Quantcast
Channel: Tony Greenstein's Blog
Viewing all 2416 articles
Browse latest View live

It’s official – UN Report on Israel states that Israel is an Apartheid State

$
0
0

Rima Khalaf, Head of the UN’s Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, resigns after refusing to withdraw report

A Report was drawn up by Rima Khalaf, the head of the United Nation's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, that proves beyond all reasonable doubt, that Israel is an ethno-supremacist Apartheid state.  The evidence is incontrovertible.  The world’s main superpower, the United States, whose President, Donald Trump, is an out and out racist, doesn’t even bother to argue with the substance of the Report.  How could it since everything it says is true?
But labelling the United State’s favourite guard dog as an apartheid state is, well, politically inconvenient.  The US doesn’t pay Israel over $4 billion a year to safeguard its interests only to have the  UN, a 2 bit player if ever there was one, come and call its pet rotweiller a racist bitch.


Israel is Reagan’s City on the Hill.  It is the shining example of democracy in the Middle East.  It is everything we should aspire to.  No matter that torture is routine, that children (Palestinian of course) are shackled, that Gaza and its people are used as a shooting gallery, that land is confiscated (i.e. stolen) so that Jewish settlements can be built or that Palestinians, even in Israel, are segmented in virtually every sphere of society from land to education to local government funding.
The fact is that Israel is not an apartheid society for one reason only.  It is politically inconvenient to label it so and if you insist on telling the truth, then you must be an anti-Semite.  Only people like the Donald, who cavort with holocaust deniers and Jew haters from Steve Bannon’s Breitbart, are free of the ‘new anti-Semitism’.  

Fortunately these days, thanks to the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, [see Manufacturing Consent On ‘Anti-Semitism] people like Trump don’t have to worry about the old fashioned anti-Semitism i.e. Jew hatred.  ‘New anti-Semitism’ only applies to those who hate Israel, not those who hate Jews.

The Report by Rima Khalaf, both the Executive Summary and the full Report are well worth reading and I have put up both on the web for those who are interested.



Rima Khalaf (via Facebook)

A senior United Nations official has resigned, following pressure from Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to withdraw the landmark report published earlier this week finding Israel guilty of apartheid.

Rima Khalaf, the head of the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) which published the report, announced her resignation at a press conference in Beirut on Friday.
Reuters reports that Khalaf took the step “after what she described as pressure from the secretary-general to withdraw a report accusing Israel of imposing an ‘apartheid regime’ on Palestinians.”

“I resigned because it is my duty not to conceal a clear crime, and I stand by all the conclusions of the report,” Khalaf stated.

As of Friday, a press release announcing the report remained visible on the ESCWA website, but the link to the report itself from the press release no longer works.

A full copy of the report is available below.

It concludes that “Israel has established an apartheid regime that dominates the Palestinian people as a whole.”

It finds “beyond a reasonable doubt that Israel is guilty of policies and practices that constitute the crimes of apartheid” as defined in international law.

It urges national governments to “support boycott, divestment and sanctions activities and respond positively to calls for such initiatives.”

Palestinians warmly welcomed the report, but Israel angrily denounced it as akin to Nazi propaganda. Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN demanded that the report be withdrawn.

That demand came just as the Trump administration announced a budget plan that includes sweeping cuts in US contributions to the UN.

Khalaf’s resignation indicates that Guterres acted obediently and swiftly to carry out the orders from the United States. In a tweet, the Anti-Defamation League, a powerful Israel lobby group in the United States, thanked Guterres for urging ESCWA to withdraw the report.

The Israeli government has long targeted Khalaf for retaliation for doing her job. In 2014, its UN ambassador demanded she be removed from her post for criticizing Israel’s policies of occupation and Jewish colonization of Palestinian territory at the expense of Muslim and Christian communities.
The Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC), the civil society coalition that leads the global boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, condemned Guterres’ intervention.

“The fact that a UN secretary general has bowed to threats and intimidation from the Trump administration to protect Israel from accountability, yet again, is hardly news,” the BNC said. “The real news is that this time round, Israel, with all its influence in Washington, cannot put the genie back into the bottle.”

“Palestinians are deeply grateful to ESCWA’s director, Dr. Rima Khalaf, who preferred to resign in dignity than to surrender her principles to US-Israeli bullying,” the BNC added.

Khalaf’s resignation, under pressure to suppress factual and legal findings unfavorable to Israel, will send a chilling message to other UN officials that they are better off serving those in power than in upholding any mandate to advance human rights and respect for international law.


Yesterday Rima Khalaf resigned as executive secretary of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia after the agency was forced to retract a report stating that Israel is an “apartheid regime.” Khalaf’s letter of resignation to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was translated and posted by poet Lena Khalaf Tuffaha today on her Facebook page. Here is that translation: 

Honorable Secretary General,

I have given a great deal of consideration to the letter I received from your office, and I assure you that I in no way question your right to issue instructions to remove the report from the ESCWA web site, as I do not question that as employees of the United Nations, we must all execute the orders of our Secretary General.

I know very well your commitment to the principles of human rights in general and your position on the rights of the Palestinian people specifically. And I also understand the anxiety you must have in these difficult times that leave you with few good choices.

It is clear to me the kinds of pressures and threats to which the United Nations and you personally are subjected by states with authority and influence, because of the publication of the ESCWA report (Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid)[still available here]. I am unsurprised that these states, which are run today by governments with little concern for international principles and human rights, should resort to tactics of fearmongering and threats when they fail to defend their policies and practices which violate the law. It makes sense that a criminal would attack those who defend the cause of his victims, but I find myself incapable of bowing to such pressures, and not because of my role as an employee of the United Nations, but simply as a sane human being. For I believe—as you do—in the values and noble principles that have always represented the forces of good throughout history, and upon which our organization, the United Nations, was founded. And, like you, I also believe that discrimination against any human being on the basis of religion or skin color or gender or ethnicity is absolutely unacceptable, and cannot be made acceptable by political maneuvering or brute force. And I believe that to speak truth to power is not only a human right, it is our obligation.

Over the course of two months, I have been instructed to withdraw two reports published by ESCWA, not for any error or shortcomings within the reports themselves and not necessarily because you yourself disagree with their content, but because of political pressures from countries implicated by their blatant violations of the rights of people in the region and human rights in general.
You have seen with your own eyes how the people of this region are enduring episodes of pain and suffering unprecedented in their modern history, and that the deluge of catastrophes that has overtaken them today is a direct result of unchecked oppression which has been ignored, or covered up, or openly engaged in by governments with dominance and force within the region and outside of it. These same governments are the ones pressuring you today to silence the voice of truth and the calls for justice represented by this report.

In view of all that I have stated here, I can only insist on the findings of the ESCWA report, which state that Israel has built an apartheid regime which aims to give one ethnic group control over another. The evidence provided in the report is incontrovertible, and here it is sufficient to point out that anyone who has attacked the report has been incapable of calling into question a single word of its actual content. I see it as my obligation to shine a light on the truth and not to hide it or obscure the testimony and evidence it provides.

The painful truth is that an apartheid regime still exists in the 21st century, and this is unacceptable under any law and is morally unjustifiable.

As I make this statement, I claim no moral superiority and no greater clarity than you possess, the matter is simply that my statements are a result of an entire life spent here, in this region, witnessing the horrific consequences of stifling people and preventing them from expressing the truth of their suffering through peaceful means.

As such, and after great consideration, I realize that I too have no choice. I cannot withdraw, once again, a United Nations report, an exceptionally researched and well-documented report about grave violations of human rights. I also realize that the clear directives of the Secretary General of the United Nations must be executed. And so the only way to resolve this tangle is for me to step aside and leave it to someone else to do what my conscience prevents me from doing. I realize I have only two weeks of service remaining in my post, so my resignation is not meant to exert any political pressure on you. I am simply resigning because I believe my duty to the peoples of the region that we serve, and to the United Nations, and to myself, is not to silence the testimony about a crime that causes such suffering to so many human beings. For this reason, I submit to you my resignation from the United Nations.

Translator Lena Khalaf Tuffaha prefaced the posting with these words:

Dr. Rima Khalaf, career diplomat extraordinaire, personal hero, and Executive Secretary of ESCWA, resigned today after the UN Secretary General tried to withdraw a report that correctly identified Israel as an apartheid regime. Anyone who cares about freedom and equality should read her letter of resignation, which I have translated here. Her letter is a document that is now part of the history of the struggle for freedom. And anyone in the west who’s super worried about women in the Arab world should sit down, because we have Rima and many women like her who just need everyone to get out the way so we can get our work done. Khalaf women don’t play. Palestinian women don’t play.
Thanks to Nada Elia.

Far-Right Brighton Labour Councillor resigns from Labour Party citing 'anti-Semitism' as his excuse

$
0
0

Cllr. Inkpin-Leissner refuses to stand for re-election as Brighton councillor

Inkpin deserts the sinking ship that is the current Labour Administration of Brighton & Hove Council
I was first alerted to the resignation of Councillor Michael Inkpin-Leissner when I was visiting the site of the McCarthyite Zionist Campaign for Anti-Semitism.  There is, as many of you will be aware a petition calling on the Charity Commission to deregister this political organisation which is almost certainly funded by the Israeli state.

Inkpin-Leissner is a councillor for the ward where the unemployed centre, which I founded, used to be based.  It is a very deprived ward of Brighton and the New Labour politics of Inkpin have done nothing to help regenerate it, quite the contrary.  Inkpin is and remains a supporter of the New Labour Brighton and Hove Council which is led by Progress supporter Warren Morgan, who was behind the suspension of the District Labour Party in July last year.

I have posted a response on Inkpin's facebook page though I doubt it will stay up too long!  Inkpin describes himself as an 'armed forces champion' - in other words a militarist who will support any amount of imperialist wars using his fake concern for individual soldiers as his prop to lean upon.  As I make clear below, anyone seriously concerned with members of the armed forces would be campaigning against imperialist wars abroad, but that would go against his New Labour politics.

As is to be expected of such a person, Inkpin won't be resigning citing 'a lot of local residents with diverse political opinions' who voted for him.  Of course he forgets to say that they voted for him as a Labour candidate and if he is so confident of their support then why not see at a by-election?

Statement in Response to that of Cllr. Michael Inkpin-Leissner
Your statement says nothing at all. There is no content worthy of the name. This is shallowness beyond measure and an indication of the vacuity of what is left of New Labour.
It might be quite strange to you but New Labour's continental equivalents have not been a shining success. In the Netherlands last week a massive defeat for the Blairite Labour Party. In France the Socialist Party under Hollande is in melt down. In Germany, as you say, it is Die Linke, which is the flame for the Left. You offer nothing but the continuation of a system, yes capitalism, which plunders and despoils.

Your concern about 'anti-Semitism' is touching and entirely misplaced. Anti-semitism is a marginal prejudice in this society. Unlike you I am Jewish and having lived my childhood in non-Jewish working class areas of Britain I can testify that I never experienced it. Nor have I ever experienced it on the Left or in the Labour Party.
How the far-Right Zionist Campaign for Anti-Semitism sees Inkpin's resignation
Please do not use Jewish people as an excuse for your own far-Right political leanings. The lesson of the holocaust is that all forms of racism are wrong and should be fought. Your New Labour friends pioneered Islamaphobia in this country and demonised Muslims.

With your war in Iraq and Afghanistan you brought terrorism, which we have seen today, onto the streets of Britain. What you called 'monsters' were summoned into being by the monstrous wars that you and your ilk supported.

What you and others mean by 'anti-Semitism' is opposition to Zionism and the Israeli state. A state which only recently demolished an Arab/Bedouin village Umm al Hiran, in Israel proper, in order to make way for a Jewish town. It would be futile to describe the system of military oppression on the West Bank, the shackliing and torture of children, the house demolitions etc. because you after all supported the continuing war crime that began with the invasion of Iraq.

It is incidentally no accident that in the USA, with the advent of Trump and his white supremacist friends in Breitbart and the alt-RIght, that anti-Semitism has indeed increased exponentially. That was why my anti-Zionist friends in Jewish Voices for Peace and other Jewish leftists picketed the meeting in November last year where Steve Bannon, Trump's new Strategic Advisor and former CEO of Breitbart was due to speak. In the end hundreds of anti-racist Jews prevented him speaking. Whose was the meeting he had been invited to? The Zionist Organisation of America! It is no accident that whereas the Israeli government is happy to condemn 'anti-Semitism' in Britain it has failed to say a word about the very real anti-Semitism of Trump's administration. Zionism and anti-Semitism are and always were merely different sides of the same coin.

It is a pity that you, being German, should use your guilt complex as a way of expiating Israel's racist crimes. Some of see in what Israel does a continuation of the Nazi regime. In Israel, as under the 1935 Nuremburg Laws, a Jew cannot marry a non-Jew. Or perhaps demolishing a non-Jewish house to make way for a Jewish home is your idea of penance?

You speak of your 'never ending support for members of the British Armed Forces'. It is no surprise that cheap jingoism and militarism is your political refuge. Patriotism always was the refuge of the political scoundrel. If your support was at all sincere you would have opposed Blair's wars of imperialism and the war that we are currently supporting against the people of Yemen.

The British army does not have a proud record - be it in Ireland, India Kenya or indeed Iraq, where it carried out the world's first ever bombing of civilians in 1920. When members of the armed forces have done their duty they are left, in many cases, to live in poverty, in prison or to die on the streets. That is what your 'support' for the armed forces really amounts to. The resources used for war could, of course be used to peaceful activities but that would defeat your whole political purpose.

I suspect that neither the Labour Party nor your own electors will regret your resignation but if you had the courage of your convictions then you would restand in your ward and give all those ' local residents with diverse political opinions' a chance to decide whether to support you now that you have dispensed with the political party that enabled you to be elected in the first place!

I shall put this on other sites in case this doesn't stay up too long.



Please find here my personal statement regarding my resignation from the Labour Party:
When I joint the Labour Party it was a natural choice for me as a Social Democrat from Germany. Labour was a proud pro European Movement.

The current Leadership of the Labour Party seems to have forgotten that. The lukewarm stance to defend the European Nationals by the Parliamentary Labour Group ( I applaud the Lords on this occasion) made me feel more and more uncomfortable to be a part of the Labour Party.
When I joined the Labour Party it was a centre-left Party like the German SPD.
Now it has been taken over by left-wingers and the Momentum extremists, who are working to build an axis with former German Communists “Die Linke”.

As a German, and you will understand, I can never support this and never will compromise my stance against any form of antisemitism. Unfortunately the position of the Labour Party, though there are strong personalities standing up against antisemitism, seems to be not really sincere anymore, proven by the lackluster investigation of Baroness Chakrabarti. I have lost my faith in Labour fighting Antisemitism and for Europe.

I know, fellow councillors made it clear that I should ignore these temporary issues and focus on local politics. But I have to strongly disagree. As a Labour Member in the public eye I was connected to what the current leadership says and stands for. This is why I have to walk away from this party. In my two remaining years as independent councillor I shall focus on my local support and activities in my ward. Some of you will state that I should resign as a Councillor. I disagree on this as not only Labour supporters voted for me but a lot of local residents with diverse political opinions. I shall honour my obligations to them. I was elected to support a Labour Administration.

Where agreed I shall support the current administration under Warren Morgan’s leadership. As we know from the Budget debate the Greens are politically reliable unreliable and the Tories are… well the Tories.

Of course there was already the usual political procedure. GMB, Unite and Corbyn supporters as well as Tories and Greens demanded my complete resignation. Sorry to disappoint you. This city has a stable and reliable administration. I will not support any change to that. Brighton and Hove deserves better than blind ideology from the very Corbynite/Green left or the Bombastic Boris Mayhem right.

I can't express my gratitude for so many messages of support: members of the Jewish community and other faith groups, members of different political parties, fellow councillors from all over the country.

Now what’s next: I finally can speak free on what annoyed me most as resident in my ward and elsewhere: The abuse of the HMO system, the chaos on Lewes road,my neighbourhood, a lot of other local issues and my never ending support for members of the British Armed Forces, Veterans, their families and carers.

Israel’s Golani Brigade Seizes an 8 year old Palestinian Child

$
0
0

The Heroism of the World’s Most Moral Army when faced with an 8 year old Palestinian child terrorist


I know it is easy to criticise the Israeli army but are only doing their duty in what are very difficult circumstances.  The Palestinians living under occupation don’t like them and this is particularly true of their children.

You see Palestinian children are not what they seem.  For one thing they are not Jewish and that is important.  When Rabbis Elitzur and Yitzhak Shapira wrote Torat HaMelech (the King’s Torah) in 2011 they advocated the killing on non-Jewish children.  As Israel’s largest circulation newspaper, Yediot Aharanotexplained:

According to the book, "Hurting small children makes sense if it's clear that they'll grow up to harm us, and in such a situation – the injury will be directed at them of all people."

Shapira explained in the interview, "Assuming that at a time of war I must kill children in order to win – otherwise my soldiers will die, then killing the enemy's children is the right thing to do rather than have my soldiers killed…

"If I believe there is an evil king, a tyrant, who is involved in many unjustified wars, and I want to win the war, and my way is for his children to be hurt in order to weaken his spirit and have him stop sending his soldiers to war – then it's permissible."
B'Tselem video: Search for stone throwers, Hebron, March 2017 B'Tselem
When this book came under attack in Israel it was immediately defended by scores of rabbis.  Ha’aretz reportedthat

‘Dov Lior, chief rabbi of Kiryat Arba and a respected figure among many mainstream religious Zionists, noted that the book is "very relevant especially in this time."‘

To understand this mentality one has to go back to Himmler in a speech in Posen in Poland on October 6th 1943 to senior Nazi officials, Himmler explained why the killings had to include Jewish children: 
‘I did not assume to have the right to exterminate the men… and have the avengers personified in the children to become adults for our children and grandchildren.’   [Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews p. 294]
This mentality is not confined to Himmler.  Ayelet Shaked, Justice Minister in Netanyahu’s 2015 government, posted on her Facebookpage:
They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.
So those of you who are tempted to blame the individual soldiers should bear in mind that they operate in a racist context, where even children are seen as legitimate targets.

It should be noted that the B'tselem human rights organisation has come under repeated attack from the Israeli government for aiding 'terrorists' by raising issues of human rights.  See e.g. 


The army is investigating the incident in Hebron, which was caught on film by human rights group B'Tselem. The mother says the soldiers refused to let him ago until he names stones throwers.
Gili Cohen Mar 23, 2017 7:00 PM

The Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem has released a video purportedly showing Israel Defense Force soldiers taking a Palestinian boy of about eight from house to house in the West Bank town of Hebron. The organization says the soldiers led the boy from house to house in an effort to get him to identify children who had thrown stones at Israelis.

The video, which was filmed by a number of volunteers for B'Tselem on Sunday, shows a group of soldiers taking custody of the boy, Sufian Abu Hita,  and then shows him from various vantage points. In the video, the boy appears to be frightened and uncertain what the soldiers want of him.

The soldiers in the video were from the Golani brigade and had only recently been deployed in Hebron, a predominantly Palestinian city with a small Jewish population. At least a dozen soldiers appear in the video, three of them officers. In one clip, an officer with the rank of 1st lieutenant is seen calling on an older Palestinian to help translate their instructions to the boy.

In the video, which was filmed with a cell phone, the boy in seen being led by the soldiers, with two of them holding him by his hands. He is also seen on the roof of a house being led by a soldier in a search of several portions of the roof.

In a clip that appears to have been filmed by someone else, another soldier is holding the boy by his shirt, as the officer holds the boy's hand, leading him out of the house. A group of Palestinian women then approach the scene and take him by the hand, away from the soldiers as the women shout at the soldiers.

A B'selem news release quotes the boy's mother, Amana, as saying that she approached one of the soldiers and asked that they return her son, but they had refused. "[The soldier] said: 'If you want to take him, you need to convince him to provide us the names of the children who have been throwing stones.' I tried to explain to the soldier that we don't live in the neighborhood, and that we had only come to visit my parents, and that the boy doesn't know the names of the children in the neighborhood," she said.

"The soldier ignored what I had said," the mother said, adding that the boy was barefoot as the soldiers took him from house to house.

The IDF is currently investigating the soldiers' conduct. The army said it was unaware of the incident before B'Tselem released the video. Even if the soldiers suspected Sufian of wrongdoing, at eight years old, he would be younger than the age of criminal responsibility, which is 12. Children younger than 12 cannot be punished for criminal acts.

In response the IDF said: "From an initial inquiry, it appears that last Sunday, an observation point spotted a firebomb being thrown at [adjoining Jewish settlement] of Kiryat Arba. An IDF force that was dispatched to the site caught a suspect and led him to his parent's house because he is a minor. It should be noted that from an initial inquiry, the force did not demand that the minor direct them to additional suspects."

Open Letter to Len Duvall, Labour's Racist Leader in the Greater London Assembly

$
0
0
Forward, America's oldest and most influential Jewish magazine, which is liberal Zionist is baffled at the warm reception for Trump and Bannon by Zionist and Israeli leaders - not something that idiot Duvall is even aware of

Labour’s Greater London Assembly Members Support Israeli Apartheid in the fight against ‘Anti-Semitism’
On February 8th Labour’s Greater London Assembly members voted to support the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ that Theresa May’s government has recently adopted.  The IHRA definition conflates hostility to Israel’s Apartheid regime and anti-Semitism.  It also takes 493 words to do it. 

The witless racist who leads the Labour group on the Greater London Assembly believes democracy and apartheid are compatible
In response Mike Cushman of Free Speech on Israelprotested that the decision of the Labour group, at the behest of Andrew Dismore, a prominent member of Labour Friends of Israel, called into question ‘the Assembly’s commitment to freedom of speech’.  GLA gets it so very wrong on antisemitism

There is of course a much simpler definition of anti-Semitism, hatred of Jews as Jews, which is what most people understand by anti-Semitism.  Dr Brian Klug of Oxford University, an academic expert on anti-Semitism drew up a simple definition of anti-Semitism.  In his lectureWhat Do We Mean When We Say ‘Antisemitsm’? Echoes of shattering glass’ given at the Conference “Antisemitism in Europe Today: the Phenomena, the Conflicts” which was held on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, in 2014, at the Jewish Museum, Berlin, Klug came up with a 20 word definition of anti-Semitism: Anti-Semitism is:

a form of hostility towards Jews as Jews, in which Jews are perceived as something other than what they are.
A Rogue's Gallery - Not a Socialist or an Anti-racist Amongst Them 
Klug went on to explain that anti-Semitism was really ‘hostility towards Jews as not Jews. For the ‘Jew’ towards whom the antisemite feels hostile is not a real Jew at all. Thinking that Jews are really ‘Jews’ is precisely the core of antisemitism.’ [see The collective Jew: Israel and the new anti-Semitism, Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 37, No. 2, June 2003, Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group)
The problem with this definition, for Zionists anyway, is that nowhere does it mention the State of Israel!  Hence why the IHRA definition was first proposed by the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee in a Report  Anti-Semitism in the UK. [see my Manufacturing Consent On ‘Anti-Semitism.  The Report was a combined attack by Labour right-wingers Chuku Ummuna and David Winnick and Tory members of the Committee on Jeremy Corbyn.

The response to Mike Cushman from Len Duvall, the leader of the Assembly Labour group, could have been written (and possibly was) by Israel’s Ambassador in London, Mark Regev, the slick former PR spokesman for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 
This is a good example of Duvall's Israeli democracy - a debate on whether to let Israeli state land (93% of all land in Israel) to non-Jews.  Racist?  Perish the thought Len
Duvall’s reply is classic hasbara (propaganda).  Israel is ‘a fully functioning and vibrant participatory democracy.  I therefore decided it would be useful to write him an Open Letter.  Not in the hope of convincing him.  Duvall is a convinced racist who sees nothing wrong in a Jewish supremacist settler colonial state founded on ethnic cleansing.  To him that is ‘democracy’ – Duvall is no different from previous labour imperialists and colonial apologists.  However I hope to enlighten others.

When looking for the names of members of the GLA Labour Group I noticed one particular name, Unmesh Desai, the member for Newham.  I remember Unmesh from the 1980’s when both of us were on the Executive of Anti-Fascist Action.  Both of us went on numerous anti-fascist actions together, many of which ended up in confrontations with the National Front and assorted neo-Nazi thugs.  Unmesh was a supporter of the Newham Monitoring Group, an anti-racist group that was at the forefront of the conflict with the racist Metropolitan Police.  It’s quite sad to see someone swap their previous principles for the trappings of office and the salary and perks that come with it.


Tony Greenstein
Andrew Dismore - Labour Friends of Israel member who moved the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism
Open Letter to Len Duvall, the Racist Leader of Labour in the Greater London Assembly
Without Anti-Semitism There is no Zionism

Dear Mr Duvall,

I read with interest your response to Mike Cushman of Free Speech on Israel.  Mike wrote to you concerning the Labour group’s support for the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism. 

This definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ was drawn up by 31 governments including the far-Right anti-Semitic governments of Poland and Hungary, amongst others.   The Hungarian government under Victor Orban, which is viciously hostile to refugees, combines anti-Semitism and Zionism.  It is consciously rewriting history to portray Admiral Horthy, who presided over a puppet Nazi government in 1944, which deported nearly ½ million Jews to Auschwitz, as a nationalist hero. [Rewriting the history of the Hungarian Holocaust]

You say that the definition is ‘a fair representation  of how Israel  can be criticised when necessary in a reasonable way’.  What has a definition of anti-Semitism got to do with Israel?  Are you suggesting that British Jews bear a responsibility for Israel’s actions?  If not, why conflate the two?

You quote the definition as saying that ‘‘criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic’.  The whole point about criticism of Israel is that it is not like other states.  It is the world’s only Apartheid state.
Unmesh Desai - from anti-fascist activist to New Labour sycophant
You also say that criticism of Israel should not be ‘referring back to the Holocaust’.  Perhaps you would tell that to Israel’s supporters who routinely justify Israel’s actions on the basis of the Holocaust.  For example Abba Eban, Israel’s former Foreign Minister described the Green Line between Israel and the West Bank as an ‘Auschwitz border’.

I realisethat your knowledge of Israel is probably gleaned from the briefings and expenses paid trips that you have received from the Israeli Embassy, however your muddled defence of Zionist racism is worthy of the Booker prize for fiction.

You put forward the view that ‘Anti -Semitism is fuelled by far right and far left views’.  I understand our ignorance but anti-Semitism has always been fought by the Left and supported by the Right.  Zionism has always been unique as a Jewish political movement in that it accepted the idea that Jews didn’t belong in the countries.  Like the anti-Semites they believed Jews should live in their ‘own’ state.  That was why the only Jewish member of Lloyd George’s War Cabinet, Sir Edwin Montagu, opposed the Balfour Declaration.  Historically Zionism was seen as a form of Jewish anti-Semitism.
You refer to the alt-Right and Donald Trump’s Strategic Advisor Steve Bannon who talks of “cosmopolitan elites in the media”... He means Jews.’  Yes you are right.  Perhaps you would care to explain then why the Zionist Organisation of America welcomedBannon to its annual gala dinner in November?  It was a demonstration organised by the anti-Zionist Jewish Voices for Peace and If Not Now that persuaded Bannon to stay away. [see Ha’aretz’s ‘Zionist Organization of America Flooded With 'Dozens of Calls' Amid Backlash Over Bannon Support’Ha’aretz’s subtitle was 'We did not survive the Holocaust, we did not found the State of Israel, just so that less than two generations later we could cozy up to neo-Nazis.'   According to your views above, Ha’aretz must also be anti-Semitic.
Netanyahu is fulsome in his support, not only for Donald Trump  but Steve Bannon. [Why Netanyahu doesn’t worry about Steve Bannon]  Isn’t it strange that the Jewish Prime Minister of a Jewish state welcomes anti-Semites in the Trump administration.  And not only Netanyahu but Israeli Labour’s Isaac Herzog. [Herzog to Trump: Your win shows elites are thing of pastYou seewithout anti-Semitism there is no Zionism.

Your suggestion that the Left calls Israel a ‘Nazi state’ or compares Israelis to SS murderers is simply untrue and I challenge you to back up your lies.  There are though many comparisons which can be made between Israel and Nazi Germany, especially in the period before 1941.  The Palestinians are treated as an untermenschen.  When Israeli mobs march to the beat of ‘Death to the Arabs’– maavet la’aravim] it does bear a similarity to the chant of ‘Death to the Jews’ that was commonplace in fascist Europe during the 1930’s.  Don’t you agree?

However the full measure of your racism, because turning a blind eye to racism makes you equally guilty as those who practice it, is in your assertion that ‘it is wrong to call Israel an ‘apartheid’ state.’  Apparently it shows ‘real  disrespect and diminishes the sacrifices made by the majority population in South Africa’.

This is hypocritical cant.  It is South Africans above all who make the comparison between Apartheid in South Africa and Apartheid in Israel. The Jerusalem Post reportedArchbishop Desmond Tutu thus:

"I have witnessed the systemic humiliation of Palestinian men, women and children by members of the Israeli security forces.  Their humiliation is familiar to all black South Africans who were corralled and harassed and insulted and assaulted by the security forces of the apartheid government." 

Nor is Desmond Tutu alone.  Ronnie Kassrills, the ANC’s Jewish Police Minister noted, at South Africa’s Israel Apartheid Week that it was the architect of apartheid, Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd who statedthat Israel was an Apartheid State.  That was why Israel was South Africa’s best friend.  Desmond Tutu: Israel guilty of apartheid in treatment of Palestinians

You are simply wrong when you state that Israel doesn’t enforce pass laws.  In fact its system of check points, databases and ID cards in the West Bank is far worse than South Africa’s pass laws. 
You say that in Israel incitement to racism is a criminal offence.  Not true.  Jews are never penalised for incitement to racism because their anti-racist laws exclude discrimination on the grounds of religion.  Only Arabs are ever prosecuted.  To this day the fascist Lehava organisation, whose leader Benzi Gopstein called for the burning down of mosques and churches remains free.  Indeed the Israeli state funds Lehava’s ‘charitable’ wing, Hemla, which campaigns against sexual relations between Arabs and Jews.  When Nuremberg Came to Israel

Apparently ‘Every person in Israel has full equal rights; 1.6 million Arab Israelis have the same rights as the 6.8 million Jewish Israelis’.  Yes Israel’s Arab population has the vote, but it is meaningless.  In nearly 70 years, no Arab party has ever been part of Israel’s government.  Only last week the Knesset passed a Bill which will prevent parties that don’t accept that Israel is a Jewish state rather than a state of all its citizens standing. Expanding Political Persecution With an Amendment
You also said that ‘Every person in Israel has full equal rights; 1.6 million Arab Israelis have the same rights as the 6.8 million Jewish Israelis...Israel is a fully functioning and vibrant participatory democracy.’  It is difficult to know where to begin when confronted with such nonsense.  Perhaps the best place is the Pew Research Centre Report Israel’s Religiously Divided Society.

In this Report some 64% of Arabs said Israel could not be both a Jewish and a democratic state (27% disagreed).  79% of Israeli Arabs say there is a lot of discrimination as opposed to 74% of Jewish Israelis who disagree.  No doubt you believe the racists!  A plurality of Israeli Jews (48%) support the physical expulsion or transfer of Arabs from Israel.  79% of Israeli Jews believe that Jews should be given preferential treatment in comparison with Arabs.  Perhaps you would care to explain how this is compatible with a free and equal society? 

To give but one example of the equality you talk about, in Israel, despite a 10 fold population increase Israel’s Arabs are confined to the same area of land (about 2%) that they occupied in 1948.  There have been no new Arab towns.  Planning applications are routinely rejected resulting in thousands of house demolitions.  Half of the Arab villages are ‘unrecognised’ which means that basic facilities – running water, electricity, sewerage is not supplied.  This would be unheard of for Israeli Jews.
Just four weeks ago the Bedouin village of Umm al-Hiran was demolished and one villager murdered by the Police in order to make way for a Jewish town, Hiran, in its place.  This is the real meaning of a Jewish state.  Israel’s Inhumane and Stupid Bedouin Policy

You compare Israel as a ‘Jewish’ state to Islamic states.  There is one difference.  In Israel to be Jewish means to be privileged, like being White in South Africa.  In Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. Islam is used as a means of justifying the oppression of Muslims. 

The Labour Party has a long history of supporting colonialism, including in South Africa.  It is no surprise that you should continue this inglorious tradition with your racist apologia for Israeli Apartheid.  What is surprising is that the Black Assembly members should go along with what you wrote.  I can only assume that the perks and salary go some way to alleviating their consciences.

Yours fraternally,

Tony Greenstein

Response from Len Duvall to Mike Cushman of Free Speech on Israel

Good morning

This is the response which is on behalf of the Labour Group.

Thank you for your email  about the anti -Semitism motion.

I believe this represents mainstream Jewish opinion about anti- Semitism and is a fair representation  of how Israel  can be criticised when necessary in a reasonable way. The motion says in terms:
‘criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic’.

Of course, there are minorities within the Jewish and other  communities  who will disagree from both a fundamentalist religious viewpoint and from an anti- Zionist  left view, but  I think criticisms of Israel should be expressed in a way that does not encourage or reflect anti – Semitic tropes, especially referring back to the Holocaust.

Anti -Semitism is fuelled by far right and far left views, in my opinion. On the right, believers that the world is engaged in a clash of cultures approve  of a strong Jewish state in the Middle East – they support  Israeli settlement building as part of a generational struggle rooted in Islamophobia. These same groups on the right hold in disdain the majority of diaspora Jews, who are overwhelmingly centrist liberals and generally do not support parties of the far right or far left  especially in the UK and North America.

This in the eyes of the alt-right  makes them enemies of their national projects. For example Steve Bannon, chief strategist to President Trump is on record using various demeaning terms about Jews.  When he refers to a shadowy group of “cosmopolitan elites in the media that live in a handful of larger cities.” He means Jews.  At a meeting of Jewish Republicans, President Trump stated how honoured he was to be in a room of ‘great negotiators’ and then went on to suggest that they wouldn’t like him because he doesn’t want their money. Another anti-Semitic trope.

And  when people from the left proclaim  that Israel is a Nazi state or compare Israelis to SS murderers, they are using the most horrific and personal imagery to Jewish people. To do so is not only anti-Semitic in itself, but also downplays the significance of the Holocaust and  the suffering of its victims and  survivors.

Equally it is wrong to call Israel an ‘apartheid’ state. To do so is not merely a sloppy and inaccurate analysis, it shows real  disrespect and diminishes the sacrifices made by the majority population in South Africa, to obtain the rights all Israelis have.

Israel does not deny Arab Israelis voting rights, nor enforce pass laws, nor insist, unlike Apartheid South Africa’s Afrikaans rules, that Hebrew should be the medium in schools.

Every person in Israel has full equal rights; 1.6 million Arab Israelis have the same rights as the 6.8 million Jewish Israelis; in Israel incitement to racism is a criminal offence; people have freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and they enjoy universal adult suffrage.

Israel is a place where women enjoy equality, religious minorities are free to practice their faiths, the media is unfettered and critical, an independent judiciary protects the powerless from the powerful, educational excellence and scientific innovation are pursued and a welfare state supports the poor.
Israel is a fully functioning and vibrant participatory democracy.

By the same token, any criticisms of Muslim states and the activities of the Palestinian Authority  should be measured, though many of those who demonise   Israel seem willing to turn a blind eye to them.

Those who criticise Israel as a ‘Jewish’ state should reflect  that whilst this does not form part of the country’s official name, ‘Islamic’ is  part of the official name of  quite a number  of countries; they  expelled their Jewish communities 60 years ago, (incidentally  in far greater numbers than displaced Palestinians), do not allow Jews to visit , do not promote religious  tolerance, criminalise homosexuals, have restrictions on the media, deny rights to women and are not functioning democracies

Such criticisms  can be advanced, as I just have,  without recourse to the insulting language that some critics of Israel feel they are free to  deploy against Israel.

Best wishes

Len
Len Duvall AM

FSOI letter to all GLA members

 Jewish led Free Speech group says London Assembly antisemitism vote is “A charter for censors”
Dear Assembly Member

We would like to draw your attention to this statement from the Jewish-led Free Speech on Israel campaign regarding the motion on antisemitism passed by the London Assembly on Feb 8.

In the statement, the group points out the worrying implications of the position the Assembly has taken – a position that could call into question the Assembly’s commitment to freedom of speech.
We invite you to look more carefully at the decision you made at the behest of Andrew Dismore, a prominent member of the lobby group Labour Friends of Israel.

briefing document from Free Speech on Israel explains how equating anti-Zionism (a valid political position) and antisemitism (a noxious form of race hatred) constrains discourse about Palestine under the rubric of protecting Jews from antisemitism. This can only have the unintended consequence of stoking new hostility to Jews who may be seen as attempting to determine what non-Jews may or may not say about a foreign state.

We have a large number of London-based Jewish members who would welcome the opportunity to talk to you, individually or as a group, about this important subject.

Yours faithfully,


Mike Cushman
for FSOI

The Routine Violence of Israel's Occupation is Caught on Camera

$
0
0

The Campaign Against 'Anti-Semitism' will say this video is 'Anti-semitic' and Len Duvall, London's Racist Labour Leader will agree

Only the die-hard Zionists of the misnamed 'charity' the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism will say this video of sickening Israeli police violence is anti-Semitic.  Their grounds no doubt will be that it insinuates that British Jews and all Jews are violent thugs.

This is however just an example of the routine violence of Israel's occupation.  Not just the occupation of the West Bank but the ritual bombing of Palestinians in Gaza, the regular shooting up of Palestinian fishing boats and as the video also shows the consistent violence meted out to young Palestinian children.

I post below the article by the legendary Gideon Levy, one of Israel's few anti-racist journalists in Ha'aretz newspaper.

The public outcry over footage of a violent policeman attacking a Palestinian truck driver is almost as nauseating as the video itself.

Gideon Levy Mar 26, 2017 12:52 AM

Police officer caught on video attacking Palestinian truck driver. Screenshot/Twitter
The shock, tut-tutting and condemnation over Thursday’s video footage, in which a policeman is seen beating a Palestinian truck driver, are maddening and repulsive. Only the video itself is more repulsive. The policeman disgusts you? That’s exactly what the occupation looks like. It is as violent, ugly, brutal and loutish as the policeman; this is exactly how Israel has abused millions of people every hour, every day, for 50 years.

It’s not just that the video reflects routine in the occupied territories: At any given moment, there are Israeli soldiers and policemen who strike Palestinians, kick, head butt, bark or swear at them, like in the video. What’s worse is that the footage reflects a far broader reality than the occupation.
It is a situation report, an Israeli selfie. If the film “Exodus” aspired to present an Israel of the War of Independence era, the video of the violent policeman presents Israel 2017. Exodus was the dream, the policeman its fragment: watch the film and you’ll see us.

Every Israeli has seen countless similar images in this “land of quarrels”: on the road; at the supermarket; in the hospital; on the soccer field or the parking lot ... in almost every line, this is the language, the Israeli lingua franca: bullying. Why pick on the policeman? He’s typical of his homeland. He did what everyone else did, almost. He’s also the son of us all. He’s a uniformed thug – so what?

He was already suspected of beating a civilian once before, and the police force didn’t see fit to prosecute him then. So, he acted as expected. It’s important to note the type of violence used: this is seasoned violence, almost inbred violence. The head butt is the weapon of an experienced bully; an inexperienced bully does not head butt.

You also have to listen to his language, the jargon of Israel. “I’ll pay for that? You son-of-a-whore … get out of my sight!” he shouts at Mazen Shwiki. “I’ll screw the mothers of all of you.” That’s how they speak in Israel. Not only in the occupation, not only on the road. It’s all here: the most important value of Israeliness – not to be a sucker (“I’ll pay?”); the immediate transition from threat to action; the power, the aggressiveness, the arrogance, the coarseness. The filthy language.

The fact that he did it in uniform makes no difference. The policemen also speak Israeli. Israel is violent because it can be. It bombs in Syria and assassinates in Gaza because it can. It’s the neighborhood bully because no one stopped it. And it is also violent within because it’s possible.
The policeman – who goes by the so-Israeli name Moshe Cohen – is also violent because he can be. The fact that he stood opposite a crowd did not deter him. He knew and they knew that he’s the strong one and they the weak; he’s the oppressor and they’re the oppressed, so he’s allowed to. He is lord of the land and they the dust at his feet. Everyone here fulfilled their role: the helplessness and fear of the Palestinian drivers who were afraid to come to the defense of their friend against the policeman’s rage. The uniform of the occupation against the helplessness of the occupied. The pistol in its holster, pay attention to the way the cop stands and walks: this is how the owner behaves. This is how our country behaves.

It’s an ugly picture, really ugly, hence the instant outcry when we witness it. More than the outcry was aimed at the policeman – he’ll quickly be forgotten, and it’s doubtful he’ll face trial – it was directed at the mirror it put up, a self-portrait of Israel 2017.

Which is why we’d like to forget this policeman. Let him be kicked out, let him be under house arrest for a few days, then get out of our sight (in his words); just don’t let him be put on trial. We had enough with the Sgt. Elor Azaria manslaughter trial: deep down, we knew we were all on trial.
A few hours after the video was broadcast, a reception was held at the home of peace activist Alice Krieger. Guest of honor was Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish, the doctor from Gaza [who lost three daughters during Operation Cast Lead]. “Hatred is weakness,” the bereaved father said in Hebrew, a language that only a few are still able to understand in Israel. “Kindness, tolerance and patience are power.” In the darkness of the evening and the video footage, the doctor’s noble words reverberated as detached, ridiculous, almost hallucinatory.

The Last Fig Leaf Hiding the Nakedness of Israeli Democracy Has Been Stripped Away

$
0
0

The very idea of a Jewish state is a violation of the rights of its non-Jewish citizens

One of the few things that Zionists use to uphold the pretence that Israel is a democracy is the fact that the Arabs/Palestinians can vote in elections for the Knesset.  Now even this is no longer true.

it all began with this book published in 1896
 And it is true.  At the May 2015 elections the Joint Arab List which included the Communist Party (Khadash) and Balad the secular Arab Nationalist Party gained 13 seats making it the 3rd largest party in Israel’s Knesset.

There is just one problem.  In Israel’s nearly 70 years of existence no Arab party has ever been part of the Israeli government.  The only Arabs to become Ministers are seen as collaborators in their own communities.  It is an unwritten rule in Israeli politics that no government must rely on the votes of the Arab parties.  It was this that most incensed the Zionists when Yitzhak Rabin relied on Israeli Arab votes, who were not of course coalition partners, to defeat the right-wing parties led by Netanyahu.  This more than anything else was the cause of his assassination.

Now however even the fig leaf is being stripped away.  Hot on the heels of the Expulsion Bill passed last year which allows 90 MKs to expel another MK, something already being used to try and expel Basel Ghattas, a Balad MK, who apparently committed the heinous offence of passing mobile phones to Palestinian prisoners serving 30+ years in Israeli prisons.  No Jewish MK, however racist ever stands a chance of being disciplined.  All 3 Balad MKs last year were suspended by the Zionist Jewish majority for visiting the relatives of Palestinians who had been killed after attacking Israelis.  A particular target has  been Haneen Zoabi, a secular woman Palestinian Israeli MK who went on the Mava Marmari ship which tried to break the blockade of Gaza.  She has been subject to a tirade of hate and vitriol.  [See Haneen Zoabi: 'Israel is the only country not shocked by or afraid of Trump']

In an ethnocracy, which Israel is, where people vote according to whether they are Jewish or Arab, the power to expel the representatives from the minority can only be symptomatic of a dictatorship for that minority.  Israel doesn’t have class parties of  both Arabs and Jews.  The Labour Party is a racist part for Zionists.  Indeed it was the original party of Zionist racism.

Israel already has the attributes of a police state as far as Arabs are concerned – censorship, overt discrimination in every area of life, segregation in schools, towns –[the Access to Communities Bill overturned the decision of the Supreme Court in Kadan that it was forbidden to discriminate in land allocation policies and that the Israeli Land Authority and the Jewish National Fund could not refuse to sell land to Arabs].  Arabs are regularly arrested and gaoled under incitement to hatred laws.  Jews never are.  We even had the spectacle of Palestinian poet Dareen Tatour being jailed for putting poetry on social media talking about resistance to Israeli racism. Dareen Tatour, Palestinian poet imprisoned by Israel for social media posts, shares her story

despite the headline Gopstein was not arrested whereas Sheikh Raeed Salah of the Northern Islamic Leagues has been gaoled for 10 months for defending the Mosque of Al Aqsa and the Golden Dome

However the fascist Lehava organisation whose leader Benzi Gopstein justified setting fire to churches and mosques is at liberty.  There is no attempt to arrest or gaol him because he used a religious justification for setting fire to non-Jewish religious institutions and that is an exemption in Israel’s anti-racist laws.  Burning of Christian churches in Israel justified, far-Right Jewish leader says

I have also included a very interesting article by Joseph Levine on questioning the Jewish State.  It is published in the New York Times of all papers.

I agree with it almost in its entirety.  Perhaps the only lacuna is that  Levine doesn’t mention that there is no Israeli nationality, just a Jewish nationality and a myriad of other, quite nonsensical nationalities in Israel.  In other words there is only one important nationality, that of the dominant ethnic group or race – those who are Jewish.

But his main thesis, that a Jewish state in which nationality and self-determination pertains only to one ethnicity in a state is bound to be racist is correct.  Britain is a Christian state but it is a state of all its peoples.  Christianity is a constitutional adornment, it has no effect on my rights as a Jewish citizen of Britain.  But in Israel being Jewish means real privileges – access to land, the best schools, grants to universities, better employment, political privileges etc.  That is why a Jewish state must be an apartheid state.

Tony Greenstein

Knesset Votes to Ban Palestinian Parties, Destroy Israeli Democracy


MK Basel Ghattas speaking in the Knesset, a body from which he may soon be expelled by his Jewish rightist colleagues  (Hadas Parush/Flash90)
Yesterday, the Israeli Knesset voted to ban Israeli Palestinian political parties from participating in future elections.  It accomplished this evisceration of Israeli democracy in the dead of night with only 29 members voting in favor (20 brave souls voted against, the rest were apparently asleep at the switch).  The means used was quite ingenious: the Basic Law was amended to read that no MK could sit in Knesset unless he or she affirmed that Israel was both a “Jewish and democratic state.”  Jewish MKs have no trouble affirming both of these claims.  But Palestinian MKs believe that Israel is not democratic and that it shouldn’t be Jewish (alone).

The amendment passed also notes that MKs may be found to have violated it not only by their deeds, but by their public statements.  This means that if a Palestinian MK exercises his right to free speech, he may be expelled from the Knesset.

So with a few strokes of a fountain pen or keyboard, the most extremist of Israeli governments has effectively destroyed Israeli democracy.  No self-respecting Israeli-Palestinian would be willing to affirm that Israel is and should be a Jewish state.  It’s the equivalent of an American Jew affirming the U.S. should be a Christian nation; or an African-American affirming the U.S. should be based on Christian white supremacy.  And without Palestinian representatives, the Knesset will become a Jewish-only body.

In the past, every single Palestinian MK has been subjected to criminal investigation or other form of persecution by the Knesset itself.  So the new law is further evidence of the Israeli Jewish campaign to render Israeli politics Arab-rein.  It is part of a longer term initiative to “disappear” Palestinians both physically and politically from Israel.

One must ask why only 20 MKs voted against this travesty?  Their number included the Joint List and Meretz.  Notably, it excluded virtually every other Jewish MK, including those from the supposedly liberal Labor Party.  Do I hear the “A-word,” anyone?

Coincidentally, today a UN body issued a report finding that Israel had become an apartheid state.  It further urged that the UN reactivate the methods, resolutions and commissions it used to ostracize South Africa, when it too faced international opprobrium for its racist policies.  The new version of the Basic Law further strengthens such findings.

In truth, this is all a bit of political theater, since the Israeli elections commission decisions to expel Party lists or individual MKs must be ratified by the Supreme Court.  This body, which has grown increasingly rightist, has in the past routinely overturned such rulings by the commission.  It’s likely it will continue to do so.  But as settlers are added to the Court it becomes increasingly likely it will eventually rubber stamp the anti-democratic racism of the legislative body.

By Joseph Levine 


NY Times
March 9, 2013 7:30 pm
Joseph Levine
I was raised in a religious Jewish environment, and though we were not strongly Zionist, I always took it to be self-evident that “Israel has a right to exist.” Now anyone who has debated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will have encountered this phrase often. Defenders of Israeli policies routinely accuse Israel’s critics of denying her right to exist, while the critics (outside of a small group on the left, where I now find myself) bend over backward to insist that, despite their criticisms, of course they affirm it. The general mainstream consensus seems to be that to deny Israel’s right to exist is a clear indication of anti-Semitism (a charge Jews like myself are not immune to), and therefore not an option for people of conscience.
What does it mean for a people to have a state “of their own”?
Over the years I came to question this consensus and to see that the general fealty to it has seriously constrained open debate on the issue, one of vital importance not just to the people directly involved — Israelis and Palestinians — but to the conduct of our own foreign policy and, more important, to the safety of the world at large. My view is that one really ought to question Israel’s right to exist and that doing so does not manifest anti-Semitism. The first step in questioning the principle, however, is to figure out what it means.

One problem with talking about this question calmly and rationally is that the phrase “right to exist” sounds awfully close to “right to life,” so denying Israel its right to exist sounds awfully close to permitting the extermination of its people. In light of the history of Jewish persecution, and the fact that Israel was created immediately after and largely as a consequence of the Holocaust, it isn’t surprising that the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” should have this emotional impact. But as even those who insist on the principle will admit, they aren’t claiming merely the impermissibility of exterminating Israelis. So what is this “right” that many uphold as so basic that to question it reflects anti-Semitism and yet is one that I claim ought to be questioned?

The key to the interpretation is found in the crucial four words that are often tacked on to the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” — namely, “… as a Jewish state.” As I understand it, the principle that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state has three parts: first, that Jews, as a collective, constitute a people in the sense that they possess a right to self-determination; second, that a people’s right to self-determination entails the right to erect a state of their own, a state that is their particular people’s state; and finally, that for the Jewish people the geographical area of the former Mandatory Palestine, their ancestral homeland, is the proper place for them to exercise this right to self-determination.

The claim then is that anyone who denies Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is guilty of anti-Semitism because they are refusing to grant Jews the same rights as other peoples possess. If indeed this were true, if Jews were being singled out in the way many allege, I would agree that it manifests anti-Jewish bias. But the charge that denying Jews a right to a Jewish state amounts to treating the Jewish people differently from other peoples cannot be sustained.

To begin, since the principle has three parts, it follows that it can be challenged in (at least) three different ways: either deny that Jews constitute “a people” in the relevant sense, deny that the right to self-determination really involves what advocates of the principle claim it does, or deny that Jews have the requisite claim on the geographical area in question.
In fact, I think there is a basis to challenge all three, but for present purposes I will focus on the question of whether a people’s right to self-determination entails their right to a state of their own, and set aside whether Jews count as a people and whether Jews have a claim on that particular land. I do so partly for reasons of space, but mainly because these questions have largely (though not completely) lost their importance. 

The fact is that today millions of Jews live in Israel and, ancestral homeland or not, this is their home now. As for whether Jews constitute a people, this is a vexed question given the lack of consensus in general about what it takes for any particular group of people to count as “a people.” The notion of “a people” can be interpreted in different ways, with different consequences for the rights that they possess. My point is that even if we grant Jews their peoplehood and their right to live in that land, there is still no consequent right to a Jewish state.

However, I do think that it’s worth noting the historical irony in insisting that it is anti-Semitic to deny that Jews constitute a people. The 18th and 19th centuries were the period of Jewish “emancipation” in Western Europe, when the ghetto walls were torn down and Jews were granted the full rights of citizenship in the states within which they resided. The anti-Semitic forces in those days, those opposing emancipation, were associated not with denying Jewish peoplehood but with emphatically insisting on it! The idea was that since Jews constituted a nation of their own, they could not be loyal citizens of any European state. The liberals who strongly opposed anti-Semitism insisted that Jews could both practice their religion and uphold their cultural traditions while maintaining full citizenship in the various nation-states in which they resided.

But, as I said, let’s grant that Jews are a people. Well, if they are, and if with the status of a people comes the right to self-determination, why wouldn’t they have a right to live under a Jewish state in their homeland? The simple answer is because many non-Jews (rightfully) live there too. But this needs unpacking.

First, it’s important to note, as mentioned above, that the term “a people” can be used in different ways, and sometimes they get confused. In particular, there is a distinction to be made between a people in the ethnic sense and a people in the civic sense. Though there is no general consensus on this, a group counts as a people in the ethnic sense by virtue of common language, common culture, common history and attachment to a common territory. One can easily see why Jews, scattered across the globe, speaking many different languages and defined largely by religion, present a difficult case. But, as I said above, for my purposes it doesn’t really matter, and I will just assume the Jewish people qualify.

The other sense is the civic one, which applies to a people by virtue of their common citizenship in a nation-state or, alternatively, by virtue of their common residence within relatively defined geographic borders. So whereas there is both an ethnic and a civic sense to be made of the term “French people,” the term “Jewish people” has only an ethnic sense. This can easily be seen by noting that the Jewish people is not the same group as the Israeli people. About 20 percent of Israeli citizens are non-Jewish Palestinians, while the vast majority of the Jewish people are not citizens of Israel and do not live within any particular geographic area. “Israeli people,” on the other hand, has only a civic sense. (Of course often the term “Israelis” is used as if it applies only to Jewish Israelis, but this is part of the problem. More on this below.)

So, when we consider whether or not a people has a right to a state of their own, are we speaking of a people in the ethnic sense or the civic one? I contend that insofar as the principle that all peoples have the right to self-determination entails the right to a state of their own, it can apply to peoples only in the civic sense.

After all, what is it for a people to have a state “of their own”? Here’s a rough characterization: the formal institutions and legal framework of the state serves to express, encourage and favor that people’s identity. The distinctive position of that people would be manifested in a number of ways, from the largely symbolic to the more substantive: for example, it would be reflected in the name of the state, the nature of its flag and other symbols, its national holidays, its education system, its immigration rules, the extent to which membership in the people in question is a factor in official planning, how resources are distributed, etc. If the people being favored in this way are just the state’s citizens, it is not a problem. (Of course those who are supercosmopolitan, denying any legitimacy to the borders of nation-states, will disagree. But they aren’t a party to this debate.)

But if the people who “own” the state in question are an ethnic sub-group of the citizenry, even if the vast majority, it constitutes a serious problem indeed, and this is precisely the situation of Israel as the Jewish state. Far from being a natural expression of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, it is in fact a violation of the right to self-determination of its non-Jewish (mainly Palestinian) citizens. It is a violation of a people’s right to self-determination to exclude them — whether by virtue of their ethnic membership, or for any other reason — from full political participation in the state under whose sovereignty they fall. Of course Jews have a right to self-determination in this sense as well — this is what emancipation was all about. But so do non-Jewish peoples living in the same state.

Any state that “belongs” to one ethnic group within it violates the core democratic principle of equality, and the self-determination rights of the non-members of that group. 

If the institutions of a state favor one ethnic group among its citizenry in this way, then only the members of that group will feel themselves fully a part of the life of the state. True equality, therefore, is only realizable in a state that is based on civic peoplehood. As formulated by both Jewish- and Palestinian-Israeli activists on this issue, a truly democratic state that fully respects the self-determination rights of everyone under its sovereignty must be a “state of all its citizens.”

This fundamental point exposes the fallacy behind the common analogy, drawn by defenders of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, between Israel’s right to be Jewish and France’s right to be French. The appropriate analogy would instead be between France’s right to be French (in the civic sense) and Israel’s right to be Israeli. 

I conclude, then, that the very idea of a Jewish state is undemocratic, a violation of the self-determination rights of its non-Jewish citizens, and therefore morally problematic. But the harm doesn’t stop with the inherently undemocratic character of the state. For if an ethnic national state is established in a territory that contains a significant number of non-members of that ethnic group, it will inevitably face resistance from the land’s other inhabitants. This will force the ethnic nation controlling the state to resort to further undemocratic means to maintain their hegemony. Three strategies to deal with resistance are common: expulsion, occupation and institutional marginalization. Interestingly, all three strategies have been employed by the Zionist movement: expulsion in 1948 (and, to a lesser extent, in 1967), occupation of the territories conquered in 1967 and institution of a complex web of laws that prevent Israel’s Palestinian citizens from mounting an internal challenge to the Jewish character of the state. (The recent outrage in Israel over a proposed exclusion of ultra-Orthodox parties from the governing coalition, for example, failed to note that no Arab political party has ever been invited to join the government.) In other words, the wrong of ethnic hegemony within the state leads to the further wrong of repression against the Other within its midst.

There is an unavoidable conflict between being a Jewish state and a democratic state. I want to emphasize that there’s nothing anti-Semitic in pointing this out, and it’s time the question was discussed openly on its merits, without the charge of anti-Semitism hovering in the background.

Joseph Levine is a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, where he teaches and writes on philosophy of mind, metaphysics and political philosophy. He is the author of “Purple Haze: The Puzzle of Consciousness.”  

Sir Stephen Sedley, former Court of Appeal Judge, condemns the deliberate misuse of ‘anti-Semitism’ for political purposes

$
0
0

The Government’s Anti-Semitism Definition is Potentially Unlawful as it Contradicts Article 10 of the ECHR

Sir Stephen Sedley
Article 10 of the ECHR states that:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Omar Barghouti - the latest victim of Israel's attack on freedom of speech - in the UK the same type of campaign is being waged by Theresa May and New Labour's useful idiots
Even the misnamed Campaign Against Anti-Semitism would have difficulty explaining how the use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism is compatible with the banning of Israel Apartheid Week at one university, Central Lancashire and the restrictions place on several others.
Professor Richard Falk - the former UN Rappoteur in Gaza who has had 2 meetings cancelled because of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism
The IHRA ‘definition’ of ‘anti-Semitism’, which was first adopted by the Home Affairs Select Committee Report on Anti-Semitism last October, is almost identical to the EUMC Working Definition on Anti-Semitism which was removed from the web site of the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency in 2013. In November 2013 the Simon Wiesenthall Centre’s Shimon Samuel’s bitterly complained about this decision to the EU's Foreign Minister, Catherine Ashton

In its place the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism has been conjured up.  It has not only been warmly 
welcomed by Theresa May, a Prime Minister who is even more reactionary than Thatcher, but by Jeremy Corbyn.  [see Manufacturing Consent On ‘Anti-Semitism’]

No one should make excuses for Corbyn’s cowardice over this.  Prior to becoming party leader he had spent 30 years supporting the Palestinians.  When he became leader he immediately backtraced as a result of having himself been accused of ‘anti-Semitism’.  Instead of fighting back and saying that yes, he opposed anti-Semitism but he also opposed the political use of anti-Semitism to attack supporters of the Palestinians and anti-Zionists, he caved in.
Hugh Tomlinson QC
The result is that Labour is now further to the right on Palestine than it was under Tony Blair and Corbyn is reduced to nodding his head when Theresa May mentions the word ‘anti-Semitism’.
On the 8th March a legal opinion was obtained from HUGH TOMLINSON QC that the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism and the way it is being applied is potentially unlawful and flies in the face of Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.  In paragraph 21 of the Opinion, Tomlinson states that:

In my view any public authority which sought to apply the IHRA Definition to decisions concerning the prohibition or sanctioning of activity which was critical of the State or Government of Israel would be acting unlawfully if it did not require such activity also to manifest or incite hatred or intolerance towards Jews. If an authority applied the IHRA Definition without such a requirement it would be in breach of Article 10 of the Convention and would, therefore, be acting unlawfully under domestic law in the United Kingdom.

On 27th March the group Free Speech on Israel held a press conference in the House of Lords at which the former Court of Appeal Judge, Sir Stephen Sedley, spoke.  Sedley is not a household name but he was the best friend that the labour movement and civil libertarians ever had on the benches of that august and conservative body, the Court of Appeal.  A number of his more liberal judgements, especially his ruling that the fiction that agency workers were not employees was not credible, were reversed by the House of Lords. [see Dacas v Brook Street Bureau]
Sedley gave a very coherent and cogent analysis of why the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism has been used, not to tackle anti-Semitism but as a means to clamp down on free speech on Israeli. 

“The purpose of this meeting is to draw attention to a growing concern about the misuse for political purposes of the concept of anti-semitism. The misuse in question is the conflation of criticism of Israel with hostility to Jews. Its political purpose is to prohibit or inhibit discourse or action inimical to the state of Israel.

There are two distinct backstories to the catch-all meaning of antisemitism with which this meeting is immediately concerned.

One is the longstanding, and largely successful, endeavour to segregate anti-semitism from racism. It has for a good many years been part of Zionist discourse to contend that racism is one thing –  based on concepts of genetic inferiority – and anti-semitism another, based on historical and theological as well as genetic factors. This is not the place to pursue the argument, save perhaps to note that anti-semites do not as a rule worry about whether their targets are observant, orthodox or secular Jews: their spleen is directed at members of a race.

The other backstory is the Zionist claim to represent all the world’s Jews – a claim welcomed by Islamic extremists. Nothing suits Islamic fundamentalism better than the idea that all Jews are equally implicated in the excesses of Zionism. The claim depoliticises Zionism and legitimises jihadist anti-semitism.[1]

Against this already dangerous backdrop, we are now looking at the no doubt well-intentioned but naïve adoption by our executive government of a protean definition of anti-semitism which is open to manipulation and capture by the background interests I have mentioned. In this regard I would go rather further than Hugh Tomlinson does in his careful and well-reasoned Opinion. The governing proposition that antisemitism is “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews” carries the clear implication that it may equally be expressed in other, unspecified, ways.

As Hugh Tomlinson says, this passage is vague and confusing; but I am not sure that the critique should stop there. It seems to me that its open-ended formulation has a thought-out purpose: to bring within the pale of antisemitism perceptions of Jews – possibly but not necessarily of all Jews – which fall short of hatred. While this may legitimately cover familiar antisemitic slanders about greed, clannishness and so forth, it is also capable of embracing perceptions of Zionism which are the subject of legitimate debate and disagreement.

That this is part of the intended reach is now becoming evident. One of the adopted examples is “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavour.” This passage bristles with controversial assumptions. Is there a single entity capable of being characterised as “the Jewish people”? Am I obliged to regard myself as bound by ethnicity to people like Benjamin Netanyahu? Then, assuming that there is such an ethnic entity, from where does it derive a collective right to self-determination capable of defeating the right to self-determination of other peoples, above all the Palestinian people? There have been many Jews – my father was one – who long before 1947 opposed the Zionist project on the ground that Jewish exceptionalism was exactly what antisemitism needed.

Lastly, accepting as one must that the state of Israel, whatever has been argued in the past about its right to exist, is a geopolitical ‘fact on the ground’, why are people, including many Jews, not entitled, without being branded anti-Semitic, to regard it in its present form as both a colonialist and an apartheid state? The  demand that criticism, to be legitimate, must be ‘similar to that levelled against any other country’ assumes that there are other countries which behave like Israel. There may well be, but how can this properly be a precondition of any criticism?

I will not travel over the consequential legal ground that Hugh Tomlinson so ably traverses. It is sufficient to emphasise these points:

1.                  The adoption by government of the IHRA’s “working definition” does not clothe it with any legal force. At the same time, it is not neutral: it may well influence policy both domestically and internationally.

2.                  No policy, however, can be adopted or used in defiance of the law. The Convention right of free expression, now part of our domestic law by virtue of the Human Rights Act, places both negative and positive obligations on the state which may be put at risk if the IHRA definition is unthinkingly followed. And s. 43 of the 1986 Education Act, while passed to deal with very different kinds of controversy, vouchsafes an individual right of free expression in all higher education institutions which cannot be cut back by governmental policies.

What is needed now is a principled retreat on the part of government from a stance which it has naively adopted in disregard of the sane advice given to it by the Home Affairs Select Committee.”

[1] For my part I am critical of the ECtHR’s judgment in CICAD v Switzerland, because it failed to recognise that the offending article, with its assertion that “when Israel is exposed … it is Judaism that is exposed at the same time” was a classic attempt to taint all Jews with Israel’s violations of human rights. Its author in my view had been rightly accused of antisemitism.

Question for Amnesty International – Is your Israeli offshoot still collaborating with the Israeli state?

$
0
0
What kind of state you might ask creates a fake offshoot of an internationally renowned charity in order to try and prevent that charity criticising it?  A police state would be the obvious answer.  Most western democracies are not to perturbed about human rights organisations that operate on their territory.  Israel however bans people from for example Human Rights Watch from even entering the country.  Its own, genuine, human rights organisations like B’tselem and Breaking the Silence are under constant attack and subject to constant vilification by the Israeli state.

People should bear in mind that the creation of a covertly state-controlled Amnesty International did not occur under Benjamin Netanyahu or his Likud predecessors.  It was an Israeli Labour Government that used the state to set up a bogus branch of Amnesty International.

Having had a look at Amnesty International – Israel’s homepage it would appear to no longer be a wing of the Israeli state, however I have to confess I have never heard mention of AI-Israel either.  I would hope that in the wake of these allegations, that Amnesty International investigates what happened in the 1970’s and whether or not the Augean stables have been cleansed of state control.

Tony Greenstein  





 




How Amnesty International in Israel was Created & Controlled by the Foreign Ministry

 EXCLUSIVE Documents Reveal How Israel Made Amnesty's Local Branch a Front for the Foreign Ministry in the 70s

The Israeli government funded the establishment and activity of the Amnesty International branch in Israel in the 1960s and 70s. Official documents reveal that the chairman of the organization was in constant contact with the Foreign Ministry and received instructions from it.

Uri Blau Mar 18, 2017 8:53 PM

At the beginning of April 1970 Police Minister Shlomo Hillel stepped up to the Knesset podium. He updated the legislators on contacts between the government of Israel and Amnesty International concerning detainees imprisoned in Israel and torture. He concluded: “We can no long trust the goodwill and fairness of the Amnesty organization.”

What the minister reported to the Knesset was that for a number of years, Israel had tried to influence the Amnesty’s activity from within. Documents collected by the Akevot Institute for Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Research and revealed here for the first time show that some of the people who headed Amnesty Israel from the end of the 1960s to the mid-1970s reported on their activity directly and in real time to the Foreign Ministry, consulted with its officials and requested instructions on how to proceed. Moreover, the Amnesty office was at the time supported by steady funding transferred to it through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: hundreds of Israeli pounds for flights abroad, per diem allowances, registration fees and dues payments to the organization's headquarters.

The documents show that the most substantive connection was between the Foreign Ministry and Prof. Yoram Dinstein, who headed the branch between 1974 and 1976. Dinstein, an internationally renowned expert on the laws of war who later served as president of Tel Aviv University, had previously been a Foreign Ministry official and served as the Israeli consul in New York.

During his time as chairman of Amnesty Israel, years after he left the ministry, he regularly reported to his former colleagues on his activities and contacts with the international organization.

Amnesty International was founded in London in 1961 by British lawyer Peter Benenson, who, incensed over the arrests of Portuguese students, started enlisting people to petition their governments to release those who have since then been defined as “prisoners of conscience.”

Three years later, the Israeli branch of Amnesty began operations. They were volunteers working on behalf of prisoners worldwide. This activity, however, which from the outset was fairly limited, was damaged in the wake of a report Amnesty International published in 1969 about the situation of the Palestinians imprisoned in Israel. This dispute is the background to Minister Hillel’s report to the Knesset. “The Amnesty branch in Israel consists of one person (more precisely, one woman), who is Ms. Bella Ravdin who lives in Haifa. We are maintaining contact with her but it is not possible to trust her on every issue,” wrote Nathan Bar-Yaacov, the director of the Foreign Ministry department that dealt with international organizations and United Nations bodies, to head of the ministry director general's office Hannan Bar-On in December 1971.

A 1975 article about Ravdin in Haaretz described her as a serial writer of letters to the editor at various newspapers and an activist for various issues, from legalization of prostitution to benefits for students. According to the article, she invested the money she received as German reparations for her mother’s death in a concentration camp into developing the Amnesty branch. The report says that her criticism of the organization's attitude towards Israel ultimately led her to cease acting on its behalf.

According to Foreign Ministry documents, Ravdin’s activity was subsidized by the state, which paid her Amnesty International membership dues and funded her trip to the organization’s international conference in 1969. At the time, Ravdin was briefed to bring up the problem of the Jews in Arab countries at the conference and on how to react if the subject of “the Arab detainees in the territories” was raised. Bar-Yaacov wrote: “It is desirable from our perspective that the connection between her and the organization continue in the future as well and therefore it is desirable to make it possible for her to pay the membership fee. Last year, too, we approved this sum for the same purpose.” He signed his letter with a recommendation: “At this juncture it is perhaps desirable to think about establishing a branch of Amnesty in Israel consisting of people who are of somewhat higher status and have executive ability.”

Bar-Yaacov was not the only one at the Foreign Ministry who thought so. In a 1971 letter Mordecai Kidron, the foreign minister’s advisor on the UN, wrote to his colleague Shmuel Dibon, the minister's advisor in charge of public diplomacy: “Thus far, as you know, we haven’t found the suitable instruments for building a positive image abroad concerning human rights in Israel and in the occupied territories, and on this particular issue it is not possible to make do with government instruments. The establishment of a non-governmental body … which would be actively connected to organizations and personages abroad would be very useful to us.”

In 1971 and 1972, Dinstein tried to establish a human rights institute at Tel Aviv University that would be funded by the Foreign Ministry. He discussed this idea with ministry officials but it was rejected, in part because of the size of the budget Dinstein requested – about 100,000 Israeli pounds (about $23,000 at the time, which, corrected for inflation, is in the neighborhood of $120,000 today). In July of 1972 the Israeli branch of Amnesty was reorganized and four lawyers were appointed to lead it in coordination with the organization's headquarters. The Foreign Ministry documents have little to say about this period and there are hardly any reports in the various archives about what happened in the organization during the subsequent year and a half.

Things changed at the beginning of 1974, when Dinstein himself was chosen to head the local Amnesty branch. One of the documents shows that the meeting at which he was selected for the position was also attended by the Foreign Ministry officer who Dinstein would be in contact with during his time in office: the deputy director of the international organizations division, Sinai Rome.

Dinstein immediately shifted the organization’s activity into higher gear: For the first time, Amnesty was officially registered as an association and adopted its articles of association. On May 22, 1974, Dinstein updated Rome on his activities – for the most part technical – since he had taken up the position. He requested 2,500 Israeli pounds (just under $600 in 1974; about $3,135 today) for routine expenses and attached an internal Amnesty document that detailed his income from branches abroad. Less than a month later, Rome wrote to “Dear Yoram” that his request had been granted and that 2,000 Israeli pounds (about $476 then; $2,490 today) had been transferred to him.

At least judging from the Foreign Ministry correspondence, Dinstein viewed his work at Amnesty through the narrow prism of making the case for Israel’s position. Thus, for example, he conveyed through the Foreign Ministry an article he wrote in response to an article critical of Israel published by human rights lawyer Felicia Langer in June of 1974. He began by noting that he was writing as “chairman of the Israel national section of amnesty” and did not mention his connection to the Foreign Ministry. Shortly thereafter Dinstein reported to Rome that he had received a letter from an Arab women’s organization in the United States requesting any information he had about Palestinian detainees and prisoners. Including their letter, in which they also requested information about the Israeli branch of Amnesty, Dinstein wrote that he was leaning toward not replying but wished to consult with Rome on the matter. Rome replied: “It seems to us that there is scope for answering the letter and writing that ‘there are no Palestinian prisoners of conscience in the prisons but rather terrorists and others who have been tried for security offenses.’” He asked that all the correspondence be forwarded to Israeli consulates in New York and Los Angeles.

In February 1975 Dinstein notified Rome about a letter he received from the French Amnesty branch concerning Police Minister Hillel’s remarks on the dispute with Amnesty. Dinstein advised the Foreign Ministry to “send the questioner public diplomacy material in French.” Rome replied: “As you have suggested, I am hereby forwarding Mr. Sinai’s[SIC] letter to Mr. Shlomo Drori, of our embassy in France, for his attention, together with the summary of our relations with Amnesty International.”

In May of that year, Dinstein asked Rome for funding for a trip to an Amnesty conference in Switzerland. Rome was glad to tell him that he would receive 6,000 Israeli pounds ($1,000 at the time; about $4,650 today) for a plane ticket and four days per diem allowance. “Please inform me as to which travel agency we should send the money,” he answered. After the conference, which was held that September, Dinstein sent a report with a survey of the organization’s activities and noted that Dr. Nitza Shapiro-Libai also attended the conference as an observer on behalf of the branch. Dinstein wrote that Amnesty’s political leanings were generally left-ish but it could not be said that it was an extreme leftist organization. He explained that there had been a discussion about relocating the organization’s headquarters to Geneva and that the decision had not yet been taken. “The atmosphere that prevails in all of the international organizations centered in Geneva will, in my opinion, be a stumbling block for Israel," he wrote.

In an accompanying letter to Rome, he wrote: “I am not forwarding this report to other people at the ministry, and therefore it is up to you to decide whether to send it on to anyone for their perusal (for example, to the embassy in London).” Rome thanked him for sending the report and wrote that they were accepting his recommendation “to distribute our replies to Amnesty concerning the report on the prisoners of war in Syria and in Israel to our diplomatic missions aboard.”

Dinstein made it clear in a conversation last week that he does not think highly Amnesty. “I resigned after a few years when I became aware that this is a populist organization very far from everything I believe in, which is research and knowledge,” he said. According to him, “Today Amnesty International is dealing with an area about which it understands nothing – international humanitarian law.” Throughout the conversation, he denied that he had been in constant contact with the Foreign Ministry and had received funding from it during the period he ran the branch. When asked where the funding for the organization came from in those years, he said he had raised the money from his own sources. “There was no need for much of a budget. We employed people part-time then.”

How was the Foreign Ministry involved? “There was no involvement. The Foreign Ministry had no interest.”

Who is Sinai Rome? “He was head of a department at the Foreign Ministry. I knew him but I had no contact with him about this.”

"I don't know anything," replied Dinstein when told of evidence that shows otherwise. He added, “I don’t remember,” and ended the conversation.

During those years, Avi Primor was a diplomat in the Foreign Ministry. He too is mentioned in a few items of correspondence from 1977, which were addressed to him as head of the international organizations division. He has known Dinstein personally ever since they were both 17-year-old university students before their conscription into the Israel Defense Forces.

“He is a patriot in the sense of ‘whatever my country does is right,’ an absolute patriot,” said Primor of Dinstein. “I freed myself from that when I reached a certain age. He – less so.”

Primor related that Dinstein joined the Foreign Ministry at the same time he did, but did not stay there for very long because he preferred the academic world.

As for the Foreign Ministry’s conduct with respect to international organizations during those years, Primor explained: “Our aim was to influence. Not to fight them, not to vilify and not to forbid them to enter they do today. The aim was to debate, to persuade. I didn’t engage in that but I assume that persuading and influencing in every possible way also includes money.”

It is difficult to imagine a situation today in which senior officials of a human rights organizations would maintain a relationship with the establishment and receive funding from it.

“You can’t compare. It’s a different atmosphere and different concepts. Organizations like Breaking the Silence or B’Tselem – there wasn’t anything of the sort back then," said Primor. "There were a few people, individuals, and they were perceived as naïve … In the first years of the occupation it was seen as something temporary. No one thought it would go on for 50 years. That was something unimaginable.”

During that period, Dr. Edward Kaufman, who later became the chairman of the board of B’Tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, worked alongside Dinstein at Amnesty. “It was a club of jurists and lawyers,” he told Haaretz this week. Kaufman relates that he had a conflict with Dinstein over the latter’s activity to benefit the state of Israel.” He saw himself as the State of Israel’s watchdog,” he recalls.

However, Kaufman too is mentioned in Foreign Ministry documents as someone who was in contact with ministry staff, though he is depicted as less fervid than Dinstein. For instance, Rome thanks Kaufman for a report the he sent about an Amnesty conference on the subject of torture held toward the end of 1973, following the Yom Kippur War. “The main objective toward which the delegation worked was the release of the Israeli captives in Syria,” Kaufman wrote. He added that the cooperation with officials at the Israeli Embassy was productive and included a letter he had sent after the conference to the secretary of Amnesty International.

Kaufman confirmed this and gave it context: He described an completely different atmosphere among human rights groups and the Israeli left operating under a different government than the one that prevails today, and notably, a different personal feeling toward the state. “There wasn’t a sense that there were grave problems with human rights. We are talking about the period of ‘enlightened occupation’ and at that time I felt quite good with respect to the situation of human rights in Israel and in the territories.” The Foreign Ministry, he said, wanted him to explain what was happening at Amnesty. “I don’t remember that I was given any briefing to do anything or to fight against anything,” he said.

Dinstein resigned from his position at Amnesty against the backdrop of conflict that developed with Kaufman. Shapiro-Libai, who replaced Dinstein and served in the position until the mid-1980s, said that in her day, the branch didn't receive any funding from the Foreign Ministry – Amnesty International paid its operating budget. “I think there was an interest that Israel should be a part of Amnesty because it is an important human rights organization,” she said. “I didn’t know that [Dinstein] reported in writing to the Foreign Ministry. I don’t assume that anyone knew but I do assume that he didn’t see any conflict of interest in that.”

Lior Yavne, the executive director of Akevot, who found the documents, told Haaretz: “The manipulative exploitation of the civil society organizations in the years 1969 to 1976 in order to advance Israeli public diplomacy and refute findings and claims concerning violations of human rights in the territories is reminiscent of the activities of organizations and groups in recent years that supposedly originate in the civil society but have murky sources of funding and operate to damage the legitimacy of human rights organizations critical of the policy of the Israeli government. Now as then, this attack undermines the very existence of a free civil society.”

The Israeli branch of Amnesty now operating in Tel Aviv was registered as a nonprofit organization in 1988 and is a late incarnation of the association established some three decades earlier. In recent years nearly its entire budget comes from Amnesty International. The organization does not receive any money from the Israeli government and last year there was even an attempt in the Knesset to deny its donors tax benefits.

In a statement, Amnesty's International Secretariat responded that the documents "present serious allegations suggesting that the leadership of our former Israel section acted in a manner that was blatantly at odds with Amnesty International’s principles." Touting "impartiality and independence" as the organization's core tenets, the statement points to a policy of not accepting government funds for any of its research or campaigns. "Our records show this principle was first formally agreed by the movement in 1975. No government should feel it is beyond our scrutiny," said the statement.

The statement says that "Amnesty International maintained rules at the time prohibiting sections from working on cases of human rights violations in their own country. Our work on Israel was therefore determined by the International Secretariat, not the former Israel section. Throughout this time Amnesty International highlighted human rights abuses being committed by the Israeli authorities, including calling for the suspension of Israel’s use of administrative detention.

"During the period in question we were a movement that was still in its infancy. As we grew to become the truly global movement we are today, we have continued to develop robust governance policies and procedures to ensure stringent impartiality and accountability."

Amnesty Israel said that the documents it received demonstrates that the government of Israel has never refrained from making use of any means to evade accountability for the violation of human rights it conducts, in the 1970s as well as today. The branch said that the documents also show that the previous branch of Amnesty, registered as an Ottoman association in 1974, is not the branch that operates today, which was registered as an Israeli nonprofit in 1988, and added that the current Israeli branch is an active and integral part of the worldwide Amnesty movement.--

The very idea of a Jewish state is undemocratic, a violation of the rights of its non-Jewish citizens

$
0
0
A very interesting article in the New York Times of all papers.  I agree with it almost in its entirety.  Perhaps the only lacuna is that Joseph Levine doesn’t mention that there is no Israeli nationality, just a Jewish nationality and a myriad of other, quite nonsensical nationalities in Israel.  In other words there is only one important nationality, that of the dominant ethnic group or race – those who are Jewish.
It was a pamphlet by Theodore Herzl in 1896 that began the Zionist movement
But his main thesis, that a Jewish state in which nationality and self-determination pertains only to one ethnicity in a state is bound to be racist is correct.  Britain is a Christian state but it is a state of all its peoples.  Christianity is a constitutional adornment, it has no effect on my rights as a Jewish citizen of Britain.  But in Israel being Jewish means real privileges – access to land, the best schools, grants to universities, better employment, political privileges etc.  That is why a Jewish state must be an apartheid state.

Tony Greenstein
Professor Joseph Levine
By Joseph Levine 

NY Times
March 9, 2013 7:30 pm

I was raised in a religious Jewish environment, and though we were not strongly Zionist, I always took it to be self-evident that “Israel has a right to exist.” Now anyone who has debated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will have encountered this phrase often. Defenders of Israeli policies routinely accuse Israel’s critics of denying her right to exist, while the critics (outside of a small group on the left, where I now find myself) bend over backward to insist that, despite their criticisms, of course they affirm it. The general mainstream consensus seems to be that to deny Israel’s right to exist is a clear indication of anti-Semitism (a charge Jews like myself are not immune to), and therefore not an option for people of conscience.
What does it mean for a people to have a state “of their own”?
Over the years I came to question this consensus and to see that the general fealty to it has seriously constrained open debate on the issue, one of vital importance not just to the people directly involved — Israelis and Palestinians — but to the conduct of our own foreign policy and, more important, to the safety of the world at large. My view is that one really ought to question Israel’s right to exist and that doing so does not manifest anti-Semitism. The first step in questioning the principle, however, is to figure out what it means.
An unusual article for the pro-Zionist New York Times
One problem with talking about this question calmly and rationally is that the phrase “right to exist” sounds awfully close to “right to life,” so denying Israel its right to exist sounds awfully close to permitting the extermination of its people. In light of the history of Jewish persecution, and the fact that Israel was created immediately after and largely as a consequence of the Holocaust, it isn’t surprising that the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” should have this emotional impact. But as even those who insist on the principle will admit, they aren’t claiming merely the impermissibility of exterminating Israelis. So what is this “right” that many uphold as so basic that to question it reflects anti-Semitism and yet is one that I claim ought to be questioned?

The key to the interpretation is found in the crucial four words that are often tacked on to the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” — namely, “… as a Jewish state.” As I understand it, the principle that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state has three parts: first, that Jews, as a collective, constitute a people in the sense that they possess a right to self-determination; second, that a people’s right to self-determination entails the right to erect a state of their own, a state that is their particular people’s state; and finally, that for the Jewish people the geographical area of the former Mandatory Palestine, their ancestral homeland, is the proper place for them to exercise this right to self-determination.

The claim then is that anyone who denies Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is guilty of anti-Semitism because they are refusing to grant Jews the same rights as other peoples possess. If indeed this were true, if Jews were being singled out in the way many allege, I would agree that it manifests anti-Jewish bias. But the charge that denying Jews a right to a Jewish state amounts to treating the Jewish people differently from other peoples cannot be sustained.

To begin, since the principle has three parts, it follows that it can be challenged in (at least) three different ways: either deny that Jews constitute “a people” in the relevant sense, deny that the right to self-determination really involves what advocates of the principle claim it does, or deny that Jews have the requisite claim on the geographical area in question.

In fact, I think there is a basis to challenge all three, but for present purposes I will focus on the question of whether a people’s right to self-determination entails their right to a state of their own, and set aside whether Jews count as a people and whether Jews have a claim on that particular land. I do so partly for reasons of space, but mainly because these questions have largely (though not completely) lost their importance. 

The fact is that today millions of Jews live in Israel and, ancestral homeland or not, this is their home now. As for whether Jews constitute a people, this is a vexed question given the lack of consensus in general about what it takes for any particular group of people to count as “a people.” The notion of “a people” can be interpreted in different ways, with different consequences for the rights that they possess. My point is that even if we grant Jews their peoplehood and their right to live in that land, there is still no consequent right to a Jewish state.
However, I do think that it’s worth noting the historical irony in insisting that it is anti-Semitic to deny that Jews constitute a people. The 18th and 19th centuries were the period of Jewish “emancipation” in Western Europe, when the ghetto walls were torn down and Jews were granted the full rights of citizenship in the states within which they resided. The anti-Semitic forces in those days, those opposing emancipation, were associated not with denying Jewish peoplehood but with emphatically insisting on it! The idea was that since Jews constituted a nation of their own, they could not be loyal citizens of any European state. The liberals who strongly opposed anti-Semitism insisted that Jews could both practice their religion and uphold their cultural traditions while maintaining full citizenship in the various nation-states in which they resided.

But, as I said, let’s grant that Jews are a people. Well, if they are, and if with the status of a people comes the right to self-determination, why wouldn’t they have a right to live under a Jewish state in their homeland? The simple answer is because many non-Jews (rightfully) live there too. But this needs unpacking.

First, it’s important to note, as mentioned above, that the term “a people” can be used in different ways, and sometimes they get confused. In particular, there is a distinction to be made between a people in the ethnic sense and a people in the civic sense. Though there is no general consensus on this, a group counts as a people in the ethnic sense by virtue of common language, common culture, common history and attachment to a common territory. One can easily see why Jews, scattered across the globe, speaking many different languages and defined largely by religion, present a difficult case. But, as I said above, for my purposes it doesn’t really matter, and I will just assume the Jewish people qualify.

The other sense is the civic one, which applies to a people by virtue of their common citizenship in a nation-state or, alternatively, by virtue of their common residence within relatively defined geographic borders. So whereas there is both an ethnic and a civic sense to be made of the term “French people,” the term “Jewish people” has only an ethnic sense. This can easily be seen by noting that the Jewish people is not the same group as the Israeli people. About 20 percent of Israeli citizens are non-Jewish Palestinians, while the vast majority of the Jewish people are not citizens of Israel and do not live within any particular geographic area. “Israeli people,” on the other hand, has only a civic sense. (Of course often the term “Israelis” is used as if it applies only to Jewish Israelis, but this is part of the problem. More on this below.)

So, when we consider whether or not a people has a right to a state of their own, are we speaking of a people in the ethnic sense or the civic one? I contend that insofar as the principle that all peoples have the right to self-determination entails the right to a state of their own, it can apply to peoples only in the civic sense.

After all, what is it for a people to have a state “of their own”? Here’s a rough characterization: the formal institutions and legal framework of the state serves to express, encourage and favor that people’s identity. The distinctive position of that people would be manifested in a number of ways, from the largely symbolic to the more substantive: for example, it would be reflected in the name of the state, the nature of its flag and other symbols, its national holidays, its education system, its immigration rules, the extent to which membership in the people in question is a factor in official planning, how resources are distributed, etc. If the people being favored in this way are just the state’s citizens, it is not a problem. (Of course those who are supercosmopolitan, denying any legitimacy to the borders of nation-states, will disagree. But they aren’t a party to this debate.)

But if the people who “own” the state in question are an ethnic sub-group of the citizenry, even if the vast majority, it constitutes a serious problem indeed, and this is precisely the situation of Israel as the Jewish state. Far from being a natural expression of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, it is in fact a violation of the right to self-determination of its non-Jewish (mainly Palestinian) citizens. It is a violation of a people’s right to self-determination to exclude them — whether by virtue of their ethnic membership, or for any other reason — from full political participation in the state under whose sovereignty they fall. Of course Jews have a right to self-determination in this sense as well — this is what emancipation was all about. But so do non-Jewish peoples living in the same state.

Any state that “belongs” to one ethnic group within it violates the core democratic principle of equality, and the self-determination rights of the non-members of that group. 
If the institutions of a state favor one ethnic group among its citizenry in this way, then only the members of that group will feel themselves fully a part of the life of the state. True equality, therefore, is only realizable in a state that is based on civic peoplehood. As formulated by both Jewish- and Palestinian-Israeli activists on this issue, a truly democratic state that fully respects the self-determination rights of everyone under its sovereignty must be a “state of all its citizens.”

This fundamental point exposes the fallacy behind the common analogy, drawn by defenders of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, between Israel’s right to be Jewish and France’s right to be French. The appropriate analogy would instead be between France’s right to be French (in the civic sense) and Israel’s right to be Israeli. 

I conclude, then, that the very idea of a Jewish state is undemocratic, a violation of the self-determination rights of its non-Jewish citizens, and therefore morally problematic. But the harm doesn’t stop with the inherently undemocratic character of the state. For if an ethnic national state is established in a territory that contains a significant number of non-members of that ethnic group, it will inevitably face resistance from the land’s other inhabitants. This will force the ethnic nation controlling the state to resort to further undemocratic means to maintain their hegemony. Three strategies to deal with resistance are common: expulsion, occupation and institutional marginalization. Interestingly, all three strategies have been employed by the Zionist movement: expulsion in 1948 (and, to a lesser extent, in 1967), occupation of the territories conquered in 1967 and institution of a complex web of laws that prevent Israel’s Palestinian citizens from mounting an internal challenge to the Jewish character of the state. (The recent outrage in Israel over a proposed exclusion of ultra-Orthodox parties from the governing coalition, for example, failed to note that no Arab political party has ever been invited to join the government.) In other words, the wrong of ethnic hegemony within the state leads to the further wrong of repression against the Other within its midst.

There is an unavoidable conflict between being a Jewish state and a democratic state. I want to emphasize that there’s nothing anti-Semitic in pointing this out, and it’s time the question was discussed openly on its merits, without the charge of anti-Semitism hovering in the background.

Joseph Levine is a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, where he teaches and writes on philosophy of mind, metaphysics and political philosophy. He is the author of “Purple Haze: The Puzzle of Consciousness.” 

Ken Livingstone faces Labour’s Star Chamber as the Witch-hunters Change the Charge

$
0
0

Iain McNicol Avoids Discussing Livingstone's Accusation of Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis 

Cartoon in the Zionist Press concerning Ha'avara - 'don't worry Hitler, the Jews of Palestine are helping you.'
John Mann MP who makes a living out of 'anti-Semitism' confronts Ken Livingstone
It is remarkable, after all the spurious indignation and outrage, not least John Mann’s cameo performance for the cameras last year, when he accused Ken Livingstone of being a Hitler apologist, that Ken Livingstone’s remarkthat Hitler was a supporter of Zionism was notthe subject of his disciplinary hearing last week.  Instead the offence he was charged with was that he supported Naz Shah when she jokily suggested that the best solution for Israel’s war mongering was to transfer Israel to the territory of its benefactor, the United States. 
Livingstone waxes lyrical outside his hearing
Naz Shah’s quip was made in the context of Israel’s 2014 Operation Protective Edge when 2,200 Palestinians were butchered in Gaza and when 551 children were also slaughtered.  It was in the context of the very real and existing threat of transfer of the Palestinians living in Israel and the West Bank/Gaza. A plurality of Israeli Jews, some 48%, supportthe Nazi solution of the forcible expulsion of the Palestinians from where they live.  What we are seeing in Jerusalem today and elsewhere is the slow transfer and ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinians.
In the 1930's the Daily Express was a pro-Hitler paper and this infamous headline, which inverted reality and stated that it was  the Jews ('Judea') which had declared war on Germany, was used repeatedly by the Nazis to justify their attacks on German Jews
During the attack on Gaza, which was allegedly in self-defence, we had Israeli mobs chanting that There’s No School In Gaza, There Are No More Kids Left’.  We had the disgusting spectacle of Israelis taking their armchairs and even a coffee machine to neighbouring hills overlooking Gaza in order that they could get a better view of the death and destruction that Israel was causing in Gaza.  [Israelis gather on hillsides to watch and cheer as military drops bombs on Gaza]
Today the Daily Express attacks Livingstone for his 'anti-Semitism'
This is the reality that Labour’s witch hunters avoid mentioning.  It says something about the timidity of Corbyn that he has not condemned the witch-hunt of Ken Livingstone or the false anti-Semitism campaign in the Labour Party.  Corbyn above all should know, because he himself has experienced false anti-Semitism allegations.  Corbyn has also followed Theresa May in endorsingthe International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism which conflates Zionism and anti-Semitism.
Iain McNicol - Desperate to avoid discussion of ‘historical facts’
Labour’s witch hunters are desperate to avoid any debate about the content of what Livingstone said.  We were told a year ago that what Livingstone said about Hitler supporting Zionism and whether the Zionist movement collaborated with the Nazis was a heinous example of anti-Semitism.  Now it is reportedthat:
‘Labour’s general secretary, Iain McNicol made it clear in a letter to the former mayor that the case against him was not about the historical facts but whether his conduct was “grossly detrimental” to the party, especially given his defence of anti-Semitic Facebook posts by Bradford West MP Naz Shah.”
Germany's Zionist newspaper, Judische Rundschau, welcomed the 1935 Nuremburg Laws 
We should bear in mind that the ‘anti-Semitic Facebook posts’ by Naz Shah included a map of the United States with Israel transplanted to it.  The map first appeared on the site of the Jewish Virtual Library, which isn’t known to be an anti-Semitic site! 
The catch-all charge, favoured by McCarthyites, of bringing the Labour Party into disrepute, is of course entirely subjective.  It is a matter of opinion depending on where you stand.  Some of us think that if anyone brought the Labour Party into disrepute it was Tony Blair’s support for the Iraq war, but clearly being a war criminal is not seen as disreputable by crooked McNicol.
Medal Nazis struck after 6 months trip to Palestine by the head of the Jewish desk at the Gestapo - Baron von Mildenstein
Most people will be under little doubt that Ken Livingstone’s almost certain expulsion will be because of what he said about the Zionists collaborating with the Nazis.  The truth is also ‘anti-Semitic’.  So it is useful to look at the argument of Professor Rainer Schulze, an academic apologist for Zionism, to understand why McNicol fought shy of tackling the substance of what Livingstone said.
Edwin Black's 'The Transfer Agreement' is the major work on Ha'avara - Rainer Schulze clearly hasn't read it
Professor Rainer Schulze - Court Historian to the British Establishment
Professor Rainer Schulze – Court Historian to the Establishment - Defends Nazi-Zionist Collaboration
Livingstone was attacked a year ago by Professor Schulze, who is Professor of Modern European History at the University of Essex  in Labour antisemitism row: there was nothing Zionist about Hitler’s plans for the Jews.  The article was reprinted in The Independent as Hitler and Zionism: Why the Haavara Agreement does not mean the Nazis were Zionists. Unfortunately being a professor of history doesn’t mean you have to know much about your subject and this is often the case with Holocaust professors eg.  Deborah Lipstadt.
When the Nazi government was put in power by Germany’s conservative and military in January 1933, world Jewry reacted by setting in motion an economic boycott of Nazi Germany.  Given that it was completely unorganised and spontaneous, it was remarkably successful.
By mid-April England had supplanted Germany as the largest exporter to Denmark and Norway.  German exports were 10% down in April.  For June the export surplus was down by 68% compared to May.  For the entire first half of 1933 exports were down 51%.  ‘That six month loss would have been greater except that the anti-Nazi boycott had not really commenced until late March.[1]  German exports to France decreased by 25%.  Egypt had an almost complete Boycott.[2]  Exports were down 22% to America compared with 1932 levels.
Even in Palestine in the first few days of April thousands of orders for German goods in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were cancelled.  However the ‘socialist’ Zionists of Mapai, the Israeli Labour Party, were furious.  They wanted to do business with the Nazis, not campaign against them.  They immediately launched a campaign against the Boycott of Nazi Germany. On Kol Yisrael, on May 18th, they broadcast that ‘Screaming slogans calling for a boycott… are a crime... We are all anxious about our brethren in Germany, but we have no quarrel with the representatives of the German government in Palestine.[3]
At the 18thWorld Zionist Congress in Prague in 1933 Mapai, which controlled the Congress, refused to put forward a motion condemning the Nazi regime. 
Schulze puts forward the establishment view of Ha'avara which is that there was nothing wrong in a trade agreement with the Nazis.  Similar arguments were used by those who opposed a Boycott of South Africa in the 1970’s.  Thatcher and Reagan then argued that ‘constructive engagement’ with Apartheid was the best policy.  Rainer Schulze is in essence arguing that the Zionist policy of constructive engagement with the Nazis was the best policy.
In the 1930’s the same establishment worthies who today are opposed to the Boycott of Israel as ‘anti-Semitic’ were equally opposed to the Boycott of Nazi Germany.  The Board of Deputies of British Jews voted on July 23 1933 by 110-27 to oppose a Boycott of Nazi Germany.  It was the occasion for the coming together of the previously anti-Zionist bourgeois leadership under President Neville Laski and the growing Zionist contingent on the Board.   As Black observed, ‘in July 1933 influential Anglo-Jewish leaders committed themselves to the Zionist solution of the German Jewish crisis.’[4]
In the United States the Roosevelt administration justified its opposition to a Boycott of Nazi Germany on the ludicrous grounds that it undermined Hitler!  Hitler was seen as the ‘element of moderation’ in the Nazi state! [5]  The definition of a ‘moderate’ has always been flexible.
Rainer Schulze is however correct on one thing.  Hitler wasn’t a Zionist.  Nor did Ken Livingstone claim he was.  It is however indisputable that the Nazi regime supported and favoured the Zionist movement. 
Reinhardt Heydrich, Himmler’s Deputy and leader of the Reich Security Main Office which combined the Security and Criminal Police, the Nazi Security Service and the Gestapo, issued on the 28th January 1935 an order which stated that
The activities of the Zionist-oriented organisations... lies in the interest of the National Socialist state leadership’ before going on to say that these organisations ‘are not to be treated with that strictness that it is necessary to apply to the members of the so-called German-Jewish organizations (assimilationists).
 i.e. the majority of German Jews [6]  In Schwarze Corps, paper of the SS, Heydrich wrote that the Nazi government ‘is in agreement with the great spiritual movement within Jewry, Zionism...’  [7] 
Nicosia, who is a Zionist and Professor of Holocaust Studies at Vermont University, wrote:
Throughout the 1930’s, as part of the regime’s determination to force Jews to leave Germany, there was almost unanimous support in German government and Nazi party circles for promoting Zionism among German Jews, Jewish emigration from Germany to Palestine.[8]
If Schulze isn’t aware of this then he has no business trumpeting his professorial credentials on the subject.  If he is aware of the above then he is an academic liar, an establishment poodle.  The above quotes can be found in books by two Zionist historians, the late Lucy Dawidowicz’s War Against the Jews and Francis Nicosia’s Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany.  The SS, which was the most pro-Zionist of all the components of the Nazi state and which went on to implement the Final Solution, saw in the Zionists the ‘volkish’ Jews who accepted that Jews should play no part in the affairs of Germany. 
Jews were, according to the Zionists, not German but Jewish nationals.  The Zionists alone amongst German Jews welcomed the Nuremburg Laws of 1935, which stripped the Jews of German citizenship.  This is not even a matter of serious dispute.  On 21st June 1933, the German Zionist Federation [ZVfD ]sent a memo to Hitler:
On the foundation of the new state, which has established the principle of race... fruitful activity for the fatherland is possible. Our acknowledgement of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we don’t wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we too are against mixed marriages and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group…. Boycott propaganda… is in essence fundamentally unZionist, because Zionism wants not to do battle but to convince and to build.[9]  Black, who is himself a Zionist historian observed:
‘It became that much harder for German Jews to defend against Nazi accusations of illegitimate citizenship when a loud and visible group of their own continually published identical indictments  ... as Nazi philosopher Alfred Rosenberg made clear ...  ‘If an organisation inside the state declares that the interests of the German Reich do not concern it, it renounces all its civil rights.’  Zionism had become a tool for anti-Semites.’ [10](my emphasis)
Ha'avara and the Saving of Jewish Refugees
Ha'avara had nothing to do with saving Germany’s Jews.  No one in 1933 envisaged that the Nazis would embark on a policy of extermination nor did the Nazis themselves plan for it.  That came later with Operation Barbarossa and war imperialism.  The ZVfD and George Landeur, its Director, ‘fought for German regulations that would prevent German Jews from saving their wealth by any means other than investing it in Palestine.[11]  Zionism was only interested in building the Jewish state.  Saving the Jews was secondary to this.  ‘By late July, transfer activists spoke increasingly of ‘saving the wealth’ and ‘rescuing the capital’ from Nazi Germany.  The impact on German Jews themselves seemed to be a subordinated issue.’[12] 
The other question is, why did Nazi Germany agree to a trade agreement whereby German goods were exported but they were paid not in hard currency but German Reichsmarks?  The answer is simple:
Without the worldwide effort to topple the Third Reich, Hitler would have never agreed to the Transfer Agreement.[13]
David Ben-Gurion, first Israeli Prime Minister opposed the rescue of Jews if the destination wasn't Palestine
Zionism only supported the rescue of Jews if they went to Palestine.  David Ben-Gurion, Chairman of the Jewish Agency was quite explicit about this.  Ben Gurion argued that:
‘Zionism… is not primarily engaged in saving individuals.  If along the way it saves a few thousand, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of individuals, so much the better.’  But in the event of a conflict of interest between saving individual Jews and the good of the Zionist enterprise, we shall say the enterprise comes first.’[14]
Saul Friedlander, a Zionist Holocaust historian noted that ‘the Palestine leadership refused to extend any help to emigrants whose goal was not Eretz Israel (Land of Israel).’ [15]

When Britain proposed the Kindertransport which saved 10,000 German Jewish children after Kristallnacht in November 1938, the Zionist movement opposed it.  Ben Gurion wrote:
If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael, then I would opt for the second alternative. For we must weigh not only the life of these children, but also the history of the People of Israel.[16]

Ha'avara was condemned by virtually the whole of world Jewry for placing the interests of the Zionist movement and a future Jewish state above the interests of Germany’s Jews.  Even the Jewish Chronicle, paper of the Jewish Establishment, opposed it:
we object to the transfer of their assets in the form of the products of German factories and German employment.  We say that that is aiding and comforting one of the most savage oppressions, even in Jewish history…. It breaks the united Jewish boycott front, a front let it not be forgotten, with which non-Jewish sympathisers were also aligned.[17]
Between 1933 and 1939 Ha’avara accounted for 60% of total capital investment in Jewish Palestine.[18]  Over RM100 million of German goods were exported from Germany to Palestine.[19]  Less than 20% of German Jewish emigrants went to Palestine and only a minority of them came via Ha'avara.  Those German emigrants who did utilise Ha'avara were the richest German Jews, because you needed the equivalent of £1,000 in cash in order to qualify for entry to Palestine as a capitalist.  The émigrés themselves received a fraction of what they paid for those goods.
Not once did Schulze even mention the Boycott of Nazi Germany.  This is academic dishonesty.  You cannot understand the opposition from the overwhelming majority of Jewish people to Ha'avara without understanding the Jewish Boycott of Nazi Germany.
Israeli historian Tom Segev explained why the Zionist movement opposed a Boycott of Nazi Germany. 
The purpose of the boycott was to force the Nazis to halt their persecution, so that Jews could continue to live in Germany.  Ben Gurion and his associates, by contrast, wanted German Jews to settle in Palestine and they saw Ha'avara policy as a means toward that end.
In other words, this was the old Zionist policy of welcoming anti-Semitism as an inducement to Jews to emigrate to Palestine.  The Zionists didn’t want Jews to live in the diaspora.  They saw the persecution of Jews in Germany as the inevitable outcome of Jewish ‘homelessness’ – living in other peoples’ countries.   As Nicosia observed some Zionists ‘even believed that the Nazi triumph represented, as Berl Katznelson stated “... an opportunity to build and flourish like none we have ever had or ever will have.’[20]
Contrary to their rhetoric about ‘anti-Semitism’ today, when anti-Semitism was at its height in the Nazi era, Zionism sought to exploit the tragedy of German and European Jewry.  Not once did it seek to combat or oppose Nazism.
The Nazis were frantic in their desire to destroy the Boycott. By agreeing to Ha'avara, the Zionist movement helped the Nazi regime survive.  As Black notes, there was a real possibility that without Ha'avara the Nazi regime might have cracked in the winter of 1933.[21] 
Ha'avara, far from being a rescue scheme for Jews was a rescue scheme for the Nazi state.  That the Zionist movement was guilty of collaboration cannot be doubted, even if the tame establishment historian Rainer Schulze suggests otherwise.  One of the consequences of Ha'avara was that:
‘The German economy would have to be safeguarded, stabilized and if necessary reinforced.  Hence the Nazi party and the Zionist Organisation shared a common stake in the recovery of Germany.  If the Hitler economy fell, both sides would be ruined.’ [22]
The idea that the Zionist Organisation or the Jewish Agency were concerned with rescuing German Jews in their own right is for the birds.  Their primary goal was the building up of Jewish Palestine and everything had to be seen in that light.  Werner Senator, a member of the Zionist Executive told the Jewish Agency office in Berlin that if it did not improve the ‘human material’of those it was sending, the Agency would cut the number of Palestine certificates for Berlin Jews.   Indeed it was decided that those above the age of 35 would receive certificates, ‘only if there is no reason to believe that they will not become a burden here.’ Tom Segev noted that Eliahu Dobkin, a member of Mapai and the Jewish Agency Executive considered  that those German Jews who were ‘merely refugees’ were ‘undesirable human material.’ [23]  The Zionists even used the same terminology as the Nazis.  German Zionism was a Jewish volkish current.
Zionism as Jewish Self-determination or Settler Colonialism
Rainer Schulze argued that ‘Zionism was a movement based on the right of self-determination. It originated as a national liberation movement...’  A question I have often asked Zionists is when they first decided that Zionism was a national liberation movement?   I have never received an answer.  The founders of Zionism, from whatever political persuasion, described Zionism as a colonial movement at a time when colonialism was still respectable.
The founder of Political Zionism, Theodore Herzl when he wrote to Cecile Rhodes, the British colonialist and white supremacist in southern Africa explained thus:
‘How, then, do I happen to turn to you since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you?  How indeed?  Because it is something colonial.’  [24]
Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism (the equivalent of Likud today) in his famous essay ‘An Iron Wall’ which was a polemic against his opponents in Labour Zionism argued that:
‘There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs…. it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting "Palestine" from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority.

My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries.  I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent.[25]

There isn’t even one instance of any reference to a ‘national liberation movement’ in the writings of the founders of Zionism.  Zionism only became a national liberation movement when colonialism got a bad name!  Today’s Zionists have decided to disguise what even the Zionists themselves used to admit was a colonialist movement in the apparel of the oppressed in order to deceive the innocent.  Rainer Schulze’s history lessons are in reality an act of deception.
Rainer Schulze finished his article by indulging in a piece of straw man rhetoric:
Any claim that Nazis and Zionists ever shared a common goal is not only cynical and disingenuous, but a distortion of clearly established historical fact.’
That is, of course, true.  But no one has claimed that they shared common goals.  Clearly the Zionists didn’t support the mass genocide of European Jewry.  Marshall Petain collaborated with the Nazis but that doesn’t mean he supported the aims of the Nazis.  He collaborated because he didn’t want a Nazi occupation of France.  When a weaker party collaborates with a stronger party they rarely if ever share the same goals.  Unfortunately Professor Schulze, having very little knowledge or understanding of the topic he wrote about decided to engage in an old debating tactic.  Attack something your opponent hasn’t said!
Tony Greenstein




[1]          Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement, Brookline Books, New York, p.223.
[2]          Black, pp.265, 273.  This gives the lie to the myth about Arab support for the Nazis.
[3]          Black p. 144.
[4]          Black, p. 212.
[5]          Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement, p.19. Brookline Books.
[6]          Lucy Dawidowicz, War Against the Jews, p.118, Pelican.
[7]          Francis Nicosia, Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany, p.119, Cambridge University Press.
[8]          Nicosia, p. 79.
[9]          Lucy Dawidowicz, A Holocaust Reader, p.150-153.
[10]        Black p. 173.
[11]        Black, p. 258.
[12]        Black p. 288.
[13]        Black xxiii.
[14]        Shabtai Teveth, ‘The Burning Ground 1886-1948’, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1987 p. 855, speech to the Mapai Council 1933.
[15]        Saul Friedlander, Germany and the Jews – 1933-1945, p. 57, Phoenix, London, 2009.
[16]        Zionism and the Holocaust, http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/631/zionism-and-the-holocaust, Yoav Gelber, ‘Zionist policy, p.199, Segev, p.28.  Ben-Gurion at the Mapai CC, 7.12.38, Teveth, p.855. 
[17]        JC,The Unclean Thing, 27.12.35.
[18]        David Rosenthall, Chaim Arlosoroff65 Years After his Assassination, Jewish Frontier, May-June 1998, p. 28, New York http://www.ameinu.net/publicationfiles/Vol.LXV,No.3.pdf. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B-DwJUnaW0sMb3dxRzd5NkExaEEaccessed 13.11.15.  In 1937 over 31m RM was transferred. Nicosia, The Third Reich, p.213.
[19]        Francis Nicosia, The Third Reich and the Palestine Question, p. 213, Hilberg fn9. p. 139, Saul Friedlander p. 26.
[20]        Nicosia, Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany, p. 91 citing Friedlander, pp 15, 63-4.
[21]        Black p. 189.
[22]        Black, p. 253.
[23]        Tom Segev, The Seventh Million, p.44, Hill and Wang, New York.
[24]        Diaries of Theodor Herzl, Vol. 4, page 1194. 
[25]        Vladimir Jabotinsky, "The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)," Rassvyet (Berlin),
November 4, 1923.  http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/quot-the-iron-wall-quot


31 March 2017

Jonathan Cook

The ongoing Ken Livingstone (“Get Corbyn!”) saga grows yet more preposterous. After outrage that the former London mayor had said Hitler was a Zionist (when he clearly hadn’t, as I pointed out at the time here and here), Labour suspended Livingstone amid accusations that he had made anti-semitic, offensive and false historical claims.

Now as Livingstone fights to avoid expulsion before a closed hearing of the party’s national constitutional committee, it emerges that Labour’s general secretary, Iain McNicol, has written to Livingstone saying that the hearing is not interested in the historical accuracy of his statements or whether what he said was anti-semitic. Rather, it is about whether his conduct has been “grossly detrimental” to the party.

In other words, this is a kangaroo court. Because, of course Livingstone’s comments have been detrimental to the party. Not least, they have angered the UK’s powerful Israel lobby. That is the same lobby – directed by the Israeli embassy and working through groups like the Jewish Labour Movement – that was recently exposed by an undercover Al Jazeera investigation as plotting to bring down a British government minister. Crossing people like that is undoubtedly detrimental to the party, because they are prepared to destroy Labour before they allow it, or its leader, to campaign on behalf of Palestinian rights.

That is why, as long as Livingstone or Corbyn are around, the JLM and its allies in the liberal media, like the Guardian’s Owen Jones and Jonathan Freedland, will keep helping to confect an “anti-semitism crisis” in Labour, acerbating the very problems they blame Corbyn for creating.

In this context, one can understand why McNicol is denying Livingstone the chance to air the historical facts in an open hearing. Because the better the case Livingstone makes for collaboration between the Nazis and Zionists, the more detriment the JLM and others will do to the Labour party. Certainly, JLM leader Jeremy Newmark, who testified against Livingstone on Thursday, will benefit from the lack of public scrutiny of his statements.

McNicol’s logic here is entirely circular, of course. As long as Labour indulges the JLM leadership, and continues to draw a veil over Israeli oppression of Palestinians, the party will have a quiet life. If Labour tries to do the right thing – promoting justice for the Palestinians, upholding international law and soothing a long-festering wound of British malfeasance in the Middle East – it will face a perfect storm from the JLM.

Remember as you watch this farce play out that Owen Jones is due to give a memorial lecturethis Sunday (April 2) to the JLM, whose leaders barely bother to conceal the fact that they are more loyal to the Israeli government than the democratically elected leader of their own party. If Jones cares about Labour as much as he claims, he shouldn’t touch the JLM with a barge-pole. Instead it has him in a bear hug.

Labour’s witch-hunt against Ken Livingstone

The ongoing Ken Livingstone (“Get Corbyn!”) saga grows yet more preposterous. After outrage that the former London mayor had said Hitler was a Zionist (when he clearly hadn’t, as I pointed out at the time here and here), Labour suspended Livingstone amid accusations that he had made anti-semitic, offensive and false historical claims.
Now as Livingstone fights to avoid expulsion before a closed hearing of the party’s national constitutional committee, it emerges that Labour’s general secretary, Iain McNicol, has written to Livingstone saying that the hearing is not interested in the historical accuracy of his statements or whether what he said was anti-semitic. Rather, it is about whether his conduct has been “grossly detrimental” to the party.
In other words, this is a kangaroo court. Because, of course Livingstone’s comments have been detrimental to the party. Not least, they have angered the UK’s powerful Israel lobby. That is the same lobby – directed by the Israeli embassy and working through groups like the Jewish Labour Movement – that was recently exposed by an undercover Al Jazeera investigation as plotting to bring down a British government minister. Crossing people like that is undoubtedly detrimental to the party, because they are prepared to destroy Labour before they allow it, or its leader, to campaign on behalf of Palestinian rights.
That is why, as long as Livingstone or Corbyn are around, the JLM and its allies in the liberal media, like the Guardian’s Owen Jones and Jonathan Freedland, will keep helping to confect an “anti-semitism crisis” in Labour, acerbating the very problems they blame Corbyn for creating.
In this context, one can understand why McNicol is denying Livingstone the chance to air the historical facts in an open hearing. Because the better the case Livingstone makes for collaboration between the Nazis and Zionists, the more detriment the JLM and others will do to the Labour party. Certainly, JLM leader Jeremy Newmark, who testified against Livingstone on Thursday, will benefit from the lack of public scrutiny of his statements.
McNicol’s logic here is entirely circular, of course. As long as Labour indulges the JLM leadership, and continues to draw a veil over Israeli oppression of Palestinians, the party will have a quiet life. If Labour tries to do the right thing – promoting justice for the Palestinians, upholding international law and soothing a long-festering wound of British malfeasance in the Middle East – it will face a perfect storm from the JLM.
Remember as you watch this farce play out that Owen Jones is due to give a memorial lecture this Sunday (April 2) to the JLM, whose leaders barely bother to conceal the fact that they are more loyal to the Israeli government than the democratically elected leader of their own party. If Jones cares about Labour as much as he claims, he shouldn’t touch the JLM with a barge-pole. Instead it has him in a bear hug.
- See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2017-03-31/labours-witch-hunt-against-ken-livingstone/#sthash.X7EuVwmm.dpuf

Labour’s witch-hunt against Ken Livingstone

The ongoing Ken Livingstone (“Get Corbyn!”) saga grows yet more preposterous. After outrage that the former London mayor had said Hitler was a Zionist (when he clearly hadn’t, as I pointed out at the time here and here), Labour suspended Livingstone amid accusations that he had made anti-semitic, offensive and false historical claims.
Now as Livingstone fights to avoid expulsion before a closed hearing of the party’s national constitutional committee, it emerges that Labour’s general secretary, Iain McNicol, has written to Livingstone saying that the hearing is not interested in the historical accuracy of his statements or whether what he said was anti-semitic. Rather, it is about whether his conduct has been “grossly detrimental” to the party.
In other words, this is a kangaroo court. Because, of course Livingstone’s comments have been detrimental to the party. Not least, they have angered the UK’s powerful Israel lobby. That is the same lobby – directed by the Israeli embassy and working through groups like the Jewish Labour Movement – that was recently exposed by an undercover Al Jazeera investigation as plotting to bring down a British government minister. Crossing people like that is undoubtedly detrimental to the party, because they are prepared to destroy Labour before they allow it, or its leader, to campaign on behalf of Palestinian rights.
That is why, as long as Livingstone or Corbyn are around, the JLM and its allies in the liberal media, like the Guardian’s Owen Jones and Jonathan Freedland, will keep helping to confect an “anti-semitism crisis” in Labour, acerbating the very problems they blame Corbyn for creating.
In this context, one can understand why McNicol is denying Livingstone the chance to air the historical facts in an open hearing. Because the better the case Livingstone makes for collaboration between the Nazis and Zionists, the more detriment the JLM and others will do to the Labour party. Certainly, JLM leader Jeremy Newmark, who testified against Livingstone on Thursday, will benefit from the lack of public scrutiny of his statements.
McNicol’s logic here is entirely circular, of course. As long as Labour indulges the JLM leadership, and continues to draw a veil over Israeli oppression of Palestinians, the party will have a quiet life. If Labour tries to do the right thing – promoting justice for the Palestinians, upholding international law and soothing a long-festering wound of British malfeasance in the Middle East – it will face a perfect storm from the JLM.
Remember as you watch this farce play out that Owen Jones is due to give a memorial lecture this Sunday (April 2) to the JLM, whose leaders barely bother to conceal the fact that they are more loyal to the Israeli government than the democratically elected leader of their own party. If Jones cares about Labour as much as he claims, he shouldn’t touch the JLM with a barge-pole. Instead it has him in a bear hug.
- See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2017-03-31/labours-witch-hunt-against-ken-livingstone/#sthash.X7EuVwmm.dpuf

Labour’s witch-hunt against Ken Livingstone

The ongoing Ken Livingstone (“Get Corbyn!”) saga grows yet more preposterous. After outrage that the former London mayor had said Hitler was a Zionist (when he clearly hadn’t, as I pointed out at the time here and here), Labour suspended Livingstone amid accusations that he had made anti-semitic, offensive and false historical claims.
Now as Livingstone fights to avoid expulsion before a closed hearing of the party’s national constitutional committee, it emerges that Labour’s general secretary, Iain McNicol, has written to Livingstone saying that the hearing is not interested in the historical accuracy of his statements or whether what he said was anti-semitic. Rather, it is about whether his conduct has been “grossly detrimental” to the party.
In other words, this is a kangaroo court. Because, of course Livingstone’s comments have been detrimental to the party. Not least, they have angered the UK’s powerful Israel lobby. That is the same lobby – directed by the Israeli embassy and working through groups like the Jewish Labour Movement – that was recently exposed by an undercover Al Jazeera investigation as plotting to bring down a British government minister. Crossing people like that is undoubtedly detrimental to the party, because they are prepared to destroy Labour before they allow it, or its leader, to campaign on behalf of Palestinian rights.
That is why, as long as Livingstone or Corbyn are around, the JLM and its allies in the liberal media, like the Guardian’s Owen Jones and Jonathan Freedland, will keep helping to confect an “anti-semitism crisis” in Labour, acerbating the very problems they blame Corbyn for creating.
In this context, one can understand why McNicol is denying Livingstone the chance to air the historical facts in an open hearing. Because the better the case Livingstone makes for collaboration between the Nazis and Zionists, the more detriment the JLM and others will do to the Labour party. Certainly, JLM leader Jeremy Newmark, who testified against Livingstone on Thursday, will benefit from the lack of public scrutiny of his statements.
McNicol’s logic here is entirely circular, of course. As long as Labour indulges the JLM leadership, and continues to draw a veil over Israeli oppression of Palestinians, the party will have a quiet life. If Labour tries to do the right thing – promoting justice for the Palestinians, upholding international law and soothing a long-festering wound of British malfeasance in the Middle East – it will face a perfect storm from the JLM.
Remember as you watch this farce play out that Owen Jones is due to give a memorial lecture this Sunday (April 2) to the JLM, whose leaders barely bother to conceal the fact that they are more loyal to the Israeli government than the democratically elected leader of their own party. If Jones cares about Labour as much as he claims, he shouldn’t touch the JLM with a barge-pole. Instead it has him in a bear hug.
- See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2017-03-31/labours-witch-hunt-against-ken-livingstone/#sthash.X7EuVwmm.dpuf

Riad El-Taher - Expelled from the Labour Party for Trying to Mitigate Sanctions Against Iraq

$
0
0

Ivor Caplin – War Criminal and Junior  Defence Minister under Tony Blair Personally Fingered Riad



On March 8th, Riad El-Taher received a letter out of the blue (as one does!) from a Sam Matthews at Labour Party Headquarters.  It notified Riad that he had been auto-expelled (i.e. with no rights of appeal or representation) because in 2010 he had been imprisoned for ten months for trying to relieve the effects of sanctions on Iraq by paying a bribe for importing oil for food.

A reminder of the deadly nature of the Iraq sanctions that war criminals like Ivor Caplin supported
To understand the context of Riad’s actions, for which he paid a very heavy penalty, for what was a humanitarian endeavour, one needs to recollect the words of the US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.  John Pilger described, in the Guardian on 4thMarch 2000, how when he was in Washington
 ‘I interviewed James Rubin, an under secretary of state who speaks for Madeleine Albright. When asked on US television if she thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children was a price worth paying, Albright replied: "This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it." 
Riad
When I questioned Rubin about this, he claimed Albright's words were taken out of context. He then questioned the "methodology" of a report by the UN's World Health Organisation, which had estimated half a million deaths. Advising me against being "too idealistic", he said: "In making policy, one has to choose between two bad choices . . . and unfortunately the effect of sanctions has been more than we would have hoped." He referred me to the "real world" where "real choices have to be made". In mitigation, he said, "Our sense is that prior to sanctions, there was serious poverty and health problems in Iraq." The opposite was true, as Unicef's data on Iraq before 1990, makes clear.’
Ivor Caplin, War Criminal and former MP for Hove and a dedicated Zionist member of the Jewish Labour Movement. Caplin was a junior Defence Minister at the time of the Iraq War 
This is the background to Riad’s outrageous expulsion by dictat.  An expulsion by an unelected official, a nobody who has never lifted a finger in his life to campaign against war, famine or injustice.
The real reason for Riad’s expulsion lies in what took place less than two weeks previously.  Despite all the manipulation and gerry mandering over the past 9 months, all the failed attempts at vote-fixing  by Labour's officials and NEC members like Ann Black, attempts which led to the suspension of the Brighton and Hove District Labour Party on July 2nd last year [Brighton & Hove Labour Party Suspended by National Labour Party, The Lies of Warren Morgan & Kyle Rebound on Them] Hove Labour Party voted in a complete slate of Momentum officers and Executive members, which included Riad.  This was very bad news for the local Progress MP Peter Kyle, who had been hoping that his supporters would take control.
Riad's expulsion is about protecting this man - Peter Kyle Progress MP for Hove
This was the cue for Ivor Caplin, a close personal friend of Kyle and the previous MP as well as Junior Defence Minister under Blair at the time of the Iraq War, to finger Riad for his humanitarian efforts during the sustained US and UK bombing of Iraq and the sanctions levied against that country which preceded the war itself.  People often forget these sanctions but they led to the death of an estimated half a million children.  Sanctions, which are 'anti-Semitic' if imposed on Israel, were perfectly fine when imposed on Iraq.  The sanctions caused a modern state with an up to the date health system to turn into a third world relic.  This is what is commonly known as imperialism and the Ivor Caplins of this world are its bloody practitioners.
Riad was caught up in the UN’s oil for food programme and as part of getting food into Iraq he was involved in paying a financial surcharge to the Iraqi regime.  Since he was one of many doing the same thing and given that there was no personal financial motive, his prosecution and gaoling can be seen as a calculated and vindictive measure by the Blair government  which engaged in illegal extra-ordinary rendition and collusion in torture.
The real criminals in this are not Riad, but the Ivor Caplins and Tony Blairs who should be prosecuted for the deaths during the sanctions regime and  the war itself.
Jeremy Corbyn came to power because, at least in part, due to his record in opposing the attacks on Iraq.  It is shameful that as Leader he has not so much as lifted his lifted his little finger to countermand the expulsion by Sam Matthews and the other apparatchiks at Labour Party HQ.
Tony Greenstein

From: Sam Matthews <sam_matthews@labour.org.uk>
To:
Riad El-taher <riadeltaher@ymail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2017, 15:51
Subject: RE: your letter 9.03.2017

Dear Mr El-Taher,

Thank you for your letter.

As outlined in our letter to you on the 9th March , being convicted of four accounts of Making funds available to Iraq except under the authority of a licence granted by the Treasury is a serious crime, for which you served a custodial sentence.

You remain ineligible for membership of the Labour Party. There is no right to appeal an auto-exclusion.

The Labour Party considers this matter closed and will not consider an application to re-join until the 9thMarch 2022. We will not be responding further on this matter.

Regards

Sam Matthews
Head of Disputes
Governance and Legal Unit
The Labour Party
Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT
                                                                                     
11thMarch 2017

Mr S Matthews
Head of Disputes
The Labour Party
Southside
105 Victoria Street
London SWIE 6QE

Your Ref: A644374


Dear Mr Matthews,

Thank you for your letter of 9thMarch informing me that I have been expelled from the Labour Party.

I note that sub-section iii of Chapter 2.1.4.D in the Labour Party rules, which you quote, is the third and most severe of three options under that Clause 1.4.D. which reads: ‘where a member has been convicted of a serious criminal offence the NEC shall have the right to impose the appropriate disciplinary action from the following options.’ The other options are suspension and referral of a disciplinary case to the NCC.

The phrase ‘serious criminal offence’ might suggest murder, war crimes or bank robbery, not paying an Iraqi surcharge on oil-for-food transactions that were designed to relieve the desperate plight of the Iraqi people. Madeline Albright may have considered the death of half a million Iraqi children a price worth paying in order to achieve regime change but I took a different view and acted accordingly. Is that a serious criminal offence?

There is now widespread agreement, both within and beyond the Labour Party, that the policies pursued by the Blair and Bush administrations were profoundly mistaken and that they caused incalculable suffering to the Iraqi people and resulted in the subsequent disastrous destabilisation of the country. In view of this, would it not have been more appropriate to refer my case to the NEC to consider the whole matter in more depth? Were those who made the decision to expel me fully conversant with the political situation seventeen years ago and are they now, in retrospect, untroubled by the actions of the British and American governments of that time?

The fact that you chose the most severe option in disciplining me and decided against investigating the matter further, suggests that pressure was brought to bear from some undisclosed quarter and that there is no likelihood the NEC would consider there were ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying the relaxation of the ‘five year’ exclusion.

I left the Labour Party as a result of the war in Iraq, my country of birth, and re-joined following Jeremy Corbyn’s election as leader believing it to be a compassionate organisation, concerned with the welfare not only of the British people but of others across the globe. My membership of the Labour Party is, compared with these greater realities; of minor consequence but it is a cause for concern that you, as a representative of a party with equality and justice at its heart should act in this way. If the purpose of removing me from the Labour Party is to purge its membership of disreputable members I could suggest rather more suitable candidates for removal.

I am attaching to this letter a brief account of the events surrounding my payment of the surcharge. The recently deceased Tam Dalyell, Labour MP and Father of the House of Commons, was fully aware of the situation in which I found myself at that time and commented on my subsequent conviction and imprisonment as follows: ‘That Riad El Taher should land up in Wandsworth gaol was, in my opinion, a process of nasty, political vengeance.’

Yours sincerely,


Riad El-Taher.

cc Governance and Legal Unit
cc South East Labour Party

The circumstances surrounding Riad El-Taher’s payment of the surcharge

Following a visit to Iraq in 1993, Tam Dalyell, whom I had invited to accompany me, suggested I set up an organisation, Friendship Across Frontiers (FAF), to campaign against the sanctions regime. FAF had Tam Dalyell as Patron and following his retirement, Harry Cohen and was supported by many Members of Parliament.
In 1996, following widespread concern at the level of human suffering caused by the sanctions the UN introduced the oil-for-food programme that had been agreed in principle in 1991. The programme required oil to be sold within a six month period and to ensure that this was achieved I was approached by the Iraqi government, due to my experience and expertise in the oil industry, to ensure the oil was sold in a timely manner; every oil allocation in my name was approved by the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI), Foreign Office (FO) and the UK Mission at the UN.
The fund was paid into a UN escrow account and its use depended on the agreement of the 661 Committee that oversaw the oil-for-food programme. This system failed to deliver the benefits intended due to an extremely restricted interpretation of what Iraq could use the funds for and even for goods that were agreed, there was a time-lapse from order to delivery of around six months. The fact that the Iraqi government was unable to directly purchase locally produced food and medicines or use any of the money it had earned from the sale of oil meant it was unable to satisfy the urgent needs of its people in the easiest, speediest and cheapest way possible.
The US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, interviewed about the effect of sanctions indicated that the death of half million children was a price worth paying. Worldwide public opinion was outraged and it became clear that action should be taken immediately to avert the disaster that was unfolding. A recommendation was eventually made to the 661 Committee that a cash component of $600 million per six-month phase should be paid directly to the Iraqi government. However, in 1999 this proposal, which was supported by the thirteen other members of the 661 Committee, was vetoed by the US and UK representatives.
At this stage the Iraqi government decided to compensate for the lack of money it was expecting the 661 Committee to approve by introducing a surcharge on all oil-for-food transactions. The US and UK governments were fully aware that all approved oil lifters had to pay the surcharge and yet they took no action against them and issued no warnings. I concluded that these governments were deliberately turning a blind eye to these payments. Moreover, I was in sympathy with the position of the Iraqi government on this issue even though I did not approve of its policies in many other respects.
My purpose was to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people and not, as alleged, for personal gain. I was an engineer, not an oil trader. Circumstances simply put me in a position to assist. Any profits made were used to campaign on behalf of the Iraqi people. The irony is that Saddam eventually decided to end the surcharge because he realised he was making far more money through the illegal trafficking of oil through Turkey and the Gulf under the watch of the US and UK authorities; a trade which the West clearly had no desire to impede.
To my knowledge no one has ever been prosecuted for payment of the surcharge and yet I, who was conducting transactions approved by HMG, was prosecuted a decade later because I paid the surcharge. The Serious Fraud Office, which brought the case against me, indicated that after me there would be countless further prosecutions worldwide, eighty of them in the UK alone. In fact, not a single further case was brought. The US authorities had ensured that of all the Iraqi institutions only the Ministry of Oil documentation was protected from looting and yet even the new regime in Iraq decided not to proceed with the prosecutions these documents would have facilitated.

In 2004 the UN Secretary General set up the Volker Committee to investigate alleged corruption and fraud in the oil-for-food programme and the following year I was interviewed as part of that investigation. I was the only one who admitted to the payment of the surcharge and yet when the report was published shortly after I was only mentioned briefly in a footnote. Clearly, I was regarded as inconsequential.  

Victory for Ken Livingstone Despite Corbyn’s Shameful Silence

$
0
0

Zionists Complain at Labour’s Failure to Expel Livingstone for Telling the Truth

It is 'anti-Semitic' to talk about the subject of this book by a Zionist - Edwin Black - the Jewish Labour  Movement don't like to be reminded that the Zionist movement was a Jewish Quisling movement
Unlike Corbyn, Livingstone has refused to bow to the Zionists in the Labour Party and has forced them to retreat instead
Although it would have been best if Ken Livingstone had been reinstated immediately and acquitted of all the trumped-up charges, the fact is that his suspension for one year is a victory for anti-racists in the Labour Party and a deep disappointment to Labour’s Zionists and the so-called Jewish Labour Movement.
Racists from the JLM including perjurer Jeremy Newmark wait in vain outside Livingstone's Star Chamber 'trial'
Ken Livingstone had the support of a number of prominent Jewish members of the Labour Party who rejected the idea that Ken Livingstone was a racist or anti-Semite.  Ken's whole career has been based on opposition to racism and the idea that because he has criticised the Israeli state or its conservative and prosperous backers in the Jewish community that he is an anti-Semite is absurd.  
So good were the relations between the Zionist movement and the Nazis that after the Head of the Jewish Desk at the Gestapo, Baron von Mildenstein went to Palestine for 6 months in 1933, at the invitation of the Labour Zionist movement, they struck a medal in celebration of their good relations
The JLM is proud of the fact that it is the 'sister party' of the Israeli Labour Party.  The ILP was the original party of ethnic cleansing.  In order to create a 'Jewish' State it expelled 3/4 million Palestinian refugees in 1948.  It took four years before it even granted those Arabs who hadn't been expelled citizenship and then kept them for another 14 years under military rule.

There is nothing that Likud and Netanyahu have done that the Israeli Labour Party haven't done before them.  People criticise Netanyahu for supporting and expanding the settlements.  It was the Labour Party which first established the settlements in the late 1960's.  To this day the Jewish Labour Movement is affiliated to the World Zionist Organisation which funds the settlements on the West Bank.  
Judische Rundschau was the twice weekly paper of the German Zionist Federation - on 17th September 1935 it welcomed the Nuremburg Laws, which Gerald Reitlinger, in the Final Solution, described as 'the most murderous legislative instrument known to European history'
It is no accident that Iain McNicol, Labour's crooked General Secretary, who brought the charges decided to concentrate on Livingstone's support for Naz Shah, whose offence had been to make a joke, rather than his statement that Hitler and the Nazis supported Zionism.
Zionist vultures wait in vain for their victim
As my article Ken Livingstone faces Labour’s Star Chamber as the Witch-hunters Change the Chargedemonstrates, it is indisputable that there were close relations of collaboration between the Nazis and the Zionist movement in Germany.  As Zionist historian Lucy Dawidowicz reported, in her seminal book ‘War Against the Jews’ p.118, Heydrich issued the following order to the Gestapo:
'|The activities of the Zionist-oriented organisations... lies in the interest of the National Socialist state leadership’ before going on to say that these organisations ‘are not to be treated with that strictness that it is necessary to apply to the members of the so-called German-Jewish organizations (assimilationists).'
Cartoon in the Zionist Press concerning Ha'avara - 'don't worry Hitler, the Jews of Palestine are helping you.' - the Zionists found it amusing that they were helping Hitler

In an article Jewish Labour Movement to pursue conference debate if Livingstone not expelled in the Jewish News, Jeremy Newmark finally realised that there may not be a dead body.  Newmark threatened to ‘take matters further’ in the futile belief that his racist agenda would mobilise a majority in the Labour Party. Livingstone’s victory is a victory for the truth.  It was always outrageous that the supporters of Apartheid in Israel should be dictating Labour’s agenda. 

It is a tempting invitation!
Like carion crow the JLM gathered outside Livingstone's hearing.  All the Jewish Labour Movement racists together.  There was Jeremy Newmark, Chair of the Zionist Jewish Labour Movement, branded a perjurerby the Employment Tribunal in Fraser vUniversity College Union. The Tribunal found, in a Judgment that was not appealed:

Para:  131                    We reject the allegation that Mr Waddup [UCU Steward] said, “You’re not wanted here”. We also reject as utterly unfounded the emotive allegation of Ms Ashworth that Mr Newmark was “Jew-baited”.  He was not baited at all. Neither Ms Ashworth nor Mr Newmark was a member of the Respondents.

Para. 148        We regret to say that we have rejected as untrue the evidence of Ms Ashworth and Mr Newmark concerning the incident at the 2008 Congress... Evidence given to us about booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers at Congress debates was also false, as truthful witnesses on the Claimant’s side accepted. One painfully ill-judged example of playing to the gallery was Mr Newmark’s preposterous claim... that he had attempted to push his way into the 2008 meeting, that a ‘pushy Jew’ stereotype was being applied to him.
The Jewish Labour Movement call for 'zero tolerance' after the failure to expel Livingstone - we agree - zero tolerance for racists and Zionists
Here we see all the dark arts that Newmark and the JLM practice in the Labour Party – false allegations of anti-Semitism which are used to besmirch anti-racists and anti-fascists.  It is the to the shame of Jeremy Corbyn that he doesn’t have the courage of his former convictions.

It is the to the shame of Jeremy Corbyn that he doesn’t have the courage of his former convictions.


Making threats of violence against fellow Labour Party member Jackie Rose was not considered a disciplinary matter by Labour's crooked General Secretary Iain McNicol
Another of those gathered outside Livingstone’s hearing last week was fragrant Ella Rose, the Director of the JLM who went straight from dirty tricks at the Israeli Embassy to the JLM.  Although her employer changed, her role remained the same.  This is the same Ella Rose who threatened to ‘take out’ Jackie Walker, the Black anti-fascist.
As Ella explains, her only concern is winning - a fascist doctrine
This is not the end of the road.  There is also the forthcoming hearing against Black-Jewish anti-racist activists Jackie Walker and March Wadsworth who have been framed by a bunch of racist Zionists.  In their eyes Black people who speak out against Israel's racism are not kosher!

Today is the beginning, not the end.

Tony Greenstein

Those who abandon Livingstone today will abandon Corbyn tomorrow - Stand Up for Free Speech on Israel and Palestine

$
0
0

Why it’s time to boycott the Guardian and say no to liberal McCarthyism

Jonathan Freedland as Comment Editor ensured that the False Anti-Semitism Campaign met no opposition in the pages of the Guardian  


Ever since Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party, the Guardian has launched one vicious assault after another on him.  Jonathan Freedland led the original charge accusing Corbyn of associating with Paul Eisen, a holocaust denier. Labour & the left have an antisemitism problem

Along the way the attack broadened out.  It included the late Gerald Kaufman MP, Jackie Walker, Ken Livingstone and myself.  
The Guardian abandons any notion of free speech or democratic debate - as it lines up with the Zionists and Progress
The Guardian is pulling out all the stops to have Livingstone expelled
It is therefore no surprise that the war-mongering Guardian/Observer has been to the fore of the McCarthyite attack on Ken Livingstone.  In a particularly stupid Leader, The Guardian view on Labour and Ken Livingstone: wrong decision, terrible message we are told that it is simply a matter of ‘decorum’ that people use the term ‘Zionist’ rather than ‘Jews’.
Yet another attempt to besmirch Livingstone by an erstwhile supporter
In other words, being a Zionist and a Jew are synonymous.  Perhaps John Hagee, the Christian Pastor who heads Christians United for Israel, a million strong group of Evangelical Baptists in the USA is also a Jew?  Because he is certainly a strong Zionist as well as holding the quaint belief that Hitler was a messenger from god!
One among so many anti-Corbyn Guardian Opinion pieces - 
In actual fact there is no contradiction between being a Zionist and an anti-Semite.  Both believe that Jews belong in Palestine/Israel not in the countries of their birth.  From its very inception, Zionism has been most strongly supported by anti-Semites - Edoard Drumont, Henrich Class, Alfred Rosenberg, Reinhardt Heydrich and today people like Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen, Donald Trump and Steve Bannon.
Indeed to equate being Jewish with being a Zionist is to associate all Jews with the barbarous deeds of the Apartheid Israeli state.  Which is certainly a good example of anti-Semitism.
The Zionists, assorted reactionaries and the Labour Right have gone mad because Livingstone wasn’t expelled as they hoped and expected.  Livingstone faced a disciplinary hearing before the National Constitutional Committee.  He was, quite outrageously, suspended for another year from membership of the Labour Party.  Not satisfied with this the Zionists have demanded that he be expelled.
This is of course understandable.  The Right expected the NCC to acts as it normally does – a rubber stamp.  However Livingstone brought fairly heavy legal guns to bear, in the form of Mike Mansfield QC and the Committee reached in essence a compromise.  However we should not lose sight of the real issue at stake here for the Guardian and its rabid right supporters.
Racist reactionaries such as Sir Trevor Chinn, former CEO of Lex Garages and the RAC - venture capitalist and all round member of the Establishment
The Jewish Labour Movement's Ella Rose explaining how peaceful Zionism is
The Witch hunt is about defence of Israel, the US’s Racist Rotweiller in the Middle East.  The Jewish Labour Movement which has pioneered the attack on Livingstone is, by its own description, the sister party of the racist Israeli Labour Party.  A party whose leader, Isaac Herzog, proclaims that his party should not be seen as an ‘Arab lovers’ party.  The National Front used to accuse people of being ‘Jew lovers’ or ‘Nigger lovers’.  This is the kind of group that is leading the witch-hunt of Livingstone. It is a party that when in government implemented the forcible expulsion of ¾ million Palestinians in 1948.
Nothing Livingstone said was in the least anti-Semitic. His only offence was to tell the truth about the history of Zionism.  Today Zionists attack their opponents as ‘anti-Semites’ – not because they hate Jews but because they hate what Israel does to the Palestinians.  In other words what the Zionists mean by anti-Semitism is opposition to Zionist racism which results in Palestinians living as barely tolerated guests in their own country.
So pleased were the Nazis with the visit for 6 months to Jewish Palestine by Baron von Mildenstein, the Head of the Gestapo's Jewish Desk, that on his return they struck a medal with a swastika on one side and the Star of David on the other!
Defending Israeli Racism and Denying History
To give but one example.  Francis Nicosia, the Raul Hilberg Professor of Holocaust Studies at Vermont University wrote in his book Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany (pp.118/9) that: 
‘Throughout the 1930’s, as part of the regime’s determination to force Jews to leave Germany, there was almost unanimous support in German government and Nazi party circles for promoting Zionism among German Jews’. 

Even recounting such facts is now deemed antisemitic.  It would be churlish to quote other historians to the same effect but for Ken to quote the same, to say that Hitler and the Nazis supported Zionism is somehow anti-Semitic.  It is as if it is anti-Semitic to tell the truth.
Cartoon in the Zionist press about Ha'avara - Don't be upset Hitler the Jews r helping u
According to the Pew Information Centre’s Israel’s Religiously Divided Society 48% of Israeli Jews, a plurality, support the physical expulsion of Israel’s Arabs.  This is the same solution that the Nazis first proposed to the Jewish Question.  Israel is a society where a cold-blooded killer of a severely injured Palestinian, Elor Azaria, has become a national hero.  It is a society where, in January, the Bedouin village of Umm al Hiran in Israel’s Negev, which had already been relocated once, was physically destroyed in order that a Jewish town could be erected in its place.  Israeli police opened fire on a Palestinian school teacher and murdered him.  Never, not once, have Israeli police ever opened fire on Jewish demonstrators.  The racism of Israeli apartheid is never ending but in the Labour Party it is its supporters, the JLM and LFI, who call the shots.
Corbyn’s Cowardice
The fact that Jeremy Corbyn has capitulated to the witch hunt is to his eternal shame.  He knows as well as anyone that Ken Livingstone is not a racist or anti-Semite.  After all he has also been called such by the defenders of Israel.  Corbyn thinks that by bowing to the racist tide he will therefore save himself and his leadership.  He doesn’t seem to realise that allowing the expulsion of Ken Livingstone may well be the final nail in his own coffin.
The Guardian and False Anti-racism
The Guardian has played a particularly iniquitous role.  In the course of its attack on free speech, the Guardian has invented a new principle.  Apparently it should be the party’s ‘default position... to define racism as its victims would like it to be defined.’  Presumably when the National Front and British National Party launched their Rights for Whites campaign, we should have deferred to their view of themselves as victims of racism.  British imperialism in its campaign of pillage, plunder and rape through India and Africa also saw themselves as the victims of racism.
Racism is an objective phenomenon.  Of course false allegations of racism are made.  The fact is that many Jews today are not Zionists and do not accept the myth of ever increasing anti-Semitism in British society.  We do not accept that we are victims of racism in a society where it is anti-Black and Muslim racism which is institutionalised in the state.  Jews are not economically discriminated against.  There are no Jewish deaths in custody or as a result of racist attacks.  Jewish synagogues are not attacked.  Jews are not over represented in prison but they are over represented in Parliament and in business because they are a well-off section of the White community.  Those are facts, borne out by statistical evidence.
To compare Jews in Britain today to Black or Asians is to trivialise racism.  It is to the Guardian’s eternal shame that it ignores racism against Black people in this society but focuses on racism against a White minority, Jewish people.  The Guardian, because of its own profligacy is now trading at a loss.  There was a time when people on the Left, despite their irritation at it, recognised that it was a paper that was politically different from the rest of the pack.  Today the Guardian is a racist, war-mongering paper of the Blairite Right.
The Guardian is now putting out the begging bowl as the Corporate Media appeals to the values of social solidarity
The time has come to boycott the Guardian.
Below is a letter I sent to the Guardian’s editor, Katharine Viner, with a copy to Jonathan Freedland, the Guardian’s Zionist gatekeeper.  Below that is a link to an excellent article McCarthyite Anti-Semitism Smears and Racism at the Guardian/Observerby Gavin Lewis which I recommend you read, despite it being on the Counterpunch site.
Its anti-Semitic to mention this book by right-wing Zionist Edwin Black
Dear Ms VinerI notice that the Guardian has once again jumped in, with both feet, into the false and concocted moral panic around 'anti-Semitism'.  This time attacking Ken Livingstone.  
According to your current leading article, Labour has put Ken ahead of a fundamental principle.  I can't imagine which principle you are referring to.  Free speech?   The principle that you placed to the fore when Muslims protested at the attacks on their religion?  Or is this just another bout of Guardian hypocrisy? 
According to your Leader it is 'only for decorum's sake' that the word 'Zionist' is used instead of 'Jew'.  It is difficult to know where to begin when face with this type of ignorance and sheer stupidity.  Perhaps Steve Bannon, the anti-Semitic Trump Advisor and ex-Breitbart CEO, should be called a Jew instead of a Zionist?  Or perhaps Pastor John Hagee, of Christians United for Israel, who is of the opinion that Hitler was a messenger sent from god, should also be called a Jew rather than what he, an anti-Semitic Zionist.  Jonathan Freedland is perfectly well aware that  Michal Kaminski, the former Polish MEP, combined anti-Semitism and Zionism in equal measure. 

It may be anti-Semitic to mention it, but the Zionist Federation of Germany's paper, Judische Rundschau, welcomed the `1935 Nuremberg Laws

I find it amusing that the Guardian has now invented a new principle viz. that all allegations of racism, even by racists, have to be taken at face value.  Apart from the fact that the British in India and Africa considered they were the victims of Black racism (the 'Black peril') if you had any acquaintance with racism you would know that British fascists have long campaigned on 'Whites for Rights' arguing that White people are the real victims of racism. 
The Zionist movement has long attacked opponents as anti-Semitic.  It also has a long record of working with anti-Semites.  From William Evans Gordon MP, founder of the British Brothers League in this country to its fulsome welcome to Trump and his anti-Semitic entourage.  Unfortunately this included, as even Zionist historians like David Cesarani, Lucy Dawidowicz and Frances Nicosial concede, Nazi support for Zionism.  The examples are legion and if you say that even mentioning this is 'anti-Semitic' you are engaging in a form of political terrorism. 
You have today also carried an article by David Baddiel, 'Why Ken Livingstone has it so wrong over Hitler and Zionism'.  What it fails, as the Guardian has consistently failed to mention, is that Ha'avara, the trade agreement between the Nazis and the Zionist movement was made in order that the Jewish and International Boycott of Nazi Germany could be destroyed.  It was treachery to German Jews and allowed the stabilisation of the Hitler regime at its weakest point. 
Are you prepared to allow a reply by me of equal length or are you going to carry on your tradition of the past 18 months of refusing to carry any article or opinion piece criticial of the false anti-Semitism campaign?  A campaign motivated by the desire to remove the Corbyn leadership of the Labour Party.As someone who took the Guardian for 40 years it is sad to see the Guardian's fine traditions of journalism being destroyed as you campaign to destroy free speech on Israel and Palestine, which is the real reason for the current attacks.  There was a time when people like David Hirst wrote for the Guardian that the paper evinced real and genuine sympathy for the Palestinians, the real victims of Zionist accusations of anti-Semitism. 
The article 'McCarthyite Anti-Semitism Smears and Racism at the Guardian/Observer' on Alex Cockburn's old site, Counterpunch, substantiates the persistent and consistent bias of the Guardian/Observer.  
Many people on the Left now consider the Guardian & Observer, with Islamaphobic columnists like Nick Cohen, already beyond the pale.  Perhaps an organised boycott of a paper whose agenda today is little different to the Tory tabloids is the way ahead?
Tony Greenstein
Over the last few years, and as the corporate neoliberal project has started to unravel, the Guardian/Observer news stable has devoted a considerable amount of space to smears on re-emerging alternate sites of power, located in grassroots activism. An early example was former Labour Leader Ed Miliband’s McCarthyite ‘reds-under-the-beds’ attack on trade unionists in Falkirk, propped up by yet another New-Labour-type ‘dodgy dossier’ – the assertions of which were rejected by the police who “concluded there are insufficient grounds to support a criminal investigation at this time”.[1] This was followed by attacks against the Labour grassroots, including the Corbyn campaign group Momentum, associated Party societies, residents groups, co-operative supporters, trade unionists, and other affiliates getting subsidised membership rates – with the implication that Labour voting privileges should now be the exclusive preserve of the affluent Guardian-reading middle classes.[2]
Similarly, in the Guardian/Observer universe, peace activism of the ‘Stop the War’ movement type has been pejoratively labeled as ‘disreputable.’[3] Its editorial policy apparently presumes that Labour supporters should embrace a pro-imperialist, pro-war position or, as Labour’s social base frequently joke, a ‘Start-the-War’ movement – which is in stark contrast to the reality of the Party’s actual history and grassroots membership. For example historically, Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s Labour government kept the UK out of the Vietnam War, and some trade unions have continued to affiliate their members both to the official Party and to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Student activism of all types has also repeatedly been smeared in articles across both papers. Obviously if, for example, Black students are as successful as their grandparents in critiquing the Cecil Rhodes model of racist-imperialism, then the status of those elitist neoliberal politicians responsible for criminal debacles in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, becomes questionable, even untenable.[4]

Like many grassroots groups, students have increasingly turned their backs on the orthodoxy of neoliberal corporate media hegemony, which defines politics as a cozy deal between corporate lobbyists, bought professional politicians, their spin doctors and the journalists who regurgitate the resulting pre-packaged copy. Students in particular have been unwilling to accommodate, in their social spaces, speakers who have a hostile corporate-media-supported profile. The response by the Guardian/Observer has been to generate significant moral panics about free speech being under attack, in alleged student No-Platforming’ incidents. This is clearly an attempt to force the influence of an oppressive corporate media narrative into the social spaces that are rejecting it. It is a measure of how heavy-handed this campaign has been that feminists and fairly innocuous transgender activists have been amongst the victims caught in its crosshairs. A letter of complaint about this moral panic and its attacks on student political protest signed by hundreds of feminist supporters was published in the Observer.[5] After being smeared for allegedly ‘no platforming’ celebrity campaigner Peter Tatchell, transgender activists supported by more than a hundred signatories felt the need to sidestep Guardian/Observer hegemony by taking this specific aspect of their complaint to the pages of Pink News.[6] Perhaps this was because hypocritically, the Guardian/Observer’s own willingness to reciprocate by allowing fair equal representation on its pages is strictly limited?

II

Despite its ‘free-speech-under-attack’ smears, the Guardian/Observer practices its own racist form of ‘No-Platforming’ where – even in its ‘hard news’ sections – criticism of Israel particularly by Black and/or Muslim Britons is labeled as a form of bigotry often accompanied by demands that the ‘perpetrator’ be driven from public life. The most recent victims have been women of colour. Naz Shah, a Labour MP of Pakistani origin, has been headlined as anti-semitic after a two-year-old Facebook post of hers was found, which fancifully expressed a desire for Israel to be relocated to the US. That members of Black diasporas might yearn for a Middle East prior to white western imperialist intrusion, is hardly surprising. Israel is a society only recently invented by the genocidal colonial conquest of Europeans, Russians, White Americans and White South-Africans who were non-indigenous to the region, and some of whom who were obviously on their second attempt at segregationist white settler society exploitation.

Previously and inside the first week of her tenure, the National Union of Students first Black and Muslim woman president Malia Bouattia and critic of Zionism was similarly smeared. She has had the label anti-semitism put next to her name in a number of Guardian headlines and this process seems to be ongoing. So far neither she nor Naz Shah has been found to have expressed any pejorative views about Jews. Neither woman has expressed sympathies that even exceed that of the late Nobel Peace Prize winner Nelson Mandela who stated “If one has to refer to any of the parties as a terrorist state, one might refer to the Israeli government, because they are the people who are slaughtering defenseless and innocent Arabs in the occupied territories, and we don’t regard that as acceptable”[7] and “We identify with the PLO because, just like ourselves, they are fighting for the right of self determination.… Arafat is a comrade in arms.”[8] But both women have been smeared anyway.

III

These smears and contextual omissions are part of a broader conservative revisionist rebooting of the news-outlets’ worldview. Absent from the Guardian/Observer’s editorial practice of equating criticism of Israel with anti-semitism is any sense of the country’s dubious standing within the global human rights community. Israel is a society that another Noble Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu, has repeatedly compared to Apartheid South Africa.[9] UN Special Rapporteur John Dugard described it as “an apartheid regime … worse than the one that existed in South Africa.”[10] Kgalema Motlanthe, the Deputy President of South Africa and of the African National Congress described the Israeli occupation as creating conditions worse than “for Blacks under the Apartheid regime.”[11] In October 2012, Baleka Mbete Chairman of the ANC also used the words “far worse than apartheid South Africa”[12] Moshé Machover of Matzpen, the Israeli Socialist Organization has gone further, saying, “Apartheid can be reversed. Ethnic cleansing is immeasurably harder to reverse; at least not in the short or medium term.”[13] These findings have been supported by Jewish activists, academic intellectual Noam Chomsky, and investigative journalist Max Blumenthal.[14] In the current climate of corporate media McCarthyism, all these prominent voices could now expect to be smeared as anti-semites.

In the case of the two most recent female victims smeared, the fact that the neoliberal end of the corporate media expects that Black women should be somehow ‘compelled’ to identify with Israel – a country in whose non-tourist areas they’d be justifiably fearful of walking – raises a number of issues of racist editorial policy. First, there is obviously a practice of privileging a specific ethnic-religious ‘point-of-view’ within Guardian/Observer hard news coverage. Second, there is also a news management policy which deliberately either censors or dismantles reports of Israel’s ongoing racist policy offences into isolated single-incident examples with no relationship to previous historical and repeated ongoing transgressions. However, once you start to reintegrate the data available even from within the corporate media, then the exceptionalist nature of Guardian/Observer smears – even in the context of broader media’s pro-Israel ‘anti-semitism’ moral panics – and the racist enormity of what women-of-colour in particular, are expected to tolerate, becomes all too apparent. Israel is a society built upon genocidal white western expansionism. Even leaving aside the ‘ethnic cleansing’ horrors of the Palestinian experience, Israel’s victims are largely Black and Indigenous and – contrary to corporate media anti-semitism narratives – these involve processes whereby Jews also racially oppress other Jews.

Violence against Ethiopian Jews in Israel – including that committed by the police – is a fact of life. Even after a 2015 incident in which a white police officer shown on film assaulting an Ethiopian-Israeli soldier became international news, the culprit as usual escaped prosecution. The Guardian highlighted the race riots provoked by the incident but referred to the attack as a “scuffle” – even Murdoch/Fox-owned Sky News permitted the word ‘assaulted’ in their coverage – and the Guardian further failed to cover the subsequent scandal caused by the lack of judicial prosecution.[15] By contrast, the resulting particularly newsworthy protests were carried by the Jerusalem Post, ynetnews.com, the Times of Israel, and other news outlets.[16] Unsurprisingly, the report on racism in Israel presented to the UN by the researcher David Sheen and the resulting numerous postings of video footage of mob intimidation and violence against Africans in the country, was never allowed into the news-outlets’ coverage either.[17]

For many years donations of so-called ‘black blood’ by Ethiopian Jews have been dumped by Israel’s hospitals and Red Cross. In 1996 this provoked the race riots covered by the Independent newspaper, the New York Times and other news outlets.[18] In 2013 a protest by the country’s main Ethiopian-Jewish politician highlighted this practice and kept it in international public scrutiny – subsequently featuring in the Daily Beast, the Times of Israel, Haaretz, ynetnews.com and elsewhere.[19] Despite many years of controversy, the Guardian only finally touched the story – after international embarrassment forced Israeli President Shimon Peres into condemning the practice – when it then could be conveniently spun as rapprochement.[20] A comparison between western white settler society Israel and the multi-cultural UK demonstrates both the oddity of the Guardian’s years of absented coverage of this scandal, and the obvious scientific medical invalidity of ‘racial’ blood segregation. The British National Health Service, as a matter of policy, rejects such segregation.[21]
Further illustrating the plight of Africans in Israel, both The Jerusalem Post and Ynew.com conceded that Ethiopian Jews – who are disproportionately constrained to menial support jobs – were faced with neighbourhoods operating ‘whites only’ housing policies.[22] Again this was not integrated into Guardian/Observer’s overall ongoing coverage of Israel. Far more disturbingly, and echoing Nazi eugenics policies, Forbes, Haaretz and even the Guardian have all had to acknowledge that Ethiopians in Israel were subjected to regular forced injections of the long-acting contraceptive drug Depo-Provera – a policy of temporary sterilization – that deliberately plummeted Ethiopian-Israeli reproductive rates by at least 20%.[23] There is no evidence of any other western country which accepted Ethiopian refugees pursuing such a policy. One might hope that a story with such Nazi-like implications would feature on the front page of a so-called progressive newspaper, but in the Guardian it was largely buried on its inner pages. Imagine the front-page media storm if the ethnic identities of victim/perpetrator had been inverted.

To the brutal racism experienced by Ethiopians and Bedouins and obviously the Apartheid horrors of Palestinian life, we can also add the ugly discrimination experienced by indigenous Jews such as the Sephardi/Mizrahi. The complaints of these groups now feature on their own ethnic-themed websites and have even been explored on certain peripheral corporate media outlets such as Haaretz. The Huffington Post’s David Shasha also returns to this issue periodically. On different occasions he has complained of “the evisceration of the traditional Sephardic Jewish heritage,” and written “most Israelis saw them as culturally and intellectually ‘backward,’ like the Arabs in whose countries they once lived. The Israeli political system forced many Sephardim to live at the margins of society, where they often found themselves caught between the warring forces of religious extremism and imposed secularization.”[24] However, for all the performed outrage about anti-semtitism, you’ll struggle to hear about oppression of Indigenous Jews within the Guardian/Observer stable.
African-American and British-Caribbean Jews have also fallen foul of white-ethnic settler sensibilities. Israel offers citizenship to Jews from across the western world but for years has resisted allowing black converts to Judaism anything other than temporary visitors’ visas. In some cases, even these won’t be honoured. African-American Idit Malka intended to visit the country for a family event but instead found herself and her family detained at an Israeli airport for two days, and – she claims – racially insulted as a cushim (a racist Hebrew word for black people) before being deported.[25] The issue of black entry to Israel has had to be repeatedly contested on an individual case-by-case basis. In 2010 the Jewish Chronicle noted that the Caribbean Levy family from South London were denied ‘Aliyah,’ (immigration to Israel) “despite testimonials from British rabbis and intervention by Israeli lawyers on their behalf.”[26] Regardless of a recent successful campaign by the African-American Mosley family, which took very many years – and against the context of a long nurtured historic Israeli paranoia about the legitimacy of the so-called ‘Black Hebrew Community’ – it is yet unclear whether any precedent has been set, which will spare other Black families the same humiliation.[27]

Variants of this ethno-religious exclusive ideology permeate the highest levels of Israeli society. Recently Israel’s Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef – who thankfully has no official government policy status – stated that “non-Jews should not be allowed to live in Israel”. Given that prior to the recent invention of Israel, Indigenous Jews, Christians, Muslims and other groups lived with varying degrees of success alongside each other for hundreds of years in the Middle East, you can only wonder what frightening strategy he has in mind for achieving this demographic realignment. However, equally concerning is his prescriptive requirement of ethno-demographic ‘exceptions’, constrained within the boundaries of Israel but compelled to live by Jewish religious law, without whom he asks “who, otherwise, will be the servants?”[28] It’s hard to read this other than as desire to create a society where there is a class of masters and then a pre-selected subordinate ethno-religious caste doomed to do nought else but serve them. Certainly a Muslim religious leader making this statement would be rigorously condemned as an extremist, which may explain why coverage of this story was to be found – albeit without any form of critical interrogation – in the Independent, but was apparently absented from the Guardian/Observer. Significantly, even Israel Defence Force Deputy Chief Major-General Yair Golan felt compelled when commemorating Holocaust Memorial Day to state “If there is something that frightens me about the remembrance of the Holocaust it’s the recognition of the revolting processes that occurred in Europe in general, and in Germany in particular…and finding signs of them here among us, today, in 2016” (note: “revolting” could be “nauseating” depending on translation).[29] This story was covered by Haaretz, the international broadcasters Aljazeera, Deutsche Welle and many other news outlets but once again the Guardian only finally covered the story when the General was forced to backtrack after heavy criticism from Prime Minister Netanyahu – and then instead of being indicative of colonial racist intolerance, the controversy could again be spun benignly.[30]

At the level of inequality alone, and of the potential racist existential ethnic threat to those who could be mistaken for any member of the ethnic groups Israel oppresses – Ethiopian Jews, Indigenous Jews, or Palestinians – it is inexcusable that Naz Shah and Malia Bouattia should face efforts to somehow compel them to identify with Israel. As females, who could conceivably be mistaken for Palestinian women, they have other escalating issues of potential violence with which to contend. Racism in Israel also opens the door for repellent forms of gender violence. In 2014, Bar-Ilan University lecturer Mordechai Kedar publicly discussed the idea that the mothers and sisters of Palestinians who take up arms against Israel ‘could’ be raped. “The only thing that could deter a suicide bomber is knowing that if caught, his sister or his mother would be raped… the knowledge that if he pulls the trigger or blows himself up, his sister will be raped. That’s all. That’s the only thing that will bring him back home, in order to preserve his sister’s honor.” Kedar is not some peripheral figure to governmental authority but served for twenty-five years in IDF Military Intelligence. Subsequent press releases have attempted to downplay his comments, but the fact that rape is intimidating is so self-evident, that it is difficult to imagine that floating the idea was anything other than the most blatant incitement to sexual violence.[31]

Despite Mordechai Kedar’s high profile, his rape comments are omitted from the Guardian/Observer coverage. But his comments are far from an isolated form of articulation from within the dominant settler culture, having been supported by the frequently expressed public sentiment “go pound their mothers and come back to your own mother”[32] which according to Haaretz has also featured as a large banner in the town of Or Yehuda.[33] In global debate Palestinian critics and Israeli state apologists dispute whether this refers to sexual violence or gender violence but the latter explanation is no more excusable – though sadly it is an ongoing feature of the settler culture. In recent years members of the Israel Defence Force and its veterans have been caught wearing t-shirts featuring the image of pregnant Palestinian women in Israeli sniper gun-sights, logoed ‘one shot two kills’ (to glimpse this reality, enter ‘Palestinian Women Killed Checkpoints’ into your internet search-engine).   [34]

Despite all this material being available in the public domain, none of the Guardian/Observer’s coverage smearing Naz Shah and Malia Bouattia for their critical relationship to Israel points out that proximity to the country’s social spaces could pose a very real racist and misogynistic threat to their existence. It also says something about broader issues of racism, hypocrisy and Israel’s status as a site-of-power, that currently the British government, while issuing cautions to Britain’s LGBT community about the difficulties of travelling to North Carolina, broadcasts no such equivalent warning to Black Britons about the very real dangers of visiting Israel’s non-tourist areas.
IV

A significant factor in the generation of the Guardian’s ideological agenda is the lack of demarcation between its Hard News coverage, its favoured sites of power, and its own reporters who also frequently make up its public relations driven commentariat. For instance the notion of peace activism being ‘disreputable’originates with the right-wing Blairite MP Tristam Hunt who gets to situate his smear in the Guardian with the ease of placing a gratis classified ad, which of course in a way it is. But then sometimes a smear doesn’t have to be placed because reporters are either already ideologically onboard and/or adhering to a predetermined editorial agenda. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the context of the current ‘anti-semitism’ moral panics. Here, when reporting the smears against the NUS’s Malia Bouattia, Guardian contributor Hannah Weisfeld blatantly goes to bat for the Israel lobby. “Bouattia says she has a problem with ‘Zionist politics. Zionism, at its core, is the belief in the right of the state of Israel to exist. Whether Bouattia likes it or not, connection to Israel is a key part of Jewish identity for an overwhelming majority of Jews in 21st-century Britain. In nearly every synagogue around the world, on Shabbat and major festivals, Jews pray for the safety of the state of Israel.”[35]

What is really telling about this passage is not simply that this argumentative polemical construction is infecting a Hard News story, nor is it simply that religious fundamentalism is being used to justify white settler conquest in a manner that would be regarded as intolerable in the case of violent ‘gay men should be stoned to death’ homophobia. But by comparison, if any Black and/or Muslim Briton similarly tried to excuse violent conquest and ethnic cleansing by what went on in their place of worship, the police would arrest and prosecute, and it would be demanded that a government ‘Prevent’ team be quickly in attendance. Not for the first time, you simply you have to invert a Guardian narrative, for the racism and white privilege to stand revealed. Also absent from the Guardian’s coverage, as part of its pro-Israel historical revisionist rebooting, is the fact that the very western colonialist ideology that Weisfeld is being allowed to champion here was condemned by UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 which in 1975 “determine(d) that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”[36] (this Resolution from the era of black liberationist global culture, lasted until in 1991 US President George H.W. Bush strong-armed a new UN vote).[37]
This editorial positioning even infects the material selected for the Letters sections. Reference to the actual practices of ‘Apartheid’ and ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ in Israel – unless supported by mass signatories or a contributor with a very high media profile – is becoming less and less permissible, as is the citing of pre-conquest indigenous population levels of Palestine that therefore might indicate extermination or mass displacement.[38] Words like ‘white settler’ and ‘conquest’ are starting to become taboo in favour of ‘Jewish’ and ‘Israel being formed’ designed to invert the obvious indigenous victim vs foreign aggressor representational dynamic. In the aftermath of Muhammad Ali’s death Guardian letters permitted a couple of critical tributes. No reference to Ali’s historic outspoken criticism of Zionist white settler conquest was allowed, which might have risked normalising the positions of Naz Shah or Malia Bouattia. By contrast, when supporting a pro-Israel position it’s amazing just who and what gets published on the Guardian Letters page. In August 2015 the paper printed a letter from the recently released jailed expenses thief and disgraced former MP Denis McShane who, given that he was articulating a pro-Israel position accusing Iranians of “pervasive Jew-hate” and practicing an “anti-Jewish ideology,” was now apparently to be treated as a respectable commentator.[39] The blatant flaw in McShane’s smears is that there are Iranian Jews too. As news outlets as diverse as the BBC, The Independent, and Electronic Intifada point out, Iran has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East outside of Israel, numbering up to 20,000 and served by some 60 synagogues.[40] The irony is that once again, it is those invoking the smear of anti-semitism in defence of a settler culture who find it convenient to refuse to recognise the identity of indigenous Jews.

V

Black feminist academic bell hooks, in her books Talking Back (1988) and Black Looks (1992), refers to the practice, dating back to slavery, of creating a social taboo which prevents Black and Indigenous people from ‘talking back’ to challenge the authority of the dominant white group. Obviously this notion is relevant to the case of the two women caught in the Guardian’s oppressive anti-semitism moral panic. But it also appears to be a persistent tactic. After anti-semitism attacks on the historically anti-racist politician Ken Livingstone, the Black Labour MP Diane Abbott appeared on Sunday television condemning the pervasive smearing of ‘decent working-class Labour supporters’ as anti-semites. Unusually, almost every news outlet headlined the story neutrally by using her comments. The Guardian initially did the same running ‘Diane Abbott says claims of antisemitism within Labour are smear’ but within a matter of hours relabeled the link from its homepage to exactly the same story as ‘Calls for Corbyn to take tougher action after Abbott dismisses crisis as smears.’[41] This relabeling is editorialising, which manages to simultaneously imply that Abbott’s ‘talking back’ behaviour is questionable and elevate claims about anti-semitism into being a ‘crisis’ without offering any evidence of either.

This manipulative binary process of privileging a certain ethno-religious identity while suppressing legitimate black voices and grievances, becomes all the more apparent when applying any form of comparative sociological or statistical demographic analysis. Reports on racism and ethnic demographics presented by the academic, Dub poet and musician Benjamin Zephaniah on behalf of the Newham Monitor Group show that Black Britons are nearly 6 in every 100 people. By comparison we know that British Jews are 250,000 out of a population nudging 65 million – or only 1 in every 260 people, which means they are outnumbered by black Britons by a ratio of nearly 15 to 1. If we add in the number of people of Arab origin, the number of Black Britons is even higher. For convenience sake we could underestimate these numbers and call the ratio 16-1. Despite the demographic spread, the Guardian/Observer’s moral panic – as increasingly stimulated by its commentariat – exclusively focuses on the smaller, privileged middle-class, and quite obviously less oppressed white ethnic group, and constructs any criticism of white settler oppression as an offence against them.

Yet the Black experience of racism is far more significant. The Zephaniah/Newham Monitoring Group material cites multiple instances where police officers were caught on recording equipment racially abusing suspects to quote, “the problem with you is that you will always be a nigger,” telling a suspect they’ll “smash his Arab face in” and many more such incidents without any serious disciplinary action taken.[42] It’s also noted that “African-Caribbean and Asian people together make up 5.6% of the population but 16% of the prison population.” Similarly in further contrast to white middle-class Jewish life experiences, not only are Black Britons marginalised from continuing education, the better forms of employment, and housing, but they also experience very serious state and societal racist violence. In December 2015, during the period when the Guardian/Observer was concerned with the ‘alleged anti-semitism’ of the ‘talking back’ taboo-type, Black Briton Jermaine Baker was shot dead by police – his family claim – while sleeping in his car. Previously, the dubious circumstances of Black mixed-race Mark Duggan’s death at the hands of the police and subsequent media misrepresentation provoked race riots. While doing his supermarket shopping, Sikh dentist Dr Sarandev Bhambra suffered horrific injuries in an attempted beheading incident perpetrated by a racist shouting ‘white power,’ who had mistaken Dr Bhambra for a Muslim.[43] An 82-year-old Muslim, Muhammad Saleem Chaudhry was stabbed to death on his way home from Mosque in a racist attack.[44] His murderer also “planted three bombs near three mosques in the West Midlands.” Locals complained “If these had been placed by bearded Muslim men, Cobra [the government’s emergency committee] would have been enacted and the country’s media would have descended on us. Instead the media almost had to be pushed into coming along.”[45] There also has been an epidemic of attacks and abuse aimed at Muslim women, particularly those wearing the Niqab – even to the extent that a man boasted on twitter of abusing a Muslim woman after the Paris attacks.[46] Plus, two successful further arson attacks on Finsbury Park,[47] Bishopbriggs mosques.[48]
What is especially amazing is that if you wade through the last few years of the Guardian/Observer’s anti-semitism moral panics while asking where are the equivalent victims, you’ll find it’s extremely difficult to find one. This omission is particularly obvious when you examine the listed articles of the three journalists prominently foregrounding the theme of anti-semitism in their work on a repeated basis – the Observer’ Nick Cohen, the Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland, followed by the paper’s tamed house Labour Party supporter Owen Jones. Jones, despite significantly lesser output, has written articles at such strict regular intervals[49] that rather than a reaction to genuine events, the impression given is of a topic that is a type of statutory contractual requirement or of regular commissioned work. By comparison to the prioritisation given to the largely unsubstantiated theme of anti-semitism, if you search the back catalogue of articles of all three men, you’ll struggle to find mention of the killed Jermaine Baker, Mark Duggan, or Muhammad Saleem Chaudhry, maimed Dr Sarandev Bhambra or equivalent output on issues of Black equality. But you will find the words ‘Anti-semitism, the Left’ and ‘Labour Party’ and on occasion ‘Jeremy Corbyn’ hurled together in largely evidence- and incident-free narratives or in reference to criticism of Israel (obviously the real issue is, that the potential restoration of its traditional socialist anti-racist/anti-imperialist identity to the Labour Party, after the short period of entryist neoliberal service-to-power, is perceived as a threat to the powerful pro-colonialist Israel lobby). Cohen’s writing in particular has become so free of evidence and cited incident that he appears to have resorted to self-plagiarising melodramaticism, with critics observing that his sudden angry conversion noted in his Observer March 2016 article “Why I’m becoming a Jew and why you should, too” is strikingly similar in theme to his 2009 Jewish Chronicle article “Hatred is turning me into a Jew.”[50]

The absent equivalent commentary on black and Muslim experiences of racism does not appear to be an accident. The Middle-Eastern commentator Jonathan Cook observed that Jonathan Freedland and other white panelists addressed the issue of anti-semitism while appearing on the BBC political discussion show ‘Question Time’. When the issue of the effaced representation of Muslim victimisation was raised by pro-Palestinian MP George Galloway, Freedland and panelists had a pre-prepared sound-bite position about not wanting to get into an ‘arms race’ on oppression.[51] After the show Freedland was apparently still trying to obscure the inequality in the representational dynamic, writing “Jews and Muslims are not in competition over who is hated most: that’s not a competition anyone would want to win.”[52] However it’s not just that black and Muslim experiences of racism are being effaced from representation. Guardian contributor David Cronin has claimed “the Guardian has told me to steer clear of Palestine.”[53] Nafeez Ahmed has similarly claimed he was ‘censored’ and ultimately had his blog ‘discontinued’ for referring to Palestine.[54] Significantly, whenever anecdotes of this type are made public, the name of editorial writer Jonathan Freedland often features prominently – accused of being linked to this repression either as a direct participant or as the originator of managerial policy.

In total the Guardian/Observer’s anti-semitism moral panic coverage has almost entirely been an application of the racist ‘talking back’ taboo, mobilised against those critical of Israel.[55] A search of the Guardian/Observer’s website suggests that this coverage is now greater than that afforded terrorist Brixton bomber David Copeland, whose explosive devices targeted Caribbeans of South London, Gay men of Soho, and Asians of East London.

VI

Breaking the pattern of the Guardian’s recent attacks on politicised students, has been the uncritical prominence given to the claims of Oxford University pro-Israel student-activist Alex Chambers and his colleagues that “Labour have some sort of problem with Jews” – this because of criticism of Israel.[56] Similarly it’s unquestioningly taken at face value that an Oxford University pro-Israel student-activist campaign, threatening to leave the NUS after the election of Black Muslim woman President Malia Bouattia, has no racist dimension.[57] By comparison, in the case of Oxford’s Black students campaigning to remove the statue of Cecil Rhodes, the Guardian has permitted rigorous repeated criticism, even to the point of suggesting that notions of “racist…structural violence” were in fact questionable, and designed to shut down debate.[58] The Guardian has similarly given prominence to the complaints of New Labour Blairite pro-Israel peer Michael Levy “Lord Levy warns he could quit Labour over anti-Semitism.”[59] All of which is not evidence of equivalent oppression but of exceptional White Privilege. In these examples, you have a peer of the realm, white ethnic Jewish students who have been able to enter one of Britain’s most expensive and elitist institutions in such numbers as to be able to threaten to change its policies, plus white middle-class Israel-supporting journalists with lead columnist and editorial power such as Cohen and Freedland claiming they are victims. This is particularly interesting in Freedland’s case because in apparent violation of the norms of equal opportunity employment policies, his father Michael also gets occasional columnist work at the Guardian that could alternately be open to Black or working-class applicants. To these numbers we can also add writers such as Hadley Freeman and Hannah Weisfeld also indiscriminately invoking anti-semitism in support of Israel. Now ask, that for every student Israel supporter at Oxford University, every powerful pro-Israel Levy figure in the house Lords, Cohen at the Observer, and Freedland et al on the Guardian editorial writing desk and across the paper, where are the representative 16 Black Britons enjoying similar status? This is how disproportionate the privilege being mobilised is and how different it is from the black experience. Scandalously, rather than provoking embarrassment, simply identifying in this way the unrepresentative presence of the Israel lobby will routinely incur, in the British media, accusations of Jewish-conspiracy-type anti-semitism.

Given that anti-semitism does exist, this form of partisan and often misleading victim narrative coverage does grave ‘boy-who-cried-wolf’ disservice to genuine future victims. In March 2015 the Guardian reported an attack on a Stamford Hill synagogue stating “A group of men tried to break into a synagogue overnight in north London in an anti-semitic incident, police have said.”[60] Missing from this article is the statement of Rabbi Maurice Davis who, much to his great credit, told the Jewish Chronicle, “There was a party happening across the road. We think a Jewish boy at the party ran out and got into a fight with other party-goers on the street. He came into the shul and it got out of hand, that’s when the other people smashed the windows. We want people to know it wasn’t an anti-semitic incident. Tottenham is such a wonderful place to live we have tremendous social cohesion here, and everybody gets on and we haven’t had any experience of antisemitism. We have had support from our local mosque, our local churches.”[61] Rabbi Davis was similarly quoted by the BBC, the Daily Telegraph, the Evening Standard but his statements never made it into the Guardian, nor were used to update the existing story.[62]

The fact that this McCarthyite moral panic came to a peak just before British local elections has caused a number of commentators to argue that this was a coup d’état attempt designed to wrest control of the Labour Party from its social base and their democratically elected leader Jeremy Corbyn. This is certainly consistent with the Guardian’s ongoing attacks on grassroots social movements. The Huffington Post and even the Telegraph have reports of this being an attempt to bring down Corbyn, but adversarial critics could argue that these originate from within the Corbyn camp.[63] However the Financial Times previously predicted a summer coup attempt, without similar tame reliance on any of Corbyn’s inner circle but calling on largely rightwing neoliberal sources.[64] Jewish academic and Holocaust scholar Norman Finkelstein agreed, citing the natural relationship between neoliberals who pursue racist-imperialist ‘wars-for-oil’ and advocates of racist-colonialist white settler conquest: “You can see this overlap between the Labour Right and pro-Israel groups personified in individuals like Jonathan Freedland, a Blairite hack who also regularly plays the antisemitism card. He’s combined these two hobbies to attack Corbyn.”[65]

Like a lot of the corporate media, the Guardian’s pro-Israel agenda and overt prioritising of an anti-semitism moral panic hit a peak around the time of world condemnation of Israel’s 2014 bombing of Gaza’s children and was clearly designed to overwrite this critical reaction. However once again, the Guardian went further than many other news-outlets, publishing the notorious ‘Blood Libel’ advert alleging Palestinians were using children as human shields – an advert that even Rupert Murdoch’s Times refused to run.[66] The Blairite neoliberal capture of the paper goes back considerably further. So jarring was the sudden wrenching move to the right and the consequential dumbing-down, that in the late 90s staffers dubbing themselves the ‘Farringdon Therapy Group’ (after the paper’s London publishing site) advertised in the London Review of Books for submissions of critical commentaries on the process, intended to be published in a book called Reading the Guardian– which subsequently failed to materialise on its 2000 Verso publication date, prompting accusations of suppression.[67]
Over the years the Guardian/Observer has provided unfailing and manipulative support for this neoliberal capture of the Labour Party, frequently marketing the ending of free education, welfare cuts and workplace casualisation as ‘achievements.’ Whatever isolated incidents of progressive coverage the paper featured were largely an institutional hangover from the Guardian’s establishment-questioning past and – as exampled in the Snowden revelations – were prioritised at historical moments which did not inconvenience the paper’s favoured New Labour ruling elite. A similar strategic application of editorial policy ensures that scoops/coverage arising from its previous progressive value system and which reflect negatively on Israel’s offences – such as Israel providing the armament technology that Apartheid South Africa used to oppress its indigenous people[68]– are now never referred to.

Both the Guardian and Observer were also pro-war. There are reports of the Observer inverting its 3-2 anti-Iraq-war postbag to make support for imperialist western conquest seem more normal.[69] Even now, the papers present Tony Blair and other ‘senior’ (?) politicians, who have shared cabinet responsibility and complicity for torture – not to mention the killing of civilians – as credible and acceptable voices in political debate.

When it’s not saying ‘the left has a problem with Jews,’ the news stable is similarly asserting that ‘the left has a problem with women.’ This despite the fact, that the most recent sexist incidents involved neoliberals. New Labour neoliberal knight Richard Leese spent 20 hours in cell after assaulting his 16-year-old stepdaughter.[70] MP Simon Danczuk was found to have sent sex-texts to a teenage job applicant and was recently “put in a Spanish jail cell after an alleged holiday row with his estranged wife led to her being taken to hospital.”[71] In a historical context these claims make even less sense. On the left there has always been a revolving door between feminists, anti-racists and worker-activists. And the left has no ideology without the contribution of Jewish Marxists and sociologists.

VII

These smears are really indicative of the incestuous relationship between the minority entryist neoliberal right of the Parliamentary Labour Party and the Guardian/Observer. In the New Labour era there was a marketing practice of constructing a centralised narrative at central office, then asking party officials or activists – who don’t declare their institutional status – to front this regurgitated material to news outlets, their letter pages and public opinion events. This is a process that the Guardian/Observer has been happy to accommodate. By comparison, previous coordinated efforts by New Labour officials marketing Tony Blair as a popular ‘political celebrity’ in BBC’s Radio4’s 1996 ‘Personality of the Year’ contest were caught by the corporation and resulted in 4000 ballots being disqualified – for ‘multiple voting’.[72]

This practice was more recently evident in the 2015 local and general election campaigns. For example, in February 2015 the Observer’s letters page featured a correspondent named Peter Atkinson stridently complaining about declining public services under his local Green Party council.[73] The giveaway, suggestive of an institutional narrative or press release, is that Mr Atkinson was regurgitating a description of the ‘Winter of Discontent’ – a historical media critique successfully aimed at the 1974-79 Labour government. This contribution exhibits the signs of being written by someone who is aware that the Guardian/Observer policy is to often replicate the ‘Loony-Left’ attack on grassroots movements that brought Margaret Thatcher to power and that kept her there. A casual search reveals that a Peter Atkinson was the Labour Party’s candidate in the local council elections.[74] This accommodating institutional interaction seems like a comparatively minor example, but what happens when this process is used to over-write genuine calls for grassroots democratic accountability?

Objections to the neoliberal capture of the Labour Party crystallised around iconic issues of class and representation – occasionally known as the ‘Toff-Labour’ phenomenon or the problem of nepotism. Former head of the Labour Party Ed Miliband was the son of one Britain’s most prestigious academics. He served in cabinet with his brother David, and husband and wife team Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper. Prominent positions in the Party were also eventually found for Stephen Kinnock son of former leader Neil Kinnock, Will Straw son of former cabinet minister Jack Straw, and the children of former ministers John Prescott, Harriet Harman and Jack Dromney. Stephen Kinnock had been parachuted into a constituency as its candidate for MP, despite the fact he been embroiled in a tax avoidance scandal in Denmark – where he and his wife, the Danish Prime Minister, had given the national tax office conflicting information on his residency status, thereby avoiding tax while simultaneously allowing him to be eligible to buy property in the country.[75] Will Straw was forced into the Rossendale and Darwen constituency as its candidate. He subsequently lost amidst rumours that local activists wouldn’t campaign for an outsider. Ed Miliband’s problems of downplaying his social advantages were compounded by issues raised by his public appearances. He seemed unable to function in a working-class café situation, unable to talk credibly to a homeless man, and Miliband’s house – with its two kitchens – invoked notions of Upstairs, Downstairs/Downton Abbey-like privilege.

Labour officials trying to combat this understandably negative impression were allowed to present their press releases once again incognito on the Guardian letters page. In February 2015, apparent ordinary citizen contributor Tim Daniel attacked Green Party Leader Nathalie Bennet and congratulated Miliband on his housing policy.[76] However a cursory search revealed that a Tim Daniel was listed as Labour candidate for Wincanton & Bruton and Vice-chair of his local Party.[77] Similarly Ian Flintoff wrote, “Ed Miliband is the best possible leader for the Labour party and will also be the best prime minister…I have never met him and have no incentive to write this other than my deep and honest care for the people of Britain.”[78] Ian Flintoff states that he has ‘no incentive to write’ but a casual internet search reveals he was Labour Party parliamentary candidate in Plymouth Devonport, a Councillor in Kensington & Chelsea, and is active in the Oxford Labour Party.[79] Again institutional allegiance is allowed to be undeclared. Michael Hudson’s letter contribution is the most worrying and the most familiar. “I’m disappointed you used the picture of Ed Miliband eating a bacon roll…It seems to me the reason is the antisemitic subliminal message: Ed Miliband is a Jew; he chokes on bacon.” However, if you google contributor “Michael Hudson Chairman of Sleaford and North Hykeham Labour Party” you’ll get at least 7 references to Mr Hudson’s local Labour Party chairmanship dating from at least 2009 onwards.[80]

Clearly this anti-semitism narrative placed by Mr Hudson – if in fact he is the originator of it – attempts to manage the bad publicity that Miliband’s awkward café appearance generated. To work effectively, it demands acceptance of the assumption that the entire British public are aware of Miliband’s ethno-religious background. In fact such is the distaste for elitist political corruption in Britain and the resulting voter disengagement, that three years after Ed Miliband became Labour Leader a Yougov poll demonstrated that nearly a quarter of the electorate still couldn’t recognise him.[81] If the reading of the data made by the right-wing Daily Mail was to be believed, some people were actually confusing him with a character from Sesame Street.[82] It seems unlikely therefore that large numbers of people were seeking out information on his religious heritage. Particularly, as juxtaposed against Black Britons, Miliband passes as simply white, privileged and middle-class. Also attempts aimed at the more politically aware voter, to establish a victim narrative for Miliband, can only succeed by separating him from the rest of the Toff-Labour phenomenon of class privilege Sadly on the Guardian letters pages it is now not unusual for the Miliband anti-semitism narrative to be conveniently repeated as a form of orthodoxy.[83] Obviously this constructed placement comfortably supports the ongoing elitist anti-semitism moral panic. The only McCarthyite-type smear that did feature the then Labour Leader was aimed at his late father Ralph Miliband who due to his background as a prominent Marxist academic the Daily Mail headlined as ‘The Man Who Hated Britain.’[84] Ironically, were it not for the fact that son Ed Miliband was a neoliberal, it’s entirely likely that the Guardian/Observer stable would have joined in with its own ‘why do the left have a problem with patriotism?’ narrative.

VIII

Overall this campaign has not been without economic territorial cost. Just as previous undemocratic neoliberal entryism cost the Labour Party millions of votes and two thirds of its peak membership, it appears the Guardian/Observer’s ideological war on its own natural readership base has been similarly damaging. Currently the Guardian is soliciting donations from its readers to prop up its ailing sales coffers. In 2015 the paper admitted to readership purchasing falling by 9.5%.[85] Its web-traffic readership has also declined.[86] The Observer has had comparable losses.[87] In 2016 the Guardian Media Group announced losses of £173 million.[88] If these figures are representative of a long-term decline – or of readers’ unconscious or even deliberate boycott – who could argue with the socio-economic logic or justice of it? Apparently, rather than perform a rudimentary representative function to their base demographics, neoliberals both within the Labour Party and at the Guardian/Observer, are prepared to risk killing off the institutions upon which they feed, in the pursuit of their own elitist ideology.

This has resulted in day-to-day practices that are politically and ideologically brutal. The Guardian/Observer stable as represented by Cohen, Freedland, Jones, Wiesfeld, Freeman and many others, is practicing a particularly pernicious multi-layered form of racism. White settler Apartheid and Ethnic Cleansing is being championed. Black and Indigenous voices are being smeared for ‘talking back’ to power on the issue. Black grievances and experiences of racism are being both effaced from representation and stolen by a white middle-class elite who invoke the genuine suffering and marginalisation of others in order to defend the undefendable. These offences are being committed by those who are content to risk the viability of future complainants of anti-semitism being reduced to the status of simple partisan political ploys, by their ‘boy-who-cried-wolf’ practices. These abusive practices are being indiscriminately fielded because they also tie into larger strategic Blairite drives for power. Not for the first time and particularly in the neoliberal media, the worst racism is practiced by those careerists who hide in plain sight, masked in respectable office apparel, and polite middle-class mannerisms.

Postscript

Like other historical victims of McCarthyism before her, Naz Shah MP subsequently found it necessary and in her self-interest to ‘recant’ – in her case specifically on her previous posting about Israel. This allowed her to keep her career position on the powerful Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee. However, some months after the events reported in this article and just when it appeared that the high point of the anti-semitism moral panic was over, yet another woman of colour was smeared for her leftism and questioning of Zionism. This happened across the broader media but with the Guardian prominently involved.

In the tradition of ‘Black Lives Matter’ activism, Jewish-Jamaican Jackie Walker, Vice-Chair of the pressure group Momentum, pointed out that Jewish entrepreneurs had been “financiers of the sugar and slave trade” and “the African holocaust”.[89] She then followed this up by asking that black victims of genocide be also included in Holocaust Day as she put it “In terms of Holocaust day, wouldn’t it be wonderful if Holocaust day was open to all people who experienced holocaust?”[90] Sadly, given that Nazi crimes against humanity are frequently used to justify the Zionist conquest of Palestine – this despite the fact that territorialist efforts on behalf of the Zionist project precede the Nazi period – attempts at raising the previous historical horrors of the western colonialist tradition and any challenge to the claimed right of exclusivity of victimhood, are routinely and intensely contested by the pro-Israel lobby. As consequence, as in previous cases, Ms Walker faced calls for her sacking, and was resoundingly condemned by a powerful vocal minority that the Guardian once again privileged in its reporting (see notes 88 and 89). In order to do this there were significant omissions in the news stable’s coverage. The issue of Jews and their participation in the slave trade is mentioned in Jewish histories prominently enough to often make it onto news-sites but excluded from Guardian reportage. For example, to publicise his book The Jewish Slave, Rabbi Lody van de Kamp gave an interview with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, describing Jewish owned slave plantations in Dutch Guyana, “At one point, Jews controlled about 17 percent of the Caribbean trade in Dutch colonies”.[91] Similarly, Rabbi Dr Marc Lee Raphael’s 1983 book Jews and Judaism in the United States: A Documentary Historyis frequently cited on this topic and features on numerous websites. It confirms Jewish participation in the Dutch slave trade, and observes that “in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated.”[92] None of these very prominent sources featured as a balance in the Guardian’s condemnatory reporting of Jackie Walker’s comments.

But what was far more worrying, was that in the Guardian’s service-to-power it was actually willing to let the issue of comparable colonial genocide be viewed as again questionable, despite the weight of historical evidence available. Adam Hothschild (King Leopold’s Ghost, 1998) describes the death toll from European colonialism in just a single African country – the Belgian Congo – as 10 million, while Caroline Elkins (Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya, 2005) describes Britain’s use of mass torture in colonial Kenya. The British suppression of India’s uprisings of the 1850s is described by historian Amaresh Misra (War of Civilizations: India AD 1857, 2007) as “an untold holocaust” which caused the deaths of almost 10 million people over 10 years. And this is not even the entire history of the British Raj. David Stannard (American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World, 1994) calculates 100 million indigenous deaths in the conquest of the Americas.  While figures of ‘60 million and more’ have long been culturally accepted as the numbers of victims of the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade – featuring in Toni Morrison’s Pulitzer Prize winning novel ‘Beloved’ (1987) and cited by Paul Robeson in his 1956 testimony to HUAC.

What is significant is that a number of these sources had originally featured in hangover coverage from the Guardian’s previous progressive incarnation, either in its columns or on its literary review pages.[93] So this almost ‘black holocaust denial’ practiced in the reporting of Jackie Walker’s case cannot be written off as simply base incompetence. Clearly the ‘new’ Guardian embraces a ‘black lives DO NOT matter’ policy. As a consequence of the media frenzy, Jackie Walker subsequently lost her position.

Footnotes
[6]http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/02/22/academics-and-activists-condemn-bully-peter-tatchell-in-open-letter/
[8] 1990 Town Meeting City College New York, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5TiUhhm7cQ
[11] Delegation of Arab Political Leaders and Adalah Representatives in South Africa Meet with Lawyers from the Legal Resources Center, Ministers and Government Officials to Discuss Constitution Building and Human Rights, Adalah, 9 June 2008
[12] Mbete’s support for boycott of Israel noted (The Citizen, 29 October 2012)
[13]https://web.archive.org/web/20081212200155/http://www.jewsforajustpeace.com:80/pages/opinion/machover_01.html
[14]http://www.mintpressnews.com/noam-chomsky-israeli-apartheid-much-worse-than-south-africa/208936/; http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/02/inside-israels-apartheid-state/
[17]http://www.davidsheen.com/racism/ Sheen’s video clips not only demonstrate intimidation and violence against black people, but a repeated trend of sexual threats directed against any white feminist woman who has the nerve to be anti-racist. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7dkF5UVx7Y, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOomBSTTzrU, and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKIiDeKRGQU. This recurring threat to black Israelis, Palestinian women, and white feminists is frequently referred to – even by right-wing deniers – as ‘Israel’s rape culture’. http://www.jpost.com/Blogs/The-Warped-Mirror/David-Sheen-knows-what-it-takes-to-demonize-Israel-379522
[21]https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/news-and-campaigns/news/call-for-black-blood-and-organ-donors-to-be-there-for-their-community/
[25]http://mondoweiss.net/2015/07/detains-american-because/ Israel detains and deports American Jews because they are black
[38]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/16/peace-not-promoted-israel-boycott Here in Guardian letters Stephen Malnik boasts about permitting injured Palestinians into his medical centre in the town of Ashkelon which as Mr Malnik admits now contains “lots of Jews” and is subject to occasional rocket attack. No one is permitted to point out, in rebuttal, that prior to al-Naqbar, 11,000 Arabs lived in this town before being dispossessed by the violence of western colonists. http://www.alternativeinsight.com/Ashkelon_Speaks.htm See also ‘1948 and After: Israel and the Palestinians’. Benny Morris (1990/1994)
[49] Jones’s previous media work had included mention of the plight of the Palestinians. Then, after sustained pressure and harsh criticism from the Israel lobby, this suddenly changed. Instead, in the month following the bombing of Gaza, Jones’s column gave a priority to unspecified accusations of anti-semitism. This obviously functioned to overwrite the outrage caused by the Gaza civilian death-toll. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/11/anti-jewish-hatred-rising-antisemitism-meaning A year later, when there was a risk of commemoration of the Palestinian victims, Jones again instead wrote about alleged anti-semitism. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/26/antisemitism-left-racism-israel
[55] Jonathan Cook argues that Freedland’s anti-semitism statistics “were compiled by the Community Security Trust, a Zionist organisation that has a record of dubious political activity…the great majority were classified as ‘harassment’, a broad category that could include remarks against Israel.” http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2015-02-09/guardian-editors-hypocrisy-on-anti-semitism/
[65]https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jamie-stern-weiner-norman-finkelstein/american-jewish-scholar-behind-labour-s-antisemitism-scanda Finkelstein goes on to cite his own experience of being smeared by Freedland “Incidentally, when my book, The Holocaust Industry, came out in 2000, Freedland wrote that I was ‘closer to the people who created the Holocaust than to those who suffered in it’. Although he appears to be, oh, so politically correct now, he didn’t find it inappropriate to suggest that I resembled the Nazis who gassed my family. We appeared on a television program together. Before the program, he approached me to shake my hand. When I refused, he reacted in stunned silence. Why wouldn’t I shake his hand? He couldn’t comprehend it. It tells you something about these dull-witted creeps. The smears, the slanders – for them, it’s all in a day’s work.”
[68] Former Ambassador for Israel Alon Liel stated “We created the South African arms industry… When we were developing things together we usually gave the know-how and they gave the money… there was a love affair between the security establishments of the two countries and their armies.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/07/southafrica.israel
[69] Socialist historian Keith Flett wrote to the New Statesman at the time with information that the Observer had been inverting its anti-war postbag, http://www.newstatesman.com/node/157085
[71] http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/mp-simon-danczuk-arrested-after-estranged-wife-karen-taken-to-hospital-in-spain-a3321301.html; http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/31/labour-mp-simon-danczuk-suspended-over-explicit-text-message-allegations
[80]https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=o-KTVveUOYjW8Afg2bPIBw&gws_rd=ssl#q=Michael+Hudson+Chairman+of+Chairman%2C+Sleaford+and+North+Hykeham+Labour+Party%22+
[92]Jews and Judaism in the United States: A Documentary History (New York: Behrman House, 1983), 14, 23-25. cited on http://www.rense.com/general69/invo.htm
[93] See for example the work of ‘old Guardian’ columnist George Monbiot (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jan/11/mawkish-maybe-avatar-profound-important; https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities) and the review of Toni Morrison’s ‘Beloved’ referring to the ‘sixty million and more’ victims of slavery, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2006/jul/08/fiction.tonimorrison

DEFEND KEN LIVINGSTONE – DEFEND CORBYN - SIGN THE LETTER BELOW

$
0
0

Oppose the Attempts of Progress and the Zionists to Expel Ken Livingstone & Destroy Labour Party Democracy

Those who support Livingstone’s expulsion today are paving the way for Corbyn’s removal tomorrow
The Guardian is virtually running the campaign to expel Livingstone as it provides free publicity and editorials and opinion pieces - all of them anti-Livingstone
Today's Progress and Zionist letter in the Guardian

Today’s Guardian has a letter from the Jewish Labour Movement with over a thousand signatures.  Many of them are not Jewish and a large percentage of them are, by their own admission not supporters of the Labour Party, e.g. Cllr. Inkpin-Leissner, who resigned from the Labour Party in Brighton to sit as an Independent in the Council.  [see Far-Right Brighton Labour Councillor resigns from Labour Party citing 'anti-Semitism' as his excuse]

The call to expel Livingstone is the precursor to the removal of Corbyn

This letter is a roll call of the Right in the Labour Party.  There are no figures on the Left openly supporting it but behind the scenes Momentum’s Jon Lansman is doing its best to undermine support for Livingstone.  The Alliance for Workers Liberty openly support Livingstone’s expulsion too!

Livingstone's principled support for the Palestinians is his real offence

Jeremy Corbyn in supporting action against Corbyn is oblivious to the consequences for himself.  It is up to us to oppose the removal of Livingstone for three reasons:

i.               Democracy and free speech in the Labour Party around Israel and Palestine must be defended against the racist supporters of Apartheid.

ii.             Nothing Livingstone said was remotely anti-Semitic but he is an opponent of Israel, a state which demolishes Arab villages to put Jewish towns in their place. 

iii.           The removal of Livingstone will pave the way for the removal of Jeremy Corbyn.

Owen Jones and co. support Livingstone's removal as the first step to being rid of Corbyn

All the Brighton signatories I can see are not Jewish but are supporters of Progress, including Councillor Julie Cattell, who allowed a BNP supporting member of the Labour Party, Harris Fitch, to register her address for the purpose of Labour Party membership.  Also on the signatory list is the leader of Brighton and Hove Council, Warren Morgan, a non-Jewish Progress and Jewish Labour Movement member.

The Guardian heading ‘Jewish Labour says Livingstone must go’is extremely misleading.  It is Zionist Labour and Progress/Labour First who are calling for Livingstone’s removal. Most Jewish Labour Party members are not calling for the expulsion of Livingstone because they are socialists not racist Zionists.

We have therefore drawn up a letter which we asking Labour Party members and supporters, Jewish and non-Jewish, who support Ken Livingstone to sign.  If you agree with it, please send your name and CLP to:tonygreenstein104@gmail.com

Letter to the National Press - Please sign

As Jewish and non-Jewish members and supporters of the Labour Party, we reject the call from supporters of Zionism and the Labour Right for the expulsion of Ken Livingstone. [Jewish Labour members say Livingstone must go, April 6th] 
Those who call for a new disciplinary hearing simply because they didn’t like the conclusions of the previous one, demonstrate their contempt for democracy and due process. 
A year ago Livingstone, responding to a question from Vanessa Feltz on BBC Radio London, said: ‘Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism.’ 
There is nothing whatsoever anti-Semitic about this.  Francis Nicosia, the Raul Hilberg Professor of Holocaust Studies at Vermont University wrote in his book Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany (p. 79) that: 
‘Throughout the 1930’s, as part of the regime’s determination to force Jews to leave Germany, there was almost unanimous support in German government and Nazi party circles for promoting Zionism among German Jews’   Is telling the truth also anti-Semitic?
As Donald Trump and his supporters demonstrate, support for Zionism can go hand in hand with anti-Semitism.  
What the campaign against Livingstone is really about is his long-standing support for the Palestinians and his opposition to Zionism and the policies of the Israeli state.  
Those who help to throw Livingstone overboard today are preparing the way for Jeremy Corbyn’s removal tomorrow. 
Yours faithfully,

If you agree please send your name and CLP (if you have one) to tonygreenstein104@gmail.com

Guardian Prints Letter in Response to God Awful Leader

$
0
0

In its eagerness to vilify Livingstone, the Guardian Abandons Free Speech


The Guardian really surpassed itself in an outrageous editorial The Guardian view on Labour and Ken Livingstone: wrong decision, terrible message.  



 The editorial could have written by Benjamin Netanyahu.  It spoke about 'the idea that an accusation of antisemitism is a weapon deployed by Jews (usually for decorum’s sake recast as “Zionists”) for nefarious purposes.' 

In other words Jews and Zionists are one and the same - which is an anti-Semitic trope that the Zionists (& fascists) regularly employ.  Anti-Semitic because the logic of saying this is that all Jews are culpable for the barbarities of Israel.  All Jews are supporters of Israel.

The idiot who wrote this editorial also believes that if someone claims they are the victims of racism, then they must be believed:  they wrote that:

'In modern times it is not Labour’s normal practice to belittle the views of those who say they have been victims of racial prejudice, to query their motives and to reject the premises of their complaint'.

I suspect anti-Zionists Jews who are the victims of anti-Semitism, usually at the hands of Zionists, won't be believed.  It means that when the National Front in their Rights for Whites campaign say that White people in Britain are the real victims of racism we must believe them.

Freedland has also said that as 93% of Jews in Britain identify with Israel (which is incorrect) then it is anti-Semitic to oppose Israel.  It is like saying that if some African people say that Female Genital Mutilation is part of their cultural heritage we must not oppose it for fear of racism.  Or if some Muslims claim that the Chadoor/Niqab is part of their religious heritage it would be racist to criticise this oppressive garb?

It is the type of idiocy that Jonathan Freedland has been pushing at the Guardian.  Jewish identity is centred around Israel, ipso facto it is racist to question it.  And if there had been a substantial body of White people who were ethnically linked to South Africa then it would have been equally racist to have called out Apartheid in days gone by.

It is this illiterate ruling class 'anti-racism' which is the justification for real racism.  Of course claims of racism should be closely examined for fraud and impostors.  Jews who support Israel are wrong.  Often they are racists and bigots and the past history of the Holocaust is no excuse.  On the contrary, Jews of all people should have learnt from the holocaust that all racism is wrong.

Freedland has learnt nothing.  At least the Guardian printed my letter uncut.

Tony Greenstein



Why Zionist Feminism is an Oxymoron

$
0
0
Zionism is inherently patriarchal
Below are two excellent posts from Richard Silverstein on the attacks by Zionist feminists and Emily Shire in particular on Rasmea Odeh, a Palestinian woman who was tortured, raped and otherwise abused by Israeli security forces for being a ‘terrorist’.  Richard shows how Zionist feminism operates within its own intersectionality.  Loyalty to kith and kin, the colonial definition of what it means to be Jewish trumps any loyalty to Palestinian women.

Of course feminism has often been the route by which many Jewish women came to an anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian stance.  But others, usually from the radical feminist wing, see their loyalty to the western imperial consensus, of which Israel is an integral part, as being more important than to any abstract notion of women’s unity.

Part of the problem lies with the whole concept of feminism, the idea of a solid women’s block against patriarchy or men.  It ignores that women too are divided by class or race.  That for most women in Israel, feminist demands mean in practice the demand for equality as an oppressor.  We can see this in the demand that women be allowed to serve in front-line units.
In western society feminism often means an identification with the oppressor rather than the oppressed and often the seeing of underdeveloped societies as being inherently patriarchal.  One can see this racist feminism as being represented by far-right movements such as Gert Wilders in The Netherlands or Marine Le Pen in France.

In Britain this Zionist feminist current came out into the open in the wake of Israel’s attack on Lebanon in 1982 when 20,000 people were killed and 70,000 were injured.  It resulted in a major split in the magazine of the feminist movement Spare Rib when one of the collective Linda Bellos resigned claiming that her sense of Jewishness (although she was also Black) was offended by an article supporting Palestinian women.  Before long there was a massive split in the editorial collective between women of colour and the one Irish woman and the white women.

It was in this atmosphere that Outwritea paper of Women of Colour was formed which was explicitly anti-racist and anti-imperialist unlike the rather comfortable, middle class feminism of the all-white Spare Rib.

In the United States the Zionist feminist wing has been particularly strong.  It is well represented by people like Emily Shire, who has articulated her politics in a recent op-Ed in the New York Times Does Feminism Have Room for Zionists?  This article deserves attention because it displays, in all its sickening hypocrisy the position of Zionist feminism, which in some ways, is similar to a Zionist socialism which was built on the exclusion of Arabs from their ‘socialist kibbutzim’.

Shire writes that she is:

troubled by the portion of the International Women’s Strike platform that calls for a “decolonization of Palestine” as part of “the beating heart of this new feminist movement.” The platform also states: “We want to dismantle all walls, from prison walls to border walls, from Mexico to Palestine.”

It says a lot for this racist that the idea of dismantling the Apartheid Wall which confiscates Palestinian land behind the rubric of ‘security’ and which creates ghettos such as Bethlehem, disturbs her.  Perhaps she might recollect one or two Jewish ghettos in the Europe of the past.  Or maybe it is the decolonisation bit which disturbs her.  The idea of no longer demolishing Arab villages or confiscating their land or just attacking peaceful farmers or fishermen which worries her?

Shire launches an attack on Rasmea Yousef Odeh. She writes that Ms. Odeh, an immigrants’ and women’s rights activist, ‘was convicted for her involvement in a 1969 bombing of a Jerusalem supermarket that killed two Hebrew University students and an attempted bombing of the British consulate.’  Perhaps she was, but the context is one of occupation and Ms Shire is a supporter of Israeli colonisation by her own admission.  What Ms Odeh was convicted of, in a colonial court, was an act of resistance.

Rasmea Odeh in 2015. Credit Paul Sancya/Associated Press
Shire acknowledges that ‘the fairness of Ms. Odeh’s conviction is debated, the fact that she was a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which was categorized as a terrorist organization by the State Department, is not. The Anti-Defamation Leaguereferred to Ms. Odeh as a terrorist and raised concern that in recent years, “activism has been a tool for the legitimization of Rasmea Odeh, despite her criminal record in Israel.”

And here you see, in all its naked glory, the ‘feminism’ of Shire.  He accepts the right of the State Department to label someone as a ‘terrorist’ without question.  The fact that anyone opposing the US invasion of Iraq was labelled a terrorist doesn’t seem to disturb this little ‘feminist’ Zionist.  As for being a member of the PFLP, it is a Marxist group in Palestine and should be the object of support by socialists in this country and the USA, but this little racist prefers to rely on the ADL and the State Department.

Of course it is not only Shire.  Other white privileged American Jewesses, unless they are able to break out from their conditioning, exhibit the same political manifestations under the label of Zionist feminism.  Another such is Phoebe Maltz Bovy writing in the Forward.  Her articleZionist Feminist: Not An Oxymoron is another protest at the idea that the liberation of women can be achieved by trampling over the rights of Palestinian women.

Bovy writes about what she perceives as ‘an intersectional obstacle to feminist activism’.  In other words, she wants to fight for her own liberation by ignoring the oppression of others.  Which is Zionist Feminism summed up in a nutshell.

Tony Greenstein


Rasmea Odeh participates in Detroit Black Lives Matter rally
Yesterday, I wrote a critiqueof Emily Shire’s diatribe against the Women’s Strike Day USA protest.  She especially singled out platform statementssupporting Palestinian rights.  Shire, a professed Zionist feminist, dismissed the criticisms of Israeli Occupation contained in the event platform as irrelevant to the issue of women’s rights.  Then she launched into an attack on one of the conveners of the Strike Day, Rasmea Odeh.  Shire alleges that Odeh is a convicted terrorist and former member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a U.S. designated terror group.

A comment Deir Yassin published yesterday here got me to thinking further about this issue.  I researched Rasmea’s case and the torture she endured.  My view is this is precisely the sort of case and individual any women’s movement shouldembrace.  Here is a summary of the facts of the case.   In 1969, a cell of the PFLP planted bombs at a Jerusalem Super-Sol.  They exploded, killing two Hebrew University students.

Demonstration by B’Tselem of forms of Shabak torture
Afterward, security forces arrested Odeh and jailed her without charges or access to counsel.  She was tortured, by her account, for 45 days.  Here is how she described her treatment intestimony to a UN commission on torture in Geneva:

…”They beat me with sticks, plastic sticks, and with a metal bar. They beat me on the head and I fainted as a result of these beatings. They woke me up several times by throwing cold water in my face and then started all over again.”

In addition to this physical torture, Odeh also faced sexual torture. Her father, a U.S. citizen, was also arrested and beaten, “and once they brought in my father and tried to force him under blows to take off his clothes and have sexual relations with me.” Later, interrogators “tore my clothes off me while my hands were still tied behind my back. They threw me to the ground completely naked and the room was full of a dozen or so interrogators and soldiers who looked at me and laughed sarcastically as if they were looking at a comedy or a film. Obviously they started touching my body.” In her father’s presence, interrogators threatened to “violate me” and “tried to introduce a stick to break my maidenhead [hymen].” Shackled naked from the ceiling, interrogators “tied my legs, which were spread-eagled, and they started to beat me with their hands and also with cudgels.”

Every method described in her account is known from previous descriptions of the treatment of Arab terror suspects.  We know, for example, that Doron Zahavi, an IDF AMAN officer, raped Mustafa Dirani in Prison 504.  The beatings and positions she describes are also previously described in testimonyby the Public Committee to Prevent Torture in Israel.  Therefore, it’s not just conceivable that Rasmea endured the treatment she claims, it’s almost a certainty.  Especially given that two Israelis were killed in the bombing.

In summary, the Shin Bet tried to force her father to rape her.  The interrogators themselves raped her and further degraded her sexually.  And her father was tortured as a means of compelling her to confess.  If this isn’t a perfect portrait of a cause that all feminists should embrace, I don’t know what is.  So when Shire claims that Palestine is the farthest thing from what Women’s Strike Day’s mission should be, she’s engaging in willful blindness to the plight of another woman.  A woman who happens to be Palestinian.

Rasmea was tried and convicted in an Israeli military court, which features military judges and prosecutors using rules that favor the prosecution and shackle the hands of the defense.  It can rule any evidence secret and so prevent the defense from seeing it, let alone rebutting it.  Such a conviction could never withstand scrutiny under U.S. criminal procedures or even Israeli civilian courts.

Further, Shire justifies her denunciation of Odeh by noting that Israel denies torturing Rasmea.  So you have an Israeli security apparatus which is well-known for lying when evidence against it is damning.  And you have Rasmea’s testimony, supported by scores of accounts by other security prisoners as to their treatment under similar circumstances.  It reminds me of the story of the husband who returns home to find his wife in bed with another man.  The man jumps out of bed and says: “Hey, this isn’t what this looks like.  Nothing happened.  I swear it.  Who are you going to believe?  Me, or your lyin’ eyes?”  Emily Shire prefers to believe the agency that lies to her with a straight face.  In doing so, she shows that she is a Zionist first and foremost; and a feminist second, if at all.
As for the citizenship application infractions which the Justice Department is exploiting in order to expel her from the U.S.: she had been tortured once by Israel.  Her decision to hide her previous conviction was surely founded on a fear that she might be deported once again back to Israel or Jordan (where Israel had sent her after her release from prison).  The Jordanian security apparatus collaborates closely with Israeli intelligence.  The former is quite handy with torture itself.  Further, the U.S. judge in her first trial prohibited her attorney from raising torture as part of her defense.  Her second trial will explicitly permit such testimony.  Though I’m not privy to the defense strategy, I hope it will demand that a Shabak officer who participated in her interrogation testify at trial.  And if his testimony diverges from the truth, I hope there is means to document this and hold him accountable.  It would be one of the first times such an agent would be held accountable legally either inside or outside Israel.

In the attacks against Rasmea, it’s certainly reasonable to bring up her participation in an act of terrorism: as long as you also examine the entire case against her.  She admitted participation in the attack.  But she denied placing the bomb in the supermarket.  Despite her denial, this was the crime for which she was convicted.  Further, Rasmea was released after serving ten years as part of a prisoner exchange.  If Israel saw fit to release her, what is the point of using her alleged past crime against her today?

As for her membership in a terror organization, she has long since left the militant movement.  Her civic activism is solely non-violent these days.  Further, virtually every leader of Israel for the first few decades of its existence either participated directly in, or ordered acts of terror against either British or Palestinian targets.  Why do we grant to Israel what we deny to Palestinians?

It may be no accident that two days before Shire’s broadside against the U.S. feminist movement (and Rasmea) in the NY Times, the Chicago Tribune publishedanother hit-piece against her.  The latter was credited to a retired Chicago professor.  Her bio neglected to mention that she is also a Breitbart contributor who is the local coördinator for StandWithUs.  This sin of omission attests either to editorial slacking or a deliberate attempt to conceal relevant biographical details which would permit readers to judge the content of the op-ed in proper context.

The Tribune op-ed denounces Jewish Voice for Peace’s invitation to Rasmea to address its annual conference in Chicago later this month.  As I wrote in last night’s post, what truly irks the Israel Lobby is the growing sense of solidarity among feminist, Jewish, Palestinian, Black and LGBT human rights organizations.  Its response is to divide by sowing fear, doubt and lies in the media.  The two op-eds in the Times and Tribute are stellar examples of the genre and indicate a coordinated campaign against what they deride as intersectionality.
March 14, 2017 By Richard Silverstein

For the past few weeks, a storm has been brewing between women who call themselves “Zionist feminists” and the organizers of the U.S.-affiliate of the International Women’s Strike.  It began with a NY Times op-ed by Emily Shire, described as the political editor of a women’s website, Bustle.  She decried the supposed lack of inclusivity in the platform for U.S. Women’s Strike because it contained statements hostile to Israel.  Here is the “offending” passage:

For an Antiracist and Anti-imperialist Feminism

Against the open white supremacists in the current government and the far right and anti-Semites they have given confidence to, we stand for an uncompromising anti-racist and anti-colonial feminism. This means that movements such as Black Lives Matter, the struggle against police brutality and mass incarceration, the demand for open borders and for immigrant rights and for the decolonization of Palestine are for us the beating heart of this new feminist movement. We want to dismantle all walls, from prison walls to border walls, from Mexico to Palestine.

Emily Shire, valiant defender of Zion against ravages of feminism and intersectionality
Shire also objects to the inclusion amongst the organizers of the project, Rasmea Yousef Odeh, a Palestinian-American activist convicted by an Israeli court of a 41 year-old bombing which killed several Israelis.  The Palestinian activist’s ancient affiliation with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine serves as evidence to support the claim: once a terrorist, always a terrorist.

Shire seems oblivious to the fact that Israel has had two prime ministers guilty of mounting terror attacks against Palestinians, which killed far more people than the bombing which Odeh is purported to have carried out.

There is a larger strategy behind Shire’s op-ed.  It is part of the Israel Lobby’s attempt to divide the U.S. progressive movement so that hostility toward Israeli policies is rendered treif.  In that way, the Lobby believes it can deprive the anti-Occupation movement of support from Black Lives Matters and the LGBT rights community, among others.  That’s why human rights activists, in turn, fight so hard against hasbara efforts like pinkwashing, Blackwashing, greenwashing, and femwashing.
Shire attempts to render the Woman’s Day program treif by painting herself as both a liberal feminist and liberal Zionist:

Although I hope for a two-state solution and am critical of certain Israeli government policies, I identify as a Zionist because I support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. Increasingly, I worry that my support for Israel will bar me from the feminist movement that, in aiming to be inclusive, has come to insist that feminism is connected to a wide variety of political causes.

…I am happy to debate Middle East politics or listen to critiques of Israeli policies. But why should criticism of Israel be key to feminism in 2017?

Why indeed?  Because many, if not most feminists believe it to be so.  Just as the Black Lives Matter has declared solidarity with the Palestinian struggle.  It’s the height of chutzpah that a privileged white Jewish woman tells all of America’s feminists that the cause of Palestinian women shouldn’t be their business.

She objects to the feminist movement dividing its energy by embracing causes not central to issues facing women.  This is the same argument that African-American men made when African-American women embraced the feminist movement in the early 1970s.  They argued that Black women were diluting the power of the civil rights struggle by diverging from the purity of its original agenda. 
Martin Luther King was assaulted with similar arguments when he first announced his opposition to the Vietnam War.  Eventually, all the naysayers were proven wrong.  All such movements need to be broad-based and inclusive.  If you cut yourself off from surrounding political struggles, you deprive your own movement of new energy and motivation.

In arguing that Palestine isn’t central to the feminist movement, Shire appears to be wearing a thick set of Zio-blinders: Palestinian women certainly wouldn’t see the Palestinian cause as peripheral to their own struggle as women living under Israeli Occupation.  Further, she appears to believe that by supporting a two-state solution and being critical of “certain” Israeli policies she’s established her bona fides as a truly liberal individual.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  When Donald Trump and Bibi Netanyahu can both claim to support a two-state solution while supporting the building of settlements and continuation of Occupation, the term has lost any real value.
In this passage, Shire further illustrates her moral obtuseness:

Implying that mass incarceration is analogous to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is analogous to Donald Trump’s desire to build a wall along the Mexican border is simplistic at best.

What is the suffering of Gaza under siege if not “mass incarceration?  What is Israel’s apartheid wall if not an apt equivalent to Trump’s border wall?  Simplistic?  Not at all.

Shire can’t even seem to spare a single kind word for her Palestinian sisters.  Instead, she heaps them with scorn and derision.  Rasmea is little more than a terrorist, which makes the Women’s Day organizers little more than accessories to her alleged crimes.

Shire acknowledges Odeh’s claim that her confession was elicited under torture, which she then dismisses, noting a perfunctory Israeli denial of torture.  She neglects to mention that Israel’s secret police are well-known for their extensive use of torture in eliciting confessions.   Further, intelligence of any sort gained through torture is notoriously unreliable, as would be her confession.

The Shabak have even murdered terror suspects after they were captured and neutralized.  So why is it such a surprise to think Odeh might be innocent and her confession obtained under duress?  Could it be that Shire’s Zionism trumps her sisterly solidarity with Odeh?  If so, it seems a betrayal of the very feminist values she claims to hold dear.

Finally, Shire manages to drag BDS into the debate, even though it isn’t mentioned in the Women’s Strike statement:

It is strange to see academic groups supporting the B.D.S. movement, which stifles the free flow of knowledge. But regardless of your opinion on the B.D.S. issue, it has nothing to do with feminism.
Who is stifling the free flow of knowledge?  Israel.  It prevents Palestinian graduate students from leaving their homes to study abroad.  It threatens activists who support BDS with deportation if they try to enter Israel.  It offers legal penalties against those who mention the Palestinian Nakba.  Its security forces even prevent Israeli academic conferences from hosting talks by Israeli professors who are deemed “hostile” to the security state.  As for whether BDS has anything to do with feminism: as I mentioned the Women’s Strike made no reference to BDS, so Shire is engaging with a chimera.  But if it did, why wouldn’t the suffering of Palestinian women be a legitimate subject both for BDS and the Women’s Strike?  In fact, Israeli wars against Palestinians unduly impact the women who are often left vulnerable in their homes as they seek to protect their children.  The numbers of dead are always much higher for women and children than men, under Israeli military assault.
Linda Sarsour, another leader of the Women’s Strike, added her own critique of Shire’s piece with an interview in The Nation.

In closing, Shire posits a tired, cliche-ridden version of Zionism.  She even proudly notes in her Twitter profile that her high school yearbook featured prominently quotes from Golda Meir and Carrie Bradshaw (!).  In this post, I am criticizing this nostalgic, retro-Zionism.  But not a more progressive form of Zionism which can embrace the principles of BDS and transforming Israel into a state for all its citizens.

Open Letter to Jeremy Corbyn – Don’t Appease the Zionist Lobby – It only encourages them

$
0
0

If Jackie Walker & Ken Livingstone are Anti-Semitic Then So Are We



Neville Chamberlain gave appeasement a bad name
I have signed this excellent Open Letter from Free Speech on Israel although it does not go far enough.  No doubt Jeremy Corbyn is being badly advised, not least by his advisor and the Guardian’s ex-Stalinist Seamus Milne.  Corbyn seems to have forgotten that he was once the Israel lobby’s main parliamentary bogeyman.  His unflinching support for Palestine.  His support for the disaffiliation of Poale Zion/Jewish Labour Movement, the racist wing of the Israeli Labour Party inside the British Labour Party.
Labour Friends of Israel were caught on the Al Jazeera investigative programmes as being paid slush money of over £1m to engage in dirty tricks and take down their enemies - Corby engages in ritual self-humiliation by addressing them

He seems to have forgotten that before he was elected, the Zionists were alleging he was keeping the company of a holocaust denier from North London by the name of Paul Eisen.  He has personal experience of false accusations of anti-Semitism.

Yes since he has become leader it has been one long, sad story of appeasement.  And the lesson of appeasement is, as Britain found out with Nazi Germany, that the more you appease the aggressor the more they demand of you.

even though they detest him, Corbyn abases himself by appearing at the annual fringe meeting of a group that is funded by the Israeli state in order that it can destabilise the Labour Party
The Jewish Labour Movement wants to  close down free speech in the Labour Party with a rule change that makes even opinion and thought expulsion offences.  It has led the witch hunt of Ken Livingstone, Jackie Walker and myself amongst others.

The Jewish Labour Movement has sought to ban the use of the ‘abusive’ use of the word Zionism as if Zionism could be anything else but abusive.  The JLM has refused to condemn ILP leader Isaac Herzog for his remarks that he would hate to wake up to find that 61 of Israel’s MKs were Arabs or to find that there was a Palestinian Prime Minister of Israel.  Imagine in this country someone saying that they dreaded the idea of having a Black Prime Minister.  This would be out and out racism, yet in the Israel of the JLM it is normative.  Herzog also said he didn’t want the ILP to be considered ‘Arab lovers’.  Only fascists ever talked about ‘Jew lovers’ or ‘Nigger lovers’.  Yet Jeremy Newmark and the JLM have refused to condemn this.

Even when the ILP leader Herzog welcomed Donald Trump and his racist and anti-Semitic entourage to power, the JLM remained silent.  Yet we harbour these racist cuckoos inside Labour’s bosom and expel and suspend those who criticise them.


The eminent grise looks on 
If from day one Corbyn had said that yes he condemned anti-Semitism, not that there was much of it about, but that he also condemned false allegations of anti-Semitism, of which there certainly is a lot, then he would not have the problems he does now.  The JLM is a far-Right racist group that voted by 92-4% to support Owen Smith in the leadership elections.  At the debate between Corbyn and Smith which the JLM staged, Smith when asked what he most admired about Jews said their ‘entreprenurial talents’.  An anti-Semitic comment if ever there was.  Corbyn when asked what he admired about Israel said its ‘verve and spirit’ and the separation of powers, political from legal.  In fact he was wrong about that but he could have mentioned torture, administrative detention without trial, child imprisonment of Palestinians etc. 

It would seem that assuming the leadership has meant that Corbyn has swerved to the Right.  If he does this now, then in the event that he got into power Corbyn would end up to the right of Harold Wilson.

Tony Greenstein
Jeremy 'liar' Newmark of the Jewish Labour Movement
Newmark after Corbyn's LFI speech treats Corbyn as someone who has been tamed by the Zionist lobby - 
The lies of Newmark as found by an Employment Tribunal in Fraser v UCU

Cover letter to Jeremy

Dear Jeremy
We attach an OpenLetter to you signed by 145 members of the Party, Jews and non-Jews, all socialists, who are alarmed by the treatment of left-wing supporters of Palestine facing victimisation within the party. We began collecting signatures before the NCC’s decision to extend Ken Livingstone’s suspension, the subsequent attacks on him and the party and your failure to defend him. We are aware that other party members are also enduring disciplinary procedures which lack natural justice. The most high-profile of these is Jackie Walker and it is her case that the letter primarily addresses.
Corbyn v Owen Smith - now no one even remembers the Welsh pipsqueak

Those who have signed the letter are standing up and saying we do not believe that the actions that Jackie has been accused of are, in any way, antisemitic. However, if the Labour Party is to employ an expansive definition of antisemitism that encompasses Jackie’s actions, then all 145 of us too are guilty.
We would invite you to meet the organisers of this letter, most of whom you know well from pickets and lobbies in defence of Palestinian rights, to discuss how to combine the Party’s historic and principled opposition to all forms of racism, including antisemitism, with a reinvigorated and public defence of Palestinian rights.

Yours sincerely
Haim Bresheeth
Mike Cushman
Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi

OpenLetter to Jeremy Corbyn MP, Leader of the Labour Party


Dear Jeremy,

We are writing to you as members of the Labour Party. We are a predominantly Jewish group and are writing to ask you to review your behaviour on the question of Israel/Palestine. We understand that amongst reasons given by the Labour Party for claiming that Jackie Walker, the ex-Deputy Chair of Momentum, is antisemitic, the following are included:
Newmark looking forward to more expulsions
1. Regularly posting on Israel

2. Describing Israel as a racist state

3. A pattern of behaviour that causes offence to some members

4. Claiming that there is an antisemitism witch-hunt

5. Claiming that there is Israeli involvement in British politics

6. Saying the Right of the party is using this witch-hunt for political purposes

7. Saying adoption of IHRA definition of antisemitism is an attempt to outlaw criticism of Israel and to silence pro-Palestinian voices

We would therefore like to let you know that we are too are ‘guilty’ of such charges, not because we are antisemitic but because we believe these to be reasonable statements, accurately describing Israel's policies and actions. Examples of our activities include:

1. We have regularly posted on Israel and Palestine (and many other issues of political concern, including British and international politics) on various social media.
            
2. We have described Israel as a racist state (and indeed as an apartheid state) because it is one. Its legislation defines and differentiates between people on the basis of religion and/or ethnicity, including as you must be aware: laws on ownership of land; who can become a citizen; and the outrageous category of ‘present absentees’, which make it impossible for Palestinians to return to their home, while enabling Israel to confiscate it. Palestinian citizens of Israel are third class citizens, tolerated at best, and the four million Palestinians under occupation enjoy no rights at all. Such views as ours are commonly held by those leading Israeli journalists and intellectuals intent on adhering to international law and the legal force of UN resolutions. Indeed, a small representative selection from recent articles (in the last month alone) in Israeli publications should be enough to demonstrate this point. It is clear that any such views would immediately lead to an inquiry by the UK Labour Party, were they voiced by one of its members.

Press links
·         Don't Mess With Our Occupation: 
·         Israel Loves Wars 

3. We regret that some people may find our statements offensive, but one cannot engage in politics without being offended from time to time. We find many of the statements and actions of Israel and its supporters deeply offensive to us as Jewish, and other Socialist, members of the Party and human rights activists. Despite our unease, we do nothing to try and silence such views. We believe in free speech.

4. The reason we have claimed there is an ‘antisemitism witch-hunt’ in the Labour Party, is that we do not know how else one could describe the singling out of Palestine rights’ supporters and Anti-Zionists in the Labour Party. We believe that the party has a far worse problem with Islamophobia and anti-black racism, but has shamefully not pursued such cases with any noticeable energy. We acknowledge there may be incidents of antisemitism in the party, as there are of all discriminatory behaviour, but they are infrequent and not systematic; and we have rarely, if ever, witnessed any. Any such incidents that are identified should result in appropriate, transparent and swift action. The cases of Walker, Greenstein, Livingstone and Wadsworth are clearly not amongst them.

5. We have claimed there is covert and overt Israeli involvement in British politics as conclusively demonstrated in Al Jazeera's 'The Lobby' series of programmes, and by numerous other media/social media reports. To claim otherwise is to ignore the evidence or to cave in to this very lobby.

6. We have claimed that opponents of the Leader of the Party have used the campaign of antisemitism allegations to destabilise the leadership and have greatly damaged the party as consequence. They have done this with impunity. We believe this to true and clearly demonstrated.

7. The letter from Jo Johnson to Universities UK using the IHRA definition of antisemitism is one of the examples of the way this racist and demonising ‘definition’ of antisemitism is employed to censor necessary, and proper, political and moral debate. We have spoken to many students and staff who have felt intimidated, and prevented from expressing deeply held (and not in any way antisemitic) views on the brutal daily realities in Palestine/Israel.  These are members who are acting against Israel's illegal actions, moved by the need to achieve a just peace in the region. We believe that the IHRA definition is directed not at antisemitism which is currently showing its ugly face in Europe and, in particular, in Trump's USA, but instead at the critics of Israeli crimes, many of them being Socialist and Jewish members of the Labour Party. For more details see the legal opinion of Hugh Tomlinson QC:  

We have taken such positions because we are socialists, and humanists. We believe in the rights of Palestinians to live free from the oppression, national and individual, that they currently experience. We also recollect similar sentiments expressed by yourself in the past.

We shall NOT give up on our right to free speech to criticise Israel, or for that matter, any other country which behaves illegally and immorally. We consider this to be our right and duty as progressive socialists.   The current bogus ‘antisemitism’ attack by the Israel Lobby is intended to deny us this right; will negate our human rights; and suppress free speech and free political debate.

If this stance is unacceptable to the current leadership of the Labour Party, we invite you to take action against us. If, as we believe, you share our views, please stand up with us and say so openly.

History will judge those who stifle debate and silence criticism.

Barry Ackerman, Enfield CLP
Jax Agnesson, Taunton Deane CLP
Poppy Altmann, Richmond Park CLP
Peter Angell, Castle Point CLP
Valerie Ruth Appleton, Holborn St Pancras CLP
Raymond Atkins, Braintree CLP 
Judy Atkinson, Brentford & Isleworth CLP
Claude Baesens, Warwick & Leamington Spa CLP
Georgina Baidoun, Milton Keynes CLP
Chris Bailey, Cambridge CLP
Avril Baker, Hornsey and Wood Green CLP
Angus Barclay, Calder Branch CLP
Graham Bash, South Thanet CLP
Isobel Baxter, Sheffield Central CLP
Mary Beaman, Wimbledon CLP
Stella Beston, Streatham CLP
Karen Bett, Eastwood CLP
Chris Billing, Totnes CLP
Susan Blackwell, South Suffolk CLP
Charles Blake, Milton Keynes CLP
Haim Bresheeth, Hornsey and Wood Green CLP
Tarin Brokenshire, Cambridge City CLP
Andrea Burford, Leicester East CLP
Martin Burke, Hitchin and harpenden CLP
John Cagan, Dulwich and West Norwood CLP
Neil Cameron, Sheffield Central CLP
Caroline Carney, Brentford and Isleworth CLP
David Carrier, Wimbledon CLP
Marina Carter, Tottenham CLP
Ches Chesney, Berwick-upon-Tweed CLP
Sahail Chohan, Heeley CLP
Carl Clarke, Richmond CLP
Edward Clarke, Ashley CLP
Ted Clement-Evans, Riverside CLP
Ruth Conlock, Manchester Withington CLP
Andy Coombes, Stroud CLP CLP
Paul Crofts, Wellingborough CLP
Mike Cushman, Streatham CLP
Deborah Darnes, Congleton CLP
Hyder Dastagir, Croydon North CLP
Nina Davies, Labour International CLP
Helen Dickson, Liverpool, Wavertree. CLP
Josephine Doorley, Leyton Wanstead CLP
Paul Doran, Cambridge CLP
Clare Dove, South Thanet  CLP
Roisin Elder, Norwich South CLP
Michael Ellman, Islington North CLP
Dave Evans, Kidderminster CLP
Ismail Farooki, East Cambridge CLP
Kenny Fryde, Cambridge CLP
Terry Gallogly, York Central  CLP
Sam Louis Gisagara, St Pancras and Holborn CLP
Bernard Grant, Wells Somerset CLP
Sue Grant, Exeter CLP
Janet Green, Holborn and St Pancras CLP
Peter Green, Hackney North CLP
Tony Greenstein, Brighton Kemptown CLP
James Hall, S. Cambridgeshire CLP
Jenny Hardacre, South Cambs CLP
Clare Hariri, South Cambs CLP
David Hawkins, International (registered to vote in Lewisham Deptford) CLP
Abe Hayeem, Harrow East CLP CLP
Rosamine Hayeem, Harrow East CLP
Frankie Hewett, Canterbury and Whitstable CLP
John Hodkinson, West Derby (Liverpool) CLP
Owen Holland, Holborn and St. Pancras CLP
Douglas Holton, Hackney North CLP
Bob Jackson, Carmarthen East CLP
Steve Jansky, NW Cambs CLP
Lara Johnson, Bracknell  CLP
Kevin Johnstone, Northampton CLP
Cliff Jones, Sefton CLP
Langdon Jones, Bracknell CLP CLP
Anita Kanani, Brent North CLP
Jenny Kassman, Islington North CLP
Dave Kellaway, South East Cambs CLP
Mike Kennard, Chatham & Aylesford CLP
Jennifer King, Dover and Deal CLP
Steve Kinneavy, Sheffield Crookes & Crosspool CLP
David Kirby, North Hackney CLP
Beverley Krell, Cheadle CLP
David Lancaster, York Central CLP
Jeremy Landor, Hackney South CLP
Diane Langford, Canterbury and Whitstable CLP
Barbara Kay Lawrence, Torfaen CLP
Geoffrey Lee, Holborn and St Pancras CLP
Denise Leggett, Taunton Deane CLP
Leah Levane, Hastings and Rye CLP
Susanne Levin, City and Westminster CLP
Ian Lowery, South West Beds CLP
David Lowton, St Helens South & Whiston CLP
Paul Lythgoe, Cambridge CLP
Moshé Machover, Hampstead & Kilburn CLP
Dr. Alan Maddison, Houghton and Sunderland South CLP
Wade Mansell, Thanet North CLP
Jenny Manson, Finchley and Golders Green CLP
Lawrence McCambridge Audini, Hounslow Heath CLP
Wes McLachlan, Canterbury CLP
Sam Mézec, Labour International CLP 
Angie Mindel, Nottingham East CLP
Beverley Molineaux, Keighley CLP
Elizabeth Morley, Ceredigion CLP
Mica Nava, Islington North CLP
Diana Neslen, Ilford South  CLP
Oisin O'Brien, Northern Ireland CLP
Steve O'Neal, Devizes CLP 
Sinead O'Reilly, Hampstead and Kilburn CLP
Allan Pearson, South Ribble CLP
Miranda Pennell, Hackney South CLP
Nicola Pratt, Coventry South CLP
Yasmin Rasheed, Rainham and Gillingham CLP
Antony Rawlinson, Walthamstow CLP
Dorothy Rimmer, Eccles CLP
Lee Rock, Hallam CLP
Sean Rowell, Scarborough and Whitby CLP
Joan Rudderham, Coventry North West CLP
Ian Saville, Brent Central CLP
Rose Seabury, North Durham CLP
Richard Seaford, Exeter CLP
Amanda Sebestyen, Holborn & St Pancras CLP
Sue Shaw, Henley CLP
Thomas Spencer, Northern Ireland CLP
Katie Stibbon, Waveney CLP
Gerry Stonestreet, International CLP
Laura Stuart, Barnet CLP
Joe Sucksmith, Cheltenham CLP
Max Tasker, Clwyd West CLP
Josephine Taylor, South West Surrey CLP
Jean Thirtle, North Norfolk CLP
Andy Thomas, Vauxhall CLP
Christine Tongue, Thanet south CLP
Julian Townsend, Camberwell and Peckham CLP
Brian Twist, Leigh CLP
John Tymon, Hampstead & Kilburn  CLP
Steve Voros, Portsmouth North CLP
Dale Wakefield, Bristol South CLP
Hugh Wallis, Dulwich & West Norwood CLP
Gary Whiting, Batley and Spen CLP
Paula Clare Williams, Daventry  CLP
Graham Wilson, Edinburgh Eastern CLP
Naomi Wimborne Idrissi, Chingford and Woodford Green CLP
Susan Wood, Waltham Forest CLP
Monica Wusteman, York Central CLP
Charley Young, Ceredigion CLP
Sue Young, Ceredigion CLP
https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif


Guardian Prints Letter from 572 members/supporters of the Labour Party Defending Ken Livingstone

$
0
0

White Supremacists Claim That They Are White Zionists!  

Last Friday the racist Zionist Labour Movement had a letter published in The Guardian, which has run with the 'anti-semitism' witch-hunt, signed by 1300 assorted racist and right-wingers in the Labour Party calling for Ken Livingstone to be expelled.

Tomorrow a letter from 572 of us (at the latest count) will be published by way of reply.  Although we haven't (yet) matched the JLM numbers, given the disparity of resources this is not surprising.  However our letter will be open for further signatures and they will be added periodically to both this and the Free Speech on Israel site.

I did a BBC Radio London interview this Sunday at around 7.15 a.m.  I suspect it was too early for most people!  It can be down loaded from hereand here

The theme of the interviewer was that it didn’t matter if what Ken Livingstone said was true, it had ‘given offence’.  Of course the truth does offend the reactionary and racist Zionist leaders of the Jewish community and the Zionist movement.  They don’t want to be reminded of a time in the past when the Zionist movement collaborated with the Nazis to build their ‘Jewish’ state.  A time when the Zionist project was held to be more important than destroying the Hitler regime.
Racists like Tom Watson and the Jewish Labour Movement want to expel Ken Livingstone who has been at the forefront of anti-racism in the Labour Party

Edwin Black, who is a devoted Zionist, wrote the definitive book on Ha'avara, the trade agreement between the Zionists and the Nazis, The Transfer Agreement.  Ha'avara, destroyed the Anti-Nazi Boycott.  That was why the Nazis agreed to it. ‘The leaders of Germany realized that the anti-Hitler boycott was threatening to kill the Third Reich in its infancy, either through utter bankruptcy or by promoting an imminent invasion of Germany…’ [Black p. 110 see also p.130].

Black wrote that the Zionists promised to halt the worldwide Jewish-led anti-Nazi Boycott that threatened to topple the Hitler regime in its first year. [Black, p. xix]  The actions of the Zionist Organisation allowed Hitler to drive a wedge into the world-wide boycott of German goods. [Francis Nicosia, Zionism in National Socialist Jewish Policy, D1263, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 50, 1978].
The supporters of Jewish supremacism in Israel hate Livingstone for standing up to Zionism
Zionists who portray themselves today in the Labour Party as concerned with ‘anti-Semitism’ especially when Israel is on the agenda, don’t like it when their real history as a quisling movement in the 1930's is brought up today.  Because the reality is that it is the far-right and open fascists – from Marine Le Pen in France to Geert Wilders in The Netherlands to our own BNP and EDL – who are the greatest supporters of Israel.  Israel is the model state. 
Jeremy Newmark of the Jewish Labour Movement puts Corbyn on probation
Chair and chief perjurer of the Jewish Labour Movement

White Supremacists Claim To Be ‘White Zionists’
A good example of the nonsense behind the claims that it is the left who are anti-Semitic is what happened at the A&M University in College Station, Texas last December.  In two articles in the Jewish Forward Alt Right’ Leader Ties White Supremacy to Zionism — Leaves Rabbi Speechless and Speechless Rabbi Admits Losing Argument Over Racism and Israel to White Supremacist Richard Spencer Josh Nathan-Kazis and Daniel Solomon tell how during a question-and-answer session, Rabbi Matt Rosenberg stood and invited Richard Spencer, the white nationalist who led a chant of ‘Heil Trump’ to a far-right crowd of neo-Nazis.  Rabbi Rosenberg said:

“My tradition teaches a message of radical inclusion and love,” Rosenberg said. “Will you sit town and learn Torah with me, and learn love?”

The Forward reported that ‘Spencer declined the invitation, but used it as an opportunity to suggest that the objectives of Zionism and Jewish continuity were close to his own goals for white people.’  He asked:

“Do you really want radical inclusion into the State of Israel?”Spencer said. “And by that I mean radical inclusion. Maybe all of the Middle East could go move in to Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. Would you really want that?”

You’re not answering,” Spencer said.

“I’m not answering,” Rosenberg said.

The reason was, of course, that Israel is anything but a state of radical inclusion.  It is a state of Jewish supremacy and it does its best, even today, to remove Arabs from its midst.  It is for that reason that racists and neo-Nazis in the West admire it.  That is also why we have to call out the Jewish Labour racists who seek to sell Israel in the Labour Party as some kind of oasis of socialism.

When Tom Watson, John Mann and the rest of the right-wing ratbags go on about Israel being a haven of democracy we should point out that it is White Supremacists, the Breitbarts and Steve Bannons of this world who most love Israel.
A Zionist rabbi finds it hard to explain why he supports a multi-cultural society in America, where religion and state are separated but supports a Jewish exclusivist society in Israel
 We, unlike Tom Watson and the Labour Right, support free speech on Israel and Palestine.  Having held one Star Chamber hearing and failed to get their desired outcome they are calling for another, expedited hearing which will do what was expected of it the first time round and expel Ken Livingstone.  We have to make it abundantly clear, despite Corbyn's usual prevarications, that we will not allow this to happen.  Free Speech in the Labour Party is more important than the defence of an Apartheid State of Israel.

To back up their demands, last Friday the Guardian printed a letter from the Jewish Labour Movement from 1300 people calling for Livingstone to be expelled.  Despite the misleading headline Jewish Labour members say Livingstone must go many of those signing were not Jewish but members of the Progress Party, such as the right-wing leader of Brighton and Hove Council, Warren Morgan and various equally Jewish councillors.  Indeed many of them, like the recently resigned Brighton Labour Councillor Inkpin-Leissner are anti-Labour.

That is why I drafted a letter in response to the Guardian and appealed to people to sign it.  So far 566 people have signed it. 

The letter has also been placed on the Free Speech on Israel site.  Amongst those signing have been Oliver and Rita Gaggs from Cambridge Labour Party.  They have been members of the party for over 60 years but if Livingstone is expelled they will leave too.  The entire Executive of South West Norfolk CLP has endorsed the letter.  So if you haven’t signed it and you are a member or supporter of the Labour Party please sign too!  Just send an email to me at tonygreenstein104@gmail.com

Tony Greenstein 

,
Letter to the Guardian
Dear Sir or Madam

As Jewish and non-Jewish members and supporters of the Labour Party, we reject the call from supporters of Zionism and the Labour Right for the expulsion of Ken Livingstone. [Jewish Labour members say Livingstone must go, April 6th]

Those who call for a new disciplinary hearing simply because they didn’t like the conclusions of the previous one, demonstrate their contempt for democracy and due process.

A year ago Livingstone, responding to a question from Vanessa Feltz on BBC Radio London, said: ‘Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism.’

There is nothing whatsoever anti-Semitic about this.  Francis Nicosia, the Raul Hilberg Professor of Holocaust Studies at Vermont University wrote in his book Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany (p. 79) that:

‘Throughout the 1930s, as part of the regime’s determination to force Jews to leave Germany, there was almost unanimous support in German government and Nazi party circles for promoting Zionism among German Jews’   Is telling the truth also anti-Semitic?

As Donald Trump and his supporters demonstrate, support for Zionism can go hand in hand with anti-Semitism. 

What the campaign against Livingstone is really about is his long-standing support for the Palestinians and his opposition to Zionism and the policies of the Israeli state. 
Those who help to throw Livingstone overboard today are preparing the way for Jeremy Corbyn’s removal tomorrow.

Yours faithfully, 

Tony Greenstein
Brighton Kemptown CLP
Jackie Walker
South Thanet CLP
Miriam Margolyes OBE
Lambeth & Vauxhall CLP
Oliver Gaggs
Cambridge CLP
Rita Gaggs
Cambridge CLP
Professor Richard Seaford
 Exeter CLP
Professor (emeritus) Moshé Machover
Hampstead & Kilburn CLP
Philip Wagstaff
On behalf of South West Norfolk CLP Executive
Professor Bill Bowring
School of Law Birkbeck College
Professor (Emeritus) Jonathan Rosenhead
Hackney South and Shoreditch CLP
Professor Haim Bresheeth
School of Oriental and African Studies
Dr Tanzil Chowdhury
 School of Law University of Manchester
(Emeritus Professor) Wade Mansell
Thanet North CLP
Professor Chris Knight
Streatham CLP
Malcolm Adlington
Derby's Dales CLP
Mary Adossides

John Airs
Riverside CLP
Jane Airs
Riverside CLP
sharif ali
Preston CLP
Zulfqar Ali
Tower Hamlets CLP
Anne Alidina
Horsham CLP
Andy Almashoor
Exmouth CLP
Dr Ben Alofs
Arfon North-West Wales CLP
Ali Alzoubi
Oxford CLP
Eira and Erik Moller Andersen

Ben Armstrong
Hove CLP
Maureen Arnaiz
Bristol South
Dave Atkin       
York outer CLP
Paul Atkin
Brent North CLP
Susan Atkins
Sheffield Central CLP
Janice Atyton
Hastings and Rye CLP
rosalind austin
Camberwell and Peckham CLP
David Avery 
Hackney North CLP
Clare N. Ayton-Edwards
Kenilworth & Southam CLP
Mohammed Aziz
Dulwich and West Norwood.
Mo Aziz
Dulwich and West Norwood CLP.
Claude Baesens,
Warwick and Leamington Spa CLP
Agnès Baetens
Brighton Pavilion CLP
Chris Bailey
Cambridge CLP
David Bangs
Brighton Kemptown CLP
James Bardsley

Jean Scott-Barr
Reading CLP
Ray Barkley
Windsor CLP
Terry Barry
Dulwich and West Norwood CLP
Roger Barton
Bournemouth East CLP
Graham Bash
South Thanet CLP
Labina Basit
Uxbridge and South Ruislip CLP
Mark Battison

Mary Beaman

Gilly Bean

Janet Beattie
York Central CLP
David Beaumont
Twickenham CLP
Peter Benson
Thurrock CLP
Jillian Beresford
Loughborough CLP
David Berkeley
Plymouth Sutton and Devonport CLP
Frances Bernstein
Leeds East CLP
Marie Berry

Karen Bett
Eastwood CLP
Martyn Wood-Bevan
Swansea West CLP
Kelvin Bland

Rick Blyth
South West Devon CLP
Suzy Blyth 
South West Devon CLP
Patrick Bonner
 Brent North CLP and GMB
Jen Borel
Portsmouth CLP
Alfred Bouch
Hastings and Rye CLP
Robert Bowles
Ashton Under Lyne CLP
Chris Brace
York Central CLP
Simon Brace
Gedling CLP
Andy Bramley

Julia Bray
Dartford CLP
Nicole Brennan

Susan Brock
Eastleigh CLP
Dave Brokenshire
Cambridge CLP
Timothy Brooking
Southend on sea CLP
Alison Brown
Walthamstow CLP
Andrew Bryant 
Bristol West CLP
Professor Ray Bush
University of Leeds
Neil Cameron
Sheffield Central CLP
Catherine Campbell
Stretford & Urmston CLP
Val Cane
NUT
Sue Carpenter
Norwich CLP
David Carrier

Andrew Carter
Coldharbour and New Eltham CLP
Avis Carter
Brighton, Pavilion CLP
David Carter
Christians on the Left, SW Leicester CLP
Piers Carter
Forest of Dean CLP
Jane Casmally
South East Cambridgeshire CLP
G M Casmally
South East Cambridgeshire CLP
Brian Caton
Richmond Park CLP
Maria Cavaliere
Luton South CLP
Allan Challenger
Gorton CLP
Trevor Challenger
Taunton Deane CLP
Stephen Chambers
International member
Dave Chappell
Fire Brigades Union Exeter 
Caroline Charlton
Birmingham Hall Green CLP
Helen Chessum

Phil Chetwynd
UNITE
Simon Childs.
Preseli Pembrokeshire CLP
Chris Chinnery
Enfield North
Brian Chinnery
Enfield Southgate CLP
Sahail Chohan
Heeley CLP
Jason Chrisostomou 
Stevenage CLP
Bob Clark
Camberwell & Peckham
Carl Clarke
Richmond CLP
John Clarke
Labour Party Parliamentary Candidate for Witham in May 2015
Ted Clement-Evans

Steve Coates
Bradford South CLP
Steven Cockrill
Liverpool Riverside CLP
Shaun Cohen
Leeds East CLP
Sylvia Cohen
Momentum
Michael Coleman
Hampstead & Kilburn CLP
Jeffery Collings
Haverfordwest CLP
Lindsey J Colvin

Terry Conway
Islington N CLP
Steve Cooke
Stockton North CLP
Andy Coombes

Jan Coombs
Hornsey and Wood Green CLP
Chris de Cordova

Max Cowell
Banbury Constituency Labour Party
Darrall Cozens
Coventry NW CLP
Michael Craig
N Ireland Labour Party
Amanda Crawford
Labour International
Cristina Soler Crespo

Dr Don Crewe
Leeds Beckett University
Paul Crofts
Wellingborough CLP
Jackie Crookston
South West Norfolk CLP
Gillian Cruddace
Easington CLP
Victoria Cuckson
Bootle CLP
Leta Cullen
GedlingCLP
Dr Rowland Curtis
Hammersmith & Fulham CLP
Mike Cushman
Streatham CLP
C Darbyshire 
Clwyd West CLP
Deborah Darnes
Congleton CLP
Patrick Darnes

Chris Davies
Ashfield CLP
John Davies
Liverpool Riverside CLP
Malcolm Davis
Bristol South CLP
Anya-Nicola Darr
East Devon CLP
Chris Davies

Kriss davies
Turnham Green ward, Hounslow CLP
Yvonne Davies 
Chester CLP
julie dent
Islington South & Finsbury CLP
Helen Dickson
Wavertree CLP Liverpool
David Dillon
International member
Neil Donaldson
Telford CLP
Roger Dow
Wells CLP
Peter Dowse
Bretton Peterborough CLP
Tom Dragicevic
Brentford and Isleworth CLP
Elizabeth Dudley
Hornsey and Wood Green CLP
Ian Dudley
Croydon North CLP
Bridget Dunne
Hampstead and Kilburn CLP.
Graham Durham
UNITE the Union Rep
Sally Eason

Andy Edwards
Garston and Halewood CLP
Mark Elf
Barking CLP
Michael Ellman
North Islington CLP
Janette Evans
Finchley & Golders Green CLP
Peter Evans

Barry Farnworth
Unite
Dr Catherine Farnworth

BRIAN FAUX
Ceredigion CLP
Ian Ferrie
Hampstead and Kilburn CLP
Mark Findlay
Brighton Pavilion CLP
Arye Finkle 
Barnet CLP
Andy Fiore
North Essex CLP
PETE FIRMIN
Hampstead & Kilburn CLP
sally fitzharris

Michael Foulkes
Hove and Portslade CLP
Jenny Flintoft
Meon Valley CLP
Gerry Flintoft
Meon Valley CLP
Sabine Ebert-Forbes
Keighley CLP
Mike Eggboro

Tony Fisher
Thurrock CLP
liza ford
Woodford CLP
Tony Foster
Arfon CLP
Philip Foxe
Enfield Southgate CLP
Austin France
Chorley CLP
Roisin Francis
Hampstead & Kilburn CLP
Annie Franklin
Islington South CLP
Ed Fredenburgh

Nigel Frost

Kenny Fryde
Cambridge CLP
Terry Gallogly
York CLP
Janis Garbutt
Gloucester CLP
Donna Gardner

Rob Gardiner
Huntingdon CLP
Johnny Gaunt
Ceredigion CLP
Chris Gaynor
GMB
Katie Gibbins
Sheffield
Ian Gibson
Edinburgh South CLP
John L Gibson
North Thanet CLP
Daphne Gilbert
Hexham CLP
Esther Giles
Bristol NW CLP
Tony Glover
Hexham CLP
Stuart Goodman
Finchley& Golders Green CLP/Member Jewish Socialists' Group
Peter Gorbach
Hove and Portslade CLP
Andrew Yungé GORDON
Labour Party International (Germany)
Annette Gossett
Hornsey and Wood Green CLP
Roger Gordon

David R Graham
Brentfordand Isleworth CLP
Val Graham 
Chesterfield CLP 
Bill Grant
Luton North CLP
Sue Grant
Exeter CLP
Ken Gray
Kingston Upon Hull East CLP
Elleanne Green
Cities of London and Westminster CLP
Janet Green
Holborn and St Pancras
John Green
Ealing CLP
Tom Greenstein
Brighton Kemptown CLP
Ian Grigg-Spall
Canterbury CLP
Sarah Grimstone
Mirfield CLP
Rhisiart Gwilym

Dr James Hall
South Cambridgeshire CLP
Martin Hall
Wythenshawe and Sale East CLP
Tim Halpin
Brighton Kemptown CLP
Robert Hasell
Lewisham East CLP
Pauline Hammerton
Manchester Central
Peter Hammerton
Penistone and Stocksbridge CLP
Luke Hammond

Jenny Hardacre
South Cambridgeshire CLP
Elsa Hardman-Clark
Truro and Falmouth CLP
Jackie Hardy

Melanie Pownall-Harris
Hertsmere CLP
David Harris
Hertsmere CLP
David Harrison
Batley & Spen CLP
Glenn Harvey  
 Hackney North and Stoke Newington CLP
NEIL HARVEY

Abe Hayeem
Harrow East  CLP
Rosamine Hayeem
Harrow East  CLP
Nina Heaton
PSC
Malcolm Hecks
Chippenham CLP
Councillor Claudia Hector 
Hampstead and Kilburn CLP
Iain Hedley
Berwick-upon-Tweed CLP
Varinia Heidel
Luton South CLP
Keith Henderson
Clacton-on-Sea CLP/GMB
Andy Hewett
Cardiff West CLP
Obie Hickmott
Liverpool Riverside CLP
Mike Higgins
Doncaster CLP
Karolin Hijazi
Aberdeenshire West CLP
David Hillman
Oxford East CLP
Simon Hinds

Owen Holland
Holborn and St. Pancras CLP
John Holloway
Stretford and Urmston CLP
Deborah Holmes
Manchester, Gorton 
Doug Holton
Hackney North Labour Party
Hannah Hookes
Liverpool Riverside CLP
Mike Homfray
Bootle CLP
David Hooke
South Islington & Finsbury CLP
Dr David Hookes
Riverside CLP and Momentum
Alan Horton
West Cornwall CLP
Dave Horton
Stockport CLP
Anna Hubbard
Southport CLP
Sally Hughes
Thirsk and Malton CLP
Ian Hunter
Halewood and Garston CLP
Richie Hunter
Liverpool Riverside CLP
Patrick Hunter
Hendon CLP 
Zaed Hussain
Hyndburn CLP
Emma Spurgin Hussey
Truro and Falmouth CLP
Philip A. Hutchinson
Burton & Uttoxeter CLP
Diana Isserlis
Thornbury and Yate
Pat Irwin
High Peak CLP
Andy Jackson
Isle of Wight CLP
Gary Jakings
Peterborough CLP
Selma James

Steve Jansky

Peter Jenner
Leeds NW CLP
Martin John
Sheffield Central CLP
Jack Johnson


Labour International.
Chris Jones
Vice Chair Conwy County Peace Group
Clifford Jones
Sefton CLP
Matthew Jones
Cathcart CLP, Glasgow
Phil Jones
resigned from Labour Party over Livingstone witch hunt
Ashley Jordan
Bexhill & Battle CLP
Caroline Juler
Preseli Pembrokeshire CLP
Åsa Karolina
Hove CLP
Robin Keable
Rochford and Southend East
Stan Keable
Hammersmith CLP
john keen
North Herefordshire CLP
Cllr Terry Kelly
Renfrewshire Council
Gill Kennard
Chatham & Aylesford CLP
Lloyd Kennedy
Horsham CLP
Chris Khamis   
Perry Barr CLP
Thea Khamis and Ben Byrne
North Durham CLP
Faraz Khan
Cambridge CLP
David Kilcyzcki

Eleanor Kilroy
Winchester CLP
Jennifer King
Dover and Deal CLP
lynda kirkbride
Copeland CLP
Ruth Knight
Slough CLP
Bev Krell
Cheadle Constituency.
David Lancaster
York Central
Professor Conrad Lashley
West Bridgford CLP, Nottingham
Sandra Law

Geoff Lee
Holborn and St Pancras CLP
Claire Lees
Riverside CLP
Jeffrey Lever,
Enfield & Southgate CLP
Mara Leverkuhn
Salford and Eccles CLP
Susanne Levin
 City and Westminster CLP
Richard Lightbown

Margot Lindsay
Southwark CLP
Richard Lines
Portsmouth CLP
Debbie Litchfield
Don Valley CLP
Mary Lloyd
Southampton Itchen CLP
Elizabeth Lock
Oxford CLP
John Lohrenz
South West Surrey CLP
Ian Lowery
South West Bedfordhire  CLP
Marie Lynam
Hamsptead and Kilburn CLP
Jenny Lynn
Halifax CLP
Sangeeta Lyons

Doug Macari
 Canterbury CLP
Ian MacDonald
Edinburgh South CLP
Ilana Machover

Gordon MacIver
St Albans CLP
Bill MacKeith
Oxford (West) and Abingdon CLP
Genevieve Macklin
Twickenham CLP
Rev. Dr Duncan Macpherson
Twickenham CLP
Sharon Macqueen
Twickenham CLP
Wendy Madden
Wells CLP, Somerset
Dr Alan Maddison
Houghton & Sunderland South CLP 
Dr Dave Madill

Andy Maguire
South Down and Strangford CLP
Beryl Maizels
Registered supporter
Victoria Malcolm
Ceredigion CLP
Kay Manasseh
Streatham CLP
Helen Mandley
Kilburn and West Hampstead CLP
Patrick Mansfield
Former Bristol South CLP
Sherry Marks
Chippenham CLP
Valerie Marriott
Loughborough CLP
Glenn Martin
Walsall south
Becky Massey
Hove and Portslade CLP
J H Masterson 
 Cambridge CLP
Jonathan Maytham
Bristol West CLP
Kathy McCubbing
Reading East CLP
Rachelle Mcevilly
Sefton CLP
Michael McEvoy
Feltham CLP
Ray McHale
Ellesmere Port & Neston CLP
Timothy McHale
Alyn & Deeside CLP
Mark McKenzie
Islington South CLP
Steve Mckenzie
Bexhill and Battle CLP
Ellen McNay
Sunderland Central CLP
Jim McSporran
Bracknell CLP
melanie melvin
Brighton Kemptown CLP
Jim Merritt

John Metson
Leeds North East CLP
Merlo Michell
Saffron Walden CLP
Anna Miller
Bury CLP
Anna Miller
Saffron Walden CLP
Jay Millington

Carole Milner

Susan Milner

Angie Mindel
Nottingham East CLP
Ghazala  Mir
Leeds NE CLP
Anne Mitchell
Hove and Portslade CLP
Doug Moffatt
Durham City CLP
Kenneth Mogford

Alan Molineaux
Keighley CLP
Bev Molineaux
Keighley CLP
g monks 
Hammersmith  CLP
Fiona Monro
Brighton Kemptown CLP
Christine Mooney
North West Norfolk CLP
Geoff Moore
Henley CLP
BRENDAN MORGAN
N.I. CLP. Carrickree
Elizabeth Morley
Ceredigion CLP
Shelley Morris

Patricia Morrison
York Central CLP
Peter Morton
Labour supporter Medway
Jane Elise Muir

Margaret Mulheran
High Peak Constituency Labour Party
John Murray

Ellen Musgrove
Norwich South CLP
frances naggs
Staffordshire Moorlands CLP
Susan Naser

Diana Neslen
Ilford South CLP
John Newman
Huddersfield Palestine Support Network
Chris Nikolof
 Hammersmith CLP​
Dr Ephraim Nimni

Graham Noble
Havant CLP
Peter Northall
Lewisham West CLP
Stephen Nuttall
Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland CLP
Sean O'Donoghue 
Brecon and Radnorshire CLP
Paddy O'Keeffe  
Brighton Kemptown CLP
Brian O’Leary
Chingford and Woodford Green CLP
Dennis O'Malley
Registered supporter Cambridge
Joseph O'Neill
Chester City CLP
Caroline O’Reilly
Brighton Kemptown CLP
Edmond O’Reilly
Brighton Kemptown CLP
James O’Sullivan
East Worthing & Shoreham CLP
Alison Orr

Darren Owen

Dave Owen
Hackney North CLP
Pam Page
Brighton Pavilion CLP
Joseph Paglia
Winchester CLP
Mike Paling
Redcar CLP
Mike Parker
Literary Editor Tribune
Averil Parkinson
Cambridge CLP
llan Pearson
South Ribble CLP
Professor David Pegg
York Central constituency
Dr Miranda Pennell
Hackney South & Shoreditch CLP
Lars Petersson
Leyton/Wanstead Labour Party CLP
Professor Anand Pillay
Labour International
David Pinto
Hammersmith CLP
Bob Pitt
Holborn & St Pancras CLP
Sue Platt
Barnet CLP
Daniel Platts
Wentworth & Dearne CLP
Edward Pope
Oxford West & Abingdon CLP
Nicola Pratt
Coventry South CLP
Viv Pribram
Cities of London and Westminster CLP
Bernard Price
CLP: Gosport
Jane Kitty Pride Kane

Sian Pryce

maureen Purcell
Worthing West CLP
Claire Pyper
Birmingham Momentum
Antony Radburn
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton CLP
Michelle Ramsay
Hove & Portslade CLP
Caroline Raine
Oxford East CLP
Susan Ram
Labour International
Elizabeth Ramsden

Roland Rance

Kim Raper
Holborn and Kings Cross CLP
Josephine Rawsthorne

Christopher Rawsthorne

Janine Reed
Islwyn CLP
Peter Reilly
Southport Labour Party
Iain Rendell  
Rutland and Melton CLP
Shezan Renny 
St Pancras and Holborn CLP
Andy Richards
Hove CLP
Lisa Nicholls Rider
Hove CLP
Frances Rifkin
Holborn and St Pancras CLP
David Riley

 Mira Riley

Tom Robins
Blyth CLP
Anne Robinson
Easington CLP
Heather Robinson
St Austell and Newquay CLP
Nick Robinson
Epping Forest CLP
Lee Rock
Sheffield Hallam CLP
Samantha Rogers
Don Valley CLP
Samantha Rogers
Rhondda CLP
Léa Rohan

Michael Rosen

Kal Ross
Riverside CLP
Rob Ross

Susan Ross
Edinburgh East CLP
leon rosselson

George Roussopoulos

Daniel Rowe
Norwich south CLP
Jerry Rulf
Hove and Portslade LP
Adrian Rupp
Central Bedfordshire CLP
Kevin Russell
Bradford East CLP
Helen Rutherford
Chester
Rebecca Sachs

Naomi Sachs

Ali Samhan
Penarth CLP
John Sanderson
Derbyshire Dales CLP
Jenny Sanderson
Derbyshire Dales CLP
Steph Sankey

Patrick Scott

Paul Scott
 Hampstead and Kilburn CLP
Sheila Scoular
Ilford North CLP
Rose Seabury  
North Durham CLP
Amanda Sebestyen
Holborn and St Pancras PLC
Sam Semoff
Liverpool Riverside CLP
david serva

Awula Serwah
Brent Central CLP
Ashok Sethi

Alice Severs    
Durham West CLP
George Shaw
Barnet CLP
Sue Shaw
Henley CLP
Patrick Sheehan
Withington CLP
Janet Sheek
Berwick-Upon-Tweed CLP
Irene Shemaria

Raymond Shemilt
North Cornwall CLP
Michael Tyrone Shortt
Cambridge CLP
June Simmons
Brentwood and Ongar CLP
Donna Sloane
Saffron Walden CLP
Professor John Smith

Carlos Soto
Finchley & Golders Green CLP
Sally Spangle

Amanda Speed

Michael Spencer
 Halifax CLP
Ian Spencer
Stocksbridge and Penistone CLP   
Thomas Spencer

Dr Neal Spowage
Leicester South CLP
Harry Stannard
Leicester West CLP
Peter Richard Stott
Moray CLP
Nancy Strang
Brent Central CLP
Laura Stuart
Unite/Momentum
Tony Stuart

Paul Stygal. 
Rochford & Southend East CLP
Mary Sullivan
Canterbury CLP
Helen Sutcliffe
Halifax CLP
Stephanie De-Sykes
Woking CLP
Inbar Tamari
Walthamstow CLP
Anne Tanner
Cardiff West Constituency LP
Max Tasker
Clwyd West CLP
Fuad Al-Tawil

Wendy Taylor
Ilford South CLP and Momentum
Ruth Thacker
Great Yarmouth CLP
John Thatcher
International member
Jean Thirtle
North Norfolk CLP
Natasha THODAY
Brighton Pavilion CLP
Daniel Thomas
Milton Keynes North CLP
Jack Thomas
Sefton Central CLP
Norman thomas
South Thanet CLP/Thanet Momentum
Susan Thomas
swansea east
Debbie Thompson
Mid Norfolk CLP
Alan Thornett

Graham Thorpe
Calderdale CLP
Steve Tiller
Hackney South CLP
Christine Tongue
South Thanet CLP/Thanet Momentum
Julian Townsend
Camberwell and Peckham CLP
Cathy Toulet
Deal CLP
Norman Traub
Southend West CLP
David Travis
North Angus CLP
Geoff Treasure
Weaver Vale CLP 
Benjamin Treuhaft
Edinburgh North and Leith CLP
Kevin Treweeks
Sutton and Devonport CLP
Kevin Tulliver
Arfon CLP
Hugh Tunks
South Norfolk CLP
Ben Tunstall
Streatham CLP
Saras Udanpur

Conchita Varicak
BrentCentral CLP
Kate Viscardi

Steve Voros
Portsmouth North CLP
Carl Wain
South Leicestershire CLP
Paul Waley
Leeds University
Bob Walker
Bexhill & Battle CLP
Carl Walker

Ian Malcolm-Walker
Bournemouth West CLP
Janet Walker
Cambridge CLP
Julie Walker
Birkenhead CLP
Hugh Wallis
Dulwich & West Norwood CLP
Susan Walpole
Dorchester CLP
David Walters
Liverpool Riverside CLP
Andrea Warner
International member
Adam Waterhouse
Southampton and Romsey CLP
Daniel Waterman
International Member
David Watson
Walthamstow
Jean Watson
Bedford CLP
Roger Watson

Jean Webb
Sheffield Hallam CLP
Sam Weinstein
Hampstead & Kilburn CLP      
Roger Welch
Portsmouth CLP/UCU
Ian Wellens
Central Devon CLP
Roy Wenborne 
West Ham CLP/CWU
Helen Wheat
Skipton CLP
Cyril Wheat
Skipton CLP
Stewart Whitehead
Arundel and South Downs CLP                                                 
Sara whiteside
 Riverside CLP
Lee Whitaker
Brighton & Hove District Labour Party
Mark Whyte
York Central CLP
Carol Wilcox
Secretary Christchurch CLP
Bill Williamson

Eric Willoughby

Sarah Wilkinson
Ludlow CLP
Andrew Williams 
Ealing Central & Acton CLP
Stephen Williams
Lewisham West  CLP
John Sidney Williamson

Marie Williamson

Eric Willoughby
Palestine Media Digest
Asa Winstanley

Jean Wood
Leeds Central CLP
Nola Wolley
North Somerset CLP
Bob Wood
Leeds Central CLP
Dr Naomi Woodspring

Jan Woolf
Finchley and Golders Green CLP
Norman Wright
former member Hove CLP - disenfranchised
Monica Wusterman
York Central constituency
Sue Young
Ceredigion Labour party
Charley Young
Ceredigion Labour party
Mari Zadeh
Kingston-upon-Thames CLP
Zoe Zero
Beckenham CLP
Ali al-Zoubi
Oxford & District CLP
Matthias Zurowski
Tottenham CLP


http://freespeechonisrael.org.uk/letter-guardian-reject-call-expulsion-ken-livingstone/#more-3000

From Professor Francis Nicosia's Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany, pp. 118-9 makes it clear that the Nazis very much supported Zionism in the 1930's

Ken Livingstone’s Fainthearted Friends at the Morning Star, Socialist Worker & the Jewish Socialists Group

$
0
0
Lansman & Owen Jones Attacks on Livingstone Only Helps Tom Watson
The Right has begun to smell blood.  Corbyn was himself originally accused of anti-Semitism by consorting with holocaust deniers such as Paul Eisen.  He has been under attack by the Zionist lobby since day one.  See for example Jeremy Corbyn's 'long-standing links' with notorious Holocaust denier  ‘Anti-Semitism’ has been the Right’s chosen weapon. 

Letters in Morning Star objecting to their editorial
No one of course could point to anything actually ‘anti-Semitic’ that Corbyn said hence why they have directed their attention on to the one person who best exemplifies the fight against racism in the Labour Party.  Noone did more, at the Greater London Council to support and fund anti-racist initiatives than Ken Livingstone, as David Rosenburg of the JSG admits in his flabby and shallow article for the Morning Star. A Row With Its Roots in the Thatcher Years

Under relentless attack from the Right and the Zionists, Corbyn has abandoned the Palestinian cause and 30 years of support for the Palestinians which included at least 6 visits to Palestine.  At a Jewish Labour Movement debate last summer between Corbyn and Owen Smith when asked what he liked most about Israel, Corbyn could have mentioned child torture, mobs who chant ‘Death to the Arabs’, banning of Arabs from 93% of the land in Israel, a starvation siege of Gaza etc. etc.  He was spoilt for choice.  Instead he said:

I admire the verve and spirit of the towns and cities in Israel – the life and the way people conduct themselves, I admire the separation of legal and political powers and the system of democratic government that is there and I admire many of the technical and industrial achievements that Israel has made and its very advanced technology in so many way that it has developed in medical and telecommunications technology.  

Dave Rosenberg of the Jewish Socialists Group article in the Morning Star attacking Ken Livingstone whilst purporting to support him
Why has there been this political collapse?  Because in supporting a 2 state solution, Corbyn was also supporting Israel as it is.  Support for Israel is support for the Right of the Labour Party in the UK.  Why?  Because Israel is the United States racist rotweiller in the Middle East.  If your foreign policy is based on the alliance with the US then it must involve uncritical support for Israel.

Given that Corbyn was himself originally attacked as an anti-Semite, not only by the Daily Mail but by The Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland Labour and the left have an antisemitism problem it is sad that he cannot see that bogus allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’ are a weapon of the Right.  The bigger a lie and the more often it is repeated the more it is likely to be believed.

The Right is quite open about what they desire.   A crowd-funding appeal has now been launched under the title ‘Expel Ken #Corbyn Out’.   These are supporters of the only apartheid state in the world, Israel.  When Tom Watson calls for the expulsion of Livingstone that is code for the removal of Corbyn.  

It is therefore to be regretted that the Morning Star, the only Left daily, has equivocated in its support.  In Fresh bid to attack the left it speaks of the ‘real offence’ caused when the Nazis ‘are compared to or associated with their victims’.  Except of course that Livingstone didn’t compare the Nazis to their victims.  What he did was say that the Nazi state and Hitler supported Zionism, a political movement.  Zionism in Germany was a tiny minority of German Jews.  It is a fact that the Nazis saw the Zionists as volkish (racial) Jews.  
The paper of the German Zionist Federation welcomes the Nuremburg Laws
On September 17th 1935, the paper of the German Zionist Federation welcomed the Nuremburg Laws which removed German citizenship from Jews and effectively made them stateless.  Judische Rundschau wrotethat:

Germany ... is meeting the demands of the International Zionist Congress when it declares the Jews now living in Germany to be a national minority. Once the Jews have been stamped a national minority it is again possible to establish normal relations between the German Nation and Jewry. The new Laws give the Jewish minority in Germany their own cultural life, their own national life. In future they will be able to shape their own schools, their own theater, their own sports associations; in short, they can create their own future in all aspects of national life.

On the other hand, it is evident that from now on and for the future there can be no interference in questions connected with the Government of the German people... for Jewry in Germany itself, as for the Germans. Germany has given the Jewish minority the opportunity to live for itself and is offering State protection for this separate life of the Jewish minority: Jewry’s process of growth into a nation will thereby be encouraged and a contribution will be made to the establishment of more tolerable relations between the two nations.

Francis Nicosia's Zionism and anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany

The German Zionists, as was the case with the rest of the Zionist movement, believed that Jews were not part of the German people.  They were part of a separate Jewish nation.  It was therefore quite reasonable for the Nazis to say that Jews should play no part in German society.  It was a position rejected by the overwhelming majority of German Jews but it was music to the ears of the Nazis.  Alfred Rosenberg, the principal Nazi theoretician, who was hanged at Nuremburg, was fond of quoting the Zionists to support what the Nazis said.  As Francis Nicosia, Professor of Holocaust Studies at Vermont University noted, Rosenberg

 ‘intended to use Zionism as a legal justification for depriving German Jews of their civil rights.’  He ‘sanctioned the use of the Zionist movement in the future drive to eliminate Jewish rights, Jewish influence and eventually the Jewish presence in Germany.’ [Nicosia, The Third Reich and the Palestine Question, pp. 25-26.  See also Edwin Black p. 173, The Transfer Agreement]

In his book The Final Solution (Pan Macmillan) 2016(p.96) Professor David Cesarani quotes from a 1934 Gestapo report: “The efforts of the Gestapo are oriented to promoting Zionism as much as possible and lending support to its efforts to further emigration.” 

Having made one blunder, the Morning Star went on to concedethe Right’s case when it said that ‘Livingstone should have acknowledged this and apologised’.   Why should anyone apologise because telling the truth has offended them?  It is a fact that the Zionists played a quisling role in the Jewish community in Germany (& elsewhere) during the Holocaust.

Having made this concession to the Right the Morning Star then concluded that It is outrageous that the most consistent and principled anti-racist ever to lead the Labour Party has been constantly harassed by bogus accusations of anti-semitism — which are clearly inspired by fear of the effect a supporter of the rights of the dispossessed Palestinian people could have on British foreign policy if he becomes prime minister.’

That is of course correct – these are bogus accusations which is why it is even more stupid of the Morning Star to give the time of day to their validity.

The real problem for the Morning Star is that it follows in the traditions of Stalinism, which in 1948 supported the establishment of the Israeli state and thus the legitimacy of the Nakba.  The Morning Star might be a supporter of the Palestinians but it refuses to oppose Zionism, the movement and ideology which created a settler-colonial state in the Middle East.

Jewish Socialist Group’s David Rosenberg Damns Livingstone with Feint Praise

It took a long campaign by this blog before the JSG finally came off the fence and in support of Jackie Walker [The Strange Silence of the Jewish Socialists Group], the Black-Jewish woman who was suspended for ‘anti-Semitism’. [The lynching of Jackie Walker]. 

David Rosenberg has now done a wobble on Ken Livingstone too, in the Morning Star.  Whilst welcoming the fact that Livingstone wasn’t expelled, Rosenberg says that he ‘ought to have avoided a sorry affair which hasn’t helped Corbyn’thus missing the whole point of the affair which was that Livingstone’s unremarkable opinions were deliberately blown up by the right-wing in the Labour Party.  Whatever he said would have been magnified. 

As Kipling’s poem Dane-geldput it ‘"once you have paid him the Danegeld/ You never get rid of the Dane."  In other words when you pay off a blackmailer you just encourage them to continue.  The more the Zionists and the Labour Right have been appeased over ‘anti-Semitism’ the greater the incentive for them to continue.

Rosenbergaccepts that ‘Under Ken Livingstone’s visionary leadership from 1981, the GLC railed against both discriminatory practices and the mindset supporting them — racist, sexist, homophobic and disablist.’  Despite vociferous opposition from the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the very body that is now campaigning loudest about ‘anti-Semitism’, Livingstone’s Greater London Council funded the Jewish Cultural and Anti-Racist Project, set up by the JSG, of which Rosenberg was the co‑ordinator.

Rosenberg asks ‘How is it possible that, three decades on, the person who played such a pivotal role in these fights for equality is facing demands for expulsion by the Labour Party after making dubious comments about Hitler and zionism, and defending another MP’s comments about Jews, which she herself apologised for?’

Well there is a simple answer.  Unfortunately it is one which escapes Rosenberg.  It is that far from being ‘dubious’ Livingstone’s comment that the Nazis supported Zionism was a simple statement of fact.  He also asks why Livingstone was defending Naz Shah when she herself admitted her comments were anti-Semitic?

Again there is a very simple answer.  Naz Shah, in the middle of the slaughter of 2,200 people in Gaza, including 551 children, remarked by way of a tongue-in-cheek joke how much better things would be if the United State’s racist rotweiller in the Middle East were transplanted to the USA, which helps fund it.  There was nothing anti-Semitic about this joke at all.  The cartoon which Naz Shah used came originally from Yad Vashem’s Jewish Virtual Library

Why did she admit to anti-Semitism?  The same reason that the victims of Stalin’s purges admitted their ‘guilt’.  It is quite possible to intimidate people, who know little about anti-Semitism, into admitting their guilt because they are guilt-tripped.

I have read a number of things by David Rosenberg over the years and this is hardly his finest hour.  He says that he is reticent to come to Livingstone’s defence.  Why?  Because ‘his controversial and completely unnecessary intervention has undermined Corbyn, been detrimental to the Palestinian cause.’  This is what is known as political cowardice.  Anything that Corbyn said would, like Jackie Walker, have been twisted and distorted as ‘anti-Semitism’.  Jackie said that she hadn’t heard a definition of anti-Semitism that she could agree with.  This too is ‘evidence’ of her anti-Semitism.  Apparently Livingstone has ‘handed a free gift’  to the Labour Right and assorted Tories and Zionists. 

These are the politics of timidity and cowardice.  What David should be doing is calling out a politics of denunciation by misquoting people.  Instead of going on the defensive about every word we say, Dave should be calling out those who defend the Israeli state right or wrong.

For example the Jewish Labour Movement, which Rosenberg has become quite sympathetic too, calls itself the ‘sister’ party of the racist Israeli Labour Party.  A party that ethnically cleansed ¾ million Palestinians in 1948 and which has been every bit as racist as its Likud equivalents.  A party whose current leader, Isaac Herzog can say that his nightmareis waking up to a Palestinian Prime Minister and 61 Palestinian MKs.  A man who declares that he doesn’t want the ILP to be seen as an Arab lover’s party.  Yet Rosenberg remains silent about the ILP.

It is the failure of the Left, Rosenberg and Jon Lansman included, to call out the ILP and the witch-hunters, that has led to the situation of people cowering lest they say the wrong word.  One does not need to know any more about the JLM than that it voted by 92-4% in favour of Owen Smith in the summer.  Corbyn was stupid for even having agreed to allow the JLM to host a debate.  What did he think he gained?  He didn’t allow Progress to become a host why the JLM? 

As  an indication of the political collapse of the JSG, Rosenberg says that it was beyond me’ why Tories such as Board of Deputies President Jonathan Arkush or Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis ‘feel entitled to comment on Labour’s internal disciplinary processes’.  The answer is obvious.  They are batting for Israel and attacking the Left in the Labour Party is part of that defence.  As Rosenberg pointed out, Arkush ‘rushed to congratulate Donald Trump on winning the US election’ and Ephraim Mirvis attacked Labour in the Daily Telegraph, a paper that openly supported the Tories’ ‘openly Islamophobic campaign against Sadiq Khan.’  So it should be obvious that the Zionists’ concern is neither racism nor anti-Semitism.

Surely it isn’t beyond the ken of Rosenberg to work out why Jewish racists oppose Livingstone?  Rosenberg  provides the answer to his own question,  He describes how the GLC’s Ethnic Minorities Unit provided a grant to the JSG despite what he calls the Board’s ‘unsolicited “reference” on the JSG which was ‘full of lies and unfounded smears and allegations linking us to organisations described as “terrorist.” Dave was grateful that ‘the GLC disregarded it, but it revealed the BoD’s methods.’  So grateful that he takes to the Morning Star to make what amounts to a thinly veiled attack on Livingstone.

Livingstone is hated by the Zionists because he wasn’t prepared to treat the BOD, which is based on synagogue going Jews only, as Corbyn and McDonnell do, the sole legitimate representative of Jews in Britain. 

Rosenberg harks back to a cartoon in the Daily Herald, which Livingstone was involved in in the early 1980’s, ‘which published crude denunciations of Israel and cartoons of prime minister Menachem Begin dressed in nazi uniform’.  There was nothing that was anti-Semitic in this.  It was making the point that those who claimed they were the heirs of the Holocaust victims were behaving in ways similar to the Nazis.  These cartoons occurred at the same time as Israel’s invasion of the Lebanon, whose purpose was to defeat the PLO and install as President Bashir Gemayel of the fascist Phalange.  When Gemayel was assassinated by the Syrians, the Israelis let loose the Phalange’s militias on the unarmed and defenceless refugee camps of Sabra and Chatilla.  Some 2,000 mainly women and children were massacred.  This and the death of 20,000 Lebanese richly deserves the title of ‘Nazi’. 
Letter from Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt compares the party of future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to that of the Nazis
If Rosenberg is still cowering at the thought of comparing an Israeli Prime Minister as a Nazi he should remember that no less than Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt amongst other prominent Jews made this comparison on the occasion of Begin’s visit to the USA in 1948. 

 ‘Among themostdisturbing political phenomena of our timesis the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

David Rosenberg really goes off the edge when he refers to the source of Livingstone’s quote about Hitler ‘supporting zionism’, the  book ‘Zionism in the Age of the Dictators’ by Lenni Brenner.  Rosenberg argues that Brenner makes ‘crude allegations of zionist-nazi collaboration, treats the actions of some zionists as representing all zionists, and utterly distorts the power relations between zionists and nazis.’ 

Rosenberg admits that ‘There were attempts by some zionist Jews in Germany in 1933 to make deals with the nazi dictatorship’ but  says that they were criticised by other Jews, including many zionists.
Yes most Jews did criticise the collaboration with the Nazis by the Zionist leadership.  This included individual Zionists but it is a fact that the Zionist movement, including its leadership, were wholly in favour of collaborating with the Nazis over Ha'avara. 

Rosenberg cites a meeting in 1983 when Brenner spoke to a JSG meeting and says that ‘When audience members labelled some of his comments anti-semitic’, he responded that he couldn’t be anti-Semitic because his wife was Black . Apocryphal or not, this is hardly a serious critique of Brenner, with whom I have certain differences in terms of his analysis.  However it is a fact that even Zionist historians such as Lucy Dawidowicz, Francis Nicosia and David Cesarani came to the conclusion that the Nazis had supported Zionism.  There is no need to reference Brenner’s book to reach this conclusion.   As it happens the book is a good one even it is limited in its analysis and on occasions wrong.

Rosenberg references other examples of Zionist collaboration with anti-Semites such as the talks that the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl held with von Plehve, the Czarist Interior Minister in August 1903.  Herzl promised that ‘Jewish revolutionaries would cease their struggles against tsarism for 15 years if he would grant a charter for Palestine.’  Dave however misses out the salient point that it was von Plehve who had personally organised, some 4 months earlier, the pogrom at Kishinev when 50 Jews were murdered and hundreds were injured. 

Rosenberg concludes that ‘this whole effort to dig out evidence of zionists behaving badly in the 1930s in order to expose the way zionism behaves today is such a shoddy way of supporting the just demands of Palestinians and rests on crude generalisations.’

It is true that one doesn’t have to reference what Zionism did in the 1930’s to challenge what Israel does today to the Palestinians.  However the refusal of the Zionists to oppose genuine anti-Semitism, whether it was in the 1900’s when they supported the Tory anti-alienists who opposed the immigration of Jewish refugees into this country or the 1930’s, when they sabotaged the boycott of Nazi Germany, is relevant.  The Zionist idea that Jews did not belong in the countries of their birth is the mirror image of the idea that the Palestinians have no right to live in the land of their birth.  It is blood and soil nationalism, a Jewish form of German volkism The racism of Zionism towards Jewish people is mirrored in its treatment of the Palestinians today. 

Because Rosenberg doesn’t understand the racist nature of Zionism he believes that it is sufficient to “use the modern universal language of human rights’.  Citing Shami Chakrabarti, Rosenberg would rather that we talked of ‘dispossession, discrimination, segregation, occupation, persecution and leave Hitler, the nazis and the Holocaust out of it.”

This is the major problem of Rosenberg’s analysis.  If the Palestinian Question and Zionism is merely one of human rights, then there are other places in the world where human rights are far worse – South Sudan, Syria, the Congo, Burma – the list is endless.  In terms of straightforward abuses of human rights Israel is not the worst offender by any measure.

What makes Israel unique though is the fact that it is the world’s only Apartheid state.  Coupled with that, Israel is the central pillar of US foreign policy in the Middle East.  It is the primary agent of counter-revolution in the Arab East.  That is why the United States gives it $4 billion a year, more than every other country put together.  Israel is the bastion of imperialist domination in the Middle East and that is why allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’ are made in this country.  It is Rosenberg’s inability to understand the political nature of Zionism and the ruling class’s attack on anti-Zionists and the Palestinians which explains his reduction of support for the Palestinians to one of human rights.  It is this lack of any class or political analysis which led him and the JSG in 1993 to support the disastrous Oslo Accords. 

Socialist Workers Party Cowardice


Charlie Kimber, their National Secretary wrotethat Livingstone ‘has made life easier for the supporters of Israel.’  In what is little more than an echo of what David Rosenberg wrote, he cites the SWP’s Middle East ‘expert’ John Rose as saying that Livingstone walked into a trap set by his opponents.  The argument about Zionist collaboration with the Nazis has been around for a long time. It is rightly ignored by solidarity activists with Palestine.’

This is what they call a lie.  The evidence is overwhelming.  The agreement over Ha'avara for example is extremely well documented by Zionist historians.  There are many other examples of Zionist Nazi collaboration such as the suppression of the Auschwitz Protocols by two Auschwitz escapees Rudolph Vrba and Alfred Wetzler.  The Protocols revealed, for the first time in April 1944, that Auschwitz was an extermination not merely a labour camp.  The subsequent deportation of nearly ½ million Hungarian Jews in May 1944 as Germany was collapsing militarily, occurred because Kasztner reached an agreement with Eichmann for a train out of Hungary for the Zionist elite.  In return he not only suppressed the Protocols but his ‘Rescue Committee’ and the Judenrat actively deceived those boarding the trains as to where they were heading.  This was the subject of a four year long trial in Israel itself.  The findings of the Jerusalem District Court in 1955 that Kasztner was a collaborator have stood the test of time.

Rose suggests that the Ha'avara agreement ‘bitterly divided the Zionist movement.’  No it didn’t.  It was supported by all except the Revisionist (fascist) wing.  His argument that “Many young Zionists, in particular, were outraged” is unsupported by anything in the way of evidence.  This is in contrast to when Tony Cliff, who had experience of Zionism in the second world war was the leader of the SWP.  When in 1977 the Zionists attacked the Anti-Nazi League, which was then a mass movement set up to fight the National Front, Socialist Worker had a double page spread about Nazi-Zionist collaboration in WW2 as an explanation for why they attacked anti-fascists whilst leaving the fascists alone.

Rose considers himself a historian and bowled over by having met and reprinted The Ghetto Fights by the Bundist leader of the Warsaw Ghetto Resistance, Marek Edelman, he is unable to understand that the Zionists who fought in the Jewish Fighting Organisation did so not because of Zionism but in spite of it.  In short the SWP is peddling junk history.

Unfortunately, lacking all internal democracy, these things are not debated in the SWP but handed down from on high by the leadership.  As with the affair of the rape allegations that nearly destroyed the organisation, there is no effective way of people inside the SWP challenging their own leadership.
At a time when Livingstone is under attack for making statements of fact about Zionism, it is incumbent upon us to defend him because if we don’t do so then we actually leave the Corbyn leadership of the Labour Party even more vulnerable to attack.

Unlike the Morning Star, the SWP and the JSG/Dave Rosenberg the Right understands this simple concept.

Tony Greenstein

Yitzhak Yosef Advocates a Nazi-solution for the Palestinians

$
0
0
Stephardic Chief Rabbi, ethnic cleanser, Yitzhak Yosef
I realise that I will probably be accused of ‘anti-Semitism’.  However the ‘solution’ to the Jewish Question when the Nazis came to power was also ethnic cleansing i.e. expulsion.  In fact expulsion and genocide are two sides of the same coin.  The Orthodox Rabbis are also at the forefront of advocating genocide of the Palestinians.  Yitzhak Yosef also endorsed a book in 2011 by two rabbis – Yitzhak Shapira and Elitzur – which gave the legal  basis for Jews killing non-Jews, including infants.  

Tony Greenstein




Eli Yishai, a far Right Zionist politician and MK in the last Knesset, kisses the hand of Yitzhak Yosef's father, Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosef.  With Ovadia and Yitzhak it really is a case of like father, like son
The Israeli chief Sephardic rabbi, Yitzhak Yosef,  told a gathering of followers that non-Jews should be expelled from Israel (Hebrew here). The only exception, he said, would be in the cases of non-Jews who accepted the seven Noahide laws.

The rabbi’s intent is to expel the largest non-Jewish population in Israel, Palestinian Arabs. He also said that those non-Jews who did accept the Noahide laws and remained in the Israel, would primarily serve Jews. Their role would be akin to slaves and servants in colonial regimes.
The chief Rabbi acknowledged that Israel was currently not in a position to execute this plan; primarily because of the resistance to it from the non-Jewish world. However, he said that in the time of the messiah Israel would be in a position to implement this plan. And he looked forward to the Messianic era with great joy and anticipation.

Yosef also reminded his followers that any Palestinian armed with any weapon was worth killing without hesitation (“he who seeks to kill you, rise up before and kill him first”).  He was tacitly criticizing the IDF chief of staff who’d told an audience last week that Orthodox reasoning that killing any Palestinian no matter how small the threat posed was unacceptable.  He did not want, he said, to see his soldiers emptying their bullet chambers on Palestinians wielding scissors.  Rabbi Yosef’s religious reasoning reverts back to the most primitive “eye for an eye” thinking which Jews haven’t used as their operative principle in thousands of years.
Zionist humour - on being issued with new shoot to kill regulations, the soldier says that he's with the Rabbi on this one, in other words he prefers to expel all those under his command
Expulsion of Palestinians accords with those of the former Chief Ashkenazi, Jonah Metzger, who said that non-Jews, meaning Palestinian Muslims, should be expelled from Israel to Egypt. He said that the Sinai would be a perfect place to send them, since it was underpopulated. He suggested that Palestinian genius would make the desert bloom “like Arizona.” He even generously offered Israeli assistance in resettling what would be Israeli Palestinian refugees.

Yosef, is the son of the former Sephardi chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. Before he died, the latter said that non-Jews in Israel served only one useful purpose. He likened them to donkeys who served their masters as beasts of burden.

Some may argue that these figures are marginal in Israeli society.  However Rabbi Yosef is not just the chief Sephardic Rabbi, but also a spiritual leader of one of Israel’s major political parties, Shas. As such, he wields considerable power in Israeli society. Israel, which was once a largely secular society, has become increasingly theocratic.

We should also keep in mind that societies which were once liberal and humane one minute, turned into something quite different and uglier the next. As examples, we should look to our own country under Trump and Hungary under Viktor Orban. Civilization and tolerance can disappear in a heartbeat.  It’s especially troubling when religion is the champion of such brutalism.
There may be those encouraged by this to claim that these interpretations represent Judaism in full.  Not so.  They are not arbiters of Judaism for millions of the rest of us who do not ascribe to these views.  But since there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions who do follow them, their views are worth portraying. 
Viewing all 2416 articles
Browse latest View live