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

Meet Fiona Smith, Labour PPC for Hertsmere - Winner of the Uriah Heep Award of the Year

$
0
0

Obsequious, Creeping, Toadying, Servile, Fawning 

You Decide Which Adjective Best Describes Ms Smith

These are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.’

Fiona Smith's election photo

The original Uriah Heep - the similarities with Smith are not accidental
 Fiona Smith Apologises for Previously Calling for Halt to Arms Supplies to Israel

Are there no limits to which certain candidates won’t go in order to live down past principles?  It would seem that certain Labour candidates wouldn’t know what a principle was if it leapt up and bit them on the backside.  Meet Fiona Smith, who is a good example of such a creature.

In 2014 Fiona Smith, Labour candidate for Hertsmere, called for a halt to arms supplies to Israel.  At the  time of Operation Protective Edge, Israel was launching high tech missiles at schools, hospitals, clinics and people’s homes.  It was using cluster bombs against civilians and chemical weapons (white phosphorous).
The pathetic Fiona Smith - wears her principles very lightly
Israel even shot in cold blood 4 small children playing on Gaza’s beach, amongst the 551 kids who were murdered as part of Israel’s war against terrorism.ˌ

Most civilised and caring people called for a halt to arms supplies to Israel.  Israel is a state that is a world superpower which was testing its weapons on the civilian population of Gaza.  A population which has been subject to a starvation blockade for over a decade.

In her 2014 tweet Smith said that ‘we must not facilitate war crimes’ and Israel was committing war crimes by the thousand.  War on a civilian population is the quintessential definition of a war crime.
Photographs of the four children murdered on Gaza's beach - it was blindingly clear that these young boys were just children but Israel's murderous pilot fired missiles at them
 Today however the shameless and execrable Fiona Smith is a candidate for election in what the Jewish News describes as ‘the densely Jewish constituency of Hertsmere.’  Apparently 14% of its electorate are Jewish.  However that doesn’t mean that all of them are Zionists still less that Israel is the main issue concerning them. The Jewish News description of Herstsmere and the implication that its Jewish residents will vote according to the needs of Israel is what you might all anti-Semitic.

Smith's assumption however was that Jewish voters have no principles. Smith assumes that Jewish voters are likely to be impressed by someone whose principles are for sale if the price is right.  Ms Smith is what is known as a political prostitute.

Demonstrating just how some people will scrape and bow, Uriah Heep style, in order to chase elusive votes, Fiona Smith eats her words of 2014 and now claims that Israel was under attack by Hamas, Hizbollah (!) and Iran (!) – in other words all the fantasies of Netanyahu and his racist buddies.
In a previous life Fiona Smith was a human being
 As the Jewish comedian, Groucho Marx once said, ‘Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.’

When considering how best to describe the conduct of Ms Smith I first alighted on sycophantic and then looked for some synonyms.  I came up with the following:

obsequious, servile, subservient, deferential, grovelling, toadying, fawning, flattering, ingratiating, cringing, unctuous, oily, slimy, creeping, crawling, truckling, slavish, bowing and scraping, Uriah Heepish, gushing;

There are so many, but which one adequately or best describes Ms Smith’s behaviour?  Maybe you my dear readers could help me out.

Below is the Jewish News report on Fiona Smith

Labour’s Hertsmere candidate ‘mortified’ over Israel arms embargo post

May 4, 2017, 11:15 pm

Labour’s candidate for the densely Jewish constituency of Hertsmere has said she is “mortified|” about a social media comment she made  backing an arms embargo on Israel.

In 2014, during the height of Israel’s operation against Hamas in Gaza, Fiona Smith tweeted: “Call on the UK government to halt the supply of arms to Israel. We must not facilitate war crimes”, alongside a link to an Amnesty International appeal.

But today, Ms Smith, who hopes to unseat Oliver Dowden’s 18,000 majority in the constituency, distanced herself from the 2014 Twitter comment.

She said: “This single tweet is three years old and happened as a result of my clicking on an Amnesty International campaign.  I have no animus towards Israel whatsoever and am mortified that anybody might have been given that impression.  I have a track record of campaigning against arms policies more generally, including Saudi arms deals”.

The Labour candidate said she recognised “that the explicitly stated policies and actions of terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and the threat from Iran all create unique security and defence requirements to enable Israel to protect its citizens.  My understanding of this is underpinned by my background in our armed forces”.

Dowden, who is seeking re-election for the Tories, said: “Hertsmere needs a strong voice for its Jewish community not a Labour candidate who attacks Israel and whose leader offers friendship to Hamas and Hezbollah while anti-Semitism festers. As Hertsmere’s MP, these are exactly the sort of attitudes I sought to challenge – both as an officer of the Conservative Friends of Israel and Chairman of the Parliamentary group for British Jews.”

Ms Smith said she supported a two state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestiniansand that she opposed  boycotts of Israel which “do nothing to further the cause of peace” The candidate added that she looked forward to visiting Israel “and building close links with our sister Labour Party over there”.

Hertsmere incorporates areas of Bushey, Borehamwood and Radlett, all of which have seen major Jewish population growth, according to the Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR).

The constituency is home to the UK’s fastest growing Jewish community, which grew by 35 per cent between the 2001 and 2011 censuses. According to JPR’s report issued before the 2015 General Election, there were 14,293 Jews in the constituency, which has been held by the Conservatives since its creation in 1983.
The Jewish Chronicle also has a reporton Fiona Smith’s cringing, unctuous behaviour in disavowing her previous stance.

General Election - Is Labour on the threshold of victory?

$
0
0
No one has been more disappointed with the success of Labour’s campaign than the Labour Right and Zionist Jewish Labour Movement


At the very start of the election campaign, when all was doom and gloom, I published a post Labour Can Win if Corbyn is Bold – the Key Issue is Poverty and the Transfer of Wealth John Woodcock Must Not be Allowed to Stand.  This was at a time when the Tory lead was 20%.  I wrote:
It was Harold Wilson who said that a week is a long time in politics.  Seven weeks is a political eternity.  Theresa May has taken a gamble that her 21% lead will hold.  It is a gamble that she may yet come to regret.

There is only one direction that her lead can go and that is down.  Once her lead falls then a snowball effect can take over.  What is essential is that Labour marks out the key areas on which it is going to base its appeal.  The danger is that Corbyn is going to continue with his ‘strategy’ of appeasing the Right and appealing to all good men and women.  If so that will be a recipe for disaster.
No election is guaranteed to be without its surprises.  Theresa May is a cautious conservative.  She is literally the product of her background, a conservative vicar’s daughter.  Reactionary, parochial and small-minded, she is a bigot for all seasons.  What doesn’t help is that she is both wooden and unoriginal.  The danger is that Corbyn tries to emulate her.

Strong and stable Mrs May found that her slogan had made her a figure of fun as she dodged having to directly debate Jeremy Corbyn.  She even sent her Home Secretary into bat for her in the debate between party leaders earlier in the week, despite Rudd having only lost her father two days before.
It would be a mistake for people to be over confident at the fact that the Tories made major slip-ups over things like the Dementia Tax, taking food of children’s tables etc.  It is clear that the Tories and the Mainstream Media (BBC et al.) are going hell for leather over the question of Corbyn’s devotion to the State, be it Ireland, Terrorism or  Trident.

The essence of what I wrote was correct.   The Tory lead has shrunk.  My fears that Corbyn might backtrack have not come to pass in the economic sphere.  Labour’s manifesto was unexpectedly radical.  But in one particular area, the State and Security, Corbyn has retreated from all the things be has believed in in the past.
The Guardian has done its best to undermine Corbyn since he was elected
When Corbyn began to draw links between British foreign policy and the terrorist bombing in Manchester he held back.  He should have been more up front and said that it wasn’t simply a question of speaking to everyone and being peaceful but that we, the British and Americans, created the very terrorists who are now detonating bombs in Manchester and Europe.

Andrew Neil gave Corbyn a hard time in his interview and Corbyn was on the defensive throughout.  But he didn’t need to be with this Tory toe rag.  Neil started off by saying in his interview that Isis was in existence before the Iraq War.  Wrong.  They came out of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which itself only came about as a result of the invasion.  But even more importantly, Corbyn was not on top of the facts about the genesis of the development of terrorism.  If Isis came out of Al Qaeda, then Al Qaeda came out of our involvement in Afghanistan.


Theresa May was always happiest speaking to carefully selected audiences
Even before the invasion of Afghanistan, we had been sponsoring a range of Mujahadeen and Islamic terror groups in the country ever since the Soviet invasion in 1979.  We helped create both Al Qaeda and the Taliban (via the Pakistan secret service ISI).  We invited Saudi sponsorship of a multitude of Jihadist groups.  You don’t take my word for it.  Even Hilary Clinton admitted that the US created al Qaeda.  Just as Israel createdHamas. 
The other aspect of the ‘terrorism’ attack is Corbyn’s links with the IRA.  Despite his denials it is a factthat Corbyn heavily supported the Republican movement and Sinn Fein in particular.  Corbyn was right to do so (he didn’t support or oppose the IRA specifically).  But the point is that the IRA were not terrorists.  They came from a community, 45% of northern Ireland, which was forced into a Protestant supremacist statelet that they never agreed with in 1921.  In 1918 an all Ireland election had produced an absolute Sinn Fein majority.  This didn’t suit the British therefore they ignored the election result.

As they did in India and Palestine, the British pursued a divide and rule tactic, setting off Protestants against Catholics.  That is what led to The Troubles from 1969 onwards.
For 50 years Catholics in the north suffered horrendous violence, discrimination and gerrymandering  When they formed a civil rights movement in 1969 it was batoned off the streets.  The Catholic ghetto of The Bogside in Derry was attacked by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the para military B-Specials.  There were riots as barricades were erected and the Catholics defended themselves.  That led to the troops being sent in, ostensibly to protect the Catholics but in fact to prop up the existing state.

That was where the IRA came from.  It initially stood for I Ran Away.  The old IRA had been disbanded.  They were called the Officials whereas the new IRA under Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams (Adams was commander of the Belfast Brigade) were formed from scratch and in fact fought a war against the Officials, who were Stalinists moving to the Right.

Why were the IRA not terrorists?  Because  they had a mass base of support in the working class Catholic ghettos and represented the most oppressed section of Northern Ireland society.  Today they are the most successful party in the Catholic community and indeed are virtually on level pegging with the Democratic Unionist Party.  When the IRA planted bombs they gave warnings.  30 years ago a massive 1500 Kg bomb devastated the heart of Manchester and yet not one person was killed because there was a 90 minutes warning.  Unlike the scum of  ISIS who deliberately sought to kill innocent children, the IRA went to extreme lengths not to kill innocent people.  Of course sometimes they got it wrong as with the Birmingham pub bombings  Sometimes the warning weren’t passed on.  Yes they killed innocent people but not deliberately so.

The British army be it in Ireland or Iraq killed thousands of innocent civilians.  They invented a term – ‘collateral damage’ to explain it away.  Yet no one calls the British army terrorists.  What we had was a colonial war with the British army supporting the existing regime.  That regime was unsustainable and politically it had to be collapsed via direct rule  Even so the cause of Ireland has not gone away and won’t go away until the Partition of Ireland is eradicated. 

It is a great pity that Corbyn and even more so John McDonnell didn’t acknowledge that they supported, not peace but the Republicans.  Not only would it have been more honest it would also have explained and negated the attempt to put the ‘terrorist’ label on Corbyn and company.  
Unfortunately Corbyn and his advisers chose to do what they had done on Palestine.  Retreat behind meaningless platitudes.  On Palestine he moved from a position of support for Palestine solidarity and opposition to Zionism, which he explicitly supported with his sponsorship in 1984 of a conference which explicitly called for the disaffiliation of Poale Zion (now the Jewish Labour Movement) to one of support for 2 states.  In essence Corbyn has no criticism of Israel, which is the most racist state in the world.

Where to for the Election?

I do not have a crystal ball.  My initial predictions, that there would or could be a hung parliament was based on my assessment of the situation.  This is still quite possible as the Tories are widely detested for  their attacks on the working poor, people on benefits and the continuous privatisation of the NHS.  They are seen as the party of a vicious class rule, which is what austerity is about.

That does not, however, mean that the Tories will necessarily be defeated.  People do not vote in line with their class interests.  The whole purpose of the patriotic card, used by a succession of ruling class scoundrels from Pitt to May, is to blind people to their real interests.  It is saying that British workers and the poor have more in common with the rich and the ruling class than they do with each other.  The Tory press of course is doing its best to foster illusions in Strong and Stable.

Labour could still become the largest party but I also sense a vigorous fightback by the Right.  It seems that one part of the prediction I made will not come true.  The Lib-Dems are not going to gain enough seats to prop up another Tory coalition  At the moment they are tipped to win just one extra seat.  By ruling out any form of pact with Labour under Corbyn, the Lib-Dems have guaranteed their own irrelevance.

We could be in for a period of political instability such as we have not known for 40 years.  This is one of the hardest elections to call.  A Tory government is still possible if it cobbles together a coalition of the Lib-Dems & the Ulster Unionists-DUP.  Even a majority Tory government cannot be ruled out.

One thing that should be changed is the fact that Sinn Fein don’t take their seats because they won’t swear allegiance to the Queen.  Why should honest Republicans have to swear allegiance to a Monarch they don’t believe in?  Many MPs have been republicans, for example Tony Benn, but they had to lie to become MPs.  This should be one of our most immediate demands. 

The great danger, if that if Corbyn gets within a whisker of becoming Prime Minister, a number of Progress and Zionist Labour MPs – West Streeting, Louise Ellman, Joan Ryan (Labour Friends of Israel), John Mann, Peter Kyle, John Woodcock, Hilary Benn etc. are in effect going to refuse to support Corbyn becoming Prime Minister.  All their lies that they opposed him because he was ‘unpopular’ with the people, in reality Murdoch and the Mail, will disappear.  We will see that these arch-rightwingers are fiercely opposed to Corbyn  because they hate socialism.

Anyone who thinks the Right will make peace if Corbyn wins the election or gains enough seats to make a deal with the SNP and others is mistaken.  The fight with the Right will continue and regardless of the vote Corbyn must stay Labour leader until new elections when the rules have been changed to allow someone with 5% of PLP nominations to stand.

That is why the battle inside Momentum will take on a new significance.  Jon Lansman is intent on appeasement come what may.  A fight against the Right and their Zionist friends is the last thing he has on his mind.  Our job is to mobilise to remove any MP who refuses to support Corbyn as Prime Minister if that opportunity comes about.  We will have shown that radicalism is not unpopular.  Despite all the media flack, people have warmed to Corbyn’s ideas, even though they have in many cases been watered down.

It is to be hoped that housing, which has barely been mentioned figures.  That rent controls, security of tenure starts to figure.

We are living in exciting times.

Below are two articles by Jonathan Cook, an ex-Guardian journalist now living in Nazareth who points out the poisonous and treacherous role played by the Guardian since Corbyn was elected.  It was the Guardian, in the form of Jonathan Freedland and Owen Jones, which led the ‘anti-Semitism’ attack on Corbyn and the Left.  They are both good articles and well worth reading.

Tony Greenstein

1 June 2017
Those journalists who should have been behind Corbyn from the start – who could have been among his few allies as he battled the corporate media for nearly two years as Labour leader – are now starting to eat humble pie. Polls suggest that Corbyn may be gradually turning the election around, to the point where the latest poll, published in the Times, indicates that Britain could be heading for a hung parliament.

No one is surprised that the Daily Mail, Telegraph and Times have been relentless in their hatchet jobs on Corbyn. But it has been disconcerting for the left that the Guardian and BBC never gave him a chance either. He was in their gun-sights from day one.

Owen Jones, a Labour stalwart and Guardian columnist, should have been Corbyn’s number one ally in the press. And yet he used the invaluable space in his columns not to challenge the media misrepresentations, but to reinforce them. He engaged in endless and morose navel-gazing, contemplating a Labour rout.

In an Evening Standard interview in February, he imparted the following wisdom: “Things change but only if people will it to be.” But then almost immediately ignored his own advice, saying that if another Labour leadership election were held: “I’d find it hard to vote for Corbyn.

In eary May, Jonathan Freedland, the Guardian’s most senior columnist, wrote a commentary entitled: “No more excuses: Jeremy Corbyn is to blame for this meltdown.” In fact, though he did not mention it, he had been making that very same argument for the previous two years.

But as Corbyn has begun chipping away at Theresa May’s lead – and equally significantly, forced the media to widen the public debate into political territory it has avoided for nearly four decades – Freedland finally admitted this week, very reluctantly, that he and others may have misjudged the Labour leader.

Freedland’s reassessment, however painfully made, was still an evasion. He and Jones continue to avoid facing up to the central problem of British politics – and must do, because they are at its very heart.

The lesson of Corbyn’s much-improved polling, according to Freedland, is this:
If May is returned with a Commons presence far below the expectations of even a month ago, it will suggest that one more bit of conventional wisdom needs to be retired along with all the rest. It will prove that campaigns matter.

But that is not the real lesson. The turnaround in Labour’s fortunes is not chiefly about the party getting its act together, staying on-message and communicating better with the media. Rather, it is that the formal requirements of an election campaign – equal coverage, reporting the speeches of candidates, leaders’ debates – have made it much harder for the media, especially the broadcasters, to entirely obscure Corbyn’s winning qualities. His honesty, warmth and humanity eclipse May’s stiff, evasive and charmless demeanour.

It was precisely those qualities in Corbyn that proved so attractive to voters in the Labour leadership elections. He inspires a rare passion for politics when he is heard. That is why he is the only politician filling stadiums. That is why the Labour party now has hundreds of thousands of members, making it the largest party in Europe. That is why young people have been registering for the election in record numbers.

The demographic breakdown of support for Corbyn and May is largely generational. Corbyn enjoys a huge lead among young people, while May can rely on overwhelming backing from those aged over-65.

It may be comforting to imagine this is simply the natural order of things. Radicalism is the preserve of those starting out in life, while old age encourages caution and conservatism. This may be one factor in explaining the generational divide, but it clearly will not suffice. In much of the post-Thatcher era, the young have proved to be even more conservative than their parents.
The reason for the Corbyn-May split has to be found elsewhere.

The fact is that the young are least likely to trust the traditional, corporate media, and most likely to seek out information from alternative sources and social media, which have been fairer to Corbyn. Youtube clips of Corbyn’s speeches, for example, are one way to bypass the corporate media.

Conversely, elderly voters are mostly still relying on the BBC, Sky and the Daily Mail for the bulk of their information about politics. The over-65s have little sense of who Corbyn is apart from what they are told by a media deeply wedded to the current neoliberal order he is threatening to disrupt.

But neither Freedland nor Jones has been prepared to admit that all of the corporate media – not just their trusted scapegoat of the “rightwing press” – have been to blame for preventing Corbyn getting a fair hearing. It is an admission they cannot make because it would expose their own complicity in a media system designed to advance the interests of corporate power over people power, oligarchy over democracy.

A desire to avoid facing this simple truth has led to some quite preposterously contorted reasoning by Freedland. In a commentary before his recent reappraisal of Corbyn, he dismissed suggestions that the media had played any significant role in the Labour leader’s troubles. Freedland cited two focus groups he had witnessed. It is worth quoting the section at length to understand quite how ridiculous his logic is.

With no steer from the moderator, who remained studiedly neutral, they described Jeremy Corbyn as a “dope”, “living in the past”, “a joke”, as “looking as if he knows less about it than I do”. One woman admired Corbyn’s sincerity; one man thought his intentions were good. But she reckoned he lacked “the qualities to be our leader”; and he believed Corbyn was simply too “soft”. …

Corbyn’s defenders will blame the media, but what was striking about these groups was that few of the participants ever bought a paper and they seldom watched a TV bulletin. Corbynites may try to blame disloyal MPs, but, whatever its impact elsewhere, none of that Westminster stuff had impinged on either of these two groups, who couldn’t name a single politician besides May, Corbyn and Boris Johnson. They had formed their own, perhaps instinctive, view.

Blaming others won’t do.

How do people form an “instinctive view” on political matters, if they never read a paper, never watch TV and never attend a political rally? Through the ethers?

The answer should be obvious. They can do so only through conversations with, or impressions gained from, family, friends, acquaintances and work colleagues who do watch TV and read papers. Given that it is impossible for most voters to see Corbyn in the flesh, most are either getting their information and opinions directly mediated for them by the media, or receiving the mediated information second-hand, from people they know who have been influenced by the media.

Freedland’s assumption that it is possible for voters to form a view instinctively that Corbyn is a “dope” – the view of him that has been uniformly cultivated by the media – is laughable. It is evidence of a profound unwillingness to confront the power of the media, and his own irresponsible complicity in wielding that power.

Corbyn is a “dope” not because that’s the way he’s seen by voters. He is a “dope” because that is the way he has been characterised for two years by all of the media, including the Guardian. The fact that a growing number of voters are starting to question whether Corbyn is quite the dope they assumed is because he has finally had a chance to talk to voters directly, even if in the leaders’ debate Jeremy Paxman did his best to prevent Corbyn from forming a complete sentence.

If we had a fair, pluralistic media driven primarily by the desire to serve the public’s interests rather than those of corporations, who can doubt that Corbyn would be winning hands-down in the polls?

2 June 2017

Dear Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett,

Congratulations on coming out of the Guardian closet and admitting that you have been a secret Jeremy Corbyn admirer all along. Your column, “I used to be a shy Corbynite but I’m over that now”, was excellent.

Interestingly, I noticed Jonathan Freedland, the paper’s senior commentator and its Corbyn-denigrator-in-chief (he has some competition!) – and your boss, I suppose – wrote an oped a couple of days ago admitting he may have misjudged Corbyn. Maybe that was the moment you finally sparked up the courage to come clean about liking Corbyn.

I was very interested in what you had to say about why you remained silent for so long.
I had become so used to political commentators popping up every time I expressed admiration for Corbyn’s principles to call me naive or a narcissist or an Islington-dwelling champagne socialist or a loony lefty, as though we were in some pompous game of whack-a-mole, that I began to sort of believe it.

Are you talking about Freedland? But I suppose there were lots of other ideological bouncers out there in liberal-media pundit land. It must have been hard. As you say, “Stop treating us like fools!”
But I never did stop believing in the same things Corbyn does – in equality, social justice, social mobility and peace. Nor did I ever doubt that families such as my own would be much better off under a Labour government than a Tory one. Which is why I’m going to vote for him again.
Great, Rhiannon! Shame it took so long for you to pluck up the courage to speak out.

Why should anyone feel embarrassed to back an anti-austerity politician in this context? Why should anyone who cares passionately about the NHS remaining safe from being transferred into private ownership feel ashamed to support a politician who is committed to it? Why should any young person – most of whom seem to be voting for Corbyn – cringe at voting for a party that has committed itself to tackling generational injustice?

Good question. Why should anyone feel embarrassed, especially a well-paid, career-minded young journalist like yourself?

Here’s a guess. Maybe because your own paper worked relentlessly to make even leftists feel stupid for supporting Corbyn. The group-think got so bad, even at the Guardian, that Owen Jones, a friend of Corbyn’s, was too embarrassed to come out with anything more than grudging support for him in the paper’s pages. He spent his columns instead agonising over what to do about Corbyn.
Even George Monbiot, your in-house radical, sounded almost apologetic telling us recently that he supported Corbyn. No wonder you were too afraid to tell your bosses how you felt, or to pitch to them a pro-Corbyn commentary over the past two years. Safer to keep that information to yourself.
I worked at the Guardian myself for many years. I know the atmosphere in the newsroom only too well. I can imagine it was hard to contradict all those older, “wiser” heads further up the Guardian hierarchy. I wonder how many of the other young staff felt equally frightened to speak up over the past two years.

The narrative has shifted so much in the Tories’ favour, to the point where to announce you’re voting Labour feels subversive and threatening. … The frame has moved, but we still have the same brains, the same hearts, and the same guts. And my brain, my heart, and my gut are telling me that I would never forgive myself if I didn’t back Labour at this crucial time.

Yes, the narrative has shifted so much in the Tories’ favour. I suppose that was because there were no left-liberal journalists there to challenge it. If only we had a left-liberal newspaper that could support a social democratic candidate like Jeremy Corbyn for prime minister. Oh, but wait – isn’t your newspaper supposed to be left-liberal?

Anyway, well done, Rhiannon. I am glad you wrote this piece. Let’s hope, there are more like it to come. Maybe now it looks like Corbyn is in the running, and the Guardian editors have realised that they have egg on their face and that they have alienated large swaths of their readership, they will be more open to letting young journalists tell us about how they have been secretly longing to confess their passion for Corbyn and his politics.

Best wishes,

Jonathan Cook

Israel's Kasztner Trial - The Collaboration with the Nazis that still haunts Zionism

$
0
0

Review of Paul Bogdanor's 'Kasztner’s crimes - Tony Greenstein


Below is the unedited version of my review of Paul Bogdanor's Kasztner's Crimes which appears in the current issue of the Weekly Worker.  I have included a section on the Haganah paratroopers, in particular Hannah Szenes, which was left out of the version published in Weekly Worker for reasons of space.

This is the only critical review I know of, certainly from a socialist and anti-Zionist perspective, of a book that has garnered uncritical reviews.  The primary purpose of Bogdanor's book is to rehabilitate the reputation of the Zionist movement in Hungary by throwing Rudolf Kasztner, the leader of the Zionist movement in Hungary, to the wolves. 
Deportation of Jews from the town Koszeg, Hungary, 1944
It is not surprising that Yad Vashem, the Zionist Holocaust Propaganda Museum, which rehabilitated Kasztner's reputation and defended him to the hilt, has not responded to the book or its criticism of its premier historian, Professor Yehuda Bauer.

When Ken Livingstone was suspended for saying that the Nazis supported Zionism, people seized on the Nazi-Zionist trade agreement Ha'vara, which was agreed in August 1933.  However, although that was the first instance of Zionist-Nazi collaboration, the primary example was that of Rudolf Kasztner's betrayal of Hungary's Jewish population at a time in the war, May 1944, when the Nazis couldn't have carried out a mass deportation but for the collaboration of the Zionist 'Rescue and Relief Committee' which Kasztner headed (officially he was the deputy head).

Tony Greenstein
Paul Bogdanor - son of Vernon Bogdanor, Oxford's dry constitutionalist - dedicated anti-Communist and Zionist - in damning Kasztner he sought to rehabilitate Zionism's reputation during the Nazi era
Zionists persuaded people to take trains to Auschwitz
For years the Zionist movement defended Rudolf Kasztner - the leader of Zionism in Hungary during the Nazi occupation - against charges of collaboration with the Nazis. Yad Vashem, the holocaust propaganda museum in Jerusalem, gave its stamp of approval to the efforts to rehabilitate him. Tommy Lapid, chairman of its board of directors, is on record as saying: 
There was no man in the history of the holocaust who saved more Jews and was subjected to more injustice than Israel Kasztner.1
At first sight it is somewhat strange that Paul Bogdanor - who combines anti-communism and Zionism in equal measure - has written a book which accepts the long-standing anti-Zionist criticism of Kasztner.  That Kasztner was a Nazi collaborator who deceived Hungary’s Jews into boarding the deportation trains to Auschwitz with false information about being ‘resettled’ in a fictitious placed called Kenyermeze. Why then this about-turn?
Hungarian Jews waiting for the train to Auschwitz - they were misled by Kasztner and the Zionists into believing they were heading for the mythical Kenyermeze or Waldsee
Bogdanor claims that he initially set out to clear Kasztner. He was “tired of seeing Kasztner’s name come up repeatedly in anti-Zionist propaganda”. Bogdanor now argues that “the anti-Zionist claim that ‘Kasztner was part of a Zionist conspiracy with the Nazis to exterminate the Jews of Europe’ is nonsense”. He was “not acting on behalf of the Zionist movement: he betrayed it”.2

In the above quotation we can see where Bogdanor is coming from. No anti-Zionist has ever alleged that there was a Zionist conspiracy with the Nazis to exterminate Europe’s Jews - this kind of falsehood is Bogdanor’s trademark. It is a straw man. The Zionist movement did, however, collaborate with the Nazis.

When I accused Bogdanor of being a columnist for David Horowitz’s Frontpage Mag,3 he denied this, despite being listed as a columnist.4 He also contributed an article, ‘Chomsky’s war against Israel’,to The Anti-Chomsky reader,5edited by Horowitz.  Frontpage Mag had previously published Bogdanor’s article, ‘The top 100 Chomsky lies’. Bogdanor has an obsession with Jewish anti-Zionists - myself included.6

The reason why anything that Bogdanor writes should be treated with the utmost caution is his political and intellectual dishonesty. Bogdanor would defend the slaughter of the innocents if he thought that King Herod was a Zionist.
Adolf Eichmann - Bogdanor maintained that everything he said couldn't be trusted but nonetheless ended up quoting from his 1956 interviews
An example of Bogdanor’s method is his criticism of Lenni Brenner, whom Ken Livingstone relied on when he said that Hitler supported Zionism. Bogdanor criticised Brenner’s use of an interview with Adolf Eichmann by Wilhelm Sassen, a Dutch Nazi journalist.7Bogdanor described this interview as a “transparently worthless source”.8Of course, just because a quotation is from a Nazi war criminal does not make it invalid, especially given that the interviews were conducted freely, long before his kidnapping.9 Otherwise one must eschew all Nazi sources: eg, The Goebbels diaries.

Bogdanor asked if I was unaware that “Nazi mass murderers - and Eichmann above all - were pathological liars”.10In reply I asked whether it is a principle that one never quotes or cites what Nazi murderers say? Perhaps one should not quote Nazi documents too? Sometimes even liars tell the truth. Or maybe Bogdanor is an exception to the rule?11His response was: “Just as citing a Nazi sympathiser comes naturally to one who treats Adolf Eichmann as a truth-teller, so reliance on Stalinists is only to be expected from a writer for the Communist Party of Great Britain.12Imagine my surprise when Bogdanor’s book came out and there was a reference in the footnotes to Eichmann’s interview for Life magazine!13

Bogdanor is obviously unaware that the Sassen interview with Eichmann was used extensively by the Israeli prosecution in the Eichmann trial. Eichmann’s Defence of his actions in organising the deportations to the death camps was that he was just following orders. The Prosecution quoted this from his interview: “I thought my orders through and participated in their implementation because I was an idealist.”14 Eichmann was then cross-examined using the “efficient weapon of the memoir that Eichmann dictated to Sassen”.15  Presumably the Prosecutor in the Eichmann trial was unaware that he was quoting from a “transparently worthless source”.

The Eichmann trial, which was held in Israel in 1961, was, according to Israeli historian and journalist Tom Segev, meant to “expunge the historical guilt that had been attached to the Mapai [Israeli Labour Party] leadership since the Kasztner trial”.16

Kasztner in the dock

Rudolf Kasztner - head of Hungarian Zionist movement - on the Knesset list of Mapai (Israeli Labour Party) was also a Nazi collaborator
Ever since Kasztner had come to live in Palestine in early 1947, rumours had followed him. An inquiry in 1946 by the Jewish Agency, at the Zionist Congress in Basel, dismissed complaints brought by Moshe Krausz, who headed the Palestine Office in Budapest, for “lack of evidence”.17

Bogdanor says that the Labour Zionists “felt compelled to issue a statement praising Kasztner’s ‘tremendous work during the war’” (p.264). It is difficult to see why Mapai felt under any such compulsion unless they felt that a failure to defend Kasztner would also rebound on their own record during the holocaust. Nor does Bogdanor explain why “the Jewish Agency had unceremoniously fired Krausz from his post” (p.270).

Kasztner, a senior official in Mapai, brought a libel action, at the insistence of the state, against Malchiel Gruenwald, a Hungarian Jew who had published a newsletter alleging that Kasztner was guilty of collaboration with the Nazis.

The first comprehensive account of what became known as the Kasztner trial was Perfidy by the Hollywood producer and screenwriter, Ben Hecht. Hecht was a supporter of the dissident Zionists, Peter Bergson and Shmuel Merlin of the Emergency Committee to Save the Jews of Europe. Bergson and Merlin had incurred the wrath of the US Zionist leadership under Stephen Wise and Nahum Goldman because they insisted on rescuing Jews, whatever the destination, whereas it was a cardinal principle for the Zionist movement that rescue should be centred on Palestine only.
When Hecht’s book came out he was demonised. My copy includes a ‘review’ article, ‘Ben Hecht’s Kampf’, by Shlomo Katz published in Midstream magazine. Hecht was subject to the same personal attacks and denigration as Hannah Arendt, whose Eichmann in Jerusalem - a book based on her reports of the Eichmann trial for the New Yorker - had touched on exactly those subjects that the trial had been designed to avoid.18 Arendt described how
… the campaign (was) conducted with all the well-known means of image-making and opinion-manipulation ... [it was] as though the pieces written against the book (and more frequently against its author) “came out of a mimeographing machine” (Mary McCarthy) … the clamour centred on the ‘image’ of a book which was never written, and touched upon subjects that often had not only not been mentioned by me, but had never occurred to me before.
The evidence accumulated against Kasztner, despite repeated attempts to exonerate him: for example, Gaylen Ross’s film Killing Kasztner: the Jew who dealt with the Nazis19or Motti Lerner’s Kasztner,as well as Yechiam Weitz’s The man who was murdered twice and Anna Porter’s semi-fictional Kasztner’s train.

The holocaust historians at Yad Vashem, Israel’s official “World Holocaust Memorial Center”, led by Yehuda Bauer, have for years tried to exonerate Kasztner. Bauer wrote that it seems to me there are not many people who [like Kasztner] saved many Jews in the holocaust. There are certainly not many who saved for sure 1,684 Jews and contributed to the rescue of tens or hundreds of thousands.20

Kasztner's trial began on January 1 1954, presided over by Benjamin Halevi of the Jerusalem District Court: On June 21 Halevi found that 
“when Kasztner received this present [a train out of Hungary for Kasztner’s friends and the Zionist/Jewish elite] from the Nazis, he had sold his soul to the German Satan.”21
Krumey - a ruthless mass murderer who learnt his trade in Poland and Austria - organised the deportation of Hungarian Jewry - Eichmann's Deputy - Kasztner testified for him on behalf of the Jewish Agency
Halevi went on:
Eichmann did not want a second Warsaw. For this reason, the Nazis exerted themselves to mislead and bribe the Jewish leaders ...
The Nazi patronage of Kasztner, and their agreement to let him save 600 prominent Jews, were part of the plan to exterminate the Jews ... The opportunity of rescuing prominent people appealed to him greatly. He considered the rescue of the most important Jews as a great personal success and a success for Zionism.22 
On May 2 1944, 13 days before the trains started for Auschwitz, Kasztner had reached an agreement with Hermann Krumey, Eichmann’s deputy in Hungary:
Kasztner possessed at that moment the first news about the preparation of the gas chambers in Auschwitz for Hungary’s Jews … [he could] warn the leaders and the masses about the real danger of the imminent total deportation facing Hungary’s Jews, and immunise them against Nazi deceptions ... The other way opened for Kasztner by Krumey was the method of rescuing Jews by the Nazis themselves, with their help, according to agreement with the heads of the SS 23

Deceit

On April 24 Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Rosenberg, two Jewish escapees from Auschwitz, reached Slovakia. They described to the Jewish Council Auschwitz’s purpose (which previously had been thought of only as a labour camp) and provided details of the gas chambers and crematoria, as well as an estimate of the numbers of those killed. On or around April 29 Kasztner was given a copy of their report - known as The Auschwitz Protocols - and one was sent to his counterpart in Switzerland, Nathan Schwalb. Both Kasztner and Schwalb took a decision to suppress them.  Halevi found that:
… Kasztner understood very well … that the Prominents as a whole and his friends in Kluj in particular would not be rescued from the holocaust if the mass heard a hint about the real purpose of the operation: to save the leaders from the holocaust prepared for the people.
The association with the heads of the SS, on which Kasztner placed the entire fate of the rescue, forced him to withhold his information about the extermination plans from the majority of Hungary’s Jews (p145).24
Once Kasztner had agreed to be a partner of Eichmann, there was no way out: “Kasztner didn’t want to destroy by his left hand what he built with his right …”25
Kasztner took no steps, as leader of the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee (Vaada),26 to warn other Jewish communities, despite having access to a telephone and permits with which to travel.27 The evidence given by survivors of the Hungarian holocaust was that Kasztner and his friends went out of their way to deceive the Jews as to the destination of the trains. They were told they were going to be resettled in Kenyermeze.

Hecht quotes Levi Blum, who told of a 1948 celebration for Kasztner in Tel Aviv, given by those on the train, and how he confronted Kasztner:

I yelled at Kasztner, “You were a Quisling! You were a murderer! … I know that you, Kasztner, are to blame for the Jews of Hungary going to Auschwitz. You knew what the Germans were doing to them. And you kept your mouth shut.” Kasztner didn’t answer me. I asked him, “Why did you distribute postcards from Jews supposed to be in Kenyermeze?” 28

Elie Wiesel, the Zionist activist, was deported with his family to Auschwitz. Their non-Jewish servant infiltrated the ghetto and begged them to come with her to a shelter she had prepared: “... we would surely have accepted her offer, had we known that ‘destination unknown’ meant Birkenau” (pp.109-10). Kasztner did not merely suppress the Auschwitz Protocols. He, Vaada and the Jewish Council actively deceived Jews as to their destination. Both the Jewish leaders and the Zionists collaborated in the destruction of the Hungarian Jewish community.

Back to the aftermath of the 1954 trial. The Mapai (Labour Zionist) government submitted an immediate appeal to the supreme court against Halevi’s verdict. Kasztner’s representative, attorney general Chaim Cohen, outlined the basis for the appeal:
If in Kasztner’s opinion, rightly or wrongly, he believed that one million Jews were hopelessly doomed, he was allowed not to inform them of their fate; and to concentrate on the saving of the few ... He was entitled to make a deal with the Nazis for the saving of a few hundreds and entitled not to warn the millions. In fact, if that’s how he saw it, rightly or wrongly, that was his duty.
... But what does all this have to do with collaboration? ... It has always been our Zionist tradition to select the few out of the many in arranging the immigration to Palestine. Are we therefore to be called traitors?29
In January 1958 the supreme court cleared Kasztner by a majority of four to one. Shimon Agranat gave the leading opinion for the majority. Kasztner “had the right to keep silent”, said Agranat, and his decision to include a high number of Zionists on the train was “perfectly rational”.30
Col. Kurt Becher of the Waffen SS - Kasztner testified on his behalf at Nuremburg on behalf of the Jewish Agency

The supreme court did not challenge the facts found by the lower court. Rather it disagreed with the verdict on political grounds. All five judges upheld Halevi’s verdict on the “criminal and perjurious way” in which Kasztner after the war had saved Nazi war criminal Kurt Becher,31 the personal representative of Himmler in Hungary.

Kasztner was extremely proud that he had rescued the “prominent Jews”.32 There was no doubt that he was aware of the fate of those who were being deported. He boasted that he was the best informed about the perilous situation of the Jews at that time: “We had, as early as 1942, a complete picture of what had happened in the east to the Jews deported to Auschwitz and the other extermination camps.”33

Chaim Cohen said:
The man Kasztner does not stand here as a private individual. He was a recognised representative, official or non-official, of the Jewish National Institutes in Palestine and of the Zionist Executive; and I come here in this court to defend the representative of our national institutions.34
Bogdanor never explains why, if Kasztner was a lone individual, he was defended so avidly by the Zionist institutions, including its supreme court.

Bogdanor’s motives

When Bogdanor says that his original intention was to write a book exonerating Kasztner we can believe him. The evidence is so damning against Kasztner that the first question to ask is why, for over 60 years, has the Zionist movement defended a war criminal who, Bogdanor admits, was a Nazi agent?
SS General Hans Juttner - former head of the SA - Kasztner testified in his favour on behalf of the Jewish Agency
At the Nuremburg trials Kasztner had not merely given evidence on behalf of Kurt Becher of the Waffen SS, but also on behalf of SS general Hans Juttner and Herman Krumey - Eichmann’s deputy in Hungary, who organised the mechanics of the deportations. Kasztner even tried to save Dieter Wisliceny, the butcher of Slovakian and Salonikan Jewry, from the gallows in Czechoslovakia in 1948.

Bogdanor pretends that Kasztner gave this testimony as a private individual. In fact he represented both the Jewish Agency and the World Jewish Congress. Shoshana Barri concludes in her painstaking dissertation: “It is clear, however, that the Agency did know of the testimony’s existence, since Kasztner’s intervention on behalf of Becher at Nuremburg is mentioned in his July 1948 letter to Kaplan.”35Kasztner emphasised in his Nuremburg statement of August 4 1947 that “he was testifying not only on his own behalf, but on behalf of the Jewish Agency and the World Jewish Congress”.36
Dieter Wisliceny - ruthless and cunning member of Eichmann's Judenkommando - he organised the first mass deporations in Slovakia in 1942 before plying his trade in Salonika and then Hungary.  Hanged by the Slovaks after the war, Kasztner testified on his behalf and tried to save his life
Bogdanor argues, citing an interview in Ha’aretz of December 2 1994 (conducted by Gideon Raphael, who helped found Israel’s foreign ministry), that both he and Eliahu Dobkin of the Jewish Agency had strongly objected to Kasztner testifying on behalf of the Jewish Agency. Dobkin, who was a signatory to Israel’s Declaration of Independence, denied at the trial that he had even heard of Becher. Raphael in the same interview accepted that Dobkin’s testimony at the Kasztner trial - i.e., that he had never heard of Becher - was a lie. Barri refers to archival material of the Jewish Agency, which suggests that they both knew of Kasztner’s testimony on behalf of Becher.

Bogdanor asks why Kasztner changed his testimony between September 1945 - when he gave an affidavit condemning Becher, Krumey and company as cold-blooded killers - and January 1946, when he called them rescuers. What Bogdanor fails to mention is why did Kasztner again change his mind when he wrote a 300-page report for the Jewish Agency in the summer of 1946, before giving his testimony at Nuremburg in 1947? 

Bogdanor suggests that Kasztner was coming under pressure from holocaust survivors arriving in Israel, who alleged that he was a collaborator. According to Bogdanor, the way to clear his name was to show that these Nazi war criminals had actually been going around with Kasztner saving Jews from extermination. In other words the best way for Kasztner to prove he was not a collaborator was by testifying in favour of Nazi war criminals!

What this crackpot theory demonstrates is that Bogdanor will go to any lengths in order not to reach the most obvious answers. The reason that the Zionist leadership in Israel had no objection to Kasztner’s testimony was because they knew that they too were equally guilty (pp.254-59). After the war the Israeli state employed Nazi war criminals like Walter Rauff, the inventor of the gas truck, which was used both in the so-called Euthenasia campaign between 1939 and 1941 and then at the end of 1941 was used in the first extermination camp, Chelmno. Clearly there was no principled objection to Kasztner’s testifying on behalf of Nazi war criminals.37

What is remarkable about Bogdanor’s book is that it contains very little that was not already known. The primary evidence against Kasztner came from the survivors of the Hungarian holocaust, who testified that they had been deliberately fed misinformation to persuade them that they should board the trains. Bogdanor tries to exonerate the Zionist movement by pretending that, but for Kasztner, the Zionist resistance and Hehalutz youth movement would have led an uprising and that the deportations would have been foiled. Randolf Braham, the historian of the Hungarian holocaust, quotes Gyula Kádár, the former head of the Hungarian military intelligence service, as saying that “If [Hungary] had had as many ‘resistance fighters’ before March 19 1944 as it had in May 1945 and later, Hitler would not have risked the occupation of the country.”38 According to Edmund Veesenmayer, Hitler’s plenipotentiary in Hungary, “a day in Yugoslavia was more dangerous than a year in Hungary”.39

Braham writes that 
‘Like the claims of many other rescuers, the post-war accounts by their leaders are also sometimes self-serving and shrouded in myths.... One cannot possibly determine the exact number of Jews who were actually rescued by the Halutzim. Their rescue and relief operations, however relatively modest, were real. The myths lie in the leaders’ basically self-aggrandizing post-war accounts that exaggerate both the scope and accomplishments of these operations.’
Braham specifically mentions  Yehudah Bauer’s reliance on ‘self-serving testimonies’ that Joszef Meir, of the left-Zionist Ha-Shomer ha-Za’ir, was involved “in sabotage and the derailing of trains” commenting caustically that ‘No corroboration for this claim has been found to date.’ 40

Approximately 1,500 Hungarian Jews escaped across the Hungarian-Romanian border, the majority of whom “managed to save themselves without the aid of any rescue groups”.41 Braham quotes Gyula Kádár: “Had Hungary had as many mass rescuers during the German occupation period as were identified or self-proclaimed after the war, most of the Jews of Hungary would have survived the holocaust.” Braham concludes that “there is a potential danger that the myths of rescue, if left unchallenged, may acquire a life of their own, threatening the integrity of the historical record of the holocaust.”

The problem with Bogdanor’s account of the Kasztner affair is that he has no integrity. His only concern is to exculpate a Zionist movement that even the most assiduous and devoted of Zionist historians - such as Shabtai Teveth, Ben Gurion’s official biographer, raises serious questions about. Teveth titled the chapter on the holocaust in his biography of Ben Gurion ‘Disaster means strength’, writing that “the war and the holocaust were not in his power to control, but he again resolved to extract the greatest possible benefit from the catastrophe”. Teveth concluded:
“If there was a line in Ben Gurion’s mind between the beneficial disaster and an all-destroying catastrophe, it must have been a very fine one.”42 
Such subtleties entirely pass Bogdanor by.

Bogdanor spends some considerable time on the affair of the three Haganah agents, Hannah Senesh, Yoel Palgi and Peretz Goldstein who parachuted into Yugoslavia and joined Tito’s partisan fighters in March 1944.  In June they crossed into Hungary.  Szenes was almost immediately arrested.   When the other two parachutists arrived in Budapest Kasztner informed the Gestapo of their arrival and ‘persuaded’ Palgi to hand himself in and forced Goldstein into surrendering.  Despite repeated requests from her mother, Kasztner refused to provide any help to Hannah.  This was brought out clearly when both Kasztner and Hannah’s mother, Katrina, were cross-examined in the Kasztner trial.[43]
Kasztner’s motives are not difficult to discern.  The parachutists were Haganah and British agents.  Given Kasztner’s relationship with the Nazis, the arrival of these agents threatened his cosy relationship with the Nazis.  He therefore abandoned them. All three were tortured by the Hungarian secret police and Szenes was executed on November 7th.  Goldstein was sent to Oranienberg concentration camp where he died. Palgi was the only one who survived, having escaped from a train to Germany.  He later testified in the Kasztner trial. 

Bogdanor adds nothing to what isn’t already known.  Bogdanor alleges that the purpose of the parachutists’ mission was to ‘organize resistance and rescue attempts.[44]  This is highly unlikely not least because 32 agents were unlikely to have any effect on the capabilities of the already extant resistance in for example Yugoslavia.  Their true purpose was ‘to reconstruct the crumbling Zionist youth movements there [Europe] after the war’ [45]  
Yechiam Weitz explained that although the parachutists ‘outwardly defined theirs as a rescue mission... their primary goal was in effect to influence the survivors to choose Palestine as their ultimate destination.’  In short to rebuild the Zionist infrastructure in Europe.[46]  As the war was coming to an end, the Zionist leaders became concerned that the survivors of the Holocaust might not choose to go to Palestine.[47]  As Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of the New York Times, declaimed:
The unfortunate Jews of Europe’s D.P. Camps are helpless hostages for whom [Israeli] statehood has been made the only ransom... why in God’s name should the fate of all these unhappy people be subordinated to the single cry of statehood.’  [48]
Vaada, which was formed in January 1943, allegedly gave assistance to refugees from Poland, Vienna and other Nazi-occupied countries. One suspects that it mainly confined its assistance to Zionists. In his first chapter, ‘The underground’, Bogdanor leads us to believe that there was a veritable rescue organisation that saved up to 25,000 Jews. In fact most Jews who escaped to Hungary from Slovakia and other countries did so without any help from Vaada.

Rudolph Vrba gives us an insight into how Vaada operated, when he described how he fled as a boy of 17 across the border from Slovakia to Hungary. In Budapest he went to the headquarters of the Zionist organisation. After having told his story, a stern-faced man in his middle-30s responded:
“You are in Budapest illegally. Is that what you are trying to say?”
“Yes.” “Don’t you know you are breaking the law?” 
I nodded, wondering how a man with such a thick skull could hold down what seemed like a responsible position. 
“And you expect to get work here without documents?” “With false documents.”
At this point Vrba remarks that, if he had torn up the Talmud and jumped on it, I do not think I could have shocked him more ... he roared: 
“Don’t you realise that it’s my duty to hand you over to the police?” 
Now it was my turn to gape. A Zionist handing a Jew over to fascist police? I thought I must be going mad. 
“Get out of here! Get out as fast as a bad wind!” 
I left, utterly bewildered. It was nearly three years before I realised just what [the National Hungarian Jewish Relief Action] and the men inside it represented.

Vrba was forced to make his way back to Slovakia. Caught at the border, he ended up in Majdanek concentration camp and then Auschwitz.49

Time and again in his book Bogdanor betrays his primary motivation - to exonerate the Zionist movement at Kasztner’s expense. When he mentions the leaders of the Central Jewish Council he describes these bourgeois worthies - led by Samu Stern, a friend of Hungarian regent Miklós Horthy - as “anti-Zionist personalities”. They were nothing of the kind. Their distinguishing feature was that they were bourgeoispolitically. As even Bogdanor mentions, Abwehr (Nazi intelligence) agents “offered Kasztner’s committee control over the official Judenrat” (p19).

Bogdanor cites Alex Weissberg when accepting that “in the few days that followed the German invasion we became the leaders of Hungarian Jewry. Even Samu Stern deferred to their decisions” (p.24). Bogdanor cites the testimony of Kasztner at the trial: “The Judenrat body handling the provincial towns was a Zionist body” (p.101). Vaada had immunity passes and were able to use their own cars, had telephones and did not have to wear the yellow star.

Representative of Zionism

What then can be said in favour of Bogdanor’s book? There can be little doubt now as to the role of Kasztner in betraying and deceiving the Jews of Hungary - not least in his home town of Cluj (Kolosvar), which was only two-three miles from the Romanian border. In falsely claiming that it was impossible to cross because the Nazis had increased their patrols, Kasztner actively helped send the Jews of that region to their death. It is a fact that most of those who attempted to cross that border actually succeeded.

Bogdanor’s recounting of the testimony of the Hungarian holocaust survivors in the Kasztner trial and how they were tricked into getting onto the trains is revealing (pp.89-94), although most of this too is in Perfidy. But his suggestion that Kasztner acted as a lone wolf is unsustainable. He was one of a number of members of Vaada and all but one survived the Holocaust (pp. 52-56). The suggestion that “the Jewish Agency was being deceived by Kasztner” has no foundation. By his own account, the Jewish Agency ‘Rescue Committee’ had been transformed into “a client body of the most dangerous Nazis” in the SS (p.59). Even Bogdanor is forced to admit, regarding Palestine, that there was a “disastrous aversion of the Labour Zionists to publicity in matters of rescue” (note 16, p.85).
However, he never asks why this was the case.

Repeatedly the Jewish Agency executive in Jerusalem refused to take the Nazi threat to Hungarian Jewry seriously. Vanya Pomerantz, a member of the agency’s Istanbul mission, informed them on May 25 1944 that 12,000 Jews a day would be deported, beginning the following week (in fact the deportations had already begun).  On June 11 Gruenbaum was alone in informing his Jewish Agency
colleagues that 12,000 people a day were being transported to their deathsYitzhak Gruenbaum was alone in describing the Nazi ‘offer’ as a “satanic provocation”.  On June 18 he noted that the deportations were continuing incessantly. But the public and the world were told nothing.50
Bogdanor says that at their meeting of June 11 (and also May 25) Gruenbaum’s colleagues, including Ben Gurion, were “confused” because of Nazi deception.(pp.130-131)

Given that over five million Jews had already been murdered by the Nazis, it was obvious that the Jews of Hungary were in mortal danger. It was not ‘confusion’, but indifference, that led the Jewish Agency executive initially to reject even a call on the Allies to bomb Auschwitz or the railway lines leading to the camp. They had a more important priority: building their racist state. The fact that it was the Swiss, not the Palestinian, press that broke the news of the deportations, which led to Horthy putting an end to them, speaks volumes. The Jewish Agency was content with private, routine pleas to the Allies. It undertook no propaganda campaign to put pressure on the Horthy regime.

It took the Czech government in exile and the Swiss press, at the end of June, in tandem with Pope Pius XII, King Gustav of Sweden and the American bombing of Budapest on July 2 1944, to halt the deportations to Auschwitz. Despite the Zionist axiom that Jews can only rely on other Jews, it is a fact that it was non-Jews, not the Zionists, who saved a quarter of a million Hungarian Jews. It was the Swedish count, Folke Bernadotte, who was responsible for negotiating with Himmler for the rescue of over 30,000 concentration camps inmates; and Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg who was responsible for rescuing thousands of Jews in Budapest. Bernadotte’s reward was to be murdered by pro-Nazi Zionist terrorists of the Stern Gang, with the knowledge and support of the Labour Zionist Haganah, in Jerusalem in September 1948. Wallenberg died at the hands of the Stalinist criminals in Russia.

Bogdanor accepts that Kasztner had been “recruited as a collaborator by the Nazis” (p.71), but this is, of course, exactly what anti-Zionists have maintained for years! And his conclusion - that Kasztner claimed false credit regarding the Jews sent to Strasshoff in Vienna (some 12,000-16,000 of whom survived, because the Nazis needed labour to dig anti-tank ditches) - is also well known. I agree with his conclusion regarding the Nazi offer of one million Jews in exchange for 10,000 trucks to be used against the Russians in the east - the so-called ‘Blood for Trucks’ deal.51 It was clearly meant to distract from the deportations.

What is abundantly clear from Bogdanor’s book is that the Zionist movement did indeed collaborate with the Nazis during the war and obstructed the rescue attempts of others. This continues to haunt the Zionist movement today, Bogdanor notwithstanding.
Notes
1. Ha’aretz July 23 2007: www.haaretz.com/yad-vashem-hopes-kastner-archive-will-end-vilification-1.226041.
2. www.timesofisrael.com/on-quest-to-clear-kasztner-historian-shocked-to-prove-nazi-collaboration.
3. ‘Why Ken Livingstone got it right over Nazi support for Zionism’, June 17 2016: http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/why-ken-livingstone-got-it-right-over.html.
4. http://archive.frontpagemag.com/bioAuthor.aspx?AUTHID=3012.
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anti-Chomsky_Reader.
6. ‘Tony Greenstein and the Nazi apologists’: www.paulbogdanor.com/antisemitism/greenstein/nazi.html.
7. Reprinted on the Nizkor site, which is dedicated to rebutting holocaust denial: www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/german/einsatzgruppen/esg/trials/profiles/confession.html.
8. http://fathomjournal.org/an-antisemitic-hoax-lenni-brenner-on-zionist-collaboration-with-the-nazis.
9. http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/why-ken-livingstone-got-it-right-over.html.
10. ‘Tony Greenstein’s house of cards’: www.paulbogdanor.com/antisemitism/greenstein/tonygreenstein.pdf.
11. ‘Paul Bogdanor and the Zionist three-card trick - why Ken Livingstone was right’ (part 2): http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/paul-bogdanor-and-zionist-three-card.html.
12. ‘Tony Greenstein’s sleight of hand‘: www.paulbogdanor.com/antisemitism/greenstein/tonygreensteinreply.pdf.
13. Bogdanor, p27, note 1.
14. S Minerbi The Eichmann trial diary New York 2011, p144.
15. Ibid p152.
16. T Segev The seventh million New York 1993, p328.
17. Ibid p258.
18. New Yorker February 16 1963 and subsequent issues: www.newyorker.com/magazine/1963/02/16/eichmann-in-jerusalem-i.
19. http://forward.com/culture/116718/kasztner-hero-or-devil.
20. ‘Israel Kasztner vs Hannah Szenes: who was really the hero during the holocaust?’: www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.557024.
21. B Hecht Perfidy New London 1997, p180.
22. Ibid pp179-80.
23. Part of Akiva Orr’s contribution to Jim Allen’s book, Perdition: a play in two acts (London 1987), pp88-89.
24. Ibid pp91-92. In fact that information was sent to Schwalb almost immediately. See F Baron, ‘The “myth” and reality of rescue from the holocaust: the Karski-Koestler and Vrba-Wetzler reports’ The Yearbook of the Research Centre for German and Austrian Exile Studies No2 (2000), pp171-208.
25. A Orr, p90.
26. Porter confirms that Kasztner’s job was co-funded by the US-based Joint Distribution Committee, a non-Zionist Jewish charity, along with the Jewish Agency. The latter had sought to set up a Relief and Rescue Committee in Budapest, only to find that one had already been established (A Porter Kasztner’s train London 2009, p61). Akiva Orr describes Kasztner’s Relief Committee as “affiliated” to the Jewish Agency Relief Committee in Palestine (in J Allen Perdition: a play in two acts London 1987, p81). Krausz was a member of the religious Zionist Mizrahi, whereas the Jewish Agency was controlled by Mapai. Randolf Braham says: “The Rescue Committee of Budapest was established early in 1942, under the auspices of the Rescue Department of the Jewish Agency for Palestine” (Patterns of Jewish leadership in Nazi Europe 1933-1945p281, Jerusalem 1979).
27. B Hecht Perfidy New London 1997, pp113-15.
28. Ibid p109-10.
29. B Hecht Perfidy New London 1997, p195.
30. Lob p280.
31. B Hecht Perfidy New London 1997, p247.
32. H Arendt Eichmann in Jerusalem Old Saybrook 2011, p132; RL Braham The politics of genocide - holocaust in HungaryHilberg 1981, p134.
33. RL Braham The politics of genocide - holocaust in HungaryHilberg 1981, p881.
34. B Hecht Perfidy New London 1997, p268, note 159.
35. Kaplan was the Jewish Agency treasurer, as well as being Israel’s first finance minister and deputy prime minister.
36. S Barri (Ishoni), ‘The question of Kasztner’s testimonies on behalf of Nazi war criminals’ Journal of Israeli History18: 2, 144 (1997).
37. www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/in-the-service-of-the-jewish-state-1.216923.
38. RL Braham, ‘Rescue operations in Hungary: myths and realities’ East European Quarterly Vol 38, summer 2004, p173.
39. Ibid p990.
40. Ibid pp37-39.
41. Bauer estimates that up to 5,000 escaped - Y Bauer Jews for sale? Yale 1996, p160.
42. S Teveth The burning ground 1886-1948 Boston 1987, pp854, 851.
43   Ben Hecht, Perfidy, pp. 127-132.
44    Bogdanor, p. 159.
45 What Did Really Happen in Hungary? Review of "Into the Inferno: The Memoir of a Jewish Paratrooper Behind
       Nazi Lines" by Yoel Palgi, Rutgers University Press. Judith Baumel, Ha’aretz 13.6.03.
46     Even anti-Zionist author Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, 1983, p. 260, Croom Helm, London, described the purpose of the Haganah parachutists as to ‘organise Jewish resistance and rescue’.
47      Yechiam Weitz, Jewish Refugees and Zionist Policy during the Holocaust, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Apr., 1994), p. 359.
48      New York Times, 27.10.46. cited in Tom Suarez, State of Terror – How terrorism created modern Israel, 2016.
49.      R Vrba I cannot forgive London 1964, pp.27-28.
50.     Shabtai Beit Zvi, p.316.   Minutes of Jewish Agency 11.6.44.
51.      Tony Greenstein, ‘Zionist-Nazi collaboration and the holocaust: a historical aberration? Lenni Brenner revisited’ Holy Land Studies 13.2 (2014), p.208.

Labour MEPs Join With UKIP, the Front National and assorted Racists and Fascists in opposition to ‘Anti-Semitism’

$
0
0

Open Letter to New Labour's Anneliese Dodds MEP Does Europe's Far-Right really opposes racism?

In Israel - relationships between Arabs and Jews are condemned by all Zionist parties
 It's not a good idea to underestimate the stupidity of Labour MEPs and what passes for social democracy these days.  However the decision to support the bogus International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism alongside nearly all of Europe's far-Right parties, marks a new low, even for people like Dodds.

Last Wednesday a motion on Combating Anti-Semitism was tabled at the European Parliament.  Naturally all good men and true are against anti-Semitism and indeed all forms of racism.  That was why Hungary's Jobbik and Greece's neo-Nazi Golden Dawn parties opposed the resolution.
UKIP - like most racists and anti-Semites they support Zionism
However part of this motion, Clause C2, called on Member States and EU Institutions and Agencies to adopt and apply the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.
Readers of this blog will know that the IHRA is a bogus definition of anti-Semitism whose only purpose is to conflate and confuse anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, [see Bogus Definition of Anti-Semitism Suffers Its First Defeat at the University Colleges Union Conference].

I therefore wrote to the only Labour MEP in the South East, Anneliese Dodds, to ask her not to vote alongside an assortment of reactionaries and racists to ‘oppose’ the Zionist definition of anti-Semitism.
Very kindly, Ms Dodds replied almost immediately.  She didn’t agree with me but, I thought, at least she took the time and trouble to respond.  Imagine my surprise when a friend up north received an identical response from Labour’s North East EU office!  Leaving aside coincidence, it would seem that Ms Dodds in incapable of explaining, in her own words, how she voted last Wednesday. 

Of course I expect no better from a brain dead New Labour MEP however that didn’t deter me from responding to ‘her’ letter.
Empty headed - Anneliese Dodds - New Labour MEP for South-East
Letter to Anneliese Dodds, Labour MEP for the South-East

Dear Anneliese

When I received your email last Sunday, explaining why you were going to vote to support the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, I was of course disappointed that you didn’t engage with my arguments. However I accepted that there will always be times when socialists, if that is not too strong a word for you, disagree.

You will therefore imagine my surprise when a friend received an identical letter, from Jude and Paul at the North East Labour Office. I realise that brilliant (& stupid) minds work alike, but this was, as I am sure you will agree, a coincidence too far.  It would seem that you are either incapable of or unwilling to defend your decision to vote against deleting Clause C2 of the motion, which included the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.  I would be interested to know whether it is normal practice for you to rely on a letter written by others when you correspond with your electorate and whether you inform correspondents that the letter is not in fact your own?
The Islamaphobic Danish People's supported the IHRA
You will I am sure understand why I am copying this letter to other people as it demonstrates your lack of integrity and dishonesty in passing a standard letter as your own.  You will I am sure understand why I will pass up your offer to subscribe to your newsletter since it is probably written by someone else anyway.

You state that the EU Parliament resolution on Fighting Antisemitism calls for a working definition of antisemitism.  Why is this a problem? Anti-Semitism is quite a simple concept.  Most people have no problem understanding what anti-Semitism is.  Anti-semitism is hostility or hatred directed against Jews as Jews.  

Dr Brian Klug of Oxford University, an academic expert on anti-Semitism drew up an equally simple definition of anti-Semitism.  In his lecture What Do We Mean When We Say ‘Antisemitsm’? Echoes of shattering glass’ given at the Conference “Antisemitism in Europe Today: the Phenomena, the Conflicts” held on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, at the Jewish Museum, Berlin in 2014, 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  


This is 20 words in total. You say the development of the IHRA definition is a ‘tool to help practitioners and law enforcement officers to identify antisemitic incidents.’   I fail to understand how a ‘definition’ of some 420 words can be of greater use than a simple 20 word definition in helping law enforcement. What are they supposed to do before arresting someone? Write a thesis?

There is one and only one reason why the IHRA is 420 words long and that is because its main purpose is to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.  It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It is no coincidence that the IHRA definition contains 11 ‘examples’ of anti-Semitism of which 7 are directly concerned with criticism of Israel and/or Zionism.

One such example is ‘Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.’  Hannah Arendt in her book ‘Eichmann in Jerusalem’ drew attention to the fact that Jews and non-Jews cannot marry in Israel.  In Israel, relationships between Jews and Arabs are actively discouraged because in a society based on Jewish racial supremacy, intermarriage threatens the established social and racial order.  Hence was why the Education Ministry banned from the high school syllabus Dorit Rabinyan's book Borderlife, which portrayed a relationship between Arab and Jewish teenagers.  Israel Bans Novel on Arab-Jewish Romance From Schools for 'Threatening Jewish Identity'

Arendt compared this situation to the Nazis' Nuremburg laws.  But according to this idiotic definition of anti-Semitism, the greatest Jewish political philosopher of the 20th century, herself a refugee from Nazi Germany, is anti-Semitic.  There are plenty of other comparisons between Israel and the Nazis prior to 1941, e.g. segregation of education, housing, social amenities etc.

Another, equally fatuous example of ‘anti-Semitism’ is ‘Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.’  I agree this is terrible but Zionist organisations continually say that Israel is the embodiment of modern Jewish identity.  If that is the case then clearly Jews are responsible for Israel's actions.

In an article for the Telegraph the Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis held that One can no more separate it [Zionism] from Judaism than separate the City of London from Great Britain.’  He is wrong, there is a very clear distinction between the two but is it really the case that the Chief Rabbi of British Jewry is an anti-Semite?  Surely that is a bit strong?

You, or rather your ghost writer also state that the IHRA definition is not legally binding.  Perhaps this is true at the moment, but its adoption by the European Parliament makes it one step nearer to it becoming legally binding.  There is already a clear attempt, along the lines of what has already happened in France, to make Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel illegal.  

If Israel's supporters have their way then the tactics used successfully against Apartheid South Africa will be rendered illegal if used against Apartheid Israel.  What you are doing is supporting a form of McCarthyism in which legitimate free speech and solidarity action is outlawed.

However I forgot the clinching argument in your email. Apparently ‘the definition specifically states that criticism of Israel cannot be regarded as antisemitic.’  One of the problems of having others do your writing and thinking is that you end up putting your trust in spin doctors and other varieties of the common fool. 

If you had bothered to actually read the IHRA definition you would know that it doesn’t say that criticism of Israel cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.  If that were the case then why does the IHRA give examples of where criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic?  

What the IHRA does say is that ‘criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.’  In other words you can’t criticise Israel unless you criticise other countries in the same way. 

Or as the Parliamentary Select Committee Report on Anti-Semitism stated
‘Israel is an ally of the UK Government and is generally regarded as a liberal democracy,... It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies.' [Paras. 23 and 24]

In other words, if you criticise the world's only Apartheid state, a state which defines itself as a Jewish state, a state not of its own citizens but Jews worldwide, then that is according to the IHRA anti-Semitic.  Anyone with an ounce of grey matter will immediately recognise that the IHRA definition has nothing to do with the popular perception of anti-Semitism, i.e. hatred, violence or discrimination against Jews.  Its purpose is to protect Israel, the West’s main ally in the Middle East.

How can criticism of Israel be similar to that against other countries when Israel is unlike any other country?  Perhaps you can name any other country which deliberately sought to engineer the ethnic composition of its population by expelling 80% of the people living there, in this case the Palestinians?  Or a country which has ruled over 3 million residents for 50 years without giving them any civil or political rights and which characterises all opposition as ‘terrorism’?  A state which has two separate legal systems operating in the West Bank – one for non-Jewish Palestinians and another for Jewish settlers.  This is the quintessential definition of Apartheid as even John Kerry all but admittedlast year.

The third paragraph of ‘your’ letter is tautological and engages in a circular argument.  You say that ‘The IHRA definition does not ... limit freedom of expression. This is because the definition is not legally binding and because it specifically states that criticism of Israel as such cannot be regarded as antisemitic.’  I have already dispensed with the latter point.  The fact that the definition is not, at the moment, legally binding, does not prevent it from being part of a well funded and well organised attempt to inhibit freedom of speech. 

The rest of your letter is an example of verbal incontinence.  I would suggest that if you are seriously interested in combating anti-Semitism as opposed to acting on behalf of the Israeli Embassy, then you read the article in May’s London Review of Books by Sir Stephen Sedley entitled ‘Defining Anti-Semitism’.  You might then understand exactly what it is you have voted for and why crying wolf over anti-Semitism, is the best way of giving succour and support to genuine anti-Semites.  The article begins:
Shorn of philosophical and political refinements, anti-Semitism is hostility towards Jews as Jews. Where it manifests itself in discriminatory acts or inflammatory speech it is generally illegal, lying beyond the bounds of freedom of speech and of action. By contrast, criticism (and equally defence) of Israel or of Zionism is not only generally lawful: it is affirmatively protected by law. Endeavours to conflate the two by characterising everything other than anodyne criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic are not new. What is new is the adoption by the UK government (and the Labour Party) of a definition of anti-Semitism which endorses the conflation.
You might also want to read the Opinion of Hugh Tomlinson QC re the IHRA where he states:
21.      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.
Voting Alongside an Assortment of Racists and Fascists

The breakdown of the vote last Wednesday in support of Clause C2 of the anti-Semitism resolution is very interesting.  

All the members of that well known anti-racist party UKIP voted to support the IHRA.  

The far-Right European and Conservative Reform Group voted by 57-4 to support the IHRA.  This included the racist and anti-Semitic Polish Law and Justice Party.  Perhaps you don’t remember when David Miliband, as Foreign Secretary in 2009 , ‘tore into the Waffen-SS sympathisers in the Latvian party Cameron had also embraced.Is Michal Kaminski fit to lead the Tories in Europe?
Robert Ziles of the Latvian LNNK - loves Israel and loves anti-Semitism

Miliband was referring to Robert Ziles, of the Latvian LNNK, who last Wednesday voted like you to support the IHRA.  Ziles likes to spend a weekend in March paying tribute to Latvian members of the Waffen SS and marching with them.  Ziles too apparently condemns 'anti-Semitism'.

Amongst other supporters of the IHRA were Le Pen’s Europe of Freedom & Direct Democracy Group, which voted by 25-5 to support the IHRA.  All members of the Front National and Herr Strache’s Austrian Freedom Party (formed as a neo-Nazi party) voted to support the IHRA.
Victor Orban's Fidesz hates refugees, loves Hungary's war time Nazi collaborators but supports the IHRA
We should not, of course, forget that other well-known anti-racist party, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s Fidesz, which apart from its enlightened policies when it comes to refugees and asylum seekers smiles benignly on the growing rehabilitation of Admiral Horthy, the ruler of Hungary under the Nazis from March 19th until July 7th when some 437,000 Jews were deported to Auschwitz.  Fidesz has openly tolerated and played along with anti-Semitism in Hungary yet 10 of its MEPs had no hesitation in voting in favour of the IHRA.

Perhaps I could refer you to an article by Randolf Braham, the historian of the Hungarian Holocaust, The Reinterment and Political Rehabilitation of Miklós Horthy

As Donald Trump has demonstrated, White Supremacists like Donald Trump's Strategic Advisor, Steve Bannon and Breitbart News demonstrates, support for Zionism and Israel goes hand in hand with anti-Semitism.  After all if you don't want Jews in your own country why not support their removal to the 'Jewish' state of Israel.  

I guess congratulations are in order for having voted alongside almost all the racists and anti-Semites in the European Parliament in support of a Zionist definition of anti-Semitism. 

Given all these allies that you have made in the fight against ‘anti-Semitism’ have you ever considered forming another parliamentary group, ‘Anti-Semites against ‘anti-Semitism’?  

Yours sincerely,

Tony Greenstein

 Letter from Ms Dodds and others in Defence of Their Vote to Support the IHRA

Sunday 28 May 2017

Dear Tony,

Thank you for your email concerning the European Parliament's Resolution on Fighting Antisemitism. This Resolution is intended to contribute to countering the rise in antisemitic attacks in the EU. It calls for a working definition of antisemitism, promotes the security of Jewish communities, and calls for the appointment of special envoys and all-parliamentary groups on fighting antisemitism.

The Resolution calls for the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. This definition is not legally binding and serves as a tool to help practitioners and law enforcement officers to identify antisemitic incidents. The definition specifically states that criticism of Israel cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

We acknowledge concerns regarding freedom of speech and would not accept any attempt to equate antisemitism with criticism of Israel. The IHRA definition does not do this, nor does it limit freedom of expression. This is because the definition is not legally binding and because it specifically states that criticism of Israel as such cannot be regarded as antisemitic. The definition was adopted by the UK Government with the support of the Labour party in December 2016.

Labour MEPs support the European Parliament's resolution as it is an important measure to counter the rise in antisemitic attacks in the EU. Language or behaviour that displays hatred towards Jews is antisemitism, and is as repugnant and unacceptable as any other form of racism. This Resolution condemns this and calls on EU Member States to take further action to actively protect Jewish communities.

Labour MEPs will continue to raise these concerns and monitor the definition in practice.
Thanks again for getting in touch; If you are interested in keeping updated on my work, both here in the South East and in the European Parliament, you can sign-up for my report back e-newsletter here http://www.AnnelieseDoddsMEP.uk/e_newsletter

Yours sincerely

Anneliese Dodds MEP

Labour’s Roll Call of Shame – 16 MPs for Deselection

$
0
0
The 52 Racists Who Signed A Pledge to Support Israeli Apartheid
Desmond Tutu: “Israel has created an apartheid reality.” (Joseph Wanyama/Flickr)
We should be grateful to the execrableLuke Akehurst, arms salesman and Labour First right-winger, who is employed by We Believe in Israel, one of the main Israeli propaganda organisations in Britain.  He has provided us with an excellent list of those MPs who should be first on a target list for deselection.  It is also quite remarkable that Akehurst's exercise in racist politics has garnered so little support.  There are many members, even of the Labour Friends of Israel, who have not signed up to his Pledge.
The Apartheid Pledge
Luke sent out a Pledge for Israel and 52 Labour candidates – including 16 MPs - signed up to it.  They include unsurprisingly the Chair and Vice-Chairs, of the British branch of the Israeli Labour Party (or Jewish Labour Movement as it styles itself), Jeremy Newmark and Mike Katz.  Fortunately neither of these two are likely to be elected.   
Paul Flynn MP
The 16 MPs include the corrupt MP for Enfield North and Chair of Labour Friends of Israel Joan Ryan, the woman who claimed more expenses than any single MP in 2007 and was runner-up in 2008.  It also includes Angela Eagle, the erstwhile challenger to Jeremy Corbyn, who falsely accused activists in her Wallasey constituency of homophobic abuse.  It includes Blairites like Caroline Flint, who was one of the foremost advocates of ‘welfare reform’ under Blair and the invisible MP for Knowsley, George Howarth.  Surprisingly it includes Paul Flynn, who is the only MP on the left on the list.  A man who should know better.  It also includes two Black MPs, David Lammy and Tulip Siddiq, who should feel ashamed of themselves for having signed this Apartheid Charter and the millionaire MP for Coventry NW, Geoffrey Robinson, whose ‘loan’ to Peter Mandelson caused Mandy’s first resignation from Blair’s government.   Luciana Berger who was parachuted by Blair into Liverpool Wavertree and Fabian Hamilton are well-known Zionists, as well the lunatic right-winger Ian Austin.
Ian Austin MP
Luciana Berger - former Zionist activist and imposed by Blair on Liverpool Wavertree
They are part of 198 candidates from all parties, including 6 from the Green Party.  Unsurprisingly it contains 5 MPs/candidates from the most sectarian Protestant party in Northern Ireland, the Democratic Unionist Party, including Ian Paisley Jnr.  It also includes 26 candidates from that well-known anti-racist party UKIP and 16 candidates from something called the Christian Peoples Alliance.  It’s not difficult to work out who these god botherers are - the kind that believe that Jews should ‘return’ to Israel in order that the second coming of Christ can occur wherein the Jews shall perish.
Luke Akehurst - Zionist and racist lobbyist for 'We Believe in Israel'
The textof the Pledge that each signatory agreed to was:
  • To oppose the extremists who challenge Israel’s right to exist.
  • To support the right of people in the United Kingdom to enjoy Israeli culture and promote business, educational, religious and other connections with the Jewish State without fear of discrimination, boycotts, harassment and/or intimidation.
  • To support those who genuinely seek to promote and establish a permanent, just and comprehensive peace between Israel and its neighbours.
  • To celebrate the fact that Israel is a free society and parliamentary democracy that extends to all its citizens the right to practice their religion and have access to religious sites in Jerusalem.
  • To support the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism.
  • To encourage HM Government to promote trade with Israel that will increase investment and jobs for people in both countries.”  What is remarkable about this declaration is its dishonesty. 
i.               It’s no surprise that the Pledge includes support for the bogus IHRA definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ which conflates anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

ii.             It says it’s ‘extreme’ (note the subliminal terrorist connection!) to oppose a racist Jewish state which privileges only the Jewish part of its population.  By the same token it was ‘extreme’ to oppose Apartheid in South Africa. No state has a right to exist, least of all a racist state.  Israel is Jewish in the same way as Northern Ireland was Protestant and South Africa was White and Nazi Germany was Aryan.
When the Israeli Labour Party ran the Government in Israel, they invited South African Premier John Vorster over on a state visit
Far from being a ‘free society’ Israel is a state that has maintained a military police state in the West Bank for the past 50 years, as well as a hunger blockade on Gaza.  In the West Bank there are two legal systems – Military Rule for the 3 million Palestinians and normal Israeli civil law for the Jewish settlers. That is Apartheid by another name.
John Vorster, interned for supporting the Nazis in the war, laid a wreath at the Holocaust propaganda museum in Jerusalem, Yad Vashem
The occupation has killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, meant the arrest of some 40% of the Palestinian male population, the widespread use of torture, administrative detention, constant check points and a pass system which is far worse than that which existed in South Africa.  Israel routinely arrests and tortures Palestinian children as young as 12.

On the West Bank Palestinian peasants are unable to dig a well to obtain the water stolen from them whilst lush settlements are granted unlimited rights to fresh water. 
Police brought into Bedouin village of Umm al-Hiran to protect the demolition squad
All of the racists who signed this pledge can be taken to endorse all the above because they unanimously oppose any pressure being put on Israel to disgorge its conquests or reform.  It is noticeable that the Pledge talks of a peace agreement between Israel and ‘its neighbours’ rather than with the Palestinians.  This is a reference to neighbouring states not the people who actually live on the land. 

iii.           This Pledge has at its heart opposition to Boycott Divestment and Sanctions.  Like South Africa, Israel resents being boycotted even whilst it itself maintains a forcible boycott on Gaza. 
 
iv.           The Pledge talks about Israel as a ‘free society’ and a ‘parliamentary democracy’ whilst defining this in terms of the right to practice one’s religion.  Freedom of worship is a small part of a free society but even this is increasingly encroached upon in Israel e.g. the recent Muezzin Bill which prevents the traditional call to prayer in the early morning whilst specifically exempting Jewish religious practices which involve noise.
Hendrik Voerward
v.             The right to access land and resources equally is not something Israel practices.  The 2011 Reception Committees Bill allows Jewish communities to exclude Palestinians and non-Jews, as well as Black Jews from living in hundreds of Jewish villages. Israeli Palestinians cannot marry anyone they chose and still live in Israel.  Israel is a Jewish State and only in the last month the Knesset has passed a Jewish State Bill which removes Arabic as an official language in Israel and defines the state in terms of only part of its population. 

The Pledge talks of access to religious sites.  In fact Palestinians and Muslims do not have the right to control access to their holy sites in Jerusalem - the Mosques of al Aqsa and the Golden Dome.  Ultra nationalist religious Jewish settlers are now being allowed to invade these mosques as the movement for a Third Temple to be established in place of the mosques grows in Israel. 
Joan Ryan was delighted to hear she had been granted a $1m slush fund
Israel is the most racist society in the world.  A plurality of Israeli Jews, 48% according to the Pew Research Centre supportthe physical expulsion of Israel’s Palestinians.  ¾ of Israeli Jews would not want to live next to an Arab.  This is the gutter racism that the signatories to this Pledge, with their vacuous talk of Israel as a free society choose to ignore.

Israel is a deeply racist society in which a book can be bannedfrom the high school syllabus because it portrays a relationship between an Arab male and a Jewish woman.  It is a society where half the Arab villages are ‘unrecognised’ and one such village Umm al Hiran was demolished in January this year to make way for a new Jewish town.  Israel is a society where education, housing, land and employment are segregated.  Talk of a parliamentary democracy is meaningless in a state which calls itself a Jewish state where the principal dividing line is between Jews and non-Jews and Arabs are in a permanent minority.  No Arab party has ever been part of an Israeli government coalition.

Dorit Rabinyan - her book Borderlife was banned from Israel's high school syllabus for portraying sexual relationships between Arabs and Jews
The call for the promotion of trade and investment in Israel is a call for the promotion of Israeli apartheid.   It is no different from those who opposed the  Boycott of South Africa or the Boycott of Nazi Germany 80 years ago.

It is the veterans of the struggle against Apartheid, in South Africa who make the comparison with Israel.  In a messageto the Presbyterian General Assembly in the United States in 2014 Archbishop Desmond Tutu said:
‘I know firsthand that Israel has created an apartheid reality within its borders and through its occupation. The parallels to my own beloved South Africa are painfully stark indeed. Realistic Israeli leaders have acknowledged that Israel will either end its occupation through a one or two-state solution, or live in an apartheid state in perpetuity. The latter option is unsustainable and an offense to justice. We learned in South Africa that the only way to end apartheid peacefully was to force the powerful to the table through economic pressure.’
Ronnie Kassrills - the Jewish former Police Minister in Israel

Ronni Kassrills, the Jewish former ANC Police Minister in an interviewwith Al Jazeera stated that:

In the Israeli case, it is quite clear that non-Jews do not receive equal rights and treatment as Jews, but the Zionists are embarrassed to admit this. Consequently, they attempt to conceal the fact that Israel is not a democracy for all its citizens, but they have various laws to ensure that Jews receive preferential treatment. It is apartheid by another name. I refer here to the situation in Israel itself where over 40 laws give Jews privileges and rights over non-Jews.
In the Occupied Palestinian Territories, it is quite a different matter where open and strict apartheid laws allow for the segregation and control of the Palestinian people whilst the illegal Jewish settlements receive State protection and privileges. But in both cases - Israel itself and the OPT - a clear system of apartheid-style rule operates. 

If one is in any doubt about the comparison between Apartheid in South Africa and in Israel, then who is in a better position to know than Hendrik Verwoerd, the South African Prime Minister, who famously said, "The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state,"

 The List of Labour Party candidates who support the Apartheid Pledge - MPs in bold

IanAustinDudley NorthLabour
LucianaBergerLiverpool WavertreeLabour
VernonCoakerGedlingLabour
AngelaEagleWallaseyLabour
CarolineFlintDon ValleyLabour
PaulFlynnNewport WestLabour
YvonneFovargueMakerfieldLabour
FabianHamiltonLeeds North EastLabour
GeorgeHowarthKnowsleyLabour
DianaJohnsonHull NorthLabour
DavidLammyTottenhamLabour
IvanLewisBury SouthLabour
SteveMcCabeBirmingham Selly OakLabour
GeoffreyRobinsonCoventry North WestLabour
JoanRyanEnfield NorthLabour
TulipSiddiqHampstead & KilburnLabour
Tonia AntoniazziGowerLabour
LaweenAtroshiSurrey HeathLabour
TerryBridgemanBasingstokeLabour
StephenBurkeNorth NorfolkLabour
PatrickCanavanChristchurchLabour
JoeCookeCastle PointLabour
AltanyCraikGlenrothesLabour
AshleyDaltonRochford & Southend EastLabour
Nigelde GruchyOrpingtonLabour
MichaelDesmondFaversham & Mid KentLabour
RachelEdenWantageLabour
BillEdwardsBury St EdmundsLabour
BarrieFairbairnGrantham & StamfordLabour
JamesFrithBury NorthLabour
RebeccaGeachSpelthorneLabour
DannyHackettOld Bexley & SidcupLabour
MikeKatzHendonLabour
BarryKirbyGloucesterLabour
MoniqueMcAdamsEast Kilbride, Strathaven & LesmagagowLabour
BlairMcDougallEast RenfrewshireLabour
KevinMcKeevorNorthampton SouthLabour
AndyMerryfieldWellsLabour
JeremyNewmarkFinchley & Golders GreenLabour
SamRushworthTattonLabour
RosalindScottHarwich & North EssexLabour
MarkSewardsHarrogate & KnaresboroughLabour
NavinShahHarrow EastLabour
AllenSimpsonMaidstone & The WealdLabour
FionaSmithHertsmereLabour
JoStevensCardiff CentralLabour
SharonTaylorStevenageLabour
JulianWare-LaneSouthend WestLabour
AndrewWesternAltrincham & Sale WestLabour
MartinWhitfieldEast LothianLabour
EmmaWhysallChipping BarnetLabour
SeanWoodcockBanburyLabour

General Election 2017 – 7 Weeks Ago this Blog was alone in predicting a hung parliament - Strong and Stable is no more!

$
0
0

As Labour defies all the pundits Brighton Kemptown is gained with a 10,000 majority

The Pundits predicted the largest Tory majority since 1983 if not before.  Labour’s Right, the Zionists and Progress, did their best to distance themselves from Jeremy Corbyn. 

7 weeks ago when the polls predicted a massive Tory majority I stood out and said Labour could win and that a hung parliament was most likely

five days ago, this blog was alone in suggesting a Labour victory despite the polls showing an increasing Tory majority
 Jeremy Corbyn has surprised the pundits and talking heads with a stunning result.  In Brighton Kemptown where I live and campaign Labour’s Lloyd Russell-Moyle overturned a Tory majority of 690 and achieved an absolutely amazing majority of nearly 10,000.

Results like Canterbury, which Labour hasn’t held since 1918, are even more fantastic.

The interview of the night was with John Woodcock, who had said at the beginning of the election campaign that under no circumstances could he support Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister.  Tonight he was speechless.
Expenses champion Joan Ryan, Labour Friends of Israel Chair, demonstrated that her first loyalty was to Israel not the Labour Party
Less than a week ago, the Blairite Chair of Labour Friends of Israel, Joan Ryan MP, had demonstrated her loyalty to Labour by stating that  Theresa May was guaranteed to win a majority.  Ryan’s only claim to fame in Parliament, apart from backing Apartheid Israel is having won a hard fought campaign in 2007 to claim the most expenses of any MP.  Unfortunately she was the runner up in 2008.   When booted out by her constituents in 2010 she spent time doctoring and deleting any mention of expenses from her Wikipedia entry.
The vilest tabloid campaign rebounded
Vile and viler - the Tory tabloids were so bad that only a complete idiot would be taken in
Peter Kyle, the allegedly Labour MP for Hove was clear throughout his campaign that people should vote for him despite Jeremy Corbyn.

This result is above all a defeat for the Labour Right and Tom Watson et al. It is a major defeat for the Labour Right which pursued a policy of austerity lite.  Liz Kendall, Blair and uncle Tom Cobley believed Labour should cowtow to the ‘aspiring’ middle class.
Peter Kyle, the Progress MP for Hove, was another Israel supporter who tried to stab Jeremy Corbyn in the back
What is remarkable about this victory and it is a victory is that in the wake of the vilest attack by the gutter Tory press, Corbyn came out enhanced.  Why?

There is no doubt that in being bold and radical Corbyn appealed to working class people, not least in the North.  Despite the predictions of the pundits Corbyn appealed to maybe 50% of UKIP voters and in some constituencies even more.  The other major factor was the appeal to young and student voters.  There is no doubt that the youth vote came out overwhelmingly for Corbyn.  The stale and jaundiced campaign of ‘strong and stable’ Theresa May backfired spectacularly.  This night was the revenge of the youth.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle gains Brighton Kemptown with a nearly 10,000 majority
Only this blog predicted, 7 weeks ago that a hung parliament.  I wrote:
‘It was Harold Wilson who said that a week is a long time in politics.  Seven weeks is a political eternity.  Theresa May has taken a gamble that her 21% lead will hold.  It is a gamble that she may yet come to regret.

There is only one direction that her lead can go and that is down.  Once her lead falls then a snowball effect can take over.  What is essential is that Labour marks out the key areas on which it is going to base its appeal.  The danger is that Corbyn is going to continue with his ‘strategy’ of appeasing the Right and appealing to all good men and women.  If so that will be a recipe for disaster.
No election is guaranteed to be without its surprises.  Theresa May is a cautious conservative.  She is literally the product of her background, a conservative vicar’s daughter.  Reactionary, parochial and small-minded, she is a bigot for all seasons.  What doesn’t help is that she is both wooden and unoriginal.  The danger is that Corbyn tries to emulate her.

The key question is whether or not Corbyn can rise to the occasion.  Over the past 18 months his performance has been little short of dire.  There is point in pretending otherwise.  The question is whether he will rise to the occasion as he showed glimpses of doing during the leadership election last summer.’

Five days ago I repeatedthis message. 

It would be a mistake for people to be over confident at the fact that the Tories made major slip-ups over things like the Dementia Tax, taking food of children’s tables etc.  It is clear that the Tories and the Mainstream Media (BBC et al.) are going hell for leather over the question of Corbyn’s devotion to the State, be it Ireland, Terrorism or  Trident.
The essence of what I wrote was correct.   The Tory lead has shrunk.  My fears that Corbyn might backtrack have not come to pass in the economic sphere.  Labour’s manifesto was unexpectedly radical.  But in one particular area, the State and Security, Corbyn has retreated from all the things be has believed in in the past.’

What the Left must not do is to appease or capitulate to the Right.  On the contrary we should be extending what was a radical manifesto to raise things like workers control of industry, diversification of the arms industry into useful production.  On housing we should be even more explicit.  Rent controls, not right to evict tenants on whim.  Indeed the end of private landlordism should be on the agenda.

The other thing that the Corbyn left must do is to capture the Labour Party machine.  Ian McNicol and the apparatchiks must be given their marching orders.  No longer must relics of Blairites tear up the democracy of the Labour Party.  Fake leftists like Anne Black should be removed from the National Executive.  The bogus ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign must be ended.  This idea that we beat ourselves up over a mythical ‘Jewish’ vote (itself an anti-Semitic concept) because Labour must not be seen to oppose the racist, apartheid State of Israel must end.  All the suspensions must also be ended forthwith.  Ken Livingstone, Jackie Walker, Mel Melvin (the Womens Officer of Brighton Kemptown), Riad al Taher and of course myself should be reinstated immediately  and if the representatives of the Israeli state in the Labour Party, the Jeremy Newmarks of the Jewish Labour Movement, don’t like it then they should depart.

What we also saw tonight was the utter failure of the Liberal-Democrats to make any impression despite their position on Brexit.  I would suggest that their failure was not to get traction over Europe but the memory of their broken promises and treachery as part of the coalition with the Tories.  This was symbolised in the defeat of Nick Clegg and the near defeat of Tim Farron, their current leader, who won his own Westmorland seat by only 777 votes.

If the SNP hadn’t make the stupid decision to campaign for a second referendum, ignoring the clear result two years ago, then they would not have suffered the heavy defeat, over 1/3 of their seats in Scotland.  If the SNP hadn’t lost about 10 seats to the Tories, then a Labour government would have been much more likely.

However although Theresa May may be able to cobble together a government with the support of the racist sectarians of the Democratic Unionist Party, a fitting representative of the worst of Northern Ireland politics, her own position is untenable.  Any government that the Tories form will be inherently unstable.  Another General Election is likely within a year.  Theresa May is not likely to last very long.  Jeremy Corbyn’s position is now almost unassailable.  The whole question of Brexit is up for grabs.  Despite the humiliating defeat of the Lib-Dems, a hard Brexit is now dead.

Unfortunately I didn’t put any money on my bets 7 weeks ago.  I left it to the beginning of this week.  However it will provide a good meal out and some spare change!


Tony Greenstein 

Zionism's emphasis on racial purity and ‘Jewish identity’ is the cause of attacks on Israeli Arabs

$
0
0
Whilst it is welcome that a gang of young Jewish thugs who attacked Arab men who were suspected of having relationships with Jewish women, were for once arrested, they are not random individuals.  These attacks did not spring out of nowhere.  It is an unwritten rule of Israeli society that liaisons, relationships and friendship between Arab and Jew are to be avoided.

They are associated with Lehava, a fascist Zionist organisation dedicated to stopping miscegenation, a term that used to apply to sexual and personal relationships between Black and White people in the Deep South.  Now it’s used to apply to Jewish and non-Jewish relationships in Israel.

It is the Knesset that has fundedthe ‘charitable’ wing of Lehava, the fascist anti-miscegenation group whose film inspired some of these thugs.  Lehava itself, despite its leader Benzi Gopstein supportingthe burning down of churches and mosques, has not been made illegal, unlike any Arab nationalist association.

It is the Jewish state itself which makes it impossible for an Arab and a Jew to marry unless one converts to the other’s religion.  Civil marriage does not exist in Israel.
Lehava is distinguished from other extreme-right groups by its official focus on stopping miscegenation and intermarriage between Jews and Palestinians [Getty Images]
It is the Israeli government whose Minister of Education and Ministry officials which bannedan Israeli novel Borderland by Dorit Rabinyan which depicted a relationship between an Arab man and a Jewish woman.  It was not allowed on the English syllabus of Israeli high school students for fear of affecting the national self-identity of students.

Netanyahu’s reason for opposing the entry of asylum seekers to Israel or the continuation of their presence is linked to the maintenance of Jewish identity.

It is all the above factors that have led to a group of 17-20 year olds take the law into their own hands in order to prevent Jewish women being sullied by a relationship with an Arab man.  They were simply fulfilling the dictates of Zionism.

Tony Greenstein

Jewish Gang Attacked Arabs in Order to End Their Romantic Ties With Jewish Women, State Says

 Three of the six were charged with terrorism, in addition to aggravated assault ■ Weapons used in the alleged attacks included knives, clubs and metal bars

Yotam Berger, Gili Cohen and Almog Ben Zikri Apr 23, 2017
Three of the suspects in court in Be'er Sheva, April 23, 2017. Eliyahu Hershkovitz
Five Israeli men and one male juvenile, all of them Jews, were charged on Sunday in connection to a series of brutal assaults on Arab men in the southern Israeli city of Be'er Sheva. Police said suspects told detectives the assaults — at least six separate incidents between December 2016 and April 6, 2017 — were carried out with the aim of stopping their targets from pursuing romantic relationships with Jewish women.


The defendants, aged between 17 and 20, allegedly used knives, clubs, metal bars and other weapons in the assaults. Two of the defendants are soldiers. Three of the defendants were charged with terrorism offenses, in addition to aggravated assault.

According to the indictment, which was issued by the Southern District of the State Prosecutor's Office, before each attack the defendants confirmed that their targets were Arab. In some cases the alleged perpetrators concealed their faces in order to avoid being identified.

In the most serious of the attacks, Raz Ben-Shalom Amitzur, 19, is accused of stabbing an Arab man as he sat in a car with a Jewish woman.

According to the indictment, after approaching the couple and ascertaining that the man was Arab and the woman Jewish, Amitzur pulled out a knife and stabbed the man several times in the back, chest, abdomen and arm, injuring the man's kidney.

Police said they determined in their investigation and interviews with the suspects that the purpose of the assaults was "to prevent the 'assimilation' of Jews and Arabs in Be'er Sheva," and that some of the defendants had viewed videos produced by the right-wing group Lehava that focused on "saving Jewish women who are married to Arabs." One of the defendants said he supported the organization but was not an active member.

Amitzur, Koren Elkaym and Tamir Bartal, identified in the indictment as the main suspects in the case, were charged in Be'er Sheva District Court with terrorism, in addition to several counts of aggravated assault.

The other three suspects were indicted in the Be'er Sheva's Magistrate's Court. They were identified as Sharon Dazanshvilli, Reuven Koshvili and a juvenile male who was not named. They were charged in the beating of an Arab man, an attack that also allegedly involved the three main suspects.

Lawyers for some of the defendants say they were prevented from meeting with their clients for a number of days after their arrest. According to the lawyers, the suspects were subjected to "significant emotional duress" and remained handcuffed for hours, their eyes covered, for part of their questioning.

Some of the lawyers say their clients were subjected to "difficult and long" questioning. "The basic rights of those arrested are blocked by the iron doors of the Shin Bet cells," said Avichai Hajbi, a lawyer for Honenu, a nonprofit organization that defends Jews who are accused of assaulting Arabs and Palestinians. Hajbi claimed he was blocked by members of the security forces from meeting with one of the suspects.


Defense lawyers also claimed that one of the suspects tried to commit suicide while he was in police custody. It seems that when it comes to Jews suspected of quarreling with Arabs their rights are forgotten, trampled on and we are informed of new detention laws," said Sima Cohav, a lawyer for one of the defendants.


Israel's Lehava stirs 'anarchy' in Jerusalem


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



Lehava is distinguished from other extreme-right groups by its official focus on stopping miscegenation and intermarriage between Jews and Palestinians [Getty Images]

Jerusalem - Four youths in black T-shirts, bearing a distinctive yellow-flame insignia, approached "A" in July as he got out of a taxi in central Jerusalem to meet friends. They asked him the time. Suspicious of his accent, they confronted him directly: "Are you an Arab?"
"The moment I said, 'yes,' one of them punched me in the eye. The others jumped on me and started hitting me all over my body. There were many people in the area, but no one took any notice or tried to help."
"A" managed to break free and fled to a nearby restaurant, where a friend worked, and hid inside. "If I hadn't been able to run away, they would have killed me," he said. 

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

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



Founded in 2009, Lehava is distinguished from other far-right groups by its official focus on stopping miscegenation and intermarriage between Jews and Palestinians. In addition to the 300,000 Palestinians in Jerusalem, some 1.7 million of Israel's citizens are Palestinian by origin, making them nearly a fifth of the population.
Lehava is believed to be trying to extend its reach to a handful of "mixed" cities in Israel where small numbers of Palestinian citizens live in neighbourhoods close to Israeli Jews.

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

Steven Beck, Israel Religious Action Centre,




In 2014, some 200 Lehava supporters - many wearing the group's "Jewish honour guard" T-shirts - protested noisily outside the wedding of a Palestinian man and a female Jewish convert to Islam in the city of Jaffa, near Tel Aviv. Some carried placards with the slogan: "Miscegenation is a Holocaust". 
Jerusalem's streets, meanwhile, are littered with fliers and stickers in Arabic warning, "Don't even think about a Jewish girl" and in Hebrew stating, "Beware the goys [a derogatory term for non-Jews] - they will defile you". 
Lehava's hardcore supporters number in the hundreds, according to the Religious Action Centre, the advocacy arm of the Reform Judaism movement, which filmed the testimonies. But it believes Gopstein can draw on the open support of thousands more.
David Sheen, an Israeli journalist who has reported on far-right groups for many years, told Al Jazeera: "Lehava's aim is to rile up Jewish youth on the streets, to create a strike force that can help ethnically cleanse Palestinians from the main areas of Jerusalem."
Others worry about the wider effect of Lehava's incitement on the climate of popular opinion in Israel.
Aviv Tartasky, a field researcher with Ir Amim, an Israeli group advocating fair treatment for Palestinians in Jerusalem, told Al Jazeera: "The idea of rescuing Jewish women from Arabs - bringing them back to Judaism - has wide support from Israelis, including from the left. The attitude among most Israeli Jews is that, even if we don't support your methods, your violence, we approve of your goals."
When contacted by Al Jazeera, Gopstein declined to talk. However, in a speech last year he called for "action" to stop coexistence, calling it a "dangerous cancer". Lehava leaders were all formerly active in Kach, an anti-Arab group that was outlawed in 1994 after one of its followers, Baruch Goldstein, shot 29 Palestinians at worship in Hebron's Ibrahimi mosque.

Last month, Gopstein attended a memorial event in Jerusalem for Kach's founder, Rabbi Meir Kahane. At the rally, he waved a cleaning rag with the face of Lucy Aharish, the only prominent TV presenter from Israel's Palestinian minority, saying he would wash the floor with her. He added: "She compared me to Hamas. So we'll make her nightmare come true"
Gopstein, who lives in Kiryat Arba, an Israeli settlement next to the Palestinian city of Hebron in the West Bank, was a student of Kahane. He was arrested in 1990 on suspicion of murdering a Palestinian couple, in what appeared to be retaliation for Kahane's assassination, but was later released.
Before its banning, Kach openly supported the violent expulsion of Palestinians from the region under the slogan:"Arabs to the Arab states and Jews to Zion". Like Lehava, one of its main activities was preventing mixing between Jews and Palestinians.
Sheen said Lehava had created "an instantly recognisable brand that is all about racial purity. This is just a new version of Kach. They can't use the same slogans without breaking the law, but the similarities are unmistakable." He noted that both organisations used the same colours of black and yellow in their emblems - Kach's was a fist, while Lehava uses a flame.
"When Kach existed in the 1980s, it was seen as so racist that it was likened to the Nazis and boycotted by other parties in the parliament. It was seen as beyond the pale," said Sheen. "Now it's in the mainstream. It even has supporters in the Likud party [of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] who are happy to whitewash it."

Yehuda Glick, a far-right activist close to Gopstein, who demands the replacement of al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem with a Jewish temple, became a Likud member of parliament in May. Lehava's ties with Kach were evident during the summer, when the group hosted a series of training camps in the southern West Bank to teach young people martial arts.
Assisting Gopstein were Itamar Ben Gvir and Noam Federman, two former leaders of the banned movement, who tutored the young men and women in techniques for withstanding police interrogations. 
"Lehava's aim is to rile up Jewish youth on the streets to create a strike force that can help ethnically cleanse Palestinians from the main areas of Jerusalem," says Sheen [Getty Images]

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

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

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

Like others, "H" said he had been left emotionally, as well as physically, scarred. Fearful of further attacks, he said: "Now, I'm scared to go out alone. Even if I try to fight back, everyone will shout, 'Terrorist, terrorist'. If a policeman is passing by and sees the incident … I'll be the one who gets shot." 
The 300,000 Palestinians of East Jerusalem, which Israel annexed after 1967 in violation of international law, have residency permits that entitle them to live and work in Israel. Many travel into Jerusalem's city centre for the nightlife and shopping not available in their own deprived neighbourhoods, or to work in Jewish-owned restaurants and shops.
This is when many of the attacks occur, with Lehava claiming that the Palestinian men use the visits to consort with Jewish women.
Calls for the outlawing of Lehava have grown since three followers were found guilty last year of an arson attack on Jerusalem's only binational school, for Jewish and Palestinian children. The three walls were daubed with racist slogans, such as "End miscegenation" and "No coexistence with cancer". 

Early last year, Moshe Yaalon, then defence minister, was reported to be considering outlawing Lehava. By August, however, the Shin Bet, Israel's domestic intelligence service, said it had no evidence on which to recommend banning the group. The current defence minister, Avigdor Lieberman, of the far-right Yisrael Beiteinu party, is considered unlikely to try to curb Lehava's activities.
Meanwhile, Lehava has called for boycotts of city businesses that hire Palestinian workers. Critics say the group also intimidates landlords who rent to Palestinian families. Dan Biron, owner of the Birman restaurant in central Jerusalem, said Palestinians among his staff had been attacked on four separate occasions.

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

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

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

The Vatican filed a complaint last year on behalf of local bishops to Israel's attorney general, demanding that Gopstein be indicted for incitement to violence. 
Wadie Abu Nassar, spokesman for the Latin Patriarch in Jerusalem, told Al Jazeera the Israeli authorities had not responded. "Gopstein is continuously saying racist and inciteful things in public, so one has to wonder why no measures have been taken against him. He seems immune." 
He added: "There is a clear backing among members of this government for far-right groups like Lehava."

Church leaders suspect Lehava supporters are behind a recent wave of vandalism against Christian sites in Jerusalem [Getty Images]
Despite its inciteful rhetoric and connections to attacks, Lehava has in the past received significant funding from the Israeli government - as much as $180,000 annually through a sister charity, Hemla. The latter runs a hostel in Jerusalem for the "rehabilitation" of Jewish women "saved" from marriages to Palestinians.

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

There have also been suspicions of close ties between Israeli police and Lehava. They were fuelled in February when it emerged, following an investigation of Gopstein's activities, that a Border Police officer had supplied the group with details of Jewish women dating Palestinian men.
Tartasky, of Ir Amim, told Al Jazeera: "The dominant culture in the police regards the Palestinians as not proper residents of the city. The police see their role as defending Jews from Palestinians, not the other way around."
He said Jerusalem's politicians also contributed to an impression that Palestinians had no place in the city. "The mayor [Nir Barkat] has not made a single statement against Lehava, even though they are inciting and carrying out regular attacks in the heart of his city. That has sent a clear message that Lehava has protection."

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

Micky Rosenfeld, a police spokesman, denied that the police were failing to take Lehava's violence seriously. "There has been a significant rise in the number of patrols in the centre of Jerusalem to prevent such incidents," he told Al Jazeera. He added that the police were "dispersing" gangs of Lehava youth as soon as they were identified.The legal authorities have been accused of failing to rein in Lehava, too. Beck said the Religious Action Centre had submitted 25 complaints to the attorney general against Gopstein for incitement but had not received a response. In April, a Jerusalem judge ruled that Gopstein had made an "honest mistake" in beating up two left-wing Jewish activists when they entered a West Bank settlement.

Gopstein claimed he had believed they were Palestinians. Video footage showed Israeli police arresting the two victims rather than Gopstein. One of Lehava's public services is a hotline so that Israeli Jews can inform on family or friends who are dating non-Jews. Beck said: "Lehava has perpetuated a lie that thousands of Jewish women are being held against their will by Palestinians in abusive marriages. It stokes hatred and incites followers to violence."

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

And, in recent months, the education ministry has banned two famous Hebrew novels depicting relationships between a Jew and an Arab from the school curriculum. Polls indicate that that Lehava's playing up of a supposed miscegenation threat from Palestinians resonates with many Israeli Jews. A survey from 2007 found that more than half believed intermarriage between Jews and Palestinians were "treason". 

In 2013, similar numbers said they wanted Palestinians, including those with Israeli citizenship, expelled from the region. However, some Israeli Jews in Jerusalem have started to fight back against Lehava. Since 2014, a group named "Talking in the Square" has been organising counter-demonstrations in Zion Square, where Lehava stages a weekly rally.

One of their activists, Ossnat Sharon, said they tried to "keep an eye on [Lehava], curbing their attempts at violence as best we can." Tartasky said Lehava's rapid growth in popularity should be seen in part as "a backlash" to the greater presence of Palestinians in central Jerusalem in recent years.
Palestinians were venturing into the city centre in bigger numbers, he said, because their own neighbourhoods had been cut off from nearby Ramallah and other Palestinian cities of the West Bank by Israel's completion of its so-called separation barrier.
Better public transport links after Israel opened its light rail system have also contributed to the trend of Palestinians seeking work and entertainment in Jerusalem's city centre. "Lehava's growth indicates how uncomfortable some Israelis have become with seeing Palestinians in what they consider to be their city," he said. "It has given them a sense of grievance and increased their extremism."

Just for old times sakes as she won't be around much longer - Theresa May was too Strong & Stable to Meet Ordinary Voters or Debate with Jeremy Corbyn

$
0
0

Media couldn't hide that they were in bed with May




As you will be aware, Theresa May was far too busy meeting with ordinary voters to waste time debating with Jeremy Corbyn.  I am sure people would have been very sympathetic to this argument, as we all know that Theresa is nothing if not a woman of the people.  It is therefore puzzling that she appears to have confined her appearances to staged photo shots with fellow party workers in empty hangars or factories from which the workers have been removed or press conferences at which the journalists seem to have been prevented from asking questions, unless they are submitted in advance!  Indeed in Cornwall the Tory Party took to locking the journalists up so that they couldn’t ask questions!

I am sure though that all this has been a misunderstanding and that her ladyship was genuinely ignorant of the fact that Party managers had been preventing her from meeting the hoi polloi! 
Acknowledgements to Canary
The Telegraph Fixes the News as Only It Knows How To
You can read whyCornwall Live was banned from recording still less interviewing May
Below is a post from Jonathan Cook’s

This is the first British general election in decades in which there is anything approaching a real political choice. For that reason, even the most liberal elements within the corporate media are jettisoning the pretence of neutrality and objectivity. The stakes are simply too high.

In fact, their bias has become so overt that even a veteran BBC and Channel 4 reporter like Michael Crick is becoming exasperated and letting vent on Twitter.


Crick’s outrage has been triggered by the media’s complicity in allowing British prime minister Theresa May to stage-manage her election campaign. The media are submitting questions for vetting (without admitting the fact to viewers), and failing to report that in most cases only hardcore Tory party supporters, not members of the public, are being allowed near her.

One should not be surprised that the Conservatives want to rig the campaign trail to make their candidate look good. The problem is that the corporate media are conspiring to help them do it.

Why would the media be so willing to mollycoddle May and keep her from embarrassing herself? Doesn’t the media feed off the high and mighty being brought low by gaffes and pratfalls?

That might be true if nothing was really at stake, as has been the case in the last few decades of elections. But if May loses, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn will be in power instead. The elites are so sure they are firmly in control of everything that they are determined to make sure that doesn’t happen.

May, it is clear, is a weak public performer. That is why she has refused to debate Corbyn, and why BBC interviewers are giving her softball questions. She is even pampered with an interview on the BBC with her banker husband, Philip, posing as though they are royalty.

In contrast to May, the Labour leader makes a good impression when he is able to speak about policies rather than being battered by not just hostile, but openly disparaging, questions from BBC interviewers like Laura Kuenssberg.

During the independence referendum campaign in 2014, many Scots started to understand that they lived in an ostensible democracy only. The media, and most notably the BBC, worked so strenuously to deny them any information that might encourage them to make the “wrong” choice that the mask of neutrality slipped off. In a sign of the desperation, as the vote looked to be nail-bitingly close, even the Queen was roped in to bolster the case for staying in the union.


As the UK media all but declare fealty to May, this may prove to be an Indyref moment for the rest of Britain.

Article 0

$
0
0
The Loyalist Zionists Who are Keeping Theresa May on Life Support
 
a marriage made in hell - Loyalism and Conservatism
The links between Ulster Unionism and Zionism have always been close.  The British Mandate in Palestine began in 1920 and it was ratified by the League of Nations in 1922.  The Partition of Ireland began in 1921 and Southern Ireland became independent in 1922.

Both Ulster and Palestine involved British imperialism using a settler population in order to maintain its presence in another peoples’ land.  Ulster had been the subject of the Plantation of Protestant settlers in the 17thcentury.  Palestine was the subject of Jewish settlement in the 20th century.  As the first Military Governor of Jerusalem, Sir Ronald Storrs(1920-1926), wrote in his autobiography Orientations:
Jackie McDonald - S Belfast UDA Brigade Commander - Arlene Foster met him a few days after a UDA killing
“Enough [Jews] could return, if not to form a Jewish state ... at least to prove that the enterprise was one which blessed him that gave as well as him that took, by forming for England ‘a little loyal Jewish Ulster’ in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.”
The agreement by the British to support the Zionist colonisation of Palestine was symbolised in the Balfour Declaration whereby the Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balour wrote a letter of November 2nd 1917 to Lord Rothschild in which Britain promised the land of the Palestinians to the Zionists.  Promises made in the Declaration that ‘nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine’ was honoured in the breach.
Zionist settlers in Palestine based their claim on the Biblical ‘return’ of the Jews to Palestine just as the Protestant settlers of Ulster believed that in settling the north of Ireland they too were fulfilling god’s mission.
Arlene Foster - DUP leader, blamed for loss of hundreds of millions on energy scheme
It is no accident that when an Israeli propaganda group, Stand by Israel, sent out a Pledge for Israel to candidates in the general election, 5 of the DUP’s candidates - Jeffrey Donaldson, Paul Girvan, Gary Middleton, Ian Paisley, Jim Shannon – signed.  Although the founder of the DUP, Ian Paisley was in habit of making anti-Semitic jokes, he was nonetheless fully signed up to the idea that Israel represented the ‘return’ of the Jews as a precursor of the second coming of Christ.
Theresa May addresses journalists after she returned from the Palace - she managed not to mention the election outcome
Both Israel and Ulster were set up as settler colonial states and both indulged in ethnic cleansing – in Israel’s case of Palestinians and in Ulster it was Catholics who were forced to flee from pogroms in 1921.

Just as Israel is a Jewish supremacist state, Ulster was set up as a Protestant Supremacist state.  In the wordsof James Craig, the Viscount Craigavon, Ulster’s first Prime Minister, ‘we are a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State’ which became popularly known as a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people.’
The Democratic Unionist Party was formed by Ian Paisley in 1971.  Paisley was the founder of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ireland and an anti-Catholic agitator.  From the very start the party was linked with loyalist terror gangs such as the Ulster Defence Association.  This tradition has continued to the present.  Arlene Foster, the present leader of the DUP, metwith the leader of the UDA, Jackie MacDonald, just three days after their Southern Antrim brigade murdered a fellow paramilitary.

It is no surprise that Theresa May, whose party has vigorously attacked Jeremy Corbyn for his links with Sinn Fein and the IRA, has no problem with forming an electoral alliance with a party with close links to Protestant death squads.  People forget that whereas the IRA attacked the British army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary (renamed PSNI), all of them armed, the Loyalist death squads of the UDA and the Ulster Volunteer Force attacked Catholic civilians at random.

As was proven by the 1990’s Stevens Inquiries, intelligence information was supplied to these Loyalist death squads by British agents inside these groups.  The army’s Force  Research Unit, a military intelligence unit, ran an agent Brian Nelson inside the UDA and the FRU helped the UDA kill hundreds of innocent Catholics.  Indeed they agreed restriction orders with the RUC in order that these killers wouldn’t be apprehended by the Police.  One particularly notorious murder was that of the Belfast solicitor Patrick Finucane, whose crime in their eyes was defending Republican soldiers.
Former Tory Prime Minister John Major has spoken out against any alliance with the DUP, following on from Ruth Davidson.  Given the present impasse in Belfast between the DUP and Sinn Fein, which has meant that Stormont, the local Assembly hasn’t met for months, the British government going into an effective coalition with the DUP removes any pretence that it is an honest broker.
It is a measure of the desperation of the Witch of Westminster that she should ally with these creatures.  Not only are they anti-gay and anti-abortion but they are also sectarian racists.  Fitting allies for a discredited Prime Minister  May.  May has demonstrated that in order to hold onto  power she will literally ally with the devil.  However I suspect that this alliance, made as it is in hell, will have a rather short lifespan.

Tony Greenstein

London Review of Books
Daniel Finn 12 June 2017

As Britain woke on Friday morning to discover that Theresa May had flushed her Commons majority down the drain, people found themselves having to learn about an unfamiliar party on which May (or her successor) would be relying to get anything done. The titles of the hastily commissioned primers – ‘So, Who Are The DUP?’; ‘Who are the Democratic Unionists and what do they want?’– told their own story. The Democratic Unionist Party is Northern Ireland’s largest political force and was until recently the principal coalition partner in one of the UK’s devolved governments. But most of the time, what happens in Belfast or Derry is deemed irrelevant to political life on the other side of the Irish Sea.

Superficially, this year’s election campaign was an exception, with events in Northern Ireland discussed more widely than at any time since the Good Friday Agreement. But that was because the Conservatives thought they could damage Jeremy Corbyn by highlighting his relationship with Sinn Féin in the 1980s. The fact that Northern Ireland’s government had collapsed just a few months earlier, however, was barely mentioned; neither Corbyn nor May was asked to spell out in detail what they planned to do about it.

The Westminster arithmetic makes any speedy resolution of the Stormont crisis unlikely. Problems had been accumulating from the first day of the power-sharing arrangement back in 2007, as Ian Paisley, the DUP’s leader since its founding in 1971, had done little to prepare his supporters for a deal with their republican enemies. Paisley’s apparent bonhomie with Sinn Féin’s Martin McGuinness infuriated many DUP activists, and it wasn’t long before Paisley’s deputy Peter Robinson had eased him into early retirement. Robinson was more intransigent than Paisley in his dealings with Sinn Féin, and Robinson’s successor Arlene Foster more intransigent still; the DUP used the requirement for cross-community consent in the Northern Ireland Assembly to block reforms that had already been agreed on in peace talks.

Brexit added another fault line: the DUP campaigned to leave the EU, while the other main parties all plumped for Remain, as did 56 per cent of voters in the region. The referendum exposed a light-minded attitude towards the Good Friday Agreement among Leave-supporting politicians in both London and Belfast: mixed messages about the likelihood of a ‘hard border’ in Ireland betrayed the fact that most Brexiteers hadn’t thought about the question at all before taking the plunge.

The text of the Good Friday Agreement explicitly referred to the Irish and British states as ‘partners in the European Union’, and tacitly assumed that questions of sovereignty would get hazier as European integration progressed; anyone born in Northern Ireland is entitled to an Irish passport, and the only sign of the border in recent years has been the text message from your mobile phone company when the train goes past Dundalk. The prospect of a harder-edged approach to national identity after Brexit seemed to delight the DUP leadership. The party is adamantly opposed to any special status for Northern Ireland when its departure from the EU is finalised – although with an eye to farming interests, it also wants to keep trade flowing across the border. Squaring that circle will be a key issue in the negotiations to come.

The Stormont government collapsed when Arlene Foster refused to take responsibility for mismanaging a renewable heating scheme that may end up costing Northern Ireland half a billion pounds, and Sinn Féin pulled the plug. A snap regional election at the start of this year saw the DUP come perilously close to being overtaken by Sinn Féin, but its performance in the Westminster poll last week was much more assured, adding two seats for a total of 10; Sinn Féin and an independent unionist accounted for the rest of Northern Ireland’s 18 constituencies.

The idea that Theresa May – or any Tory politician – can serve as an impartial mediator while relying on DUP votes at Westminster is a joke in very poor taste. A parliamentary alliance between the Tories and the DUP will reinforce an ideological convergence between the parties. ‘The immense contribution of the security forces during the Troubles,’ the Conservative manifesto said, ‘should never be forgotten. We will reject any attempts to rewrite history which seek to justify or legitimise terrorism.’

Official inquiries have exposed a long record of collusion between state forces and the loyalist paramilitaries who waged a ruthless war on nationalist civilians. The DUP wants to shut down all investigations that bring its fictitious narrative of the ‘Troubles’ into question. DUP leaders always saw the loyalist paramilitaries as allies in the struggle against Irish nationalism, refusing to take responsibility for their actions in public, but privately urging them to keep on killing when the IRA called a ceasefire. Now the party wants the IRA to be held exclusively responsible for the conflict, the state forces exalted, and the loyalists forgotten: anything else would be ‘legitimising terrorism’. The Tories agree (there was hysteria when Corbyn insisted on condemning loyalist bombings as well as IRA ones). And Michael Gove, now back in May’s cabinet, in 2000 denounced the Good Friday Agreement as a ‘moral stain’, a ‘capitulation to violence’ and a ‘denial of our national integrity’. He defended the comments last year.

The DUP may be out of step with Britain’s political mainstream in many respects, but as far as security policy is concerned, it marches in tight formation with some very powerful interests. For those who value civil liberties in both Britain and Northern Ireland, that will pose a grave problem, however long the current arrangement at Westminster lasts.

In a stunning upset, the British electorate moved sharply to the left in Thursday’s general election. The Labour Party, led by Jeremy Corbyn, gained dozens of seats, while Theresa May’sgoverning Conservatives lost their majority.

When the prime minister called the snap election seven weeks ago, polls suggested she’d win a massive majority.

Even such Labour stalwarts as Guardian pundit Owen Jones predicted that under Corbyn the party would be crushed.

But Corbyn’s ebullient grassroots campaign, built on policies of free university tuition, social justice and more investment in public services, generated enthusiasm that defied virtuallyall expectations.

May moves right

Diminished and humiliated, May will hang on as prime minister for now. But unable to command a majority in the House of Commons on their own, the Conservatives will rely for support on the 10 lawmakers from the Democratic Unionist Party, a Christian Zionist group in Northern Ireland which pushes extreme pro-Israel policies.

It also staunchly opposes same-sex marriage, a position that might make it more at home in America’s Bible Belt.

This means that while the British electorate embraces more progressive policies, May is likely to hunker down and move even further to the right in defiance of public opinion, including the growing support for Palestinian rights.

Who are the DUP

The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) was founded in the early 1970s by the late Ian Paisley, a Protestant cleric notorious for his anti-Catholic bigotry.

Paisley’s DUP opposed any change in the status quo of Northern Ireland, an entity created by the British in 1921. As Ireland struggled for its independence, the British imposed partition in order to give Protestants, largely descended from Scottish and English settlers, an artificial majority.

This “Protestant state for a Protestant people” ruled over Irish Catholics with bigotry and an iron fist.
Unionists’ violent rejection of Irish nationalist demands for equality in the late 1960s inaugurated the three-decade low-level civil war known as “The Troubles” in which more than 3,500 people were killed and 50,000 injured – nearly two percent of the Northern Ireland population.

Paisley’s demagoguery and incitement has been blamedfor at least some of the deaths in the conflict.
But after almost a lifetime spent opposing accommodation, in 2007 Paisley led the DUP into a power-sharing government with the leaders of Sinn Féin – the party he had just a few years earlier denounced as a “filthy nest of murderous Irish nationalism.”

Islamophobia

Although Paisley underwent some form of transformation, many in his party have not and the DUP leadership is accused of maintaining ties with violent pro-British extremist groups, called loyalists, that carried out hundreds of sectarian murders of Catholics.

Loyalist paramilitaries endorsed DUP candidates in Thursday’s election.

After Ireland’s 1998 peace deal, the Good Friday Agreement, politicians can no longer utter open expressions of anti-Catholic bigotry of the kind in which Paisley routinely indulged.

But some of that bigotry appears to have morphedinto Islamophobia. In 2014, an evangelical pastor attacked Muslims as “satanic.” The DUP’s Peter Robinson, first minister of Northern Ireland at the time, defended the comments, before eventually apologizing amid public outrage.

Friends of Israel

The DUP is a staunchly pro-Israel party – Ian Paisley himself launched the group Northern Ireland Friends of Israel in 2009.

Before this election, members of the DUP joined dozens of candidates from other parties signing a so-called “Pledge for Israel.”

The party also has its own DUP Friends of Israel lobby group in the Northern Ireland legislature.
Northern Ireland Friends of Israel co-chair Steven Jaffe explained that the party’s strong support for Israel stems in part from religious beliefs.

“Many DUP [members of Parliament] come from a Bible-believing Protestant background,” he told The Times of Israel in 2014. “They have a very sincere and positive attitude to the biblical roots of the Jewish people’s connection to the land.”

These Christian Zionist beliefs are what motivate many extreme supporters of Israel, such as the powerful US lobby group Christians United for Israel.

Since 2015, CUFI also has a UK branch. The group had been due to celebrate in London 50 years of violent Israeli occupation in the West Bank at a “Night to Honor Israel,” before it was canceled amid what it claimed were security threats.

The “Pledge for Israel” was also emailed by CUFI UK to its supporters just before the election.
Settler-colonialism

The identification also stems from the shared history that Northern Ireland was created through imposed partition, for the benefit of a settler-colonial group, against the wishes and rights of the indigenous population, just like Israel’s 1948 creation in Palestine.

The DUP “identify with Israel fighting for its survival, and they feel the international media is unfairly hostile to Israel just as they believe it was hostile to their own cause,” Jaffe explained.
Veteran Irish journalist Patrick Cockburn shed light on this sense of a common cause between Zionists and pro-British unionists in Northern Ireland, during Israel’s December 2008 to January 2009 invasion of the Gaza Strip, which killed more than 1,400 Palestinians.

Israeli society “reminds me more than ever of the unionists in Northern Ireland in the late 1960s,” he observed. Like Israelis, unionists were a community “with a highly developed siege mentality which led them always to see themselves as victims even when they were killing other people. There were no regrets or even knowledge of what they inflicted on others and therefore any retaliation by the other side appeared as unprovoked aggression inspired by unreasoning hate.”

As The Electronic Intifada’s David Cronin has observed, “the racist discourse of the Protestant establishment in the north of Ireland” is “almost identical to what Israeli politicians say about Arabs.”
Israel’s justice minister Ayelet Shaked, for instance, calledPalestinian babies “little snakes.” Paisley once claimedthat Catholics “multiply like vermin.”

Exporting repression to Palestine

The overall responsibility for the violence lay with the British state, which propped up the bigoted Northern Ireland regime for decades.

But while the peace process ended the most violent manifestations of British repression, that apparatus of state violence has been rebranded for export to Palestine.

Several veterans of the now disbanded Royal Ulster Constabulary have been employed by the European Union to train Palestinian Authority security forces that work closely with Israel’s military occupation.

This is the same Royal Ulster Constabulary that colluded with loyalist militias on a vast scale in the murder of Catholics, and whose members are now honored by DUP leader Arlene Foster as heroes.
The morning after the vote, it is no wonder that many are describing May’s desperate deal with the DUP to stay in power as the “Bad Friday Agreement.”

In a stunning upset, the British electorate moved sharply to the left in Thursday’s general election. The Labour Party, led by Jeremy Corbyn, gained dozens of seats, while Theresa May’sgoverning Conservatives lost their majority.

When the prime minister called the snap election seven weeks ago, polls suggested she’d win a massive majority.

Even such Labour stalwarts as Guardian pundit Owen Jones predicted that under Corbyn the party would be crushed.

But Corbyn’s ebullient grassroots campaign, built on policies of free university tuition, social justice and more investment in public services, generated enthusiasm that defied virtuallyall expectations.
May moves right

Diminished and humiliated, May will hang on as prime minister for now. But unable to command a majority in the House of Commons on their own, the Conservatives will rely for support on the 10 lawmakers from the Democratic Unionist Party, a Christian Zionist group in Northern Ireland which pushes extreme pro-Israel policies.

It also staunchly opposes same-sex marriage, a position that might make it more at home in America’s Bible Belt.

This means that while the British electorate embraces more progressive policies, May is likely to hunker down and move even further to the right in defiance of public opinion, including the growing support for Palestinian rights.

Who are the DUP

The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) was founded in the early 1970s by the late Ian Paisley, a Protestant cleric notorious for his anti-Catholic bigotry.

Paisley’s DUP opposed any change in the status quo of Northern Ireland, an entity created by the British in 1921. As Ireland struggled for its independence, the British imposed partition in order to give Protestants, largely descended from Scottish and English settlers, an artificial majority.

This “Protestant state for a Protestant people” ruled over Irish Catholics with bigotry and an iron fist.
Unionists’ violent rejection of Irish nationalist demands for equality in the late 1960s inaugurated the three-decade low-level civil war known as “The Troubles” in which more than 3,500 people were killed and 50,000 injured – nearly two percent of the Northern Ireland population.

Paisley’s demagoguery and incitement has been blamedfor at least some of the deaths in the conflict.
But after almost a lifetime spent opposing accommodation, in 2007 Paisley led the DUP into a power-sharing government with the leaders of Sinn Féin – the party he had just a few years earlier denounced as a “filthy nest of murderous Irish nationalism.”

Islamophobia

Although Paisley underwent some form of transformation, many in his party have not and the DUP leadership is accused of maintaining ties with violent pro-British extremist groups, called loyalists, that carried out hundreds of sectarian murders of Catholics.

Loyalist paramilitaries endorsed DUP candidates in Thursday’s election.

After Ireland’s 1998 peace deal, the Good Friday Agreement, politicians can no longer utter open expressions of anti-Catholic bigotry of the kind in which Paisley routinely indulged.

But some of that bigotry appears to have morphedinto Islamophobia. In 2014, an evangelical pastor attacked Muslims as “satanic.” The DUP’s Peter Robinson, first minister of Northern Ireland at the time, defended the comments, before eventually apologizing amid public outrage.

Friends of Israel

The DUP is a staunchly pro-Israel party – Ian Paisley himself launched the group Northern Ireland Friends of Israel in 2009.

Before this election, members of the DUP joined dozens of candidates from other parties signing a so-called “Pledge for Israel.”

The party also has its own DUP Friends of Israel lobby group in the Northern Ireland legislature.
Northern Ireland Friends of Israel co-chair Steven Jaffe explained that the party’s strong support for Israel stems in part from religious beliefs.

“Many DUP [members of Parliament] come from a Bible-believing Protestant background,” he told The Times of Israel in 2014. “They have a very sincere and positive attitude to the biblical roots of the Jewish people’s connection to the land.”

These Christian Zionist beliefs are what motivate many extreme supporters of Israel, such as the powerful US lobby group Christians United for Israel.

Since 2015, CUFI also has a UK branch. The group had been due to celebrate in London 50 years of violent Israeli occupation in the West Bank at a “Night to Honor Israel,” before it was canceled amid what it claimed were security threats.

The “Pledge for Israel” was also emailed by CUFI UK to its supporters just before the election.

Settler-colonialism

The identification also stems from the shared history that Northern Ireland was created through imposed partition, for the benefit of a settler-colonial group, against the wishes and rights of the indigenous population, just like Israel’s 1948 creation in Palestine.

The DUP “identify with Israel fighting for its survival, and they feel the international media is unfairly hostile to Israel just as they believe it was hostile to their own cause,” Jaffe explained.
Veteran Irish journalist Patrick Cockburn shed light on this sense of a common cause between Zionists and pro-British unionists in Northern Ireland, during Israel’s December 2008 to January 2009 invasion of the Gaza Strip, which killed more than 1,400 Palestinians.

Israeli society “reminds me more than ever of the unionists in Northern Ireland in the late 1960s,” he observed. Like Israelis, unionists were a community “with a highly developed siege mentality which led them always to see themselves as victims even when they were killing other people. There were no regrets or even knowledge of what they inflicted on others and therefore any retaliation by the other side appeared as unprovoked aggression inspired by unreasoning hate.”

As The Electronic Intifada’s David Cronin has observed, “the racist discourse of the Protestant establishment in the north of Ireland” is “almost identical to what Israeli politicians say about Arabs.”
Israel’s justice minister Ayelet Shaked, for instance, calledPalestinian babies “little snakes.” Paisley once claimedthat Catholics “multiply like vermin.”

Exporting repression to Palestine

The overall responsibility for the violence lay with the British state, which propped up the bigoted Northern Ireland regime for decades.

But while the peace process ended the most violent manifestations of British repression, that apparatus of state violence has been rebranded for export to Palestine.

Several veterans of the now disbanded Royal Ulster Constabulary have been employed by the European Union to train Palestinian Authority security forces that work closely with Israel’s military occupation.

This is the same Royal Ulster Constabulary that colluded with loyalist militias on a vast scale in the murder of Catholics, and whose members are now honored by DUP leader Arlene Foster as heroes.
The morning after the vote, it is no wonder that many are describing May’s desperate deal with the DUP to stay in power as the “Bad Friday Agreement.” 

Israel’s War Against Asylum Seekers and Refugees

$
0
0

52% of Israelis agree - African migrants are a cancer

I make no apologies for writing once again on Israel’s racism towards African asylum seekers who escaped from war and genocide in Africa in the mid 2000’s.  Up to 60,000 came from 2005 onwards but after 2011 and under Netanyahu’s regime they were treated as the enemy within. 

Human not cancer - refugees demand that they be recognised as human beings in Israel, not seen as a pathology and a disease
In November 2010, the Israeli government approved a plan to build a massive detention center, Holot, in the Negev/Naqab desert, to hold thousands of asylum seekers and their families before deportation. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at the time: “We must stop the mass entry of illegal migrant workers because of the very serious threat to the character and future to the state of Israel.”


When the Palestinian refugees were expelled in 1948, because without ethnic cleansing, a Jewish majority state could not be formed, those who tried to return were called ‘Infiltrators’.  The idea that those who were born and were indigenous to the land should be called infiltrators by those who were settler colonials beggars belief but is part of the racist mentality of colonialism.
Anti-racist Israelis confronting Zionist racists who want refugees to depart
Hostility to refugees relates to the Zionist nature of the Israeli state.  Quite simply, Israeli society is overwhelmingly hostile to refugees because they are not Jewish.  They dilute the Jewish gene pool and threaten the Jewish demographic majority.  As Prime Minister Netanyahu said, non-Jewish immigrants threaten the ‘Jewish identity’ of the Israeli state.  Israel PM: illegal African immigrants threaten identity of Jewish state
Racist anti-asylum demonstrators - the Nazis used to say Jews were also criminals
Many refugees have settled in the south of Tel-Aviv where they have been subject to pogroms and violent demonstrations by racist Israelis.  This, you understand, in liberal, gay friendly, pink washing Tel-Aviv.  They are accused of having illegally entered Israel because it is illegal to claim asylum in Israel.  
The Zionists accuse refugees of being 'infiltrators' which was the accusation levelled against Palestinian refugees - they are really 'terrorists' out to destroy the Jewish state
All refugees in Israel are, by definition, illegal. Even worse though is the attitude towards them.  Culture Minister Miri Regev called them  a ‘cancer’ in Israeli society.   When criticised for this comment, she then apologised to cancer patients, for having compared them to asylum seekers.
Miri Regev -  the racist Culture Minister who first described African refugees as 'cancer'
Israel’s Refuses to Accept a Single Refugee from Syria or elsewhere because they aren’t Jewish
Israel is now proposing to steal, because that is what it is, 20% of the incomes of the poorest section of Israeli society, people who have little or no access to medical or health facilities, who get no public housing or benefits.  There used to be strong Jewish religious principles in Jewish religious law about sheltering the stranger, even offering them up your own bed.  Israel, as a racist ethno-religious state, sees that refugees are not Jewish therefore they should not be there.

Watch interview:



transcript
SHIR HEVER: Welcome to the Real News Network. From the beginning of this month a new policy's implemented in Israel. African asylum seekers who work in Israel have part of their wage income garnished by the state and placed into an account to which they have no access.

According to a law which was legislated in 2014 and only now implemented, 20 percent of the wage of asylum seekers will be deposited into a special bank account. In addition their employers will be required to deposit 16 percent of the wage which would normally be allotted to the worker's pension and to the future of severance compensation into that same account. And the asylum seekers would theoretically gain access to the money saved, only upon leaving the country. Israeli bank, Mizrahi Tefahot, has won the tender to manage these accounts, and has already informed its' investors that the policy would improve its liquidity and reserve ratio, because the money will not be accessible to its owners, and the bank can use it to offset loans.

Right-wing anti-refugee demonstration
They policy is intended to discourage asylum seekers from entering Israel or from working in Israel, but as most of the asylum seekers in Israel are refugees from Eritrea or from Sudan, escaping conditions of slavery and mass murder, one really wonders if the policy will act as a deterrence, or merely as a mechanism to make the lives of these refugees even harder than they already are. As refugees are usually forced to work in precarious and low wage jobs, garnishing a significant part of the wages make it very difficult for them to make ends meet.
Refugees trying to appeal to the better nature of the Zionists - the problem is that Zionism doesn't have a better side

So we are joined now to speak about this with Lia Tarachansky. Lia Tarachansky is an Israeli Russian Canadian journalist and documentary filmmaker. She reported for the Real News Network on Israel and the Palestinian territories. She's made five films already, and one of them Ethnocracy: Israel's African refugees, is specifically about the topic that we want to discuss right now, so thank you very much Lia for joining us.

LIA TARACHANSKY: Thanks for having me Shir.

SHIR HEVER: So, how many asylum seekers are currently residing in Israel?

LIA TARACHANSKY: According to the latest estimates, and also from the numbers of the Ministry of Interior, about 40,000.
Anti-racist Israeli Jews - you won't find Labour Zionists among them

SHIR HEVER: And let's talk a little but about the history of this situation, because Israel was responsible for expelling hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, creating the longest lasting refugee population in the world since 1948. But no longer the largest refugee population. Does this have an effect of how African refugees are seen and treated within Israeli society?

LIA TARACHANSKY: So the mechanisms that the state of Israel is using to essentially expel, imprison, and minimize the number of African refugees in its attempt to be the first developed nation with zero refugees, are the same mechanisms that the state of Israel and pre state used against the Palestinian refugees. For example, the anti infiltration law, closing the borders, and mass expulsions. Including a whole matrix of administrative and bureaucratic manipulations in order to basically withdraw status from people. So those same processes that the state of Israel uses against the Palestinian refugees, are used against the African refugees. However, the African refugees don't have any history of conflict, neither with Israel nor with the Jews. And so when they first arrived in 2006, they were actually welcomed and treated well by Israeli soldiers that were greeting them at the border, and then by the Israeli public. But when the government of Netanyahu decided to take a 90 degree turn on that treatment of the African refugees, what resulted was a full out war against them. Even though they don't have a history of conflict with either Israel or the Jewish people.

What's amazing is that because, or rather despite the fact that these people are escaping genocidal regimes that are actually at conflict with the state of Israel, and it would be a phenomenal propaganda tool for Israel to treat these people humanely, instead what the government does is incite against them, dehumanize them, an essentially treat them and scapegoat them as if they are the core of the problem. So for example, in the city of London alone, there are 250,000 asylum seekers, refugees, and other claimings. In the entire state of Israel , there are 40,000. They are less than .001% of the population, and yet they are constantly being talked about as though they are threatening Israel's Jewish majority. A demographic threat, which is something that the state of Israel uses frequently against the Palestinian minorities in Israel.

So what's amazing here is that we're seeing that even a population that is innocent of any of the kinds of things that the state Israel accuses its enemies of, is still being treated as an enemy, simply because they are not Jewish. And the product of all of this is because of course, Israel is an ethnocratic state, which means that only Jewish people can become citizens. Which means that there is no mechanism whatsoever for anyone to actually be in Israel long term, unless they are Jewish.

SHIR HEVER: I want to get back to the point that you focus on. Policy of the Israeli government, that there is some tension also between the Israeli government and the Israeli public on this issue. Or maybe not tension, but some divergence of opinion. Because originally, and we've covered this in the Real News, the Israeli government, the giant prisons, to keep all the asylum seekers incarcerated without a trial, and this policy was found illegal by the Israeli high court. Now many asylum seekers are still in prison, but this new policy of garnishing wages, do you see this as a response by the Israeli government or by the Israeli parliament to the decision of the high court?

LIA TARACHANSKY: I don't think those two things are related because the cabinet and the government of Benjamin Netanyahu has proven not once, and not twice, that they are simply willing to ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court, where those rulings do not serve their interests. They don't need to prove anything. They don't need to actually counter the court in any way. They're simply not implementing it, and there's a silent consensus about that on the entire spectrum of the Israeli Zionist political leadership. Even so called centrist politicians like Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid and Yitzhak Herzog are all respecting the status quo of essentially ignoring the ruling of the supreme court.

But if you're trying to understand where this latest attack on African refugees fits, what you need to do is look at it from the perceptive of the five part plan that the government of Netanyahu actually implemented. And this is the plan that we cover in the film that I co directed with Canadian filmmaker, Jesse Freeston, called Ethnocracy: Israel's African refugees.

So if we're looking at it as step by step by step, the first step that actually took place was that the Government basically said, "These people have no status." And so, when they were first were coming in, what a lot of African refugees did, is they would go to the UNHCR, the UN body responsible for refugees. What the government did in its very early attacks, is it basically gutted the UNHCR of the ability to decide who is and is not a refugee. And the UNHCR office in Tel-Aviv basically just became a shell. A meaningless rubber stamp that had no power whatsoever. So the Ministry of Interior basically gutted that ability and the used that ability to basically say, "Well we don't know who's a refugee, because, nobody's checking who's a refugee and who is not a refugee. Therefore these people are not refugees." So that was the first attack.

The second attack is that they used that designation as essentially not knowing and not wanting to know and eliminating the processes of getting to know, who is a refugee, to then mass deport anyone who is from a country that the government decided is deportable. And under this policy we saw the Ivory Coast refugees deported. Some of them in the middle of the night by riot police. We've seen the south Sudanese refugees reported. Of them, more than half have ... We can't track them down. There's been dozens and dozens of people that have been reported killed as a result of this policy. A direct product of Israel's attack on the African refugees. And basically, over the years, since 2011, when a few right wing politicians saw that they can use xenophobia to basically ride a wave of racism to the front of the parliament from the back benches, which is where they were, we've seen this huge change. And in that change we have seen all of the African refugees that are basically not from Eritrea and Sudan deported with a few individuals as exceptions. Then the next step was that the government of Netanyahu built a 240 kilometer wall along the border with Egypt for the first time in human history, cutting off Asia from Africa. And this wall essentially reduced to number of African refugees entering Israel to zero.

The next step was building the biggest prison for refugees in the entire developed world. And they build this massive camp in the middle of the desert, surrounded by other prisons and military bases and they basically created a racial profiling police force that went down the streets of Tel-Aviv and asked for IDs from anyone who is brown or black, and then basically on mass deported thousands of people to this prison.

And so, the last step of the program essentially has been to pressure those people that are in that jail and everyone else who hasn't yet been put in jail into self deporting. So this is the most important part of the 5 part plan. Which is essentially, the government of Israel knows that if they deport Eritrean or Sudanese refugees, which are refugees that come from countries that the level of refugee recognition worldwide for them is about 80% and up. If they deport people to these regimes, Eritrea being a dictatorship, and Sudan being essentially run by a war criminal genocidal maniac. If they deport these African refugees to these countries, they would significantly lose the support of the international community because they would be seen as clearly non-humanitarian move. So instead what they do is that the government of Israel basically came to an arms agreement with a number of three African states on a number of arms agreements. Basically saying that those states are gong to take Israel's unwanted African refugees, in exchange for discounts of arms being sold to them by the state of Israel.

And now they're trying to shuffle the African refugees to self deport to one of these three countries. And the latest attempt in the pressure which the UNHCR actually said is in complete violation of international law, is to push these African refugees to self deport because of also basically stealing 20% of their salaries. Now as you yourself reported Shir, when you were talking about the Histadrut basically theft of the taxes of Palestinian laborers, I have every little faith that the African refugees are ever going to see that money again.

SHIR HEVER: Well finally I want to get back to the point that you said before when you made the comparison with London, for example. And you said that Israel has the largest prison for asylum seekers in the developed world. Lets talk a little bit about kind of the international comparison. Is there any other county in the world that garnishes the wages of asylum seekers in this way in order to create an incentive for self deportation? And do you think that this policy is completely for internal purposes, like you said? For the back ventures to be able to move forward through populism or is it also something that could affect policy towards refugees in Europe or in other countries, which might copy Israeli policy.

LIA TARACHANSKY: Yeah so the African refugees, like the Palestinian laborers, paid taxes to the state of Israel while they receive absolutely no services whatsoever from the state of Israel. They don't get shelter, they don't get basic food supplies, they don't get healthcare. Zero, nothing. So on top of paying taxes to a government that does not provide them with any services, they are now going to have these wages taken. And as far as I know, and I'm of course not a refugee expert, no other country does that. Now you have to understand that Israel actually promotes itself to Europe, which is currently seen as in a crisis of migration, as the frontier of effective policies on how to basically prevent migrants from coming into your borders. So Israel is using this as yet another tool in its marketing campaign that its trying to convince other western nations, other developed nations, to adopt in their attack on globalized migration.

SHIR HEVER: Alright this is very interesting but of course very concerning about what will be the implications of this policy. Thank you very much, Lia for joining us.

LIA TARACHANSKY: Thanks for having me, and I would like your audience to know that if they'd like to watch Ethonocracy, its available for free on Vimeo, and they can also


Israel - the most hostile of all western countries to refugees & asylum seekers

Soldiers instructed by Defence Minister Lieberman not to play with refugee children



Jeremy Corbyn and the Humiliation of Nick Cohen

$
0
0

Not so Stable - The Witch of Westminster’s Fatal Miscalculation

As with all good fairy tales, the wicked witch of Westminster was rumbled before she was able to cast her evil spells. The good news is that she is not yet dead. The longer she lives, the more damage she is likely to do to the Tory Party. Theresa May’s promise to the 1922 Committee that, having got them into “this mess”, she is the best person to get them out again would, in normal circumstances, indicate that she had a sense of humour.

The question for us to understand is how and why May and her supporters made such a catastrophic political misjudgement and what the consequences may be. It was not simply political hubris that led May to call a general election when she had a workable parliamentary majority for the next three years. There was a collective act of self-deception by the political class - the talking heads and self-styled experts who feed off each other’s delusions. It was taken for granted that in a general election Corbyn was a lamb going to the slaughter.
Joan Ryan asking Israeli agent Shai Masot about the £1m slush fund that had been granted by Israel
Corrupt as they come - the only 'achievement' of Joan Ryan, Labour Friends of Israel Chair is to claim more expenses than any other MP (b4 paying a little of it back!)
Almost alone amongst the political commentators I predicted the outcome.1 The day after parliament voted by 522-13 for dissolution and with the polls showing a lead of over 20% I wrote:
… it was Harold Wilson who said that a week is a long time in politics. Seven weeks is a political eternity. Theresa May has taken a gamble that her 21% lead will hold. It is a gamble that she may yet come to regret. 
There is only one direction that her lead can go, and that is down. Once her lead falls, then a snowball effect can take over. What is essential is that Labour marks out the key areas on which it is going to base its appeal. The danger is that Corbyn is going to continue with his ‘strategy’ of appeasing the right and appealing to all good men and women. If so that will be a recipe for disaster ...
Theresa May is a cautious conservative. She is literally the product of her background - a conservative vicar’s daughter. Reactionary, parochial and small-minded, she is a bigot for all seasons. What doesn’t help is that she is both wooden and unoriginal. The danger is that Corbyn tries to emulate her. 
Corbyn speaking at Labour Friends of Israel rally - Joan Ryan looking on 
The key question is whether or not Corbyn can rise to the occasion. Even Jesus ... didn’t allow the gospel of love to prevent him from driving the money lenders from the temple ... There is everything to win if Labour has the courage of its convictions.

On June 3, five days before the election, when all the polls were predicting that May’s lead was widening, I wrote:
My initial predictions, that there would or could be a hung parliament was based on my assessment of the situation. This is still quite possible, as the Tories are widely detested for their attacks on the working poor, people on benefits and the continuous privatisation of the NHS. They are seen as the party of a vicious class rule, which is what austerity is about.
That does not, however, mean that the Tories will necessarily be defeated. People do not vote in line with their class interests. The whole purpose of the patriotic card, used by a succession of ruling class scoundrels from Pitt to May, is to blind people to their real interests ... The Tory press, of course, is doing its best to foster illusions in Strong and Stable. 
.... The Lib Dems are not going to gain enough seats to prop up another Tory coalition ... By ruling out any form of pact with Labour under Corbyn, the Lib Dems have guaranteed their own irrelevance. 
We could be in for a period of political instability such as we have not known for 40 years ... A Tory government is still possible if it cobbles together a coalition of the Lib Dems and the Ulster Unionists-DUP. Even a majority Tory government cannot be ruled out.2 
Nick Cohen - as measured as always

Contrast this with the drunken pundits who inhabit the Westminster bubble, who competed with each other in their efforts to describe how badly Corbyn would be defeated. Prime among them was Nick Cohen, who writes with all the passion of a neocon convert for the once liberal Observer. In March Cohen predicted that in the event of a general election:
Labour will get around a quarter of the vote ... The Tories have gone easy on Corbyn and his comrades to date for the transparently obvious reason that they want to keep them in charge of Labour … In an election, they would tear them to pieces. They will expose the far left’s record of excusing the imperialism of Vladimir Putin’s gangster state, the oppressors of women and murderers of gays in Iran, the IRA, and every variety of inquisitorial and homicidal Islamist movement, Will there be 150, 125, 100 Labour MPs by the end of the flaying? My advice is to think of a number then halve it.3 
Suffice to say, Cohen was faced with having to eat rather large helpings of humble pie. How did he explain himself? Primarily by blaming others! It was all because “the paralysed Tories don’t know how to govern or what to do next”. [no hint as to who paralysed them!] Having informed us through gritted teeth that May’s electoral defeat “is not only due to the PM’s monumental incompetence - Corbyn deserves credit”, he then tells us, by way of an alibi, that “most Labour MPs stayed in their constituencies, convinced defeat was at hand. They kept Corbyn’s name off their leaflets and told anyone who asked that Corbyn did not represent the real Labour Party.”4 Not once did it occur to Cohen to question these MPs’ cowardly behaviour, still less talk to some real people instead of embittered Labour MPs. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Jeremy Newmark, JLM Chair, after hearing Corbyn speak to the LFI - patronising as ever
If he had felt particularly brave, Cohen might have ventured into the crowds at one of the 90 mass rallies that Corbyn addressed up and down the country and asked himself whether something was happening beneath the surface of British politics. Instead Cohen, who even today defends the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, tells us that he “doesn’t swing with the polls”. Instead he reverts back to the horrors of the “links between the Corbyn camp and a Putin regime that persecutes genuine radicals”, to say nothing of his support for “an Iranian state that hounds gays, subjugates women and tortures prisoners” - and, of course, Corbyn’s “indulgence of real anti-Semites (not just critics of Israel)”.
Joan Ryan with helpers in General Election

New mood

The question is why 99% of the pundits and ‘experts’ got it so badly wrong. The answer is really not so difficult. Their understanding of what is happening in the country is limited to the latest opinion poll and soundings at Westminster. In essence what they are doing is testing whether the ideological broadside of the popular press against Corbyn has been successful or not.

Corbyn’s election was accompanied by hundreds of thousands of people joining the Labour Party. Contrary to the self-deluding nostrums of Labour Party MPs and the Tory media, this was not a far-left takeover. Would that the far left in this country accounted for even 10% of these numbers. Corbyn’s election was symptomatic of a wider revulsion at Cameron’s narrow victory and the years of austerity, cuts to benefits, a housing crisis, the plight of the NHS and the enrichment of the already rich.

It is this mood that not only Cohen and the media, but also the far left, has failed to pick up on. The growing disillusion in modern capitalism and its inability to provide even a basic and acceptable standard of living to people. The fact that young people are forced to live with their parents because they cannot afford to rent anywhere, the food banks and homelessness. The only response to growing impoverishment has been to redefine what poverty means.

I campaigned in Brighton Kemptown, a Tory marginal of 690 votes. Every school had displayed outside it large banners explaining how the cuts were affecting them. Robotically quoting figures saying that education funding is being increased means little when the actuality of what is happening in education is very different.

There was clearly a massive swing amongst young people to Labour. The effect of benefit cuts to the under-25s, combined with tuition fees and the removal of student grants and student nurses’ bursaries, have taken their toll.

Labour’s manifesto was genuinely radical in a number of ways. The decision of the right in Labour Party headquarters to leak it in advance ironically worked in favour of Labour by giving it nearly a week of extra publicity. Corbyn broke with Miliband’s legacy by openly opposing the politics of austerity. This was in contrast to the Tories’ promises of more austerity, with the abolition of the triple lock on pensions, means testing of pensioners’ winter fuel payments and the removal of free school meals. Labour’s promise to abolish tuition fees, and to restore housing benefit to the under-21s, struck a chord with younger people. Today no Labour rightwinger dares defend Miliband’s austerity-lite politics. The promise to renationalise the railways, post office and utilities was also genuinely popular. Of course, we should call for workers’ control in industries that are renationalised, in order that what happened previously - whereby private-sector managers just moved over from the private to the public sector and carried on in the same way - does not happen again.

We are not in a revolutionary situation or anything even approaching it, which is why it is not possible to put forward a demand for nationalisation without compensation and gain any measure of support. It is, however, possible to demand that any compensation paid is linked to the price that the industries were originally sold for, minus the profits taken out and, not least, in the case of water, the land that was sold off by the water companies.

We should also call, in the case of the NHS, for the statutory reversal of private finance initiative contracts which have enabled private companies to literally make a killing. We should demand that, adjusted for inflation and say a 2% return, companies which have already received their initial investment back should not receive further compensation. We need to be able to formulate concrete demands which, though they go against capitalist economic ‘logic’, also resonate with sections of the class. I have no doubt that this will be controversial with some on the far left, but it is also necessary to link one’s demands to existing consciousness.

I also have little doubt that Brexit played a major part. The reason that the Liberal Democrats did not benefit from the support of remainers was that they were not a credible electoral vehicle, especially after they explicitly ruled out supporting a Corbyn-led government. We saw two conflicting tendencies.

First, Labour clearly benefited from pro-European Tories who were alienated by a hard Brexit. There is no other explanation for the victory of Labour in Kensington, possibly the richest constituency in Britain. The votes in Brighton, Hove and Canterbury, among other places, indicate that this was not just confined to London constituencies.

There was also the collapse of the UK Independence Party vote. Unlike most received wisdom, I have argued that the suggestion that Ukip votes would go automatically back to the Tories was mistaken. Although we may not like it, Ukip posed as a party of protest against the establishment - Farage’s peoples’ army. With its virtual collapse at this election, the majority of working class Ukip voters in the north went back to Labour, not the Tories. Even in the south a large proportion appear to have supported Labour too. People voted for Ukip not because they were racist, but because they believed that immigration was responsible for their decline in living standards.

What next?

What then has been the reaction of the Labour right? During the campaign the theme of many - like Peter Kyle, the MP for Hove - was that a vote for them was not a vote for Corbyn.5 The Zionist lobby that Corbyn was so assiduous in appeasing paid him back with studious contempt. Joan Ryan, chair of Labour Friends of Israel, whose sole achievements have been to claim the second highest expenses of any MP in 2005-06 and the highest amounts in 2006-07,6 asked her constituents to elect her “despite Corbyn” because May would win.7 Jeremy Newmark, the chair of the Jewish Labour Movement, the British branch of the Israeli Labour Party, likewise assured voters that if they voted for him Corbyn still would not win.8

For all his attempts to please the Zionist lobby, including suspending supporters of the Palestinians and supporting the redefinition of anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism, the Zionists treat Corbyn with utter disdain. He is not reliable compared to Tom Watson.

Some on the right like Owen Smith9, Chuka Umunna and even Peter Mandelson10 have recognised that they were wrong in writing off Corbyn as an electoral liability, although Mandelson returned to type pretty quickly with his bizarre suggestion that Labour MPs should prop up May in order to achieve a soft Brexit.11 Others, such as Chris Leslie, the former shadow chancellor, complained that, despite the fact that Corbyn had been fighting the Tories as well as fighting Labour traitors like himself, he had not achieved an outright victory.

It must be very painful for the Labour right to admit that the Labour Party under Corbyn won the highest vote since 1997 and the largest increase in any party’s percentage of the vote since 1945. The right’s whole narrative revolves around the idea that warmed-up Blairism would still prove attractive - despite having lost nearly five million votes between 1997 and 2010. Corbyn’s 12.9 million votes were, with the exception of Blair in 1997 (13.5 million), the highest for Labour since 1966 (13.1 million). The right has been forced to acknowledge that it was Corbyn’s strategy of ignoring the print media and using social media that contributed to Theresa May’s defeat.

The question for the left though is ‘Where next?’ Of one thing we can be in little doubt. Theresa May is, in the words of George Osborne, a dead woman walking. There can be no future in her putative alliance with the Democratic Unionist Party. The DUP is not simply anti-gay and anti-abortion: it is above all a racist, sectarian party of Protestant supremacy. It was created in reaction to the formation of the civil rights movement by Catholics in 1969. It has strong links with loyalist terror groups, including the Ulster Defence Association and its death squads. Only a few days ago its leader, Arlene Foster, met with Jackie MacDonald, a senior leader of the UDA, in the wake of the UDA murder of another loyalist in Carrickfergus.12 But then some forms of terrorism have always been acceptable to the Conservative and Unionist Party.

It is important that the previous strategy of appeasing the right is not pursued. It would be a strategic mistake to take Chuka Ummuna and Angela Eagle back into the shadow cabinet. In a reversal of Lyndon Johnson’s maxim, it would be better to have them pissing outside the tent rather than fouling the shadow cabinet!

It is essential that Corbyn purges Labour’s civil service. It is absurd that the left leadership of the Labour Party has next to no control over its unelected staff. This meant that virtually no resources were directed to any seat that Labour was trying to gain. Under Iain McNicol, Labour’s witch-hunting general secretary, a strategy of defending Labour marginals - especially those where Progress MPs were in danger, like Hove - was pursued. That was why no help whatsoever was given to crucial marginals like Brighton Kemptown, where a Tory majority of 690 was turned into a Labour majority of nearly 10,000. Labour HQ swallowed the tabloid and media nonsense about Labour being in for a catastrophic result. What this meant in practice is that at least 15 seats that Labour could easily have won were lost - and with them any chance of a majority. McNicol, if he is not prepared to fall on his sword, should be sacked for gross incompetence.13

As the right in the Labour Party recover from the shock of Corbyn’s performance and take stock, I predict a renewal of the false ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign. It is essential that the compliance unit is wound up, that all those suspended - including Jackie Walker, Ken Livingstone and myself - are reinstated. At the beginning of the election campaign Mel Melvin, women’s’ officer for Brighton Kemptown, was suspended for posting a satirical tweet, in response to reports of the bullying of Dianne Abbot: she said that Abbot should claim Jewish ancestry, then action would be taken. It would seem that any form of humour, if it involves poking fun at the false anti-Semitism campaign, is also verboten. Mel’s comment was nothing more than a satirical joke.

The key Zionist activists in the Labour Party have demonstrated that their first loyalty is to Israel and British foreign policy. Newmark, Ryan, Gapes and Kyle did their best to undermine Corbyn during the election campaign and no-one could be more disappointed with the election result than these Labour Zionist candidates.

The one issue that never really came to the fore, but underlies much of the voting, was the question of Brexit. May’s hard Brexit has clearly hit the buffers. Labour’s position at the moment is incoherent. Corbyn’s reference to “managed migration” during the election campaign and the myth that immigration, rather than the erosion of trade union rights, leads to lower wages, has to be fought. Labour’s stance should be clear - Britain should stay in the single market and the custom’s union and it should accept the free movement of labour. Corbyn should not pander to the myth that immigration lowers the price of labour. There is already a crisis of a lack of nurses in the NHS and now there are reports that the number coming in from the EU has declined by a massive 96%.

The message for the left inside the Labour Party is that it has to go on the political offensive. We need to deselect large numbers of what were imposed candidates. Never again should the Labour machine be allowed to choose the candidates, as happened this time. Another general election is probable within a year. The Tory Party is divided over Brexit and it is highly unlikely that the present government can continue with the support of the DUP. John Major has already spoken out against it, following on from the comments of the Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson.

Notes

1. http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/labour-can-win-if-corbyn-is-bold-key.html (April 20 2017).
2. http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/general-election-is-labour-on-threshold.html.
3. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/19/jeremy-corbyn-labour-threat-party-election-support (March 19 2017).
4. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/10/i-was-wrong-about-jeremy-corbyn-still-doubt-him.
5.  www.theargus.co.uk/news/15296372.Kyle__A_vote_for_me_is_not_a_vote_for_Corbyn_in_Downing_Street
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Ryan.
7. www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/02/back-me-despite-corbyn-as-may-will-win-labour-mp-urges-voters.
8. www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/byers-jeremy-newmark-piece-1.438620.
9. www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/defeated-labour-leadership-contender-owen-13160869.
10. www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/jeremy-corbyn/news/86571/i-was-clearly-wrong-jeremy-corbyns.
11. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4592272/Lord-Peter-Mandleson-urges-Labour-MPs-soft-Brexit.html#ixzz4jrqe9vXQ.
12. www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/11/arlene-fosters-stance-on-paramilitary-groups-brought-into-question.

13. https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/10/excl-labour-hq-defunded-marginals-corbyn-achieved-this-despite-them-ge17.

A MEMOIR OF AUSCHWITZ AND BIRKENAU

$
0
0
Much has been written about Auschwitz extermination camp.  However this piece provides insight into the unique savagery of the barbarities of fascism and its factories of death.

Birkenau-Auschwitz in January 1945 after the Soviets had captured it
Auschwitz wasn’t officially known of as an extermination or death camp, as opposed to a concentration camp, until April 1944 with the writing of the Auschwitz Protocols.  However British Intelligence was aware of the activities of Auschwitz far earlier owing to decryption of Nazi signals.  At Bletchley Park, the SS code had been broken early in the war including communications with the extermination camps.  During the summer of 1941 Order Police reports of mass shootings in Occupied Russia were deciphered.

The truth is as Walter Lacquer’s Terrible Secret shows, there was no interest, either by the West or the Zionists in uncovering the secret of Auschwitz.  That was why it remained undiscovered.

We should not be deterred from understanding what happened in the Holocaust and why, simply because today the Zionist movement, the Israeli state and the Western capitalist states exploit what happened over 70 years ago in order to justify Israel's racist obscenities.  Zionism, with its creation of a state based on race, defames the memory of those who died, Jewish and non-Jewish, in Auschwitz and Birkenau.  That however is never a reason to deny that the Holocaust took place.  The Zionists create holocaust denial through their exploitation of the memory of the millions who died.  Indeed they deliberately create the false ideology of holocaust denial in order to 'prove' that the anti-Semitism which they create is still alive.

Tony Greenstein
The famous and cynical slogan 'Work Makes You Free' which was above Nazi concentration camps - the same idea was adopted by Ian Duncan Smith when cutting social security benefits in Britain
The Auschwitz experiences of Ukrainian Marxist Roman Rosdolsky
Monthly Review. 39.8 (Jan. 1988): p33.

The literature on Auschwitz is now extensive and there may, at first, seem to be little point in publishing yet another memoir of one of its former inmates, all the more so when the memoir is brief and adds no new facts to those already well-known to the world. But it is the person and perspective of the author which give the memoir below some claim to our attention. The author was the Ukrainian Marxist Roman Rosdolsky (1898-1967), who was arrested by the Gestapo in Cracow in 1942 for aiding Jews. Rosdolsky had been one of the founders and leading theoreticians of the Communist Party of Western Ukraine, but he left the party in opposition to Stalinism in the late 1920s. He remained true to the principles of revolutionary Marxism for the rest of his life. Since the 1930s he devoted himself to scholarship, producing a number of important studies in German and Polish on the agrarian history of East Central Europe and on the history and interpretation of Marxism. Part of the latter series was his very famous work on The Making of Marx's Capital (Pluto Press, 1981).
Aerial reconnaissance of Birkenau
The text which appears below was originally published in the Ukrainian emigre socialist journal Oborona in 1956 and reprinted by another Ukrainian socialist journal, Diialoh, in 1984. This is its first appearance in translation.

--John-Paul Himka (Professor of History, University of Alberta).

Dear Editor:

Thank you very much for mentioning the "death museum at Auschwitz" in your periodical. Permit me to use the occasion of your remarks to share with Oborona's readers some memoirs concerning my own stay in the camp at Auschwitz.

The American correspondent whose words you paraphrase was mistaken only in one point: Auschwitz was not only a "death camp" but also an enormous forced-labor camp, with numerous subsidiary camps spread over considerable territory; on the average it held some 80,000 slaves of the German Reich. It was a sui generis "state within a state," with a whole series of industrial, mining, and even agricultural enterprises. Its goal was to extract as much labor as possible from the prisoners working there, while spending as little as possible on feeding them. In this sense the entire camp was also an enormous "death factory" in which--especially in its first years of existence (1940-42)--the average prisoner did not remain alive longer than three or four months.

Fortunately for me, I wasn't taken to Auschwitz until early 1943, that is, at the time when the regime in the central camp, Auschwitz proper, where there were 15,000 prisoners on the average, had begun to relax. This relaxation was shown, above all, in that after May of 1943 the so-called Kapos, Blockaltester, and Stubendienste no longer had the right to kill with impunity prisoners subordinate to them; before then, such murders were everyday business. The Kapos, etc., were prisoners, generally professional criminals, appointed by the camp authorities to head work teams and keep charge over the barracks in which we lived. This "reform" was mainly motivated by the labor shortage which the Third Reich was beginning to feel; the Hitlerites decided to "economize" on human material that was still fit to work. True, even in the first months of 1943 they still sent all cripples, old people, typhus convalescents, and people with swollen legs or no teeth to the crematorium. I myself was in the camp "hospital" and lived through two large-scale "sortings" in which Hitlerite doctors combed through the patients, sending several hundred to the gas chamber. But by the middle of 1943 this particular horror had passed for us, i.e., for the so-called Aryans (non-Jews), and we could report sick and go to the hospital without risking death. To the unfortunate Jews, however, and only to them, this reform did not apply. Still, some months later, we witnessed a horrific spectacle as a dozen or so trucks pulled into the camp and took hundreds of people from the hospital, clad only in their shirts, to the gas chamber.
women huddled in their bunk after Auschwitz had been captured
So much for the central camp at Auschwitz, which--I repeat--during 1943-44 began to become more and more like ordinary Nazi labor camps such as Dachau, Oranienburg, and Buchenwald. But three kilometers from us was a huge subsidiary camp, Birkenau (in Polish: Brzezinki), where living and working conditions were a hundred percent worse than our own; it had gas chambers and six crematoria in which people were killed with poison gas and the corpses burned day and night. Here the gates of Hitler's hell were thrown wide open.
Trzebinia sub-camp of Auschwitz
Even before I had arrived in Auschwitz, Birkenau had "finished off" 16,000 select Soviet POWs: Red Army officers, politruki, Communists, intellectuals. Of that entire transport only fifty persons survived. Here, too, several dozen thousand "recalcitrant" Poles met their Golgotha. And this was a gigantic cemetery for the Jewish population of almost all of continental Europe.

For the whole of two years, 1943 and 1944, transports would arrive at Birkenau with thousands of Jews from Poland, Slovakia, Bohemia, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Greece. Only a small portion of them--specialists of all sorts--were chosen to work in our camp and Birkenau. The rest, and all women and children, were immediately dispatched to the gas. It was such an everyday occurrence and we grew so accustomed to it that we began to note as extraordinary those days when there were no Jewish transports and no flames shot up from the chimneys of the crematoria.

The reader will ask how I know all this. Unfortunately, not just from conversations with other prisoners in Auschwitz and Birkenau; I was forced to witness it. From spring 1943 until autumn 1944 I worked as a carpenter on the second floor of a huge factory, Deutsche Ausrustungswerke, which stood halfway between the main camp and Birkenau. The large factory windows looked out over Birkenau. From them we saw, maybe a hundred paces from us, the end of the railroad tracks leading to Birkenau as well as, and above all, the chimneys of the crematoria. We could have no doubt about what went on beyond the gates of Birkenau's hell. There's no point in going into all we experienced and how we grew old inside during that year and a half. I'll just describe the most terrible period, the so-called "Hungarian action" of the summer of 1944.

Beginning May 4 of that year, and day in, day out thereafter, four or five long trainloads of Hungarian Jews would pull into the tracks before our windows. They were unloaded in a hurry, and any bundles anyone had were taken away. Then SS-men came and divided the new arrivals into two groups, separating the men from the women and children. They chased them all off to the "showers," that is, to the gas chambers. Immediately afterwards a special work team went through the bundles, removing food and clothing and searching for money and gold. The barracks of this work team were separated from our factory only by a wooden fence. The team was made up of several dozen young women prisoners, each wearing a red kerchief on her head. They were allowed to eat whatever perishable food they found in the bundles. This dreadful work team was generally referred to as "Canada."

By the first week of May "Canada's" yard was already piled high with bundles. We were always tormented by hunger, and the bolder prisoners among us began to steal these bundles from behind the fence. At the same time the smoke began to billow from all six crematoria. And this was not all. Just next to Birkenau, to the right of us, lay a birch forest (hence the name Brzezinki/Birkenau). A huge fire began to blaze in the woods, the flames alternating with thick, yellowish-grey smoke. A few days later we found out what was happening: the crematoria were unable to handle thousands of corpses, so a deep pit was dug in the Birkenau woods to burn the unfortunate victims. Some time at the end of May our factory received an order to supply Birkenau with a dozen or so iron-tipped hooks four meters long. At the head of the order, which I read with my own eyes, it said: Ungarische Aktion.

True, today on both sides of the "iron curtain" they design and produce bombs that can destroy and pulverize just as many living people in the span of one minute. But the Third Reich did not yet know the blessings of modern technology.

How did all these horrors affect the life of our work team? Imagine: rows of work tables, at which stand our carpenters, sad as can be and "blacker than the black earth"--mainly French Jews and Poles. No one speaks. All eyes are focused on the woods of Birkenau and the crematoria. Only now and again someone laughs bitterly, hysterically, and then wipes tears from his cheeks. It was impossible to open the window, since the air was completely permeated by the intolerable, stifling odor of burnt flesh. "Ich rieche, rieche Menschenfleisch (I smell, I smell human flesh)," my friend Ludwig, an Austrian, tells me, using the words of a witch from one of Grimm's fairy tales. Only the witch smelled in the air the scent of two children, and we smelled the odor of burned corpses, thousands of corpses.

But human nature is tough, astonishingly tough. Day after day we went to our factory, stared at the bloody incandescence of the Birkenau woods, and none of us went insane, none of us took our own lives. Yet could we have entertained any hope of evading death in the gas chamber? After all, we were witnesses to one of the greatest crimes in human history! One of our carpenters said to me: "Today it's them [the Hungarian Jews], tomorrow it's us [the Jewish specialists in the camp], and the day after it's you [all the non-Jews]." And this resolution of the matter struck us all as the only rational one from the Hitlerites' standpoint, the only possible one. How else to be rid of the witnesses to their crime? Only one faint hope flickered in some of our hearts: that the collapse of the Third Reich would catch those beasts by surprise before they could accomplish their plans and that at the last minute fear of retribution would stay their hands. But during the entire month of August, we ourselves had to dig a great pit in the central camp, just like the one that had been dug in the Birkenau woods. Officially it was called a Luftschutzkeller (air-raid cellar), but there was not one prisoner in the whole camp who was fooled by this name.

For me personally the hell of Auschwitz came to an end unexpectedly. In the first days of September I was included in a transport of Polish and Soviet prisoners being sent from Auschwitz to Ravensbruck, near Berlin. When they herded us into the wagons, we still kept thinking that they were going to transport us to Birkenau, to the gas chambers. But our train moved west and the glow from the crematoria disappeared from sight. We began to breathe fresh, unpoisoned air. And though we knew that death lies in wait for all prisoners in Hitler's camps, we were none the less as happy as children, because we had been snatched from the hell of Auschwitz.

Why do I write about this? Why reopen old wounds? Let me just recall one small episode. It was in the camp, on Sunday, after lunch. A group of prisoners were lying on their bunks and talking about the end of the war, which they expected was approaching. A young Pole, Kazik, turned to an older prisoner, whom everyone called "the professor," and asked him: "Professor, what will happen to Auschwitz after the war?"

"What do you think should happen?" answered "the professor.""We'll go home."

"Don't talk nonsense, professor,"said Kazik. "No one here will get out alive."

"That's true,"said the professor. "But, still, the living should not abandon hope [words of the Polish poet Juliusz Stowacki]! And as for Auschwitz itself, the new Poland will build a great museum here and for years delegations from all of Europe will visit it. On every stone, on every path, they'll lay a wreath: because each inch of this earth is soaked with blood. And later, when the barracks collapse, when the roads are overgrown with grass and when they have forgotten about us, there will be new and even worse wars, and even worse bestialities. Because humanity stands before two possibilities: either it comes up with a better social order or it perishes in barbarism and cannibalism."

The unfortunate professor was only repeating the words already spoken by the socialist thinker Friedrich Engels 80 years ago. I had heard them several times before the war. But in the bunks of Auschwitz they sounded more real and more correct than ever in the past. And who today, after all the Auschwitzes, Kolymas, and atom bombs, can doubt the truth of these words?

Source Citation   (MLA 8th Edition)
Rosdolsky, Roman. "A memoir of Auschwitz and Birkenau."Monthly Review, Jan. 1988, p. 33+. Academic OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do? Accessed 12 Apr. 2017.
Gale Document Number:  GALE|A6319771 

Labour Friends of Israel & the Zionists are Set to Relaunch False ‘Anti-Semitism’ Campaign

$
0
0

Israel’s Supporters and the JLM are not happy with the election results
Al Jazeera under cover reporter captures Joan  Ryan MP making a joke about a corrupt £1m payment intended to destabilise Corbyn

ex-Blairite Home Office Minister MP Joan Ryan leads attack on Corbyn.  Ryan's only claim to fame was claiming the second largest expenses in 2005/6 and coming top of the expenses league the following year!  Voted out in 2010 she spent much of the time getting people to delete critical references to her expenses on Wikipedia
Most people in the Labour Party are delighted that instead of a Nick Cohen meltdown [Don’t tell me you weren’t warned about Corbyn] Labour under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership gained over 40%, the highest vote since 2001 and the largest increase of any party since Attlee in 1945.  I said most people, not all people.  Even sections of the Right, Owen Smith, Chuku Ummuna and even Peter Mandelson paid tribute to Jeremy Corbyn and ate generous helpings of humble pie.
Jeremy Newmark sits side by side with Mark Regev, Netanyahu's personal PR man, who justified the massacre of 2200 Palestinians in Gaza 2 years ago
However there were some people who were bitterly disappointed. They had been hoping to launch a volley of venomous attacks on ‘Corbyn the loser’ as soon as the polls closed.  People like Joan Ryan MP, the Chair of Labour Friends of Israel had made it clear during the election that she preferred pro-Zionist Theresa May to Corbyn. Jeremy Newmark, the Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement and the defeated candidate in Finchley and Golders Green, must have gone to bed a bitter and disappointed man.  All his good work undermining Corbyn had been undone at a stroke by this youth rebellion.

Labour Friends of Israel and Jewish Labour Movement MPs and candidates consistently attacked Jeremy Corbyn during the election campaign and said vote for them despite Corbyn.  Not just the execrable Joan Ryan but Hove’s Peter Kyle, Wes Streeting and Jeremy Newmark. Loyalty to Apartheid Israel is far more important to them than a Labour win in Britain.

Things have gone quiet on the ‘anti-Semitism’ front of late.  What with the General Election and the terrorist attacks and now the awful tragedy of the Grenfell Tower, the fake ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign has gone quiet.  We haven’t even had any news about ‘Labour anti-Semitism’. I no longer have to look over my shoulder before going out in the morning in case someone is about to attack me!


Tulip Siddiq is one of the pro-Israel MPs trying to reignite the fake anti-Semitism campaign
Unlike the atrocious attack on Finsbury Road mosque and the massive increase in Islamaphobic attacks in the wake of the recent terrorism attacks, Jews have it pretty good. They are a small, relatively prosperous white minority.  Anti-Semitism is a marginal phenomenon, which exists mainly on social media where one nut can create a storm. When anti-Semitism was a problem in Britain, in the 1930’s and immediately after the war, then it was the same Tories who today love Israel who barred Jews from their golf clubs and believed they were an alien minority.

It is because of the lack of real anti-Semitism that the Zionist lobby has decided to try and rekindle the false and fake ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign.  Zionism has no problem with genuine anti-Semitism.  On the contrary it has historically welcomed it because without anti-Semitism there would not have been enough immigrants for Israel.

The success of Jeremy Corbyn in turning the Tory tide is making these racists sick to the gills which is why they are trying to relaunch the false ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign in the hope of dividing the Party, sowing dissent and providing succour to the Tories.  False anti-Semitism and false victimhood are their chosen strategy for defending a state which demolishes Palestinian homes, even of Israel’s own Arab citizens in order to make way for Jewish homes and towns. 
In Israel ‘Judification’ is official policy.  Google ‘The Koenig Plan’ or the ‘Prawer Plan’.  In Nazi Germany they had deJewification campaigns.  Israel is a state which officially does its best to stop Jews and Arabs having sexual relationships.  A Jewish state means a Jewish Supremacist State.  It isn’t a constitutional adornment.  Purity of race and a Jewish settler state goes hand in hand.  This is what Ryan, Kyle and Newmark are defending.

It is essential that if there is a further round of false ‘anti-Semitism’ allegations that Jeremy Corbyn stands firm and calls it out.  There is no future in trying to appease the supporters of Israel.  You cannot appease racists or the supporters of racism.  If Corbyn had, at the very start, said that yes he condemns anti-Semitism and he also condemns false accusations of anti-Semitism directed against supporters of the Palestinians (and even against Jewish anti-Zionists) then he could have defused these attacks early on. 
Corbyn above all knows that the ritual response of Zionism’s supporters to opposition to Israel and what it does to the Palestinians has always been false accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’.  They even invented a  ‘new anti-Semitism’ since the traditional anti-Semitism (hatred or hostility to Jews) didn’t accord with hatred of racist Israel.

Nothing Corbyn says or does will ever satisfy Israel’s supporters.  They are part of the NATO supporting friends of US imperialism.  Corbyn will never be acceptable to them which is why the Left in the Labour Party needs to be resolute in opposing any further appeasement of these people.  If they think the Labour Party is anti-Semitic then they should clear off and join the Tory Party, the traditional home of genuine anti-Semitism.

Read Asa Winstanley’s important article below from Electronic Intifada


Tony Greenstein 

The Jewish Chronicle edited by ex-Express editor Jonathan Pollard, is up to its old tricks - Jeremy Corbyn is apparently a liability.

Labour Friends of Israel chair Joan Ryan, center, suggested Theresa May would be a better prime minister than Jeremy Corbyn. (Facebook)

“I was wrong about Jeremy Corbyn” said failedLabour leadership challenger Owen Smith the day after the UK general election.

Corbyn gained 30 seats for Labour despite media predictions he could loseas many as 80.
In so doing, Corbyn deniedConservative Prime Minister Theresa May her majority – a triumph for Labour relative to the consensus that the party was heading for disaster.
This was the message of Jewish Labour Movement - don't support Corbyn - the Zionists are now sick over the result
Smith’s line summed up the general attitude of Corbyn’s critics in the Parliamentary Labour Party.
Three-quartersof them called for him to go last year, in a failed coup which was swiftly followed by Smith’s leadership challenge.

But in the wake of last week’s unexpected electoral gains, once-critical Labour lawmakers and political commentators have lined up to eat some of the same humble pie as Smith. In a gesture of reconciliation, Corbyn brought Smith back into the Shadow Cabinet this week.

Some hardliners, however, have rejected Corbyn’s outstretched hand – none more so than the party’s internal Israel lobby.
Jeremy Newmark, Chair of JLM and failed candidate in Finchley & Golders Green - branded a liar by an Employment Tribunal in Fraser v University Colleges Union
Making demands

Writing in the right-wing Jewish Chronicle on Wednesday, Labour Friends of Israel chair Joan Ryan demanded that Corbyn cut ties with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign to prove Labour is a “credible party of government.”

Ryan’s demands are extraordinary, especially since she used the general election campaign to bad-mouth her own party and its leader.

The PSC responded to Ryan, saying that “our values are those of principled respect for the human rights of everyone – Palestinian and Israeli – as well as international law.”

“We know that these are the values to which Jeremy Corbyn subscribes,”the group added. “That is why we are proud to have him as a patron.”

Ryan also slammed Corbyn as having “long-standing involvement with anti-Israel activism” and called for him to atone by holding talks with Israel’s Labor Party– a racist organization which has recently been in talksto join the hard-right government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

She also threatened to revive yet again the anti-Semitism witch hunt which engulfed Labour last year, when dozens of members were suspended without due process, often based on grossly exagerated or entirely fabicated charges.

Ryan herself was caught personally engaging in concocting false anti-Semitism charges against a party member who questioned Labour Friends of Israel’s position on Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law.

Yet in her Jewish Chronicle article, Ryan demanded that Corbyn “address adequately the problem of anti-Zionist anti-Semitism within Labour’s ranks.”

Undermining Corbyn

In fact, over the last year, Corbyn repeatedly denouncedanti-Semitism and ordered an independent inquiry– the Chakrabarti report– which has led to institutional changes within Labour.

Ryan ran a defeatist election campaign, which amounted to sabotage of the Labour leader’s chances of entering 10 Downing Street as prime minister.

Many” local people “tell me they have more confidence in Theresa May as prime minister than they would have in Jeremy Corbyn,” she wrote in a letter to voters in her district.

Despite her attacks on Corbyn, Ryan, like dozens of other Labour lawmakers who had worked against him, was re-elected on the coattails of his popular manifesto.

Yet anonymous “figures” and “sources” have continued to denounce Corbyn to The Jewish Chronicle and otherright-wing media this week.

The Jewish Chroniclequoteda “senior pro-Israel Labour” source explaining that the tactic used by Ryan of talking down the party’s chances had been part of a broader pro-Israel strategy.

I told people Corbyn absolutely would not win and they could vote Labour,” the source said. “We managed to get people who hate Corbyn to vote for Corbyn’s Labour Party.”

“Bang on his door”
But these pro-Israel elements are evidently shocked and disappointed that under Corbyn’s leadership the party did too well at the ballot box.

The source indicated that the pro-Israel forces would continue to undermine Corbyn just as the Labour Party is more confident than it has been in years.

“Communal groups”– a reference to pro-Israel organizations that claim to speak on behalf of the Jewish community – “will have to do what they did before and either ignore him [Corbyn] or work around him,” the source said.

The source also predicted that pro-Israel lawmakers will “be happier to bang on his door now – about anti-Semitism or Israel.”

Like other Corbyn critics, Tulip Siddiq, a Labour Friends of Israel supporter, was re-elected with an increased majority – despite her own efforts to keep the anti-Semitism witch hunt rumbling.

After the election, she toldthe Jewish News that “there are elements of anti-Semitism in the party that have not been dealt with properly.”

She vowed the she, along with Labour Friends of Israel leader Ryan and fellow member Wes Streetingwill stand up … we can’t go on like this.”

Blurring the line

FailedLabour parliamentary candidate Jeremy Newmark, a veteran leader in the UK’s Israel lobby, wrote in The Times of Israel on Wednesday that after the election, “many things remain unchanged” and “we still need to turn a corner regarding anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.

Newmark called for the Chakrabarti report to be “revisited,” despite the fact that the Jewish Labour Movement, the internal party pro-Israel group that he heads, had initially welcomed it last year as “sensible and firm.”

Newmark also called for a mooted Labour Party rule book change put forward by his pro-Israel group to again be pushed at the party conference in September.

The change would “recognize that it is not acceptable to use Zionism as a term of abuse”– potentially making criticism of the Israeli state’s official ideology an infraction punishable by expulsion from Labour.

The rule change would also apply to Zionism a definition of a racist incident “which places particular value upon the perception of the victim/victim group.” In other words, a concept developed to protect vulnerable groups from bigotry would be co-opted to protect Israel from criticism by giving Israel’s apologists the right to determine which criticisms of Israel they deem “anti-Semitic.

If adopted, such a rule would further conflate anti-Semitic bigotry against Jews, on the one hand, with anti-Zionism – opposition to Israel’s exclusivist ideology that discriminates against Palestinians– on the other.

Blurring the line between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism has been a key objective of Israel and its surrogates.

New-old lines of attack

Newmark also revealed the lines of attack the Israel lobby will use against Corbyn. “The immediate agenda is clear,” he wrote, calling for two prominent Labour critics of Israel to be expelled: former London mayor Ken Livingstoneand Jewish anti-racism activist Jackie Walker.

None of the smearsused by hostile media and right-wing Labour lawmakers last year seemed to work.

Even the false and grossly exaggerated charges of anti-Semitism had their limits.

But bereft of ideas to stop Corbyn eventually entering Number 10 – as now looks increasingly plausible– Israel’s allies in the Labour Party appear determined to bring this manufactured crisis back.



What a surprise – Jewish kids in America don’t go a bundle on racism, murder and torture!

$
0
0
It’s an ill wind that blows no good.  Despite the adoption of the new fake definition of anti-Semitism and the attempt to depict anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic, the truth has a way of getting through.  The American Jewish community is the most valuable to Israel, since it does its diplomatic bidding as well as helping to fund the pariah state.

 What a surprise it must therefore be to Israel’s veteran propagandists, the Hasbarists who cry ‘anti-Semitism’ at the drop of a hat, that young American Jews no longer feel an affinity with Zionism and Israel’s racial nationalism.  Settling other people’s land, seeing the vast disparity between poor Palestinian peasants and the rich and lush settlements isn’t a winner amongst progressive young
Jews.  The far-Right messianism that believes in a racially pure Israel and building a 3rd temple as the way to encourage the return of the Messiah doesn’t hold too much attraction to secular Jewish kids.
The alliance with the anti-Semitic Christian fundamentalists like Pastor John Hagee of Christian United for Israel isn’t a vote winner either.

It seems to have finally dawned on Brand Israel that being high tech savvy when you treat Palestinians as the untermenschenisn’t necessarily a winner.  The author
Instead of stating dry facts, professionals must highlight Israel’s decency, morality and the diversity of the Israeli society in general'.   This is an act of self-deception.  Israel is a society where a plurality of Jews support the physical expulsion of Israel's Palestinians and where 'Death to the Arabs' is the favourite chant of the Right.

Brand Israel Group raises the alarm on a widening gap in the US between older supporters and the increasingly pro-Palestinian next generation

More than a decade ago, a diverse focus group of Americans was asked to describe a typical Italian house. Words like “lush, food, cooking, maternal, welcoming” quickly rolled of the tongue. The same group was asked about an Israeli home and a very different vibe was described: “concrete, strict, ultra-religious, middle-aged ultra-Orthodox men.”

This 2005 focus group was commissioned to explore the underlying image of Israel in the American psyche. The unanimous perception was a conflict-driven country filled with religious fundamentalists.

Not exactly a country they were keen on visiting — or supporting.

The loose consortium of volunteer marketing and advertising executives who commissioned the study now falls under the Brand Israel Group (BIG) rubric. While each member of this heterogeneous Mad Men coalition had his or her own reasons for wishing to change Americans’ innate view of Israel, for Fern Oppenheim, co-founder of Brand Israel Group, her tipping point came after the September 11, 2001, World Trade Center attacks.

The child of Holocaust survivors, Oppenheim said she awoke from her sense of Jewish security that day. “I never thought I’d smell smoke living in New York,” she said in Jerusalem this week.

In this September 11, 2001, file photo, thick smoke billows into the sky from the area behind the Statue of Liberty, lower left, where the World Trade Center towers stood. (AP Photo/Daniel Hulshizer)
Her safety bubble popped, Oppenheim decided to throw her support — and skills — behind Israel. With her extensive marketing and management background at such companies as Kraft/General Foods, Oppenheim began to use her professional prowess to help the Jewish state, which she calls “the canary in the coal mine.”

The team had a revolutionary approach: Instead of the Jewish community’s typical “shooting from the hip,” said Oppenheim, the high-level marketing execs “rolled up their sleeves to get a research-based understanding” of mainstream Americans’ perceptions of Israel, and only then to create a strategy based on their research.

Since its initial coalescence in 2002, Brand Israel has commissioned a large-scale segmentation study in 2010 and a followup in 2016. For anyone with the slightest Zionist impulse, the downward slope of Israel support is disturbing.

While in Israel to present the recent 2016 BIG segmentation study, “Sounding the Alarm: The American-Israeli Relationship,” Oppenheim repeatedly used the word “devastating” — each time without hyperbole.
At UOIT outside Toronto, Students for Justice in Palestine activists staff their information table, 2016 (UOIT’s SJP chapter Facebook page)
In sum, the gap between Israel-supporters and detractors is widening. The current Israel advocacy programs are not working, and Jewish college students are the leading defectors from Israel support.
‘The future of America no longer believe that Israel shares their values’

Mainstream Americans are not starting from a neutral perspective on Israel; rather, they begin with misperceptions and negative assumptions. This creates “fertile ground” for delegitimization, said Oppenheim, who also spoke this week at the prestigious annual Herzliya Conference.

The 2016 segmentation study’s data shows that the current campaign of depicting the Israel beyond the conflict — specifically, highlighting high-tech achievements — is not effective. In fact, the more the study participants knew about Israel, the less favorably they felt about the country.

According to the report’s executive summary, since 2010, claimed knowledge of Israel has increased 14 percentage points nationally (from 23% to 37%) and is up among every demographic group (except for college students, where it is down 16 percentage points, from 50% to 34%). These increases, however, have not translated into increased favorability, which is down 14 percentage points (from 76% to 62%) nationally and by large margins across the board.
Fern Oppenheim, the co-founder of Brand Israel Group, ‘The paradigm of Israel beyond the conflict is not the right paradigm for capturing hearts and souls.’ (Amanda Borschel-Dan/Times of Israel)
“The paradigm of Israel beyond the conflict is not the right paradigm for capturing hearts and souls,” she said.

The key is to emphasize common values. To change an attitude about Israel, the camera needs to be pulled back to show the full face of the country and its people, she said. When Israel is an issue, and not a country filled with an incredibly diverse population, the field is open for boycott campaigns and other delegitimizing efforts.

Shared values have been the bedrock of the American-Israeli relationship. Without this connection, the future of the alliance is in jeopardy,” claims the BIG group. And the biggest value gap is between core Israel supporters — basically older, wealthier, more conservative, whiter Americans — and those who are labeled as “at-risk” — younger, minorities, liberals.

The picture is even more dire when looking at the next generation of potential Jewish leadership. Between the 2010 and the 2016 surveys, Jewish college students dropped 27 percentage points on the question of whether they lean towards the Israeli side.

This is explained, said Oppenheim, by a perceived lack of shared values between the ultra-liberal Jewish college student and Israel.
On December 15, 2015, more than 300 Jewish activists in Boston marched for the Black Lives Matter movement, including members of Jewish Voice for Peace (photo credit: Ignacio Laguarda/Wicked Local)

“The future of America no longer believe that Israel shares their values. This is huge! Devastating,” she said.

According to the survey, 31% of Jewish students reported experiencing anti-Semitism; of that bunch, 59% say it was related to anti-Israel attitudes. But these experiences generally do not sway their opinions of Israel.

“The Jewish college student is the only group more favorable to Palestinians” now, rising 18 percentage points between 2010 and 2016, she said.

Much of this change she blamed on the rise of “intersectionality” on campuses. There is no longer nuance in campus conversations about Israel, she said. Instead, the “atmosphere is oppressor versus victim. Israel is just another symbol of this.”

Despite the plethora of organizations, campus advocacy does not appear to reach these students’ hearts. Using a morbid example, she said, “No one didn’t think that [Nazi “Angel of Death” Josef] Mengele wasn’t a brilliant scientist. But he was a monster. We need to drill down that Israelis are people” — not just high-tech geniuses.

We are allowing Israel to be defined by its detractors,” she emphasized.
Israeli military medics assist wounded Syrians on April 6, 2017. Seven wounded Syrians who crossed into Israel on Thursday night received immediate treatment and were hospitalized. They are the latest group of Syrians receiving free medical care through an Israeli military program operating since 2013. (AP Photo/Dusan Vranic)
Instead of stating dry facts, professionals must highlight Israel’s decency, morality and the diversity of the Israeli society in general — and in the context of the conflict — to be heard.

To give one example, former head of Hamas Ismail Haniyeh sent his granddaughter to Israel “because Israel is too decent to turn her away. People need to know this,” said Oppenheim.
In terms of practical solutions, Oppenheim suggested increasing the number of people who visit Israel at a younger age, and even starting prophylactic Birthright-Taglit trips before university.


“The sands under our feet are shifting,” said Oppenheim. “It is clear that the divide in our community is here for the next generation.”

John Mann Attempts to Rekindle Labour’s False Anti-Semitism Campaign

$
0
0

Early Day Motion Supporting IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism Means Supporting Israeli Apartheid

Write to your MP asking them not to sign it 

Model Letter Below

This is what Joan Ryan MP's idea of loyalty to the Labour Party amounted to 
It was only a few days ago that I wrote about the disappointment of Labour Friends of Israel and Labour’s Zionist lobby at the fact that Jeremy Corbyn did so well in the election. [Labour Friends of Israel & the Zionists are Set to Relaunch False ‘Anti-Semitism’ Campaign].  Joan Ryan, Chair of Labour Friends of Israel and one of the most corruptMPs, issueda letter to her constituents in which she compared Corbyn unfavourably to Theresa May:
John Mann - the leader of the false 'anti-Semitism' witch hunt
“I know from speaking to people around here that many who have previously voted Labour are thinking hard this time because, they tell me, they have more confidence in Theresa May as prime minister than they would have in Jeremy Corbyn.

“The polls are all saying that the Conservative party will win a large majority, possibly with more MPs than they have ever had before. Realistically, no one thinks Theresa May will not be prime minister or that she will not have the majority she needs to negotiate Brexit.”
This blog forced John Mann to delete the above FB page

The latest effort to restart the false 'anti-Semitism' campaign is an Early Day Motion, in essence a parliamentary petition which MPs sign, as an indication for the support a topic has.  John Mann has put a second EDM down this year supporting the International Holocaust Definition of anti-Semitism.  The IHRA, which is essentially the same as the old Working Definition on Anti-Semitism that the European Union's Fundamental Rights Agency junked 4 years, has just been rejected by the University Colleges Union (UCU).

Fraser -v- UCU Employment Tribunal was scathing about the quality of Mann's evidence

Whereas some on the Right, like Owen Smith, have accepted that they were wrong and are apparently reformed sinners, others such as John Mann, Ryan, Streeting and Woodcock are determined to continue the fight against Corbyn and the Left. For them, the main enemy is Corbyn not the Conservatives.

Ken Livingstone being harangued by a bore

Ryan and Mann’s priorities are stopping Corbyn not achieving a Labour government.  After all no one is more supportive of Israel than Theresa May. She is the lesser evil. Mann campaigned furiously in the summer of 2015 to have the ballot called off when it appeared that Corbyn would win the leadership. A rekindling of the false ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign is seen by Mann, Ryan and co. as the best way of undermining Corbyn.

Joan Ryan MP for Tel Aviv North attack on Corbyn is exploited by Daily Mail to attack Corbyn in election

Mann last year stage managed an attackon Ken Livingstone in conjunction with the Murdoch media for speaking the truth when he said that the Nazis had supported Zionism.  Mann as Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Anti-Semitism has fought a long- campaign alleging that the Labour Party is overrun with ‘anti-Semitism’ and pillorying Corbyn for not rooting out fake ‘anti-Semitism’.  He has called for both myselfand Jackie Walker to be expelled.

Mann has fought tirelessly to conflate criticism of the Israeli state with ‘anti-Semitism’.  That is why he supports the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism.  It contains a short, confusing and ambiguous definition of anti-Semitism and then 11 examples which might be anti-Semitic, 7 of which relate to Israel. Despite stating explicitly that it is a ‘non-legal definition’ the IHRA has been used to attack free speech, Israel Apartheid week and Palestine events up and down the country.

Letter from Joan Ryan to her constituents attacking Jeremy Corbyn - 

A legal opinion from Hugh Tomlinson QC was recently obtained which holds that the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is vague and unclear.  He concludes that ‘A public authority which sought to apply the IHRA Definition to prohibit or sanction such activities [e.g. calling Israel a racist endeavour or an Apartheid state] would be acting unlawfully.’

Sir Stephen Sedley, the most radical civil liberties minded Judge to have sat on the Court of Appeal, who is himself Jewish, was even more coruscating.  He spoke of:

The only thing Joan Ryan didn't claim for was her toilet paper (wait - I'll check!)
‘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.

.... why are people, including many Jews, not entitled, without being branded anti-Semitic, to regard it [Israel] 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?’[my emphasis]

The IHRA definition has but one purpose.  By defining anti-Semitism as loosely and vaguely as possible, it can brand virtually all opposition to Zionism and Israel as ‘anti-Semitic’.  The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is over 420 words because it needs to be lengthy in order to conflate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.  There is a much shorter, 21 word definition drawn up by Brian Klug in his lecture to the Jewish Museum in Berlin 'What Do We Mean When We Say ‘Antisemitsm’?  Echoes of shattering glass' in November 2014. Klug is a lecturer at Oxford University and an academic expert in anti-Semitism. The problem for the Zionists is that it doesn't mention Israel.  

antisemitism is a form of hostility to Jews as Jews, where Jews are perceived as something other than what they are.’

The IHRA is a group of 31 countries who have adopted a definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ which accords with western support for Israel. It is an imperialist definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ and has nothing whatsoever to do with hatred of Jewish people.

Amongst these 31 countries is Hungary, whose Prime Minister Victor Orban is a racist whose attitude to refugees needs no elaborating.  Orban is set on rehabilitating Admiral Horthy who presided over the deportation of nearly ½m Jews to Auschwitz from March 19th to July 9th 1944.  [The Reinterment and Political Rehabilitation of Miklós Horthy, Randolph Braham].  Like the anti-Semites in Trump’s administration, Orban is ardently pro-Zionist.  Another member state of the IHRA is Poland whose Law & Justice party government is sympathetic to anti-Semitism. 

Theresa May’s government has warmly welcomed the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, yet the Tory Party is part of the European Conservative and Reform group in the European parliament.  This group includes Poland’s Law & Justice Party as well as Latvia’s Robert Zile of the Fatherland & Freedom/LNNK. Zile spends every March going on a demonstration with the veterans of the Latvian Waffen SS who participated in the extermination of Latvia’s Jews.

The IHRA is an inter-governmental definition of anti-Semitism whose purpose is to brand opponents of Israel as ‘anti-Semitic’.  It has nothing to do with the traditional understanding of anti-Semitism as hatred or hostility to Jews.

In January John Mann, who I exposedon this blog as a liar for denigrating a 90 year old Jewish doctor who had criticised him, put down an EDMsupporting the IHRA definition of ‘anti-Semitism’.  Mann is now up to his old tricks again and has proposed the following EDM. I suggest that people write to their MP and also those MPs who signed the EDM last time, urging them not to sign it this time.  It would be a waste of time emailing the DUP MPs as they are all Christian Zionist bigots. Caroline Lucas has already stated that she no longer supports the IHRA.


The MPs who signed the last EDM and who were re-elected recently are:

Conservative Party
Harrow East
19.01.2017
Conservative Party
Worthing West
24.01.2017
Liberal Democrats
Carshalton and Wallington
02.02.2017
Scottish National Party
Kilmarnock and Loudoun
23.01.2017
Scottish National Party
East Kilbride Strathaven and Lesmahagow
02.02.2017
Labour Party
West Lancashire
25.01.2017
Labour Party
Bolton North East
31.01.2017
Scottish National Party
Linlithgow and East Falkirk
25.01.2017
Democratic Unionist Party
Belfast North
02.02.2017
Labour Party
Liverpool Riverside
03.02.2017
Scottish National Party
Motherwell and Wishaw
20.01.2017
Labour Party
Don Valley
03.02.2017
Labour Party
Ilford South
24.01.2017
Scottish National Party
North East Fife
02.03.2017
Scottish National Party
North Ayrshire and Arran
25.01.2017
Labour Party
Stretford and Urmston
03.02.2017
Scottish National Party
Inverness Nairn Badenoch and Strathspey
20.01.2017
INDEPENDENT
North Down
30.01.2017
Labour Party
Barking
20.01.2017
Labour Party
Luton North
19.01.2017
Labour Party
Knowsley
25.01.2017
Scottish National Party
Dundee West
24.01.2017
Conservative Party
New Forest East
30.01.2017
Green Party
Brighton Pavilion
26.01.2017
Labour Party
Bassetlaw
18.01.2017
Labour Party
York Central
30.03.2017
Labour Party
City of Chester
20.01.2017
Labour Party
St Helens North
30.01.2017
Scottish National Party
Falkirk
25.01.2017
Labour Party
Wigan
02.02.2017
Democratic Unionist Party
North Antrim
25.01.2017
Labour Party
St Helens South and Whiston
02.02.2017
Democratic Unionist Party
Belfast East
23.01.2017
Labour Party
Coventry North West
02.02.2017
Labour Party
Enfield North
02.02.2017
Plaid Cymru
Dwyfor Meirionnydd
24.01.2017
Democratic Unionist Party
Strangford
19.01.2017
Democratic Unionist Party
Upper Bann
25.01.2017
Labour Party
Stoke-on-Trent North
02.02.2017
Scottish National Party
Glasgow South West
23.01.2017
Labour Party
Ilford North
02.02.2017
Labour Party
Blackley and Broughton
22.02.2017
Labour Party
Liverpool West Derby
03.02.2017
Labour Party
Leicester East
27.01.2017

 The e-contacts for the above are:

bob.blackman.mp@parliament.uk, alan.brown.mp@parliament.uk, lisa.cameron.mp@parliament.uk, rosie@rosiecooper.net, crausbyd@parliament.uk, martyn.day.mp@parliament.uk, louise.ellman.mp@parliament.uk, marion.fellows.mp@parliament.uk, caroline.flint.mp@parliament.uk, mike.gapes.mp@parliament.uk, stephen.gethins.mp@parliament.uk, patricia.gibson.mp@parliament.uk, kate.green.mp@parliament.uk, drew.hendry.mp@parliament.uk, sylvia.hermon.mp@parliament.uk, hodgem@parliament.uk, hopkinsk@parliament.uk

george.howarth.mp@parliament.uk, chris.law.mp@parliament.uk, caroline.lucas.mp@parliament.uk, john.mann.mp@parliament.uk, rachael.maskell.mp@parliament.uk, chris.matheson.mp@parliament.uk, chris.matheson.mp@parliament.uk, john.mcnally.mp@parliament.uk, lisa.nandy.mp@parliament.uk, marie.rimmer.mp@parliament.uk, robinsong@parliament.uk, joan.ryan.mp@parliament.uk, liz.savilleroberts.mp@parliament.uk, ruth.smeeth.mp@parliament.uk, chris.stephens.mp@parliament.uk, wes.streeting.mp@parliament.uk, graham.stringer.mp@parliament.uk, stephen.twigg.mp@parliament.uk, vazk@parliament.uk


This is the EDM that Mann put down on 21stJune.  So far it has one signatory.

EDM 7: IHRA DEFINITION - Session: 2017-19 Date tabled: 21.06.2017 Primary sponsor: Mann, John   
That this House welcomes the adoption of a formal definition of anti-Semitism by the Government in response to the work of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA); further welcomes the agreed cross-party support for the definition, including from the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members of all political parties represented in the House in the previous Parliament; congratulates the IHRA and its 31 member countries for adopting the definition; notes that the definition has been officially adopted by the Government, the Labour Party, the UK Police College, the Crown Prosecution Service, the National Union of Students, Universities UK, the London Assembly, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and a number of local councils; welcomes the Government's update report on anti-Semitism, including progress made in ensuring wider adoption of the definition; and calls on all other political parties, universities, councils and other public bodies and organisations to continue to adopt the definition and use it to better understand and act against anti-Jewish hatred.

Below is a model letter to your MP, which you might like to amend according to circumstances and send them:

Dear Member of Parliament,

I am writing to you because you were one of 59 MPs who supported an Early Day Motion, sponsored by John Mann, in January 2017 welcoming the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism. Mann has put down a new EDMon the same topic.  The IHRA conflates anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.  If you are genuinely opposed to anti-Semitism then accusing people who are not racists of anti-Semitism is the best way of giving succour and support to genuine anti-Semites.  That is one reason why the Christian bigots of the DUP have all signed up to it.

The accusation that opposition to Zionism, the movement that led to the creation of a ‘Jewish’ state, is anti-Semitic has a long pedigree. This is unsurprising since it is easier to question the motives of Israel’s critics than to defend its policies. 

The IHRA suggests that it is anti-Semitic to describe Israel as a racist endeavour.  How else is one to describe a situation in which Israel rules over 5 million people, who have no civil or political rights and has done so for 50 years?  A situation in which those living under occupation co-exist with settlers who have stolen their land and who are subject to an entirely different legal system? 

Nothing demonstrates the apartheid nature of Israel’s military occupation better than the disparity of treatment between Jewish and Palestinian children.  Israeli children cannot be detained under the age of 14.  In just one month (March/April) five Palestinian children were killedby Israel’s army. Palestinian children as young as 12 can be detained. There are repeated reports of the use of solitary confinement, shackling and torture of (Palestinian) children.  Yet according to the IHRA describing this as apartheid is being ‘anti-Semitic’.
The IHRA is being pushed by Labour Friends of Israel and the Jewish Labour Movement, the ‘sister’ party of the Israeli Labour Party which, in 1948, expelled nearly a million Palestinians in order to create a ‘Jewish’ state.  It has not changed. Isaac Herzog, its present leader, recently declared that his nightmarewas waking up to find that Israel had a Palestinian Prime Minister and 61 Palestinian Members of the Knesset. Herzog also declared that he wanted to dispel the false impression that the ILP were ‘Arab Lovers’ 
Herzog slammed for remark about ‘Arab lovers’ If you doubt that these remarks are racist then what would your reaction be if someone said their nightmare was to wake up and find Britain had a Jewish Prime Minister or that the Labour Party should not be a ‘Jew lovers’ party?

Ever since Jeremy Corbyn was elected as leader of the Labour Party there has been a false ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign, waged by LFI and the JLM.  In May 2017 Sir Stephen Sedley, the most radical Judge to have sat on the Court of Appeal, and himself Jewish, wrote an article, Defining Anti-Semitism for London Review of Books.

Shornof philosophical and political refinements, anti-Semitism is hostility towards Jews as Jews.... By contrast, criticism (and equally defence) of Israel or of Zionism is not only generally lawful: it is affirmatively protected by law. Endeavours to conflate the two by characterising everything other than anodyne criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic are not new. What is new is the adoption by the UK government (and the Labour Party) of a definition of anti-Semitism which endorses the conflation.

The IHRA definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ is over 420 words.  By way of contrast there is a much shorter, 21 word definition drawn up by Brian Klug of Oxford University, in his lecture to the Jewish Museum in Berlin 'What Do We Mean When We Say ‘Antisemitsm’?  Echoes of shattering glass'

antisemitism is a form of hostility to Jews as Jews, where Jews are perceived as something other than what they are.’

The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism gives 11 examples of ‘anti-Semitism’, 7 of which relate to Israel.  It is clear that the IHRA’s main concern is with using ‘anti-Semitism’ as a weapon against supporters of the Palestinians not in opposing anti-Semitism per se.  It is an attempt to stifle and curb free speech on Israel and Palestine.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance is an alliance of 31 countries.  It includes for example Hungary, whose Prime Minister is Viktor Orban.  Orban is not only an open racist he is seeking to rehabilitate Admiral Horthy who presided over the deportation of nearly ½ million Jews to Auschwitz between March 19th and July 9th 1944.  [The Reinterment and Political Rehabilitation of Miklós Horthy, Randolph Braham].  Orban has no difficulty signing up to the IHRA because, like many anti-Semites, he is ardently pro-Zionist.  The Law & Justice government of Poland is also riddled with anti-Semitism and it too has no problems with the IHRA. 

The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism holds (Point 7) that one example of anti-Semitism is ‘Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.’
Joan Ryan's Wiki entry on her expenses and attempts to cover her claims up
The idea that there is a single Jewish people or nation has always been an anti-Semitic idea.  It is the basis of the world Jewish conspiracy theory. The fact that Zionism adopted this belief merely proves that Zionism and anti-Semitism are two sides of the same racist coin.  Sir Edwin Montagu, who became Secretary of State for India, was the only Jewish member of the Lloyd George War Cabinet and the only member to oppose the 1917 Balfour Declaration.  In ‘Memorandum of Edwin Montagu on the Anti-Semitism of the Present (British) Governmentof August 1917.  He wrote:

I assert that there is not a Jewish nation. The members of my family, for instance, who have been in this country for generations, have no sort or kind of community of view or of desire with any Jewish family in any other country beyond the fact that they profess to a greater or less degree the same religion. It is no more true to say that a Jewish Englishman and a Jewish Moor are of the same nation than it is to say that a Christian Englishman and a Christian Frenchman are of the same nation:...

When the Jews are told that Palestine is their national home, every country will immediately desire to get rid of its Jewish citizens, and you will find a population in Palestine driving out its present inhabitants, ...’

According to the IHRA definition, the above passage is anti-Semitic.
Other examples of the pernicious nature of the IHRA include equating anti-Semitism with ‘Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.’  This assumes that Israel is like any other democratic nation. 

In which other democratic nation would the village of a minority group be demolished to make way for the majority?  In January the Bedouin village of Umm al-Hiran in the Negev was demolished in order to make way for a Jewish town, Hiran. [Opinion Umm al-Hiran: A Cautionary Tale of an Israeli Government Emboldened by Trump]. Umm al Hiran is one of a number of Bedouin villages under threat of demolition because of a policy of Judification of the Negev. Half of Israel’s Arab villages are ‘unrecognised’ which means they are liable to demolition at any time. No Jewish settlement has ever been demolished to make way for an Arab village.  Criticism of this is, according to the IHRA, ‘anti-Semitic’.

Despite the Negev being a thinly populated desert area, Israel refused to build a Jewish town alongside Umm al-Hiran. Like good colonialists, Israel sought to remove the indigenous population entirely.  It is practices such as this which the IHRA is seeking to protect under the rubric of ‘anti-Semitism’.

The State of Israel defines itself as a Jewish state.  In Europe religious states went out of fashion with the French Revolution in 1789.  It is inevitable that those who are not Jewish in Israel are seen as strangers and interlopers.  The idea that religion and nationality are coterminous is a backward and reactionary idea.  According to the Pew Research Centre’s Report Israel’s Religiously Divided Society a plurality, 48% of Israeli Jews, want the physical expulsion of Israeli Arabs. 

Israel today is a society which is rapidly moving to the Right.  In the past year legislation has been passed allowing for the expulsion of Arab members of the Knesset, a Jewish State Bill which removes Arabic as an official language, a bill barring anyone who supports BDS from Israel and the Muezzin Billrestricting the use of outside speakers by Muslim (but not Jewish) religious institutions.  The latest legislative proposals include the banning of all foreign funding of human rights NGO’s such as B’tselem and Breaking the Silence. 
Those who sign John Mann’s EDM conflating anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are aligning themselves with Israel’s far Right and its attacks on Israel’s remaining democratic rights.  You will be supporting a state where demonstrations chanting ‘Death to the Arabs’ are now commonplace.

I hope that you will think seriously about whether or not you wish to add your name to an EDM whose sole purpose is to legitimise Israeli racism under the banner of fighting ‘anti-Semitism’.

Yours sincerely

Open Letter to SNP MPs – Why do you join hands with the bigots of the DUP in support of Israel, the world’s most racist state?

$
0
0

SNP MPs sign John Mann's EDM defining support for the Palestinians as 'anti-Semitism'

The SNP's new flag

When I first went youth hostelling in the Scottish Highlands I got talking to a man in my dorm who was wearing a kilt.  I asked him if he was a supporter of the Scottish National Party.  ‘Och no’ he replied.  ‘They’re a bunch of Tartan Tories.’  I mention this because today the SNP tries to give the impression that it is a progressive, left-wing nationalist party, which is opposed to all things Tory.  In 2015 it attacked the Labour Party in the General Election and the execrable Blairite leader of Scottish Labour, Jim Murphy, as ‘red Tories’
Angus Robertson, the defeated leader of the SNP in London, was a strong supporter of Israel and the new IHRA
You would therefore expect a party that represents what, in their eyes, is an oppressed nation, the Scottish, to sympathise with and support the Palestinians.  It’s a no brainer.  Just as Sinn Fein, the Irish nationalist party which represents the Catholics of Northern Ireland, have always supported the Palestinians and opposed Zionism. 

Hungary's Admiral Horthy with Hitler.  Horthy presided over the deportation of 437,000 Jews to Auschwitz in 1944.  Viktor Orban, Hungary's Prime Minister a strong supporter of the IHRA and Israel, is leading the campaign to rehabilitate Horthy as a nationalist symbol of Hungary's fascist past

As Ronald Storrs, the first Military Governor of Jerusalem wrote in his autobiography, Orientations, ‘A Jewish State will be for England a little, loyal Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.’

Alex Salmond managed to combine verbal support for the Palestinians with backing Zionist Apartheid - a consummate bourgeois politician
It is therefore curious that the SNP gives every appearance, apart from the odd photo opportunity, of signing up to support Zionism and the Israeli state one hundred per cent.  In January John Mann MP, a rent a mouth thuggish Blairite who is fiercely hostile to Corbyn put down an Early Day Motionin support of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism. 
Wes Streeting another anti-Corbyn Labour MP who just loves the IHRA definition of 'anti-semitism'
The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism consists of over 420 words and has a deliberately ambiguous and deceptive introduction which relies on 11 ‘examples’ of what anti-Semitism might be.   There is of course a very simple definition drawn up by a Fellow of Oxford University and a Jewish academic, Dr Brian Klug.  It is 21 words, doesn't mention Israel.
antisemitism is a form of hostility to Jews as Jews, where Jews are perceived as something other than what they are.’ 
The only problem with Klug's definition is that it doesn't mention Israel!
Another signatory to Mann's EDM is the Chair of Labour Friends of Israel, expenses champion Joan Ryan.  She made it clear at the General Election that she prefers Theresa May to Corbyn
Despite calling itself a ‘non-legal’ definition the IHRA is increasingly being used to shut down anti-Zionist and anti-Israel Apartheid events, to ban speakers and to infringe on free speech.

There are two very excellent analyses of the IHRA and its deficiencies by Hugh Tomlinson QC and by former Court of Appeal Judge Sir Stephen Sedley, who is himself Jewish.  Sedley wrote an article Defining Anti-Semitism in May’s London Review of Books on the IHRA.  It is well worth reading.  Sedley’s opening paragraph sums up our criticisms very well:
Ruth Smeeth the Blairite MP who disrupted the Chakrabarti press conference last year, portraying herself as a victim of 'anti-semitism'
Shorn of philosophical and political refinements, anti-Semitism is hostility towards Jews as Jews. Where it manifests itself in discriminatory acts or inflammatory speech it is generally illegal, lying beyond the bounds of freedom of speech and of action. By contrast, criticism (and equally defence) of Israel or of Zionism is not only generally lawful: it is affirmatively protected by law. Endeavours to conflate the two by characterising everything other than anodyne criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic are not new. What is new is the adoption by the UK government (and the Labour Party) of a definition of anti-Semitism which endorses the conflation

It is therefore bizarre that the SNP, which purports to be a progressive party should be allying itself with the DUP, the most bigoted, racist, homophobic and chauvinist party in the House of Commons.  Of the 59  MPs who signed John Mann’s January 2017 EDM, 10 were from the SNP and 5 from the DUP.  They included Angus Robertson, who sat on the Home Affairs Select Committee which originally endorsed the IHRA last October and Alex Salmond, who has made a career speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
Arlene Foster - the SNP's new Loyalist friend - hates gays, abortion and Catholics but just loves Israel and Zionism

John Mann reissued another EDM on 21st June in support of the IHRA.  It has already garnered 5 signatures .  Apart from Mann himself and uber Blairite Wes Streeting, there is Jim Shannon of the DUP and Christopher Stephens of the SNP. 
A short sample of Joan Ryan's expenses list
There have been repeated attempts to prosecute Scottish Palestine solidarity activists for the crime of racially aggravated hate.  In April 2010 5 activists were cleared by Sheriff James Scott [Activists who heckled Israeli quartet cleared of racism charge] who said on that occasion:

"If persons on a march designed to protest against and publicise alleged crimes committed by a state and its army are afraid to name that state for fear of being charged with racially aggravated behaviour, that would render worthless their Article 10 rights," he said

In August 2016 an Aberdeen Palestine solidarity supporter, Alister Coutts, was prosecutedfor shouting ‘Viva Palestina’.  All the cases so far have led to acquittals but there is another case which is pending.  In Scotland, which has its own legal system, justice is a devolved matter.  It is the SNP who are in essence presiding over this legal witch hunt of Palestine supporters.

It would seem that when you scratch the SNP what you find is the old Tartan Tories.  Perhaps that is why in the last election, Scottish voters decided to vote for the genuine article in 13 constituencies?
Below is an open letter I wrote to the SNP MPs.

Tony Greenstein

John Mann haranguing Ken Livingstone last year for telling the truth that the Nazis supported Zionism up and until they started deporting Jews in 1941

Dear Member of Parliament,

In January 2017, John Mann put down an Early Day Motion in support of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of 'anti-semitism.  Today he is touting for signatures to a new EDM supporting the IHRA. I am asking you, as a Jewish supporter of the Palestinians not to sign it and I hope that Christopher Stephens will withdraw his signature.

Out of the 59 signatures who signed last time around, 10 of them were from the SNP.  Another 5 were from those dedicated opponents of racism, the Democratic Unionist Party.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the SNP today considers itself a progressive if not left nationalist party as opposed to the Tartan Tories of old?  Why then are you getting into bed with the bigots of the DUP and Blairite MPs like John Mann, Wes Streeting, Ruth Smeeth, Stephen Twigg, and of course the saintly Keith Vaz?  To say nothing of Joan Ryan, Blairite Chair of Labour Friends of Israel who holds the record for claiming parliamentary expenses and Louise Ellman, the Zionist MP who defended the Israeli military’s incarceration and beating of Palestinian children. 

John Mann is a non-Jewish MP who does very well out of 'anti-Semitism'.  Strangely enough he never raises his voice about any other forms of racism.  Perhaps it’s not as profitable. 

The IHRA definition of 'anti-Semitism' is a mere 420+ words.  It gives 11 examples of 'anti-Semitism', 7 of which relate to Israel, not Jews.  Israel is a state.  You can't be racist against a state.  The fact that a state calls itself Jewish doesn’t make it racist to criticise it anymore than it was racist to criticise Apartheid South Africa which called itself ‘Christian’.

States based on religion disappeared from Europe with the French Revolution over 200 years ago.  In its place the idea of separation of state from religion took root.  Israel is a throwback to medieval times.  As a colonial settler state it is the world’s most racist state. 

There is a very simple definition drawn up by a Fellow of Oxford University and a Jewish academic, Dr Brian Klug.  It is 21 words, doesn't mention Israel and is clear and simple.

antisemitism is a form of hostility to Jews as Jews, where Jews are perceived as something other than what they are.’

If you are genuinely opposed to anti-Semitism, the kind that fascists and holocaust deniers propagate, then you will understand that conflating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is immensely helpful to those who really do hate Jews, because it enables them to hide behind supporters of the Palestinians and opponents of Israeli Apartheid.  Equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism confuses people as to what anti-Semitism actually is.  It is the ‘boy cried wolf’ syndrome.  Shout ‘anti-Semitism’ everytime Israel is criticised and eventually people will be unable to discern genuine examples of anti-Semitism.

The IHRA is an alliance of 31 governments including the racist governments of Poland and Hungary.  Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban is a strong supporter of both Israel and the IHRA definition. He is also a well known racist.  Today’s Times of Israel contains an article Jewish groups critical of Hungarian praise for Hitler ally.  Orban is currently trying to rehabilitate the war-time leader of Hungary, Admiral Horthy, who not only allied himself with Hitler throughout the war, but presided over the deportation to Auschwitz of some 437,000 Hungarian Jews.

Anti-Semites supporting Zionism is nothing new because both believe that the place of Jews is in Palestine, not the countries where they live.  That is why Orban supports the IHRA.  If you are genuinely opposed to anti-Semitism you will join the University College Union whose Conference has just come out in opposition to the IHRA and Caroline Lucas, who signed Mann’s original EDM.  She has changed her mind and now rejects this bogus definition of anti-Semitism.

Kind regards

Tony Greenstein
See my articles on Comment is Free Stop conflating anti-Zionism and anti-semitism



The Racist 'Campaign Against Anti-Semitism' Fails in its Attempt to cancel Palestine Expo 17

$
0
0
Charity Commission Under Islamaphobe William Shawcross Turn a Blind Eye to the CAA’s Blatant Racism

Sign the Petition Calling for the Deregistration of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism

The Campaign against 'Anti-Semitism' do their best to have Europe's largest Palestinian event cancelled
This is why the CAA is allowed to do what it wants - because the Charity Commission is chaired by a racist and Islamaphobe
Despite having toyed with the idea of cancelling Palestine Expo 2017 even Sajid Javid, the Tories pro-Zionist Communities Secretary couldn’t find a reason to ban Palestine Expo.  Javid is . reportedas saying at a Conservative Friends of Israel lunch in 2012,  that "if he had to leave Britain to live in the Middle East, then he would choose Israel as home. Only there, he said, would his children feel the 'warm embrace of freedom and liberty'.

I hate to disappoint Javid but if he was seeking refuge then Israel would be the last place that he would be welcomed.  Not to put too fine a point on it, not only is he not Jewish but he is Black.  He may be one of those disgusting Uncle Toms who think that money will make him an honorary White, and maybe in the British Tory Party these days it will, but in Israel he would be treated like all Black refugees.  He would be deported or refused admission or held in a concentration camp in Holot in Israel’s Negev desert.  See Israel's unwanted African migrants& Eritrean refugees in Israel sent to Uganda and Rwanda
This racist caricature of Muslims was posted on the CAA site and printed in a publication of theirs - this is their contribution to 'community relations' - it's a pity that the CAA weren't around a century ago, they could have produced some remarkable Jewish cartoons
The forthcoming Palestine Expo 2017 on July 8thand 9th at the South Bank Centre promises to be the biggest social, cultural and entertainment event on Palestine to ever take place in Europe.  It will include a session run by Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods and Free Speech on Israel on false allegations of anti-Semitism.  It has a number of Israeli and Jewish speakers such as Miko Peled and Prof. Ilan Pappe as well as people like John Pilger.
William Shawcross - the Islamaphobe who chairs the Charity Commission
None of this, of course, stopped the so-called Jewish Human Rights Watch aka far-right solicitor Robert Festenstein claiming it was an ‘anti-Jewish hate fest’.  It is not difficult to understand why the racist Campaign Against Anti-Semitism should have leant its voice to trying to stop a Palestinian event taking place. 
The Charity Commission appear to be wriggling out of their previous commitment at the instigation of their racist Chairman Shawcross
The CAA have though outdone themselves with the statement that

It is extremely troubling that this event is being held at an iconic, government-sponsored venue, right opposite the seat of British democracy. We are writing to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government expressing our concerns.

This is a classic example of how ‘terrorism’ is used as part of a campaign to limit and restrict freedom of speech.  The organisers Al Aqsa and associated individuals have allegedly supported ‘terrorist’ organisations in the past such as Hezbollah and Hamas.  There is a very simple answer to this.  Neither organisation is a terrorist group.  Both have, with varying degrees of success, fought the Israeli government.  That doesn’t make one a terrorist whatever Tory ministers and their lackeys say.
What the CAA are saying is that Palestinian=terrorist and therefore, in view of recent terrorist attacks, anything connected with the Palestinians should not be held ‘opposite the seat of British democracy’ i.e. Westminster.  It is difficult to think of a more racist statement than this.  Just imagine that someone had said that a Jewish event should not be held at Westminster for similar reasons.
The CAA's attack on me and Baroness Jenny Tonge
The real disgrace though is the lack of action of the Charity Commission, under their racist Chairman William Shawcross.  As the Huffington Post noted
Muslim charities have been disproportionately affected by investigations from the Commission since the appointment of Shawcross, with 38% of all disclosed investigations initiated between 1st January 2013 and 23rd April 2014 being on Muslim charities.’ 
Shawcross was a trustee and Director of the cold-war Islamaphobic Henry Jackson Society.  In 2012 Shawcross saidEurope and Islam is one of the greatest, most terrifying problems of our future”.
Shawcross is a paid up member of the British establishment. According to his Wikipedia entryFrom St Aubyn’s prep school in Rottingdean Brighton (since closed down) he went to Eton and Oxford  before joining the BBC World Service Advisory Council. In 2008 he became a Patron of the Wiener Library and in 2011 he joined the board of the Anglo-Israel Association and was appointed to the board of the Henry Jackson Society.

It is this which would appear to explain the Charity Commission’s reluctance to tackle even the most egregious example of racism by a Zionist group.  Of course if the CAA were an Islamic group and singled out Jews for the same attention then they would be deregistered tomorrow.
I have therefore written a further letter to the Charity Commission (see below).  It would seem that whatever the CAA does is going to be given the green light by the Charity Commission.  I will also be considering what further legal steps can be taken given what appears to be a refusal by the Charity Commission to take any action.

Tony Greenstein

Correspondence with Charity Commission

Charity Commission
Woodfield House,
Tangier,
Taunton TA1 4BL

Dear Ms Grenfell

Subject: Re: 20170322 - To Tony Greenstein – update - CAMPAIGN AGAINST ANTI-SEMITISM 1163790 CRM:0162547

To:    PCT - Taunton (Queue) <OperationsTaunton@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk>
          RC Landing & Correspondence (Queue)

On 6th, 20thFebruary 2017, 1st March and subsequently I wrote to the Charity Commission concerning the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism.  The CAA was not operating to provide any public benefit but was acting as an overtly political and Zionist organisation whose speciality was the launching of partisan political attacks on those who are critical in any way of the State of Israel and Zionism.

It has, at the time of writing, made some 94 separate attacks on Jeremy Corbyn.  For an organisation supposedly devoted to anti-Semitism it displays a strange obsession with attacking and demonising anything to do with the Palestinians.  One example of the malevolent nature of its attacks was the article they posted on the death of Gerald Kaufman MP,  Sir Gerald Kaufman MP’s words have left a rotting stain on our institutions.    That you could allow, without passing comment, a charity to post such a disgusting and foul-mouthed article on the death of the Father of the House of Commons speaks volumes to your own lack of judgement.

No sooner than I had made a complaint against the CAA then on 26th February the CAA devoted one of its posts to making a highly personal and defamatory attack on me, calling me a ‘notorious anti-Semite’ without any evidence whatsoever.  Tony Greenstein’s attempt to shut down Campaign Against Antisemitism showcases the similarities between far-left and far-right.  As someone who is Jewish this is particular offensive and anti-Semitic.


The CAA has recently taken the lead in attackingPalestine Expo, the biggest social, cultural and entertainment event on Palestine to ever take place in Europe and which is scheduled to take place on July 8th and July 9th at the South Bank Centre.  In an articleCAA RAISES CONCERNS ABOUT PALESTINE EXPO HOSTED AT GOVERNMENT-OWNED CONVENTION CENTRE OPPOSITE PARLIAMENT it challenged the very right of Palestinians to organise politically, culturally or socially under the guise of ‘anti-Semitism’. It concludes its article by saying thatIt is extremely troubling that this event is being held at an iconic, government-sponsored venue, right opposite the seat of British democracy. We are writing to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government expressing our concerns.’


This is an outrageously racist statement, even for the CAA.  It is suggesting that it is ‘troubling’ to hold a major Palestinian event near the Palace of Westminster, with the obvious implication that anything Palestinian is related to terrorism and that, in the light of recent events, it is poses some form of danger.  If such a suggestion were made about a Jewish event there would rightly be an uproar.


Yet the Charity Commission sits twiddling its thumbs, doing nothing, saying nothing and allowing the CAA to continue regardless.

Perhaps I should remind you that on 22nd March, Alex Young from your Liverpool Office wrote to me stating, in respect of both of my complaints, not least that related to the failure to identify its trustees that I am advised there is the prospect of  decisions on these matters within a week from today, after which we will communicate to you our view on the issues you have raised.’ 

On 8th May, some 6 weeks later, I wrote to you asking why I had heard nothing despite your promises.  You wrote back the same day to inform me that you had taken over the examination of my complaint but that

It is not possible at this stage to give any timeframe for the conduct of this case. However, once I have completed my analysis I will let you know.
I appreciate that this will be frustrating for you, but I can confirm that I am looking in detail at the information you have provided.’

On 8th May I raised further concerns regarding the involvement of the CAA in attacking certain parliamentary candidates in the middle of the General Election.  Instead of issuing advice to the CAA or indeed charities as a whole you said that it wasn’t a matter for you, which raises the question of whether or not you are fulfilling your statutory duty to regulate the charity sector.
You also seemed to be rowing back on the previous pledges you made when you stated that:
‘As we have informed you previously, we are considering all of the points you have made. It is not our policy, and we do not have the resources, to keep those who provide information to us, informed of progress on individual cases.’

This is a direct contradiction of your previous pledges, not only to complete the investigation within a week but to keep me informed.  I do not believe, for one minute, that you don’t have the resources to inform me as to the progress of my complaint.  There is no reason whatsoever for you not having completed your investigation and there is even less reason for you not having informed me of the outcome of any investigation.

The only inference that can be drawn is that you are prepared to turn a blind eye to the activities of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism despite its clear breaches of charity law.  I repeat what I have previously tried to make clear to you.  The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism is entitled to act as a political campaigning body it is not entitled to do this with all the financial advantages accruing from being a charity.

The petition we launched calling for the deregistration of the CAA has now reached nearly 3,000 people.  I look forward to you breaking your normal custom and practice and providing a full response into the complaints that I and others have made.

I also wish to make it clear that I am submitting a third complaint in respect of the CAA’s racist campaign against Palestine Expo 2017.

Please also advise me of the various avenues of appeal if you continue to refuse to respond to my complaints against the CAA.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Greenstein

Zionism’s Quest for a Purely Jewish State is why Zionism is Inherently Racist

$
0
0

According to Netanyahu Non-Jewish Refugees threaten the 'National Identity' of Israel i.e. they aren't Jews


Most Jews are in Britain and the United States today because, from 1882 to the first

world war, Jews fled from the Czarist pogroms and sought refuge from anti-semitism.  Because there were no immigration controls until 1905 and even later in the United States, some 2.5 million Jews emigrated.  Less than 2% went to the alleged historical homeland of Jews, Palestine.

It is one of the quaint aspects of Zionism's achievements that Jews too can now be pogromists.  As David Sheen reported on May 29 2013: 
'Last Thursday, May 23, 2013, marked exactly one year to the day when a thousand Jewish Israelis ran rampant through the streets of Tel Aviv, smashing and looting African-operated businesses and physically assaulting any dark-skinned person they came across. Sadly, the Israeli economic, political and religious establishment – who were in large measure responsible for the pogrom – did not respond by working to quash the racism, but rather ramped up their efforts to expel all non-Jewish African people from the country.' 
Miri Regev, who is now Israel's 'Culture Minister' told the crowd that:  "the Sudanese are a cancer in our body". 
In 1905 the Aliens Act was introduced under Prime Minister Arthur James Balfour.  Balfour was quite explicit.  He didn't much like the East European Jews.  He was however a good Zionist because he believed that they should go to Palestine.  Thus it ever was that anti-Semites and Zionists got on like a house on fire.  As you will no doubt know, in 1917 Balfour, now Foreign Secretary, penned a famous letter to Walter Rothschild promising the land of a 3rd party to the Zionists.

What Netanyahu says aloud, Isaac Herzog of the Israeli Labour Party mutters in coded language.  Netanyahu’s reasons as to why the 60,000 African refugees – from Sudan, Eritrea and other hotspots – had to be deported, demonstrate why Zionism is and always will remain a racist movement.
Netanyahu explainedwhy the refugees had to be deported thus:

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

The reason wasn’t that they weren’t genuine refugees, the problem was that they weren't Jewish. David Sheen has drawn up the top 9 Israeli racist politicians who have demonised asylum seekers.  Herzog is at number 5 on the list.  (see below)

Thus Israel refuses to admit any non-Jewish refugee.  Not because their home country is safe or they are not genuine, the excuses of Western opponents of asylum seekers, but because they ‘threaten our national security and our national identity’.  And what is this national identity?  Why being Jewish of course.  Therefore one cannot accept Arabs or non-Jews within the confines of the holy tent.  Racist?  How could it be otherwise?

Tony Greenstein
Another one of the ways that Israeli society becomes increasingly racist is when centrist parties like Labor adopt right-wing rhetoric in order to chase after right-wing votes.

In recent years, Labor has not played the foil to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but instead acceded to almost all of his hawkish proposals. Instead of standing firm against Israel’s lurch to the right, Labor has attempted to ply votes away from Likud with right-wing proposals.

That tendency has increased ever since Isaac Herzogwas elected to lead the party in November 2013. It has been especially evident in Herzog’s solid support for Netanyahu’s military campaigns in Gaza and the West Bank, but also in his support for expelling Africans from Israel.

It was not always so. When the Knesset first voted to amend the country’s “anti-infiltration” law in January 2012 to sanction the roundup, detention and expulsion of African refugees, Herzog opposed the measure.

When the Knesset voted to amend the law a second time in December 2013, Herzog didn’t show up for the vote. And by the time the Knesset voted to toughen it a third time in December 2014, he voted in favor of the amendment, along with several other Labor lawmakers.

In May 2012, Herzog wrote an opinion piece, challengingarguments by human rights groups that Eritreans in Israel deserved protection as refugees.

In March 2015, Herzog repeatedthis refrainin an attempt to peel anti-African votes away from Netanyahu on the eve of the Israeli national elections, saying, “We need to negotiate with Eritrea on the return of the Eritreans back to Eritrea.”

This year, Labor led a successful effort to abolish the Knesset’s committee on foreign workers, one of the few forums in which the concerns of refugees could receive a hearing in parliament.
In September 2015, Labor publicly complained that Netanyahu’s government has not done nearly enough to expel Africans from the country. In a public statement, Herzog’s Labor Party wholeheartedly adopted the far-right’s propaganda points, insistingwithout any basis that most refugees in Israel have no valid claim to refugee status.

“The crisis of the refugees from Syria is not similar to the issue of the infiltrators from Africa who are mostly migrant workers,” the statement read. “If only Bibi’s government had created immigration laws, it would be possible to send back to their country those who are in Israel for their welfare and for work. But the Likud government is only good at talking, and it is responsible for the troubles of the residents of south Tel Aviv.”

They were promised asylum somewhere closer to home. Then they were discarded — often in a war zone.
Andrew Green
Foreign Policy
June 27, 2017

KIGALI, Rwanda — The man picked Afie Semene and the 11 other Eritreans on the flight from Tel Aviv out of the stream of disembarking passengers as if he already had their faces memorized. He welcomed them to the Rwandan capital, Kigali, and introduced himself as John. He was a Rwandan immigration officer, he explained, there to help smooth their arrival. He collected the travel documents each of them had been issued in Israel and led them past the immigration counter where the rest of the passengers from their flight queued. Nobody stopped them. Nothing was stamped.
They paused briefly at the luggage carousel to scoop up their bags. In the nearly seven years Semene had lived in Israel, he filled an apartment with furniture and kitchen supplies. But when officials there summoned him to a detention facility for asylum-seekers, he had distributed much of what he owned among his friends, unsure if he would ever return. Now his suitcase contained little besides clothes.
The group exited the airport into the humid Rwandan night and crowded into a waiting pickup. The luggage followed in a second truck. The small convoy wound its way through lush, hilly Kigali, past the fenced campus of the regional polytechnic, and into a quiet neighborhood several miles south of the airport. They came to a stop in front of a house the color of a pistachio nut, its second story ringed with white-trimmed porches. Dawn was already breaking as the new arrivals were shown to bedrooms inside. As he fell asleep, Semene still remembers the feeling of relief wash over him. John would return the next day to help them begin their asylum applications, he thought. Maybe he would arrive with the papers granting them refugee status already in hand.

There would be no visas. No work permits. No asylum. None of the things Israeli authorities had promised the 12 Eritreans when they had agreed to relocate to Rwanda a few weeks prior.

Instead, the next day brought new despair: There would be no visas. No work permits. No asylum. None of the things Israeli authorities had promised the 12 Eritreans when they had agreed to relocate to Rwanda a few weeks prior. Instead, John offered to smuggle them into neighboring Uganda, which he told them was a “free nation.” “If you live here, you can’t leave,” Semene recalled John saying of Rwanda. “It’s a tight country. Let me advise you, as your brother, you need to go to Uganda.”

They would need to sneak across the border, since they had no proof of legal entry into Rwanda. (The Israeli laissez-passers had gone unstamped at the Kigali airport the night before, an oversight that now felt suspicious.) But John told them not to worry; he could easily get them into Uganda for a fee of $250. “I have everything,” he said. “Contacts with the government over there. Contacts with the Israeli government. If something happens, I call the Israeli government and they do something for you.”

The alternative, John said, was to remain in the Kigali house, where they would be under constant surveillance. They would have to pay rent, but without documentation, they would not be allowed to work. Semene and the others understood that John was not really giving them a choice. Everyone agreed to the plan.

A few hours later, a van pulled up outside the house and the Eritreans piled in. Several miles from the border with Uganda, the vehicle came to a stop and John urged them out onto the side of the road. It was the last they would see of him.

Semene had made an even more treacherous crossing once before, paying smugglers to ferry him across the Sinai Desert from Egypt into Israel. Under fire from Egyptian border guards, he sprinted the final yards to safety. He had hoped it would be the last time he would ever have to cross a border illegally. But seven years later, feeling betrayed by an Israeli government he had once turned to for safety, he slipped quietly and unofficially into Uganda.
AdHundreds of African asylum-seekers stage a protest along the sea front in Tel Aviv on Jan. 15, 2014. (Photo credit: JACK GUEZ/AFP/Getty Images)d caption
For decades after its founding in 1948, Israel welcomed refugees from outside the Jewish faith. The country was an early signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. In his first official act as prime minister in 1977, Menachem Begin granted refuge to 66 Vietnamese who had been rescued at sea by an Israeli ship. During a visit to the United States later that year, he recalled the St. Louis — a ship loaded with more than 900 European Jews who attempted to flee Germany in 1939 — to explain his decision. The St. Louis’s passengers were denied permission to disembark in Cuba, the United States, and Canada and ultimately returned to Europe. A quarter of the passengers are thought to have died in the Holocaust.

“They were nine months at sea, traveling from harbor to harbor, from country to country, crying out for refuge. They were refused,” Begin said. “We have never forgotten the lot of our people … And therefore it was natural that my first act as prime minister was to give those people a haven in the land of Israel.”

In 2007, then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert echoed Begin’s act when he granted temporary residency permits to nearly 500 Sudanese asylum-seekers. But as the number of African migrants swelled in subsequent years, Israel’s receptiveness began to flag. The vast majority of the new arrivals were fleeing long-standing authoritarian regimes in Eritrea and Sudan. They chose Israel for many reasons: because it was a democracy, because it was easier to reach than Europe or — for many Sudanese — because it was an adversary of their own government. They hoped that the enemy of their enemy would look kindly on them.

But Israeli authorities soon became overwhelmed. According to the Ministry of Interior, nearly 65,000 foreign nationals — the vast majority from Africa — reached Israel between 2006 and 2013. As the government struggled to accommodate the newcomers, many languished in poor and overcrowded neighborhoods in southern Tel Aviv. Dozens squatted in a park across the street from the city’s main bus station for weeks on end. A handful of high-profile incidents — including the alleged rape of an 83-year-old woman by an Eritrean asylum-seeker in 2012 — dominated media coverage and fueled unease among Israelis, many of whom already fretted that refugees were taking their jobs.

African asylum-seekers sleep in Tel Aviv's Levinski Park during a protest against Israel's immigration policies on Feb. 5, 2014. (Photo credit: JACK GUEZ/AFP/Getty Images)
By the time Benjamin Netanyahu secured a third term as prime minister in 2013, the tensions had hardened into outright hostility. That year, Israel sealed off its border with Egypt and implemented a raft of policies aimed at making life more difficult for asylum-seekers already in Israel. Then it began secretly pressuring Eritreans and Sudanese to leave for unnamed third countries, a shadowy relocation effort in which Semene and thousands like him are now ensnared.

Israeli officials have kept nearly everything else about this effort secret, even deflecting requests for more information from UNHCR, the U.N. refugee agency. But a year-long investigation by Foreign Policy that included interviews with multiple Eritrean and Sudanese asylum-seekers as well as people involved at various stages of the relocation process — including one person who admitted to helping coordinate illegal border crossings — reveals an opaque system of shuffling asylum-seekers from Israel, via Rwanda or Uganda, into third countries, where they are no longer anyone’s responsibility.
It begins with furtive promises by Israeli authorities of asylum and work opportunities in Rwanda and Uganda. Once the Sudanese and Eritrean asylum-seekers reach Kigali or Entebbe, where Uganda’s international airport is located, they describe a remarkably similar ordeal: They meet someone who presents himself as a government agent at the airport, bypass immigration, move to a house or hotel that quickly feels like a prison, and are eventually pressured to leave the country. For the Eritreans, it is from Rwanda to Uganda. For Sudanese, it is from Uganda to South Sudan or Sudan. The process appears designed not just to discard unwanted refugees, but to shield the Israeli, Rwandan, and Ugandan governments from any political or legal accountability.

While a handful of the Eritreans and Sudanese have managed to maneuver or mislead their way into asylum in Rwanda or Uganda, and dozens more live in a stateless limbo in the Ugandan capital of Kampala, most have given in to the pressure to leave those countries, making dangerous illegal border crossings that leave them vulnerable to blackmail and physical abuse at the hands of smugglers and security forces. Some have continued north to Sudan or Libya in an effort to reach Europe. A few have been captured and killed by Islamic State fighters or drowned on the treacherous Mediterranean crossing.

Officials across several relevant ministries in Israel, Rwanda, and Uganda all issued denials or refused repeated requests for comment. But the nearly identical experiences of asylum-seekers arriving in Rwanda and Uganda, as well as their ability to bypass standard immigration channels and occasionally procure official documents from their handlers, suggests a level of government knowledge, if not direct involvement, in all three capitals.

Semene fled Eritrea in 2007, after four years in the country’s military. Service there is compulsory and it can stretch on indefinitely. Instead of training, conscripts are often forced to work on their commanders’ private farms or for state-owned businesses. The conditions are so restrictive and the compensation so negligible that in 2016 a U.N. Human Rights Council report on the country determined that “Eritrean officials have committed the crime of enslavement … in a persistent, widespread and systematic manner.” During his four years of service, Semene, a small, slight man with an easy smile, was allowed to visit his family only once.

Semene is a pseudonym. Life under military dictatorship instilled in him a deep sense of caution, and he is hesitant to share too many details about his past in case security forces target his family members who still live in Eritrea. Risking imprisonment and possible execution there, he ran — first to a refugee camp in Sudan, where he faced constant shortages of food and water, and then to Egypt. Finding the environment for refugees there only marginally better, he paid smugglers $2,800 to take him across Sinai into Israel. He knew little about the country, except that it was a democracy. “Simply, I try my luck,” he said.

And finally, luck seemed to be on his side. In 2008, Israeli authorities issued him a visa that was renewable every six months. He found a job stocking groceries at a Tel Aviv shop, and applied for official refugee status. “I adopt the place,” he told me, including learning Hebrew. “I adopt their food. I know the language. I see Israel as my country.”

Thousands more asylum-seekers like Semene continued to arrive — mostly from Eritrea, but also from Sudan, including hundreds fleeing a government-perpetrated genocide in the country’s Darfur region. By 2012, a leading Israeli politician was denouncing the asylum-seekers as “a cancer in our body” and residents of south Tel Aviv were organizing protests against them. That same year, the minister of interior suggested making “their lives miserable” in order to dissuade even more from coming.

One way the Israeli government did just that was by erecting a sprawling detention center for asylum-seekers in the middle of the Negev Desert. Operated by the Israel Prison Service (IPS), Holot — which means “sand” in Hebrew — now holds more than 3,000 male asylum-seekers, who had previously been allowed to live and (unofficially) work while they awaited a decision on their refugee applications. Most detainees said they learned they had been randomly chosen to relocate to Holot only when they attempted to renew their visas. They were given days to report to the facility, where they can legally be held for up to a year. Some politicians are pushing to make the sentence indefinite.
Asylum-seekers take part in a day of protest at the Holot detention center in the southern Negev desert on Feb. 17, 2014. (Photo credit: ILIA YEFIMOVICH /Getty Images)
Semene was summoned to Holot in early 2014. “It’s really a prison,” is how he described what appears on the outside to be a beleaguered tent city. I made two visits to the facility, though I was not allowed to enter. Instead, I sat with detainees outside the chain-link fence topped with razor wire, as they described conditions inside. They live 10 to a room and though they can come and go from the facility, they are required to check in with authorities once per day. Failure to do so earns a short stint in a nearby maximum-security prison. Residents are not allowed to work or even to bring food brought by friends or family members into Holot. With the nearest town hours away, they spend most of their time sitting at the makeshift restaurants they have constructed near the entrance to the camp. IPS authorities regularly tear them down, but the detainees keep rebuilding them.

To Semene, the restrictions of Holot, combined with the monotony of life there, seemed designed to break the occupants — men who had previously survived murderous raids, the deprivations of refugee camps, and, in some cases, torture. There is limited assistance for people managing chronic health conditions or in obvious need of mental healthcare. Instead, they are left to wander the desert, overseen only by their fellow inmates. (IPS did not respond to multiple requests for comment.) Semene remembers becoming so distressed by the treatment one day that he began pleading with a guard: “We are human. Treat us as a human,” he said.

Then, after he had been locked away for seven months, the authorities seemed to offer him a lifeline: Leaflets from the Israeli Population and Immigration Authority started to appear within the facility, saying that Israel had secured an arrangement with other countries willing to accept asylum-seekers. Anyone who agreed to a transfer would receive travel documents, a free one-way plane ticket to a yet-unnamed country, and $3,500. “On the first day of arrival in the country, you will be placed in a hotel. Everything that you need — work and living permit — will be given to you,” the flyer read, according to a translation provided by the UNHCR office in Tel Aviv.

Soon, the guards at Holot began whispering to the asylum-seekers that the third countries were Rwanda for Eritreans and Uganda for the Sudanese. There was no explanation for the division. The Israeli government has never officially confirmed the two countries involved, explaining in various legal settings that the agreements prevent them from doing so. “We do not comment in the media on those issues or on our relations with third countries,” a spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in an email.

Semene was among those who jumped at the opportunity. “You close your eyes and choose,” was how he explained it to me. In the weeks leading up to his departure in late 2014, he was summoned to meet with an Israeli immigration officer, who presented him with an Israeli travel document filled out with his name, date of birth, and — though he had no passport — a passport number. The laissez-passer was valid for two weeks, from Dec. 14 to Dec. 28, 2014. The official also showed him a letter, allegedly from the Rwandan government, guaranteeing that he would be granted a one-month tourist visa when he arrived in the country. The official handed over the promised $3,500 in U.S. dollars.
Semene wondered why he was getting a one-month tourist visa when he had been told he would be receiving asylum. He also wondered why the laissez-passer was valid for only two weeks. He said he quizzed the official about both apparent discrepancies, but was assured any issues would be sorted out when he arrived in Kigali. Not quite convinced, he took photos of the documents with his cell phone, which he later showed me. A few days later, he received a call telling him to get ready. He would be leaving on Dec. 22. Despite his growing skepticism of everything the Israeli authorities were telling him, he decided to approach the trip with guarded optimism. It had been more than seven years since he fled a life of endless military service in Eritrea and more than half a year since he’d been incarcerated in Israel. He wanted desperately to believe that Rwanda would be the place where he would finally be free.

A group of Eritrean asylum-seekers inside Israel's Holot detention facility on Feb. 17, 2014. (Photo credit: ILIA YEFIMOVICH /Getty Images) 
The pistachio-colored house where Semene and dozens of other Eritreans were held in Kigali sits at the end of a deeply gashed dirt road. About 50 yards away, down a steep embankment, there is a small kiosk painted Coca-Cola red, where men from the neighborhood often gather to drink sodas and chat. One day last spring, I stopped by to see if they had ever noticed any unusual activity at the house atop the hill. Through a translator, they explained that groups of “foreigners” regularly stayed there. Sometimes they could be spotted pacing on the white-trimmed balconies. None ever seemed to venture outside the house’s heavy black gate and they were always gone after a few days.

Later, I trudged up the hill and knocked on that gate. It swung open to reveal two young Rwandan men lazily sweeping the driveway. I asked if I could speak to the owner. They indicated that he wasn’t home, but passed along a phone number. When I dialed it, a man who identified himself only as Robert acknowledged that the house was indeed his. Yes, he intermittently hosted visitors from Eritrea. In fact, a group had just left a few days earlier.

He explained that he had begun renting out the house to unknown groups of foreigners more than a year earlier after a friend of his — a driver who works at the airport — called to see if he could host some people who would be spending a few days in the country. Robert agreed, he said, because the house was vacant at the time. Since then he has accommodated a handful of groups, he told me. The process is always the same: The driver friend calls him a few days before a new party is set to arrive and Robert sends workers to prepare the house for them. The foreigners stay for a few days — never more than three — and then leave. He didn’t know to where. He had never met any of them.
When I started to press Robert for more details — How much was he paid? Did the driver work for the government? — he grew cagey and insisted we meet in person. We set a time for the following day. When I called back to confirm the location, he hung up on me and declined each of my subsequent calls.

It is unclear whether the driver friend is John, the man who picked Semene and the other Eritreans up from the airport, or someone working for him. It is also unclear whether John is actually an immigration official or just posing as one. But in a country as notoriously repressive as Rwanda it is almost inconceivable that anyone regularly bypassing immigration isn’t operating with the blessing of senior government officials. (My calls from different lines to a number allegedly belonging to John have gone unanswered for months.)

What happens to those asylum-seekers who refuse John’s offer to be smuggled into Uganda is yet another mystery. Kabtom Bereket, an Eritrean who arrived separately from Semene in July 2014, told me that several members of his six-person group asked to visit the UNHCR offices in Kigali immediately after they arrived at the house from the airport. John refused their request, Bereket said, telling them, “We are immigration. There is the security on the gate. You stay here.” No one in the group was allowed out of the house, according to Bereket, which is also a pseudonym, until they all left to cross illegally into Uganda.

Of the at least 1,400 other asylum-seekers who have arrived in Kigali from Tel Aviv over the last three years — the figure Israeli officials provided in court — Semene is certain that the vast majority have been smuggled out of the country.

Some Eritreans have managed to escape the house. According to documents from the UNHCR office in Tel Aviv, Rwandan authorities have arrested at least four of the asylum-seekers who attempted to stay in Kigali on charges of lacking documentation. Others, though UNHCR won’t say how many, have approached UNHCR staff in Kigali for support, claiming to have relocated from Israel. Of the at least 1,400 other asylum-seekers who have arrived in Kigali from Tel Aviv over the last three years — the figure Israeli officials provided in court — Semene is certain that the vast majority have been smuggled out of the country.

Across the border in Uganda, UNHCR officials haven’t heard of even a single successful asylum applicant among the Sudanese arriving directly from Tel Aviv or the Eritreans arriving from Rwanda, though they are aware of multiple rejections from among this pool. This is strange because Uganda has one of the most progressive refugee policies in the region. Nearly 3,300 Sudanese are currently registered as refugees in Uganda, according to the UNCHR office in Kampala. The problem seems to be exclusive to those being resettled from Israel. Sudanese I spoke to in Kampala said they have now learned not to mention Israel anywhere in their asylum applications.

Officials in the office of Uganda’s prime minister, which oversees the country’s immigration procedures, offered no explanation for the rejected asylum claims of migrants arriving via Israel. Rwandan officials do admit having discussed a deal with Israel to accept asylum-seekers, but say that no agreement was ever reached. It may be that the Ugandan and Rwandan governments do not want to answer questions about what they are receiving in exchange for accepting refugees. (Speculation among Israeli activists centers on weapons and cash.)

Unable to get asylum in Uganda, many Eritreans and Sudanese live in constant fear of the authorities. Within hours of his illegal scramble across the Rwandan border, in fact, Semene nearly landed behind bars. He and the other Eritreans in his group emerged from the borderlands thicket to find a van waiting on the Ugandan side that carried them the remaining 10 hours to Kampala. They arrived at a cheap hotel in the crowded, dusty area of downtown known as Old Kampala at 4 a.m. Five hours later, Ugandan security officials raided the hotel and arrested several of the asylum-seekers. By that point, however, Semene had already split off from the group and melted into the neighborhood, his doubts having turned into outright distrust over the course of the journey.

More than a year later, he spends most of his evenings in a local bar watching football matches or playing pool. It is a short walk from the apartment he shares with a rotating group of Eritrean refugees. Sometimes up to a dozen people cram into the one-room space. His world is now just a few blocks of Old Kampala, but he figures limiting his movement is the best way to avoid running into police officers or other security officials who might ask for his papers and then arrest him or demand a bribe when he is unable to produce them.

He is depressed, and also eaten up with resentment toward the Israeli government. This was not the life they promised him. “I am not safe here,” he said. “I am not safe anywhere.”
Ugandan police officers cordon off a crime scene in Kampala on March 17, 2017. (Photo credit: ISAAC KASAMANI/AFP/Getty Images)
The linchpins of this system of human smuggling — and key to establishing whether the Israeli, Ugandan, and Rwandan governments are officially involved in it — are the men who pressure new arrivals from Tel Aviv to forget the promise of asylum and to cross illegally into third countries. Hassan Ali is one such man. He agreed to meet me on the condition that I not reveal his real identity. A squat 32-year-old Darfuri refugee, he steered me off a crowded Kampala street into a fried chicken restaurant with low ceilings and a greasy, tiled floor. He chose a side table and spoke in a quiet, quivering voice lost easily in the lunchtime bustle. He was among the very first asylum-seekers in Israel to accept the proposed transfer to Uganda, he said. He had been in Israel since 2008 and sensed the mood toward asylum-seekers was growing increasingly hostile. He happened to have friends and family in Uganda, so when the offer came to relocate to Kampala in early 2014, he eagerly accepted.
But within weeks of his arrival, just as he was beginning to feel settled in his new life in the city, he started getting phone calls from a man he would identify only as Ismail. Ismail was also Sudanese and he needed Ali’s help. Would he be willing to meet with groups of new arrivals — mostly people Ali knew from his own time in Israel — and talk to them about resettling elsewhere? Ali is not sure how Ismail got his number or why he wanted Ali to be involved, but — for reasons he chose to keep vague — he decided he was willing to try. The requests from Ismail are relatively sporadic, but they have become more frequent. Ali estimates that he has now met with at least a dozen groups of asylum-seekers.

He usually joins them on their second day at an upscale hotel called Forest Cottages, where the Sudanese flown from Tel Aviv are brought from the airport. Unlike their Eritrean counterparts in Rwanda, they are offered a brief respite before the pressure to relocate begins. But when the time comes, Ali is the one who applies that pressure.

He starts by talking about how much the men must be missing their families after years — and in some cases decades — away from Sudan. Except now, in Uganda, they are so much closer to home than they were in Israel. Using Ismail’s connections, Ali says he can get them the rest of the way. For $200, he will arrange the paperwork and logistics to transport them safely to South Sudan, the buffer between Uganda and Sudan. For $100 more, he can get them to the Sudanese capital, Khartoum.
The reasons other refugees chose to return to Sudan, despite the risk of arrest and torture, are much more straightforward: They believe their options are exhausted. They miss their homes. They want to see their families.

Both countries harbor significant dangers. Sudan remains a police state, and killing continues in Darfur, though at a lower level than before. South Sudan is mired in a bloody civil war that has killed tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people and forced 1.7 million to flee the country. But the new arrivals in Kampala are discombobulated and often poorly informed. Ali fuels their confusion by telling them that Ugandan officials will hound them, blackmail them, and potentially deport them. South Sudan, because of the chaos there, actually seems to some refugees like a much easier place to disappear or to begin another journey toward a country that might actually grant them asylum. The reasons other refugees chose to return to Sudan, despite the risk of arrest and torture, are much more straightforward: They believe their options are exhausted. They miss their homes. They want to see their families.

Ali has learned to manipulate these fears and emotions. “I say, ‘Welcome to Africa. If you tell me you’re going to pass to Sudan, you come here, you will pass.’ They’re very happy,” he said. Dozens of people have taken Ali up on his offer, he says, at which point Ismail collects their information and money and hands it over to a man named George, the Ugandan minder who picked the new arrivals up at the airport — essentially the Ugandan version of John. Within hours of securing their agreement, George returns with individualized Ugandan travel documents stamped with South Sudanese entry visas.

I asked Ali about the level of government involvement in this scheme. After some prevarication, he conceded that Ugandan officials are not only aware of what is happening, but actively involved in pushing asylum-seekers from Israel into South Sudan. “This is the secret they don’t want to tell,” he said. But aside from the Ugandan travel documents he claims to have seen handed over to the asylum-seekers, he had little evidence to support his claims. That is, except for one additional piece of paper: a permit granting him temporary residence in Uganda.

At the beginning of our conversation, he had showed me a photo of the one-year legal residency permit George had secured for him from Uganda’s Ministry of Internal Affairs. None of the other Sudanese asylum-seekers I met had received anything similar from George, although several said they had asked for one. Ali only received the document, he acknowledged, in exchange for helping Ismail.

Before we parted ways, Ali offered to take me with him when the next group of Sudanese transfers arrived at Forest Cottages. But less than 10 minutes after we left the restaurant, he called to tell me the deal was off. Apparently, he had phoned Ismail immediately after our meeting and had been lambasted for talking to a foreign journalist. Ali pleaded that I not mention him to any government officials. He said I should forget his name and that we had ever met. I followed up with Ismail, whose phone number Ali had given me before we parted, but he stood me up for a meeting the next day and refused to answer additional calls.

The Ugandan government has consistently maintained it knows nothing about asylum-seekers being transferred from Israel, though reports of the arrivals from Tel Aviv abound in the local media. Fred Opolot, then the spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told me in April 2015, “We’re making inquiries, but no one is giving us a clear lead.” Since then, Ugandan officials have retreated from any discussion of the issue beyond issuing blanket denials that any deal with Israel exists.

Hundreds of African asylum-seekers protest in front of the Knesset on Jan. 26, 2017. Some demonstrators hold placards showing migrants they say were killed after being deported from Israel. (Photo credit: GALI TIBBON/AFP/Getty Images) 
As public opinion has turned against asylum-seekers and Israel has become more insular, many Israelis believe their country is losing touch with its founding values. Anat Ovadia-Rosner, the former spokesperson for the Hotline for Refugees and Migrants, a Tel Aviv-based legal advocacy group, told me the situation makes her think of her grandparents. “They were both in Auschwitz, survivors of the Holocaust. When I hear the story of the asylum-seekers … it reminds me exactly of the stories that I heard of my grandparents.” She said she understands why some Israelis are hesitant to open the borders to large numbers of refugees from outside the Jewish faith, but believes “we have a moral obligation” to do so.

The Israeli government, which, if not directly responsible, is by now well aware that some of the asylum-seekers returned to Africa have been pressured into illegal border crossings, clearly does not agree with Ovadia-Rosner. What’s not yet clear is whether Israeli courts do. In 2015, a coalition of Israeli human rights groups filed a petition challenging the legality of Israel’s policy of detaining asylum-seekers unless they agree to return to their country of origin or to accept a transfer to the unnamed third nations. They sought to prove that, in the Eritrean cases specifically, the Israeli policy is effectively forcing the asylum-seekers to choose between possibly indefinite incarceration and a relocation process that strips them of any status or protection.

But the petition, which was heard by a district court judge in Beersheba — the largest city in the Negev Desert — was ultimately rejected on the grounds that there was “no evidence of persecution or harassment by the authorities in the third country to which they were removed.” The judge, Rachel Barkai, based her decision on evidence that she allowed to be presented behind closed doors, because of the confidential nature of the agreements with the third countries. But according to Anat Ben-Dor, the director of the Refugee Rights Clinic at Tel Aviv University and one of the lawyers working on the case, it included the findings of Israeli investigators who traveled to Rwanda and Uganda in May 2015. Their interviews, Barkai wrote in her decision, “painted a positive picture regarding the integration process in the third country.”

There is still a chance that the transfer program could be struck down by an Israeli court. After Barkai rejected their petition, the human rights organizations appealed the case to the country’s Supreme Court. The justices heard initial arguments early last year, but the case is still pending.
Even as the judges deliberate, former residents of Holot are turning up in jails or dead in countries across East and North Africa. At least three have been arrested in Kenya, according to UNHCR officials in Tel Aviv, and another 40 were arrested attempting to cross from Uganda into South Sudan, according to a UNHCR official in Kampala. Some have drowned in the Mediterranean while trying to reach Europe, friends and family members say. And at Holot, a video circulated of Islamic State fighters beheading three of the men who agreed to resettle in Rwanda but were later caught in Libya on their way, apparently, to attempt a Mediterranean crossing.

Many proponents of the secret transfer agreements are sympathetic to the plight of the refugees, but argue that they pose a real danger to Israel — not just in terms of jobs lost or crimes committed but to the very nature of the Jewish state. They say that Israel tried to do its part, integrating tens of thousands of asylum-seekers into a population of 8 million, but that the consequences were severe. “The neighborhoods have pretty much transformed,” said Yonatan Jakubowicz, who works at the Israeli Immigration Policy Center, which has supported increasingly restrictive policies against the asylum-seekers in recent years.

I met Jakubowicz in a Tel Aviv restaurant, across the street from an auditorium where he was scheduled to participate in a debate that evening on Israel’s immigration policies. “While the situation was never great, the local residents, they always say they had a sense of community. And that way of life has been threatened by the influx of these migrants,” he told me, adding that Israel had “turned into a main destination for migration from Africa and people were just pouring in en masse.”

A Sudanese asylum-seeker visits the Holocaust Museum of Yad Vashem in Jerusalem in March 2007. (Photo credit: YOAV LEMMER/AFP/Getty Images) 

Jakubowicz’s center supported the closure of the border with Egypt in 2013 and the creation of Holot. The desert detention facility is a kind of “sifting system,” Jakubowicz told me. People truly in need of asylum, he argued, would rather spend a year there than agree to return to their own country, as some of the asylum-seekers have done, or to be relocated to an unknown third country. Elsewhere, he pointed out, refugees have been content to live in camps that offer even less than Holot does.

His support for the third-country transfers appeared to waver, though, after I started telling him the stories of the refugees I had met in Rwanda and Uganda — about their coerced departures, about how they had been denied asylum. “Most people aren’t aware of what’s going on so much,” he said. “Most people believe that if the government says they have an agreement with third countries and that the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Interior have gone there and sent representatives to check the situation, then they believe the situation is fine. That’s a good solution.”

But if Jakubowicz had begun to question the Israeli government’s assurances about the transfers, he still didn’t understand why people would continue to agree to be relocated if the situation in Rwanda and Uganda was as dire as I said it was. After all, new groups of asylum-seekers were signing up to leave nearly every week, despite the fact that many residents of Holot were in regular contact with friends and family members in East Africa who are likely informing them about what really happens there. I said I didn’t have a good answer for him and that I would do my best to find out.

When I returned to Uganda in February 2016, I called Jamsom Berhane, one of the first asylum-seekers from Israel I had met back in April 2015. Berhane, also a pseudonym, was born in Ethiopia, but to an Eritrean mother. In 1997, at the age of 20, he went to visit family in the Eritrean capital, Asmara. There he was arrested and, unable to convince the authorities that he was an Ethiopian citizen, conscripted into service. Over the next 10 years, he attempted to flee the Eritrean military at least a half-dozen times. In 2007, he was finally successful after he jumped, unnoticed, from a moving truck and took off running. He made his way from Sudan to Egypt and — in December — to Israel. After more than six years in Israel, he received his summons to Holot in April 2014. Four months later he agreed to be relocated to Rwanda.

Berhane had initially been happy to tell me his story, eager to make people aware of what had happened to him after he had agreed to be transferred to Rwanda. But as we met and spoke regularly over the course of a year, he had become increasingly morose and reclusive. His money had run out and he was unable to find work. He lived off the goodwill of a distant cousin, but Berhane was afraid to ask too often for support. The result was a lot of skipped meals.

Still, he agreed to meet with me again at our usual location — an Ethiopian restaurant in the heart of Kampala’s nightclub district. After we exchanged greetings and I told him all the details of my trip to Israel, I posed Jakubowicz’s question to him: Given everything that had happened, would he accept Israel’s offer of the transfer again?

Yes, he told me, without hesitation. Though his life is miserable in Uganda, it offers a possibility now foreclosed in Israel, just as it had been in Eritrea and Sudan and Egypt. “I need freedom,” he said. “For 19 years, I am not able to move around. I’m thinking about my freedom. You have freedom and you do everything. You don’t have freedom, you close your mind.”

Ultimately, Israel never intended to give him his freedom, he said. To him, the lie Israeli officials told about asylum in Rwanda was merely the final confirmation of that fact. At least in Uganda, they have not yet put him in prison. Berhane gestured for me to turn my recorder off. “I don’t want to speak about Israel anymore,” he said. “Israel, it was my first mistake.”

Reporting for this story was supported with a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism.
Top image: ILIA YEFIMOVICH / Getty Images 

Andrew Green is a freelance journalist based in Berlin. Previously, he was based in sub-Saharan Africa for more than five years. 
https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif


Like It Doesn't Exist - How Israelis Manage to Ignore Apartheid's Reality

$
0
0

Israeli broadcaster rails against Israel's status quo


Please share!

Response to a Jewish Nazi – Only a Zionist would be interested in proving that Jackie Walker is not Jewish

$
0
0
When you live in or support a state, in this case the State of Israel which is based on racial supremacy, it is important to know who is and who is not a member of the master race.  Religion is there to define who is a member of the herrenvolk or the untermenschen, that is all.  
Jackie Walker
It is not surprising that in Israel, you can’t convert to Judaism unless you are a White European. The Jerusalem Post reported (1.4.16) ‘Palestinian Requests To Convert To Judaism Rejected Automatically':
To initiate an officially recognized conversion to Judaism in Israel, foreigners need to apply to the special cases panel of the Conversion Authority.

The threshold requirements” to be considered by the special cases panel, Rabbi Yitzhak Peretz, director of the Israeli government’s Conversion Authority, said,are that applicants be sincere and that they are not foreign workers; infiltrators; Palestinian or illegally in the country.” In 2014, he added, the special cases committee received 400 applications. “Half of the applicants were accepted, the rest were rejected as foreign workers, infiltrators, illegal stayers and Palestinians.”
The eugenecist origins of the Israeli state

I am not an expert on Jewish religious law but I do know that nowhere in the Talmud or the Torah is there any mention of the fact that Palestinians cannot convert to Judaism.  Nor is there any mention of ‘infiltrators’ or foreign workers or illegal immigrants.  These are political categories.  In other words, in a state based on race you cannot have the lower races or the Untermenschen joining the master race (herren volk).  This is perfectly understandable because in Israel being a Jew confers privileges that non-Jews do not have and therefore you cannot have people changing their race in order to get a house or an extra grant.

The Zionists, as part of their false ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign in the Labour Party have been targeting Jackie Walker.  You can read the details in my article The lynching of Jackie Walkerand Jonathan Rosenhead’s Jackie Walker: a suspense mystery.  Being Black Jackie is and was an ideal target for these racists.  The only problem was that she was Jewish.  Hence we have the spectacle of these Zionists, in the best traditions of the Nazis, investigating Jackie’s ancestry in order to ‘prove’ that she isn’t Jewish.
Tony Greenstein

What is Jewish identity? A response to the general garbage written by Jewish racial purists and in particular to this blog by ‘Jew Know’

Jackie Walker speaking to the LRC meeting in Brighton September 2016
Recently there has been a(nother) spate of attacks of the ‘Jackie not a Jew’ type. Most have been downright racist, some hilarious, all show an obsessive concern for genealogy, an old trope of racists, in their attempt to police something which is in fact too complex to be policed; Jewish identity.

This most recent contribution by ‘Jew Know’ made me think (probably because I was on holiday), not just about my identity, but of Jewish identity, of racism, ethno-nationalism, racial purity and of those who put themselves up as guardians of identity whether they are white, black, Jewish or any other.

First thing ‘Jew Know’ - learn something about cultures that are not your own, otherwise you are simply an ignorant Jew Know-little.

You cannot trace the ancestry of Caribbean people using records (alone). Slave records are limited (for obvious reasons). Parentage was often not attributed, or falsely attributed. Records were ‘manipulated’, for example, especially when women had ‘relations’ or were raped by white men (the description ‘white’ in this instance includes Jews in the context of the racialised, colour ordered Caribbean). In any case, in a society where even long term, committed relationships between white and black would/could not be officially endorsed/recognised another ‘father’ was often named on official documents.

Neither does ‘Jew Know’ take account of the particular oppressions experienced by Jewish refugees on the run from Christian persecution, for example the ‘Conversos’ (Jews who were forced, often on pain of death, to convert) and the other Jews of the Caribbean who were forced to compromise in so many other ways simply to survive, or those who chose to take on a more fluid, syncretic idea of what made them Jewish.
A typical example of the racism that Jackie Walker has to put up with

Yes, Jew Know appears pretty ignorant of the positioning of Jews in the Caribbean, the flow of Caribbean ethno-religious cultures, the conversion to Judaism undertaken by enslaved African women who wanted/were coerced into ‘marrying’ Jewish men. There is no comment on this – and for good reason, because Jew Know doesn’t have a clue, you know.

The binary outlook reflected in Jew Know’s blog betrays deep-seated ignorance of the many variations of Jewishness that have historically always been part of Jewish history. But according to Jew Know everything to do with Jewish identity has the simplicity of any authoritarian ideology; you are either Jewish or not. There is no scope for variation, no intersectionality, no understanding of the potential conflicts, complex histories inherent in being black and Jewish, Arab and Jewish, Asian and Jewish. No, In Jew Know’s kosher world there is no room for complexity, no Jewish diversity, just a nice, easy, genetic (or is it religious) monoculture where bright eyed Jewish mothers give birth to Jewish children and people have access to the easy going charms of the local Rabbi to sort things out when things get …. mucky for Jew Know cannot tolerate a world of self-determination -  no - a higher authority must always decree.

But as we all know – none of that’s true – Jews, like every other people, come in all sorts.

Jew Know expresses religious and ethnic definition of identity and leaves no room for those with no religious commitment but with the necessary ancestry, those who have been adopted, those ‘in care’, those orphaned and separated from the community. Jew Know does not admit the perspective of Reformed Jews, those who advocate that Jewish identity can be inherited from a father as well as mother – no.

Then tell me Jew Know, in your little, little world, what about the people of Jewish heritage born to people who have not practiced any religion, maybe for generations? Ok – strike them out!

And is acceptance of a Jewish state part of being Jewish? When and who decided that one? And are the very many non or anti-Zionist Jews ‘self-haters and not real Jews in your book too? I think I know your awnser.

I have nothing to prove to you Jew Know. You shame the Jewish heritage you claim.

To deny my Jewish heritage is racist, deeply racist and you are a racist. It is as unacceptable to deny my Jewish heritage, the political and historical struggles that brought my parents together as it would be to deny my African or Caribbean ancestry.  Your attitudes reflect the deep-seated and shameful racism entrenched in sections of the Jewish community.

It reflects a shameful intolerance, a lack of inclusivity, empathy, an essentialism that harvests a paucity of the soul. As with all ethno-nationalists these attitudes undermine the high-ground they seek to attain; complexity is the life-blood of creativity, the life-blood of a modern, tolerant society, the only path of progress for humanity. Want help with these ideas? I suggest you contact Mocha Jews and find out more http://mochajuden.com

Jew Know in fact you appear to Know Little of the multi-faceted history of the Jewish people, a people that in the last 2,000 years engagedand yes, MIXED at times, and very often with the rest of the world, were an essential part of much of it. These Jewish people fought to be a part, not set apart, from the countries they inhabited. …. Hurrah!

And then, in true racial purity tradition you dig up what you claim are my genealogical records and publish what you again claim is my family tree (sordid aren’t you, it will be my underwear drawer next I presume). By the way, I have know nothing of some of the people you refer to as my ancestors – and truth is neither do you – though I can take you back on one side to the 15th century and the pogroms of the Spain and Portugal and on the other to an African griot.

My DNA (which I have a detailed analysis of and have had for sometime) is the business of me and my family – and my friends who have seen it. As for the rest ……

Youhave caused distress to many people, Jewish and non Jewish. Your intolerance and racism is an embarrassment, not just to Jews but to all good people everywhere. You have caused outrage, in particular to members of the black and Caribbean community in Britain.

Jew Know – I wouldn’t ask you to prove your Jewishness, I would however welcome you proving your humanity but truth is on that one, I won’t be holding my breath.   .
  
Jackie Walker

Background to Zionist Racism
From its very beginning Zionism was, in the words of Max Nordau, Theodor Herzl’s Deputy, a matter of race not religion.  Nordau, was a follower of Lombroso the social Darwinist criminologist.  Nordau claimed that ‘The Jews possess a greater enterprising spirit and abilities than the average European, to say nothing about all those Asians or Africans.’ [Max Nordau to this People, New York 1941, p.73] In an interview with La Libre Parole, Edouard Drumont’s anti-Semitic daily, in 1903 Nordau explained that that ‘(Zionism) is not a question of religion but exclusively of race and there is noone with whom I am in greater agreement on this position than M Drumont.’ (Desmond Steward, Herzl, p. 322)
According to Moses Hess, the first modern, political Zionist, in his novel Rome & Jerusalem:Race struggle is primary; class struggle is secondary.” [Moses Hess, Rome & Jerusalem,Philosophical Library, New York, 1958, p.10. Cologne May 1862].
Nor was this fascination with race confined to a few Zionist intellectuals.  A pillar of the Zionist leadership, Arthur Ruppin, known as the Father of Land Settlement in the Yishuv (Jewish community in Palestine) and a member of the Zionist Executive described how, in his diary of August 11, he had travelled to Jenna on August 16, 1933:
to meet Prof. Hans F.K. Günther, the founder of National-Socialist race theory. The conversation lasted two hours. Günther was most congenial… and agreed with me that the Jews are not inferior but different, and that the Jewish Question has to be solved justly. [Amos Morris-Reich, Arthur Ruppin’s Concept of Race, Journal of Israel studies, volume 11, number 3 p.1. citing CZA A107/954]
Eitan Bloom writes of how
The idea of segregation was central to Ruppin’s eugenic planning… in order to produce a culture of their own, the Jews had to live… separated from any other culture… the Jew needed to be segregated in a space that would enable him to be among his like; only such “kinship of race” would encourage him to be healthy and creative.’[Eitan Bloom, Arthur Ruppin and the Production of the Modern Hebrew Culture, Ph. D. thesis, Tel Aviv University, December 2008].
Hans Günther, a member of the Nazi party from 1929, was Himmler’s ideological mentor and ‘the highest scientific authority concerning racial theory.’ [Bloom, p.405-6.].
In May 1930 Gunther was appointed Professor to the Chair of Racial Anthropology at Jena University, after the intervention of Wilhelm Frick, the first National Socialist state minister and later Nazi Minister of the Interior. Gunther praised Zionism ‘for recognizing the genuine racial consciousness (Volkstum) of the Jews.’ [Bloom, op. cit.p.408].Ruppin saw in Günther’s writings ‘a treasure chest of material.’ [Bloom, p. 409, Arthur Ruppin, Briefe, Tagebucher, Erinnerungen, (ed.) Schlomo Krolik, Leo Baeck Instituts, Königstein: Leo Baeck Instituts & Jüdischer Verlag Athenau, 1985.p.422]
In Germany the Nazis divided society into Aryan and non-Aryan.  How did they define the Jew?  Simple they went back to 1870 to see if someone’s grandparents were practising Jews.  Were they baptized?  So the definition of race, which is supposed to be biological in fact rested on religious practice which is why in the case of the ‘mixed race’ Mischlinge, those who had one or two Jewish grandparents, if the parents or the persons themselves or their children were practising Jews then that determined their racial belonging.
 Eugenics, the ‘science’ of selective breeding which Hitler based his ‘euthenasia’ programme on and which was the precursor of the Holocaust, was integral to the foundation of the Israeli medical service under Dr Joseph Meir. [Ha'aretz, 11.6.04., Do Not Have Children if They Won't Be Healthy!'].   Indeed it was integral to social policy at the beginning of the Israeli state.  Hence why thousands of Yemenite and Arab Jewish children were kidnapped from their parents, reported to be dead and secretly given to European Ashkenazi parents to bring up.
In Israel Black Jews are at the bottom of the pile and many Zionists don’t accept that you can be Black and Jewish.  Much like Donald Trump refused to accept that Barak Obama was Black and American, hence the Birther movement demanded to see his birth certificate.  In Israel the Black Ethiopian Jews are the most discriminated against of all and large parts of the Orthodox Rabbinate refused to accept they were Jewish and insisted that the men undergo another circumcision.

The Black Hebrews were a sect that emigrated from the USA and although a community of them live in the Negev near Beer Sheeva now, many of them previously were deported from Israel because they were not considered Jews.  This is in essence what lies behind the attempts of pathetic little racists like jonny dravitz to ‘prove’ that Jackie Walker isn’t Jewish. 

That is where Jackie Walker comes in.  She was the Black Jewish anti-Zionist who the Jewish Labour Movement and other Zionists tried to use as the traditional symbol of the Black devil in the Labour Party, the archetypal anti-Semite.

Te Israeli Law of Return, which allows me to ‘return’ to Israel even though I’ve never lived there but prevents a Palestinian returning even if they were born there (they are classified as ‘infiltrators’) is based on virtually the same racial criteria as the definition of a Jew under the Nuremburg Laws, viz. whether someone’s parents or grandparents are Jewish.  Indeed under the 1970 Amendment it goes wider and classifies as Jewish for the purpose of Return a spouse of a Jew.  Since Jackie’s father is Jewish then she is Jewish for the purpose of the Law of Return but in Israel itself the Orthodox Rabbinate control all personal affairs and the definition is much stricter. You are only Jewish if your mother is Jewish and Reform Judaism isn’t recognized.
There is though something pathetic in the attempt of the Jewish Labour Movement under Jeremy Newmark and petty little Judeo-Nazis like Jonny Kravitz trying to ‘prove’ that Jackie isn’t Jewish.  Except that they don’t even have the courage or honesty to say that she is a cushi or shvartze
Tony Greenstein


Viewing all 2416 articles
Browse latest View live