below is the complaint that the CAA have made against the petition and beneath that is my response, which is lengthy.
This is what you can do
1.      Share the petition widely and get others to sign it.  It has just over 500 signatures now.  Let’s make it at least 1,000.
2.      Write to Change.org. at help@change.org and say  what you think about the attempt of this McCarthyite organisation to destroy freedom of speech.
3.      Make a formal complaint to the Charity Commission that the CAA breaches the stipulation on a charity being non-political and that its targeting of individuals is reprehensible and has no connection with public benefit or charitable purposes.  This is important because we need to put pressure on the powers that be to deregister this Zionist propaganda organisation.
The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism are the wild men of the Zionist Right.  They are widely disliked even amongst the more sane Zionists.  They tread on the turf of the CST, they are loud and  bombastic, they are dishonest in the surveys they run, they are overtly anti-Muslim.  There are numerous reasons to make a complaint and more to the point, this nasty little group is vulnerable because they haven’t taken any care over what they write or what they say.
Let’s sink them.
Tony Greenstein
CAA hate Jewish MP Gerald Kaufman, the Father of the House of Commons, because he supports the Palestinians.  Gerald used to be a strong Zionist but he became revolted by what he saw
Campaign Against Anti-Semitism's Bogus Complaint
TO PROMOTE RACIAL HARMONY FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT BETWEEN JEWISH PEOPLE WHEREVER IN THE WORLD AND OTHER MEMBERS OF SOCIETY BY THE ELIMINATION OF ANTISEMITISM, INCLUDING RAISING AWARENESS OF THE OCCURRENCE OF ANTISEMITISM AND PROVIDING ADVOCACY, ASSISTANCE, CARE AND RELIEF IN RELATION TO THOSE AFFECTED BY ANTISEMITISM.  TO ADVANCE EDUCATION AS REGARDS THE HISTORY, CAUSES, EFFECTS AND PREVENTION OF ANTISEMITISM FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT. 
We do not libel opponents of Israel, we factually report the activities of antisemites. Claiming otherwise is severely damaging to our reputation.
2. Our charitable activities are recognised by the Charity Commission and HM Revenue and Customs.  Claiming otherwise causes donors to doubt that our charity is legitimate and recognised by the relevant authorities.
3. Our charity is scrupulously not partisan. Recently there has been a widely-docuemented rise of antisemitism on the left of British politics, particularly within the Labour Party. We report on anti-Semitism where it occurs, not according to a political bias. Charities are not permitted to be political organisations and the clear intention of this petition is to defame our charity to the Charity Commission.
4. Our charity have not elicited or provoked death threats. If such threats have occurred they are by no action of our charity. Claiming otherwise is severely damaging to our reputation.
5. Our charity is extensively engaged in fighting antisemitism from the far-right, including a private prosecution and judicial review being undertaken to secure prosecutions of fascists and Holocaust deniers.
6. Our charity does not libel opponents of Israel, we factually report the activities of antisemites. Claiming otherwise is severely damaging to our reputation and the clear intention of this petition is to defame our charity to the Charity Commission.
All of the above statements are factually inaccurate for the reasons stated.
We cannot know the true identity of the person who created the petition.
We request that these details be withheld.

Response to Complaint of the Campaign Against Antisemitism
Thursday, 09 February 2017
Dear Change.org.,
Thank you for sending me a copy of a Notice of Complaint from the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism.  I reject, in its entirety, their assertion that the petition to which they object is, in any way, defamatory.  Truth is an absolute defence to a claim for defamation in the British libel courts.  I believe that the same is true for the American courts where the legal hurdles to obtaining judgment for the Claimant are even higher.
I have no objection to the Claimant having my name and email address.  I would, however, object to them having details of my address because of death threats that have already been made against their victims.  Sharing custody of a disabled boy it would jeopardise the safety of others besides myself.
The Claimant’s Notice of Complaint has clearly been drafted in a hurry because they forget to number point 1 of their NoC and then repeat the same point at number 6.  Coupled with their misspellings and poor English, this suggests that they have been seized by panic at the threat to their charitable status. 
I will endeavour to explain in my response why our allegations are fully justified and part and parcel of free speech.  The CAA believes that they have license to attack people at will but they object to being the object of criticism themselves.
The purpose of the NoC is to get Change.org to take down a petition with which they politically disagree.  The truth often hurts.  There is nothing in it which is libellous and there is nothing in it which damages their reputation.  Any damage to their reputation stems solely from their own activities.
However this case will be a test of whether or not Change.org is willing to stand up for free speech against those forces which seek to destroy and undermine our basic liberties.  The petition is based solely on the activities of CAA as I will explain below. 
My rebuttal of the CAA’s arguments should be read in conjunction with two blog posts which I have written concerning the activities of CAA.
The CAA state that they ‘PROMOTE RACIAL HARMONY FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT BETWEEN JEWISH PEOPLE WHEREVER IN THE WORLD AND OTHER MEMBERS OF SOCIETY BY THE ELIMINATION OF ANTISEMITISM’.  I disagree.  The CAA is a deeply racist organisation.  This is another reason why they should be deregistered as a charity. 
The elimination of anti-Semitism and indeed all forms of racism is a noble enterprise and one to be lauded.  However the making of false accusations of racism and anti-Semitism against people who are not in the least anti-Semitic or racist is despicable.  To falsely accuse someone of anti-Semitism is not only wrong in itself but it lets those who are anti-Semites off the hook.  Genuine anti-Semites can easily point at the false allegations of anti-Semitism in order to disguise their racism.  This is not simply theoretical.  When Gilad Atzmon, an ex-Israeli jazz player who was indeed anti-Semitic, first appeared in Britain a decade ago, many people rejected the accusation that he was anti-Semitic, despite his using terms like the ‘Judaic code’ and alleging Jewish conspiracies to take over the Western world, precisely because people had become immunised by false accusations of anti-Semitism.  It was only after a long and hard campaign to convince people, in which I was heavily involved, that Atzmon was rejected by the Palestine solidarity movement and a statement was issued by Ali Abunmah and other leading Palestinians and Arabs, Granting no QuarterA Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon. You can read more about what I called the ‘boy cried wolf’ syndrome in an article I wrote for the Guardian newspaper, The Seamy Side of Solidarity.
The activities of the CAA, far from combating anti-Semitism are likely to lead to an increase in this form of racism.  As the CAA said in its  Annual Anti-Semitism Barometer 2015 Full Report’ it was formed to tackle anti-Semitism of ‘both a classical ethno-religious nature and also a political nature related to Israel’.I suggest that the latter is their main concern.  I do not accept that opposition to Israel’s endemic and systematic racism has anything to do with anti-Semitism.  I oppose what Israel does to the Palestinians because of my opposition, as a British Jew, to racism.  It would be utterly hypocritical to oppose anti-Semitism and then condone racism against the Palestinians.
The CAA are a Zionist organisation which sees as one of its purposes the engendering of panic in the Jewish community by talking up ‘anti-Semitism’.  That is one reason why they search for anti-Semites where none are to be found.
The CAA has, through adept PR managed to generate headlines and publicity through the skewed use of opinion polls.  In its 2015 Report it claimed, through the use of distorted statistics, that an opinion poll showed that almost half(45%) of British adults believe at least one of the antisemitic statements shown to them to be true’. It asked questions such as ‘“Jews talk about the Holocaust too much in order to get sympathy.”  This is deemed anti-Semitism.  But this was a loaded question given that supporters of Israel repeatedly use the Holocaust as a shield to ward off criticism.  People see that Zionists talk about the Holocaust in a way that is seen to be politically manipulative.  Is a positive answer to this an indication of anti-Semitism? I think that is very doubtful with most people. 
Apparently 1 in 5 people believed that “Jews' loyalty to Israel makes them less loyal to Britain than other British people.”  Where can they have got this idea?  Possibly from Zionists? 
Ha’aretz, Israel’s only liberal daily newspaper reported that on an Israeli Embassy survey Israel Asks U.S. Jews, Israelis: Where Do Your Loyalties Lie?  How many times have I been called a Jewish ‘traitor’ for not supporting Israel?    The whole basis of this accusation is that I owe a dual loyalty, indeed a higher loyalty, to Israel rather than the UK. 
the Jewish Chronicle's poll found, contrary to the CAA, that nearly 90% of British Jews had no intention of going to Israel
The CAA also conducted a thoroughly unscientific poll of British Jews in order to find ‘proof’ that most Jews were thinking about leaving Britain for Israel.  It found that:
58% of Jews believed that they had no future in Europe.
More than half of all British Jews feel that antisemitism now echoes the 1930s
1 in 4 British Jews has considered leaving the country in the past two years because of rising antisemitism. 
45% of Jews questioned feel their family is threatened by Islamist extremism.
77% of Jews questioned have witnessed antisemitism disguised as a political comment about Israel.
84% of Jews consider boycotts of businesses selling Israeli products to be intimidation &
82% say that media bias against Israel fuels persecution of Jews in Britain.
To say that these were loaded questions would be putting it mildly.  They were ideas put in the heads of people in order to gain an answer.  No attempt was made to put countervailing opinions to the audience.  For example it would have been equally possible to put a question such as ‘Is it legitimate to boycott settlement goods in order to pressurise Israel into a political settlement.’
Contrast this with a rigorously controlled, academic survey of the British Jewish community by the Department of Sociology at City University (November 2015).  This found that nearly a quarter, 24%, of British Jews supported sanctions to bring about a peace settlement.  Indeed there is what it calls a ‘sizeable minority’ supporting sanctions (34%-41%) among the young, the highly qualified academically, and those who are not affiliated to a synagogue; with much lower support (i.e. strong opposition) among older respondents, non-graduates and members of Orthodox synagogues11 (11% - 18% support).  The City University survey even more surprisingly found that whilst 59% identify as a Zionist nearly a third, 31% didn’t see themselves as Zionists. 
Even the ardently pro-Zionist Jewish Chronicle poured cold water on the CAA’s findings’ with its own Survation poll.  Some 88% of British Jews in this poll stated that they had no intention of emigrating.  Jewish Chronicle 14.1.15. JC poll reveals 88 per cent of British Jews have not considered leaving UK 
The CAA poll was junk but it had served its purpose, which was to make Jewish people feel uneasy about their position in this country and whip up fears of anti-Semitism.  Zionist organisations see their goal as ‘helping’Jewish people to emigrate to Israel.  Using fears of anti-Semitism is one such method.
Under the title PROFILE OF BRITISH MUSLIM ANTISEMITISM (the CAA seem to love the use of capitals – which people normally take to be a form of shouting online)the CAA publish a highly racist and offensive cartoon of a typical Muslim male.  Far from introducing racial harmony, CAA seem determined to achieve the opposite.
To answer their points in the order that they made them:
1.             The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism’s state that ‘We do not libel opponents of Israel, we factually report the activities of antisemites.’
This statement can best be judged against the posting on the CAA’s site last Friday February 3rd 2017 entitled ‘JUST ANOTHER DAY FOR RACIST LABOUR AS ANTISEMITIC TWEETS OF PARTY’S CHAIR IN HOVE, BRUNSWICK AND ADELAIDE REVEALED. This statement should be judged in the light of not only their first but their third point, viz. Our charity is scrupulously not partisan.’ 
This post appeared last Friday attacking Brighton Labour Party/Momentum and PSC member Becky Massey
 - the 'non partisan' CAA routinely describes Labour as 'racist Labour'
CAA's attack on Israeli Marxist Professor Moshe Machover as a 'terrorist supporter'
Not only does the above statement libel Becky Massey, who is not in any way anti-Semitic, but it also describes the Labour Party, the largest party in the UK, as ‘racist Labour’.  Another post to its side also refers to ‘racist Labour’.  If words mean anything then how can  CAA deny that they are a partisan group.  Do they call the Conservatives ‘racist’?  There is certainly much more evidence for this proposition, for example Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary’s reference to Black people’s as 'piccaninnies' and their ‘watermelon smiles’.
AIPAC the largest and wealthiest pro-Israel group in the USA openly calls itself the 'Israel lobby' yet Becky Massey's references to the Lobby are a code for 'Jewish Lobby' according to the CAA
There isn’t a racist bone in Becky Massey’s body.  The idea that she believes Jews are racially inferior or that they should be subject to the same treatment in Britain as Palestinians in Israel is preposterous.  What is this allegation of anti-Semitism based on? Two tweets:
i.                    That the Israel lobby manufactured the anti-Semitism crisis in the Labour Party. 
ii.                  That Israel has the Tory and Labour parties under its control.
The first and most obvious point is that Becky refers to Israel, not Jews.  The only people who conflate Israel and Jews and hold the latter responsible for the former are anti-Semites!  There is a well founded belief that the Israel lobby in this country has indeed manufactured the false anti-Semitism crisis in the Labour Party.  That is not just my opinion.  It is for example the opinion of Professor Avi Shlaim, one of Israel’s foremost historians and Professor of International Relations at St. Anthony’s College Oxford.  In a recent interview, he stated that:
‘Anti-Semitism is not a real phenomenon within the Labour Party or any of the other major political parties.  There are anti-Semitic incidents, but they are usually related to Israel’s behaviour, to Israeli brutality... but I think that fundamentally that Israel, the Israeli propaganda machine and Israel’s friends in England, the Israel lobby in Britain deliberately confuse or conflate, and I stress they do it deliberately, anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism.’
There could be no clearer statement than this about the false anti-Semitism narrative that the CAA has devoted so much of its time and energy to perpetuating.  In their attack on Ms  Massey, the CAA state that:
According to the International Definition of Antisemitism, which was adopted by the British Government in December, prompting Labour to also claim that they adopt it, “Making…stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as…Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions” is antisemitic.’ 
Ms Massey didn’t even mention Jews.  The CAA did!  The idea that the Israeli government somehow constitutes a ‘Jewish collective’ is in itself an anti-Semitic trope since it is based on the idea that all Jews, myself included, bear a responsibility for the actions of the Israeli government.
The ‘International Definition of Anti-Semitism’that the CAA refer to is actually a reworking of the discredited EUMC Working Definition on Anti-Semitismwhich the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency discarded in 2013.  It was opposed by a large body of public opinion – including the University College (Lecturers) Union and the National Union of Students.  The CAA’s ‘international’ definition attempts to conflate criticism of Israel and Zionism with anti-Semitism.  See The EU has retired it's 'working definition' of anti-Semitism – it's about time
In their response to Becky’s assertion that the Israel lobby had manufactured the false anti-Semitism allegations against the Labour Party, the CAA allegedthat ‘Since these allegations did not come from Israel but were from British Jews, the “Israel lobby” is a misnomer: she means a ‘Jewish lobby’.  This is an outrageous assertion. 
Israel lobby’ is not a euphemism for a ‘Jewish lobby.’  It is how those groups campaigning for Israel in the West describe themselves.  The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful and richest of the pro-Israel groups in the United States, saysin its own press statement that ‘AMERICA’S PRO-ISRAEL LOBBY HOLDS ITS ANNUAL POLICY CONFERENCE IN WASHINGTON, D.C.’  Is AIPAC too anti-Semitic?  The CAA says:
That Massey she (sic) claims that Labour’s antisemitism crisis is a fabrication of the “Israel lobby” is truly ironic: for that antisemitism crisis rests squarely in the black hearts of individuals like her.’  The restrained language of the CAA when describing the ‘black heart’of a woman they have never met and know nothing about proves that the CAA is an organisation out of control.
There is considerable evidence, e.g. in the recent Al Jazeera programmes, The Lobby, in which an undercover reporter spent six months gathering evidence from various pro-Israel groups, that the anti-Semitism controversy in the Labour Party has indeed been the subject of Israeli state interference.  Another example was a well researched article by Asa Winstanley How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party’s anti-Semitism crisis It showed how the allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn was elected Leader were manufactured by the Israel lobby. 
The CAA followed the allegations against Ms Massey up with more false allegation of anti-Semitism, this time against Emeritus Professor Moshe Machover, an Israeli Jewish Professor of Mathematical Logic at Kings College University in London.  Another restrained headline was ‘CAA lodges complaints over professor’s support for genocidal antisemitic terrorists’.  They alleged that ‘Professor Moshe Machover, who teaches philosophy at the University of London has been exposed for supporting Hamas, ‘a genocidal antisemitic terrorist organisation which is proscribed under the Terrorism Act.’ The CAA also alleged falsely that Machover said that Jewish students were under the control of the Israeli embassy.’ 
This is a thinly veiled attempt to use anti-terrorist legislation in order to inhibit and prevent freedom of speech and debate on university campuses.  CAA is fundamentally hostile to any notion of a free and democratic civil society.  Anti-terrorist legislation is designed to prevent terrorism not free speech.  If it does that then terrorism has won. 
Machover gave a nuanced answer to a question about Hamas, which was clearly too complex and nuanced for CAA’s purposes.   The CAA said that ‘Universities have an obligation under the government’s Prevent counter-extremism strategy to ensure that speakers do not come onto their campuses to spread messages in support terrorism or hatred. Universities are obliged to stop such speakers from speaking on their campuses, not to leave students to “judge for themselves”.’  Again this is an outrageous accusation.  Machover was responding to a question about how and why Hamas exist.  Or is it not allowed to talk about such groups?
Moshe Machover is founder of the Socialist Organisation in Israel – Matzpen.  Moshe is also a personal friend.  As a Marxist Moshe certainly does not support Hamas politically, which he and I regard as a politically conservative and backward Islamic organisation.  However we recognise it and the Palestinian peoples’ right to resist Israel’s occupation.  A right all people living under occupation have under international law. 
2.             The CAA state that their ‘charitable activities are recognised by the Charity Commission and HM Revenue and Customs.  Claiming otherwise causes donors to doubt that our charity is legitimate and recognised by the relevant authorities.’ 
Yes that is the whole point of the petition!  We are calling upon the Charity Commission to conduct an investigation into the CAA and reverse their decision to recognise it as a charity in the light of their uncharitable activities.  They are a McCarthyite organisation which targets and demonises individuals that they disagree with.  I realise that the CAA would like to be granted an immunity against criticism that they don’t accord to others, but we live in a democratic society.  I expect Change.org to support our right to make that criticism.
The CAA accuse people of ‘anti-Semitism’ at the drop of a hat but they have nothing to say about the high levels of racism in Israel,.  Since CAA see opposing ‘anti-Semitism’ of a ‘political nature related to Israel’ as their goal, then they have to face certain facts about Israel.  According to the Pew Research Centre’s Report Israel’s Religiously Divided Society a plurality, 48% of Israeli Jewish citizens support the physical expulsion of Israeli Arabs. 
Anyone who dares to point out the staggeringly high level of racism in Israeli society is automatically pilloried as anti-Semitic by the CAA through a tendentious analysis of their speech and the making of quite unwarranted assumptions.  Only yesterday there was a report in the Israel’s Ha’aretz An Israeli Bar Put a Palestinian Beer on Tap. Then the Depressingly Expected Happened the subtitle is ‘Angry social media backlash and calls for a boycott followed the sale of Ramallah-made brew at a pub in Haifa.’  What kind of society is it in which an Arab beer causes a Boycott?  Yet this is standard in what is termed a Jewish state.  Because I oppose a Jewish state, which means Jews have privileges over non-Jews, I too according to the CAA am an ‘anti-Semite’.  Denying the collective right of Jews to a nation state, is also anti-Semitic.  100 years ago saying that Jews form one collective was an anti-Semitic proposition! 
Far from combating anti-Semitism the CAA is responsible for increasing it by encouraging people to make the association between Israel’s racism and British Jews.
When the Charity Commission agreed to register the CAA they had no idea of what they were going to do.  I and a number of other people have made formal representations to the CC that the CAA are not a bona fide charity.  It is their fear of deregistration that is responsible for this bogus and patently false complaint to Change.org.
I expect Change.org to reject what used to be called a gagging writ, viz. an attempt to use the British libel laws to inhibit freedom of speech.  That great British crook, Robert Maxwell was well known for indulging in just this practice.  If Change.org bow to the CAA’s patently false complaint then they will irreparably damage their reputation in the United Kingdom.
3.             The CAA state that ‘Our charity is scrupulously not partisan. Recently there has been a widely-docuemented (sic!) rise of antisemitism on the left of British politics, particularly within the Labour Party. We report on anti-Semitism where it occurs, not according to a political bias. Charities are not permitted to be political organisations and the clear intention of this petition is to defame our charity to the Charity Commission.’
The misspelling, poor English and repetition of paragraphs demonstrate that this complaint is the result of panic.   They are well aware that their defaming of individuals, their partisan political attacks against public personalities and their hysterical McCarthyite language will not bear scrutiny.  Their logic chopping and attempts to confuse political concepts and social categories convince only themselves.  Their abuse of the term ‘anti-Semitism’ as a political weapon against anyone who criticises Israel is not a charitable activity.
The CAA accuse Shami Chakrabarti and Corbyn of Corruption
The statement that the CAA ‘is scrupulously not partisan’ demonstrates that at least the CAA possesses a sense of humour.  Every action of theirs is designed to be partisan.  I will give some examples, but they really are only a small selection:
·                In its attack on Rebecca Massey it states that ‘The Labour Party does not act on antisemitism. Even worse has been perpetrated by even more high-profile figures and yet has famously been dismissed after hearings in camera under the terms of the laughable Chakrabarti report.’  The Chakrabarti Report was a carefully considered report on the allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.  I disagree with much of it but I do so in measured not hysterical terms.  See Chakrabarti – A Missed Opportunity to Develop an Anti-Racist Policy for Labour
Baroness Chakrabarti, who is the highly regarded former Director of Liberty (the equivalent of the US’s ACLU) produced a Reporton racism and anti-Semitism which found that:
The Labour Party is not overrun by antisemitism, Islamophobia or other forms of racism. Further, it is the party that initiated every single United Kingdom race equality law.
This conclusion was highly inconvenient to the CAA which is in the business of proving that anti-Semitism is everwhere in the Labour Party.  However this isn’t the experience of Labour Party members themselves. When Owen Smith, in a debate with Jeremy Corbyn, allegedthat the Labour Party ‘had a shameful anti-Semitism problem’ members of the audience heckled him.  Why because no one treats this media manufactured story seriously.
Baroness Royal sat on the Chakrabarti tribunal.  She produced a Reportinto allegations of anti-Semitism at Oxford University Labour Club.  Royall found in her Report that I do not believe that that there is institutional antisemitism within OULC.’
The CAA however dismisses all such evidence as ‘laughable’ because it doesn’t fit into its preconceived narrative of widespread anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.
·      On the CAA website I searched under ‘Corbyn’ and found 73 entries for him, none of them complimentary.  they have titles like Corbyn’s hypocrisy exposed yet again by Labour’s latest stealthy readmission of suspended antisemite or The leopard does not change its spots: Jeremy Corbyn and Hatem Bazian
·         the CAA’s reaction to Jeremy Corbyn’s election was that ‘Jeremy Corbyn was today re-elected by Labour members to lead the Labour Party. yesterday, Campaign Against Antisemitism instigated disciplinary proceedings against Jeremy Corbyn over his promotion of the lie that accusations of antisemitism are dishonest and nefarious.’  Corbyn is a liar.
·         Reacting to the election result, Gideon Falter, Chairman of Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “the Labour Party is no longer a safe place for British Jews.... though we are an apolitical organisation, we are today speaking out to say that the Labour Party now does more to normalise racism than to oppose it.Extremely serious charges if true but hardly the language of an impartial charitable organisation.
·         Another articleis headed Shami Chakrabarti nominated for a peerage by corbyn in return for clearing Labour of Antisemitism is an accusation that Jeremy Corbyn was guilty of bribery and corruption.  It is a criminal offence to offer honours in return for favours.
·         Another target of the CAA is Gerald Kaufman, a Jewish Labour MP, who is pro-Palestinian.  There are 21 references to him compared to none for the fascist BNP.  Gerald referred to ‘Jewish money’, not a term I would use, in reference to the Conservative Friends of Israel.  But this term is widely used in the Jewish community.  I searched the Jewish Chronicle archive and came up with 590 examples.  The allegation that Jewish donors will no longer fund the Labour Party is the common currency of Zionist propaganda, see for example The Independent of November 9th 2014, Labour funding crisis: Jewish donors drop 'toxic' Ed Miliband.  Likewise the allegation that there is a Jewish vote is commonplace for example Britain's Jewish Voters Desert Labour Party Amid Anti-Semitism Row
These are just a few samples of CAA’s naked political partisanship.  The suggestion that they are apolitical simply doesn’t stack up.
4.             The CAA states that ‘Our charity have not elicited or provoked death threats. If such threats have occurred they are by no action of our charity. Claiming otherwise is severely damaging to our reputation.’
I accept the fact that the allegations made may damage the reputation of the CAA, however it is a fact that the tweets making unabashed threats of violence against Becky Massey were a direct consequence of the false and defamatory article that CAA put up on its website.   They occurred the same day.  The CAA did not contact Ms Massey or  Professor Machover before pillorying them.  Their behaviour has been outrageous and has caused Ms Massey to fear for her physical safety since supporters of Israel are often extremely violent.
5.             Our charity is extensively engaged in fighting antisemitism from the far-right, including a private prosecution and judicial review being undertaken to secure prosecutions of fascists and Holocaust deniers.
The fact that there is no mention of the main fascist party in Britain, the British National Party or the English Defence League on their web site speaks volumes.  When searching for the EDL, it came up with 2 results – none of them to do with the EDL!  The above mentioned legal work is trivial.  Britain has tiny fascist organisations because organisations like the Anti-Nazi League and Anti-fascist Action made sure that their demonstrations never went unopposed.  The CAA are unknown in anti-fascist circles.
Tony Greenstein
 E-mail from Change.org to Tony Greenstein concerning petition
Hello,
Thank you for using Change.org. We're writing to let you know that we received a ‘Notice of Complaint’ from the Campaign Against Antisemitism requesting to remove certain statements of the petition on the grounds that this content is defamatory of the organization. We are enclosing the formal Notice of Complaint for your review. At the request of the claimant, we have removed his/her name and contact information.
Change.org is an open platform and we care deeply about free speech and empowering our users to create the change they want to see. However, when you use Change.org, you agree to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines, and this includes agreeing not to violate third party rights such as defaming others.
This Notice of Complaint compels Change.org to act within five days of receiving it, and therefore we require a response from you as soon as possible. We want to make sure you have the facts for your own protection and to give you the opportunity to amend or remove the petition.
Please let us know by February 13, 2017 if you:
consent to the removal of the allegedly defamatory statements as identified in the Notice of Complaint; or
alternatively, if you wish to maintain the petition
consent to Change.org sending your user name and email address to the claimant; or
alternatively, if you would like to provide other contact information so that you and the claimant can correspond directly about this claim.
Please be assured that if you do not consent to sharing your contact information with the claimant, we will not share this information unless instructed by a court order. We will also notify you of such a court order to give you a chance to oppose it.
If we do not hear from you by February 13, 2017 with all of the information listed above, we will be obliged to remove the petition per the Notice of Complaint.
We are sorry that your petition resulted in legal claims and we wish there was more that we could do to support you but, as mentioned, unfortunately we are legally compelled by this Notice of Complaint.
Please do let us know if you have any questions, and thank you again for using Change.org.

Sincerely,
Change.org
(From US Office/Help desk)

EXCLUSIVE: The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism Accuses Jackie Walker of Holocaust Denial

$
0
0

Why?  Because they didn't realise that she was quoting from David Ben-Gurion


The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism accuses Jackie Walker of Exonerating Hitler on the basis of a quote from David Ben-Gurion

Just some of the posts on the CAA web site.  Falter and friends have indulged in a continuous racist tirade against Jackie Walker - the trash that make up Labour's Compliance Unit under Iain McNicol quote from this racist in disciplinary hearings against Jackie Walker
The CAA must have thought that it was Chanukah come early.  When they saw the Jackie Walker quote that the Palestinians had paid the price for the Holocaust, they had no hesitation in deciding that ‘Nazi’ and ‘Jackie Walker’ could only mean Holocaust denial, if not Holocaust justification.
Gideon Falter - the Campaign Against Anti-semitism's master forger

You can imagine the atmosphere at the CAA after a long days work inventing anti-Semitism libels, distorting quotations and smearing all manner of opponents in and around the Left and the Labour Party.  People from John O’Groats to Lands End are all equally at risk of being targeted by the fiction writers of the CAA.  J K Rowling has nothing on the CAA's Gideon Falter.  All this tedious work in order to persuade Britain's Jewish community and gullible Jewish funders that Britain today is roughly at the same stage as Germany was in 1938 after Kristallnacht (yes they have actually said that).  

Imagine the joy when news of a Jackie Walker quotation arrived.  What made it even more exciting was that she had mentioned the Nazis, Hitler and Auschwitz all in one go.  This was priceless, worth more than its weight in gold.  In the words of Margaret Thatcher, after the sinking of the Belgrano, ‘Gotcha’.
A typical Zionist troll repeats the libel whilst expressing fake outrage

I hope you like those last few weasel words, ‘leaves open the possibility’ hint, hint, nudge, nudge.  She didn’t actually say it but we all know that she meant to say it!

Jackie Walker is the ideal target for Zionism’s masters of smear.  For one thing she is Black.  For another she is, in the words of the Jewish Labour Movement’s fragrant Director, Ella Rose ‘tiny’.  And to make it even worse, she has the audacity to pretend that she is Jewish as well as Black when any half-decent racist and/or Zionist knows that that is impossible.  And the creme de la creme - she has been suspended from the Labour Party by Iain 'Crooked' McNicol on fake anti-Semitism charges.

No organisation has been more assiduous in making racist attacks on Jackie Walker than the Zionist ‘charity’, the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism.  The CAA has put up no less than 19 articles on the web concerning the former Vice Chair and Black-Jewish member of Momentum.

You might think that the CAA would have difficulty with the following quote.  However that is to belittle the skills and brilliance of the CAA's operatives.
Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paradoxe Juif (the Jewish Paradox) p.99.
The context in which Ben-Gurion made the statement he did
I know that standards of literacy are not what they were when I was at school.  Nonetheless I would still expect the average primary school child to understand that the above quote is neither trying to justify the Holocaust or exonerate Hitler.  However, that is to underestimate the ingenuity of Gideon Falter's Campaign Against Antisemitism, who are to honest reporting what Bernie Madoff was to honest banking.  In short they are in a class of their own when it comes to distorting, twisting and inventing what people say.  The CAA puts the Sun to shame.  If they had covered the Hillsborough tragedy they would have described the death of nearly 100 Liverpool fans as an act of collective mass suicide.
Julius Streicher - Nazi gauleiter and editor of Der Sturmer provided a model that CAA have faithfully followed.  Streicher was hanged at Nuremburg after the war.
Although nothing in the quote remotely approximated to the suggestion that Hitler was not responsible for the Holocaust, still less that it was justified, people forget that words by themselves are irrelevant.  In the words of Humpty Dumpty, words mean what Gideon Falter wants them to mean.  

Although those limp wristed pinkos at the Jewish Labour Movement had made all the running, it would be the true Zionists of the CAA who would drive the final nail into the coffin of Jackie Walker. Or perhaps the stake into her Black heart.

So on Tuesday 7th February the CAA put up yet another post attacking Jackie Walker for her evil anti-Semitism.  This one would without doubt finish her off.  Unfortunately there was just one small problem that even the collective genius of the CAA hadn’t foreseen.  The quote in question was not by Jackie Walker or one of her many anti-Semitic friends (because all friends of Jackie are anti-Semitic by definition). 

It was a quote by David Ben Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister, explaining the reasons for Arab hostility to Israel and Zionism.  It wasn’t that they hated Jews or any of the nonsense that JAA come out with. It was because ‘we’ i.e. the Zionists had stolen their land.  And Ben Gurion recognised that it was no use justifying it with mention of Hitler, the Nazis or Auschwitz because that was not the doing of the Arabs either.   

The JAA's problem is that when you live in a permanent haze of Zionist propaganda and lies, nothing seems real after a while.  It all begins to feel like a wilderness of mirrors.  The idea that one of your own side might actually tell the truth for once is almost inconceivable.  However there can be no doubting the authenticity of the quote.  It appeared in the autobiography of Nahum Goldmann, The Jewish Paradox : A personal memoir(1978) p. 99.   Goldmann was the former President of the World Jewish Congress and the World Zionist Congress.   In it he describes a conversation at his home with Ben Gurion.

What could the CAA do to cover up having been caught in the act of fabrication?  Even the cry of 'anti-Semitism' might not sound altogether convincing!  Well the first thing was to delete the article.  The only problem was that people like me could still pick it up in the Google cache!   It’s gone now but not before I managed to capture a screen print.

Leaving aside the humorous side of this, what this shows is that the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism's sole concern is to smear and besmirch any person, Jewish or otherwise, with the label 'anti-Semite' if they are opposed to Zionism or support the Palestinians.  The CAA are a classic McCarthyite organisation whose modus operandi is guilt by association.

The CAA are no more interested in eradicating genuine anti-Semitism than Stalin was in establishing workers' control.  What they are in the business of doing is inventing evidence against anyone who is an opponent of Zionism using the weapon of anti-Semitism.  

The CAA are the equivalent of what Michael Foot once called the Daily Mail in the wake of the Zinoviev letter - The Forger's Gazette. They simply have no case for remaining a charity.  They provide absolutely no public benefit and nor are their purposes charitable.

What they have done is conned the Charity Commission into believing that they are genuinely interested in combating anti-Semitism and pursuing racial harmony whereas they are interested in the exact opposite.

Not surprisingly the CAA have tried to get Change.org to take down the petition To Get the Charity Commission to Deregister the Zionist Campaign Against Anti-Semitism which I put upIt now has 750 signatures and rising.  Please signit and let change.org know that any attempt to remove it will be seen as an attack on freedom of speech.


Tony Greenstein 

Israel’s role in the Guatemalan genocide

$
0
0

Israel's Training & Equipping South and Central America's Bloody Regimes


The reaction of some people to my retelling the history of Israel's role in Guatemala, the most bloody of all the wars in South America, will be 'anti-Semitism'.  Telling the truth is often anti-Semitic.  But Israel excelled itself in Guatemala, aiding the Christian Fundamentalist goverment of Rioss Montt in slaughtering up to 200,000 Mayan Indians.  Israel's involvement in supporting the Rios Montt regime was not a solitary affair.  On the contrary, Israel was up to its neck in supporting all the American death squad regimes in Central and South America - from Nicaragua under Somoza to El Salvador to Chile under Pinochet and of course the Argentinian Junta.
Israeli arms and training fuelled
Guatemalan unrest
If you were to believe the Zionist propaganda in the Labour Party then Israel is the shining democracy of the Middle East, the equivalent of Ronald Reagan’s shining City on the Hill.  However the history of the ‘Jewish’ state is one of supporting the most vicious and blood thirsty dictatorships on the planet.

In Argentina Israel's role in supporting the anti-communist regimes of South America extended to supporting a neo-Nazi Junta that was responsible for the torture and murder of up to 3,000 Argentinian Jews, some 10% of those who disappeared.  See Argentina – Proof that Israel is no Refuge from Anti-Semitism  Below are some accounts of the involvement of the Zionist state in the rape of Guatemala.

Tony Greenstein
General Rios Montt, Guatemala's bloody dictator who rose to power in 1982 with the help of 300 Israeli military 'advisers'
October 5, 2015 at 5:23 pm |
Nick Rodrigo

On 1 September, Alejandro Maldonado was installed as Guatemalan president. The choice was controversial due his role in nullifying the conviction of former dictator Efrain Rios Montt, who had been sentenced for acts of genocide during the civil war. This thirty-six year war was a particularly brutal episode in Guatemala’s troubled postcolonial history and still leaves deep wounds, particularly on the collective psyche of the country’s Mayan population. Israel’s support of Guatemala government forces during this time is an example of Zionist foreign policy at its most calculated.
During the 1960s the entrenched status of servitude and poverty for Guatemala’s Mayan peasantry led to a series of armed and unarmed insurrectionary movements in the countryside. The state responded with unbridled brutality, attacking anyone deemed to be a dissident, including Mayan activists and trade unionists. In 1982, a coup brought Rios Montt to power; in the same year an Inter-American Human Rights Commission issued a report pointing the blame at the Guatemalan government for thousands of illegal executions and missing persons in the 1970s, particularly against campensinosand Indians. The following year Montt deployed the “Firjoles y Fusiles” (beans and guns) campaign which was essentially a scorched earth military programme against “unruly” villages. Taking on the tactics of his predecessors, Montt entrenched agricultural resettlement schemes into the military’s counterinsurgency plans. His successors emulated his pacification techniques in an attempt to destroy indigenous life and rural existence, replacing it with agricultural cooperatives that maintained the feudal status quo. By the time that the UN had brokered peace in 1996, the UN-backed Historical Clarification Commission estimated the total number of deaths at around 250,000. The report, in line with the findings of a Catholic Church-sponsored truth commission, found that the state’s military operations had a disproportionate toll on indigenous communities, including more than 600 massacres, but also incidents of torture, rape and forced displacement.
Jimmy Morales, Guatemala's far Right President and Netanyahu

Israeli and Guatemalan flags

Rios Montt finally faced justice on 10 May 2013. Convicted of genocide and crimes against humanity, he was sentenced to 80 years in prison. Dozens of survivors gave testimony at his trial; some were women who had been raped repeatedly, others were children when the Guatemalan forces attacked their villages. The killings, displacement and disappearances carried out under Montt and other Guatemalan leaders could not have been conducted to such effect without the special relationship that the country enjoyed with Israel, which extended from agricultural assistance to counterinsurgency techniques.

Beans, guns and training: Zionist support of Guatemalan state repression

Six years before the “Beans and Guns” campaign ripped through Mayan village life, the Israeli government initiated a two-year programme for Guatemalan officials to study agricultural schemes in Israel. The Kibbutzim pioneer culture of Zionism shares much with the Gaucho frontierismof colonial and postcolonial Latin America, and in the 1978-1979 period, about 1,000 Guatemalans were trained by Israeli settlement study centres in Rohovot and other areas. When the Guatemalan congress gave Israel its highest honour in 2009, the speaker commented, “If there is thriving agriculture, it’s an Israeli contribution.” In reality, there is no thriving agriculture which benefits Guatemalans today, with hundreds of thousands of rural families dependent upon aid.

Colombian paramilitaries were
trained by Tel Aviv
By the late 1970s, reports of human rights abuses by US-trained and armed Guatemalan soldiers were causing headaches for the Carter administration in Washington; the US congress subsequently suspended military aid in 1977. Within months, Israel had stepped in to fill the void with President Ephraim Katzir signing an agreement for military assistance. According to the Stockholm Institute for Peace, Israel supplied Guatemala with $38 million worth of arms during the civil war period. This included Arava aircraft, artillery pieces and gunboats. The Galil assault rifle, an Israeli-made weapon, was standard issue for the Guatemalan army by 1980, with the state owned small-arms production facility in Alta Verapaz producing its ammunition under Israeli licence. Indeed, corporate enterprise was a significant aspect of Israel’s involvement in the Guatemalan civil war, with a number of Israeli firms active on Guatemalan territory, providing services ranging from military equipment to radar control systems to water development projects. Israel also utilised its shadowy arms industry to avoid embarrassing the US, often shuttling arms to Guatemala through intermediaries, normally retired generals and “securocrats” with dual nationalities. In June 1977, Barbados customs agents discovered a shipment of 26 tons of arms and ammunition destined for Guatemala from Israel in an Argentinian cargo plane; similar shipments were discovered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Reagan’s election in 1979 and his policy of containment in Central America were exploited by Israel. The late Ariel Sharon engineered a relationship with the US in which Israel would carry out much of its dirty work in the region, in a bid to cement a closer relationship and align the countries’ geostrategic interests. This included funnelling weapons to Nicaragua and El Salvador. In a special report by the New York Times in 1983, it was noted that Israel had a role in supplementing US strategic interests.

Israel had contributed considerably to Guatemala’s counterinsurgency programme by the late 1980s, with at least 300 retired and Israeli government affiliated trainers active in the country, passing-on expertise on everything ranging from computer tracking of insurgents and activists through complex snooping techniques, to training elite troops known as “Kaibiles” for the rural pacification programme.
Some of those that Israel helped 'disappear'

Nicaragua vs USA: The framework for reparations from Israel

In the International Court of Justice case Nicaragua vs USA, America was forced, due to its military and paramilitary acts in Nicaragua, to pay compensation to the Nicaraguan people. There are a number of merits from this ruling which could be used to draw up a case against Israel. Under paragraph 220 of the case it notes that states are obliged to refrain from encouraging a party to commit violations or provide concrete assistance: “The United States is thus under an obligation not to encourage persons or groups engaged in the conflict in Nicaragua to act in violation of the provisions of Article 3 common to the four 1949 Geneva conventions.” Under the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation, it states:

4. In cases of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law constituting crimes under international law, States have the duty to investigate and, if there is sufficient evidence, the duty to submit to prosecution the person allegedly responsible for the violations and, if found guilty, the duty to punish her or him […]

Israel’s work in providing Guatemala with military advisors and technical assistance to Rios Montt could constitute such “assistance” for a Guatemalan to conduct genocide and violations of international humanitarian law.
Hugo Roitman - corrupt Israeli businessman arrested in Guatemala

Solidarity of rights

What is most remarkable about the tactics used by the Guatemalan government against the indigenous communities is how much they emulate strategies used by Israel to control and break those under its military occupation. Development towns and forced displacement are official policy used by Israel against its Bedouin population; a scorched earth policy was deployed in South Lebanon; counterinsurgency techniques used by the Shin Bet are deployed to stifle popular protest by Palestinians. Truth, reconciliation and reparations are amongst the hardest of socio-legal programmes to implement. It has been a long and torturous process for Guatemala’s impoverished and marginalised communities to extract confessions from those guilty of atrocities committed during the war. Any admittance of guilt from Israel, in complicity with Guatemalan state crimes, will be difficult to ascertain. Israel’s intricate web of lobby groups, as well as one of the strongest legal defence teams in the world, would make the task difficult. Nevertheless, by bringing a case to the ICJ, a deeper bond of solidarity between Guatemala’s oppressed peoples and their natural allies in Palestine could well be fostered.

Arms, Advice and Counterinsurgency
published in MER140
From the May-June 1986 issue of Middle East Report:

Israel’s increasingly visible presence throughout the Third World, including such disparate places as the Philippines, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Zaire, Botswana, El Salvador and Argentina, raises a number of questions about the objectives and character of Israel’s foreign policy, the nature of the Israeli state, and the US-Israeli relationship. One Third World connection -- Israel’s involvement in Guatemala -- involves several unique aspects, but the basic structure of the tie sheds considerable light on the larger issues.

Three fundamental factors underlie Israel’s involvement in Guatemala and all Israeli Third World relations. First, Israel’s global involvements are directly linked to its efforts to break out of its international isolation. Because of that isolation, Israeli leaders reason that they cannot be particular about the kind of regimes they assist. As a former head of the Knesset foreign relations committee recently said, when asked about the Israeli-Guatemalan relationship:

Israel is a pariah state. When people ask us for something, we cannot afford to ask questions about ideology. The only type of regime that Israel would not aid would be one that is anti-American. Also, if we can aid a country that it may be inconvenient for the US to help, we would be cutting off our nose to spite our face not to.[1]

As this remark suggests, a second element in Israel’s Third World involvements is the significant congruence of interest between Israel and the United States in these areas. Israeli policies are not dictated by US wishes, but they frequently advance what Washington perceives to be its own interests in many Third World countries. Sometimes Israeli policies are undertaken to lessen Israel’s dependence on the US. At other times Israel pursues policies with the specific objective of serving American interests. Such initiatives are primarily motivated by the desire to increase Israel’s leverage over Washington’s Middle East policy. Other Israeli policies are happenstance -- the outcome of initiatives by individuals, corporations or institutes operating without government policy directives. But all these situations reveal a striking convergence between the results of Israel’s policies and American objectives.

A third factor in Israel’s broadening international commitments is the growing militarization of Israeli society. This militarization is reflected in the increased autonomy of the military in Israel. The military and the military-industrial complex frequently make foreign policy decisions with little input or oversight from the civilian sector. Indeed, according to Israeli military analyst Ze’ev Schiff, the civilian apparatus, i.e., the Finance Ministry, does not even control the defense budget. [2] The spiraling growth of that budget, the increasing role of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) as a power factor in the Israeli polity, and the growing concentration of foreign affairs and defense policy decision making in the hands of a select group -- all typically former high military officers -- has resulted in foreign policies emphasizing military solutions to any and all situations.

A related consideration involves the sale of arms and military-related equipment. Analysts today rank Israel as either the seventh or twelfth largest exporter of conventional weapons globally. [3] Israel’s export interests are related to its perceived strategic need to attain self-sufficiency in arms production in order to lessen its dependence on the US while maintaining absolute regional military superiority. The small size of the country, as well as its inherent financial weakness, made the development of a military-industrial complex on the desired scale problematic. The cultivation of external markets eased the “economy of scale” problem in weapons production. Moreover, the export of arms has helped sustain production at full capacity, facilitating strategic planning and stockpiling, assuring supplies when needed, and permitting scarce resources to be spent on science, technology, research and development, to maintain the country’s qualitative edge. [4]

Significant economic motivations are also associated with arms exports. Israel’s 150 companies that manufacture exportable military equipment employ, directly or indirectly, 60,000 people -- some 18-20 percent of the Jewish industrial work force. Moreover, weapons transfers represent one fifth of industrial exports and one tenth of all exports. Thus both levels of employment and balance-of-payments considerations are critically related to arms sales. As a result, Israel’s arms export program has helped its trade position in the face of a chronic trade deficit. [5] In Israel’s calculation, these important military and economic considerations obviously transcend political “niceties” like human rights violations.

Another aspect of the growing militarization of Israeli society involves the 19 years of Israeli military occupation over the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights, and, for varying periods, both the Sinai and southern Lebanon. This experience has trained an entire generation of Israelis to impose Israeli rule over subject peoples. Matti Peled, formerly a general in the Israeli army and now a leading peace activist, put it this way:

Israel has given its soldiers practical training in the art of oppression and in methods of collective punishment. It is no wonder, then, that after their release from the army, some of those officers choose to make use of their knowledge in the service of dictators and that those dictators are pleased to take in the Israeli experts.[6]

“A Nation of Prisoners”
Since the CIA-sponsored coup in 1954, Guatemala has been ruled by a succession of right-wing regimes determined to suppress an indigenous revolutionary movement that traces its lineage back to the American intervention. Most of these were military juntas, but even under the nominally civilian regime from 1966 to 1970 military officers filled critical government posts, [7] and during the 1960s the state waged a brutal counterinsurgency campaign against a guerrilla movement based mainly among the country’s Ladino population. Although this guerrilla movement had been dealt a devastating blow by 1970, new sectors of resistance emerged in the 1970s, particularly in the Indian communities, which evoked new strategies of repression and counterinsurgency.

These were the same years that saw Israel “pacify” and consolidate its occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and Golan territories seized in 1967. Ties between the two states going back to Israel’s establishment were thus reinforced in the 1970s by a shared interest in counterinsurgency. These affinities, old and new, took on new force when Menachem Begin and his Likud coalition came to power in Israel in June 1977. The new Israeli leaders remembered the key role played in 1947-1948 by Jorge Garcia Granados, Guatemala’s representative to the UN Special Committee on Palestine. Garcia Granados, who had been serving as ambassador in Washington, was personally drawn to the Zionist cause long before taking this post and exerted strong influence on the Special Committee to recommend partition. Granados had gone out of his way to meet personally with Begin, Shamir and others in the terrorist underground in Palestine in 1947; in 1948 he urged Guatemala’s president to immediately recognize Israel. [8]

Israel’s present attention to Guatemala is not, of course, predicated entirely on history. Guatemala can still be an asset in international forums such as the UN, where Israel is often quite isolated. Israel also has significant commercial interests in Guatemala. Moreover, Guatemala’s strategic importance to the United States in the context of its Central American policy, coupled with the often stormy relations between Washington and Guatemala City, have afforded Israel a special role in Guatemala. Guatemalan rulers, for their part, see Israel as the world’s foremost practitioner of counterinsurgency, and look to Israel for advice, models, expertise and arms. [9] Israeli assistance began in 1971, but it took on increased importance after 1977, when the Guatemalan generals rejected US military aid in response to Carter administration pressures to remedy their gross human rights violations. Israel has displayed no similar reluctance to work with the country that one Guatemalan lawyer characterized as “a nation of prisoners.”

Rural Pacification

The broad base of rural peasant support for Guatemala’s revolutionary movement, particularly after 1970, led Guatemalan regimes to incorporate agricultural resettlement schemes into their counterinsurgency plans. One aspect of this was “civic action” programs, involving both military and agricultural functions, although the emphasis has clearly been on the military. The US adviser who directed the civic action advisory staff in Guatemala during 1966-1968, Maj. Frederick F. Woerner, describes civic action as “a military weapon in counterinsurgency. I wish I could say that our main concern is in improving nutrition.... These are only byproducts. The security of the country is our mission.” [10] In Guatemala, the fundamental strategy of the military has been to “pacify” the countryside. Between 1954 and 1984, this has meant the murder of more than 100,000 civilians [11]; attempted destruction of the traditional Indian society and culture; and Indian resettlement in “model villages,” which include agricultural cooperatives. The objective is total control of the civilian population, without altering the oligarchic patterns of land ownership. [12] According to Col. Eduardo Wohlers, director of the “Plan of Assistance to Conflict Areas” (commonly known as “Beans and Bullets”) under the Rios Montt regime in 1982-1983, Israel was the main source of inspiration for Guatemala’s counterinsurgency agrarian strategy. Particularly inspiring was Israel’s Nahal program. Nahal, the Hebrew acronym for Fighting Pioneer Youth, trains soldiers in agricultural techniques in order to set up and expand border settlements. “Many of our technicians are Israeli-trained,” Wohlers declared. “The model of the kibbutz and the moshav is planted firmly in their minds. And personally I think it would be fascinating to turn our highlands into that kind of system.” [13] Another Guatemalan view paints a more somber picture of Wohler’s “fascinating” system:

Agriculture holds the key to Israel’s current role. In it [there is] an interlocking mosaic of assistance programs -- weapons to help the Guatemalan Army crush the opposition and lay waste to the countryside, security and intelligence advice to control the local population, and agrarian development models to construct on the ashes of the highlands.[14]

Israeli involvement in Guatemala’s agricultural counterinsurgency program began in 1977, shortly after Menachem Begin was elected prime minister. Two important Guatemalans visited Israel: Col. Fernando Castillo Ramirez, the director of the National Institute of Agrarian Transformation (INTA), the institution most concerned with agricultural resettlement in areas of conflict, and Leonel Giron, an agricultural economist in charge of settlement programs in the Franja Transversal del Norte, the vast northern area scheduled for infrastructure development and land settlement. [15] They sought technical, military and agricultural settlement advice, arms and joint investment schemes. 

Immediately after their visit, Israeli advisers arrived in Guatemala to plan “civic action” programs in the tense Ixcan area in El Quiche, heartland of the revolutionary movement and scene of relentless military repression. [16]

In January 1978, Israel initiated a two-year program of grants for Guatemalan officials to study agricultural cooperative schemes in Israel. Fifty scholarships were made available, and a steady stream of planners, economists, credit managers and others -- a significant number of them high officials of the Guatemalan army -- went to Israel. [17] In February 1979, the Israeli Settlement Study Center at Rehovot provided additional scholarships for officials and employees of INTA, in conjunction with a rural pacification plan initiated by then-president Lucas Garcia. According to a spokesman for Yitzhak Shamir, during the 1978-1979 period Israeli experts “trained about 1,000 Guatemalans.” [18] The pacification plan, which reportedly contained elements of the kibbutz and the moshav, [19] was never implemented, as the Lucas Garcia regime responded indiscriminately to the growing mass movement, and army and state-organized death squads murdered peasants, labor leaders, clergy, students and moderate politicians. [20]

Gen. Efrain Rios Montt seized power from Lucas Garcia in March 1982 and instituted the "Beans and Bullets" rural pacification program. It was conceived by two Guatemalan military officers, Col. Wohlers and Gen. Fuentes Corado, allegedly in conjunction with Israeli advisers. The new program rewarded with food and housing any peasant who cooperated with the government, and used force or the threat of force against those who did not. The army unleashed a violent crusade against the peasants in which at least 10,000 Indian civilians were killed. [21] There followed dozens of projects in rural areas, many of them implemented by Israelis, including housing in the model villages, roads and new water systems. Analyst Nancy Peckenham has succinctly described the meaning of the “beans” side of the program:

These projects, most of which provided emergency relief to people who had been displaced from their homes by the army offensive and then rounded up by the military from their mountain hiding places, are intrinsic to the national counterinsurgency program. On a secondary level that incorporates long-term goals, the pacification program is promoting a new social and economic order that Wohlers expects will undermine the ability of opposition forces to organize the rural population against the government and military.[22]

One other part of Rios Montt’s “Plan Victoria,” implemented with Israeli assistance, is the recruitment of peasants themselves in civil defense patrols. These patrols effectively set peasant against peasant, and are integral to the counterinsurgency campaign. Membership in patrols, which are organized and controlled by the army, is compulsory. Those who refuse to join are branded as subversives. Peasant recruits are given weapons and instructed to watch others for signs of revolutionary inclinations. Approximately 1 million civilians have been forced to join the patrols. [23] After the overthrow of Rios Montt in 1983, the new government of Gen. Oscar Humberto Mejia Victores adopted a more selective approach toward executions and forced disappearances. His regime attempted to consolidate the rural pacification program, focusing on resettlement of Indians in model villages, and strengthened civil defense patrols, a more extensive “food for work” program, and various development schemes initiated by the oligarchy. Available evidence suggests that Israel’s role in Guatemala certainly did not decline during the Mejia Victores administration.

Arms Sales and Military Aid

Israeli-Guatemalan military cooperation began in 1971, during the presidency of Col. Carlos Arana Osario. Then the Guatemalan chief of staff, Kjell Laugerud Garcia, visited Israel and met with Defense Minister Moshe Dayan and other Israeli military officials. Laugerud Garcia expressed Guatemala’s interest in procuring armaments and military communications equipment. Later that year, the two countries signed their first cooperation agreement, though specifics were not made public. [24]

In 1974, Laugerud Garcia became president in what was generally considered to be a fraudulent election. Just prior to taking office in April, he made a private visit to Israel, announcing his wish to widen cooperation with that nation. [25] The first Israeli-Guatemalan arms agreement was signed within months. [26] In 1975, Israeli-made Arava aircraft (adaptable for counterinsurgency tasks) arrived in Guatemala, followed by deliveries of armored cars, artillery and small arms, including Uzi submachine guns and the Galil assault rifle, which became standard issue for the Guatemalan army. Israeli technicians and military advisers accompanied the Aravas. [27]

Guatemala’s interest in purchasing Israeli arms and seeking Israeli advisors was heightened by its increasingly difficult relations with the United States. Guatemalans resented the various pressures Washington exerted, as well as the patronizing attitudes of its advisers sent with the American weapons. In 1977, a series of events resulted in Israel becoming Guatemala’s principal arms supplier and primary source of counterinsurgency advice. [28]

Three months after Jimmy Carter became president in January 1977, the State Department issued a report condemning human rights violations in Guatemala. The Guatemalan regime retorted that it would reject in advance any military aid from a government which dared to impose conditions or interfere in its internal affairs. [29] At Carter’s request, Congress suspended military aid to Guatemala, and the administration included Guatemala on a list of “gross and consistent violators of human rights.” This directed US officials not to support multilateral loans to Guatemala from the World Bank or the Inter-American Development Bank, unless the loans demonstrably financed “basic human needs.” [30]

The Israeli government immediately stepped in to fill the vacuum and a flourish of activity ensued. Israel did not put “strings” on its arms or advice and was indifferent to the repressive practices of the Guatemalan regime. The flow of arms and "agricultural development" advisers picked up considerably. In June 1977, Barbados customs agents discovered a shipment of 26 tons of arms and ammunition destined for Guatemala from Israel in an Argentinian cargo plane, portending the expanding role of Israel as Guatemala’s main arms supplier. [31] Soon Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI), owned and controlled by the Ministry of Defense, installed an Elta radar air traffic control system at the airport near Guatemala City. The system is still operated by Israeli technicians. [32]
In December 1977, Israeli President Ephraim Katzir made a seven-day trip to Guatemala, where he signed an agreement on military assistance. President Laugerud Garcia also announced that Guatemala would purchase five Dabur-class missile patrol boats from Israel. His defense minister visited Israel soon afterward to finalize the purchase and to seek other Israeli military equipment. [33] A meeting between the defense ministers of the two countries, as well as between Guatemalan officials from other ministries and their Israeli counterparts, took place early in 1978, in Israel. The defense ministers discussed the supply of weapons, munitions, military communications equipment (including a computer system), tanks and armored cars, field kitchens, other security items and even the possible supply of the advanced fighter aircraft, the Kfir. They also talked about sending Israeli personnel to install computer and radar systems, to assist in training and equipment maintenance, to establish an electronics school, and to train and advise the Guatemalan army and the internal security police (known as G-2) in counterinsurgency tactics. Guatemala soon received all the desired equipment and assistance, except the Kfir, [34] which Israel was prohibited by the US from selling because it contained an American-made engine. By 1980, the Guatemalan army was fully equipped with Galil rifles at a cost of $6 million. [35]

Computerized Counterinsurgency

In March 1978, Gen. Romeo Lucas Garcia became president of Guatemala in another fraudulent election. During 1979, Israeli technicians from Tadiran Israel Electronics Industries began installing a computer center in Guatemala City which became operational in late 1979 or early 1980. The computer’s data banks are believed to contain the names of at least 80 percent of the country’s population. According to Israeli journalist Yosef Pri’el, the system was established to monitor and “follow up the guerrilla movements in the capital.” [36] Part of the Regional Telecommunications Center, the system is located behind the National Palace and is connected to a complex of intelligence gathering and storage facilities. One report charges that the Center is linked to the US Army’s Southern Command at Fort Gulick in the Panama Canal Zone. [37] Besides storing information on guerrilla groups, the computer reportedly can also measure sudden large increases in water or power use, which might, for instance, indicate the use of a printing press in the middle of the night. George Black reports that “in the summer of 1981, sophisticated Argentine computer analysis methods (using Israeli hardware) had been crucial in detecting and breaking 27 guerrilla safe houses in Guatemala City.” [38] According to one Guatemalan opposition group, Israel is responsible for the whole complex and Israelis work as advisers and instructors there. [39] Amnesty International has charged that the computer system is an integral part of the state’s apparatus for terrorizing its own citizens. [40]

On November 3, 1981, the Guatemalan army opened an electronics school that was built, funded and staffed by Israelis. According to President Lucas Garcia, the school would train specialists in important counterinsurgency technologies: electronic codification and decodification, monitoring and jamming radio transmissions, and ciphering. [41] The colonel who heads the school says that “teaching methods, the teaching teams, the technical instruments, books, and even the custom furniture were designed and built by the Israeli company DEGEM Systems.” [42]

Experts for Export

The most controversial aspect of the Israeli-Guatemalan relationship is the role Israeli advisers have played in the formulation and implementation of Guatemala’s counterinsurgency strategy. In 1980, the head of Guatemala’s internal security forces, Interior Minister Donaldo Alvarez Ruiz, made a second trip to Israel. Subsequently, the Guardian and other sources reported that Israeli, as well as Chilean, Argentinian and other foreign advisers were working with Guatemala’s G-2 national police to develop counterinsurgency capabilities. [43]

There were a large number of retired Israeli officers and military men seeking employment with foreign governments in the early 1980s, a situation reflected in the Israeli presence in Guatemala. Guatemala needed precisely those skills the Israelis were most qualified to offer. Arieh Egozi noted in Yediot Aharonot that such individuals have become a major Israeli “export article.” [44]

By early 1982 there were at least 300 Israeli advisers in Guatemala. [45] The New York Timesreported that “Israel is known to have intelligence teams, security and communications specialists, and military training personnel in Guatemala.” [46]

Israel officially denies providing advisers to Guatemala. The Israeli ambassador in Guatemala City commented: “Maybe there are Israeli persons here, but they are not with the Israeli Army and not with the embassy. We do not even have a military attache and we do not have advisers here.” [47] Nevertheless, Israeli advisers are known to have trained the Guatemalan air force and army special forces, as well as the intelligence services. The Washington Post reported that, “Israeli advisers -- some official, others private -- helped Guatemalan internal security agents hunt underground rebel groups.” [48] Undoubtedly there are both official advisers and “independents” -- former IDF officers who offer their personal services as mercenary “anti-terrorist consultants,” advisers, trainers, and even simple bodyguards. [49] (In addition, dozens of independent Israeli arms merchants, usually retired IDF officers, promote weapons sales for personal profit in Guatemala and elsewhere in Latin America. [50]) Much of the work of official Israeli advisers has been done under the guise of “civic action” programs, “cooperative agricultural development,” “literacy campaigns” and other seemingly innocuous labels. Israeli advisers -- either sent by the government or freelancing -- reportedly trained elite troops known as “Kaibiles” for the Indian pacification program undertaken by President Lucas Garcia in the fall of 1981, and carried out more extensively by Rios Montt. [51] By the early months of 1982, the Kaibiles had killed hundreds of Indian civilians. [52]

When Gen. Efrain Rios Montt staged his coup on March 23, 1982, the Israeli news magazine Ha’olam Hazeh reported he had the help of 300 Israeli military advisers who assisted in training, planning and executing the coup. Yediot Aharonotreferred to the coup as “the Israeli connection.” [53] Rios Montt himself acknowledged to an ABC reporter that things had gone very smoothly “because many of our soldiers were trained by Israelis.” [54] During the 17 months of Rios Montt’s rule, Israel’s intensified military involvement in Guatemala was supplemented by assistance on other levels. Shortly after Rios Montt seized power, the two countries signed a wide-ranging Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement. Guatemala’s tourist board reportedly targeted US Jewish communities in its promotion campaign, and Guatemalan radio regularly aired Israeli programs. [55] Magen David Adom, Israel’s Red Cross, solicited contributions from American Jews so that Israel could dispatch relief supplies to Guatemala. During this period, a Guatemalan business leader told the Los Angeles Times: “We’re isolated internationally. The only friend we have left in the world is Israel.” [56]

Rios Montt’s minister of defense, Gen. Mejia Victores, overthrew the president on August 8, 1983. The change in presidential palace personnel did not appear to signal any change in Israeli-Guatemalan relations. The Eleventh Convention of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Central America and Panama met in Guatemala City in April 1984, attended by Israeli diplomats and high Guatemalan government officials, [57] though Guatemala’s Jewish community is estimated at no more than 1,500. [58] Rodolfo Lobos Zamora, the Guatemalan army chief of staff, visited Israel in early 1985, reportedly to “negotiate for Israeli aid, particularly military aid.” [59] Mejia Victores himself was scheduled to make a state visit to Israel on April 14, 1985, but the threat of a coup forced him to cancel. [60]

Intensified Involvement

In January 1983, at the height of Rios Montt’s carnage, then-chief of staff Gen. Hector Lopez Fuentes summed up the relationship this way, “Israel is our principal supplier of arms and the number one friend of Guatemala in the world.” [61] What accounts for the pervasive Israeli involvement in Guatemala? The convergence of two factors in the fall of 1981 provides part of the answer. First, Defense Minister Ariel Sharon felt strongly, as did Prime Minister Begin, that Israel could increase its leverage over Washington by performing indispensable functions for the US in third countries. Second, the Reagan administration was obsessively concerned about events in Central America, and Guatemala’s significance in US regional strategy was considered crucial at a time when Congressional restrictions on direct US aid were still in force. Lt. Gen. Wallace Nutting, then head of the US Southern Command, noted in 1982 that “the situation in Guatemala is potentially more serious than in El Salvador because the population is larger, the economy is stronger, and the geographical position is more critically located in a strategic sense.” [62]

These two elements converged in the Memorandum of Understanding between Israel and the US in November 1981. The Memorandum specifically provided that the US would grant third countries permission to spend part of their US military credits in Israel. Israel did not feel that the accord went far enough in meeting its needs for expanded markets, nevertheless the Jerusalem Post stated that the Memorandum “laid the groundwork for using Israel’s defense needs and the American aid that nourishes them, to create a broader base for Israel’s industrial development.” [63] The strategic agreement was suspended a month later, when the Begin government annexed the Golan Heights, although Sharon contended that it remained secretly in effect. In discussions prior to the agreement’s formal reinstatement in November 1983, Israel proposed that it serve as a conduit for American aid to “anti-communist” forces in Central America -- primarily the Nicaraguan contras and Guatemala -- through a fund the administration would establish independent of the government budget to finance projects implemented by Israeli “experts.” [64] The Reagan administration’s commitment to these provisions was apparent when Congress tried to block US aid recipients from channeling such aid to the contras in the FY 1986 foreign aid bill: The Reagan team pressed successfully for wording that would not “take away from the sovereign decision” of other countries to assist the contras. [65]

Markets for Israel

Corporate enterprise is another significant aspect of Israeli-Guatemalan relations. Several Israeli firms have established manufacturing subsidiaries in Guatemala; others have confined themselves to commercial distribution of Israeli products. By some accounts Guatemala is the regional distribution center for Israeli military materiel. [66] Israeli firms are also active in construction projects. 
Interviews with several American businessmen who have commercial ties there confirmed these Israeli involvements: 1) Eagle Military Gear Overseas, based in the Hotel Cortijo Reforma in Guatemala City, is in charge of the sale of military equipment outside that country. 2) Tahal Consulting Engineers, Ltd. was registered in 1980 for temporary operations in planning, organizing and supervising water development projects in Guatemala. According to the commercial registry of Guatemala, its initial capital investment was $5,000, a miniscule sum given the considerable work it purportedly engaged in. In 1983, Tahal was granted permission to operate indefinitely in Guatemala. (Several American firms that have traditionally engaged in such projects in Guatemala have recently complained bitterly about losing lucrative contracts to Israeli firms including Tahal.) 3) Tadiran Israel Electronics was given permission to operate in Guatemala for two years beginning in September 1983. It manufactures and sells electronic equipment and was initially capitalized at nearly $12 million. Tadiran installed the computer system in Guatemala City. 4) Israel Aircraft Industries, Israel’s largest military-industrial producer, installed the radar control system at the airport and is reportedly producing specialized equipment in Guatemala. [67]

By 1983, reports from a variety of sources in Guatemala confirmed the existence of a munitions factory, in the department of Alta Verpaz. According to Gen. Lopez Fuentes the factory was functional in May of 1983. [68] Eagle Military Gear Overseas, the firm which constructed it, is reported to be the major investor in the factory. [69] There is also an annex where armored vehicles are assembled. According to Mejia Victores’ foreign minister, Andrade Diaz-Duran, the plant was built “to save foreign exchange that we would otherwise have to spend on the international market.” [70] It is not clear, however, exactly what the profit sharing arrangements are between the Israeli investors and the Guatemalan generals who established a Military Industry and Services Secretariat in early August 1983 to “officially” handle the new arms business. Some analysts have argued that the strategic objective behind developing a munitions industry (allegedly to be followed by armaments production) in Guatemala is related to the goals of CONDECA to standardize all weapons and ammunition throughout Central America (except Nicaragua). According to this argument, Israel undertook the venture at the behest of the US in the context of Washington’s regional objectives.
Whatever the case, clearly the plant is a major new development for Guatemala and possibly for the entire region. [71] Several joint US-Israeli projects for long-term developmental cooperation in Guatemala may offer expanded opportunities for Israeli commercial interests. In April 1982, Israeli and US officials prepared a proposal to assemble US industrial products in Guatemalan urban centers, and to encourage the planting of non-traditional export-oriented agricultural products -- asparagus, raspberries, broccoli, cabbage, watermelon -- in the highlands. Israeli agricultural experts would assist in the development of these commercial farming ventures. [72] Israel, Guatemala and the US prepared a more detailed plan in late 1983 (during the Mejia-Victores/Reagan administration “honeymoon” and immediately after the November 1983 US-Israeli strategic cooperation agreement). At least two trilateral meetings were held in December 1983 in Guatemala City, attended by army chief of staff Lopez Fuentes, Vice President Rodolfo Lobos Zamoro, a delegate from the military bases’ commanders’ council, US Col. Jean Gorovit, the Israeli ambassador and other Israeli officials. The agreements hammered out at the meetings, unofficially known as the San Marcos Plan, were apparently aimed at completing the pacification of the Indian highlands and constructing the infrastructure for the development of military-industrial facilities. [73]

Israel agreed to send more experts to train Guatemalan special forces at the Santa Cruz base in El Quiche, as well as to continue training the special forces of the national security police. The Guatemalan government promised to relocate some of the “model villages” in which Indians are presently being held to provide a labor force for industrial development. To date, though, there is little evidence that these schemes have been implemented.

Strains between Washington and Guatemala resurfaced with Mejia Victores’ public denunciation in April 1984 of the US- backed regional military force (CONDECA) and Guatemala’s subsequent refusal to participate in joint maneuvers with the US. Nevertheless, the basic objectives of the US and Guatemala in opposing leftist movements in the area remain as strong as ever.

Guatemala’s new civilian government under President Vinicio Cerezo, despite its good intentions, does not have the autonomy and power to undertake critical domestic reforms or alter key alliances. In particular, because of the various structural ties that have developed between Israel and Guatemala over the last two decades, Israeli involvement in that country is unlikely to diminish as a result of government changes either in Guatemala City or in Jerusalem. Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir, during a May 1986 visit to Guatemala, promised to increase technical and agricultural aid. [74]

Likud strategy, to support the anti-communist political objectives of the United States in order to further cement the US-Israeli relationship and increase Israeli influence over Washington’s policy in the Middle East, seems to have enjoyed remarkable success with the Reagan administration. The New York Times reported in mid-1983 that "American officials, in confirming Israel’s cooperation in Central America, said that it was a factor in the recent improvement of Israel-United States relations."[75] Israeli support for Reagan policies in Congress, via the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has also been appreciated at the Reagan White House. [76]

Of course, past US support for Israel originates from Washington’s perception that Israeli policy in the Middle East serves US interests there. This remains the core of the US-Israeli strategic relationship. But Israeli cooperation outside the region, especially in Central America, has certainly enhanced that partnership. In particular, it seems to have been a factor in the readiness of the Central Intelligence Agency, under William Casey, to provide reconnaissance satellite data on Arab states to Israel. According to Maj. Gen. Yehoshua Saguy, head of Israeli military intelligence from 1979-1983, the US supplied “not only the information but the photos themselves_Casey now says ‘yes’ all the time.” According to an American official, because of the value of this CIA support (“Casey’s gift”) “the Israelis would have every reason to do what Casey wanted [in Central America].” [77] The backscratching is mutual, as the Reagan administration’s eagerness to play down the recent case of Israeli espionage in US intelligence circles indicates.

Israel’s objective of decreasing its international isolation and winning friends in the global community appears to have been validated in its relationship with Guatemala as well. Israeli diplomat Nathaniel Lorch reports a positive correlation between Israeli assistance and Guatemalan political support.[78] Guatemala has provided Israel consistent ideological backing, particularly on important UN resolutions. (Although following the 1981 Reunification of Jerusalem Law, Guatemala moved its embassy to Tel Aviv, Israeli officials are hopeful that Guatemala’s return to Jerusalem will be forthcoming.)

More important, Israel’s failure to move toward any political resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli question and the continued state of de facto war in the Middle East only serves to increase the power of the military in Israeli society. This in turn ensures the continuation of policies in the Third World which serve the interests of Israel’s military establishment and military-industrial complex.
Author’s Note: I would like to thank the Latin American and Caribbean Center at Florida International University for a grant which made the field work in Central America for this research possible. Also many thanks to Milton Jamail and Jane Hunter for critiques of early drafts and much valuable assistance. Joe Stork made extensive editorial changes. Any mistakes, of course, are entirely mine.

Endnotes
[1]Statement in a public lecture by Yohanah Ramati, former editor of the Israeli journal The Economist and member of the Foreign Relations Committee during the Likud government (1977-1984), Florida International University, Bay Vista campus, March 6, 1985.
[2] Ze’ev Schiff, “The Show in the Hole,” Haaretz, April 29, 1985, translated by Israel Shahak.
[3] Aharon Klieman ranks it twelfth. See Israeli Arms Sales: Perspectives and Prospects (Tel Aviv: Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University, Paper 24, February 1984), p. 5. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute ranks it higher. See SIPRI Yearbooks(1978-1984).
[4] Klieman, pp. 18-21. See also Jean Briggs, “We Need Entrepreneurs, Not Military Heroes,” Forbes, November 7, 1983, pp. 134-142.
[5] Klieman, pp. 21-25.
[6] Matti Peled, “Israel and the Arms Market,” Haaretz, March 4, 1985, translated by Israel Shahak.
[7] Susanne Jonas and David Tobis, Guatemala (New York: North American Congress on Latin America, 1974), pp. 118-120.
[8] Granados insisted that a UNSCOP subcommittee visit Nazi concentration camps, and argued forcefully that the “Jewish question” and Zionism were organically linked. Shortly after they arrived in Palestine to begin their investigation, Granados convinced UNSCOP to issue a resolution calling on the British to lift a death sentence imposed on three Jewish terrorists, arguing that, “No matter how we viewed such activities, the terrorists were inhabitants of the country playing a definite role in the drama and were entitled to express their views to UNSCOP.” Granados held several secret meetings (alone and with Enrique Fabregat of Uruguay) with various members, including an important lengthy encounter with Begin himself. When the UNSCOP subcommittee on boundaries (of which Granados was not originally a member) was unable to reach agreement on a plan, Granados drew a map extending the Jewish state’s coastal strip to the Lebanese border, then running it parallel to that border until it joined eastern Galilee. Granados drew the borders in the south to include the Negev, then tied the areas together with special corridors. Granados’ own subcommittee assignment was with the group designated to develop the final partition plan, where he was placed after introducing the concept of partition into the UNSCOP deliberations and forcefully defending it over all other possible solutions. Jorge Garcia Granados, The Birth of Israel: The Drama as I Saw It (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1948), passim. A revealing analysis of the extensiveness of Zionist diplomacy in the pre-state period in Latin America is in Edy Kaufman, “Israel’s Foreign Policy Implementation in Latin America,” in Michael Curtis and Susan Aurelia Gitelson, eds., Israel in the Third World (New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1976), pp. 120-146.
[9] Michael McClintock, The American Connection, II: State Terror and Popular Resistance in Guatemala (London: Zed Press, 1985), pp. 162, 187-188, 192-196.
[10] David Tobis, “Retaliation in Guatemala,” National Guardian, January 27, 1968.
[11] Luisa Frank and Philip Wheaton, Indian Guatemala: Path to Liberation -- The Role of Christians in the Indian Process(Washington, DC: EPICA Task Force, 1984), p. 3.
[12] Ibid. See also Allan Nairn, “The Guns of Guatemala,” The New Republic, April 11, 1983, pp. 17-21; Clare Maxwell, “Guatemala: Counterinsurgency Plan Eradicating Native Way of Life,” Latinamerica Press, October 25, 1984, pp. 3-4; Nancy Peckenham, “Bullets and Beans,” Multinational Monitor (April 1984); and George Black, “Israeli Connection: Not Just Guns for Guatemala,” NACLA Report on the Americas, May-June 1983, pp. 43-45. (Hereafter Black.)
[13] Black, p. 45.
[14] Ibid., pp. 44-45.
[15] The Franja’s 3,500 square miles, rich in oil and nickel, are owned by an alliance of generals. At the apex is Gen. Romeo Lucas Garcia (president of Guatemala, 1978-1982), in partnership with his nephew Raul Garcia Granados (of the Jorge Garcia Granados family). Raul was also a principal in the Coordinating Committee of Agricultural, Commercial, Industrial and Financial Associations (CACIF), the umbrella body for Guatemalan business federations, which from 1963 until very recently has given unswerving support to military rule and has customarily provided each regime with its minister of economy. See Rene Poiteven, El proceso de industrializacion en Guatemala, Costa Rica, EDUCA, 1977, p. 190, cited in NACLA Report on the Americas(January-February 1983), p. 23. Since 1980 Israel has been involved in the development of this area. CACIF has been accused, together with the Guatemalan Association of Agriculturalists, of organizing the rural death squads. Other major Franja associates include Col. Carlos Arana Osario (president of Guatemala, 1970-1974), Gen. Otto Spiegler Noreiga (minister of defense in the Kjell Laugerud Garcia government, 1974-1978), and Gen. Hans Laugerud, brother of President Kjell. See NACLA Report on the Americas (January-February 1983), pp. 11-15, especially the extensive sources noted on p. 15.
[16] Black, p. 45.
[17] Organizacion del Pueblo en Armas, “La Organizacion del Pueblo en armas (ORPA) Denuncia: Injerencia de Israel en Guatemala,” (four pages in Spanish) available from SIAG Press, Managua, p. 4. (Hereafter ORPA Denuncia.) See also Centro Exterior de Reportes Informativos sobre Guatemala (Managua, 1984), p. 4. (Hereafter CERI-GUA).
[18]Miami Herald, May 10, 1986. See also CERI-GUA, p. 4.
[19] Black, p. 45.
[20] Amnesty International, Guatemala: A Government Program of Political Murder (London, 1981).
[21] The figure of 10,000 murdered civilians under the Rios Montt regime is a commonly accepted statistic. NACLA Report on the Americas(November-December 1985), p. 11, estimated “that from 1981-1984 between 36,000 and 72,000 Guatemalans had died. And that was only the adults; murdered children remain uncounted.”
[22] Peckenham, “Bullets and Beans.” See also Peckenham, “Campos de reeducacion para los indigenas,” Uno Mas Uno (Mexico City), February 12, 1984.
[23] Frank and Wheaton, pp. 84-98. See also Guatemalan Information and Analysis Service, “A Troubled Democracy” (Managua, July 5, 1984.) (Hereafter SIAG.)
[24] Edy Kaufman, Yoram Shapira and Joel Barromi, Israel-Latin American Relations (New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1979), pp. 107, 118.
[25] Ibid., pp. 107-108.
[26]El Dia (Mexico City), August 12, 1977.
[27] See “Israel’s Part in Central America (II),” Central America Report, December 14, 1984, p. 386; and Black, p. 44. The Economist (April 3, 1982) reported that Israel was Guatemala’s major arms supplier. For Israeli arms sales to Latin America in general, see New York Times, December 17, 1982. Leslie Gelb cites an instance when Secretary of State Alexander Haig “prompted Israel to do more in Guatemala. By all accounts,” Gelb adds, “Israel needed no prompting.” See also NACLA Report on the Americas (January-February 1982), pp. 49-50; Miami Herald, December 13, 1982; MERIP Reports 112 (February 1983), pp. 16-30; Jerusalem Post, June 4, 1982; Christian Science Monitor, December 27, 1982; National Catholic Reporter, December 25, 1981; Sunday Telegraph, August 28, 1983.
[28] Klieman (p. 6) argues that Israel is not the principal military supplier to any single country. The overwhelming evidence on Guatemala suggests that Klieman is incorrect: Israel is indeed Guatemala’s principal arms supplier and has been since 1977. See “Israel’s Part in Central America (II),” Central America Report, December 14, 1984, p. 386; “Israeli Arms,” Latin American Regional Reports: Mexico and Central America, January 13, 1984, p. 8; “Guatemala: Weapons Shipment,” Foreign Broadcast Information Service, January 21, 1984, p. 13; Houston Chronicle, January 17, 1983; Israel is not the only country advising the Guatemalan army, so it is not always possible to be sure of the source of advice regarding a specific policy. However, the prominence of Israeli advisers in Guatemala, the praise that government leaders have heaped on the Israelis, and the parallels with Israeli occupation policies lends credence to the argument. See for example Alexander Cockburn, “Sharing Responsibility for Guatemalan Horrors,” Wall Street Journal, February 24, 1983. Argentina, Taiwan, South Korea and South Africa as well as the US have also played important roles in Guatemala.
[29]NACLA Report on the Americas (March-April 1983), p. 26.
[30] George Black, Milton Jamail and Norma Stoltz Chinchilla, Garrison Guatemala (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1984), p. 159. (Hereafter Black et al.)
[31] The incident was reported by Yaov Kami in Yediot Aharonot, November 3, 1980.
[32]Central America Report, October 31, 1977.
[33]Central America Report, December 12, 1977; Uno Mas Uno, December 4 and 9, 1977.
[34] CERI-GUA, passim; ORPA Denuncia, passim. Cynthia Arnson, “Israel and Central America,” New Outlook, March-April 1984, p. 20, provides information on some of the military material Guatemala received. See also Israel Shahak, Israel’s Global Role: Weapons for Repression(Belmont, MA: Association of Arab-American University Graduates, 1982). A variety of other sources, as well as my own field research, have confirmed Guatemala’s receipt of such equipment and personnel.
[35] Black et al, pp. 154-155.
[36]Davar, August 13, 1982.
[37] Clarence Lusane, “Israeli Arms in Central America,” Covert Action (Winter 1984), p. 36.
[38] Black et al, p. 154.
[39] ORPA Denuncia, p. 3.
[40] Amnesty International (1981).
[41] CERI-GUA, p. 5; Jane Hunter in Israeli Foreign Affairs 1/4; Black, p. 44.
[42]“Moderna escuela de transmisiones y electronica del ejercito inaugurada,” Diario de Centro America (Guatemala City), November 5, 1981. Arnson (“Israel and Central America,” p. 20) confirms the Israeli role in designing, staffing and funding the school.
[43]Guardian, December 29, 1981. See also Jacques Lemieux, “Le role d’Israel: Encerclement du regime Sandiniste,” Le Monde Diplomatique, October 1984. While allegations of Israeli training in interrogation and torture techniques cannot be proven, such Israeli practices against Palestinians are amply documented. See, for example, Law in the Service of Man, Torture and Intimidation in the West Bank: The Case of al-Fara‘a Prison(Ramallah, 1985); Sunday Times (London), June 19, 1977; and the three State Department reports of Alexandra Johnson published in the Palestine Human Rights Bulletin 17 (April 1979).
[44] Arieh Egozi, “An Israeli for Hire,” Yediot Aharonot, April 3, 1985, translated by Israel Shahak.
[45] The figure is cited in a variety of sources. See CERI-GUA, and Excelsior (Mexico City), October 11, 1983.
[46]New York Times, December 17, 1982.
[47]Washington Post, January 23, 1982.
[48]Washington Post, August 17, 1983.
[49] Edy Kaufman, “The View from Jerusalem,” Washington Quarterly (Fall 1984), p. 46.
[50] Emmanuel Rosen, “Lonely Wolves in the Arms Jungle,” Ma’ariv, August 12, 1982, translated by Israel Shahak. Victor Perera provides a good discussion of the role of these private arms merchants, especially that of Marcus Katz; see “Uzi Diplomacy,” Mother Jones (July 1985).
[51] According to one report, Israeli social psychologists discovered the great respect of Guatemalan Indians for the ancient Maya-Quiche gods, including Balam, the God of Gods and of War. Naming the elite troops Kaibiles was intended to invoke fear and respect. SIAG, Los Kaibiles(special report), January 1983.
[52] Frank and Wheaton, p. 70.
[53] Yoav Kami in Yediot Aharonot, March 28, 1982 and Haim Baram in Ha’olam Hazeh, April 12, 1982. Edy Kaufman states that the allegation of 300 Israeli advisers participating in the coup is a “gross exaggeration.” “The Israeli Involvement in Latin America,” in William Perry and Peter Wehner, eds., The Latin American Policies of US Allies (New York: Praeger, 1986), p. 159.
[54] Black et al, p. 156.
[55] Black, p. 44.
[56]Houston Chronicle, January 26, 1982.
[57] Latin America Regional Reports: Mexico and Central America (RM-84-04), May 4, 1984, p. 5.
[58] Judith Laikin Elkin, Jews of the Latin American Republics (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980), p. 193.
[59]“Lobos Visits Israel, Vatican,” Enfoprensa(Washington, DC), March 1, 1985.
[60] Associated Press, April 12, 1985; New York Times, April 13, 1985, says only that Mejia Victores was going to “the Middle East.”
[61] CERI-GUA, p. 2.
[62]New York Times, August 22, 1982.
[63] Cited in the Miami Herald, December 13, 1982.
[64] For Sharon’s statement, see Miami Herald, December 13, 1982. The proposal was subsequently discussed in a New York Times article (April 22, 1984) excerpted from Haaretz; the Israeli government officially denied it was going to play such a role. See also Philadelphia Inquirer, May 31, 1984; Washington Post, June 16, 1984.
[65]Washington Post, September 15, 1985.
[66] Israel Shahak in an analysis dated December 1, 1981.
[67] The original source for most of the information on Israeli investments in Guatemala was CERI-GUA, pp. 5-6. Interviews have confirmed the presence of Tahal, Tadiran and IAI.
[68] See Nuevo Diario (Nicaragua), November 9, 1983; Granma(US), October 30, 1983; Disweek (Belize), November 18, 1983; Guardian(US), November 16, 1983.
[69] SIAG, April 27, 1984. There are numerous sources that argue that the plant was built with Israeli capital and technology, and that Israeli technicians set up the factory. See, for example, Latin American Regional Report, December 2, 1983 and Enfoprensa, January 6, 1984. Other sources report that Austria is the major external investor in the munitions factory. Since it was built to produce bullets for the Israeli Galil (and to produce the Galil in the future), it is reasonable to presume that Israeli interests are involved.
[70]New York Times, July 7, 1984.
[71] See also “Government Making Its Own Weaponry,” San Antonio Light, December 28, 1983, and Guardian, November 16, 1983.
[72] Agencia Guatemalteca de Noticias (Managua), “Project for Economic Recovery,” March 29, 1985. Taiwan and South Africa were also mentioned as possible investors in the project.
[73] The material on the San Marcos Plan is taken from a report prepared by SIAG, April 27, 1984, and from my research in Central America in the summer of 1984.
[74]Miami Herald, May 10, 1986.
[75]New York Times, July 21, 1983.
[76] Robert Kaiser, “Is Dependency on US Aid Doing Israel Any Good?” Miami Herald, June 3, 1984.
[77]Washington Post, May 19, 1984.
[78] Nathaniel Lorch, “Latin America and Israel,” Jerusalem Quarterly (Winter 1982), p. 81.


The history of Israel's relations with Guatemala roughly parallels that of its ties with El Salvador except the Guatemalan military was so unswervingly bloody that Congress never permitted the ... Reagan Administration to undo the military aid cutoff implemented during the Carter years.
Weaponry for the Guatemalan military is the very least of what Israel has delivered. Israel not only provided the technology necessary for a reign of terror, it helped in the organization and commission of the horrors perpetrated by the Guatemalan military and police. And even beyond that: to ensure that the profitable relationship would continue, Israel and its agents worked actively to maintain Israeli influence in Guatemala.

Throughout the years of untrammeled slaughter that left at least 45,000 dead, and, by early 1983, one million in internal exile - mostly indigenous Mayan Indians, who comprise a majority of Guatemala's eight million people - and thousands more in exile abroad, Israel stood by the Guatemalan military. Three successive military governments and three brutal and sweeping campaigns against the Mayan population, described by a U.S. diplomat as Guatemala's "genocide against the Indians," had the benefit of Israeli techniques and experience, as well as hardware.

***

Israel began selling Guatemala weapons in 1974 and since then is known to have delivered 17 Arava aircraft. In 1977 at the annual industrial fair, Interfer, Israel's main attraction was the Arava. "An operative Arava is to be parked outside the IAI pavilion for public inspection, although its silhouette in flight is a common sight over the capital and countryside."'

Referring to the Aravas, Benedicto Lucas Garcia, chief of staff during the rule of his brother Romeo Lucas Garcia (1978-1982) said, "Israel helped us in regard to planes and transportation-which we desperately needed because we've had problems in transferring ground forces from one place to another. By 1982, at least nine of the Aravas had been mounted with gun pods.

Among the other weapons sold by Israel were 10 RBY armored personnel carriers, three Dabur class patrol boats armed with Gabriel missiles, light cannons, machine guns and at least 15,000 Galil assault rifles. The Galil became Guatemala's standard rifle and Uzis were widely seen as well.
According to Victor Perera, "Uzis and the larger Galil assault rifles used by Guatemala's special counterinsurgency forces accounted for at least half of the estimated 45,000 Guatemalan Indians killed by the military since 1978"

***

When the Reagan Administration took office it was determined to do everything it could for Guatemala. It had promised as much during the election campaign. Never had Ronald Reagan seen a rightist dictatorship he didn't like; during his 1980 campaign he met with a representative of the right-wing business lobby Los Amigos del Pais, and, referring to the Carter Administration's aid cutoff, told him, "Don't give up. Stay there and fight. I'll help you as soon as I get in."

The Guatemalan far-right apparently helped Reagan get in.

Guatemalan business leaders reportedly pumped large illegal contributions into the Reagan campaign coffers. Their tentacles reached right into the core of the new administration through the lobbying activities of the Hannaford-Deaver law firm of White House troika member Michael Deaver. Within three days of the Republican victory on 7 November 1980, Hannaford-Deaver were busy arranging a Capitol Hill briefing for Amigos del Pais.

Congress, however, did not change its attitude about Guatemala, and as late as 1985 remained adamant about denying it military aid. In 1981, Reagan's Secretary of State Alexander Haig "urged Israel to help Guatemala." In July 1985 Israel helped the administration move a shipment of 40 assault rifles with advanced night sights and 1,000 grenade launchers from Israel to Guatemala on a KLM (Royal Dutch Airlines) flight.

In late 1983, the Guerrilla Army of the Poor (EGP) issued a communiqué saying that the previous May a munitions factory producing bullets for Galil rifles and Uzi submachine guns had begun operation in Alta Verapaz. Subsequently the director of Army Public Relations confirmed that the military was producing Galil rifle parts, had begun armor plating its vehicles at the factory, and that the facility would soon be capable of building grenade launchers. The following year the factory began manufacturing entire Galil rifles under license from Israel.

Israeli advisers set up the factory and then trained the Guatemalans to run it, said Gen. Benedicto Lucas Garcia, who had headed the army at the time. "The factory is now being run by Guatemalans," he added. There are hopes in Guatemala that 30 percent of the plant's output can be sold to Honduras and El Salvador.

The EGP said in 1983 that there were 300 Israeli advisers in Guatemala, working "in the security structures and in the army." Other reports were less specific as to numbers, but suggested that these Israeli advisers, "some official, others private," performed a variety of functions. Israelis "helped Guatemalan internal security agents hunt underground rebel groups."

Gen. Lucas said Israeli advisers had come to teach the use of Israeli equipment purchased by Guatemala. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s the Guatemalan police agencies had had extensive U.S. training in "riot control training and related phases of coping with civil disturbances in a humane and effective manner," a euphemism for the terror campaigns in which these forces participated that in 1967-1968 took 7,000 lives while ostensibly fighting a guerrilla force that never numbered more than 450. When Congress forbade U.S. forces to train the internal police forces of other countries-passed in 1974, this law was supplanted in 1985 by legislation that put the U.S. back in the police-guidance business - the Israelis stepped in and "set up their intelligence network, tried and tested on the West Bank and Gaza."

Israeli noncommissioned officers were also said to have been hired by big landowners to train their private security details. (Under Marcos, Israel did the same in the Philippines. These private squads, together with "off-duty military officers formed the fearsome 'death squads' which later spread to neighboring El Salvador, where they have been responsible for an estimated 20,000-30,000 murders of left-wing dissidents."

Not only did the Israelis share their experiences and their tactics, they bestowed upon Guatemala the technology needed by a modern police state. During the period Guatemala was under U.S. tutelage, the insurgency spread from the urban bourgeoisie to the indigenous population in the rural highlands; with Israeli guidance the military succeeded in suppressing ... the drive for land and political liberation. The Guatemalan military is very conscious of that achievement, even proud of it. Some officers argue that with the help of the U.S. they could not have quelled the insurgency, as Congress would not have tolerated their ruthless tactics.

In 1979, the Guatemalan interior minister paid a "secret and confidential" visit to Israel, where he met with the manufacturers of "sophisticated police equipment." In March of the following year Interior Minister Donaldo Alvarez Ruiz was in Israel to conclude an agreement for police training. Following the overthrow of Lucas Garcia, the home of Interior Minister Alvarez was raided, "uncovering underground jail cells, stolen vehicles...[and] scores of gold graduation rings, wrenched from the fingers of police torture victims."

Israeli advisers have worked with the feared G-2 police intelligence unit. overseen by the army general staff, the G-2 is the intelligence agency - sections charged with "the elimination of individuals" are stationed at every army base - which has been largely responsible for the death squad killings over the last decade. The present civilian government has dissolved the DIT, a civilian organization subordinate to G-2, but not G-2 itself.

In 1981, the Army's School of Transmissions and Electronics, a school designed and financed by the Israeli company Tadiran to teach such subjects as encoding, radio jamming and monitoring, and the use of Israeli equipment was opened in Guatemala City. According to the colonel directing the school, everything in it came from Israel: the "teaching methods, the teaching teams, the technical instruments, books, and even the custom furniture...designed and built by the Israeli company DEGEM Systems."

At the opening ceremony the Israeli ambassador was thanked by Chief of Staff Gen. Benedicto Lucas Garcia for "the advice and transfer of electronic technology" which, Lucas said, had brought Guatemala up to date. Calling Guatemala "one of our best friends" the ambassador promised that further technology transfers were in the works.

Perhaps the most sinister of all the equipment supplied by Israel to Guatemala were two computers. One was in an old military academy and became, as Benedicto Lucas called it, "the nerve center of the armed forces, which deals with the movements of units in the field and so on." The other computer was located in an annex of the National Palace. The G-2 have a control center there, and, since the days of Romeo Lucas Garcia, meetings have been held in that annex to select assassination victims. According to a senior Guatemalan army official, the complex contains "an archive and computer file on journalists, students, leaders, people of the left, politicians, and so on. " This material is combined with current intelligence reports and mulled over during weekly sessions that have included, in their respective times, both Romeo Lucas and Oscar Mejia Victores.

The bureaucratic procedures for approving the killing of a dissident are well-established. "A local military commander has someone they think is a problem," the officer explains. "So they speak with G-2, and G-2 consults its own archives and information from its agents and the police and, if all coincide, it passes along a direct proposition to the minister of defense. They say, 'We have analyzed the case of such and such a person in depth and this person is responsible for the following acts and we recommend that we execute them."

***

Control of the Rural Population

The aspect of Israeli cooperation with Guatemala with the most serious implications is the role played by Israeli personnel in the universally condemned rural "pacification" program. Extreme maldistribution of land-exacerbated by encroachment on indigenous land-was a major cause of the present rebellion. After trying several different approaches, the military, under Rios Montt, embarked on a resolution of the problem, substituting forced relocation and suppression for equitable land distribution.

In 1982 Israeli military advisers helped develop and carry out 'Plan Victoria' the devastating scorched earth campaign which Rios Montt .unleashed on the highland population. In June 1983, the Guatemalan embassy in Washington confirmed that "personnel sent by the Israeli government were participating in the repopulation and readjustment programs for those displaced." Rios Montt himself told the Washington Times that the Israeli government was giving his administration help with the counterinsurgency plan called "Techo, tortilla y trabajo" (shelter, food and work). The "three T's" followed an earlier Rios program called Fusiles y Fridoles, or beans and bullets, where wholesale slaughter was combined with the provision of life's necessities to those willing to cooperate with the military.

The success of the government's initially savage but sophisticated campaign against the rebels has come without significant U.S. military assistance, and top field commanders say that none is necessary now to finish the guerrillas.

"We declared a state of siege so we could kill legally," Rios Montt told a group of politicians. The Roman Catholic Conference of Bishops called what Rios was doing "genocide." Following Rios' overthrow, his successor Mejia Victores continued the program, proclaiming that model villages would be extended throughout the country.

As the army bombed, strafed and burned village after village, an estimated 100,000 peasants escaped across the border to Mexico or to the mountainous territory controlled by the guerrillas. Others were captured by the military. Many of those who went to the guerrillas were later forced by hunger to surrender themselves to the military. Their fate was confinement in model villages, what were called strategic hamlets during the U.S. assault on Vietnam.

***

One of the most oppressive features of Guatemala's pacification program is the "civilian self-defense patrols" whose ranks are filled by coercion, with most joining out of fear of being called subversive, and thus marked for torture or execution.

Those who do serve in the patrols must "turn in their quota of 'subversives."' Otherwise, "they will be forced to denounce their own neighbors and to execute them with clubs and fists in the village plaza."'

The patrols are believed by most analysts to have been suggested by Israelis. They have had a profound effect on Mayan society, both psychologically, "a permanent violation of our values or a new negative vision," as the country's Catholic bishops charged, and practically, as long shifts on patrol prevent fulfillment of family and economic obligations
In 1983 the Guatemalan government estimated that 850 villages in the highlands had "self defense" units. The following year the U.S. embassy in Guatemala estimated that 700,000 men had been enrolled in the units, armed with Israeli assistance. Currently 900,000 men are organized into the civil patrols.

***

It is no accident that the Guatemalans looked to the Israelis for assistance in organizing their campaign against the Indians, and having followed their mentors' advice, wound up with something that looks quite a bit like the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and the Gaza strip. As the Israelis wrecked the local economy and turned the occupied territories into a captive market and a cheap labor pool, the Guatemalan military has made economic activity in the occupied highlands all but impossible.

As it is openly acknowledged in the Israeli media that the Palestinian population must not be allowed to exceed the Jewish population, it is common knowledge that the Guatemalan military would like to reduce the Mayan population to a minority.

But most of all there is the unyielding violence of the suppression. The occupation regime Israel has maintained since 1967 over the Palestinians (and its occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights, the Egyptian Sinai and Southern Lebanon) has trained "an entire generation of Israelis...to impose Israeli rule over subject peoples.""The Israeli soldier is a model and an example to us," Gen. Benedicto Lucas said in 1981.

It was in the coercive resettlement program that Israel's activities in Guatemala intersected most directly with those of the Christian right surrounding the Reagan Administration. This was particularly true during the reign of Rios Montt. Montt was a so-called "born-again Christian," a member ("elder") of the Arcata, California based Church of the Word, a branch of Evangelical Gospel Outreach.

In Guatemala, the Christian right was interested in converts by the end of 1982 reactionary Protestants had succeeded in recruiting 22 percent of the population to their theology of blind obedience and anti-communism. They were particularly hostile to Catholicism, especially "Liberation Theology," which many of the Guatemalan military deemed responsible for the insurgency.
Right-wing Christian organizations seemed to be especially drawn to the harsh social control being exerted on the highland Mayans. During the Rios Montt period, foreign fundamentalists were permitted access to military operational zones, while Catholics were turned away-or attacked. During this period "many Catholic rectories and churches in Quiche [a highland province] [were] turned into Army barracks. In late 1983, the Vatican itself protested the murder of a Franciscan priest in Guatemala and the (exiled) Guatemalan Human Rights Commission (CDHG) charged that in the space of several months 500 catechists had been disappeared. In October the police caught and tortured some religious workers.

Meanwhile, Rios Montt surrounded himself with advisers, both North American and Guatemalan, from his Verbo church, and what appeared to be a loose coalition of right-wing fundamentalist organizations, most notably Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, began an extensive fundraising drive and also started sending volunteers to Ixil Triangle villages under military control. Rios Montt chose Love Lift International, the "relief arm" of Gospel Outreach, Verbo's parent church, to carry the food and supplies purchased with the money raised. Verbo representatives, along with an older evangelical outfit, the Wycliffe Bible Translators (WBT/SIL, the latter initials for the Summer Institute of Linguistics, an organization whose CIA connections are long and impeccable and which has often been charged with involvement in massacres of indigenous peoples throughout the Americas), arranged with the government "to take charge of all medical work in the Ixil Triangle, and for all education in Indian areas up to the third grade to be taught in Indian languages with WBT/SIL assistance," through the Behrhorst Clinic. WBT/SIL and the Clinic's parent, the Behrhorst Foundation, incorporated with Verbo Church into the Foundation for Aid to the Indian People (FUNDAPI), whose stated purpose was to channel international Christian donations to refugees and which coordinated volunteers from U.S. right-wing religious organizations.

Although nothing has yet emerged which definitively ties Israeli activities in Guatemala to those of the religious right, it is reasonable to assume there is contact. Since the late 1970s the government of Israel has devoted considerable energy to befriending such political luminaries of rightist evangelism as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, having turned to these groups after the National Council of Churches passed some mildly reproving resolutions about the Middle East. The Christian extremists tell Israel what it wants to hear. Jerry Falwell found justification in the Bible for an Israel encompassing parts of "lraq, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan and all of Lebanon, Jordan, and Kuwait. Pat Robertson praised the Reagan Administration's veto of a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel's invasion of Lebanon with some gobbledygook tying the invasion to the fundamentalist superstition that Israel will be the site of the last battle, Armageddon: "Israel has lit the fuse, and it is a fast burning fuse, and I don't think that the fuse is going to be quenched until that region explodes in flames. That is my personal feeling from the Bible." Robertson urged his viewers to call the White House and voice their support for the Israeli invasion.

Untroubled by the scene in Armageddon when all the Jews will be converted (or damned), Israel welcomed the "Christian Voice of Hope" radio station and its companion "Star of Hope" television to Southern Lebanon, and, even though proselytizing is illegal in Israel, provided the stations with Israeli government newscasts. Supported by donations from U.S. right-wing evangelicals, and in particular by Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, the stations were "used as a military tool" by the Israeli proxy South Lebanon Army.

Aside from the religious right and their secular allies, the Guatemalan model villages have been universally condemned. Until 1985 a bipartisan majority opposed the granting of any U.S. aid that would strengthen the development poles. This, of course, stopped short of undercutting support for the "pacification" program, as funds received from U.S. AID and other foreign sources freed up government funds for use on the model villages. In 1984, U.S. AID granted Guatemala $1 million which was used for constructing infrastructure for the model villages. Americas Watch Vice Chairman Aryeh Neier pointed out that humanitarian assistance from the U.S. has "played an essential role in the Guatemalan Army's counterinsurgency programs," enabling the army to distribute (or withhold) food to exact compliance with its resettlement program.

***

Abdication of Responsibility

... When the U.S. intervened in Guatemala and overthrew its liberal, democratically elected government in 1954, it effectively transferred rule to the country's military, which has held power ever since. Even the civilian presidency of Julio Cesar Mendez Montenegro was (with U.S. acquiescence) immediately subjugated by the military. To cite only one example of the continuity that makes the last three tragic decades of Guatemala a U.S. responsibility: the dossiers that formed the basis of the intelligence unit G-2's death squad selection process also date back to 1954. After the fall of the government of Jacobo Arbenz, the army confiscated the membership lists of the many organizations which had blossomed during the all-too-short hiatus between repressive regimes- Guatemala was ruled by the oppressive dictator Jorge Ubico until 1945, when he was bloodlessly replaced by a popular government under Dr. Juan Jose Arevalo-and from these lists culled 70,000 "communists." These files were updated during the 1960s and used for assassinations during a U.S.-supported counterinsurgency. In the 1970s Israel stepped in and helped with the computerization of the whole bloody system.


It does not take convoluted reasoning to conclude that "both the U.S. and Israel bear rather serious moral responsibility" for Guatemala.

Israel’s Shining Stars of Conscience: Its Conscientious Objectors

$
0
0
Conscientious objectors Tamar Alon (left) and Tamar Ze'evi.  Rami Ben Ari
Once againamidst the terrible things that are happening in Israel today, the bigotry and the racism, the murderous indifference and the ethnic cleansing, I turn to what is a story of hope.  This is an article about 3 incredibly brave young Israeli women who have chosen repeated terms of imprisonment in military gaols rather than becoming complicit in Israel’s murderous occupation of the West Bank and the oppression of the Palestinians. This is a story that says that even in the midst of the darkest tunnel there is always a glimmer of hope and light.

Israel is a state where a cold-blooded murderer, Elor Azaria, who pumped bullets into the head of a Palestinian man who was lying unconscious on the ground became a national hero.  Israel is a state where a murderer like Azaria can have his face put onthousands of supermarket shopping bags.  But it can also produce teenagers like the women who are refusing to participate in the military repression of the Palestinians.
In Israel they put the face of a cold-blooded killer on supermarket bags
But let us be under no illusions.  It is only a minority, a tiny minority, of Israeli Jews who reject the Jewish supremacist values of Zionism and the Israeli state.  Just as in South Africa it was only a minority of Whites who rejected Apartheid.  As Martin Luther King wrote in Letter from an Alabama Gaol, the privileged never give up their privileges voluntarily.

However these are the Israelis we should offer our solidarity with.  They represent the best of Israeli society.  Those who, like the fake left Owen Jones, speak on the platform of the Israeli Labour Party’s British extension, the Jewish Labour Movement and Labour Friends of Israel, are joining hands with the putrid corpse of yesterday’s Labour Zionism. 

The first 30 years of the Zionist state were the years of Israeli Labour governments.  They were years that laid the basis for the rule of Begin, Shamir, Sharon and now Netanyahu.  It was Labour Zionism, not Likud that established the first settlements and which conquered the Occupied Territories.
Occupation objector, Tamar Alon, center, who has refused military conscription is flanked by Arab Aramin, left, and Yigal Elchanan, right, each of whom is the bereaved brother of a young girl, one Palestinian the other Israeli, killed during the continuing cycles of violence. For Tamar, the testimonies of both Arab and Yigal during the tenth Israeli-Palestinian memorial ceremony this past spring constituted “the defining moment in which I realized that I must refuse.” (Photo: Mesarvot)
The racist liars of Labour Zionism and the JLM who purport to support 2 states, are resolutely opposed to a refusal to serve in Israel’s army of occupation.  All Israel’s Zionist parties, including the leftist Meretz oppose refusing to serve in the Zionist army.  The reason is quite simple – they support the Occupation and the accompanying reign of terror.  They are the hypocritical Zionists who want to be nationalists in Israel and pretend to be oppositions abroad.  Only the anti-Zionist left and the Arab-Jewish Joint List support the refusal of Israeli Jews to serve in the army.

The Israeli Labour Party, of which the JLM and LFI are the representatives in Britain has always been viciously hostile to the idea of refusing to serve in the army because for them the army is the object of veneration.  As Joan Ryan MP demonstrated in the Al Jazeera programme ‘The Lobby’ when questioned about 2 states, this is a mere phrase masking their support for the Occupation.  When subject to what she thought about the settlements, Ryan blustered and retreated into clichés about support for 2 states.  Because if you support the Occupation you cannot support a Palestinian state.
That is why the support that the JLM has received from Owen Jones, Rhea Wolfson and Jon Lansman is sick example of the chauvinism that lies at the heart of British labourism.  There is nothing remotely socialist or left-wing about Labour Zionism.  Labour Zionism was always based on hostility to class struggle and class unity.  It operated under the slogan ‘From Class to Nation’ –the Labour Zionists replaced the class struggle with the national struggle – against the Arabs.  They campaigned on the slogan ‘Jewish Labour’ i.e. a Boycott of Arab Labour not a unified working class.  A Jewish state meant an alliance between the Jewish working class and the Jewish capitalists at the expense of the Arabs.

Tony Greenstein

Three young women prefer to be behind bars than be part of an occupation that embitters Palestinian lives

Odeh Bisharat Feb 06, 2017

On Monday we’ll see if the army extends the detention of conscientious objectors Tamar Ze’evi and Tamar Alon, who have spent 74 days in a military prison. Another conscientious objector, Atalia Ben Abba, will be joining them at the hearing for the first time.

It’s important to note that these three young women weren’t among those who threw bleach and stones at policemen in Amona. It’s just that they have a conscience, and the hell with where it leads. These are girls who prefer to be behind bars than be part of an occupation that embitters Palestinian lives. The price they’re paying is a denial of their freedom.

I’ve been trying to figure out the nature of conscience, that wondrous creature that’s subject to repression in many places but still springs up again in all its power and glory. According to Wikipedia, conscience is “an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment that assists in distinguishing right from wrong.”

I’ve never seen an independent conscience wandering the streets. Nor do I know in which part of the body the conscience resides – the head, the heart, or maybe the big toe. But every time the conscience rises up – whether through conduct or by taking a stand, I tremble with pride and my eyes tear up at the realization that I’m part of the human race and I can quickly forget Benjamin Netanyahu, Bashar Assad and Donald Trump.

Don’t get me wrong; everyone has a conscience and a matching personal morality. Thus the conscience of Zionist Union’s Tzipi Livni leads her to criticize the “regularization bill” aimed at legalizing illegal settlements. The truth is, I was a bit worried about her when I heard this but quickly calmed down when I realized she’s fine.
Conscientious objectors Tamar Alon (left) and Tamar Ze'evi.  Rami Ben Ari
It turns out she’s against the bill because “if we make a fuss over every mobile home, we’ll be overreaching and end up with nothing. The regularization bill does us more damage than Breaking the Silence, B’Tselem or any other organization. Passage of the bill will get Israeli soldiers taken to The Hague,” she said, referring to the International Criminal Court.

We must therefore clarify that Livni’s morals have no connection to morality, and if they met true morality, they might be called traitorous. Livni’s morality is mortgaged to the land lust that prevails here; grab as much Arab land as you can. If the legalization lets you grab more, fine. If it doesn’t embarrass Israel in front of the world, great. And if no Israeli soldiers are at risk of prosecution in The Hague, even better.

Livni’s morality is immoral. It’s like a mother telling her son, “Don’t hit too many children because your hand will hurt.”

And here we have conscientious objector Tamar Alon, whom I view as my daughter, saying clearly, “I’m not willing to accept the claim that oppressing another people, denying basic human rights, racism and hate are essential to Israel’s existence.” She refuses to serve in the occupation army not because of what the world will say, not because she fears the ICC in The Hague, but because the occupation is immoral.

But the system doesn’t embrace her and take pride in her comments, which testify to her morality. It puts her in jail for weeks. Maybe her conscience will be repaired there.

Meanwhile, 245 students at Tel Aviv’s Ironi Alef High School have signed a petition expressing their support for her. Big Brother, please note.

It’s not easy for parents when their daughters pay a heavy price for adhering to their consciences. But their stance paves a different trail for two peoples yearning for a life of peace and tranquility. The Iraqi poet Muzaffar al-Nawab wrote, “I know you cry alone, but you’ve added another lamp to the path.”

Your daughters are like shining stars in our long night.


Conscientious objectors Tamar Alon and Tamar Ze’evi say they won’t ‘contribute to Palestinians’ oppression’

Two Israeli women were arrested on Wednesday after they refused to enlist in the Israeli military, citing objections to the IDF’s activities in the West Bank.

Conscientious objectors Tamar Alon, 18, and Tamar Ze’evi, 19, who were both slated to join the IDF, arrived Wednesday afternoon at the recruitment office in Tel Hashomer. There, after declaring their refusal to serve, the two were arrested and imprisoned for two days by army authorities. Israel does not recognize political or conscientious objection as grounds to receive exemption from the mandatory draft.

 Alon and Ze’evi refused conscription due to their “unwillingness to contribute to the oppression of the Palestinian People,” according to a statement by Mesarvot — Political Refusal Network, an organization that is aiding the two objectors.

Tamar Alon is a second-generation conscientious objector. Her father Chen Alon famously refused to serve as a reserve officer during the Second Intifada and then founded “Combatants for Peace,” a bi-national peace movement that connects Israeli and Palestinian activists.

It was through that organization that Alon met Palestinians and was exposed to the “harsh realities of their lives from a young age,” she said.

“I believe that the ways of war, violence and oppression will not allow us to maintain a democratic state and be a ‘free people in our land,” she said, referring to a line in Hatikva, Israel’s national anthem. “I refuse to enlist out of concern and love for my society and out of a desire to encourage public discourse on the character and future of our society.”

Ze’evi echoed Alon’s sentiments, insisting that she was refusing to serve due to her love for the land and its people.

“We will only get out of this cycle of fear and violence when we open our hearts and minds, look at what is happening around us, and allow ourselves to feel the pain suffered by the people who live in this land,” said Ze’evi. “Once we all understand and accept this reality, I want to believe empathy, tolerance and compromise will be our only choice.”

Alon and Ze’evi have received a new enlistment date next week, and are expected to refuse and be tried again. This cycle could ultimately lead to their protracted incarceration in military prison.
Earlier this year, conscientious objector Tair Kaminer spent 166 days in prison before she was eventually released.

Owen Jones – the Final Betrayal - Speaking on the Platform of Racist Jewish Labour Movement

$
0
0
Supporting Israeli Apartheid and the Palestinians is not compatible


Its difficult to know who could possibly think Jones is a racist stooge - his mum?
The eviction less than a month ago of the Bedouin village of Umm al-Hiran in Israel’s Negev desert should have told even the most obtuse supporter of Zionism that Israel is a settler colonial state.  Yes some, a few, cities are mixed.  No there is no forced segregation as in South Africa or the Deep South, but the structures of Apartheid are present in Israel.

Owen Jones Speaks to Racist Israeli Labour's British Wing

Apartheid is never more obvious than when it comes to land.  When the High Court in Kadan ruledthat the Jewish National Fund could not bar Israeli Palestinians from 93% of Israeli land, the then Knesset, including its Labor members, fell over themselves to enact a law which said that retaining land for Jewish use only was not discrimination.  In other words it was a law which said that Black=White.
The fragrant Ella Rose will be responsible for your tickets
The Law eventually became the Access to Communities Law.  It allowed existing residents to bar those wishing to live in the area and naturally existing Jewish communities barred Arabs.

People make excuses for Israel’s behaviour in the West Bank, which is under Occupation, where the settlements are Jewish only, because all the arrangements the fiction is that they are only interim ones pending a final solution and two states.  But in Israel Arabs are supposed to be equal citizens yet half the villages they live in, like Umm al Hiran are ‘unrecognised’.  What this means is that they are not connected to the electricity grid, they don’t have mains water or sewerage or any of the other essentials of modern life.  The villagers of Umm al Hiran were moved in 1956, as a result of the Suez war and dumped where they are, or were.  Some 60 years ago. 

But there is a plan, the Prawer Plan, whose purpose it is to displace existing Bedouin communities and concentrate them in townships.  Much like South Africa under Apartheid.  In their stead will come Jewish towns. In Israel, despite the ten fold increase in the Arab population since 1948, not one single Arab town has been  built.  Zoning and planning law are an essential accompaniment to Zionist Apartheid and they have been used to confine Israel’s Arab population into tighter and more densely packed communities.
IDS nodding off during Jones speech on Question Time
So when Israel demolishedthe Bedouin village of Umm al-Hiran it immediately began work on building the Jewish town of Hiran.  In normal language this is called Apartheid.  In order to demolish Umm al-Hiran hundreds of Israeli Border police were despatched to the village to protect the bulldozers.  They came with all the paraphernalia of riot squads – tear gas, rubber bullets etc. and they immediately fired two bullets at Aymen Odeh, leader of the Arab-Jewish llist in the Knesset.

They also opened fireon a car driven by an Arab resident.  The result was that he lost control of the car which then ploughed into some policemen, killing one and injuring another.  Netanyahu and his fascist Interior Minister Gilad Erdan promptly took up police lies and branded, without a shred of evidence, the dead Palestinian as an ISIS member.
Apparently the stool -pigeon didn't like Jonathan Cook's article
It is worth noting that unlike Palestinian demonstrations, at Jewish demonstrations such as that at the illegal Ammona settlement last week, despite throwing stones and missiles, the Police did not open fire.  That is because the Israeli police never open fire on Jewish demonstrations.  But they have no hesitation in attacking with gun fire Arab demonstrations.

Which brings me to Owen Jones, the former socialist who it has just been announced will speak on the platform of the Jewish Labour Movement on April 2nd.  In a sympathetic article in the far-Right Jewish News, Jones whines about being ‘branded‘an Israeli stooge’ for agreeing to speak at JLM.  

The JLM is the British branch of the Israeli Labour Party, which was the original party of ethnic cleansing.  It is in the Knesset as the Zionist Union and has, unsurprisingly, failed to speak out against the evictions at Umm al Hiran because it itself followed a policy of Judaisation of the Galilee when they were in government.  It was called the Koenig Plan at the time.
Jones when he was still on the left speaks at Question Time
In 2012, having watched Owen Jones searing critique of Israel’s attack on Gaza on Question Time, I had no hesitation in praisingthe way he had spoken out in support of the Palestinians.  Jones distinguished himself when the rest of the Panel, including Charles Kennedy and IDS, had trotted out the usual ‘Israel has the right to self-defence’.

However Jones, like much of the Labour left, Jones has rowed back ever since.  For many socialists it is a kind of ritual.  You start on the Left and as your career progresses you move further and further to the Right.  That was why I p predicted that Jones would follow his mentor, Nick Cohen, into becoming a sage of the Right.

Jones has written 3 mundane articles on ‘anti-Semitism’ for the Guardian.  [Owen Jones’ Obsession with ‘anti-Semitism’].  None of them had anything to do with anti-Semitism, but everything to do with the response of Zionism to Israel’s murderous attacks on Gaza.  When defenders of Israel squealed ‘anti-Semitism’ Owen Jones was there to hawk his conscience around the columns of the Guardian and tell us how bad he felt.

In August 2014, at the time of Operation Protective Edge, when Israel slaughtered over 2000 Palestinians in Gaza and murdered 551 children, what was Jones writing in the Guardian?  Anti-Jewish hatred is rising – we must see it for what it is To say that it was a badly written, meandering article, full of fury signifying nothing would be an understatement.  In large parts it was incoherent.  But at least Jones accepted that when he ‘encountered sentiments that conflate the Jewish people and the Israeli government’ that ‘this is echoed by some staunch Zionists, and is no less antisemitic in implication.’

Today he seems incapable of even that.  In August 2014 as well as Jones writing about anti-Semitism, the bogus charity, the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism was setup with the purpose of libelling the opposition to the Gaza war as ‘anti-Semitic’.  It is clear now that there was a concerted campaign by the Zionist movement to tar anti-Zionism and support for the Palestinians as anti-Semitic.  No group has been more assiduous in doing this than the Jewish Labour Movement and its ugly sister, the Labour Friends of Israel.

When Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party it produced something close to panic among the Zionists at the prospect of a supporter of the Palestinians becoming leader of the Labour Party.  From the start of Corbyn’s leadership Jones has been a lukewarm supporter making plain his dissatisfaction at the fact that he wasn’t at the centre of things.[Owen Jones – the Nick Cohen of Tomorrow] 

He has given consistent support to Jon Lansman in Momentum writing a nasty little red-baiting article shortly before Lansman’s coup.  Momentum is a beacon of hope. It must be saved from the saboteurs Jones has also made it increasingly clear that his support for Corbyn has disappeared. 
It was therefore no great surprise when it was announced in the Zionist press that Jones was to speak at a JLM event on April 2nd .  According to the Jewish NewsLeading Guardian columnist to speak at inaugural event in memory of Jewish Labour Movement stalwart’.  It is titled the Henry Smith Memorial Lecture no less.

The JLM  has doneits best over the past year to conflate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.  It has proposed a rule change for the Labour Party which deprecates the ‘abusive’ use of the term ‘Zionism’.  Well Zionism is what happened in Umm al-Hiran and one thing you won’t hear is  the JLMM opposing what happened.  Nor will you find the JLM supporting the refusenik young Israelis who refuse to serve in an army of occupation because the JLM  despite its vaunted 2 states position supports the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

For Jones to speak on a JLM platform, whatever the pretext about an old friend, is no different from a member of the Labour Party having spoken on the platform of the Apartheid State of South Africa.  We should in future treat Owen Jones as he we should have done long ago – a snivelling identity politics columnist who in line with identity politics believes that Jewish identity is bound up with supporting the actions of Israel and that opposing such is ‘anti-Semitic’.  In speaking on the platform of the JLM Jones should be ostracised by the Left and allowed to gravitate to his natural home on the Right.

15 February 2017
I have never been overly sold on Owen Jones. From his platform at the Guardian, he has spent far too much time whining about Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and his failure to reach out to voters rather than using his rare spot in the mainstream media to help him to do precisely that.
But this news has knocked me sideways. It was announced yesterday that Jones is lined up to give a memorial lecture in April on behalf of the Jewish Labour Movement – the same group implicated in the recent efforts of the Israeli embassy to damage a Corbyn-led Labour party with confected allegations of anti-semitism. All of this was exposed last month in an undercover Al Jazeera investigation.

The Jewish Labour Movement was effectively shown to be acting as a front for the Israeli government’s efforts to oust Corbyn over a supposed anti-semitism crisis in the party. Israel hates Corbyn because of his long-standing position in support of Palestinian rights.

The announcement of Jones’ lecture was written by Ella Rose, the former Israeli embassy official who tried to conceal her past after she became the director of the Jewish Labour Movement.
She was one of those caught on Al Jazeera’s hidden cameras – in her case threatening to beat up black-Jewish Labour party activist Jackie Walker, who has been the prime target of these phoney anti-semitism allegations. None of this is secret history. I first wrote about the Jewish Labour Movement’s role in trying to subvert Corbyn back in September.

It is not even as though we can credit Jones with some kind of live-and-let-live attitude to free speech. Remember back in 2013 he pulled out at the last minute, and without warning, as a speaker at an important Stop the War rally to prevent British military intervention in Syria. His grounds? He had come under fire from the armchair interventionists because he was to speak alongside Mothers Agnes, a Syrian-based nun who was seen as being too pro-Assad. (The reasons Syrian Christians like Mother Agnes might support Bashar Assad were pretty obvious even then, but are blindingly so now.)
Mother Agnes pulled out of the rally to try to salvage it, but Jones continued to refuse to take part.
I criticised Jones then over his cowardly and irresponsible behaviour. Now he needs to explain how the principles that drove him away from the Stop the War rally can allow him to support a group, the Jewish Labour Movement, that is so clearly and maliciously attempting to subvert the elected leader of the Labour party.

UPDATE:

Owen Jones has responded to this blog post both on Twitter, callingit “tedious nonsense” in his usual, dismissive style, and with a post here that tries to deflect attention from my argument with a straw man: that a conspiracy theory is painting him as a stooge of the Israeli government.
No conspiracy is being posited here – only very, very poor judgment. I have also not accused him of working on behalf of the Israeli government. Only of assisting, presumably thoughtlessly, those who are working on behalf of the Israeli government inside the Jewish Labour Movement, including most definitely its current director, Ella Rose.

Sadly, though predictably, he has avoided addressing the point of my criticism.

It is great that he wants to pay his respects to a friend’s late father, and I am sure there are responsible ways he can do that. But one of them is certainly not by adding his name and credibility to an organisation that was recently exposed by an undercover investigation to have been acting as a front for Israeli government efforts to subvert the elected leadership of Jeremy Corbyn.

The Jewish Labour Movement has been working to confect allegations of anti-semitism against other Labour party members. That is a serious form of verbal violence against members of Jones’ own party that has the power to do its victims great harm, personally and professionally.

Let’s not also forget, as I pointed out, that Ella Rose, who will be hosting Owen Jones’ lecture, was filmed threatening physical violence against a fellow Labour party member, Jackie Walker.

I was astounded that Jones accepted this offer from the Jewish Labour Movement. I am even more astonished that he is so casually dismissive of the very real harm caused by the actions of this organisation and its leaders.

Caroline Lucas, Brighton's Green MP Speaks at Brighton Defend NHS Meeting on STP

$
0
0

Hove 'Labour' MP Peter Kyle Refuses to Speak at NHS Meeting 

Peter Kyle MP - Hove's Tory Labour MP - ignored invitation to speak to meeting 


As the photos below show it was a packed meeting at Brighton Kemptown's St. George's Church.  Over 300 people attended to listen to a range of speakers including local MP Caroline Lucas and a range of local speakers, including local A&E consultant Rob Graham and a local GP.

The subject of the meeting was the government's Sustainability and Transformation Plans (or slash, trash and plunder).  These plans are aimed are attempting to make massive cuts, close hospitals and increase the level of private involvement in the NHS with a view to introducing US style insurance.

Once again local Progress 'Labour' MP Peter Kyle was conspicuous by his absence.  Kyle, who supports the involvement of the private sector, has refused to attend any meeting opposed to the governments attacks on the NHS.  Even local councillor, Daniel Yates, who has responsibility for the STP in Brighton and Hove and is on the right of the Labour Party, spoke but Kyle didn't have the guts after being heckled at a similar meeting last year in Hove.

All the suspensions and attempts to fiddle the outcomes of elections in Brighton and Hove Labour Party over the last year have one object in mind - to try and preserve Kyle against being deselected. 











VICTORY as the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism Fails to Intimidate Change.org into Taking Down Petition

$
0
0

CAA is Running Scared – It Knows It is a Bogus Charity & Zionist Propaganda Outfit 

Change.org notify us of their refusal to take down the petition without a court order

Last Thursday I received notice that the CAA was trying to take down the petition calling for the Charity Commission to deregister them
On February 9th I got a message from Change.org saying that the Petition I had put up calling for the Charity Commission to deregister this bogus ‘Charity’ was the subject of a Notice of Complaint by the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism. Their NOC showed every sign of being rushed and a product of panic. See  In particular:

·                They list 6 points, fail to number the 1st point and they then repeat the 1st point in the 6th point! 

·                They can’t spell ‘documented’ and their grammar is extremely poor throughout. 

·                They say their ‘charitable activities are recognised by the Charity Commission and the Inland Revenue’ which begs the question that the point of the petition is to get them derecognised because they aren’t charitable.

·                They say their charity is ‘scrupulously non partisan’.  So scrupulous that they can’t mention the Labour Party without putting the adjective ‘Racist’ as an adjectival prefix.  They compliment Theresa May and have 73 articles attacking Jeremy Corbyn having tried to invoke the Labour Party’s disciplinary procedures against Corbyn.

·                They say that ‘Charities are not allowed to be political organisations’ and therefore ‘the clear intention of this petition is to defame our charity to the Charity Commission.’  Clearly the CAA have never heard of a non-sequitur.  Yes charities are not allowed to be political organisations, but what we are saying is that the CAA is breaking charity law.  That is not defamation that is fact.  But if the CAA seriously believes they have been defamed then I challenge them to sue me!

·                Their final point 6, which repeats unnumbered point 1 is that ‘our charity does not libel opponents of Israel’.  Presumably that is why CAA put up a post accusing Jackie Walker of saying that Hitler was not responsible for the Holocaust and also saying that she ‘left open the possibility’ that the Holocaust was justified.  In other words that Jackie Walker was worse than a holocaust denier – she was a Holocaust justifier.  A more serious accusation could not be imagined.  Yet the quote which the CAA used was a quote from David Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel.  Surely they weren’t saying that Ben Gurion was a holocaust denier?!!  The post was subsequently taken down from the CAA site but no apology or explanation has been offered by CAA to Jackie Walker.

The CAA clearly have a sense of humour when they say their aim is 'to promote racial harmony'

I was required to give a mailing address so that CAA can sue me - so far nothing has arrived!


My response to the CAA can be read here

After submitting a response, I had to supply a mailing address so that CAA had somewhere to sue.  However CAA have refusedto supply me with their address!

Finally today the good news that change.org have refused the attempt by CAA to censor our petition and unless the CAA get a court order, then they will refuse to take it down.


That is good news but we want you to spread the news far and wide.  Get everyone you know to sign, sign yourself and SHARE and TWEET.  This is the best answer to the censors and libel merchants of the Zionist lobby.

Why Does Hove Jewish Centre, Ralli Hall Prefer an Advocate of Rape to an Anti-Racist Critic of Israeli War Crimes?

$
0
0

Ralli Hall Cancelled Hove Labour Party meeting because of criticism of Israel yet allowed Mordechai Kedar, an Advocate of Rape to Speak

Argus 17th February from 8 members of Brighton & Hove PSC 
Last week I wrote about allegations made against Hove Labour Party and PSC member Becky Matthews by the far right Zionist propaganda group, the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism whose charity status is now being questioned.
Simon Cobbs of Sussex Friends of Israel organised the 'meet a rape supporter'
In the course of this post I wrote that:

‘Hove AGM was cancelled because the Jewish communal centre, Ralli Hall, where the meeting was supposed to take place, unilaterally terminated the booking.  This is the same Ralli Hall which staged a meeting 18 months ago featuring Professor Mordechai Kedar of Israel’s religious University Bar Ilan.  Kedar is a retired colonel in the Israeli army.  See The Zionist Federation and Sussex Friends of Israel Invite an Advocate of Rape to Speak
As Israel's Ha'aretz Reported Kedar's statement
I wrote that:
‘Kedar is famous for his advocacy of rape against Palestinian women as a weapon of war.  Israel’s Ha'aretz newspaper in an article Israeli Professor's 'Rape as Terror Deterrent'Statement Draws Irequoted him as saying that:  ‘'The only thing that deters a suicide bomber is the knowledge that if he pulls the trigger or blows himself up, his sister will be raped'. (22.7.14.). 
Brighton and Hove Palestine Solidarity Campaign held a demonstration outside the meeting.  Many Jewish venues, including schools and synagogues, such as Finchley, cancelled their meetings when Kedar’s comments became known.  Even the Board of Deputies of British Jews dissociated themselves from Kedar but not Ralli Hall, which was quite happy for the rally to go ahead. 
Kedar was the guest of the Sussex Jewish Representative Council, the Zionist Federation and our old friends Sussex Friends of Israel
I have therefore written to their Manager, Maxine Gordon as to why they prefer advocates of rape to critics of Israel.  A letter from 8 members of PSC, including myself, appeared in today’s Argus newspaper.  Ralli Hall has a lot of questions to ask.

I have also written a second letter to those in control of  Ralli Hall.  I won’t be holding my breath waiting for a reply.
Ralli Hall prefers supporters or rape to critics of Israel
Dear Ralli Hall,

You appear to have ignored the message that I sent you conerning your double standards when it comes to false allegations of anti-Semitism and allowing, Mordechai Kedar, an advocate of rape in war, to speak at Ralli Hall. 
According to the Argus yourManager Maxine Gordon said that she 'no choice' but to cancel a meeting of Hove Labour Party because of 'contentious statements made by Rebecca Massey on social media about Israel and Judaism.'
Clearly Ms Gordon hasn't heard of free speech.  Calling out Israel's racism is a matter of fact and is only 'contentious' in the eyes of those who prefer to turn a blind eye to Israeli atrocities, i.e. apologists for Israeli war crimes. I won't bother to enumerate such minor matters as the making of an Israeli hero out of the cold-blooded murderer Elor Azaria or the recent demolition of a Bedouin village Umm al-Hiran in the Negev to make way for the Jewish town of Hiran.

In The Times in the 1930's under Editor Geoffrey Dawson The Times forbade any mention of German anti-semitism during the pre-war years when the Nazi Party ruled Germany.  Criticism of the Nazis was also 'contentious' so Ms Gordon is in good company.
Even the Zionist Federation was forced to pull the meetings at schools
You said that because Becky Massey was attending a meeting at Ralli Hall on Sunday, February 3, you didn't feel it would be 'appropriate for the meeting to continue.”
Perhaps you can tell me why it was 'appropriate' for Kedar who saidthat'“The only thing that can deter terrorists, like those who kidnapped the children and killed them, is the knowledge that their sister or their mother will be raped.”  to speak at Ralli Hall?
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that you find support for rape in war less objectionable than criticism of Israel's war cimes.  I hope you found our letter concerning this to your liking in yesterday's Argus!  I attach a copy.

A Jewish State will always Trump the Jewish Diaspora

$
0
0
White House Blocked Holocaust Statement that Explicitly Mentioned Jews 



Chemi Shalev of Ha’aretz has made a powerful video about the exclusion of Jews from Donald Trump’s Holocaust Memorial Day statement.  I don’t agree with all of it, in particular his statement that the Holocaust is first and foremost about Jews.  No it’s first and foremost about Nazism i.e. German fascism.  Jews were its primary but by no means its only victims.  The Holocaust began with the Disabled, then the Polish intelligentsia and then the Jews and the Gypsies/Sinta and the Russian prisoners of war and so on.  But it is still a powerful film and it highlights the Zionist hypocrisy that they profess concern about the Holocaust but then stay silent about the anti-Semitism of Trump's Breitbart followers and Trump himself.

When Jackie Walker said that it would be nice if Holocaust  Memorial Day included other Holocausts such as what happened to the Africans in Belgium Congo and the Slave Trade it was if the heavens fell in.  Huffington Post led with Fury At Anti-Semitism Event As Momentum Vice Chair Jackie Walker Criticises Holocaust Memorial Day.  It was as if Haman and Eichmann had joined hands.  No adjective was biting enough to describe the horror felt by the Zionist movement at this criticism of what is really a politico religious icon. 
One of the chief motivators of the  false anti-Semitism campaign, Jonathan Arkush of the Board of Deputies just loves Trump
Jackie Walker however is however a minor personality on the Labour Left, important primarily for the way the British Zionist movement has singled her out as a suitable demonic figure.  Donald Trump however is the President of the United States.  You would imagine therefore that when he issued a statement on Holocaust Memorial Day, after having signed his Executive Order banning Muslims and refugees from the USA, which omitted to even mention the Jews, that the Zionists would be up in arms.  ‘Anti-Semite’ would have been the least of their descriptions.  You can imagine the hell that would have broken out if  Barak HUSSEIN Obama (the middle name was always important to Zionist Islamaphobes) had committed a similar crime.

But what is astounding is that apart from a little tut tutting, mainly in liberal Jewish papers like The Forward, there has been nothing.  Absolute silence.  Israel is still in love with the Chump and the settlers adore him.
Alan Dershowitz, lawyer to American neo-Nazis and the Jewish Defence League is happy to back Trump and Bannon
Now I've always opposed the Zionist idea that the Holocaust is only about Jews.  That to bring in any other group minimises the Holocaust.  According to Zionists such as historian Lucy Dawidowicz, 'Subsuming Jewish losses under a universal or ecumenical classification is to effectively justify anti-Semitism.' [Lucy Dawidowicz, The Holocaust and the Historian, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1981, p.17.] and according to Elie Wiesel, the Auschwitz survivor who turned his back on all other victims of genocide, to compare the sufferings of others with Jews was a “betrayal of Jewish history”.[Norman Finkelstein, p.45, Wiesel, Against Silence, v. iii, 146.]

However no one in their right mind would suggest that Jews have no place in the Holocaust.  Only the Stalinist rulers of the Soviet Union, who wished to play down the extent of collaboration in Russia and claim that all were equal victims, did that.   Clearly the Final Solution was aimed at removing Jewish people from the planet starting with a Jew free Europe.  Equally the Holocaust wasn’t only aimed at the Jews and Nazism aimed to exterminate not only the Communists and Socialists but the Disabled, Gays and the Slav peoples of Eastern Europe and Russia.
A question many liberal Jews are asking
The problem is that the Holocaust has been propagandised by the Zionist movement and depoliticised.  Stripped of its roots and causes.  It was caused by Jew hatred, pure and simple.  And why did people hate Jews?  Because they have always done so.  Simply by living in other peoples’ countries the Jews brought anti-Semitism on themselves.

The Holocaust has become a weapon in the war against the Palestinians not something to be commemorated for its own sake.   Jews in the holocaust are portrayed as two dimensional figures, with a walk-on part.  The Holocaust has become an essential part of West European post-war discourse, a prop in the cold war and a justification for imperialism in the Middle East.  Israel is at the centre of the West's intervention in the Middle East and the Holocaust is its ideological rationale - its crown of thorns.

Along comes Trump, Steve Bannon and his alt-Right, who don't particularly like 'whining Jews' and who are uncomfortable about the place of Jews in the Holocaust!  They like the Holocaust as a Jew-free ideological abstraction. 
Liberal Jews as represented by the Jewish Forward are at a loss to understand how Zionists who proclaimed their opposition to 'anti-Semitism' love Trump and Bannon 
According to Richard Spencer, who is the real ideologue of the alt-right, the “activist Jewish community” was only complaining about Trump's Holocaust Memorial Day statement because “It is all about their meta-narrative of suffering, and it shall undergird their peculiar position in American society, and theirs alone.” He deplored the fact that Hitler and the Holocaust has become the “negative moral center of the liberal universe.”

In the Forward Sam Kestenbaum quotes Spencer as speaking about the “de-Judification” of the Holocaust.  The Holocaust had become 'a sort of moral bludgeon — used against white nationalists like himself.
Breitbart welcomes the support of Dershowitz and Zionist Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
Spencer gives some examples of the problems this ‘moral bludgeon’ is causing.  People were drawing all sorts of uncomfortable conclusions from the Holocaust such as giving shelter to refugees fleeing persecution.  Spencer described the very real problems that this is causing:

“We can’t limit immigration, because Hitler. We can’t be proud of ourselves as a Europeans, because Holocaust. White people can be Christian, but not too Christian, because Auschwitz,” he wrote.
Spencer went on: “Effectively, any policy, idea, or belief that is markedly right-wing and traditional — that evokes identity, power, hierarchy, and dominance — must be regulated by the possibility that it could potentially lead back to the German Führer.” 
You can see the problems that the Holocaust is causing people like Spencer and this is why the White  House ‘deJudaified’ the Holocaust [White House Blocked Holocaust Statement That Explicitly Mentioned Jews].  It would appear that the failure to mention the Jews was no ‘oversight’.  Steve Bannon, the alt-Right ‘strategic advisor’ of Trump, who is behind this, described U.S. Jews as 'Enablers' of Jihad’.


However it is important for people to get this into perspective.  Trump is the most pro-Zionist President the United States has ever had.  He is itching for an attack on Iran.  He is full square  behind Netanyahu in not liking Muslims.  He unreservedly supports the settlements and would like to move America’s Embassy to Jerusalem (though this is proving more problematic than first thought). Hence Trump is a very popular US President – if not in America then certainly in Israel.  In the elections which were held among American citizens in Israel, the exit polls showedthat Trump won by a margin of 65 points.

Of course diaspora Jewry, what the Zionists call ‘galut’ i.e. those with an ‘exile’ mentality, who think that their interests come before those of Israel are not so supportive of Trump because they know what he represents, White Supremacy, hasn’t been too kind to Jews historically.  Diaspora Jews often don't realise that the needs of the Jewish state come before the Jews. 
The Zionist Organisation of America is adept at turning a blind eye to anti-Semitism when it comes in pro-Israeli garb
This dilemma came to a head in the case of Argentina, the only post-war state to have had a neo-Nazi regime between 1976-83.  Up to 3,000 Jews were tortured to death under the military Junta, up to 12% of those who ‘disappeared’ were Jewish.  Israel however had a problem.  Argentina at that time was a part of Reagan’s anti-communist Condor alliance in South America.  The main priority was fighting the communists.  Israel naturally was a close ally in all of this.  Israel was the main arms supplier of the Argentinian Junta and equipped it in its war with Britain in 1982.

The question therefore arose for Israel as to whether or not to make the plight of the Argentinian Jewish community or its relations with the Junta its priority.  All this came to a head with the case of the Jewish newspaper editor of La Opinion, Jacobo Timerman.  Although a left-Zionist he was savagely tortured by the Junta and it was only his fame which saved him from death.  Israel was forced to intercede to help him but they also wanted to silence his criticism of the Junta and not to make a noise.  Timerman was asked by Israeli Ambassador Ram Nirgad, on his release, to sign a document saying he had been treated well.  Timerman refused and the whole affair can be read in Timmerman’s book Prisoner Without A Name, Cell Without A Number, Weidenfeld, 1980.

An important essay on the dilemmas that the Zionists faced when choosing between the Jews and the Jewish state is Yitzhak Mualem’s essay in the Jewish Political Studies Review Spring 2004) ‘Between a Jewish and an Israeli Foreign Policy: Israel-Argentina Relations and the Issue of Jewish Disappeared Persons and Detainees under the Military Junta, 1976-1983’ Mualem wrote:

While the Jewish factor has an effect on Israeli foreign policy, it is not a decisive one. It is not the only consideration, nor the main one taken into account in the policy calculations of the Israeli government. The heritage of David Ben-Gurion determined that "in our relations (with foreign countries) we should be guided by one criteria and that is whether it is good for the Jews." The Jewish consideration was quite significant in the weighing of foreign policy in the economic area. According to Ben-Gurion's national approach, the state constitutes the highest goal of Zionism and the Jewish people. He did not ignore the problems of the Jews in the diaspora, but nevertheless saw the goals of the diaspora as secondary to the goals of the state, whose mere existence serves the needs of the diaspora.

Israel's role as a Jewish state was to strengthen the Jewish nation's status and power in the domestic and international arena by mobilizing the diaspora on behalf of this cause. In the particular case under discussion, the mobilization of the diaspora was achieved on two levels: bringing Jews to Israel and the adoption of a cooperative-passive policy by the Jewish community regarding the policy of the State of Israel. MKs Yair Tsaban and Yossi Sarid [of the left-Zionist Meretz] claimed that this policy and cooperation were implemented in flagrant ignorance of the Jews of Argentina. As Yossi Sarid put it: "In Argentina, Israel sold even the Jews for the price of its immediate interests."

Of course for the Zionists this is no dilemma.  Trump is pro-Zionist even if he doesn’t particularly like Jews who he sees as effete liberals.  Which is why Mort Klein of the Zionist Organisation of America was happy to invite Bannon to the ZOA’s annual gala dinner whilst denouncing Obama as a ‘Jew hating anti-Semite’!   Unfortunately the presence of a Jewish demonstration outside the dinner consisting of unsavoury Jewish types such as Jewish Voices for Peace made him think twice about attending.  Nonetheless the Zionists are clear where their priorities lie – the Jewish State will always Trump the Diaspora Jews

Tony Greenstein 

Netanyahu's Corruption is the other side of Israel's racism and brutality

$
0
0

Fraud and Corruption - A Tradition Amongst Israel's Leadership

Arnon Milchan, left, and Benjamin Netanyahu on March 28, 2005. (Flash90)
It would seem that Netanyahu is on record as having agreed favours to a business in return for political support.  He has also admitted receiving hundreds of thousands of shekels in cigars and other luxuries.  His wife Sarah drank the finest champagnes courtesy of 'friends'.  Why is this of no surprise.  Israel’s previous Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is currently in prison for bribery and corruption and ex-President Moshe Katsav has just come out of prison, not for corruption but rape and sexual assault. The Present Interior Minister Aryeh Deri of Shas served three years in prison for corruption when he was previously a Minister.  

The extreme corruption of Israel’s political layers is just the other side of the coin from their racism and brutality.

However, despite the Police investigations it is possible that with the help of his friend Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, that he will yet avoid prosecution.

Tony Greenstein

Taking gifts from ‘sugar daddy’ is corruption, ex-Labor leader says of Netanyahu

Opposition politicians criticize PM’s conduct as police probe his receipt of costly cigars, other alleged favors, from Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan

By Times of Israel staff January 7, 2017,

Zionist Union MK Shelly Yachimovich criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Saturday for taking gifts from a “sugar daddy,” after police questioned the Israeli leader for allegedly accepting expensive cigars for years from Hollywood producer and businessman Arnon Milchan, as well as more goods from a second businessman.

“The prime minister had a sugar daddy for expensive products; that is the definition of corruption,” 

Yachimovich, a former leader of the Labor party, said at an event in Tel Aviv, according to Israel Radio.
At a different event Saturday in Modi’in, fellow Zionist Union MK Tzipi Livni lashed out at Netanyahu as well, saying bitterly that an Israeli prime minister must decide “whether he wants to be a prime minister or an oligarch.”

Instead of concentrating on what he can give to the public, Netanyahu evidently focuses on what the public can give to him, she charged. Netanyahu “has lost the moral right to be prime minister,” Livni said.

Meretz head MK Zehava Galon joined in, asserting that the initial details of the investigation should cause serious concern for Israelis.
Hatnua’s Tzipi Livni shakes hands with Labor Party leader Shelly Yachimovich in November 2012 (photo credit: Yossi Zeliger/Flash90)
“Getting a monthly allowance amounting to hundreds of thousands of shekels over the years from Arnon Milchan is not a gift among friends, it’s a disturbing package deal,” Galon said.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his wife Sara (C) and their son Yair seen with actress Kate Hudson at an event held at the home of producer Arnon Milchan (right), March 6, 2014. (Avi Ohayon/GPO/Flash90)
Netanyahu was questioned by police under caution on Thursday evening for five hours — the second such session in four days — as the corruption investigation against him gathered pace. Among the issues reportedly discussed was his alleged acceptance of cigars worth hundreds of thousands of shekels from Milchan, and his wife Sara’s acceptance of pink champagne worth hundreds of shekels a bottle.

Police were also investigating a second case involving Netanyahu, though details surrounding the probe have not yet been released to the public. A source told Channel 2 news that this case, reportedly known as Case 2,000, would cause “a public storm” and “public anger” but would not necessarily lead to an indictment. It involved an Israeli businessman, the source said, who had sought to provide benefits to the Israeli leader in return for receiving certain perks.

Attorney Yaakov Weinroth on Channel 2’s “Meet the Press,” November 26, 2016. (screen capture)
Channel 10 reported a similar sentiment from investigative officials, with the broadcaster’s reporters being told the case was “juicy” and publicly harmful, but was complex and not straightforward as far as the law was concerned.

Channel 10 said the businessman was a “central” Israeli figure who wanted Netanyahu to “take a certain decision,” and would reward him in turn, and that it was not clear whether Netanyahu had taken the decision.

TV reports Friday night said that more witnesses will be questioned in the next few days, and then a decision will be made on whether to question Netanyahu a third time.

Netanyahu’s lawyer on Friday dismissed the seriousness of the Milchan probe. Yaakov Weinroth rejected the notion that there was anything criminal in the prime minister’s actions and said he had nothing to fear from the second case either. Weinroth, who consulted with his client at the end of Thursday’s questioning, said “there is nothing to the allegations” as regards Milchan’s gifts. “Any reasonable person knows that there is nothing remotely criminal involved when a close friend gives his friend a gift of cigars.”

As for the second case, Weinroth said that he has heard Netanyahu’s answers and “I was and I remain calm… We’re not talking about money, we’re not talking about loans, we’re not talking about anything that constitutes a crime.” It will become clear to all, he added, that there is “no suspicion, no trace, of a criminal offense in all of this.”

Police have said a second, unnamed suspect has also been interrogated in recent days. Some reports indicated this second individual was Milchan.

Police said they could not provide further details on the second corruption case due to concerns about possible obstructions of justice. They did not elaborate. Haaretz said police investigators warned Netanyahu on Thursday not to discuss the case with other suspects, because this could constitute obstruction of justice.

Netanyahu’s office made no official comment on Thursday night, but the prime minister has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. In a three-hour interview with police on Monday, Netanyahu acknowledged that he had received gifts from businessmen, but insisted they were entirely legal, 
Weinroth said Tuesday.

Channel 2 news reported that Netanyahu received the cigars from Milchan over the last 7-8 years. Sara received bottles of Dom Perignon pink champagne worth hundreds of shekels apiece during that period, the TV report said. It specified that the cigars included Cohiba Sigla V, Trinidad and Montecristo, and said each such cigar cost some 250 shekels (about $65).

Netanyahu is known as a connoisseur of fine cigars, and Channel 2 asserted the prime minister smokes 15,000-20,000 shekels’ worth of them each month.

Some 50 people are said to have testified to date in the probe.
Sources close to Netanyahu have pointed out that Milchan — whose films include “Fight Club” and 
“Pretty Woman” — sits on the board of Channel 10, which the prime minister has previously tried to shutter.

Channel 10 is also partially owned by US billionaire and World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder, who has also been questioned by police in connection with the case. Lauder, whose family founded the Estee Lauder cosmetics giant, has long been seen as an ally of Netanyahu.

Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, who is overseeing the investigation against Netanyahu, has said the prime minister is suspected of “receiving improper benefits from businessmen.” He has provided few other details.

Netanyahu has also acknowledged receiving money from French tycoon Arnaud Mimran, who was sentenced to eight years in prison in France over a scam involving the trade of carbon emissions permits and taxes on them.

The Prime Minister’s Office said Netanyahu received $40,000 in contributions from Mimran in 2001, when he was not in office, as part of a fund for public activities, including appearances abroad to promote Israel.


Anti-Semitism and the Alt-Right - Why Zionists have nothing to say about Trump’s Anti-Semitism

$
0
0
Suzanne Schneideris wrong to say that only right-wing Zionists allied with anti-Semites –Labour Zionism was equally guilty
Steve Bannon - Trump's anti-Semitic advisor
It is a strange thing.  Zionists are usually brilliant at spotting ‘anti-Semitism’ even when it doesn’t exist.  They have been calling Jackie Walker an anti-Semite for months on the basis of omitting one word ‘among’ in a private conversation, i.e. ‘Jews were among the chief financiers of slavery’.  None is better at this than the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism which can even spot anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial in the wordsof Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion, (when wrongly attributing them to Jackie Walker).

But when it comes to the open anti-Semitism and White supremacism of Trump and his alt-Right supporters, then there isn’t a peep.  Not a squeak.  Like the 3 wise monkeys, they have become blind, deaf and dumb.  When it came to Trump’s Holocaust Memorial Day statement on the Holocaust, which managed to omit Jews altogether, [White House Blocked Holocaust Statement that Explicitly Mentioned Jews ] which in the words of alt-Right leader Richard Spencer ‘deJudified the Holocaust’ the Zionists were silent.  [White Nationalist Leader Praises Trump For 'De-Judification' Of The Holocaust

These are difficult days for America’s Jews, historically the most liberal section of America’s White population.  Despite their support for Israel they don’t want to live there.  Why swap a highly comfortable life in America for the hot house atmosphere of Israel, with a political atmosphere of endemic racism and war? 

Many of America’s Jews aren’t even properly Jewish in Israel.  Those who have been converted according to the Conservative or Reform branches of Judaism in America won’t even have those conversions recognised in Israel.  They are Gentiles.  Non-Jews.
Bannon's Breitbart makes defence of the Confederate flag of the southern slave states the symbol of its fight against 'cultural genocide'
Despite the Zionist belief that anti-Semitism everywhere was eternal and could not be fought, America has, like most of Europe, proven that anti-Semitism was not inherent amongst non-Jews. 
Donald Trump has been elected with the support of the White Supremacist Right.  He has put into the White House as his closest political advisor, Steve Bannon, former CEO of Breitbart News.  

Breitbart, combines being ardently pro-Zionist with anti-Semitism.  Bannon is a White Nationalist.    [Here's Why It's Fair—and Necessary—to Call Trump's Chief Strategist a White Nationalist Champion]  White Nationalism is just a nice way of saying White Supremacism.  Breitbart openly support the call for the display of the Confederate flag of the old slave states of the American south.  Hoist it high and proud:  the Confederate flag proclaims a glorious heritage and opposition to the ‘glorious heritage’ of slavery and lynching is nothing less than  cultural genocide.
Milo Yiannopoulos -  the gay anti-Semite who is a senior editor at Breitbart
Breitbart is the home of the Alt-Right whose luminaries include Richard Spencer, whose main claim to fame was the ‘Heil Trump’ gathering.  Its senior editor Milo Yiannopoulos, is openly anti-Semitic.  He has no problem saying that Jews control the media and own all the banks.  The Alt-Right is based on the idea of racial and ethnic nationalism.  That is why they support Zionism – which they see, not wrongly, as Jewish ethnic nationalism.

The Zionist movement and Israel has welcomedthe ascent of Trump.  Not only Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli’s government, but the Israeli Labour Party and its leader Isaac Herzog have also welcomed Trump to power. [see Israeli Labour Party Leader Isaac Herzog Extends a Warm Welcome to Donald Trump].  It is noteworthy that the Jewish Labour Movement, which is always eager to accuse anti-racists like Jackie Walker of ‘anti-Semitism’ was remarkably shy in condemning the leader of its ‘sister’ party for welcoming Trump.
part of the feminist opposition to 
In the United States itself, the Zionist Organisation of America invitedBannon to its annual Gala dinner in New York.  Owing to a large left-wing Jewish demonstration outside, a demonstration led by Jewish anti-Zionists, Bannon decided not to risk accepting the invitation.  The ZOA’s President Mort Klein was quotedas saying that ‘“I think Bannon was grateful that I defended him against this ludicrous charge of anti-Semitism,”  and not suprisingly because Klein's argument, a favourite of Zionism, is in his own words Bannon and Breitbart: Friends of Israel, not anti-Semites

Of course if your definition of anti-Semitism is support for Israel then Klein is right.  If anti-Semitism includes a belief in racial separation, that Jews belong with their own kind in their own state then Klein is wrong and Bannon and Breitbart are anti-Semitic.   But Adolf Eichmann too described himself as ardently pro-Zionist.  Indeed nearly all anti-Semites were known for their support for Zionism because it was through a Jewish state that the 'Jewish Question' could be solved.

Where the article below goes wrong is in its suggestion that it was only right-wing Zionists who allied with or supported anti-Semites.  On the contrary these alliances were equally the product of labour Zionism.
Richard Spencer of  the alt-Right's 'heil Trump' speech
It was Labour Zionism which entered into an economic alliance with Nazi Germany, Ha'avara in August 1933, thus breaking the Jewish boycott of Nazi Germany.  It was the Revisionist Zionists under Jabotinsky who opposed them.  It was the Labour Zionist/Haganah agent Feivel Polkes who offered to spy for the Gestapo in return for arms shipments.

It was the Labour Zionist Rudolph Kasztner who reached an agreement, helping to round up Hungarian Jews for the deportation trains in Hungary in exchange for a train out of Hungary with the Zionist elite on board.

The World Zionist Congresses between 1933 and 1939 which failed to unequivocally condemn either Hitler or the Nazis were controlled by the Labour Zionists.  The Revisionists abandoned the WZO after 1933. 

Both wings of Zionism accepted that anti-Semitism was inherent in non-Jewish society.  That the only answer to it was to flee and build a society based on the same principles of race they had escaped from. Their reasoning was that Jews had indeed adopted the anti-social qualities that the non-Jews ascribed to them  They based this reasoning on the fact that they had become estranged from their ‘homeland’ Palestine and that it was only by reuniting Jews with their roots that they could become normalised.  In Zionist jargon this was the ‘Negation of the Diaspora’.

Pinhas Rosenbluth, who later became a Minister of Justice in the first Israeli Labor Government , observed, Palestine was "an institute for the fumigation of Jewish vermin.". [Journal of Israeli History, 8]  The journal of Hashomer Hatzair, the ‘left-wing’ of the Zionist movement, which later formed Mapam in Israel, observed that ‘The Jew is a caricature of a normal, natural human being, both physically and spiritually. As an individual in society he revolts and throws off the harness of social obligation, knows no order nor discipline.’ [Our Shomer, ‘Welstanschaung’ Hashomer Hatzair, December 1936, p.12] cited in Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, pp 22/23].

What American and other Jews are learning is that Zionist groups like the Jewish Labour Movement and Labour Friends of Israel are only interested in ‘anti-Semitism’ if it means opposition to the State of Israel.  Anti-Semitism which is merely about Jew hatred is not their concern.  After all without the push of anti-Semitism there would have been no anti-Semitism.  Or as Herzl remarked ‘‘Anti-Semitism, too, probably contains the Divine will to Good, because it forces us to close ranks, unites us through pressure, and through our unity will make us free. [Diaries p.231]

 Tony Greenstein


Between the congressional hearing for David Friedman, the visit of Benjamin Netanyahu, and President Trump’s refusal to address the rising tide of anti-Semitism, it’s been a tense time within the American Jewish community. For those on the right, Trump’s abandonment of the two-state solution, much like Friedman’s nomination, comes as an assurance that the new administration will firmly commit itself to an expansionist form of Zionism. And along with the presence of Jared Kushner within the President’s inner circle, keeping Friedman and Bibi in the wings is taken by many as a signal that Trump is not really an anti-Semite, despite surrounding himself with figures of questionable persuasion. According to this logic, the strong commitment by Trump and Steve Bannon to Israel undermines any suggestion that they harbor antipathy toward Jews. Yet, for many centrists and liberals, the idea of Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon working together causes endless confusion: How could the descendent of Holocaust survivors find common cause with the ideological leader of the alt-right?

The answer may lie in the history of the Zionist movement, a history which demonstrates that there is no inherent contradiction between Zionism and anti-Semitism. The two ideologies have in fact often worked in concert to achieve their shared goal: concentrating Jews in one place (so as to better avoid them in others). Even before the modern Zionist movement arose in the late 19th century, Christian philosophers and statesmen debated what to do with the “oriental” mass of Jewry in their midst. As the scholar Jonathan Hess of the University of North Carolina has noted, one “solution” popular among Enlightenment figures who harbored anti-Semitic feelings was to deport Jews to a colonial setting where they could be reformed. Johann Gottlieb Fichte, among the founders of German Idealism, noted in 1793 that the most effective protection Europeans could mount against the Jewish menace was to “conquer the holy land for them and send them all there.”

Indeed, Zionism crystallized as a political movement among European Jews explicitly to solve the problem of political anti-Semitism. For Zionist pioneers like Leo Pinsker and Theodor Herzl, anti-Semitism was an inevitable phenomenon that would occur at any time and place where Jews were a sizable minority. Normal relations with other nations could only be established by moving Jews to a place where they were a majority. Thus rather than pushing contemporary states and societies to devise new ways of accommodating difference, Zionist thinkers of Herzl’s generation ascribed to the logic that the Jewish “problem” could only be settled by removing Jews from European states.
The idea that Jews belong not in their actual place of residence and origin, but in the Holy Land, was of course not a position that all Zionists ascribed to, either then or now. Yet it is not hard to see the very problematic logic that links such assertions to the sort of blood-and-soil nationalism that led to the destruction of European Jewish life. Nazism of course grew out of this context and insisted that Jews could never really be German. The Nazis, however, took this conclusion to a radically new place: it was ultimately extermination, rather than resettlement, that drove the Nazi position.

Though the scope of destruction was not yet known in the 1930’s and early 1940’s, many nevertheless find it astounding that there were attempts by right-wing Zionists during these years to establish ties with Nazi Germany. Numerous scholars have noted the fascist sympathies of certain members of the Revisionist Zionist camp, who bitterly feuded with mainstream Zionists and denounced them as Bolsheviks. The antipathy was apparently mutual, as David Ben-Gurion in 1933 published a work that described Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the founder of the Revisionist movement, as treading in the footsteps of Hitler. The Zionist Right’s flirtation with fascism reached its tragic peak in 1941 when Lehi, Avraham Stern’s paramilitary splinter group, approached Otto Von Hentig, a German diplomat, to propose cooperation between the nationally rooted Hebraic movement in Palestine and the German state. Nazi Germany declined his generous offer, having stumbled across quite a different “solution” to the question of Jewish existence.

It has been with this history in mind that I approach contemporary debates about Donald Trump’s presidency and the alliance it fosters between members of the white nationalist “alt-right” on one hand, and a certain segment of American Jews, on the other. The argument that the latter should work with the former because they all share a commitment to “Greater Israel” belies the fact that not all allies, or alliances, are created equal. When Richard Spencer voices his admiration of Zionism (because, in his understanding, the movement stands first and foremost for racial homogeneity), we should realize that this is not incidental to his suggestion that America might be better off with a peaceful ethnic cleansing of those population segments that are not of white, European descent. Do American Jews really believe that they will pass muster within such a state? And are the swastikas and other acts of intimidation that have been so abundant since Trump’s victory really just peaceful incentives to realize that our true home is in a land far, far away?

The answer must be a resounding “no.”

Jewish life flourishes in pluralistic societies within which difference is not a “problem” to be resolved, but a fact to be celebrated. The alliance of right-wing Zionists and the alt-right should not be viewed as an abnormality, but the meeting of quite compatible outlooks that assert — each in their own way—that the world will only be secure once we all retreat to our various plots of ancestral land. Nationalist thinking of this sort wrought more than its fair share of damage during the twentieth century. Let’s not enact a repeat performance in the twenty-first.

Suzanne Schneider is a historian of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Zionist movement, and a director and core faculty member at the Brooklyn Institute for Social Research.

Crooked Iain McNicol, Labour's General Secretary, Rides Again

$
0
0

McNicol refuses to discipline JLM’s Ella Rose, who threatened to ‘take out’ Jackie Walker

Ella Rose's threats - 'understandable' according to crooked McNicol
Iain 'crooked' McNicol turned a blind eye to threats of violence from Zionist Rose
 On 20th January I submitted a letter of complaint to Iain McNicol, Labour’s crooked General Secretary concerning the threats of violence by Ella Rose of the Jewish Labour Movement against Jackie Walker.  Jackie was suspended in September 2016 for ‘anti-Semitism’ after having been fitted up by the JLM after a ‘training session’ on ‘anti-Semitism’ at the Labour Party Annual Conference.
Unsurprisingly, despite receiving a formal acknowledgment, I received no other response from our crooked friend.  So I have sent him a second letter.

The idea that a group which is affiliated to the Israeli Labour Party is in any position to run anti-racist training is itself the height of parody.  It’s like asking a wife beater to run a woman’s refuge or appointing Count Dracula as head of the blood transfusion service! 
Jim Kennedy of Unite obtained the solicitor's letter
The ILP’s leader Isaac Herzog is no slouch when it comes to racism.  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 .  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’To gauge the full import of these remarks just consider that someone had said their nightmare was to wake up and find Britain had a Jewish Prime Minister or that the Labour Party was not a ‘Jew lovers’ party.  The term ‘Jew lover’ and ‘N***** Lover’ used to be part of the language of the National Front and BNP.  The fact that it trips off the tongue of the head of Israeli Labour should be an indication of what Zionism and the JLM are really about.

Jackie and a number of other Jewish and non-Jewish anti-racists attended the JLM’s ‘training session’ which was secretly recorded and comments made by Jackie were twisted and distorted to make it appear that her comments were ‘anti-Semitic’.  You can read what it was that Jackie said here.
Last summer, when Jeremy Corbyn was standing for leader, McNicol was arranging the suspension of thousands of Labour Party members on the most bogus of pretexts such as someone posting that they liked the ‘fucking foo fighters’.  A hint of the word scab, traitor etc was guaranteed to get you suspended.  But when the JLM’s Director, the racist Ella Rose, threatened physical violence against a much older Black woman, she is pardoned by crooked Iain McNicol.
Solicitor's letter to Crooked McNicol p.1

Solicitor's letter to Crooked McNicol p.2

Solicitor's letter to Crooked McNicol p.3
Solicitor's letter to Crooked McNicol p.4
This is not, of course the first time Crooked McNicol has been accused of, well, being a crook.  In July 2016 McNicol was busy attempting to fix the Labour Party elections in order to ensure that Corbyn was kept off the ballot paper.  Unfortunately Corbyn, when he was re-elected leader, didn’t call for the dismissal of McNicol because of his treacherous and dishonest behaviour.  I use the word ‘dishonest’ advisedly.
Solicitors letter to Crooked McNicol saying he deliberately deceived Corbyn & McDonnell
In a solicitor’s letter senton 11th July on behalf of Jim Kennedy of UNITE, McNicol was accused of ‘bad faith’.  It accused him of having gone to ‘great lengths to conceal your intentions from the leader and the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer’.  It informed him that as General Secretary ‘you have an obligation to uphold the rules of the Labour Party and not breach them .’   It said his behaviour in leaking information to the Press which he had kept from Jeremy Corbyn was a ‘potentially serious disciplinary matter.’  It went on to say that ‘You have an obligation as General Secretary to act in good faith’ and to act openly and transparently.  In particular the letter said that the National Committee meeting, which agreed that Corbyn could stand, had been called in a manner which ‘has all the hallmarks of anything but “open democracy.” 

A warning to McNicol not to think about destroying 
The letter expressed its fears that the meeting had been called “to manufacture a situation whereby Jeremy Corbyn’s name will be omitted from the leadership ballot.’  The letter went on to effectively accuse McNicol of fraud.  It said that despite obtaining advice from barristers Mark Henderson and Michael Mansfield QC that Corbyn’s name must be on the ballot paper, McNicol had tried to hide this advice from the NEC.  The letter threatened injunctive action against McNicol and warned him that the ‘destruction, deletion or concealment of relevant evidence is a very serious matter for the courts.’ 
The NEC meeting which voted narrowly, by 16-14 to include Corbyn’s name on the ballot paper also disenfranchised 130,000 new members of the Labour Party.  Undoubtedly Crooked McNicol was party to this too and the letter also asked him who was instructing him to carry out his devious behaviour.  The answer to this is the devious Right-winger Tom Watson, Corbyn’s treacherous deputy.  Watson’s behaviour reminds one  of Oscar Wilde’s comment that he has every quality of a dog except loyalty.

Solicitor's letter saying they don't trust Crooked McNicol's intentions
Thirteen Jewish female members of the Labour Party have called for a review of a decision by general secretary Iain McNicol on a complaint brought against former Israeli Embassy employee Ella Rose, who now heads a pro-Israel lobby group affiliated to the Labour Party, the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM).

They say Ella Rose’s abusive and threatening behaviour, caught on camera in a documentary film, The Lobby, is intimidating to them as campaigners for Palestinian rights and critics of the state of Israel.
Solicitor's letter to Crooked McNicol reminding him of the obligation to act in good faith
The swift, discrete and sympathetic handling of Rose’s case contrasts markedly with treatment meted out to many party members who have been unjustly charged with antisemitism, suspended from membership and subjected to months’ long investigations, often in the full glare of publicity, through processes with scant regard for principles of natural justice.....
....
We do not believe you and your team have demonstrated the impartiality that members of the party have the right to expect and we will therefore be contacting members of the National Executive Committee and the National Constitutional Committee to ask for a review of your inadequate investigation.

Sincerely,

Jo Bird, Northern Ireland CLP
Li Doran, Tottenham CLP
Rosamine Hayeem, Harrow East CLP
Beverley Krell, Cheadle CLP
Leah Levane, Hastings and Rye CLP
Susanne Levin, Cities of London & Westminster CLP
Kay Manasseh, Streatham CLP
Jenny Salaman Manson, Finchley and Golders Green CLP
Angie Mindel, Nottingham East CLP
Diana Neslen, Ilford South CLP
Amanda Sebestyen, Holborn and St Pancras CLP
Vanessa Stilwell, Dulwich and West Norwood CLP
Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, Chingford and Woodford Green CLP


Tuesday, 21 February 2017

Iain ‘Crooked’ McNicol
General Secretary
The Labour Party
Southside,
105 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QT

Dear Mr McNicol,

I submitted a complaint to you by email on 20th January concerning threats of violence made by Ella Rose, the Director of the Jewish Labour Movement.  The threats were made against Jackie Walker, a Black-Jewish member of the Labour Party who has been suspended since last September on bogus charges of anti-Semitism and whose investigation hearing has yet to take place.  Despite receiving an automatic acknowledgment of my email, I have not yet had a response to my letter.....
....
Your decision to rush through an ‘investigation’ of Ms Rose when I have been suspended for 11 months already is entirely understandable in the circumstances.
Kind regards as always,

Tony Greenstein

DEFEND FREE SPEECH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE - Telling the truth about why Israel is an Apartheid State is 'antisemitic'

$
0
0
If the Police State academics at East Lancashire University are right, then Archbishop Desmond Tutu, one of the stalwarts of the Anti-Apartheid struggle in South Africa is an 'anti-Semite' and should be banned

University Authorities Use IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism to Ban Israel Apartheid Week

Today the Jewish Chronicle reported that the University of Central Lancashire had cancelled Israel Apartheid Week.

A spokesperson for the university said “Debunking Misconceptions on Palestine" contravened the definition of antisemitism adopted by the government and was “unlawful”.



The University of Central Lancashire
The spokesperson went on to say that: “The UK government has formally adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s new definition of what constitutes antisemitism.

“We believe the proposed talk contravenes the new definition and furthermore breaches university protocols for such events, where we require assurances of a balanced view or a panel of speakers representing all interests.”

He added: “In this instance our procedures determined that the proposed event would not be lawful and therefore it will not proceed as planned.” 

Suffice to say this is another Zionist attack on free speech.  The IHRA definition of 'anti-Semitism' is not a legal definition but a political 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

The fact is that Israel IS an apartheid state.  It rules over 4 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who have no vote or say in who their rulers are.  They co-exist with Jewish settlers who are subject to a different legal system entirely.

Israel itself is a state where Arabs are tolerated guests at best.  There is no Israeli nationality because Israel is a Jewish state, which means that all Jews can become nationals of the Jewish state.  Most areas of life, from land, housing, education, employment, the army are segregated.   If the Zionists want to argue about this fine, let them debate it.  The purpose of the IHRA definition of 'anti-Semitism' has nothing at all to do with anti-Semitism and everything to  do with support for Zionism and Israel.




The fact that Jeremy Corbyn, in what is fast becoming a double act, automatically gave Theresa May his support when she came out in favour of the IHRA definition, shows how much he has shifted to the Right since becoming Labour leader.  Not that it will help save him.

Below are some numbers and email address to which you can address your concerns to the East Lanchashire University authorities.

It is timely that tomorrow in Brighton, Palestine Solidarity Campaign will be holding a public meeting with Jackie Walker, who is suspended from the Labour Party for 'anti-Semitism', Michael Deas, former European Director of the Boycott National Committee and myself, also suspended from the Labour Party on bogus charges of 'anti-Semitism'.

General Enquiries:
Tel: +44 (0)1772 201 201

Jewish Socialist Group Cowardice Over the Zionists' Racist Attacks of Jackie Walker

$
0
0
Bundists behaving like Stalinists – JSG Leaders Remove Critics of Lansman from Jews 4 Jeremy FB Group
Jackie Walker - subject to a racist witchhunt by the Zionist Jewish Labour Movement aided by Jon Lansman.  The JSG is like the 3 monkeys - it neither sees, hears nor says anything
The JSG's censor-in-chief Julia Bard
The Jewish Socialists Group, which was originally founded in the early 1970’s as a left-Zionist group before moving towards Bundism and non-Zionism, has never been an activist group.  It is largely composed of what might be called the leftist Jewish intelligentsia. However it has always been at the forefront of the anti-racist and anti-fascist struggle.  At least until today when it has been rendered dumbstruck by Zionist attacks on Jackie Walker.  Attacks which have been condoned and indeed supported by one of its own members, Jon Lansman.

Below are just some of the vile racist tweets attacking Jackie Walker which the JSG leadership have condoned by their silence and support for Lansman and the Momentum leadership.
This is what passes for Zio humour - calling a Black anti-racist 'Nazi scum' is a good example of how Zios trivialise anti-Semitism 

Naturally anyone who is an anti-Zionist is a 'Jew hater' unlike the Zionists who worked hand in hand with anti-Semites from Herzl onwards

Burning Black people was an integral part of KKK lynching in the United States

notice how this racist Zio emphasises the word 'black'

'hanging' Black people was also something that the KKK specialised in and Zionists salivate about 


A good combination of sexism and a neo-Nazi style denial of Jackie as Jewish

No need for an explanation to this piece of vile race hatred

I've had a number of tweets too from racist neo-Nazi style Zios who despite being concerned about 'anti-Semitism' express a desire to send you to the gas chambers - graffiti such as 'Arabs to the gas chambers' is quite common in Hebron and amongst the Judeo-Nazi setters there

Once again the Zionist desire to emulate their KKK brothers and burn someone who is Black


Given the predominance of right-wing Zionist and conservative politics in the once radical Jewish community the JSG once stood out for its dissent with establishment Jewish politics.  To a large extent it has been overtaken with the formation of groups like Jews 4 Justice for Palestinians, Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods, Jewdas etc . 

JSG came to the fore with its support for the anti-fascist movement in the 1970’s.  When the Board of Deputies and the Union of Jewish Students opposed, in the late 1970’s, the Anti Nazi League, which at that time was a mass movement not an SWP front, the JSG was prominent in fighting a bourgeois Jewish leadership who saw the fight against anti-Zionism as more important than the fight against the National Front.  At that time the National Front, which was overtly anti-Semitic, was a credible political force, forcing the Liberals into 4th place in by-elections in Birmingham Ladywood and Stechford in 1977 and gaining 119,000 votes in the 1977 GLC elections.
Debate with Julia Bard in 1993 on the Oslo Accords which she supported
The JSG’s position on Israel has always been one of 2 states whilst avoiding the question of Zionism and the nature of the Jewish state.  At the time of the 1993 Oslo Accords in a debate with Julia Bard in Labour Briefing, she supported the Accords. 
Ian Saville speaking on behalf of Jackie Walker in May 2016
Dave Rosenberg says in his statement below that the JSG encompasses a wide variety of left-wing opinion.  However this did not prevent the JSG, despite its recent inactivity (Jewish Socialist, which used to come out quarterly now appears less than once a year) being involved in the setting up of the Jews for Jeremy group in the Summer of 2015.  When the false anti-Semitism campaign was at its height, the JSG supported Jackie Walker, before her removal as Vice Chair of Momentum, when she was suspended in May 2016.  Ian Saville appeared as a JSG speaker on an LRC/Momentum platform in Brighton alongside Jackie at a meeting specifically called to oppose the anti-Semitism witchhunt.
Free Speech on Israel picket of Momentum Steering Committee which removed Jackie Walker
Jackie was re-suspended in September last year after the Labour Party Conference.  There had been a sustained and vitriolic campaign by the Jewish Labour Movement.  Two weeks before the LP Conference I had posted The Jewish Labour Movement and its Political Lynching of Jackie Walkerin which I wrote that:
‘Jackie was reinstated after an investigation but the Zionists have refused to accept her acquittal and have waged a campaign of vilification against her ever since.... The Jewish Labour Movement ... has run a disgraceful, race baiting campaign against Jackie.  It has been part and parcel of a Zionist attack on her which has questioned her Jewish ancestry on the basis that she is Black.  A large section of the Zionist movement refuses to accept that Black people, for example the Black Hebrews, can also be Jewish.’
Jeremy Newmark - racist liar-in-chief of the JLM
The JLM’s Chair, Jeremy Newmark criticisedJohn McDonnell for speaking on an LRC platform with Jackie at the TUC Conference in September. He was quoted as saying of McDonnell that:
"He must explain his defence of Walker which is inconsistent with his call for zero tolerance. This raises serious questions. Our members expect him to explain himself."
The discussion on the slave trade by Jackie Walker that prompted the racist attacks on her
The JLM campaign was based on the lie perpetrated by Marcus Dysch in the Jewish Chronicle that Jackie ‘claimed Jews caused ‘an African holocaust’In fact what she said, in a private and complex Facebook discussion with an Israeli Zionist friend, was that
“Many Jews (my ancestors too) were the chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade which is of course why there were so many early synagogues in the Caribbean. So who are victims and what does it mean? We are victims and perpetrators to some extent through choice.”
Clearly what she was saying was that many Jews were among the chief financiers of the slave trade, which is a statement of historical fact.  On the basis of the omission of one word, which was clearly implied by the context, Jackie has been vilified and demonised. 

Since September when Jackie was suspended for a second time from the Labour Party, the JSG has maintained an embarrassed silence.  It has not only failed to criticise Jackie’s suspension, but it has also failed to criticise or even comment on the complicity in this racist attack by one of their own members, Jon Lansman.  Indeed it has gone out of its way to support him.
I spoke on Thursday night at a public meeting in Brighton with Jackie Walker.  The meeting was called to discuss the attack on free speech and the suppression of the Palestinian voice by the Zionist movement and their Israeli Embassy paymasters.  The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism which was adopted by Theresa May and which Corbyn decided to follow, has become the Zionists’ principal weapon.   
The whole purpose of the IHRA definition is to conflate genuine anti-Semitism, i.e. hostility to Jews as Jews, with criticism of Israel, which is anti-Semitic in itself, since it implies an association between Jews and Israel.  This week it has been used to prevent the holding of Israel Apartheid week at the University of Central Lancashire and yesterday all students and academics at Sussex University were sent an email by the Vice Chancellor attacking Israel Apartheid Week on campus. 
More racist tweets by Zionists
At UCL banning Israel Apartheid Week was justified by the Prevent counter-terrorism duty.  Support for the Palestinians and opposition to Zionism is being conflated with ‘terrorism’ as we always said it would.  Of course the definition of ‘terrorism’ excludes Israeli state terrorism.  Once again Prevent is being used to clamp down on free speech.  The Brighton venue where Jackie and myself spoke, the Friends Meeting House, received an email earlier in the day from the Board of Deputies saying that the meeting could be the subject of violence because Jackie was speaking.  It is to the credit of the FMH and the Quakers that they resisted this act of political blackmail.
One of many racist tweets that Jackie Walker has received
Jackie, told of how she had been the recipient of dozens of vitriolic racist tweets, of which those above are but a sample, as a result of the Zionist campaign  against her.  She is rightly fearful for her own physical safety.  One of the reasons this has occurred is that she is Black and Jewish.  Many of the tweets are concerned with her Jewishness since for many in the Zionist movement being Jewish is a European affair.  Arab Jews are bad enough compared to White Russians but Black Jews are beyond the pale.  It is for this reason that Ethiopian Jews in Israel suffer from extreme racist hostility.
Normally if someone says they are Jewish I take them at their word.  But to Zionist racists, it is very important to investigate someone's lineage because in Israel being Jewish determines your entitlement to privileges.  When investigating whether someone is entitled to come to Israel under the Law of Return, recourse has even been had to Nazi records to determine whether or not someone is Jewish.  Similarly the Zionists have employed someone to investigate Jackie’s family lineage and draw up a family tree to prove she isn’t Jewish.  80 years ago in Germany the same people would have found employment proving that people were Jewish.
The Silence of the JSG
Critics of Lansman’s coup in Momentum or those questioning why the JSG are suppressing criticism of him have been removed from the Jews for Jeremy and JSG Facebook groups.  A similar fate has befallen those criticising why the JSG has remained silent over the removal of Jackie Walker as Vice-Chair of Momentum and her suspension from the Labour Party. 
David Rosenberg
Why has the JSG’s leadership, in particular David Rosenberg and Julia Bard, moved to what is effectively a Stalinist position of suppressing political discussion?  For a group that traces its political lineage from the Bund, it is ironic that it is behaving more like the Bund’s historic political enemy. 
David Rosenberg, in a statement to the Free Speech on Israel group (see below) throws what is the political equivalent of a tantrum but fails to answer any questions about Jackie beyond saying that the JSG moderators of the J4J FB page have blocked ‘anti-Corbyn material’.  Most people would assume that means criticism from the Right and Progress, i.e. from those hostile to Corbyn.  This is dishonest because the critics who have been debarred are not hostile to Corbyn but fearful as to how long he will last given his present political trajectory.
What David really meant is any critique as to whether for example Corbyn is right to appease the Right, disavow reselection of Labour MPs and say that support for free movement of workers should be sacrificed on the altar of Brexit.  In categorising any criticism of Corbyn and McDonnell as ‘anti-Corbyn’ what David is doing is indulging in a personality cult, which was also the hallmark of Stalinism.  Lack of debate weakens not strengthens Corbyn.  We should be under no illusions that Corbyn’s position at present is not a strong one.
In the JSG statement David Rosenberg’s position was that ‘Our group is anti-Zionist but does not go in for gratuitous and childish demonisation of those who identify as Zionists.’
I am not aware that the JSG has ever identified itself as anti-Zionist in any published material. Presumably what Rosenberg means is recognising and understanding the role of Zionist groups such as the JLM in the attack, not only on Corbyn and the Left but in the witch-hunt more widely. Zionist groups are our political enemies, not cuddly multi-culturalists.  The Bund historically considered Zionism as its main enemy in the Jewish community not something it could cosy up to.
As the Al Jazeera programmes ‘The Lobby’revealed, there is a well organised Zionist lobby in Britain, serviced and funded by the Israeli embassy, whose role is to destabilise and undermine the Corbyn leadership of the Labour Party and those like Malia Bouathia in NUS, who oppose the Israeli state or who support the Boycott of Israel.
David says that the JSG is ‘’in the business of opposing Zionism and trying to persuade those beginning to have doubts.’  However treating at face value the letter which originated from the JLM in November 2016 criticising Jonathan Arkush of the Board of Deputies for his praise for Donald Trump is an example of how not to go about opposing Zionism.  It takes as genuine what was a tokenistic opposition to the Board of Deputies and Zionism’s love-in with Trump.  It is noticeable that the JLM have not criticised the Israeli Labour Party, for its welcome for Trump.
One of the principal signatories to the letter purportedly criticising Arkush is Ella Rose, who directly transferred from working at the Israeli  Embassy to becoming Director of the JLM.  She was also recorded as threatening to ‘take out’ Jackie Walker.
Julia Bard telling Ruth Appleton of the JSG not to mention she is in the JSG in a Guardian letter - 'The JSG is not commenting at the moment' owing to the 'complexity and volatility' of the situation.  She was asked to wait for 30 minutes - we are still waiting!
Posting The Strange Silence of the Jewish Socialists Group over Jackie’s suspension got me removed from the JSG’s Facebook page some months ago.  There was no warning or message.  Prior to that Julia Bard had removed a link I had posted to a blog post critical of Lansman.  When we organised a letter to the Guardian supporting Jackie Walker, JSG member Ruth Appleton was told in an emailby Julia Bard to remove all reference to the JSG even though she wasn’t writing on behalf of the group.   Clearly the JSG is embarrassed by any association with the campaign to support Jackie.
Debbie Fink made the cardinal error of posting an article of mine to the J4J FB page - worse still it attacked Jon Lansman's putsch
Asking why Lansman, a member of the JSG, had not been called to account for his removal of Jackie Walker as Momentum Vice-Chair, an act which even Cecile Wright, Lansman’s supporter on the Momentum Steering Committee has described as a ‘political lynching’, merited the following message on the Free Speech on Israel list in reply to Debbie Fink.  According to Rosenberg, her question was:
‘‘based on ignorance and vituperation, they were not worth responding to. The JSG is solely accountable to its members, not to you, nor to FSOI, nor to any other groups we may or may not be connected with or work with.’ 
Julia Bard in full censorship mode
Which was more of a political tantrum than an answer.  When Debbie committed the cardinal sin of posting an Open Letter to the Jewish Socialists Groupon the J4JFaceBook groupasking why the silence over Jackie Walker, she was summarily removed, as others have been since then.  All removals have been conducted by Julia Bard, the JSG’s Political Commissar.
I was removed from the J4J group last year when I sent a letter to the Guardian on behalf of J4J supporting the new Black President of the National Union of Students against the racist attacks of the Zionist Union of Jewish Students.  Attacks which we now know from Al Jazeera’s ‘The Lobby’ were co-ordinated with the Israeli state and its Embassy in London.
I made a conscious decision, given the lack of any democratic mechanisms within J4J, to send a letter defending Malia to the Guardian.  In my naivety I didn’t realise that the JSG’s commitment to anti-racism stops short of defending Black anti-racists when they are accused of ‘anti-Semitism’ by Zionists.
Original letter to the Guardian from Jewish supporters of Jeremy Corbyn - not a member of JSG in sight
The 3 moderators of the J4J group are all members of the JSG and include the husband and wife team of David Rosenberg and Julia Bard as well as Ian Saville.  The reason Dave gives in his statement below for this situation is that the JSG set up J4J.  But this not true.  The genesis of J4J began over the summer 2015 when a group of us sent a letter to the Guardian, which was printed on August 20th 2015 during the leadership elections, supporting Jeremy Corbyn.  Debbie Fink and myself from J-Big were responsible for organising the letter and I personally sent it off from Normandy where I was on holiday!
Letter in Jewish Chronicle from Jews for Jeremy - it was organised by J-Big members not the JSG
This letter was the genesis of the idea that Corbyn needed Jewish members of the Labour Party to rebut the fake allegations of anti-Semitism.  Allegations that originated in the Daily Mail and Jewish Chronicle that Corbyn had worked with a holocaust denier Paul Eisen.  On the 2nd October 2015 I organised another Jewish letter, signed by about 80 people, which was printed by the Jewish Chronicle, rebutting theirs and Jonathan Freedland’s accusations that Corbyn was anti-Semitic.  This letter was printed in the name of Jews 4 Jeremy.  The suggestion in David Rosenberg’s bad-tempered response that J4J was a JSG initiative is a falsehood.  It was a coming together of a whole number of Jews from J-Big, JfJP, the JSG and independents.  The seizing of control of the Facebook group by the JSG was an act of sectarianism at which the SWP usually excel.  We are now seeing its effects in Bard’s purge of dissenters.
The J4J group has done nothing in the past year.  Despite the defamatory anti-Semitism campaign by the Zionists it has remained silent.  J4J’s inactivity is the result of the JSG’s organisational stranglehold.  It is Momentum writ small.  What should happen is that the group, which could have played a much larger part in the fight against the witch-hunt and against Zionist attacks on Jeremy, should be relaunched with some form of democratic control.
On 12th January Debbie Fink posted my Open Letter to the J4J blog and she posted the statement below, on Monday 16th January to the Free Speech on Israel list.  
Lansman's clones spreading the word about Jackie Walker
'As the subject of Lansman has come up again, here's an article that might be of interest. This is the one the Jews for Jeremy moderators removed without explanation, throwing me off the list when I challenged it, again without explanation. To date, I have received no explanation for this nor answers to questions that I'm sure, we all want: why the JSG are covering for Lansman and not speaking out against the treatment of Jackie; why they are guilty of the same censorship as the Israel lobby and why they are loyal to Lansman, a Zionist who's colluding with the JLM rather than Jackie, a Socialist. 
The JSG won't talk to me but maybe they will at least have the decency to speak to someone else here.'
David Rosenberg was sufficiently stung to post a reply to FSOI. 
Statement of Clarification re Debbie Fink’s questions re JSG, Jews for Jeremy, and John Lansman. This is for information. We won’t be making further comment on this matter as we have more important work to do.
Jews for Jeremy (J4J) was set up mainly by JSG members in the summer of 2015 to defend Jeremy Corbyn from attack by those seeking to undermine him (Conservatives, Blairites, Zionists), and especially those using false accusations of antisemitism to attack Corbyn and his supporters.
The J4J page is NOT a place for those who wish to attack, disparage, abuse or insult Corbyn and the political stance he represents. It is NOT a place to fight proxy sectarian wars or settle political scores on other matters.
Very soon after the page was set up it had to block a number of people who joined up for nefarious purposes. They fell mainly into two categories:
 • Holocaust-denying antisemites
 • Trouble-making Zionists
On a very few occasions since then we have, reluctantly, had to block people for misusing our page by posting anti-Corbyn material, abusive sectarian political material, or re-posting material by those who they know have been blocked from the page. It is for these reasons that J4J collectively decided to block Debbie Fink. Having stated that she was not going to attack the JSG publicly, her continued abuse about the group and Corbyn in her emails and Facebook posts since she was blocked, her conspiracy theories and fantasies involving the JSG, Jon Lansman and Jeremy Corbyn, and her continued re-posting of material by a person who was blocked, leads us to believe that if we unblocked her now, we would be opening the page to more of the same.
Any organisation that sets up a Facebook Page has the right to ensure that its page and participants are not abused. That is what we have done. She can post her views freely elsewhere but not on this page.
The JSG membership spans people from the middle of the Labour Party to the far left within and beyond the Party, to Greens and anarchists. We organise together on the basis of shared values, principles and democratically agreed policies.
Our group is anti-Zionist but does not go in for gratuitous and childish demonisation of those who identify as Zionists. We know from long experience that many of the most effective Jewish anti-Zionist campaigners today once identified as Zionists. We are simultaneously in the business of opposing Zionism and trying to persuade those beginning to have doubts. You don’t do that by insulting them as “zios”. On an earlier occasion we had to ask Debbie to take down ranting posts that about why we should call people “zios”. On this specific issue the JSG completely agrees with the view expressed by Shami Chakrabarti in her report.
Re Jon Lansman: JSG members are also active individually in a range of groups, organisations, and campaigns. We do not police what they say and do in such groups. They are only accountable to the JSG for what they say or do in the name of the JSG.
Jon Lansman has been a member of the JSG for many years but has never been an active member. We know him as a longstanding and consistent supporter of Palestinian rights.
The JSG is not affiliated to Momentum and does not hold or express a JSG view about Momentum’s internal affairs. We are aware that those currently opposing, and in some cases demonising him, include both pro-Zionist AWL supporters as well as anti-Zionists. We personally know Jewish Momentum members on all sides of this debate, but that is an issue for Momentum members. It is not an issue for the JSG as the JSG.
Some JSG members are members of the Labour Party (LP) too, but the JSG is not affiliated to the LP. We have expressed a strong view on accusations of antisemitism directed against Labour Party members which we have issued as public statements and in talks and articles by JSG members, eg:
The key elements of this are:
 • We recognise that “ordinary Jewish people are rightly concerned and fearful about instances of antisemitism. We share their concerns… But we will not support those making false accusations for cynical political motives”
 • We believe that: “Accusations of antisemitism are currently being weaponised to attack the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party with claims that Labour has a “problem” of antisemitism.”
 • We reject “any attempt, from whichever quarter, to place legitimate criticism of Israeli policy out of bounds…We stand for free speech and open debate on Israel, Palestine and Zionism.”
 • We urge the LP “to develop clear and transparent compliance procedures for dealing with allegations of antisemitism and racism. If a member is being investigated for a charge of antisemitism/racism they must be told what they are being accused of and given an opportunity to retract or explain what they meant. If disciplinary procedures are being applied, bans must be a last resort… The aim should be as far as possible to deal with such problems through education.”
The JSG continues to uphold these principles. We do not give blanket support to all individuals caught up in what we recognise generally as a deliberately manufactured campaign to undermine Corbyn and his supporters because we know that, amongst them, a few genuine cases of antisemitism have been unearthed. These include LP members who have been sharing antisemitic Jewish conspiracy material from far right sites, thinly veiled as pro-Palestinian material; cases of members professing their innocence who have been sharing material about “Rothschild bankers”; and those who think there is something called “Jewish capitalism”. While we support those who have been unfairly accused, this does not imply unconditional support for every utterance of every individual who has been excluded. All who have been targeted by the Compliance Unit but who express sincere views that are not antisemitic have our continued support.
As stated at the beginning, this statement is for information only. We do not intend to engage in debate and will not be making further comment on it. Our priority is practical, assertive campaigning that supports the Palestinians in their fight for justice and not to be diverted by sectarian infighting.
David Rosenberg
David Rosenberg’s statement is disingenuous on a number of levels:
·         It ignores the key issue which is that Lansman, a JSG member, was instrumental in the removal of Jackie Walker as Vice Chair of Momentum at the behest of the JLM.  This move precipitated her suspension from the Labour Party.  Does JSG really have nothing to say about racism involving one of its own members?  The JSG has also kept remarkably quiet about the Zionist attacks on Marc Wadsworth and Malia Bouattia.
·         Lansman has admittedthat he works closely with the JLM’s Chairperson, Jeremy Newmark.  Newmark is an Israeli state operative and the JLM works with its 'sister' party, the racist Israeli Labour Party.
·    On the one hand David says that ‘On a very few occasions since then we have, reluctantly, had to block people for misusing our page by posting anti-Corbyn material’ and on the other ‘The JSG is not affiliated to Momentum and does not hold or express a JSG view about Momentum’s internal affairs.’  Presumably if JSG has no particular view on the Labour Party or Momentum why are they blocking criticism of Corbyn on the J4J list, which they describe as ‘our page’? 
·         David’s defence of Lansman’s complicity in the attack on Jackie Walker is interesting.  He doesn’t mention it!  Instead David talks about the ‘demonisation’ of Lansman, whereas the only demonisation that has occurred to date is that of Jackie Walker, as the tweets above demonstrate.  It is Jackie Walker, not Lansman, who has been the recipient of the vilest race hatred. It is a curious way to deal with racism to say that it is the perpetrators who have been demonised.
·       David says that ‘J4J collectively decided to block Debbie Fink’.  When was the vote? Was Debbie informed?  What David means is he consulted his wife Julia Bard and perhaps Ian Saville.  And why is it an offence to post the material of someone who is blocked?  That seems like guilt-by association.  It’s one thing to take exception to a particular article but to censor anything by a particular person smacks of McCarthyism.
·         David says of Jon Lansman that ‘We know him as a longstanding and consistent supporter of Palestinian rights.’  This again is disingenuous.  Lansman has never been involved in the Palestine solidarity movement.  Instead during the present anti-Semitism witch-hunt, Lansman penned an article excusing the Nakba, the expulsion of ¾ million Palestinians in 1948, by relativising it.  Labour and the Jews: from ethnic cleansing to truth and reconciliation.  And he also posted another article, reflecting the JLM’s concern that we shouldn’t mention Zionism, the ideology and movement that established apartheid in Israel.  Why the Left must stop talking about ‘Zionism’ 
·         David Rosenberg refers us to 3 statements by the JSG on recent anti-Semitism controversies and in particular the statement on fake anti-Semitism.  Statement on “Labour’s problem with antisemitism”They are mostly unobjectionable but you judge someone not by what they say but what they do and the JSG’s refusal to defend Jackie Walker and its defence of Lansman, demonstrates that these words are pious utterances. 
·         David says that ‘a few genuine cases of antisemitism have been unearthed’ and these include LP members who have been sharing antisemitic Jewish conspiracy material from far right sites and material about “Rothschild bankers”.  If there are a few such cases then the present witch-hunt is the worst way to deal with them.  It is noticeable that there has been no trawl for Islamophobic material. 
If some people’s reactions to Zionism and Israel’s behaviour has taken an anti-Semitic form, then the answer is political education not administrative and bureaucratic methods, including expulsion.  It is an unfortunate fact that Zionist claims about Jewish responsibility for what happens in Israel/Palestine will inevitably produce an anti-Semitic reaction in some people.
·         What should be of concern is that the JLM, which describes itself as the Israeli Labour Party’s ‘sister party’ is put in charge of ‘anti-racist’ training in the Labour Party.  Defence of an apartheid state and its regime is far more serious than a few nuts who believe that the Rothschilds sponsored the Russian Revolution.
The leader of the JLM’s ‘sister party’ Isaac Herzog is an out and out racist who recently declaredthat his nightmare was waking up to find that Israel had a Palestinian Prime Minister and 61 Palestinian Members of Israel’s Knesset .  Herzog also declared that he wanted to dispel the false impression that the ILP were ‘Arab Lovers’.  Just imagine if someone had said that their nightmare was to wake up and find Britain had a Jewish Prime Minister or that the Labour Party was not a ‘Jew lovers’ party.  Such terms used to be part of the language of the National Front and BNP. 
·         Although only a minor matter, David’s attitude to the use of the term ‘zios’ is also significant.  He said that ‘You don’t do that by insulting them as “zios”.... On this specific issue the JSG completely agrees with the view expressed by Shami Chakrabarti in her report.’
It is interesting that an ‘anti-Zionist’ group should agree so wholeheartedly with Chakrabarti.  Chakrabarti referred in her report to peoples’ ‘rich range of self-descriptions of both Jewishness or Zionism’   Chakrabarti also advised people ‘to use the term "Zionist" advisedly, carefully and never euphemistically or as part of personal abuse.’  Chakrabarti clearly understands nothing about Zionism, a rapacious and racist settler colonial movement.  To her it is part of our multi-cultural tapestry.  ‘Zio’ is of course short for ‘Zionist’ – and both Jews and non-Jews are Zionists.  It cannot therefore be a racist term.  The whole question of ‘Zios’ is a deliberate Zionist talking point, part of the invention of a synthetic ‘anti-Semitism’. 
It is a great pity that the JSG, by its attitude to the anti-Semitism witch-hunt in the Labour Party and its association with Jon Lansman wishes to sully its past record.

Tony Greenstein 
Viewing all 2415 articles
Browse latest View live