Quantcast
Channel: Tony Greenstein's Blog
Viewing all 2428 articles
Browse latest View live

Why the Israeli State is Hitler’s Bastard Offspring

$
0
0
Shock-Horror at the Jewish Chronicle as I Tell the Truth about the Israeli State





It must have been a shock to the Zionist spy in Palestine Expo 2019 this summer when I stated, in a workshop, that Israel was Hitler's bastard offspring.  Even worse I was applauded and commended by the Chair! The problem is that it's true. 
Zionism never had any principled disagreement with the Nazi conception of a racially pure, ethno-nationalist state nor that of similar ethnically based states in Europe such as Hungary and Romania. That is why Israel has swung to the far-Right politically and why every single opinion poll confirms the popular racism and anti-Arab sentiments of Israeli society.
According to that political and intellectual lightweight, Labour’s Shadow Attorney General Shami Chakrabarti, Zeev Sternhell, a child survivor of the Holocaust, is an anti-Semite. In her report on racism in the Labour Party, Chakrabarti argued that
it is always incendiary to compare the actions of Jewish people... to those of Hitler or the Nazis or to the perpetration of the Holocaust.’ [The Shami Chakrabarti Inquiry]. 

In Chakrabarti's mind 'Jewish people' translates as Israel and Zionism. Chakrabarti provided no reasoning and it is doubtful if she could. The most obvious response would be that Israel as a state is not a Jewish person and in any case Jews are perfectly capable of behaving like Nazis.


Like the Nazis?  According to Chakrabarti, no
Sternhell is a retired professor at the Hebrew University. He is also a world authority on fascism and a child survivor of the Holocaust having been smuggled out of the Przemysl ghetto in Poland. He was also injured in a terrorist attack by the Zionist underground some years ago.
The left is no longer capable of overcoming the toxic ultra-nationalism that has evolved here, the kind whose European strain almost wiped out a majority of the Jewish people. ... we see not just a growing Israeli fascism but racism akin to Nazism in its early stages. 

One can only imagine the look on the face of the Jewish Chronicle’s Political Correspondent, ‘Liar’ Lee Harpin’s, who was arrested but unfortunately not charged by the Police in the Mirror hacking affair, as he heard a tape recording of my impromptu speech at Palestine Expo 2019.

I turned up late to the fringe meeting and I hadn’t intended to speak until someone mentioned Ha'avara, the trade agreement between the Nazi state and the Zionist movement which destroyed the Jewish and Labour movement Boycott of Nazi Germany.
Israel's neo-Nazi Rabis Cashtiel and Radler instructing their yeshivah students in Jewish morality
Today Zionists pretend that the aim of Ha'avara was to help rescue Germany’s Jews. This is a complete fabrication. In 1933 no one seriously thought that Nazi Germany would built extermination camps to murder millions in.  
However most Jews did realise that the Nazi state, a fascist state, was different from previous anti-Semitic regimes. This was a state that officially declared the Jew as the enemy. It openly stated that Jews were not part of the national collective, although it took until the 1935 Nuremburg Law for Jews to be stripped of German citizenship.
From the very beginning of its rule the Nazis had moved to begin the process of stripping Jews of their political, social, civil and economic rights. The first law passed, The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service led to the dismissal of anyone who is Jewish from the civil service, apart from Jewish war veterans (at least for a time).
Jews and socialists realised from the start that this would be a state of violence and brutality, not just towards Jews. The first concentration camps established, Dachau in March 1933 and Sachsenhausen soon after, were intended mainly for communists, socialists and trade unionists.
The Zionist movement never, at any time, condemned the Nazis. You will search in vain for any resolution at any World Zionist Congress for any condemnation of the Nazis.

From the very start the Zionist movement sought to do business with and establish a working relationship with the Nazi state. Not in order to make the life of German Jews easier but in order to help built their state-in-the-making. The Zionist attitude to the Nazi state was the same as its attitude to anti-Semitism had always been. To use it to its advantage. 
That was why on June 21 1933 a letter was written from the Zionist Federation of Germany to Adolf Hitler.  The letter was never answered. It can be found in Lucy Dawidowicz’s Holocaust Reader.
The memorandum agreed with the Nazis that Germany's Jews were not part of the German nation.
Our acknowledgement of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we don’t wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we too are against mixed marriages and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group
It is important to understand that the Zionist Federation was not forced into saying this.  There was no coercion. They sincerely believed this. They were trying to win the favour of the Nazis vs the non-Zionist Centralverein which represented 95%+ of German Jews.
The Zionists had been saying this for years and anti-Semites had been quoting them against their Jewish detractors for years.  The important part of the letter was the final paragraph of part IV:
The realisation of Zionism could only be hurt by resentment of Jews abroad against the German development. Boycott propaganda… is in essence fundamentally unZionist, because Zionism wants not to do battle but to convince and to build.
The Zionists did not see the Nazis as an enemy to be fought. At the 18th Zionist Congress in Prague in 1933 they refused to even condemn the Nazis or their treatment of German Jewry.
Berl Katznelson, a founder of Mapai, the Israeli Labour Party and second only to David Ben Gurion, saw the rise of Hitler as “an opportunity to build and flourish like none we have ever had or ever will have”. [Francis Nicosia, Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany, p.91.] Ben Gurion expressed similar sentiments.
The main reason for Ha'avara was in order to save the wealth of the Jews of Germany, not the Jews themselves.  The Zionist Federation gave out relatively few immigration certificates to German Jews, preferring Polish Jews instead.
Werner Senator, a member of the Jewish Agency Executive even warned his counterparts in Germany that 
‘if it did not improve the quality of the “human material” it was sending, the Agency was liable to cut back the number of certificates… set aside for the German capital.
Some 60% of capital investment in the economy of Jewish Palestine between 1933 and 1939 came from Nazi Germany. [David Rosenthall, Chaim Arlosoroff 65 Years After his Assassination.
It was literally Nazi Germany which built the Zionist state. Ha'avara benefited the richest Jews who could take out the equivalent of £1,000 in cash (those with £1K could enter Palestine as capitalists without the need for an immigration certificate).
The Nazis greatly feared the Boycott since Germany was heavily dependent on exports. It was the fear of Boycott that that made the Nazis reign in the SA’s violence against Jews.  The Zionists however were unconcerned about the effect of Ha'avara.
However when I called Israel ‘Hitler’s bastard offspring’ I didn’t have Ha'avara in mind so much as the Israeli state now. I was thinking of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians as the untermenschen.
There is this idea abroad that people should be tread very carefully when it comes to Israel and watch what they say because it is a Jewish state. I disagree. Israel is one of the most vicious militaristic states in the world.  It is one of the few countries that supplies the Burmese regime with the weapons it needs to massacre the Rohinga people. It is the state that broke the sanctions on arming South Africa and it supplied it with nuclear technology. It is the state that trained and helped the Guatemalan military murder 200,000 Mayan Indians in the 1980's.
Israel has maintained an open air concentration camp in Gaza for the past 11 years as it punishes the Palestinians for having voted the wrong way.
But above all the concept of a Jewish racial state began with European anti-Semitism. The idea of a state based on a religious/racial ethnicity originated in the Europe of the 1930’s.
Hitler sought to build an Aryan state. Israel’s aim is to maintain a Jewish racial state based on the same principles. To that end it opposes mixed marriages. Israel likes to claim it is part of the West but its refusal to have civil marriage is indicative of the fact that Israel strives to maintain the purity of the Jewish nation/race in Israel. That is why you have fascist groups like Lehava which patrol the streets of Jerusalem and other cities attacking Arabs who are seen as a threat to Jewish women. They use slogans such as ‘ “Arab, watch out, my sister is worth more!” and “The daughters of Israel belong to the people of Israel!”  The belief that Arab males are a sexual threat is no different to the idea in Nazi Germany of the lecherous Jew.
Although nominally citizens, Palestinians are essentially resident aliens in Israel. They are limited to just over 2% of the land despite forming 20% of the population. In the past 70 years their numbers have increased 10 fold yet there hasn’t been the creation of a single Arab village or town.  In that period Jewish communities have multiplied.
When Netanyahu said of the Black African refugees in Israel, who he calls ‘infiltrators’, that they are threatening ‘the security and identity of the Jewish state.’ he is speaking in terms of racial demographics.  Netanyahu went on to say that
“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... and our national identity.’
When Netanyahu spoke of ‘our national identity’  what he meant Israel’s Jewish identity. An identity of Jewish racial supremacy. There is no Israeli national identity because there is no Israeli nationality. Israel's population is 7.8 million. There isn’t even the pretence that this is about social facilities, jobs or employment. It is a crude appeal to racial demographics. Too many non-Jews threaten the Jewish demographic majority of Israel. It is quintessentially racist.,"
Yet at the very same time as trying to deport its non-Jewish African refugees Israel is trying its best to increase the number of Jewish immigrants. So it’s not a question of numbers, as racists in this country often pretend the immigration debate is about, but the racial/national composition of Israel’s population. [Israel PM: illegal African immigrants threaten identity of Jewish state]
Culture Minister Miri Regev described the African refugees as ‘a cancer in the body of the nation’ and when criticised apologised to cancer patients for having compared them to refugees. [52% of Israeli Jews agree: African migrants are ‘a cancer’ 7.6.12.]. 52% of Israeli Jews agreed with her.
Deputy Defence Minister Rabbi Eli Ben-Dahan, the Head of the Civil Administration (actually the military administration) on the West Bank explained that “[Palestinians] are beasts, they are not human.” Dahan also explained that “A Jew always has a much higher soul than a gentile, even if he is a homosexual.” Menachem Begin described the Palestinians as “beasts walking on two legs." [ “Begin and the Beasts”, New Statesman, 25.6.82]. Netanyahu described the purpose of a wall around Israel as being to protect it from the ‘wild beasts’. How is this different from the Nazis’ description of Jews as ‘human cattle.’?
In response to TV presenter Rotem Sela’s statement:
 “this is a country of all its citizens, and all people are born equal. The Arabs are also human beings. And also the Druze, and the gays, and the lesbians and… gasp… leftists.”
Netanyahu explained that with the Jewish Nation State Law ‘Israel is the state of the Jewish people — and belongs to them alone,”. In other words Israel is now officially an apartheid state.  The important caveat is ‘officially’ because Israel has always been a Jewish state.
Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany
According to the IHRA definition, anti-Semitism could, taking into account the overall context, include, Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis’. Zionists nearly always miss out this qualifying clause. However even assuming that we follow their dishonest omission let us examine this argument. 
Is it really the case that comparing a state, a racist state, to Nazi Germany is anti-Semitic ? Does that apply to all states or just the ‘Jewish’ state? If so then we are entitled to ask what is Jewish about Israel in anything other than a racial sense.

There are a host of comparisons that can be made between Israel and Nazi Germany. This doesn’t mean that Israel is the same as Nazi Germany but that they have certain things in common, not least a shared view of the other as sub-human. In Germany the other was the Jew, in Israel it is the Palestinian.
For example Israel’s Admissions Committees Law 2011 permitted 434 Jewish communities, 43% of all residential areas, (subsequently increased) to reject Arab members of these communities. How is this different from Nazi policies to exclude Jews from Aryan housing? [‘Israeli Supreme Court upholds "Admissions Committees Law’]
This law was passed in reaction to the 2000 Supreme Court ruling that the Ka'adan family could not be refused housing solely on the grounds that they were not Jewish. It was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2014. [Contradicting its own ruling, Israel’s Supreme Court legalises segregated communities] , +972 Magazine, 18.9.14.]  The purpose of the law was openly declared to be to prevent Arabs moving into ‘Jewish’ towns.[Israel builds town to ensure "the Arabs won't rear their heads", +972 Magazine, 28.3.11.]
The Jewish National Fund was formed in 1901. It was given official recognition under the 1953 JNF Law. Its role is to purchase and administer land on behalf of Jews. The land it controls, 93% of Israel, is held on behalf of the ‘Jewish people’. Non-Jews cannot gain access to that land. Land in Nazi Germany was also reserved for the use of Aryans.

Today there is the phenomenon of marches in Israel where the main slogan is ‘Death to the Arabs’.  How can it be anti-Semitic to compare such marches to similar marches in the Europe of the 1930s when the slogan was ‘Death to the Jews’? [Far-right Activists Chant 'Death to Arabs,' Assault Passersby in Jerusalem After Terror Attack, Ha’aretz, 4.10.15.
We have had the pleasure of hearing Rabbis Kashtiel and Radler, in the prestigious Eli pre- military school declaring that Hitler was right. According to Radler ‘Hitler was completely right but he was on the wrong side, meaning against the Jews.

Zionists argue that because Israel has not exterminated the Palestinians, comparisons cannot be drawn with Nazism. But during the period 1933-41, the Nazi policy was discrimination against and the expulsion of the Jews not genocide.
Despite protesting any comparison between themselves and Nazi Germany, Zionists don’t hesitate to make such a comparison themselves. Menachem Begin told a group of holocaust survivors that ‘We do not want the Arab Nazis to come and slaughter us.” [Tom Segev, The Seventh Million, p.369.
Begin’s ostensible reason for the mass bombing of Beirut in 1982 was to “destroy Arafat/Hitler in his bunker in Beirut/Berlin”.

Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai threatened to give “Gaza a taste of the 'shoah' “[Israeli minister warns of Palestinian 'holocaust

Eliezer Livner, a former Knesset member for Mapai, wrote in the period before the 6 Day War that ‘We must crush the machinations of the new Hitler at the outset, when it is still possible…’  As Tom Segev observed:
‘During those weeks of drumbeating, the newspapers continually identified Nasser with Hitler. The proposals to defuse the crisis by any means other than war were compared with the Munich agreement forced on Czechoslovakia before World War II.’  [Segev, The 7th Million, pp. 390-391. Ha’aretz 31.5.67].


Today many on Israel’s far-Right identify with the Nazis. In the words of a member of Lehava, a group campaigning against miscegenation, “Hitler was right, but got the nation wrong. We’re the chosen race.’ David Sheen.  

When a group of far-right thugs attacked an anti-war demonstration in Tel-Aviv in 2014, they wore the insignia of the neo-Nazi right in Europe – ‘Good Night left Side’. [Ha’aretz 15.7.14. Right Wing Demonstrators in Tel Aviv Wore Neo Nazi Shirts:] Amos Oz, the Israeli novellist and a left-Zionist who has always been extremely tolerant of the Zionist right, nonetheless termed those who indulged in so-called ‘price-tag’ attacks as Hebrew neo-Nazis. [Amos Oz calls perpetrators of hate crimes 'Hebrew neo-Nazis Haaretz May 10, 201]

The late Professor Amos Funkenstein, Head of the Faculty of History at Tel Aviv University referring to the refusal of soldiers to serve in the Occupied Territories, comparing them to soldiers in the German army who refused to serve in concentration or extermination camps. To those who asked how it was possible to compare the actions of Nazi soldiers with Israelis, Funkenstein replied


 “As a historian I know that every comparison is limited. On the other hand, without comparisons, no historiography is possible. Understanding a historical event is a kind of translation into the language of our time. If we would leave every phenomenon in its peculiarity, we could not make this translation. Every translation is an interpretation and every interpretation is also a comparison.”

Funkenstein reminded his critics that the leaflets and publications of the Zionist terror groups, Etzel, Lehi and Haganah, talked of the Nazi-British occupation. [Tony Greenstein, Holocaust Analogies Return 2 citing Ha'aretz 9 December 1988, Ronit Matalon]. Funkenstein compared the lack of rights of the Palestinians under occupation to the status of Jews in Germany in the mid-1930’s. [Renaissance man Amos Funkenstein dies at age 58,

The moral is that any people, given the right set of circumstances, can become racists and even genocidalists. Jews are not excluded, as Israel’s murder of over 2,200 people in Gaza during Operation Protective Edge in 2014 demonstrated. How else would you characterise the mob who marched through Tel Aviv on 26th July 2014 chanting 
‘"There's no school tomorrow,there's no children left in Gaza! Oleh!" 
after Israel’s bombing other than Judeo-Nazis?
It is Israelis and Jews who make the comparison between Israeli practices and those of Nazi Germany precisely because the Holocaust and the Hitler period is used as the justification for the racist abominations of Zionism. Shlomo Shmelzman, a survivor of the Warsaw ghetto, wrote a letter to the Israeli press announcing his hunger strike against the Lebanon War.
"In my childhood I have suffered fear, hunger and humiliation when I passed from the Warsaw Ghetto, through labor camps, to Buchenwald. Today, as a citizen of Israel, I cannot accept the systematic destruction of cities, towns, and refugee camps. … I hear too many familiar sounds today, sounds which are being amplified by the war. I hear "dirty Arabs" and I remember "dirty Jews." I hear about "closed areas" and I remember ghettos and camps. I hear "two-legged beasts" and I remember "Untermenschen." Too many things in Israel remind me of too many things from my childhood."  [Beyrouthy’s  review of Noam Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle]
According to the IHRA and disgusting racists such as Eric Pickles, Britain’s delegate to the IHRA, Shmelzman is an anti-Semite. And who makes this declaration?
Prof. Moshe Zimmerman compared the children of the Hebron settlers to those of the Hitler Youth. In reaction to an amendment to the Citizenship Bill, requiring non-Jews seeking citizenship to pledge allegiance to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, Israeli educational psychologist, Gavriel Solomon, compared Israel to Germany in the 1930s:
“The idea of Judenrein (Jew free zone) or Arabrein is not new. . . . Some might say ‘how can you compare us to Nazis?’ I am not talking about the death camps, but about the year 1935. There were no camps yet, but there were racist laws. And we are heading forward toward these kinds of laws.” [Israeli Academic: Loyalty Oath Resembles Racist Laws of 1935]
Some on the left are also reticent about comparing Zionism to Nazism. Gilbert Achcar for example found it a ‘terrible comparison’ [Arabs and the Holocaust, pp.228. 234]. By Chakrabarti’s logic it is anti-Semitic to compare the settlers of Hebron, who daub the walls of Palestinians with the slogan ‘Arabs to the gas chambers’ with the Nazis.[ See Donald Macintyre, Breaking silence over the horrors of Hebron,] Only Zionists should be allowed to make such comparisons.
Israel, as an ethno-religious state is no different in principle to Nazi Germany which was also a state based on a racially defined section of the German people. The definition of a Jew under the Israel’s 1950 Law of Return is extremely similar to the definition of a Jew under the 1935 Nuremberg Laws. 
There are numerous examples of how Israelis not only compare Palestinians to Nazis but often see themselves in the role of the Nazi.  Before the massacre in Jenin, an Israeli officer said that it is justified and in fact essential to learn from every possible source…. ‘the commander’s obligation is to … analyse and internalise the lessons of earlier battles – even, however shocking it may sound, even how the German Army fought in the Warsaw Ghetto."  [Yitzhak Laor, London Review of Books, After Jenin, 9.5.02.]
In 2002, Fox News reported how an Israeli lawmaker and Holocaust survivor expressed outrage over Israeli troops writing identification numbers on the foreheads and forearms of Palestinian detainees awaiting interrogation during an army sweep of a West Bank refugee camp. Holocaust survivor Tommy Lapid told army chief of staff Lt. Gen. Shaul Mofaz and Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer that the practice must cease immediately. "As a refugee from the Holocaust I find such an act insufferable."…. During World War II, concentration camp inmates had numbers tattooed on their forearms. [Fox News, Israel Blasted for Writing Numbers on Arabs, 13.3.02]. A similar scheme to place numbers on the ID card of Palestinians in Hebron ‘immediately drew comparisons to the Nazi era, when authorities forced Europe’s Jews to bear tattooed numbers on their arms.’ IDF halts proposal to number Palestinian IDs in Hebron after criticism, Jerusalem Post 6.1.16.]
Indeed it is just such comparisons which forced the Israeli military to back down. According to idiots like Chakrabarti we must not make such a comparison!
Tony Greenstein


Exclusive: Chair of event responded: 'That was an excellent contribution and thank God it was a Jew that said it'

Tony Greenstein, pictured at a rally outside Labour HQ (Photo: the JC)

Infamous anti-Israel activist Tony Greenstein called the Jewish state “Hitler’s bastard offspring” at an event dubbed the biggest celebration of Palestinian culture in Europe.
Mr Greenstein, who was expelled by Labour over his repeated use of  the word "Zio", spoke at a session at last weekend’s Palestine Expo event at London’s Olympia entitled Britain, Zionism and Jewish Resistance to Israel chaired by Latifa Abouchakra, International Officer for the National Education Union.
Also on the panel were author and journalist David Cronin and Leah Levane, co-chair of pro-Corbyn fringe group Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) and a Labour Councillor.
In a recording, heard by the JC, Mr Greenstein says: “Nazi Germany in a sense built the state of Israel at a crucial time and you can actually say that the state of Israel today is Hitler’s bastard offspring because the ideology, the ideology that permeates Israel, Jewish racial supremacy, originated in the fascist states of Europe.”
Mr Greenstein, who is also an activist with the Labour Against The Witch-hunt group, adds: “What is Zionism?
"Zionism is a movement for Jewish racial supremacy. It imposes the needs of a Jewish racial state to the needs of Jews and that was what Haavara [Agreement] was about.
"When Haavara came in 1933 no one believed that it was going to end up in extermination, no one believed it, the view of the Zionists.”
He was roundly applauded for his comments by around 50 people in the room. Chair Ms Abouchakra then says: “Can I just say that that was an excellent contribution and thank God it was a Jew that said it."
Spotted on the front row were Jackie Walker, who was expelled by Labour over her comments about antisemitism and blogger Asa Winstanley, whom the party has suspended.
Ms Walker made an impromptu speech, saying “For any of the other people campaigning about the Labour Party and the issue of antisemitism they’ll all tell you that it appears that a disproportionate amount of Jews have actually been expelled and sanctioned by the Labour Party in an apparent attempt to quash antisemitism because of course this is not about race, this is not about race, this is about Zionism, antisemitism that is deep within the heart of the Labour Party is the antisemitism against anti-Zionist Jews and it’s really about time that we said this very clearly…
"I’d also like if there was any kind of historical aspect on this I’d like your comments.”
In one question from the floor to Ms Levane, an audience member rambled about the Haavara Agreement of 1933 and the formation of the Stern Gang in 1940, referring to "a Zionist settler gang" and how it was "helping fascists win the war" before asking: "So my question is could you help me with the parallels of Zionism and Fascism?”
Ms Levane responded saying: “I’m not an expert. Tony [Greenstein] however is, go see Tony he knows a lot more than I do.”
Ms Abouchakra later said to the panellists: “Zionism and fascism, can you make comments?”
The annual Palestine Expo event featured culture and heritage stalls, food and activities for children including a mosaic art stall to create a “beautiful images of Palestine using colorful  mosaic pieces” and a theater event on the storytelling of “the popular Prophets in Palestine.”
There were also talks and panel discussions on numerous subjects including the Nation-State Law, the Great Return Marches taking place in Gaza and “decolonsing Palestine".

Drifting Without Direction – Are these the Dying Days of Corbyn’s Leadership?

$
0
0

Appeasement of the Right, Sacrificing Political Allies and Political Indecisiveness Will be Corbyn’s Legacy


Many of Corbyn’s loyal supporters can brook no criticism. They will swear fealty to Jezza until the day he resigns and then it will be as if he never existed. Uncritical support has been worse than the hostility of his enemies because it has allowed Corbyn’s mistakes to go unchallenged.
The last Labour Party conference merely compounded Corbyn’s failures. His inability to understand what lay behind the false anti-Semitism campaign has been his single biggest error of judgment. It has sapped his strength and drained his leadership of direction and purpose. Corbyn has comprehensively lost control of the narrative.
It is obvious that only a handful of Labour members are anti-Semitic in the sense of the Oxford English dictionary definition. How is it that in the midst of the Windrush Scandal, caused by the ‘hostile environment’ policy which New Labour was responsible for initiating under Alan Johnson, that anti-Semitism could be seen as Labour’s biggest failing?
It should have been obvious that if the Tory press was concerned about ‘anti-Semitism’ then something was amiss. Since when has the Sun, Mail and Express ever been concerned about genuine racism? How is it that those who fill their columns demonising asylum seekers and Muslims, to say nothing of employingneo-Nazi Katie Hopkins could be genuinely concerned about anti-Semitism?
When Tom Watson stated that he won’t rest until the very last anti-Semite is expelled from the Labour Party what prevented Corbyn from pointing out that this is the same Tom Watson who during the Hodge Hill byelection in 2004 was the campaign organiser who issued a leaflet with the slogan: "Labour is on your side, the Lib Dems are on the side of failed asylum seekers."
Racist Labour MP Phil Woolas's election leaflet. Tom Watson defended Woolas
This is the same Tom Watson who defended racist Labour MP Phil Woolas who ran a campaign in 2010 which, in the wordsof his election agent, was designed to 'make the white folk angry'.  Yet Tom Watson, generously subsidised by Labour Friends of Israel  millionaire Sir Trevor Chinn, wrotethat ‘I’ve lost sleep thinking about poor old Phil Woolas and his leaflets.’
Quite amazingly Corbyn and his public school advisers – James Schneider and Seamus Milne – never once thought to go public on this and call out Watson’s hypocrisy.
Len McLuskey criticised‘Jewish community leaders’ (Zionists) ‘who were ‘Refusing To Take 'Yes' For An Answer’ In other words whatever Corbyn did, from betraying Ken Livingsone to adopting the IHRA, they weren’t satisfied. Did it never occur to Corbyn and his cloth-eared advisors that the explanation was simple. If the purpose of the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign was to remove Corbyn then they could never be satisfied until Corbyn was gone?
When the history of this period comes to be written then the anti-Semitism smear campaign will be seen to be what it was – a state driven smear campaign orchestrated by the secret state, in particular the Israeli state as Al Jazeera’s The Lobby proved.
The anti-Semitism campaign could have been halted in its tracks by Corbyn standing up to his accusers and saying that he condemned anti-Semitism but he also condemned the weaponisation of anti-Semitism and the making of false accusations of anti-Semitism against Palestinian supporters. 
In other words he could have called the Jewish Labour Movement’s bluff. The same JLM which was refoundedin 2015 in order to destabilise his leadership.

This Tweet is being used to justify the expulsion, without even a hearing, of Ann Mitchell, Chair of Brighton & Hove PSC


Corbyn could have made a point of meeting with Jewish Voices for Labour, openly and publicly.  Instead he backed off and sought to appease his enemies and betray his friends.
Corbyn could have put to bed the allegations that he was a terrorist sympathiser by throwing such accusations back at his first interview on the subject by Krishnan Guru Murthy.  If Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorists then why is a state that deliberately targets civilians and unarmed demonstrators not a terrorist state? Instead Corbyn accepted that ‘terrorist’ is a label attached to the enemies of the West rather than a description of those who use terror against civilians.
A Jewish blogger Richard Silverstein points out that Israel's most popular rapper The Shadow justified the murder of 11 Jews at Pittsburgh synagogue because they were supporters of migrants in the USA - this is enough to warrant expulsion!
When the JLM threatened to disaffiliate from the Labour Party Corbyn should have welcomed it. It should have been the cue to form a genuine Jewish section, since anti-racist and anti-Zionist Jews can’t join the JLM whereas racists are always welcome.
This Tweet is being used to justify the expulsion, without even a hearing, of Ann Mitchell, Chair of Brighton & Hove PSC
Instead Corbyn issued pleadedwith them to stay and was rewarded by a vote of no confidence passed against him!
But it wasn’t just the anti-Semitism campaign, important though it was for changing the narrative from anti-racism to ‘anti-Semitism’.
This Tweet is being used to justify the expulsion, without even a hearing, of Ann Mitchell, Chair of Brighton & Hove PSC
OpposingOpen Selection at the 2018 Labour Party conference meant that Corbyn would always be the prisoner of those who loathed him, not least the loathsome Margaret Hodge.  Instead we have a trigger ballot system that has so far led to just two trigger ballots.

This Tweet is being used to justify the expulsion, without even a hearing, of Ann Mitchell, Chair of Brighton & Hove PSC

The witchhunt has gathered pace. As one of the earliest casualties it is is now entrapping anyone who says anything critical of the Israeli state. The Chair of Brighton and Hove PSC has been suspended for a series of tweets such as quoting Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper that the ‘world sees Israel as a racist state.’
Well the world does see a state that suppliesthe Burmese junta with weapons, which trainedGuatemala’s death squads which killed 200,000 Mayan Indians, to say nothing of the military occupation of the West Bank, as a pariah state. But Corbyn has moved so far from his original support of the Palestinians that any criticism of Israel is now seen as anti-Semitic!
This is the consequence of adopting the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. The IHRA gives as an illustration of anti-Semitism ‘Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel’. yet that is what the Labour Party is doing when it suspends people because it equates criticising Israel as anti-Semitic.
Corbyn is wedded to the two state solution for Palestine. The only people today who support 2 states are supporters of the Occupation who use it as a camouflage for Israel’s continued occupation. Of course Corbyn promises to recognise the Palestinian state! Unfortunately there isn’t a Palestinian state so such a gesture is entirely meaningless.
The failure to oppose the witch-hunt is a failure to defend his own supporters. Virtually no racist on the Right, not even the despicable Luke Akehurst who openly supported the mowing down of unarmed demonstrators in Gaza, has been suspended or expelled. No clearer evidence can there be that Jewish lives are more valuable than Palestinian lives, ‘anti-Semitism’ more than any other form of racism.
Ruth Smeeth - US 'protected intelligence asset'
Nothing Ken Livingstone said was anti-Semitic. He offered a particular interpretation of history. What kind of party has such contempt for freedom of speech that it penalises those who dare to speak their mind about events in the past? It is a fact that the Nazis singled out the Zionists in Germany for favourable treatment. It is attested to by Zionist historians – David Cesarani, Lucy Dawidowicz, Francis Nicosia amongst others.
Marc Wadsworth’s expulsionwas equally shameful.  He had accused someone, US Embassy ‘Protected’ asset, Ruth Smeeth MP of working hand-in-glove with Daily Telegraph journalists, which she was.  How was that anti-Semitic?
Jackie Walker and myself were further collateral damage.  The final shameful act was not standing up and declaring, after Tom Watson organised a round robin from Labour MPs and Peers, that Chris Williamson was an anti-racist and should not be resuspended. Instead Corbyn kept quiet in the belief that if he threw another supporter to the wolves he would buy himself more time.
Corbyn was the Secretary in the 1980’s for Labour Against the Witch-hunt. 30 years ago Corbyn would have been the first person to oppose fast track expulsions of people without a hearing.
When a Carlos Latuff cartoon showing Netanyahu aiming missiles at Corbyn appearedoutside Labour’s conference, the Zionists howled and Corbyn bowed. He asked the Police, who were initially reluctant, to remove it.
Corbyn absurdly allowed the Tories to call the shots and portray themselves as a party opposed to anti-Semitism.  The Tories were the only governing conservative party in Western Europe who supportedViktor Orban, the anti-Semitic Hungarian Prime Minister, when the European Parliament censured him. The Tory Party sitsin the European Conservative Reform group with 3 (at least) anti-Semitic parties. Yet instead of raising this every time a Tory opens their mouth on ‘anti-Semitism’ Corbyn went along with Theresa May and idiotically adopted the IHRA immediately after she did.
Yes of course Corbyn’s economic proposals in terms of austerity – scrapping universal credit, renationalising the utilities etc. are progressive. But if you lose control of the overall political narrative then you will not win on the NHS or poverty.
Jo Swinson, the Lib-Dems execrable leader, can attack Corbyn over ‘anti-Semitism’ precisely because he has ceded the narrative on anti-Semitism.  ‘Anti-Semitism’ is a code word for political acceptability and Corbyn long ago ran up the white flag of surrender. It was inevitable that once Corbyn apologised for ‘anti-Semitism’ his enemies wouldn’t say ‘thank you’ but they would redouble their attacks. 
The Jewish Chronicle openly calls Corbyn an anti-Semite, week after week going so far as to say that he is an ‘existential threat’ to the Jewish community. Yet despite this Corbyn is stupid enough to say that anyone denying there is an anti-Semitism problem in the Labour Party is part of the problem.  Since Corbyn denies he is an anti-Semite presumably he is accepting that he is part of the same problem!
Corbyn’s handling of Brexit could not have been worse.  He has allowed the dissident Tories to set the agenda. His previous opposition to the EEC, led by a Communist  Party which followed the Soviet policy of weakening Europe, has been little short of disastrous.
Corbyn talks of ‘respecting’ the 2016 referendum. Why? Do we say the same of previous general elections? If so we would never have another one. People change their minds. The point is to ask why large numbers of working class people in the North voted for Brexit and then to campaign to persuade them that Europe, for which one can read immigrants, are not the reason for deindustrialisation or poverty. 
That means having a message whereas Corbyn has had no message on Europe and to now say that he will neither support Remain or Leave merely compounds the image of his indecisiveness. On the major issue of the day to have no opinion is astounding.
It is reminiscent of Corbyn’s pledge on a referendum on Irish Unity when he said he would remain neutral.  Why?  The Partition of Ireland, as Tony Benn once said, is a crime against the Irish people.  Yet again Corbyn appeased, in this case the Unionists.
Of course the treacherous behaviour of Momentum’s Jon Lansman, who deliberately fanned the fires of ‘anti-Semitism’ were damaging. Lansman believes he can win over a reactionary Jewish community to a socialist agenda. Utterly absurd and signs of a messiah complex.
Corbyn if he had any sense of history could have pointed out that if anti-Semitism was a problem, then it was a problem historically amongst the Labour Right. It was the founder of the Fabians, former Colonial Secretary Lord Passfield (Sydney Webb) who wrote that while ‘French, German, Russian Socialism is Jew-ridden. We, thank heaven, are free”. Herbert Morrison, for whomthe Zionist settlement in Palestine was ‘typical of the finest of British colonisers in the history of our Empire’ as Home Secretary during the war vigorously opposed the immigration of Jewish refugees from Nazi occupied Europe. Unfortunately history is a foreign country to Corbyn.
We are in the midst of a political and constitutional crisis.  It’s not everyday that the Supreme Court rules unanimously against the government on an issue like the Royal Prerogative. It’s not every day that 21 Tory MPs, including two former Chancellors, are expelled from the Party.
It is difficult to know what is likely to happen but I will hazard a guess. Boris Johnson will not come back with a deal because Europe will not accept a hard border in Ireland and a threat to the single market and customs union.
If Boris Johnson does not accept the Benn Law on extending Article 50 it is likely that there will be a vote of no confidence. Given that Corbyn will not have a majority to elect him as temporary Prime Minister there is a grave danger of a national government which is supported by large numbers of Labour MPs. This is one more reason why it was so stupid of Corbyn to have rejected Open Selection.
I pride myself that I calledboth the 2015 and 2017 General Elections correctly. I predicted that Labour could gain a hung parliament even though it was behind by over 20% in the polls. Labour is again behind but I have no such confidence now. History doesn’t repeat itself. Corbyn believes he can ignore Brexit which played a major part in key Labour victories in Kensington, Canterbury, Leamington Spa and Brighton Kemptown amongst others.
Labour was seen as the party of Remain in 2017. Today it is different.  Corbyn’s appalling dithering and refusal to accept that Brexit is a project of the Right and that one can criticise the EU's free market policies whilst rejecting Leave has allowed the Lib Dems to come back from near death. It is an appalling miscalculation by Corbyn and his abysmal advisors, most notably Seamus Milne.
There is no guarantee that Labour will increase its number of seats in the forthcoming General Election. The Lib Dems will eat into the  Tory vote and possibly there will be ‘national’ Tories standing. But even if Labour were in a position with the SNP to form a government does anyone seriously believe that Margaret Hodge, Smeeth, Ellman or for that matter Tom Watson, would support a Corbyn government?
Another mistake was not to accept Jon Lansman’s proposal to abolish the Deputy Leader. True Lansman did it for his own opportunistic reasons, to ‘prove’ that after betraying Chris Williamson he was still on the left, but you don’t look a gift horse in the mouth! Abolishing the post was the only way, of removing this cancer in Labour politics. Corbyn should have seized the opportunity with both hands.
No doubt historians will write about the present period as one in which we came within an inch of seeing a socialist government in Britain and but for the lack of a backbone Corbyn let the opportunity fall through his hands. 
The prospect of a Corbyn led government must have frightened the Americans. The idea of someone who was anti-NATO, anti-Trident and anti-war leading the second major party in their closest ally in Europe was enough to give the average member of the CIA nightmares. Israel clearly did its duty with the concocted ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign ably backed by the British Establishment.
Corbyn’s utter stupidity, backed up by John McDonnell, was to take his enemies professions of concern about ‘anti-Semitism’ at face value.
Tony Greenstein

Whatever else The World Transformed is about it isn’t transforming the world

$
0
0

Open letter to WTF Why was Chris Williamson not invited to speak this year and why was the Witchhunt and Israel/Zionism kept off the agenda?
Since Liverpool in 2016 The World Transformed has held what it describes as a politics, arts and music festival running alongside the Labour Party Conference. This is of course to be welcomed since the Labour Party isn’t exactly well known for its theoretical sophistication or its embrace of grassroots campaigns against the many manifestations of capitalism.
The Rialto - Brighton's Free Speech Centre during the Labour Party Conference
I was myself a volunteer at TWT in Brighton in 2017. Granted it runs many interesting debates and speakers, there is one flaw at the centre of its operations which, in the light of developments in the Labour Party has been a gaping hole. The fight against the Right in the Labour Party, the state driven attempts to destabilise the Labour Party and in particular Zionism and Palestine.
WTF in the Old Steine Brighton
Socialism for WTF stops at the borders of the UK and Europe. Any understanding of colonialism and imperialism is not part of transforming the world because if it was then the question of Israel’s attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of the Labour Party, via the Jewish Labour Movement, would be on the agenda.
For 4 years the Right in the Party have been waging a bogus campaign whose basis is that the Labour Party is smitten by anti-Semitism.  As the campaign to adopt the IHRA ‘definition’ of anti-Semitism last September demonstrated, the campaign was really about support for Israel. The IHRA’s has 11 illustrations of anti-Semitism, 7 of which are about Israel.
You might therefore think that the WTF might want to hold a few sessions on Zionism and Palestine.  Israel is, after all a self-declared Apartheid state. Its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly declared that Israel as a Jewish state is only a state of its Jewish citizens.  That is the classic definition of Apartheid.
Yet despite this the WTF has completely ignored Zionism, Palestine and the accompanying witchhunt of Palestine solidarity activists and assorted socialists. The reason being that WTF came out of Momentum and is still subject to Jon Lansman’s deleterious influence.
Although I had tickets for this year’s WTF in Brighton I was occupied with organising a Free Speech Centre in the centre of Brighton at The Rialto Theatre.
Because of Zionist threats to prevent Chris Williamson MP and indeed any anti-Zionist or pro-Palestine meetings taking place during Labour Party Conference, we decided to make alternative arrangements including a Free Speech Tent in Regency Square. The ‘we’ being members of the newly formed Brighton and Hove Labour Left Alliance which came out of the moribund Brighton and Hove Momentum.
For example the original venue for Jewish Voice for Labour’s fringe meeting at The Jury’s Inn was cancelled after Zionist pressure and the usual threats and abuse. Labour Against the Witchhunt were forced to keep the venue for their fringe meeting, at the Mercur Hotel, until just an hour before.
On August 8thwe were forced to hold an outdoor meeting in Brighton’s Regency Square with Chris Williamson after the Zionists had conducted a campaign of abuse against the Holiday Inn Hotel and the Friends Meeting House in Brighton, both of which cancelled the venue.  This was triggered off by Hove’s right-wing MP Peter Kyle who ‘persuaded’ the Brighthelm Centre to cancel the original meeting with Chris Williamson.
So when TWT sent me a PR puff congratulating themselves on how well they did I decided to send them the response below!
Dear TWT,
Thank you for your report. Despite having tickets I was unable to attend any sessions because I was involved in organising Brighton's Free Speech Centre at The Rialto Theatre, Dyke Road.
Because of the attempt of Israel's supporters, otherwise known as Zionists (a word banned at WTF) to close down the free speech of Chris Williamson MP and Jackie Walker amongst others, we set up a Free Speech Centre through whose doors over a thousand local people and conference attendees, including Ken Loach, came.
Not only did we put on people like Chris Williamson and Jackie Walker and other suspended and banned persons (shades of South Africa?) in the Labour Party but we also hosted, at very short notice last Monday a book launch for Bad News for Labour by Pluto Press. 
The same Zionist groups which have been behind the fake anti-Semitism campaign in the Labour Party - the Jewish Labour Movement, Labour Friends of Israel, the Israeli Embassy, turned their attention to preventing the launch of Bad News for Labour by 5 distinguished academics - Professors Greg Philo and David Miller, Antony Lerman, Mike Berry and Justin Schlosberg. To their shame Waterstones CEO in New York, James Daunt, taking orders from the hedge fund which owns them, Elliot Advisers, cancelled the book launch.
As Greg Philo said, preventing a book launch is just a step away from burning books. If in fact WTF stood for changing the world or even basic democratic rights such as Free Speech and Freedom of Association, we would have asked you to host the event. Unfortunately you have run a million miles from challenging the 'antisemitism' smear campaign against Jewish anti-Zionists, anti-racists and Palestine solidarity supporters. You have consistently failed to allow groups like Free Speech on Israel, Jewish Voice for Labour etc. to have meetings at WTF. Your cowardice goes before you.
The fact is that TWT is nothing of the sort. Nice discussions and interesting theoretical debates divorced from any real change. When the Israeli Embassy and the advocates for the world's only Apartheid State seek to close down debate in this country and secure the expulsion and suspension of socialists in the Labour Party, including Jewish anti-Zionists such as myself and Jackie Walker, the so-called TWT demonstrates that it is little more than Lansman's poodle.
You said you hosted activists from all over the world yet you refused to host anti-Zionists in this country.  You cannot be unaware that Israel has been the bulwark of repressive and anti-Semitic regimes the world over? For example:
It was no accident that the first trip of Brazil’s fascist leader Bolsonaro was to Israel. The first trip by a Philippines President to Israel was that of Duterte, its genocidal leader and self-declared admirer of Hitler. Viktor Orban, the Prime Minister of Hungary who described Admiral Horthy, the war-time ruler of Hungary who presided over the deportation of half a million Jews to Auschwitz, as an ‘exceptional statesman’is also a recent visitor to Israel and Netanyahu’s good friend.
Stephen Bannon and of course Donald Trump are also self declared Christian Zionists. Indeed even Richard Spencer, the neo-Nazi founder of America’s alt-Right describes himself as a White Zionist. But to your backer Jon Lansman the word ‘Zionist’ is equivalent to ‘Jew’ and therefore verboten.
Israel is also in the forefront of arming the Burmese regime, the neo-Nazi Ukrainian Azov battalion and other repressive regimes. See Ha’aretz 9.9.18. Rights Groups Demand Israel Stop Arming neo-Nazis in Ukraine yet the question of Israel and Zionism is out of bounds when it comes to setting WTF’ agenda.
I can only hope that next year you gain enough courage to defy Lansman and stand up for Free Speech on Zionism and Palestine. Although I fear that next year may be too late as the purpose behind the anti-Semitism smears is the removal of Jeremy Corbyn.  By next year their ambition may have been achieved thanks to cowards such as yourselves.
In Solidarity
Tony Greenstein
The World Transformed via gmail.mcsv.net 

11:44 (5 hours ago)

Dear comrades,

What an amazing time we’ve had this year. 100s of hours of debates, workshops, parties and gigs were attended by over 6,000 people. We heard from activists all over the world, not only on how we win the general election, but how we continue to radically transform the world afterwards.

TWT19 was the biggest festival of political education in a generation. Senior MPs shared the stage with grassroots activists and the country’s most cutting-edge DJs and musicians shared a lineup with the world’s most skilled campaigners. Across four days we learned, discussed, debated and danced together in nightclubs, churches, parks and community centres throughout Brighton.

What’s more, at this year’s Labour Party conference, ideas that TWT played an instrumental role in popularising, such as a 4-day working week and a green new deal, have now become official Labour Party policy. In 2016, that was simply unthinkable. By being part of TWT, you are helping to make the unimaginable a reality.  
We've now cleaned up after the parties, disassembled the socialism sign and taken down the magic money tree. But the work doesn’t stop here. Our movement has a huge task ahead of us. We must win the next general election and ensure that any Corbyn government commits to a radical policy agenda.

You can help The World Transformed continue to build our movement by becoming a part of the TWT supporters network. TWT is run largely by a team of volunteers, who commit vast amounts of energy and time in order to help grow our movement. By joining the supporters network, you can help TWT become a sustainable project that’s capable of paying more people and supporting political education all year round. Plus, you’ll get a free ticket for next year’s festival.

Very soon, we’ll be launching a new year-round political education project, so keep an eye on our social media channels for further information on this. In the meantime, thank you so much for helping to make TWT19 so special. We
couldn’t have done it without you.

In solidarity,
The World Transformed

What happened when, as part of an experiment, Arab youth joined Kibbutzim?

$
0
0

 When faced with the contradiction between Socialism and Zionism the dilemma was always resolved in favour of the latter


When I was young Israel was seen by many on the Left as a socialist oasis in the Middle East. Until 1977, Israel was ruled continuously by Israeli Labour/Mapai coalitions, sometimes in alliance with Mapam, the United Workers Party that was to the left of Mapai. Nearly all land in Israel was nationalised and the trade union Histadrut was the second major employer after the state itself.
The Fabians waxed lyrical about Israeli ‘socialism’. Many were the times when I was told to go to Israel if I wanted to see socialism and join a Kibbutz. However there were also many things that we were not told such as the fact that Israel’s Arabs lived under military rule from 1948 to 1966.
The Kibbutzim were collective settlements where members shared everything in common. Of course the Kibbutzim operated in the context of a market economy so they did not affect the society around them. But what we were not told was that they were Jewish only institutions of which Arabs could not be members, since the land they occupied was ‘national’ i.e.  Jewish national land.
Ahmad Masrawa, left, on Kibbutz Yakum
What we were also not told was that the Kibbutzim had taken over vast stretches of the land of the Palestinians who had been expelled from Israel or who were ‘internally displaced’ within Israel. These were present-absenteesin the Orwellian terminology of the 1950 Absentee Property Law. Even though they had not left Israel in 1948 and even if they were expelled from their homes, they were not allowed to go back to them.  They are present yet absent.
But what we were also told was that the Palestinian refugees had voluntarily left in order that the Arab armies could invade.  They had been instructed to do so by broadcasts from Arab radio stations. This fable turned out to be a myth cultivated to justify not allowing the refugees to return.
Erskine Childers and Rashid Khalidi conducted independent research in 1961 examining the transcripts of the CIA and BBC monitoring stations in the Middle East. They recorded no instances of such Arab broadcasts. Childers published an article about this in the Spectator of 12 May 1961 and Christopher Hitchens covers this in his book Blaming the Victims.
Mapam traced its ideological origins to Ber Borochov, who considered himself a Marxist Zionist. He was expelled in 1901 from the Russian Social Democratic Party. He believed that Jews in the Diaspora could not wage class struggle because they constituted an inverted pyramid, too many were rich and not enough were workers. They therefore had to form their own society in Palestine.  Why Palestine?  No clear answer was given but it would seem that Zionism based its claims on the god that they denied existed!
Mapam  thus embodied the contradictions of those who believed they could reconcile Zionism and socialism. Although they were active participants in Zionist settler colonialism they believed this could be reconciled with the socialist concept of the brotherhood of man. Although they drifted from their pro-Soviet views they still saw themselves as embodying socialist Zionism whereas Mapai had never made a pretence of being a socialist party.
Originally Hashomer Hatzair, which gave birth to Mapam, believed in a bi-national state but in 1948 they were the leaders of the Palmach shock troops which committed some of the worst atrocities such as at Duwayma.
The articles below, in Ha’aretz and by Jonathan Cook, describe what happened when 2 members of Mapam, successfully argued that Mapam kibbutzim should put into practice their socialist beliefs.  Mapam’s slogan was Zionism, socialism and the brotherhood of nations.‘Zionism’ was deliberately placed before ‘socialism’ because whenever there was a contradiction between one and the other it was socialism which gave way.
Mapam had its own Kibbutz Federation Ha Kibbutz Ha'artzi and these kibbutzim had been equally aggressive as the other Labour kibbutzim in grabbing and settling confiscated Arab land. The famous cases of the Arab villages of Ikrit and Birim, whose inhabitants had been persuaded to leave their lands on the promise of being able to return once hostilities had ended in 1948 demonstrate their hypocrisy.
It was the Mapam Kibbutzim of Baram and Sasa which occupied the lands of Bir’im and Ikrit and they had no intention of giving them back! Despite Israel’s Supreme Court ruling in favour of the return of their inhabitants, the Israeli army demolished the village of Ikrit on Xmas Day 1951 and in 1953 the same happened in Bi’irim. As Golda Meir stated
‘it is not only consideration of security [that prevent] an official decision regarding Bi'rim and Iqrit, but the desire to avoid [setting] a precedent. We cannot allow ourselves to become more and more entangled and to reach a point from which we are unable to extricate ourselves.’
The precedent she was referring to was that of allowing villagers who had been expelled to return to the same lands. This same ‘dilemma’ was to revisit Mapam as we shall see.
Two members of Mapam on its Left, Avraham Ben Tzur and Aharon Cohen, had been sufficiently moved by the commitment to socialism and brotherhood that they had persuaded other members of Mapam to engage in an experiment whereby hundreds of Israeli Arabs, who were legally forbidden to leave their villages by the military, formed an Arab Pioneers group and became part of these kibbutzim, albeit not full members
Zionism is a movement whose aim is to establish a Jewish state and the obvious contradiction was that here were Arabs who were being trained to be Zionists and loyal to a State which consciously excludes them. The same is true of Druze leaders in Israel today who believe that they have a part to play in the ‘Jewish’ state. They were sadly disillusionedby the Jewish Nation State Law.
Fundamental to establishing a Jewish state was the dispossession of the natives. The Kibbutzim were established over the ruins of the Palestinian villages that they had razed to the ground.
What happened has been turned into a film ‘I used to be Zvi’. The contradictions were many and they were insuperable. They were summed up by Mapam’s use of two flags – the red flag of socialism and the blue and white flag of Zionism. Zionism stands for a Jewish society and socialism for unity of the working class. You cannot be exclusivist and universalist.  It is a contradiction that no clever formulations can gloss over.
The film tells the story of Ahmad Masrawa who left his village to join Kibbutz Yakum. It ends with him joining Matzpen, the anti-Zionist socialist organisation, after the 6 day war when Mapam, as enthusiastically as any of the Zionist parties, supported the war.
Most of the Arabs who took part were eager to join the Kibbutzim. It was an escape from the poverty of their villages. At its height in 1960 over two thousand took part in this experiment, in defiance of the Military Rule which confined Arabs to their villages. As the articles pointed out there was real hunger in the Arab villages.  They were forbidden to till their lands which had been confiscated by the same Kibbutzim.
There was also a desire by Israel’s Arabs to become part of state which would not have them.  This desire by Israeli Arabs to integrate into the Israeli state is still there but they are not, of course, allowed to do so by a state which is racially ‘Jewish’. Materially Israeli Arabs are better off in Israel despite the ingrained racism and their pariah status.
In a recent opinion poll for +972 Magazine just 14% of Israel’s Arabs identify as Palestinian and another 19% as Palestinian Israelis compared to 22% who see  themselves simply as Arabs and 46% as Israeli Arabs.
There were also differences within the supposedly equal kibbutz society between these Arab newcomers and the existing Jewish members. Masrawa relates how:
The Arab youths worked five hours a day and studied for three hours, while the Jewish “outside children” had the opposite schedule. “I had the chutzpah to ask why, and I was told that the Jews were subsidized by Youth Aliyah.’
The article describes how the village of Arara where Mahmoud Younes came from had seen its lands reduced from 36,000 to barely 1,500 dunums. This naked land theft was part of Zionism’s ‘redeeming’ of the land. So when the Arabs who had come to the Kibbutzim wanted to set up an Arab kibbutz, they were reminded by the Jewish Agency that the land on which they wanted to set up was Jewish national land.  An Arab kibbutz was impossible and thus we learn the first contradiction of this experiment. It was impossible to escape what a Jewish State meant in practice. There would be no possibility of equality within a state based on one ethnicity.
Atallah Mansour, who became very much the tame acceptable Arab and a journalist in the Zionist press, stated that “the kibbutz is a solution for Jews only. Anyone who isn’t a Jew but just a human being who wants to live and work, has no place there.” This was the dilemma that the founders of this experiment could not overcome.
As Walid Sadik, who later became a member of the Knesset put it, ‘the coexistence was forced, not genuine. Coexistence is expressed in everyday life, in deeds, not in theories.’ The Zionists wanted their supremacy at the very same time as they wanted their consciences eased – to have their ‘socialism’ and their Zionism live side by side in harmony. As Mansour put it ‘We were equal in principle, but we weren’t treated as equals for even one day’.
However the real difficulty came with personal relationships. Not surprisingly, despite the taboo against Jewish and Arab relationships, some personal relationships formed and these caused the most problems.
It is impossible for a Jewish only society, which is what Kibbutzim are, to accept that Arabs married to Jews can become full members. It is socially accepted throughout Jewish Israel that Jews and Arabs don’t marry or have sexual relations because it is necessary to keep a distance between the Jews of a Jewish state and the Arabs. States based on race need strict boundaries.
The example of Tzvia Ben Matiyahu from Kibbutz Givat Hashlosha and Rashid Jaffer Masarawa epitomised this ‘dilemma’. To have a member of the superior race fall in love with the untermenschen is a threat to the concept of a Jewish state. Tzvia ‘couldn’t believe that the kibbutz she loved so much wouldn’t accept the love affair, but Rashid understood the problem immediately.’ In a racially separate society, miscegenation is frowned upon and legislated against.
The couple had to leave Kibbutz Hashlosha. Because civil marriage isn’t possible in Israel they had to get married in Cyprus.  They began to live in Hadera, a Jewish town, but the racism of  their fellows made their lives unbearable, so they applied to live in the Mapam Kibbutz of Gan Shmuel.
How then did these socialist Zionists deal with the ‘problem’ of an Arab married to a Jew? Well at the Kibbutz Assembly ‘someone mentioned that I was from Sarkas.’ Sarkas was the village whose land Gan Shmuel had confiscated.  One might think that socialists would be only too eager to accept the couple by way of restitution for previous crimes.  Not a bit of it.
The person who revealed his parentage ‘argued that if I was accepted as a member, it would mean that I was being returned to my village.” What could be worse than the Return of an Arab to his lands, albeit as part of a Kibbutz?  If Jews ‘return’ to a land they had never been a part of, then that is fine.  But for an Arab to return is unacceptable. The reality is that the Kibbutzim were always collective colonists. The idea that the indigenous population might join them and obtain satisfaction from the land that was stolen from them was too much.
 “It was a tremendous drama, possessing ideological dimensions,” was how Ran Cohen, later a Meretz MK,  recalls.
“The agonizing was real. The opponents said: ‘The kibbutz is a Zionist body that is situated on Jewish National Fund land, so why would we ever want to settle Arabs on it?’ There was also a social aspect. After all, the kibbutz is a Jewish entity with Jewish holidays, customs and culture. How would an Arab fit in?
There is a lot of truth in this.  Kibbutzim are set up on Jewish national land, owned by the JNF, whose very constitution specifically says it is for the benefit of Jews.
To Tzvia, who was born on the Kibbutz, this was all a shock. It is interesting that ‘Tzvia likened her story to that of kibbutz girls who had fallen in love with an Iraqi or Moroccan Jew.’ The Kibbutzim were also bastions of racism against Arab Jews. Tzvia’s ‘world collapsed’. She told Haolem Hazeh, that she grasped that
it was prohibited for someone to join the kibbutz – not because he’s unsuitable, not because he’s an idler, not because he’s maimed or uneducated, but because he was born an Arab! Even the kibbutz, this beautiful fruit, is being eaten away by the worm of racism.”
 None of these things had ever been explicitly spelt out to Tzvia. They had been taken for granted. Also as the article says, after 1967 western volunteers flocked to the Kibbutzim. There was no longer a need for Arab labour which suggests that behind the idealism of Cohen and Tsur there were also economic motives, viz. that the Arab Pioneers were a source of cheap Arab labour.
Masarawa asked his Jewish kibbutzniks to ‘Explain to me how Zionism and socialism go together.’ And described how
they threw sand in our eyes. They made a mockery of the ideal. They played with lofty ideas, but in practice they behaved otherwise.’
He summed it up as ‘The kushi [nigger] has done his duty, the kushi can go’
Shaul Paz describes the Pioneering Arab Youth as
“a fascinating, astounding, short-lived experiment that disappeared from memory. With it disappeared our dreams, aspirations and illusions that a different Israel was possible.”
It is true that many Zionists had a dream that a different Israel was possible. Many saw themselves as genuine socialists. Some even went to fight in the Spanish Civil War for the Republicans. Yet despite these good intentions, the logic of Zionist colonisation asserted itself.
A Jewish state is by definition an inherently racist state and even those professing to be socialists could not change the reality in which they lived.
As Jonathan Cook put it in respect of the decision of Kibbutz Gan Shmuel to reject the young couple,
‘The Zionism of these Jewish socialists decisively trumped any semblance of shared humanity or compassion. The Pioneer Youth dissolved soon afterward as young Palestinians in Israel shifted allegiance towards the new Arab nationalism of Nasserist Egypt.
In Israel’s first decades hundreds of young Arabs left their villages to work on kibbutzim, where they learned Hebrew, raised the Israeli flag and even took Hebrew names. The Arab pioneers movement was born of romantic hope that was soon tragically dashed
By Ayelet Bechar Jul 26, 2019
When Khaled died, in 2014, at the age of 70, his family expected to bury him in a traditional Muslim ceremony in the village. For someone who lived most of his life far from the place of his birth, that could have been a symbolic return. But his children wanted him to be laid to rest next to their mother, who was born on a kibbutz in the north. “That’s what he wanted,” Khaled and Naomi’s firstborn son says. “His whole life was shaped by the kibbutz.”
How did young Khaled meet 16-year-old Naomi (their names have been changed at their children’s request) on a kibbutz in the early 1960s, when the military government ruled over Israel’s Arab citizens? Like several hundred other young Arabs, Khaled arrived on the kibbutz as part of the Pioneer Arab Youth, a movement that sounds almost like a fairy tale today. Young Arabs, mostly boys, from the country’s north were invited to live, study and work on kibbutzim. They left their village homes alone and spent years in these communities – working, eating and sleeping alongside the Jewish kibbutzniks. In some cases they made the move with their family’s blessing, but others were rebelling against their parents and their society.
The Arab Pioneers learned Hebrew, danced the hora, raised the Israeli flag, sang “Hatikva,” the national anthem, and in some cases even took Hebrew names. Some began relationships with Jewish girls and aspired to assimilate into the kibbutz society. Others wanted to learn new agricultural methods with the aim of returning home and improving life in their villages. A few of them tried to realize a dream and establish an Arab kibbutz.
“The Jews we had met until then were part of the cruel suppression by the military government,” Mahmoud Younes recalls in a conversation at his elegant home in the town of Arara in the Triangle’s Wadi Ara area. Sitting next to an expressive painting of a dove of peace, he continues, “Suddenly we were sitting with Jews as equals. Eating with them in the [communal] dining room, working. A different Israel.”
The movement, which was an initiative of the left-wing Hashomer Hatzair youth movement, existed from 1951 until 1966, the same year that military rule over the country’s Arabs ended. At its height, around 1960, it had 1,800 members and 45 branches in Arab villages. The participants had a uniform – the standard dark blue Hashomer Hatzair shirt with a white string, along with a kaffiyeh and aqal (headband). They also had their own emblem, in the form of a proud youth movement member standing under an Arab-style arch, and they had a variation of the movement’s slogan: “hazak vene’eman” – be strong and loyal – instead of “hazak ve’amatz” – be strong and brave. The Arab movement members took part in hikes, in May Day parades, even in Independence Day folk dancing.
Ahmad Masrawa at the chicken coop at Yakum.
This extraordinary idea, which has all but been erased from history, was conceived even before 1948 by two Hashomer Hatzair members who took literally the slogan “Zionism, socialism and the brotherhood of nations” and thought it could be realized by inviting Arabs to the kibbutzim. They were the youth leader Avraham Ben Tzur – who arrived in Palestine on his own from Germany at age 14, grew up on kibbutzim and taught himself Arabic – and Aharon (Aharonchik) Cohen, a Middle East scholar whose views placed him on the movement’s extreme left politically. 
Even after the 1948 war, they didn’t abandon the idea. In 1950, Younes, an energetic 19-year-old from Arara, arrived at Kibbutz Sha’ar Ha’amakim wearing khaki pants whose cuffs were stuffed into his socks. The kibbutz was leery of letting him in, especially for security reasons, but Ben Tzur and Cohen persuaded the members, arguing, “We educated people for coexistence and the brotherhood of nations, and now when the test comes we say no? That would be fraudulent.”
The kibbutz agreed to ignore the military government’s restrictions, which included a ban on Arabs leaving their villages without a permit, and to accept young people for a trial period of training. The first six arrived in November 1951, and after a while, the group numbered 15, including two girls.
An article in the weekly Haolam Hazeh from March 1952, titled “Revolutionary Experiment,” has a photograph of the young Arabs wearing typical Israeli kova tembel bucket caps. “It was an encounter of two alien worlds,” the article observed. “Quite a few kibbutz people had expected a gang of foul savages, while the Arab lads were anxious about their meeting with the Yahud” – Arabic for “Jew.” The report adds that the sons of the fellahin learned “efficient methods of agriculture and worked with tractors and combines, in the groves and in the apiary.”
Hashomer Hatzair decided to formalize the movement. A 14-point platform was adopted at an inaugural celebration in Acre in 1954. Greetings were delivered by Ya’akov Hazan, a leader of Mapam, the political party that had sprung from Hashomer Hatzair, and by the renowned poet Avraham Shlonsky. A special poster was designed on which the Arab pioneer brandished two flags: the red flag of socialism but also the blue-and-white banner of Israel. A choir from the movement’s branch in the village of Kafr Yasif sang the Hebrew “Song of the Harvest,” and young Arabs from the village of Jedida performed Jewish and Arab folk dances along with Jewish representatives of Kibbutz Kfar Masaryk.
Latif Dori, who immigrated from Iraq in 1951 and established the Hashomer Hatzair branch in the Hiriyeh ma’abara– a transit camp for new immigrants – outside Tel Aviv, delivered greetings on behalf of the youth in the ma’abarot. One of the few Jews in the movement who spoke fluent Arabic, he followed the activity of the Arab youth closely for years. “It was a new world for the young Arabs,” Dori said in a 2008 interview in the offices of the left-wing party Meretz, which later became his political home. “From the flimsy house, or house of mud, from the tent, to come to a kibbutz, to all of its luxury, even in the ‘50s – it was like day and night. The youngsters understood that the kibbutz was doing something great for them, opening new horizons, giving them professional training, and all of it for free.”
The movement was launched with great aspirations, but from the outset its founders had no clear answer to the question of how the Arabs could achieve hagshama– the “fulfillment” that was supposed to constitute the realization of the ideological and practical training they had received. Were they supposed to return to develop their native villages, establish Arab kibbutzim or become members of existing kibbutzim? It was a period in which Hashomer Hatzair, the spearhead of Zionist land settlement, continued to establish kibbutzim and expand them on the ruins of Palestinian villages and on their expropriated land.
Time to get married
Ahmad Masrawa, Gal Rumbak

The sweeping story of Pioneer Arab Youth is rife with contradictions that resonate with a painfully contemporary chord. The chronicle that follows is based on interviews conducted over the past decade. Many of those involved are no longer alive, others are too aged to tell a coherent tale. Even so, a reunion of a few veterans was held recently on the occasion of the screening of a short documentary by David Ofek and myself. The film, “I Used to Be Zvi,” tells the story of Ahmad Masrawa from Arara, who at age 14 was invited to become part of the “youth society” of Kibbutz Yakum south of Netanya. The film will be screened in September at the country’s cinematheques as part of a project, “The Voice of Ahmad,” commissioned by the Sam Spiegel Film and Television School.
“This story has to be understood in terms of the atmosphere of that period – it’s hard to take in today,” Masrawa said. “There was chaos in the villages.” Israel’s expropriation of farmland produced hunger among the fellahin, and the military government prevented them from looking for work outside their villages. His parents received an offer they couldn’t refuse: “From the conservative, religious, village world, I was invited into the hidden world. The only Jews I knew at the time were the military governor and the police officer. But I realized that it couldn’t get any worse.” Masrawa said goodbye to his parents and boarded the bus to Yakum. On the kibbutz, he and his friends were given new names: Zvi, Yitzhak, Amos, Natan.
Avraham Ben Tzur.

In contrast to Masrawa’s experience, in many cases the Arab parents objected vehemently to their children leaving. “The parents and the elderly saw it as a sign of compromise with an occupying enemy,” Haolam Hazeh wrote in 1952. The Jewish leaders of the group were also aware of that conflict. Abraham Ben Tzur, who died in 2013, was 85 when I interviewed him, confined to his room on Kibbutz Lehavot Bashan. His memory was on the decline, too, but his archive was in exemplary order, including yellowing newspaper clippings, files of correspondence, and, the jewel in the crown, a meticulous diary he kept that chronicled the life of the first group.
Working the land together. The movement reached its height around 1960. From the private archive of Ahmad Masrawa
With the aid of large glasses, Ben Tzur read from his diary about the first member of the new group, Mahmoud Younes, who unlike the others came from a well-to-do, landowning family: “April 5, 1952. Yesterday Mahmoud returned from a visit to his village. His whole family urged him to leave the kibbutz and come back to the village. ‘After all, you own land. And why should you do manual labor? It’s time you got married and managed your farmstead.’” 
Atallah Mansour. Gil Eliahu

The uncharted path was studded with misunderstandings, some of them amusing. “Today a new fellow came to us, from Gush Halav [Jish], named Atallah,” Ben Tzur read from the diary. “At first he made a very bad impression on me. Three things in particular: 1. Doesn’t look you in the eye; 2. Pest.” Even decades later, Ben Tzur declined to read out the third problem, because “the chap could still take offense.” Atallah Mansour, a Catholic of 85 who lives alone in his Nazareth home, has an explanation for the bad impression he made. His main purpose in coming to the kibbutz was to learn Hebrew. To that end, he says, he pestered kibbutz members at every opportunity, asking what words meant. Of Ben Tzur he says, “He was shy, but he wanted very much to be able to speak Arabic and made a supreme effort to pronounce the letters properly. We would laugh and tease him about it.”
Mansour’s village didn’t have a high school. When he was 14 he went to Lebanon for schooling but had to return after the 1948 war to avoid becoming a refugee. “I told myself, if I’m already in this mess, I might as well go with the flow,” he said with a smile. “I had my eyes open already then. I thought this was an ideal way of life of equality and cooperation.” Having been invited to be part of the first group of Arab trainees at Kibbutz Sha’ar Ha’amakin, southeast of Haifa, he quit his job – he extracted nails from planks used in construction – only to end up assigned to a construction unit on the kibbutz. “There’s a chicken coop on that kibbutz that I built,” he notes. “At the end of every workday I would go to the reading room and practice Hebrew. My feeling was that learning the language would make things easier for me down the road.”
Mansour was right. He became the first Arab journalist who wrote in Hebrew, first for Haolam Hazeh and later, for four decades, for Haaretz. The shelves in his study are bursting with books and periodicals, most of them in Hebrew. He himself is the author of a few of the books, including his 1966 work “In a New Light,” the first novel written by an Arab in Israel in Hebrew. It’s about a young Arab who falls in love with a kibbutz girl and is allowed to remain on the kibbutz only at the price of posing as a Jew.
Members of the Pioneer Arab Youth movement, 1956. The organization ‘implanted all kinds of hopes about fraternity, peace and friendship,’ the son of one veteran says. Hashomer Hatzair Archive

Mansour relates how he and his friends learned to dance the hora (“Jewish girls were brought from the educational institution, and they taught us”), and how the young Arabs taught the Jews the debka. They enjoyed the kibbutz’s relative abundance but had to get used to porridge at breakfast, not to mention the gefilte fish and similar peculiarities. “One time a nail went into my foot,” Mansour recalls. “I was taken to the clinic and told that I had to eat well, so they gave me salted fish every day. I took one taste and almost passed out – I couldn’t stand the smell.”
The workweek was 45 hours. In the evenings, after work, they learned Hebrew and studied Zionism and socialism (“What’s the difference between a [Soviet] collective farm and a kibbutz? The kibbutz is a dream, the collective farm is hell”). There was also a short course on electricity. A young man from Arara gave a talk on the life of Pushkin, a young woman from Nazareth wrote an article about the problems women faced in Arab villages. Mansour edited the group’s bulletin, “Ray of Light.” The movement also founded an Arabic-language publishing house, which put out some 200 titles.
“One day, the military police showed up at the kibbutz and asked whether there were any Arabs there,” Masrawa recalls. “I hid on the hill, between my group’s cabins.” The kibbutz members stood up to the military police, stopped them from entering and refused to turn over the young Arabs. Shaul Yoffe, who had been a commander in the pre-state Palmach commandos and was one of the founders of the kibbutz, chased away the officers. Masrawa felt not only relief but also a sense of true belonging. The newspapers wrote about how courageously the members of Kibbutz Yakum protected their wards, who technically were on the kibbutzim illegally, having left their villages without a permit.
Following his years in Yakum, Masrawa was a construction worker in Tel Aviv, studied German in Germany and became the owner of a stationery store back in Arara. He married at 40, has four children and is now a grandfather. After the 1967 Six-Day War, he joined Matzpen, a radical Jewish-Arab socialist group, and was active in Jewish left-wing circles. His story intertwines with the political and bohemian elite of the period (“On Fridays we would meet at Café Kassit” in Tel Aviv, a hangout for intellectuals during Israel’s first decades). Today he remains a social and political activist.
Their “pioneering” period led many of the Arab participants into political involvement upon their return home. The vast majority of them joined Mapam and helped the party recruit voters among Israel’s Arab citizens. The movement produced leaders of local governments and even two Knesset members. Mustafa (a pseudonym), was a member of the first group of Pioneering Arab Youth, and was very friendly with Golda Meir in her final years. His son Nayif, 54, recalls how “I visited her in the hospital with my mother, and we exchanged gifts,” he said. When a baby girl was born in the family, Meir sent a gold chain for her, and the father, deeply moved, named the girl after the Jewish politician. “It was weird,” says Nayif. “The children would insult her, taunt her. ‘Hey, are you a Jew? Why did they give you a name like that?’ We in the family would also deliberately flood her with housework and say to her jokingly, ‘Golda, come here, Golda do this.’ Until she put an end to it: She called everyone to a family meeting and announced that she had chosen a new – Muslim – name for herself.”
Rushdi Massarwi and his daughter, Kifah. Rami Shllush

Room for all
Some of the former Arab Pioneers look back on it with a nostalgia that they have passed on to the next generation. One person invited to a screening of the film last spring was 78-year-old Rushdi Massarwi, who said he was “so happy to see the old comrades again.” He remains grateful to the kibbutz movement for freeing him from a life under the military government and giving him the means to support himself amid the limited educational and employment opportunities in the village, most of whose land had been seized by Israel.
“My father was part of that movement by choice, not constraint,” says Rushdi’s daughter, Kifah. “He believed in that path and also imbued it in us children from age zero. Grandma Nehama from [Kibbutz] Gan Shmuel, Grandma Merika from Kibbutz Dalia, Grandma Etka from Lehavot Habashan – they were all like family members for me. They brought quality toys that you didn’t see in the Arab village back then, and during summer vacations they hosted me on the kibbutz, where I learned Hebrew.”
The ways of communal living also trickled into the family’s home in Baka al-Garbiyeh. The chores were divided following a family assembly and an open discussion. As an adult, Kifah had a diverse career as a manager in the Na’amat women’s organization, in her town’s local government and as a board director in a government corporation. She says it all began on the kibbutz. “I understood, unconsciously, that the Jew is not an enemy. I absorbed an education [that allowed me] to understand and get to know the other side. That determined the course of my life.”
Nayif, too, grew up with the kibbutz ethos. His father, Mustafa, was nostalgic for the kibbutz to his last day. “He would bring up his happy, joyful memories. I saw his excitement at having worked in the barn, or on the harvest. Sometimes he would borrow or even steal a few liras to travel to the kibbutz. And people from the kibbutz came to his funeral.”
Jews and Arab youths dancing the debka on Kibbutz Yakum near Netanya, 1955. Hashomer Hatzair Archive / Yad Yaari Research & Documentation Center

Mahmoud Younes, too, always cast a romantic aura over his period on the kibbutz. After an Arab-Jewish outing to Lake Kinneret in 1952 that included folk dancing, he wrote about the experience in a Hashomer Hatzair journal: “We raised the flag very slowly … and among the hills of Mishmar Ha’emek the salutation of the Shomrim was heard powerfully: ‘Hazak Ve’amatz!’ [‘Be strong and brave!’]That salutation mingled in my blood and my heart and filled me with pioneering strength.” He concluded by saying that he would soon return home to raise the banner of socialism, “a very difficult task in the backward feudal village under the rule of the military government …. We are returning to shout out in our villages that there is a different Israel, a democratic Israel, an Israel of peace, there is a different Jewish people … which is keen to connect with us in the struggle for the independence of both peoples.”
In 2008, when Hashomer Hatzair turned 95, Younes attended “Once a Shomer, Always a Shomer” – a huge reunion at Givat Haviva, the kibbutz movement’s education center, which operates programs intended to promote Arab-Jewish shared society. For his part, Younes was still imbued with the same spirit. With a light step, his hair white but abundant, he wandered about, his heart pounding, at the meeting with the comrades. He asked the young people in the blue shirts which branch of the youth movement they were from.
Mahmoud Younes.

“I feel part of this,” he said. “To this day, when I get into an argument in the village, people call me the Yaari of the Arabs” – referring to the Hashomer Hatzair ideological leader Meir Yaari (1897-1987). “I believed the Mapam institutions when they talked about the Arabs’ right to self-determination, and I believed, and believe to this day, that there is a place for both peoples in the joint homeland.” One person he met at the gathering recalled affably that “they were nice, but made trouble. What trouble? ‘Security’ trouble, because the military government persecuted them. Something remains of the education they received from us. Too bad [the project] didn’t continue, but what can you do?”
For Ben Tzur, the passage of time hardly shook his faith in the idea. “From the outset the idea wasn’t for the Arabs to fulfill the [terms of the] standard ideological education of Hashomer Hatzair. The intention was not to turn them into Jews, but into pioneers,” he said. Ben Tzur noted that he had taught his wards about the fate of the Jewish people and their need for a state, and at the time saw no contradiction between the national aspirations of the Jews and the Arabs. “The intention was to educate for positive Arab nationalism, not aggressive nationalism that would turn against Zionism, but one espousing historical and literary values,” he said. “I believed that things could be resolved in the spirit of the brotherhood of nations. Today I’m not so sure of that.”
When peace comes
In 1960, the Pioneer Arab Youth movement was at its peak. Its members worked, studied and joined demonstrations and petitions against the military government. But precisely then the cracks started to widen. The Jewish initiators of the idea recognized that the movement was run from above and was not independent. They also realized that the majority only took part in the work camps, where they earned a pittance. Unlike the urban Jews, who gleaned ideological affiliation from their work, many of the young Arabs were drawn to the kibbutzim by that salary, which, small as it was, saved their family from hunger.
Walid Sadik. Arieh Gal
“Unlike the backward, underdeveloped village, where there was no electricity and no roads, there [on the kibbutzim] everything was spick-and-span,” recalled Walid Sadik of Taibeh, who became a Meretz legislator during the ‘80s and ‘90s. “The girls wore blue shorts, and that was already a reason to aspire to become a kibbutz member.” Sadik arrived at Kibbutz Gan Shmuel as part of a group during breaks from his studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. At first the kibbutz proved very alluring. Sadik, who died four years ago, was an elegant, dignified person with the manners of a gentleman. In conversations a decade ago, he said: “The first time in the dining room, I expected a waiter to come and serve me, until someone noticed my mistake and explained that it was self-service.” 
He was offended when kibbutz members didn’t greet him when they passed him and when they didn’t invite him to their homes. “Because I didn’t know their customs, I took it to heart. I felt that they saw me as an outside worker whom they could ignore.” According to Sadik, even the “outside children” – such as the future Meretz MK Ran Cohen – had a higher status than he did in Gan Shmuel. “I worked in the yard and in cleaning, while they lived in nicer houses and worked in better jobs like farming and picking flowers, which I very much wanted to work in.”
Cohen, who came to Israel alone from Iraq when he was 10, was dubbed “little Sa’eed” (meant, insultingly, to imply that he resembled an Arab) during his time in Gan Shmuel. He explains the difference by pointing out that the Arabs arrived at the kibbutz within the framework of work camps, whereas after a few years the outside children, who actually lived on the kibbutz, were granted conditions equal to those born there. Cohen and Sadik were both part of the governing coalition formed by Yitzhak Rabin, as two of Meretz’s 12 Knesset members in 1992.
Ahmad Masrawa also noticed that differences of social class existed in the kibbutz’s model society. The Arab youths worked five hours a day and studied for three hours, while the Jewish “outside children” had the opposite schedule. “I had the chutzpah to ask why, and I was told that the Jews were subsidized by Youth Aliyah. Already then it was hard for me to believe that Hakibbutz Ha’artzi [the kibbutz movement] would collapse from supporting a group of 15 youths.”
On the other hand, when it came to clothing, distributive justice was imposed. Masarawa: “I had two pairs of pants and two shirts, and I still remember my laundry number – 264. One day I went to visit my brother, who was working in construction on Bialik Street in Tel Aviv. I saw a beautiful shirt in a show window and he bought it for me. When I got back to the kibbutz and sent it to the laundry, it didn’t come back. It was nationalized.”
Arab pioneers on Hashomer Hatzair's four-day march in 1964. Hashomer Hatzair Archive / Yad Yaari Research & Documentation Center
Masarawa was assigned to field work and was delighted to sow and reap. He was well aware that this option was all but nonexistent in his village: “Before the war, Arara’s land stretched to Mount Carmel; we had 36,000 dunams [9,000 acres]. After the war, the village was left with maybe 1,500 dunams.” When he wanted to be alone, he walked among abandoned Arab homes near the kibbutz. When he asked where the kibbutz’s neighbors were, he was told that they had “left,” but wasn’t persuaded. “At roll call, I went on singing ‘Hatikva’ with everyone, but questions started to come up that had no answer.” 
It was quickly apparent that complete “fullfillment” in the spirit of Hashomer Hatzair – which would have meant the establishment of an Arab kibbutz – was an impossibility. In 1958, the indefatigable Mahmoud Younes asked Agriculture Minister Kadish Luz to set aside land for the movement to build a cooperative community. The minister referred him to the Jewish Agency, where he was told that the “national lands” were earmarked for the Jews. A few years later, Masrawa also tried to obtain agreement for establishing an Arab kibbutz in his native village. He received an unequivocal reply from the Israel Land Authority, which he still remembers by heart: “Ahmad, don’t be naive. On the expropriated land of your village we will establish three Jewish communities, which will take up arms when needed.”
Some of the movement’s members managed to apply in their villages what they learned on the kibbutz. In 1956, a cooperative vegetable garden called “The Pioneer” was founded in Kafr Yasif. In Taibeh, an agricultural cooperative called “The Hope” was established and included a plan – never realized – to set up a cooperative movie theater. The most successful cooperative was a water-drilling project that Younes established in Arara in 1957. But the dearth of land, funding and support from the establishment, along with the lack of participation by Arab society, doomed most of the cooperatives.
Atallah Mansour, too, grasped that “the kibbutz is a solution for Jews only. Anyone who isn’t a Jew but just a human being who wants to live and work, has no place there.” The injustice that was inflicted on the Christian Arab villages of Ikrit and Biram in the northern Galilee – which the Israeli army evacuated in 1948 with the (unfulfilled) promise that the inhabitants would return quickly, and part of whose land was taken over by Kibbutz Baram and Kibbutz Sasa – added to the uneasy feeling of Hashomer Hatzair duplicity.
“We were still under military rule, under supervision and suppression, our mouths shut and our feelings bottled up, and we ignored all of that consciously so that we could enjoy the pleasures of the kibbutzim,” Walid Sadik said. “We were interested in a salary, because there was no money in the village then. The payment we received for our work was good and more important at the time than those embarrassing questions.”
In return for the possibility of working under the auspices of the kibbutzim, without a permit from the military government, the Arab guests tried to keep quiet. “Gan Shmuel is built partly on lands of the village of Sarkas, and the people of Gan Shmuel themselves expelled the Palestinian inhabitants during the war. I know personally, by their names, the people who carried out the expulsion,” Sadik said. “When we occasionally raised the issue that the kibbutzim, which declared that they were against land expropriations, were in fact settling those same expropriated lands, we were told: ‘When peace comes we will get along. After all, to this day not one refugee has shown up to demand his land.’ We didn’t have a Palestinian consciousness such as exists today, we talked about the ‘stolen land,’ not about Palestine.”
Sadik summed up the kibbutz chapter of his life by saying that “the coexistence was forced, not genuine. Coexistence is expressed in everyday life, in deeds, not in theories. It was hypocrisy per se, and I think that the same hypocrisy exists to this day. The kibbutzim believe above all that this is a Jewish state and that the Jews in it are more privileged than the Arabs and have priority in everything. This, in my opinion, is the spirit that resides in every Jewish Zionist, and especially among the kibbutzniks, the most Zionist settlers there are.”
Mansour offered the following image to describe the dynamics between Hashomer Hatzair and the native-born Arabs: “They came to us, to our house, and said: We want half the house. After that they said, fine, you can stay. If you help us wash the dishes, maybe we’ll give you a room. But if I stay in my own house, I want to sit in the living room, not to live in the yard or in the hallway, where the shoes are kept. We were equal in principle, but we weren’t treated as equals for even one day.”
Mahmoud Younes, second from right. In the center is Ya’akov Hazan, a founder of Hashomer Hatzair youth movement and the Mapam party. 1956. Hashomer Hatzair Archive

Worm in the fruit
But the most difficult test for the movement lay at the personal level, in the love stories between young men from the Arab villages and young Jewish women from the kibbutzim. The project produced a few mixed couples. Khaled and Naomi left the kibbutz for the city. Mohammed Jasser Haj Yehiyeh and Yehudit, from Kibbutz Merhavia, also decided to leave and settle in the Arab town of Taibeh, where they raised four children. After Mohammed’s death a few years ago, both Yehudit and the children left Taibeh.
The most highly charged and best-known struggle waged by a mixed couple was that of Tzvia Ben Matityahu from Kibbutz Givat Hashlosha and Rashid Jaffer Masarawa from Baka el-Garbiyeh, who is now 78. He joined a work camp of Pioneer Arab Youth on Kibbutz Kfar Masaryk while he was still in fifth grade. “That was the start of my love affair with the kibbutz,” he said. In the summer before seventh grade, all his classmates followed suit. A year later, he left home, against his parents’ vigorous objections. “My father told me, ‘They eat pork on the kibbutz.’ In the end, he agreed, on condition I wouldn’t do bad things.”
Rashid was originally accommodated at Kibbutz Dalia, before moving to Givat Hashlosha, where he met Tzvia, who was in 11th grade.
“We were both athletes,” he recalled. “We fell in love. The young Jewish members of the kibbutz encouraged me, and the older ones were ashamed to tell me: ‘Don’t go with her, because you are an Arab.’ Later, when they came and told me it was no good, it was too late.” Tzvia couldn’t believe that the kibbutz she loved so much wouldn’t accept the love affair, but Rashid understood the problem immediately. He chokes up when he talks about what happened.
Tzvia Ben Matityahu, Rashid Jaffer Masarawa and their child. The headline reads 'Is the kibbutz racist?'
After being married in Cyprus, the young couple had to leave the kibbutz. They moved to Hadera and gave their firstborn son a double name: Ronen in Hebrew and Riad in Arabic. They suffered from the treatment of their neighbors in the Jewish city, and decided to try their luck in Gan Shmuel, a kibbutz of the Hashomer Hatzair movement.
“We were told that there was no racism there and that we would certainly be accepted. It was Ran Cohen who persuaded us. We had already been shown our room and the children’s house for the baby, but at the kibbutz assembly, just before the vote, someone mentioned that I was from Sarkas. He knew that my parents were from the demolished [Palestinian] village, and argued that if I was accepted as a member, it would mean that I was being returned to my village.” At this stage of his story, Rashad broke down and wept, still deeply affronted by the kibbutz’s majority decision not to grant him membership, following stormy meetings and revotes.
“It was a tremendous drama, possessing ideological dimensions,” Ran Cohen recalls. “The agonizing was real. The opponents said: ‘The kibbutz is a Zionist body that is situated on Jewish National Fund land, so why would we ever want to settle Arabs on it?’ There was also a social aspect. After all, the kibbutz is a Jewish entity with Jewish holidays, customs and culture. How would an Arab fit in? I argued that this was a humane issue, a matter of human dignity, and that both Rashad and Tzvia and their baby deserved a place in this land. In the end, I saw that it was going to cause a rift that would shatter the kibbutz. Some members wanted to leave over the issue, and I had to stop them.”
The juicy story was covered extensively in Haolam Hazeh in 1964 under the headline “Is the kibbutz racist?” Of Gan Shmuel, the weekly wrote, “It suddenly emerged that those fears of the Jewish ghetto cropped up in the heart of what is considered the glory of the new Hebrew nation: in the heart of the members of the deeply rooted, strong kibbutz.”
Tzvia likened her story to that of kibbutz girls who had fallen in love with an Iraqi or Moroccan Jew. Her world collapsed, she told the magazine, when she grasped that “it was prohibited for someone to join the kibbutz – not because he’s unsuitable, not because he’s an idler, not because he’s maimed or uneducated, but because he was born an Arab! Even the kibbutz, this beautiful fruit, is being eaten away by the worm of racism.” Subsequently, the couple was granted membership in Kibbutz Ein Dor, but Rashid didn’t adjust to life there. They lived with their three children in Hadera and later in Tel Aviv and Netanya. Their firstborn son served as an officer in the Israeli army.
The participants in the Pioneer Arab Youth movement viewed the fate of Rashad and Tzvia as final proof that self-realization wasn’t in the cards. Not only would the state not allocate even a clod of soil to the Arab community, but no Pioneer Youth would be accepted as members of a Jewish kibbutz. In the meantime, the ending of the military government in 1966 created possibilities for study and employment for the suddenly mobile young Arabs. Thousands flocked to the cities to work in construction. According to Ben Tzur, the end was also hastened by the volunteers from abroad who streamed into the kibbutzim after the Six-Day War. “Culturally, they were far more suited to kibbutz life, so there was no longer a need for Arab working hands.”
In parallel, with the rise of Nasserism and the recognition of the war’s consequences, young Arabs began to give expression to their Palestinian nationalism. At a gathering in the summer of 1967, members of the Pioneer Arab Youth stunned their Jewish comrades by their vehement objection to the “Jordanian option” – that is, Jordan being declared the lone Palestinian state – which Mapam was urging as a solution to the conflict. As Ben Tzur put it, “Suddenly I felt that everything had changed, had taken a nationalistic direction. They talked about having to fight and establish a state for themselves. That surprised me very much; I understood that this was the end.”
According to Ahmad Masarawa, “an argument started over a Palestinian state, the return of the refugees. I said, ‘Explain to me how Zionism and socialism go together.’ Looking back on it today, I say they threw sand in our eyes. They made a mockery of the ideal. They played with lofty ideas, but in practice they behaved otherwise. What did they actually want from us?”
Khaled and Naomi’s son, who chose to live as a Jew, said his father was tormented all his life by questions of identity. “When I decided to enlist for mandatory army service, my father really got on my case, but in the end he walked around proud that I was wearing red [paratroopers’] boots.” His father, he said, was able to take advantage of the opportunities the kibbutz gave him, but the son qualified that remark painfully: “The idea was amazing, but the racism won out. To bring those young people to the promised land and then to tell them, you can’t, because you’re Arabs …. Hashomer Hatzair should have thought about the end of this story before they wrenched these young people from their villages and implanted all kinds of hopes in them about fraternity, peace and friendship. They, the Jews, thought that they, the enlightened ones, could educate them and make them decent people, but in the end they shattered their dreams and turned them into menial laborers. ‘The kushi [a derogatory Hebrew term for a dark-skinned person] has done his duty, the kushi can go’ – back off, kushi. It’s sad that I don’t have anything warmer or better to say about the subject.”
“A fluttering of two souls” is the description offered by the historian Shaul Paz for the split personality of the Hebrew youth movements regarding the Arabs. The cause, he says, was the clash between the Zionist need for pioneering land settlement on the one hand, and justice and the brotherhood of nations on the other. In the few pages that he devotes to Pioneering Arab Youth in his 2017 Hebrew-language book “Our Faces Toward the Rising Sun: Members of the Pioneering Youth Movements in Israel: The Second Generation, 1947-1967,” Paz maintains that the movement was above all a means to ease the moral divide among the Jewish young people, and get them to rally around a lofty idea.
According to Paz, who is originally from Kibbutz Mizra, the leaders of Hashomer Hatzair “wanted to believe that, just as a new Jew was being created, so, too, a new Arab would be created, one who could be a socialist, a pioneer and a kibbutznik as well. Even the biggest dreamers such as Abraham Ben Tzur and Aharon Cohen knew from the first moment that the Arabs wouldn’t be allowed to establish a kibbutz, but of course they didn’t tell them that. It was convenient for them to create this illusion because, after all, they were all about the brotherhood of nations, equality, solidarity, socialism and all those slogans. A pioneer youth movement needs to pose utopian challenges in order to fire up the young people and get them to cooperate. It’s a marvelous feeling, you know – who doesn’t like to give? But it was accompanied by discrimination and inequity. As with the Mizrahim [Jews who had their roots in North African and Arab countries], we knew better than them, we encouraged them and we brought them here, but we never saw them as equals.”
As Paz puts it, Pioneering Arab Youth was “a fascinating, astounding, short-lived experiment that disappeared from memory. With it disappeared our dreams, aspirations and illusions that a different Israel was possible.”
Ayelet Bechar, a documentary filmmaker and journalist, is currently working on a documentary series for TV, internet and radio about young Arab citizens of Israel, commissioned by the Kan public broadcaster’s Arabic service, Makan.

Film charts failed experiment inviting Palestinian teens to become kibbutzniks

Mondoweiss – 23 September 2019
A new documentary brings to light an episode almost completely erased from Israel’s official history – and one that reveals how Israel’s apartheid character was established from its birth.
The “The Voice of Ahmad” by directors Avshalom Katz, David Ofek, Ayelet Bechar, Shadi Habib Allah, Naom Kaplan, Mamdooh Afdile, and Iddo Soskolne is being screened in Israel this month. It centers on the extraordinary early life of Ahmad Masrawa back in the 1950s, as the recently established Jewish state was finding its feet.
Masrawa was one of many hundreds of Palestinian teenagers in Israel who were adopted by a kibbutz, agricultural communes that were at the core of the Zionist movement’s efforts to Judaize lands just stolen from the Palestinian people – both from refugees forced out of Israel and from the small number of Palestinians, like Masrawa, who managed to remain inside the new state.
Today, hundreds of these kibbutzim exist, all of them exclusively Jewish and controlling the vast bulk of Israeli territory. Israel’s Palestinian citizens are effectively banned from living in them.
But, as this new film shows, there was a brief moment when a handful of progressive Israeli Jews imagined a different future in which Jewish and Arab kibbutzniks could live together. That experiment ended in complete failure.

A stab in the back

Masrawa is part of the largely-overlooked Palestinian minority in Israel – today a fifth of the country’s population. He was among a rump population of Palestinians who avoided the mass expulsions of the 1948 Nakba, or catastrophe, that created Israel on the ruins of the Palestinian homeland.
A few years later, under international pressure, Israel belatedly gave this minority a very second-class citizenship.
The fact that Palestinian citizens, now numbering 1.8 million, have the vote is often cited as proof that Israel is a normal western-style democracy. Nothing could be further from the truth, as this documentary underscores.
Ahmad’s strange teenage years have been unearthed now because he starred in a short documentary in the mid-1960s, called “I Am Ahmad,” that was initially censored and, when it was finally screened, caused uproar. Ram Loevy, its director, says in the new film that his documentary was viewed by most Israeli Jews at the time as “a stab in the back.”

Slum neighborhoods

It was the first time an Israeli film had ever allowed an “Israeli Arab” – a Palestinian citizen of Israel – to be the protagonist.
“I Am Ahmad” follows Masrawa as a near-two-decade military government imposed on Israel’s Palestinian minority is being lifted just before the outbreak of the Six-Day war. He is filmed leaving his poor village of Arara in northern Israel to travel to the rapidly expanding Jewish coastal city of Tel Aviv to find work.
Masrawa narrates the film, providing personal reflections in Hebrew on what it is like to live effectively as a foreign worker in your own country.
Like many thousands of other Palestinians in Israel, he was forced by day to work as a casual laborer on construction sites, disappearing at night to dwell in slum neighborhoods of tin shacks set up by Palestinian citizen workers on the outskirts of Tel Aviv.

High death toll

The Voice of Ahmad is compilation film, comprising six short documentaries inspired by or expanding on I Am Ahmad, a restored version of which opens the new movie.
Sky of Concrete sees an elderly Masrawa spend the day with a group of today’s casual laborers from his village on a building site. Little has changed half a century later, as Masrawa discovers, including the same tragically high death toll in an industry that barely seems to value the lives of its non-Jewish workers.
But the most fascinating segment of the Voice of Ahmad is the backstory of why Masrawa ended up in the 1960s building new homes for Jewish immigrants arriving to entrench the dispossession of Palestinians like himself. That context is not provided by I Am Ahmad.
It would have to wait another half-century for that story to be revealed in “I Used To Be Zvi,” a kind of belated prequel to “I Am Ahmad.” Its co-director, Ayelet Bechar, recently expanded on her research for the film in an article for the liberal Haaretz newspaper.

Judaizing Palestinian land

“I Used To Be Zvi” concerns the 18-year period between 1949 and 1967 before Israel seized control of the occupied territories, a time when Palestinians in Israel lived under harsh military rule despite their citizenship. They were locked up inside their few surviving communities while their new rulers confiscated almost all their farmland to settle Jewish immigrants in their place.
While this land larceny was taking place, however, two prominent Jewish socialists began a limited experiment in mixed living that appeared – at least, superficially – to challenge Zionism’s core principle.
The lands seized from Israel’s Palestinian minority were transferred to hundreds of kibbutz, socialist-style agricultural communes set up for Jews as part of Israel’s official Judaization policy.
Many decades on, these communities control almost all of Israel’s land, which they hold as nationalized territory on behalf of all Jews around the world, not Israel’s citizens.
Although the kibbutz has been widely extolled in the west as a model of egalitarian, cooperative living – and in Israel’s first decades attracted starry-eyed European and American volunteers – all of these communities use vetting committees to ensure no Palestinian citizens gain admission.

Mixing with girls

In Israel’s early years, however, a few Jewish socialists argued that the kibbutz movement should live up to its supposed ideals of “Zionism, socialism and the brotherhood of nations.” They established a Pioneer Arab Youth organization, recruiting Palestinian teenagers in Israel like Masrawa to live on a kibbutz.
The obstacles were many. Each had to harbor its Palestinian youngsters as fugitives from the authorities. The military government required them to live in their own, segregated and imprisoned communities.
And despite professed lofty ideals, most Jews in the kibbutz movement regarded their Palestinian neighbors not as potential brothers but as a threat to Israel’s ethnic state-building project.
These young Palestinian recruits, meanwhile, were not there out of a love of Zionism. They wished to break free of the stifling economic and social restrictions imposed by the military government. A few admit they were enticed too by the chance to mix with kibbutz girls.

Kibbutz ambassadors

Masrawa arrived at his kibbutz, aged 14, under a new Hebrew identity he had been assigned: “Zvi”. But differences of treatment were apparent from the outset.
Palestinian members were required to wear a different uniform and allocated menial tasks. Even Pioneer Youth’s motto prioritized subservience, amending the kibbutz slogan “strong and brave” to “strong and loyal.”
And while the kibbutzim were grudgingly allowing handfuls of Palestinian teens into their midst, they also colluded with the military government to steal the remaining farmlands of the villages from which their Palestinian wards hailed.
There was a subtext of political missionary work too. Avraham Ben Tzur, a Pioneer Youth founder, observed that the aim was to turn impressionable Palestinian youth into ambassadors for the kibbutzim, presumably in the hope that when they returned to their villages they would try to justify to their extended families the theft of the villages’ lands by the kibbutzim.
The project quickly started unraveling when it became clear that Pioneer Youth’s organizers had no vision beyond a parochial, Jewish one.

Feelings bottled up

A heartbreaking, reconstructed scene in “I Used To Be Zvi” shows young Masrawa, filled with the kibbutz ideals of shared, egalitarian living, heading to the offices of the Israel Lands Authority to inquire about setting up the first Arab kibbutz next to his village of Arara, south of Nazareth.
The senior official burdens him with a long list of conditions he must meet before he can be given approval. When Masrawa fulfills his side of the bargain, he is given yet more demands, and more, until finally the exasperated official explains the facts of life to Masrawa.
He tells him the government will never allow an Arab kibbutz. Not only that, he adds: “On the expropriated land of your village we will establish three Jewish communities, which will take up arms when needed.”
The clear implication is that these Jewish communities will, if needs be, use their weapons against Masrawa and his fellow villagers to enforce the theft of Arara’s lands.
Indeed no Palestinian kibbutz, or even a genuinely mixed one, was ever permitted.
Walid Sadik, who later served as a Palestinian member of the Israeli parliament, observed that he and the other Palestinian kibbutzniks had “kept our mouths shut and our feelings bottled up.”

Intermarriage rejected

But it was the experience of another Palestinian, Rashid Masarawa, that sounded the death knell of Pioneer Youth.
In the mid-1960s he fell in love with and married a Jewish woman, Tzvia Ben Matityahu, on Kibbutz Hashlosha. Given Israel’s restrictions on mixed marriages, which continue to this day, the couple had to travel abroad to wed.
On their return, they were exiled from Hashlosha, and sought refuge among friends at another kibbutz, Gan Shmuel.
Their application to live there was rejected too, however. The vast majority of members objected because the Masarawa family originated from Sarkas, a village destroyed by Israel in 1948 to prevent its refugees from ever returning. Gan Shmuel had been built on Sarkas’s stolen lands to appropriate them.
Masarawa tearfully noted: “If I was accepted as a member, it would mean that I was being returned to my village.” In the Zionist worldview, the danger was that the kibbutz members were being asked to concede something that might set a precedent for a right of return.

‘Sand thrown in our eyes’

The Zionism of these Jewish socialists decisively trumped any semblance of shared humanity or compassion. The Pioneer Youth dissolved soon afterward as young Palestinians in Israel shifted allegiance towards the new Arab nationalism of Nasserist Egypt.
Ben Tzur, founder of Pioneer Youth, recorded his shock to Bechar that, after Israel occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza in 1967, his Palestinian recruits voted down a plan much favored by kibbutz members to create an alternative state for Palestinians outside their homeland, in Jordan.
Masrawa observed: “Looking back now, I say they threw sand in our eyes. They made a mockery of the [kibbutz] ideal.”

No hope of brotherhood

The military government may be a distant memory now but its legacy persists.
Israel’s Jewish character still precludes equality for Palestinians, even those with citizenship. Assumptions among Israeli Jews of disloyalty from Palestinians are still commonplace. Palestinian land is still being Judaized, though now that Palestinian citizens have lost all but a tiny fraction of their lands, that process is chiefly taking place in the occupied territories. Rigid ethnic segregation ensures mixed marriages are still rare and deplored.
Palestinian voting is still no more than window-dressing, and now increasingly characterized by Israeli politicians like Benjamin Netanyahu as fraud. He declared only this month that Palestinian citizens had tried to “steal the election” by exercising their democratic right.
And brotherhood, of course, is today not even an aspiration.

Ugly ethnic supremacism

The “Voice of Ahmad” ends with a short film, The Helsinki Accord, by two Israeli citizens – one Jewish, the other Palestinian – who have sought a self-imposed exile in Finland. There they live as neighbors, share a passion for sweating it out together in a sauna, and jest about Israel’s destruction by a nuclear bomb.
The Jewish friend, Iddo Soskolne, whose family originates from Poland, says Finns have nicknamed him “felafel” for being from the Middle East.
Finally, the pair concede, they have found equality in their status as a minority, as outsiders, in Finland. They have found a true brotherhood that would be impossible in Israel.
It was, after all, the good guys – the socialists – who established Israel’s version of apartheid alongside and enforced by the “egalitarian” kibbutz. These racist political structures were created by an Israeli Labour party whose political demise is now – after a decade of rule by the ultra-nationalist right – much lamented abroad.
But the reality is that the Zionism of Israel’s founders was as ugly a project of ethnic supremacy as the Zionism of today’s nationalist right led by Netanyahu. Ahmad Masrawa’s story is a helpful reminder of that truth.


Open Letter to Aachen’s racist Mayor - Withdrawing an Art Prize Because of Support for BDS is the Behaviour of a Fascist

$
0
0

When German Racists Condemn BDS they are Expiating Their Holocaust Guilt at the Expense of the Palestinians



Please write to Mayor Philipp to tell him what you think!  Keep it polite as racists can be very touchy!

Dear Marcel Philipp,
I understand that you are the Mayor of Aachen a magnificent city which was Charlemagne's capital. I also understand that you have withdrawn an artistic prize from a Lebanese-American artist, Raad, because of his support for BDS. (Boycott Divestment & Sanctions) against Israel. In other words you are penalising him because he is, unlike you, an anti-racist.

You are also I understand a memberof the CDU, a deeply racist party which after the war was infested with Nazis such as Hans Josef Globke. Globke was Chancellor Konrad Adenauer’s closest advisor, Secretary of State and Chief of Staff of the West German Chancellory. Globke wasn’t just any old Nazi.  He had been instrumentalin drawing up the 1935 Nuremburg Race Laws which paved the way for the Final Solution.
Charlemagne's Capital
Gerald Reitlinger in his book The Final Solution describedthe Nuremburg Laws as ‘the most murderous legislative instrument known to European history” yet your party had no problem employing Globke and his friends in senior and influential positions in the German state. Some 77% of legal staff in the German Ministry of Justice post-war were ex-Nazis.
Aachen's racist Mayor Phillip
The quid-pro-quofor not saying anything about this from Israel was the delivery of submarines and the payment of reparations. In case you are unaware of the history of your own party and its relations with Israel I am quite happy to enlighten you.
David Ben-Gurion visited by Adenaeur, who rehabiliated Germany's Nazis
Israeli historian Yechiam Weitz in his review of “The Furnace and the Reactor: Behind the Scenes at the Eichmann Trial,” by Ora Herman wrote:
Ben-Gurion was determined,” wrote the author, “that Israel would establish a system to defend itself against another Holocaust – the [nuclear] reactor in Dimona.”
‘Therefore he [Ben Gurion] insisted on developing unconventional weaponry and was prepared to accept essential aid for its development from any country, including West Germany....
West Germany under Konrad Adenauer...  was very helpful in the development of this weaponry – a fact that can be seen as an irony of history. ...
 ‘Hans Globke, the chancellor’s right-hand man ... also had “a glorious past” in the days of the Third Reich: He was the man responsible for the “legal formulation of the Nuremberg Laws that authorized the deportation of the Jews and subsequently their slaughter.” As legal adviser to the Interior Ministry, Globke had helped Eichmann find a “legal” way to steal the property of German Jews. The West German government in Bonn did all it could to forestall the possibility of his name and his deeds coming up in the [Eichmann] trial. Even before the proceedings began, Adenauer sent a personal emissary to Jerusalem to clarify with Ben-Gurion whether Globke’s name would be mentioned. The prime minister, who was perfectly familiar with the man’s Nazi past, reassured the emissary and told him things that are hard to view as justifiable: “There is no need to talk about Globke since Adenauer investigated his past much better than Israel could, before taking him on as his adviser.”

Globke had another achievement to his name. He was responsible for the August 1938 Law on the Alteration of Personal and Family Names. All Jewish men had to have the addition of ‘Israel’ to their identity cards and women had the name ‘Sara’ added. This was extremely helpful when rounding up Germany’s Jews prior to their deportation and deaths.
As you can see Globke was very well qualified to run the German Chancellory on behalf of the party of which you are a member.
I won’t comment on Israel and Ben Gurion’s turning a blind eye to this.  Zionism has always tolerated anti-Semitism and it had a friendly relationship with the Nazis up to 1939. Racists have a habit of getting on fine with each other as you are more than aware.
I understand that despite your vindictive McCarthyite withdrawal of the art prize, the  Ludwig Forum of International Art has decided to ignore you and award it anyway. That is extremely gratifying.
Germany's Bundestag voted to condemn BDS as 'anti-semitic' - the neo-Nazi AfD wanted to go further and make it illegal
The German Bundestag recently passed a motion declaringthat BDS was anti-Semitic. You might therefore assume that Alternative for Germany, a neo-Nazi party that has 13% of the seats in the Bundestag would lead the opposition to the motion. After all if BDS is anti-Semitic and AfD are racists then that would seem logical.
However the AfD far from opposing the motion wanted it to go further and legally ban BDS.  According to the Guardian:
The far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) brought forward a separate motion calling for a complete ban of the BDS movement. Jürgen Braun, an AfD MP, claimed his party was the true friend of Israel in the German parliament, adding that “antisemitism comes from the left and Islam”. The AfD abstained on the government’s motion.
How is it that the AfD opposes BDS, despite containing large numbers of Nazis? According to The Times of Israel 88% of AfD respondents will celebrate Israel’s 70thanniversary. The answer is not hard to find.
Israel is everything that the far-Right and racists like you admire today. It is an ethno-nationalist state where your rights and privileges depend on your (Jewish) ethnicity. When Donald Trump told 4 Black Congresswomen to ‘go back home’ he also added that they hate Israel and therefore Jews.  This from someone who is himself deeply anti-Semitic and who believes Israel is the ‘real home’ of American Jews.
Trump is not alone.  Nearly every far-Right party in Europe supports Zionism and Israel from Matteo Salvini to Viktor Orban.  Richard Spencer, the neo-Nazi founder of the US’s alt-Right defines himself as a White Zionist.  He lovesthe Jewish Nation State Law which defines Israel, not as a state of its own citizens, but of Jews.
Israel is a state which refuses to accept non-Jewish and in particular non-White refugees and asylum seekers because that would threatenits ‘Jewish racial identity’.
Israel is a state which confines its 20% Arab population to 2% of the land. It is a state that demolishes Arab homes and villages such as Umm al Hiran to make way for Jewish towns such as Hiran.
All this and more was perpetrated against Germany’s Jews from 1933-1939. They too were confined to certain parts of town, banished from parks and barred from many German towns altogether. It is no surprise that people like you should find in Israel such a congenial friend. After all Israel is Hitler’s posthumous victory.
You have the gall to call BDS anti-Semitic. It is clear you do not understand what anti-Semitism is. It is hatred of Jews not hatred of racism or Israel. Israel is not a Jew and it is not a Jewish State except in a narrow racial sense.
The original Captain Boycott
The Boycott of racially oppressive regimes is, without exception, the weapon of the oppressed.  It was first employed in the sugar islands of the West Indies against slave grown sugar. It was used in Irelandagainst British colonialism, from which the word Boycott comes. In 1933 Jews throughout the world (with the exception of the Zionists and bourgeois Jews) launched a Boycott of Nazi Germany. No doubt in your twisted mind this too was racist against Germans.
In more recent times there was a Boycott of South Africa, a state which was Israel’s closest partner and today, for exactly the same reason there is a Boycott of Israel.
It is perfectly understandable that racists and white supremacists the world over should oppose the Boycott of Israel.  Racists have always opposed the use of BDS.  It is therefore no surprise that as a member of a racist German party should oppose Boycott.
My only message to you Mr Philipp is not to expiate your guilt over the Holocaust at the expense of the Palestinians. It was people like you who were responsible for Auschwitz and Treblinka, not the Arabs of Palestine.
The annihilation of the Jews in the Holocaust is no justification for the racial oppression and genocidal murder of the Palestinians today. Your party was once full of Nazis.  It would seem that old habits die hard.
Tony Greenstein

Instead of Supporting Chris Williamson John McDonnell Backs the Reinstatement of War Criminal Alistair Campbell

$
0
0

It is time for the Labour Representation Committee to ditch McDonnell – he is fast becoming Labour’s new Ramsay MacDonald

 



Despite the misreporting by the BBC and GuardianChris Williamson won a clear victory at the High Court this week. His re-suspension in June, he was reinstated by a disciplinary panel only to have it overturned after an outcry by over 100 right-wing MPs and peers, was itself overturned and declared unlawful.
This is the reality of the situation today - Corbyn and McDonnell by opposing open selection prepared their own graves
Mr Justice Popplewell made short work of the ‘illness’ of Keith Vaz MP, which was the pretext for overturning the original decision of the disciplinary panel. One can only presume he had the after effects of his cocaine habit.
In paragraph 55 of the Judgment, Popplewell observed that:
It would be surprising if, as an experienced Parliamentarian, Mr Vaz:

a) had taken part in an important meeting if he felt himself unfit to do so; and
b) then failed clearly to make that point in his subsequent email.
55.4 Further, there is no evidence from either Sir George Howarth or Ms Elmi. If Mr Vaz had been so unwell that he was not fit to serve on the panel, it is surprising that this experienced politician and Ms Elmi had not themselves raised the issue of his fitness either at the time or subsequently. 

Referring to the evidence of Thomas Gardiner on behalf of the Labour Party Popplewell found (paragraphs 60-62) that:
Mr Gardiner does not deny that the negative press coverage was a factor, he simply "does not understand this to be the case." Further, he then defends the importance of paying attention to press coverage. I accept that it would no doubt be difficult to identify the precise reasons why a majority of the twenty-two NEC members who cast a vote on the issue decided to remit the decision to a fresh panel. In the absence of other proper reasons, it is not, however, difficult to infer that the true reason for the decision in this case was that members were influenced by the ferocity of the outcry following the June decision. Indeed, Ms Crasnow realistically accepted that such inference might be properly drawn and positively asserted that the Party was entitled to take account of the outcry provoked by the original decision.
While not a court of law, the protocol for the Organisation Committee explains that the NEC Disputes Panel operates in a quasi-judicial fashion. An important aspect of acting judicially is that the NEC should decide cases fairly and impartially in accordance with the rules and evidence; and not be influenced by how its decisions are seen by others. Internal and press reaction to a decision are not of themselves proper grounds for reopening a case that was not otherwise procedurally unfair or obviously wrong.
CONCLUSIONS
I therefore conclude that, having communicated the panel's decision as final, the Labour Party acted unfairly in that there was no proper reason for reopening the case against MrWilliamson and referring the original allegations to the NCC. Such complaint cannot be taken before the NCC and it is appropriate for the court to grant declaratory relief.
None of thiswas reported by the mainstream press who instead concentrated on the refusal to set aside the new set of bogus allegations. It is onlythe new suspension, handed down on September 3rd in anticipation of an adverse decision, which has been upheld.
I have sent a letter to The Guardian correcting their misreporting but I don't expect that it will be published given that the letters columns have also fallen under the sway of the Freedland Syndrome.
Letters Editor

Kings Place,
90 York Way
London N1 9GU 

Dear Sir/Madam,
Your report that Chris Williamson had lost his appeal at the High Court [‘Anti-Semitism Williamson loses Appeal over Labour suspension’] is a classic example of how not to report a story. That the BBC and the rest of the media reported this in exactly the same fashion demonstrates the bias that surrounds the false accusations of Labour anti-Semitism.
It is a bias that is not dispelled by the recent book Bad News for Labour by 5 distinguished academics showing the lack of any evidential basis for this smear campaign. Reason has no part to play in the moral panic over ‘Labour anti-Semitism’.
The decision of Mr Justice Popplewell to rule that the resuspension of Chris Williamson was unlawful and that the accusations upon which it was based could not be resurrected were a clear victory. The Court found that the overturning of a disciplinary panel decision because of media hysteria was unfair and yet you have failed to report this.
This is a devastating indictment of the unfairness of Labour Party disciplinary procedures yet you chose to concentrate on the fact that the Court would not set aside the most recent suspension.
It is abundantly clear to all except the blind that the new suspension of Chris Williamson, a week before the High Court judgement, was in anticipation of the fact that an adverse judgement was likely to be delivered. The charges themselves, such as criticising the disciplinary process itself, are so flimsy I’m surprised that even the Guardian is taken in.
Yours faithfully, 

Tony Greenstein

 


Actually the last sentence is hyperbole.  I'm not surprised that the Guardian is taken in!!
What is  disgraceful is that Corbyn and Jennie Formby have allowed these new bogus charges to go ahead. They are pathetic in the extreme:
The new bogus charges against Chris Williamson

New Bogus Complaints Against Chris Williamson
"- Sending an email to a member of the public who had complained to you about your criticisms of Margaret Hodge MP that referred her to a video on YouTube. The video described Ms Hodge as 'cheapening and exploiting the memory of Jewish suffering'; 'trivialising the memory of the Holocaust'; and requesting that she 'get the hell out of the Labour Party'; among other offensive personal statements about her.
Chris is not being punished for making the video but sending it to someone!  Pure guilt-by-association.
Hodge is the woman who calledJeremy Corbyn a ‘fucking anti-Semite’and who has made it clear that her primary political goal is ensuring that Corbyn never becomes Prime Minister.
The video is by Jewish academic Norman Finkelstein, both of whose parents survived Nazi concentration camps. He is perfectly entitled to hold the opinion that Hodge, like the Zionist movement, uses the Holocaust to legitimise its murderous policies. Why is telling Hodge to get the hell out of the Labour Party offensive.
·         Publicly legitimising or endorsing the misconduct of members or former members of the Party that the NEC has found, in its opinion, to be grossly detrimental or prejudicial to the Labour Party.
Another case of guilt by association. In other words not accepting that the decisions of Labour’s Kangaroo Court (NCC) are valid. In essence guilt by association. Note the treachery of Tom Watson and his visceral racism, the behaviour of John Mann or Hodge herself, of course weren’t prejudicial.
·         Undermining the Party's ability to campaign effectively against antisemitism by publicly characterising the disciplinary processes of the Party in relation to cases of alleged racism as politically motivated and/or not genuine."
So if you criticise the Labour Party’s disciplinary processes as politically motivated, which they clearly are, then that is an offence. In other words free speech (for the Left) has gone out of the window. Things are worse now for the Left in the Labour Party than they were under Blair. Yet McDonnell and Corbyn are blind and oblivious.
What is even more disgraceful is the behaviour of John McDonnell, who is rapidly becoming Labour’s iron chancellor-in-waiting. In an interview in GQ (Gentlemen’s Quarterly) Magazine with expelled war criminal, Alistair Campbell, McDonnell laughs and jokes at how he opposed his expulsion and supports his reinstatement. (Campbell chaired the Joint Intelligence Committee during the run-up to the Iraq War and was instrumental in attacking the BBC for having questioned the ‘sexed up’ dodgy dossier).
There is no limit to McDonnell's treachery as he laughs and jokes with the man who sold Blair's war
AC: Did you support my expulsion from the party?
JM: No.
AC: Would you have me back?
JM: Yes.
AC: Good. Thanks for that.
JM: Hang on, your expulsion was under the basis of ridiculous rules that were brought in under New Labour!
AC: It was badly applied!
JM: It was, but it was a stupid rule.
AC: OK.
JM: Come back, Alastair, all is forgiven!

Before going on to Labour’s anti-Semitism moral panic:
AC: The anti-Semitismstuff, you're not happy with the way it has been handled?
JM: No, I'm not. And you know my view, we should have been firmer, more ruthless and faster. I think we are on top of that now but we are learning lessons all the time.
In other words the Labour Party should have been quicker to expel Jewish anti-racists like Jackie Walker and me and journalists like Asa Winstanley. Sickening stuff from this turncoat.
It is clear that McDonnell has gone along 100% with the fake anti-Semitism allegations. The fact that the Tory tabloids have gone to town over this makes no impression on him. The expulsion of Jewish anti-Zionists and the fact that Corbyn has been called an ‘existentialist threat’ by the Zionist Chronicle to British Jews and an anti-Semite makes no impression on this blockhead. 
The fact that the centrepiece of the Zionist campaign was their effort to get the Labour Party to adopt the IHRA misdefinition of anti-Semitism, a definition that Geoffrey Robertson QC has called ‘unfit for purpose’ that conflates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism passes over this right-ward moving opportunist. Even worse there was
NOT A WORD ABOUT THE OUTRAGEOUS SUSPENSION OF CHRIS WILLIAMSON
I happened to be at a meeting on racism earlier this week at which Lloyd Russell-Moyle, the Brighton Kemptown MP and co-Chair of the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs spoke.
I challenged him over Chris’s expulsion, not knowing the High Court verdict and put it to him that Tom Watson had openly supported the racist Labour MP Phil Woolas who the High Court removed from parliament in 2010 after having run an election campaign based on ‘making the white folks angry’. Yet nothing has been done about right-wing racism in the Labour Party or John Mann's anti-Gypsy pamphlet.
Lloyd-Moyle stated that he wanted to see Chris back as a Labour MP and went on to say that Jeremy Corbyn had mapped out a route that he could take.  Chris has subsequently told me that this is not true.
It is high time that the Socialist Campaign Group lived up to its name and that McDonnell was removed as President of the Labour Representation Committee. It will happen but I suspect they will wait until he introduces cuts to benefits.
Tony Greenstein

The Bloody Betrayal of the Kurds by Trump and the United States is Nothing New

$
0
0

Background to the Kurdish Struggle and the American Betrayal in 1963

The betrayal of the Kurds of Syria by Donald Trump and the United States is only the latest such betrayal. After having provided the foot soldiers in the fight against ISIS, losing 11,000 fighters in the process, Donald Trump has unceremoniously betrayed them to the Turkish dictator Recep Erdogan, whose forces have been fighting an undeclared war in Turkish Kurdistan since the breakdown of a ceasefire in July 2015. In essence there have been a continuing series of wars against the Kurds of Turkey since 1978.
The destruction of Cizre in Turkish Kurdistan is similar to Israel's destruction in Gaza
Turkish armed forces, which we should not forget are an integral part of NATO, have laid waste to substantial parts of the main Kurdish cities of Diyarbakır, Şırnak, Mardin, Cizre, Nusaybin, and Yüksekova. See Blood on Erdoğan’s hands and Palestinian solidarity cannot ignore the oppression of the Kurds in Turkey
In 1975 the Algiers Agreement between the Shah of Iran and the Iraqi Baathists was the latest betrayal when the Iranian state, at the behest of the United States agreed to withdraw support for the Kurdish fight against the Iraqi state.
During the Iran-Iraq war a genocidal war was waged by Saddam Hussein against Iraqi Kurdistan. Hundreds of villages were destroyed in Operation Al-Anfil. The most infamous attack was that on Halabja when some 5,000 Kurds were murdered with mustard gas and nerve agents after the town fell to the Iranian army.
Kurdish women in the Peoples Fighting Units are unique in the Middle East
At the time the West poured scorn on the suggestion that the massacre had taken place because the West supported Iraq against Iran. Indeed the West had supplied these chemical weapons, which were the later pretext for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, to the Batthist regime.
It would appear that the PYD and SDF have reached an agreement with Syria’s Assad regime which will allow Syrian troops enter Kurdistan in order to prevent the Turkish invasion. It is a bitter pill to swallow. The Kurds go from the frying pan into the fire given the bloody record of Assad.
Below is an article by Jabra Nicol in Matzpen, the magazine of the Socialist Organisation in Israel on the background to the fighting with the Iraqi army commanded by the Baathists.

Why the Kurds Should Be Supported ‒ by A. Sa’id (Jabra Nicola)

October 10, 1963
[This is a translation of an article that was published in Hebrew in Matzpen no. 11, October 1963]
The bloodshed in Iraqi Kurdistan is still ongoing; the bloody and terrorist regime of the Ba’ath party has mobilised two-thirds of the Iraqi army – three out of five divisions – with half of its armoured force, along with heavy artillery and jet aircraft, in its dirty war against the Kurdish people fighting for its freedom.
Turkey's Destruction in Cizre matches Israel's in Gaza
This dirty war began back at the time of Qassem’s rule in 1961.
The Kurdish people is one of the most ancient peoples in western Asia. For more than 5,000 years, it has inhabited a territory known as Kurdistan, at present divided between Turkey, Persia, Iraq, Soviet Armenia and Syria. As early as 1639, Kurdistan was partitioned between the Ottoman Empire and Persia; and after World War I, it was re-partitioned by the imperialists. At present there are two million Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan, two million in Iran, another two million in Turkey, more than half a million in Syria and close to 15,000 in the Soviet Union.
These partitions, as well as other intrigues of imperialism in westernern Asia, delayed the national development of the Kurdish people and prevented its independence. The Kurdish people’s struggle for independence and national unification – the unification of Kurdistan – began at the end of the last [19th] century and culminated after the First World War. Since the beginning of the present [20th] century, the Kurdish people has risen about ten times against its enslavers. In 1919, it rose up under the leadership of Sheikh Mahmoud; and after a long struggle, English imperialism managed to suppress this uprising in blood and fire. Under the pressure of the Kurdish people’s struggle, British imperialism was forced in 1922 to recognise the right of Kurdish people, and with the consent of the Iraqi government at that time, an independent Kurdish government was established, whose capital was Al Suleimania. But soon Great Britain reneged on its obligations, reconquered the Kurdish territory and overthrew the young state.
In 1929, the Kurdish people rose again, and then once more in 1931. This latter uprising continued until 1942, and in 1943 the Kurds again rose up in Iraq, led by Mullah Mustafa al-Barzani, but the uprising failed and Barzani had to flee with a large number of his supporters and members of his tribe to Iranian Kurdistan. There they took part in a new uprising, leading to the declaration of an independent Kurdish republic. But the Iranian government soon managed to suppress the uprising and put an end to the Kurdish Republic. Again Barzani had to flee with members of his tribe. The United States having refused to grant him asylum, he waged fierce battles with the Turkish, Iranian and Iraqi armies and succeeded to break through the encirclement and reach the Soviet Union. Of the two thousand fighters, only 650 arrived in the Soviet Union, where they remained until the July 14 [1958] revolution in Iraq.
This revolution in Iraq promised the Kurdish people equal rights. The Provisional Constitution promulgated following the revolution stated that the Iraqi Republic was “a partnership between the Arabs and the Kurds”. The freedom fighters led by Mustafa Barzani, exiled in the Soviet Union, returned to Iraq, and the Kurdish people showed willingness to assist in building the new regime. 
Jihadist fighters from the so-called Syrian National Army fight alongside the Turkish army
When Qassem turned to the right, breaking with the forces of the Iraqi left, he also broke with the Kurds and pursued a policy of brutal national repression against the Kurdish people. From late 1960, the Iraqi government began supporting the landlords and the rest of the Kurdish reactionary forces in their war against the Kurdish peasants and progressive forces. Moreover, the government encouraged the reactionary press in Baghdad to raise the chauvinist slogan of Kurdish assimilation. Even the word “Kurdistan” was banned and the territory was called “Northern Iraq”. The Kurdish people have been denied the right to study in their national language and to elect their representatives to local and central government institutions.
The Kurdish masses are victims of poverty, exploitation, ignorance and disease; they are discriminated against in all areas of life: political, economic and cultural. Iraqi Kurdistan has only one primary school for every 3,500 residents and a high school for every 57,000. There are only 685 books in the Kurdish language in all Iraqi public libraries.
When the Kurdish people were forced to revolt against this oppression, the Qassem government sent the army against them, in the name of “the rule of law and order”. 
The Iraqi Communist Party, instead of raising the slogan of self-determination for the Kurdish people, supported the Kurdish people’s rights in very general and vague terms, but on the other hand regarded the slogan of separation and the establishment of an independent Kurdish state as an “imperialist plot”. In March 1962, an article appeared on the events in Iraqi Kurdistan in The Problems of Peace and Socialism– the journal of the World Communist Movement – stating:
 “The agents of CENTO [the pro-westernern Baghdad Pact] and oil companies have taken advantage of the situation and, relying on British forces in Kuwait, have fomented an armed rebellion against the Iraqi state under the slogans of ‘Defense of Barzani’ and the establishment of a ‘Kurdish State’. They want to carry out the old plan of isolating the northern regions and annexing them to Iran (that is, to CENTO) and, as the Communist Party has rightly argued, this activity, which is part of the general imperialist policy in the Middle East, has created a serious and dangerous situation in Iraq.”
Thus, instead of supporting the Kurdish uprising, the Iraqi Communist Party contented itself with “calling on the Qassem government to resolve the crisis in northern Iraq peacefully” and “in a way that will strengthen the unity of the Iraqi people against the intrigue of imperialism and reaction.” 
This opportunistic position of the Iraqi Communist Party was an integral part of its general policy, which was based on support for the Qassem’s regime and resolute opposition to Arab national unification. Accordingly, it saw the Kurdish uprising on the one hand as weakening Qassem’s rule, and on the other hand it viewed the separation of Kurdistan as weakening the Iraqi republic and pushing Iraq into Arab unification, because it would be very difficult for Iraq to remain economically and politically independent if it only kept the Arab part of its territory.
Due to this opportunistic policy, we are witnessing the current tragic situation in the anti-imperialist liberation movement in western Asia, a clash between two anti-imperialist nationalist movements – the Arab and Kurdish movements, both of which are integral to the general revolution of the colonial peoples.
Recognising the right to self-determination of the Kurdish people and establishing an independent Kurdish state would not in any way be detrimental to the Arab liberation movement; on the contrary, it would help this movement as well as the [anti]colonial revolution in general. Indeed, an independent Kurdish state in Iraqi Kurdistan could become a centre and lever for the entire Kurdish national movement in Iran and Turkey, both of which are members of CENTO; And this would be an immense revolutionary force against the main imperialist base in western Asia. On the other hand, it would help Arab national unification, which is at present one of the major problems of the Arab national liberation movement.
With the change in the political situation in Iraq following the Ba’athist coup, the Iraqi Communist Party does now support the Kurdish uprising and many of the communist Arab officers actively participate in battles together with the Kurds; but it still does not raise the slogan “right of self-determination up to separation” for the Kurdish people. And the Soviet Union supports in its press and speeches the Kurdish uprising, but on the other hand Soviet aid is still flowing to the Iraqi government and Aref ’s armies are fighting against the Kurdish people using Soviet weapons.
The Kurdish national liberation movement, like any other national liberation movement, is not without internal class contradictions, reflected in different political and ideological currents. The danger for the Arab national liberation movement and the colonial revolution in general does not, therefore, lie in secession of Iraqi Kurdistan and establishment of an independent Kurdish state, but in the strengthening of feudal and bourgeois forces in the Kurdish movement, which tend by their very class nature to link with imperialism. On the other hand, increasing the power of the masses and proletarian hegemony within the Kurdish liberation movement could be a major influence on the national and social liberation movement within Iraq as a whole. 
Here in Israel there has recently begun to be heard from various circles a voice of support and identification with the Kurdish people’s struggle in Iraq, but the rationale for this support is questionable and dangerous. Those circles, notwithstanding their political differences on other topics, view the Kurdish people’s struggle as an anti-Arab factor that weakens the Arabs and they use it as a pretext for fostering anti-Arab chauvinist sentiment and intensifying anti-Arab propaganda. Even circles purporting to be against the existing regime in Israel and for cooperation between the peoples of the region, such as [Uri Avnery’s] Ha’olam Hazeh, call for support for the Kurdish rebellion because it “opens a second front against our enemies” (the Arabs). They see the Kurdish movement as ally, being a non-Arab counterweight “within the region, most of whose inhabitants are Arabs”.
We too side with the Kurdish uprising in Iraq and call for supporting it, but for entirely different reasons. We see no contradiction between the Arab and Kurdish national and social liberation movements, but on the contrary: we see both as mutually complementary, and both as an integral part of the colonial revolution. The Kurdish uprising in Iraq is not a rebellion against the Arab masses, who are also fighting for their freedom, but is directed against the forces that oppress the Arab and Kurds alike. Every success of the Kurdish people in its current struggle is, at the same time, a success of the forces fighting against the bloody and terrorist regime that rules Iraq today. Support for the Kurdish uprising cannot be founded on the current Israeli policy – of cooperation with imperialism against the liberation movement of the colonial peoples – but on cooperation with the colonial movement as a whole against imperialism. If we have to look for allies in the region, we cannot find an ally in one liberation movement against another. The true allies of the Israeli masses are all the liberation movements in the region, the entire colonial anti-imperialist movement.
The Kurdish liberation movement, the uprising of the Kurdish people, was a major factor in overthrowing the regime of Nuri al-Sa’id, followed by that of Qassem. The current Kurdish rebellion will also be one of the most important factors in overthrowing Aref’s bloody regime. But the Kurdish liberation movement on its own cannot do so, and cannot bring liberation to the Kurdish people without close cooperation with all the anti-imperialist forces fighting against the current regime in Iraq.

Franco’s Judicial Heirs Mete Out Savage Prison Sentences to Catalonia’s Political Leaders

$
0
0

Spain’s ‘socialist’ leaders, Europe’s bourgeois leaders applaud Franco’s Posthumous ‘Justice’ whilst the SNP stays silent and embarrassed





I was on holiday in French Catalonia a month ago and visited Spanish Catalonia, including Girona, the heart of the struggle for Catalonian independence. Everywhere there were posters demanding freedom for Catalonia’s prisoners who were elected on a platform of independence for Catalonia.
Banner in Girona, Catalonia
Spain’s pathetic social democratic prime minister, Pedro Sánchez has come down in full support for the repressive Francoist justice handed down today, sentences of between 9 and 13 years imprisonment for non-violent protesters.
The SNP's pathetic leader Sturgeon has refused to give any support to the Catalan Independence Movement
Carles Puigdemont, the exiled former president of Catalonia who remains a fugitive from Spanish authorities in Germany, whose courts have refused to extradite him, described the verdict as an “atrocity”, while his successor Quim Torra – who had previously stated he would refuse to accept a guilty verdict – condemned the ruling as an“insult to democracy.”
Barcelona today
These sentences were supported in full by the European commission, a spokeswoman for whom saidit respected the decisions of the Spanish judiciary. “Our position on this is well known and has not changed, this is, and remains, an internal matter for Spain, which has to be dealt with in line with its constitutional order.”
Poster in SNP Conference today - however the SNP has refused to support Catalonian independence
In other words the European capitalist order fully supports and applauds the Franco state’s repression in Spain. Catalan’s are a separate nation from the Spanish. There is an inherent right, if they wish, to political independence and the right to form an independent state, however inconvenient that might be for the Spanish State.
Banner in Gerona in September when I was there
Catalans are divided almost equally with a small majority of votes going to anti-independence parties. It is quite likely that like the Scottish referendum, Catalans would vote against independence.  However that is a decision for Catalans to take not for a vicious Francoist state to repress.
It is remarkable that the pathetic leaders of the Scottish National Party, which demands independence for Scotland, have refused to give any support to the leaders of the Catalonian independence struggle. Despite standing today in support of those imprisoned the bourgeois leaders of the SNP, in their attempts to win support in the European Union for Scottish entry and curry favour with Spain’s leaders have sought to demonstrate that they are not like those Catalan trouble makers


Girona in the heart of Spanish Catalonia

Is there anything more pathetic than Nicola Sturgeon and her hangers on trying to prove how respectable they are and how reliable they are to the leaders of British and European capitalism? Not a principle in sight. The tawdry leaders of Scottish capitalism don’t wish to be tarnished by the sight of Catalan leaders going to gaol.
Below is an excellent article by Craig Murray which is well worth reading.
Spain's social democratic leader Pedro Sanchez prostrates himself at the feet of the bourgeois state

Weep for Catalonia, 

Weep for Liberalism in Europe

The vicious jail sentences handed down today by the fascists (I used the word with care and correctly) of the Spanish Supreme Court to the Catalan political prisoners represent a stark symbol of the nadir of liberalism within the EU. That an attempt to organise a democratic vote for the Catalan people in pursuit of the right of self determination guaranteed in the UN Charter, can lead to such lengthy imprisonment, is a plain abuse of the most basic of human rights.
I was forced to withdraw my lifelong personal support for the EU when, in response to the vicious crushing of the Catalan referendum by Francoist paramilitary forces, when the whole world saw grandmothers hit on the head and thrown down stairs as they attempted to vote, all the institutions of the EU – Council, Commission and Parliament – lined up one after the other to stress their strong support for the Madrid paramilitary action in maintaining “law and order”.
Today we see the same thing. As the Catalans are imprisoned for efforts at democracy, the EU Commission stated that it “respects the position of the Spanish judiciary” and “this is, and remains, an internal matter for Spain, which has to be dealt with in line with its constitutional order.” The Commission here is simply ignoring what is very obviously a fundamental breach of basic human rights. This is far worse than anything Poland or Hungary have done in recent years, and the Commission is also showing a quite blatant hypocrisy in its relative treatment of its Western and Eastern members.
Girona demonstration
There was a time when the EU was a shining example of economic and environmental regulation and of regional wealth redistribution. My fondness for the institution dates from it being one of our few defences from economic Thatcherism. But it has evolved into something very different, a mutual support club for neoliberal political leaders.
I do not much blog about Brexit because I am less concerned about it than the majority of the population. I neither think remaining inside is essential nor that leaving it is a political panacea. I do desperately wish to retain freedom of movement, and believe leaving the customs union would be economic self-harm on a large scale. A Norway style relationship would suit me fine, but by and large I prefer to stay out of the argument. I do believe that, as a matter of democratic legitimacy, having had the 2016 referendum the result should be respected; England should leave and Scotland and Northern Ireland remain.
But I also say this. A million people are expected to march on Saturday in support of the EU. That is the EU which has just expressed its active support for the jailing of Catalans for holding a vote. They join Julian Assange as political prisoners in the EU held for non-violent thought crime.
I say this to anyone thinking of marching on Saturday. It is morally wrong, at this time, to show public support for the EU, unless you balance it by showing your disgust at the fascist repression of the Catalans and the EU’s support for that repression. Every single person going on Saturday’s march has a moral obligation to balance it by sending a message to the EU Commission that their support for this repression is utterly out of order, and carrying a flag or sign on the march indicating support for the Catalan political prisoners. Otherwise you are just a smug person marching for personal self interest. Alongside the progenitors of the Iraq War, who doubtless will again dominate the platform speeches.

Please Follow Me on Twitter @tonygreenstein1 – I have been suspended on my main account

$
0
0
After Being Accused by a Zio of being an anti-Semite I joked that if I coughed in his presence that would be 'antisemitism' - Twitter found that hateful conduct!!
Image result for twitter censorship

Please follow me on tonygreenstein 1 (tonygreenstein666)



My Response to the BBC’s 'Investigation' into Panorama’s ‘Is Labour Anti-Semitic?’ – Aunty doesn’t even bother to hide her bias

$
0
0

Ofcom said that it had 'serious concerns around the transparency of the BBC's complaints service'. – the reality is that it's embedded in racism

 On 10th July Panorama broadcast a programme, Is Labour anti-Semitic’. Although the BBC would not say, it is known that in the first week alone over 1,500 complaints had been received.
The BBC’s initial response of 5th August to mine and others’ complaints was contemptuous. They refused to answer. Instead they sent out the same non-response to all complainants. This was to:
ensure we use our licence fee resources as efficiently as possible, (so) we’re sending this response to everyone.’
On 15th August I sent a further letter to the Executive Complaints Unit, containing 106 Questions. After quibbling about the length of my complaint, they eventually sent me a response on 30th September.
This was just one of John Ware's successes - his attacks on 'political Islam' have been expensive but the BBC doesn't mind since it is the licence payer who really pays
At last there was a detailed response, but what a response! It is no surprise that even the Establishment Media Lapdog (sorry Watchdog) Ofcomhad notedre the Naga Munchetty case, when a BBC presenter had been reprimanded for pointing out that Donald Trump might just be a racist, that it had ‘serious concerns around the transparency of the BBC’s complaints service’.
The BBC claims not to understand what is wrong with these special effects
I have compiled a 31 page response to Richard Hutt, the Director of the ECU, which includes 2 pages of graphics, rebutting every point. The reason for the graphics is that ECU pretended they didn’t understand my objection to their using a ‘grid’ effect when portraying their enemies – Corbyn, Milne etc. Their response was that
‘In documentary programmes of this nature programme-makers will use a wide range of techniques to ensure there is sufficient visual variety to keep an audience engaged’.
My complaint was not their artistic skills but that the people they targeted with this ‘grid’ effect were targets of their allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’. The grid made them look aliens, disembodied. To pretend they didn’t understand my complaint only emphasises the BBC’s utter dishonesty.
There are so many dishonest comments in the ECU’s response that it would make this blog excessively long if I attempted to elaborate on all of them. Please therefore go to this linkto read my response.
The most egregious of their lies and distortions is when they defended calling a Palestinian preacher, Raed Salah, from Israel an anti-Semite. Salah came to Britain for a speaking tour in 2011. Theresa May had banned him from entering the country but no one had told Salah or the immigration authorities so he entered the UK and spoke at the House of Commons. He was arrested the next day. On appealing against his deportation the First Tier Immigration Tribunal concluded on 25th October 2011 that Theresa May was within her rights to deport him.
According to Richard Hutt's ECU it was wrong for Ms Munchetty to make personal comments about Trump - but about Raed Salah and Ken Livingstone it was fine
The BBC’s Richard Hutt therefore quoted this decision in his letter:
We are satisfied that the Appellant has engaged in the unacceptable behaviour of fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK. We are satisfied that the Appellant’s words and actions tend to be inflammatory, divisive, insulting, and likely to foment tension and radicalism.
That seemed pretty conclusive. Except it wasn’t. Theresa May had made her decision on the basis of a poem that was held to be anti-Semitic, which had been provided to the Home Office by the Community Security Trust. See the David Hearst’s Theresa May's haste to ban Raed Salah will be repented at leisure in the Guardian. It had appeared in the Jerusalem Post. There was just one problem. It had been doctored to include the words ‘You Jews’.
The fact that the Jewish Labour Movement, whose officers, who made the allegations of 'antisemitism', is affiliated to a the World Zionist Organisation, which steals Palestinian land, is of no consequence to the BBC
Not surprisingly the Upper Immigration Tribunal of 8  February 2012 overturned the decision of the lower court and substituted this finding:
In the present case it is clear that the facts upon which the Secretary of State made her decision are very different from the facts that she should have had in mind when making her decision. In particular, the text of the poem is not as she thought...
This is a case in which the error was such that it is not appropriate to seek to preserve the First-tier Tribunal’s decision. We therefore proceed to substitute our own decision.
What is staggering, even by the BBC’s biased standards, is that the BBC justified their abusive comments about Raed Salah on the basis of a court decision that was overturned!
Below is a short summary of the points in my Appeal:
i.              Noone who claimed that they were ‘victims’ of anti-Semitism was named.
ii.            No mention was made of the fact that Ella Rose, who opened the programme with an Oscar winning performance of how she had been the victim of ‘anti-Semitism’, was a former staffer at the Israeli Embassy and the first Director of the Jewish Labour Movement.
iii.         No mention was made of the fact that all of the ‘victims’ were officers of the Jewish Labour Movement.
iv.         ECU reprimanded  Naga Munchetty because BBC Guidelines ‘"do not allow for journalists to... give their opinions about the individual making the remarks or their motives for doing so - in this case President Trump".  But Hutt defended calling Ken Livingstone ‘cranky’.
v.            Perhaps most important of all the presenter of the programme, John Ware, is a racist and Islamaphobe. They simply told me that all presenters have views, which is true, but would they have employed Kate Hopkins?
So although Richard Hutt said that I should now appeal to Ofcom I have sent it back to him on the grounds that they are obliged to carry out an investigation first. What they have done so far is provide a Defence of Panorama’s crimes not an investigation.  I sent today the following email to Richard Hutt.
Dear Mr Hutt,

Thank your letter of 30th September in response to my 100+ question complaint regarding the Panorama programme 'Is Labour Antisemitic'.

It is clear that you conducted no investigation into my complaints or, I suspect, into anyone else's complaints. What you did was mount a defence of the indefensible.

Parts of your Defence are bizarre. For example you quote from a Judgment of the Lower Immigration Tribunal in respect of Raed Salah when the whole of that Judgment was overturned by the Upper Immigration Tribunal.

You advised me to go to Ofcom and in due time I will.

However first you need to conduct an investigation.

In order to help you in this task I have compiled a letter rebutting all the points you made.  I hope you find it useful.

Perhaps you would now investigate my complaint bearing in mind that Ofcom recently  said , in relation to the Naga Munchetty affair that it has 'serious concerns around the transparency of the BBC's complaints service'.

Tony Greenstein

Rejoice, Rejoice, The Witch is Gone!! - Louise Ellman, Racist MP for Liverpool Riverside Finally Gets the Hint

$
0
0

Parachuted in by Blair, Louise Ellman, a dedicated supporter of Israeli child abuse finally gets the message that she isn’t wanted

Speaking to the Jewish Chronicle  after finally resigning from the Labour Party, Louise Ellman said it "sounded very credible" that Jeremy Corbyn had once dubbed her "the Honourable Member for Tel Aviv".
Jewish Chronicle article on my attack on Ellman 

I don’t know whether Jeremy Corbyn has ever called her the Member for Tel Aviv but there is certainly nothing honourable about this wretch. As the Jewish Chronicle’s Daniel Sugarman noted:
Mr Greenstein was expelled from Labour in February over abusive behaviour that included writing blog posts about veteran Jewish Labour MP Louise Ellman as the MP for “Tel Aviv South” and a “racist supporter of the child abuse of Palestinian children”.
When Apartheid in South Africa existed we used to call the Tory MP for Luton North, John Carlisle, a supporter of the Apartheid regime who died earlier this year, ‘the member for Bloemfontein West’. He was also calledthe MP for Johanneburg! 
These are some of the techniques used on children and adults - they are legal in Israel and the Dame approves
I doubt that that was racist.  So why should it be racist or anti-Semitic to describe Louise Ellman as the MP for Tel Aviv?
Louise Ellman is however a despicable supporter of Israel’s abuse of Palestinian children.
On 6th January 2016 there was a Parliamentary Debate Child Prisoners and Detainees: Occupied Palestinian Territories’
It was introduced by Sarah Champion MP who cited a report from British lawyers in June 2012 concerning Palestinian children held in Israeli military custody. Facilitated and funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the Report found that Israel was in breach of six of its legal obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child and two obligations under the fourth Geneva convention.
Ellman consistently defended Israel's treatment of Palestinian children, including torture
The report concluded that if the allegations of abuse were true, Israel would also be in breach of the absolute prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In other words Israel tortureschildren and Ellman defends it. Indeed Israel barely denies it since it is legal under Israeli law.
Eight months after the UK report was published, UNICEF released its own assessment of the military detention system for children. Based on over 400 sworn affidavits from children as young as 12 who were detained by military courts, UNICEF concluded that,
One of the reasons for my expulsion was calling Dame Ellman a supporter of Israeli child abuse
“the ill-treatment of children who come in contact with the military detention system appears to be widespread, systematic and institutionalized throughout the process, from the moment of arrest until the child’s prosecution and eventual conviction and sentencing”.
None of this stopped Dame Ellman intervening 3 times during the debate to defend the Israeli military’s treatment of children:
does she accept that the context in which these situations occur is an organised campaign conducted by the Palestinian authorities of incitement, to try to provoke young Palestinians to carry out acts of violence towards other civilians, some of which result in death, including the death of young children?’
The idea that Palestinian children have to be incited to attack the military occupation, because otherwise they would fall in love with soldiers who tear gas them is one of Ellman’s pet themes.
Ms Champion responded that:
‘this debate is about the different treatment of Palestinian and Israeli children, and the breach of human rights and international law.’
The late Jo Cox MP also intervened:
‘evidence from Military Court Watch suggests that 65% of children continue to report being arrested at night in what are described as terrifying raids by the military.’
This did not deter Ellman who intervened again:
‘Does my hon. Friend really believe that the solution to this horrendous conflict between two peoples—the Israeli and the Palestinian people—can be found by encouraging individual child Palestinians to commit acts of violence against other human beings?’
And then this despicable MP intervened a 3rd time:
‘I note my hon. Friend’s comments that a child should not be detained, and I assume that she means in any circumstances. Suppose a child was involved in an act of violence that resulted in the deaths of other human beings. That is what has happened with young Palestinians throwing stones—people have been killed. In those circumstances, surely she thinks that there should be detention.’
Military arrests of children of which there are hundreds each year are a method of coercing and intimidating Palestinian communities.
Two years later, on 7th February 2018, there was another debate on Palestinian Children and Israeli Military Detention. Ellman made a speech supporting the Israeli military. She spoke of
‘the Palestinian Authority’s incitement of young people to hate and kill, as is happening on the west bank today. Such incitement is specifically in breach of the Geneva conventions.’
In fact the Palestinian Authority is a Quisling Authority which works with the Israeli military to prevent acts of resistance. Ellman went on:
‘We must remember that 75% of the offences committed by Palestinian minors are violent crimes, including murder, attempted murder, shooting, making and throwing Molotov cocktails, and attacking soldiers. Thirty per cent. of assailants in the terror attacks of 2016 were under 18 years old. The youngest was 11. For example, in June 2016, 13-year-old Hallel Ariel was stabbed to death by Nasser Tarayrah, a 17-year-old Palestinian, who climbed into her home and stabbed her repeatedly in a frenzied attack in front of her younger siblings.’
Ellman was referring to the death of an Israeli settler child. She ‘forgot’ to mention the 32 Palestinian children killedin 2016.  A further 14 were killedin 2017 and in 2018 56 were killed, the highest for four years. However as these were Palestinian children who had died they were of no account to this racist.
Ellman did however mention the death of one settler baby ‘Yehuda Haim Shoham, aged five months.’ Jewish children are mentioned by name.  Palestinian children aren’t mentioned at all. 
The reason Ellman has been forced to resign is not that she is Jewish.  Some of her major critics in Liverpool Riverside CLP have been Jewish.  It’s because she is a racist and a Zionist. See The Riverside scandal: Louise Ellman and the war on Riverside Labour Party
It is difficult for the yellow press and the BBC to get their heads round that Ellman is hated because of who she is not because she is Jewish..
The BBC tonight carried another lying report about Ellman’s resignation.  Once again it carried nothing from her critics. No doubt the BBC will claim that this like all other reports are within BBC Guidelines.
It is a great pity that Jeremy Corbyn thanked Ellman for her services to the Labour Party, since no one can remember any. Given she blamed Corbyn for her resignation it is a pity he even mentioned this execrable woman. The only service she has done the Labour Party is her resignation from it.
Tony Greenstein

Chris Williamson's Suspension - Please Share Widely

$
0
0
Why is Chris Williamson Suspended When Peter Mandelson is Still at Liberty?

It is difficult to understand the logic, because there is no logic, behind the suspension of Chris Williamson. It is difficult to avoid the fact that he was suspended for calling out the fake 'antisemitism' witchhunt and for organising the Democracy Roadshow which called for Open Selection for MPs.




When racist Labour MP Phil Woolas ran an election campaign in 2010 he did it with the aim of 'making the white folk angry'.  Could there be a clearer example of racism?  Tom Watson in the above article in Labour Uncut confessed to having 'lost sleep thinking about poor Phil.'  

In the 2004 Birmingham Hodge Hill byelection he ran a nakedly racist campaign demonising asylum seekers yet this racist is the one who called for Chris Williamson's suspension on the grounds of 'antisemitism'.


Chris is convinced that the real reason why MPs signed the letter in June calling for  his suspension is because he had organised the Democracy Roadshow which would have led to their deselection. It is therefore shameful that Jennie Formby, with the silent support of Jeremy Corbyn, has endorsed this suspension.  What Corbyn is doing is endorsing his own removal from office. 

If anyone deserves to be suspended it is Tom Watson. 

Phil Woolas's racist leaflet that Tom Watson endorsed

The Cynicism of Twitter Who Are REFUSING to Process My Appeal

$
0
0

It’s Fine to Call Someone an Anti-Semite in Twitter’s Eyes But Wrong To Make Fun of These Trolls
The offending tweet





Two weeks ago Chris Williamson tweeted a picture of him giving a lecture at Nottingham University on neoliberalism, despite the attempts of the  Zionists to prevent him speaking.
The Zionist movement, aided by a Press and Establishment that waxed lyrical on freedom of speech when it came to Charlie Hebdo, the right of Salman Rushdie to write and publicise The Satanic Verses and the right of the Danish cartoonists of Mohammed to draw what they want, believes that criticism of Zionism and its adherents crosses all ethical boundaries. In the current parlance it is 'hate speech'.
In essence the defenders of Israeli apartheid and its military occupation believe they have the right to suppress freedom of speech in just the same way as they do on the West Bank.
I posted:
well done. It's good that the racist Zios and their fellow travellers on Labour's Right learnt a lesson that we won't allow freedom of speech to be shut down

Clearly the fragile flower that is Noah Cantor, having failed to stop Chris Williamson speaking decided he’d try to stop me speaking instead. Twitter however proved somewhat less robust guardians of free speech than the authorities of Nottingham University.
On the same day as my post I received a notice in my inbox:
You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.

Note the blackmail - you can wait for your appeal to be processed or get it over with and just delete the tweet
I agree.  One shouldn’t do any of the above.  However I defy anyone to explain how my Tweet promoted violence or threatened or harassed anyone on the basis of the various protected characteristics of race, ethnicity etc. I referred to ‘racist Zios’ ie Zionists and the Labour Right. As far as I’m aware being a Zionist is a political category (there are millions of Christian Zionists like  Donald Trump). A Zionist is someone who believes in a racist ethno-nationalist Jewish Supremacist state.
After 8 days Twitter is still refusing to process the appeal
Is it now an offence under Twitter’s corporate speak to criticise Zionism or its adherents? Presumably it offends their ‘Community Standards’ which is a euphemism for anything that the apparatchiks of multi-nationals take offence to.  Twitter is hardly a community despite their laughable pretensions to that effect.
This is the Twitter that gives Donald Trump a platform for his hate speech.

It is also the Twitter that refused to uphold a complaint I made against another Zio who wished that my family and I had perished in the Holocaust.
However Twitter did give me a right of appeal and acknowledged it as such on October 12th. However despite various reminders over one week later they are refusingto process that appeal.  Maybe it’s too difficult for the corporate mind to get its head around the fact that opposition to Zionists is not anti-Semitic and that defence of free speech is fundamental to a free society? Or that those who accuse people, including Jewish people, of antisemitism without just cause are the ones who should be suspended.
Protecting holocaust abuse is fine by Twitter and not against any rules
So Twitter are in default of even the pathetic rules by which they purportedly operate. Being a corporation of course they don’t have to adhere to their own rules or answer to anyone since they are a law unto themselves.
However if they had any honesty they would admit there are no rules and everything is decided on the subjective whim of whoever makes these decisions.
Which is why I’m presently locked out of an account with nearly 4,000 followers. Of course I could take the easy route that has been offered and delete the tweet.  But in that case I would lose my right of appeal.  Except that there is no right of appeal.  Catch 22.  So please follow me at tonygreenstein1 and RETWEET THIS and post on social media.

Lib Dems for Free Speech Demand Free Speech on Palestine Inside the Lib-Dems

$
0
0
Asking for democratic rights in the Lib-Dems is like asking Donald Trump to speak the truth

I have to confess that I’ve told Jonathan Coulter, who is a good comrade and one of the signatories to the leaflet below that was distributed at the big anti-Brexit march at the weekend, that trying to obtain justice or freedom of speech in the Lib Dems is like climbing Mount Everest on your hands.
The leaflet says that ‘It is time our party returned to our core values and policies’ but in fact it never had any core principles or values that it wouldn’t sell out at the earliest opportunity. It is a free market party that jumped into bed with David Cameron and passed the Health and Social Care Act 2012 which began the privatisation of the NHS in earnest.
The Lib Dems were born of a shotgun wedding between the old Liberal party and the Social Democratic Party, who were the equivalent of Tom Watson and co. today (though not quite as right-wing).
The Liberal Party itself was not a radical party and it barely tolerated the Young Liberals ‘Red Guard’ such as Peter Hain and Louis Eaks who led the campaign against the South African Springboks in 1970.  The late Louis Eakes went on to edit Free Palestine and was one of the forerunners of the Palestine Solidarity Movement.
However if the Liberals were never a party of principle the Lib Dems were even less so.  The Liberals were more typified by Jeremy Thorpe, who was acquitted of trying to murder Norman Scott after a blatantly biased judge summed up in his favour. It was a Liberal Party that was typified by David Steel’s cover up of the child abuse and paedophilia of Cyril Smith.
But if the Liberals could at least claim to have a radical fringe, the Lib Dems has never had anything.  Hence my advice that trying to reclaim a tradition that never existed is a task worthy of Hercules!  It is a party that all but expelled Jenny Tonge and did expelDavid Ward. The latter was carried out by homophobe Tim Farron, who was leader of the Lib Dems.
Nonetheless, despite the impossibility of their task, one cannot but admire the tenacity and determination of those behind this leaflet. This despite the impossible odds of succeeding in getting justice and fairness from a party that is wedded to the worst aspects of British capitalism.
This is a party which had no hesitation in getting into bed with David Cameron and George Osborne whilst placing Jeremy Corbyn beyond the pale. It is a party that has taken to its bosom the execrable Luciana Berger, the Zionist bigot and former Director of Labour Friends of Israel who has spent a lifetime accusing anti-racists of anti-Semitism.
Jonathan Coulter (on right)
I found the debateon the welcome of the Lib Dems for Luciana Berger most interesting, not least for the way even former radicals like Lord Tony Greaves have queued up to welcome this opportunist.
I can only wish them good luck as the signatories to this leaflet will need it!
Tony Greenstein
Britain’s unaccountable press and broadcasting media are at the root of both Brexit, and “antisemitism” smears
We are a group of 13 Lib Dems, some of who are here to demonstrate against Boris Johnson’s Brexit, an absurd and damaging proposition, largely rooted in press misreporting in the early 90s, when the self-same Boris was The Telegraph’s correspondent in Brussels and using his position to propagate a series of Euromyths[i].
At the same time, we are concerned that many politicians, including our own Lib Dem leaders, have embraced an unfounded proposition that there is rampant antisemitism in the Labour Party.
A very obvious smear campaign that involves media collusion
and false personal attacks
British politicians, including many leading Remainers, have repeatedly ignored hard statistical and other evidence showing the antisemitism proposition to be wildly exaggerated and based on misinformation[ii], and in so doing, have aligned themselves with an even more tendentious media-orchestrated campaign than the one behind Brexit. It diverts attention from Israel’s indefensible settler-colonial project which involves, inter alia:
1.      Depriving 200,000 Bedouin citizens of Israel living in the Negev desert of fundamental rights (electricity, water, medical care, roads, education).
2.      Subjecting West Bank Palestinians to military law, while stealing land and moving in illegal settlers subject to Israeli civil law, contravening the Geneva Convention.
3.      Turning Gaza into a vast open-air prison for 2.2 million Palestinians, without access to clean water, proper nutrition, medical care, travel and other rights
4.      Controlling the supply of Palestinian water resources, with the Palestinians getting 13% of the total mountain aquifer water[iii].
5.      Controlling the lives of 5 million Palestinians who have absolutely no say in the affairs of the Israel, and risk losing their right to return if they go overseas
6.      The recent Nation State Law (2018) which further entrenches the supremacy of Jewish citizens; 50 discriminatory laws already grant superior rights to Jewish population.
At the same time pro-Israel lobbyists meddle in our internal affairs[iv], with a view to manipulating public perceptions about the situation in Israel and Palestine.
In March, the Party wrongfully suspended Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine (LDFP), and only ended this in June under conditions that cripple this body’s ability to speak truth to power.  The Party has moreover unwisely adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism (along with its 11 “examples”), which Israel and its advocates use to conflate legitimate criticism of Israel with genuine antisemitism.  
We have repeatedly sought to draw our party’s attention to the issue, but the response is totally unsatisfactory
On 31st May, we raised it with party leaders in an “open letter”, but got no response[v].  We then tried to have it discussed with ordinary members, but much to our disappointment, found ourselves shut out of one internal policy forum after another, as if the topic were taboo.  In cases where we have managed to post something, we have at best been dogged by unwarranted censorship, and at worst subjected to vile troll-like abuse from party activists. 
We formally complained about this situation, only to find that our complaints remained unanswered for months, raising serious questions about the efficacy of the complaints process, even after July 1st when we were told it had inaugurated a new improved system.
It is time our party returned to our core values and policies, which involve:
1.      telling the truth, and checking our arguments against objective evidence;
2.      ensuring that party members have space for unfettered debate on Israel, Palestine and alleged antisemitism in internal discussion forums;
3.      ensuring the complaints process is fit for purpose, and;
4.      refocusing on our policy of reforming the British media landscape, much evident when, in 2018, we joined the Labour Party and some dissident Tories in demanding full implementation of Leveson II and associated reforms.
If you require further information, please write to:
Peter Downey                         peterofbath@gmail.com
Jonathan Coulter                     jcoulter287@gmail.com
Pamela and Hugh Manning    pamjomanning@gmail.com

LibDems4freespeechgroup, 19 October 2019


Open Letter to Ben Jamal, Director of Palestine Solidarity Campaign - When Are You Going to Fight Back?

$
0
0

I was Thrown out Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s Trade Union Conference for Distributing Leaflets against the IHRA

Last Saturday I attended PSC's trade union conference as a representative of my union branch (UNITE). 
Prior to this I had written, as had Brighton and Hove PSC, to Ben Soffa, PSC Secretary and Ben Jamal, PSC Director, asking that the IHRA be placed on the agenda of the conference. I wrote that:
In the past 4 years there has been a massive attack on the Palestine Solidarity movement and the IHRA has been Zionists main weapon.
In that time many people, myself included, have been expelled or suspended from the Labour Party for our opposition to Zionism. In that time PSC has been conspicuously silent.
PSC has done the minimal amount possible.  Sure it made a submission to the Chakrabarti Inquiry and helped commission the Opinion of Hugh Tomlinson QC but it has failed to launch a campaign against the IHRA or treat it with the seriousness it deserves.
In that time we have seen mounting attacks on the right to free speech and the right to organise by the Zionists see for example the attacks in 2017 alone. Over 150 local authorities have adopted the IHRA, which has led to difficulties in holding meetings in some council authorities and the ban on Big Ride for Palestine by Tower Hamlets council.
Yet this is the tip of the iceberg. What the adoption of the IHRA by the Labour Party and others has done is to chill free speech. It has given a shot in the arm to groups like the far-Right Campaign Against Anti-Semitism who attempt to demonise Palestine solidarity.
The CAA attack on Rebecca Gould which PSC of course has not even noticed
One particularly outrageous case was where the CAA attempted to get Rebecca Gould, an academic at Bristol University sacked, because of an article she had written ‘Beyond Anti-Semitism’ on how the Holocaust and ‘the spectre of anti-Semitism’ is used to suppress discussion of Palestinian oppression. Even Kenneth Ster, the person who drafted the IHRA, condemned this attack as ‘McCarthy like’.
You would think that PSC would be eager to discuss the IHRA at its Trade Union conference. After all the Labour Party wouldn’t have passed the IHRA if the big unions, in particular Unite and UNISON, hadn’t supported it.
Corbyn has now surrendered to his accusers - all they want now is his resignation
The IHRA gives as an example of anti-Semitism
Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.’
Leaving aside that Israel is not a democratic state this example renders support for BDS, which is the policy of most trade unions, ‘anti-Semitic’. The German Bundestag in May condemned BDS as ‘anti-Semitic’.  It presents a clear and present danger to BDS.
Why then has PSC confined its activities to making paper submissions and press statements and letters? The answer is simple. PSC  doesn’t want to offend the trade union leaderships who have buckled under the ‘anti-Semitism’ offensive and supported the IHRA.
PSC has refused to tackle the Israel lobby. The Jewish Labour Movement and Labour Friends of Israel have had a free hand, together with the Israeli Embassy in the Labour Party.
It is therefore no surprise that PSC has all but given up fighting the IHRA. In its submission to Tower Hamlet’s Council it suggested, not that the IHRA resolution be rescinded but that the Council add a ‘free speech caveat’ to its existing policy.  It doesn’t take a genius to work out that since the IHRA is designed to prevent free speech, a free speech caveat is a contradiction in terms.  The Labour Party passed such a caveat in 2018 when passing the IHRA policy. Nothing has been seen or heard of it since.
Below is an open letter to Ben Jamal.
Tony Greenstein
The Fight Against the IHRA Requires Determination & Courage not Timidity, Caution & Cowardice

19th October 2019

Dear Ben,
Introduction
For the past 4 years, in the wake of Jeremy Corbyn’s surprise election as Labour leader, the Zionist movement, the British Establishment and their press have waged an ‘anti-Semitism war’ against both Corbyn, the Left and the wider Palestine solidarity movement. 
Prior to his election Corbyn was PSC’s main parliamentary sponsor.  Yet despite this PSC, unlike Stop the War Coalition, failed to defend him against the never ending Zionist attacks.
PSC Trade Union conference
Lorna Anderson recently reportedwhen visiting the West Bank, on the ‘enthusiasm evinced for Jeremy Corbyn and the pro-Palestinian positions adopted by the Labour Party conference’ by Palestinians. Corbyn’s victory gave Palestinians hope but to PSC the attacks on him were simply an internal Labour party affair. Silence was the order of the day.
When the Zionist campaign had only just begun I wrotean Open Letter (11.4.16.) to Ben Soffa, PSC Secretary, observing that ‘PSC is renowned for its caution and timidity but there must be some limits to this’. I pointed out that:
The ceaseless political attack by the Zionists on support for the Palestinians in the LP cannot simply be ignored.  They will not go away because their campaign is linked with the determination of the Right in the LP to remove Corbyn.  ‘Anti-Semitism’ is their weapon of choice. Until Jeremy Corbyn firmly rebuts his critics he will continue to come under attack.  Appeasement rarely works.
3½ years later every word I wrote has come true. Ben’s reply(20.4.16.) dripped with complacency:
Many recent attacks reflect the strategy set out by the Israeli strategic thinktank the Reut Institute in their 2010 report,... I make no apology for the fact that we do not engage in every debate some would wish to involve us in. ... there is a plan to force us to 'play defence' on the terrain chosen by those wishing to preserve the status quo in Palestine. We must not fall into the trap of allowing our opponents to set our agenda,... In this area there are numerous initiatives which may be superficially attractive but the net effect of which would be strongly negative for our cause.... it is also not necessarily most effective for PSC to be the organisation leading on all aspects of this.
Former Lib-Dem MP David Ward was removed as a candidate by homophobic bigot Tim Farron
The consequences of ‘refusing to engage or ‘play defence’ was that Zionists had an open goal. The ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign has now gained such momentum that even denial that there is such a campaign is equated with anti-Semitism. What began in the Labour Party has not stayed in the Labour Party. For example the Lib-Dem Friends of Palestine have virtually been banned, Jenny Tonge was forced to resignand ex- MP David Ward was prevented from standing again for parliament.
Destroying Free Speech on Israel and Palestine
The public narrative has changed from one of Palestinian oppression and rights to Jewish rights and anti-Semitism. The fight for Palestinian liberation has been redefined by the IHRA as a form of anti-Semitism. A host of meetings and events have come under sustained pressure or being cancelled such as meetings for Tom Suarez’s book State and Terror, Jackie Walker’s film Witchhunt.  Chris Williamson MP one of the most solid Palestinian supporters as well as Israeli anti-Zionists  such as Moshe Machover and Miko Peled have become targets for the McCarthyites. All of this has met with a studied silence by PSC.
This has been led by the Board of Deputies. In the past week alone the Board has pressurised 2 churches, St Elizabeth’s in Eastbourne and St Annes in Soho, to apologise for hosted Miko.
During the Labour Party conference Zionist abuse and pressure forced Waterstone’s into cancellingthe launch of Bad News for Labour by 5 distinguished academics, an investigation into the ‘anti-Semitism’ crisis.  The book revealed
‘shocking findings of misinformation spread by the press, including the supposedly impartial BBC, and the liberal Guardian.
Despite the support of the local store, Waterstone’s nationally cancelledthe book launch. Subsequently their CEO, James Daunt has admitted“We made a mistake.”This was not because of anything PSC said, because again it said nothing, but because of adverse customer reaction and our own campaign. In Brighton we staged the book launch at extremely short notice at our Free Speech Centre where Greg Philo described how banning books was but one step away from book burning.
The IHRA and PSC’s Trade Union Conference
The IHRA has been adopted by over 150 Councils and used to prevent a rally by Big Ride for Palestine in Tower Hamlets. It has resulted in at least one suspension of a worker who called Israel a racist endeavour and the dismissal of another. It has also led to a chilling of debate on Palestine and Zionism on campus. In 2017alone it was used in Manchester, Leeds, Central Lancashire, UCL, Exeter, Sussex and Liverpool Universities either to close down Israel Anti-Apartheid week or to severely restrict meetings. Today the IHRA is being used to force a book launch at UCL The Responsibility of Intellectuals: by Noam Chomsky and others to accept restrictions which would prevent any criticism of how the Zionist lobby operates.
On 23rd July I sentyou and Ben Sofa a letter asking that the PSC Trade Union Conference on 12thOctober include a session on combating IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitismon the agenda. I sent a follow-upto Ben Sofa but I received no response from either of you.
Brighton & Hove PSC wrote to you earlier this summer concerning the lack of any session on the IHRA at PSC’s Trade Union Conference and received an insulting emailon 18th September. You claimed that we ‘need to keep in mind that these attempts to delegitimise activism for Palestine are global’ as if that was an excuse for your lethargy.
You statedbluntly that ‘To use the Conference to create a focus on the IHRA – would not be right.’ Why not?  The IHRA is the principle weapon of the Zionists in Britain and internationally. To ignore it won’t make it go away. In his keynote address to the conference Mustafa Barghouti singled out the IHRA for condemnation. It is clear to Palestinian activists that the IHRA is a weapon aimed at their struggle.  To you it is just an inconvenience.
You stated that ‘A key challenge in the UK and globally has been seeking to get agreement on a strategy of response.’ Despite your claims about devising a strategy, in an emailto Brighton PSC member Caroline O’Reilly that you have ‘written a range of articles, social media posts” etc. it is clear that your response has been fragmented, piecemeal and ad hoc.
Yes you sponsored a legal opinion by Hugh Tomlinson and made submissions to various bodies, as well as writing to every councillor in Britain – itself worthy initiatives – but what you have failed to do was adopt any strategy for defeating the IHRA or indeed hold any discussion on how best to meet this new IHRA challenge. You seem bereft of ideas and are content to simply go through the motions.
For example PSC organises regular lobbies of MPs. Why has PSC not organised one on the IHRA? Why did PSC not support the lobby of Labour’s NEC on 4thSeptember 2018? Why has there been no attempt to fight the IHRA by UNISON or UNITE. Why did you obstinately refuse to discuss the IHRA in PSC’s own trade union conference.
It was because of this refusal that I produced a leaflet for distribution. When I attempted to give it out in the conference itself I was asked to leave. Not because I was ‘verbally aggressive’as you falsely claimedbut because you asserted that I had no right to distribute my leaflet in ‘our conference’. I had always been under the illusion that PSC belonged to its members, however as one of the original founders of PSC I apologise for my mistake.
Constructing a Coalition Against the IHRA, the Trade Unions and the Witchhunt
The trade unions are a crucial arena in the fight against the IHRA. The University College Union already has policy opposing the IHRA which should be enormously helpful in terms of opposing any attempt of the university authorities to impose it. You could call a conference aimed at academics and students determined to resist the New McCarthyism.  At this very moment the government is `pressurising universities to adopt the IHRA.
The importance of reversing the decision of union executives to accept the IHRA lies in the fact that it was trade union representatives on Labour’s NEC who ensured that the Party adopted the IHRA.  In addition it is their members’ right to free speech which is affected and without free speech there are no trade union rights.
Most unions are affiliated to PSC but there seems to be a tacit understanding that in exchange for affiliation you don’t criticise the policies of their leaderships. The Executives of UNISON and UNITE have adopted the IHRA, without discussion with their own membership. If the trade union movement were to oppose the IHRA that would be a significant defeat for the Zionist lobby.  However the politics of PSC’s leadership and its Socialist Action leadership seem to dictate that you must not upset the trade union bureaucracy.
There is a burning need to construct a Free Speech coalition around the IHRA. We are faced with a concerted Zionist attempt to close down meetings through threats and abuse and ban books. Is it really so hard to construct a genuine coalition? Have you tried?
For example Libertyhas passed policy opposing the IHRA. What approaches have you made to them? What approaches have you made to the churches nationally to get them to take a unified stand? A labour movement conference should also be called to oppose the IHRA.
We have to get the trade union leaderships to understand that there is no connection between support for the Palestinians , anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Stating that Israel is a racist state (endeavour) is a fact and has nothing to do with anti-Semitism.
It would also be good if you didn’t keep claimingsuccesses that are not your own. The demonstration of support at Labour Party conference in 2018 for Palestine and the sea of flags and the successful motion, did not belong to PSC but the hundreds of Palestine activists in the Labour Party itself. Labour Against the Witchhunt also handed out a 1,000 flags. Similarly the successful motion at this year’s conference owed nothing to PSC, which has never raised the issue of the Right of Return in either the Labour Party or trade unions.
What makes this claim particularly outrageous has been your refusal to defend Labour Party members who have been suspended or expelled. You stated that:
PSC has also made the strategic  decision that we should not get publicly involved in issues of Labour disciplinary processes against individual members
Where was this ‘strategic decision’ discussed?  When? Where was it reported? When Luciana Berger and Louise Ellman were under threat the JLM, LFI and Board of Deputies rallied round them. Your failure to support your own activists is a disgrace. To refuse to stand by your own members is an act of political cowardice.
When Asa Winstanley was suspended for having writen articlesin Electronic Intifada on how the JLM was founded to get rid of Corbyn, it is clear this was no disciplinary process. Yet once again you kept silent. You didn’t even protest when Asa was prevented from having a press pass to Conference. Has the cat got your tongue?
BHPSC has written to you asking if Anne Mitchell, a prominent activist, is expelled, will you issue a statement of support for her? She has been accused of the derogative stereotyping of Jews and Israelis’. The former is a lie but is calling Israel the most racist nation on Earth a stereotype when over 75% according to an opinion poll in Ynet News don’t want to live next door to an Arab and 60% wouldn’t have an Arab in their house?
Perhaps your most shameful act was your request, when Len McCluskey and Anne were pictured in front of the PSC stall at TUC congress, that the photograph should not be shared on social media because those who have been attacking her might use it against McCluskey.
Two States
The problem with your relations with the trade unions and the Labour Right is that you go along with their support for the two state solution despite the fact that no one seriously believes that it is feasible. Israel’s elections this year made that clear beyond doubt. The only possible solution, besides a series of Bantustans or the expulsion of the Palestinians is the creation of a unitary secular state. There is no other democratic solution.
PSC is frightened of saying out aloud what it knows to be true because of the implications. If you support a unitary state you must, of necessity oppose a ‘Jewish’ ethno-nationalist state and that, according to the IHRA is ‘anti-Semitic’. This is why everything that PSC does is just going through the motions.
Yes Israel is an Apartheid state but when Apartheid in South Africa was in existence did the Anti-Apartheid Movement call for 2 states - a White and Black state? The time has come for PSC to abandon what is an Apartheid solution. That is why the Board of Deputies, Labour Friends of Israel etc. support 2 states. They know it can never happen.
Zionism
When it comes to challenging the Zionist nature of the Israeli state you have nothing to say. The IHRA does permit criticism of Israel ‘like any other democratic state’ but what it forbids is a critique of the state itself. You  believe that you can fudge the Question of Zionism indefinitely. The Palestinian Question is not primarily a human rights question as you assert but a political question. The same was true with South Africa Apartheid.

In your letter to Brighton and Hove PSC you state that
The fundamental challenge is how do we ensure the space is defended without falling into the trap of making every conversation about Palestine a conversation about antisemitism The risk if we do that is we increase the “chilling effect”
That is precisely the wrong approach, to counterpose a fight against the IHRA with support for the Palestinians. The reason for the cry of ‘anti-Semitism’ is because it’s not possible to defend Israel without attacking the messenger. Even PSC has been subject to such tactics by Zionist ‘researcher’ and fraud David Collier.
It is in the fight against false allegations of anti-Semitism that we can point to the oppression that Palestinians experience. We can also reject the nonsense of identity politics which equate Jews in this country with a people living under settler colonialism. Not once has PSC called into question either the Board of Deputies claim to represent British Jews or the JLM’s claim to represent Labour Jews. Particularly disgraceful was your commentthat:
Many of our key Palestinian partners have expressed to us the need to ensure that our line of response is not the right of activists to say what they want but the rioghts of Palestinians
What do you think Palestinian activists do if not defend and support the rights of Palestinians? You seem to be saying that activists should allow themselves to be silenced. Yes we should be able to say exactly what we want without interference from Zionists without PSC cowering in the corner.
You claim, in the same letter, that it would havebeena fundamental strategic error’ to have opposed a demonstration by the JLM at the 2018 Labour Party Conference. Really? If the JLM hadn’t got cold feet then it would no doubt have attracted massive press publicity. Remember the Zionists’anti-racist’ demonstrationoutside parliament in March 18 which was quite rightly opposed by JVL and LAW? PSC of course did nothing then. To have refused to counter the JLM would have been a fundamental mistake. Fortunately for the JLM they knew which way the wind was blowing in Liverpool and it wasn’t for them.
In Solidarity,
Tony Greenstein 

The Torture of Julian Assange and the Destruction of a Human Being – it’s called the Special Relationship

$
0
0

Westminster’s District Judge Baraitser Seemed to Think that she was part of the Prosecution – She Didn’t Know How to Say No to Them




Below is a reportby Craig Murray, Britain’s Ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002-2004, whom the execrable Jack Straw, New Labour’s Foreign Minister, dismissed for his role in highlighting torture in that country. 
Two days ago a remand hearing was held concerning the application by the USA for his extradition. The behaviour of the District Judge was nothing less than outrageous but par for the courts. The magistracy have always been the most reactionary part of the judicial system.
What seems amazing is that a simple request for more time to prepare his case was refused by DJ Vanessa Baraitser.  What possible reason could there be for refusing this, most basic of requests? What was the urgency? Clearly Baraitser felt that it urgent that the United States lay its hands on Assange.
What is disturbing is the presence of 5 members of the US Embassy in the Court, including apparently armed protection officers and the fact that the Prosecution under James Lewis QC appeared to be taking their orders directly from them.  Come Brexit and we’ll be seeing a lot more of that!
The Guardian had a short report tucked away on page 17
The description of what is happening to Assange himself is harrowing. Assange provided newspapers like the Guardian with front page scoops yet when it came to reporting this case, it was tucked inside page 17 of the paper.
Given that extradition cases are ruled out on political grounds it will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court stands firm or not.
Welcome to British democracy.
Tony Greenstein


I was deeply shaken while witnessing yesterday’s events in Westminster Magistrates Court. Every decision was railroaded through over the scarcely heard arguments and objections of Assange’s legal team, by a magistrate who barely pretended to be listening.
Before I get on to the blatant lack of fair process, the first thing I must note was Julian’s condition. I was badly shocked by just how much weight my friend has lost, by the speed his hair has receded and by the appearance of premature and vastly accelerated ageing. He has a pronounced limp I have never seen before. Since his arrest he has lost over 15 kg in weight.
But his physical appearance was not as shocking as his mental deterioration. When asked to give his name and date of birth, he struggled visibly over several seconds to recall both. I will come to the important content of his statement at the end of proceedings in due course, but his difficulty in making it was very evident; it was a real struggle for him to articulate the words and focus his train of thought.
Until yesterday I had always been quietly sceptical of those who claimed that Julian’s treatment amounted to torture – even of Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture – and sceptical of those who suggested he may be subject to debilitating drug treatments. But having attended the trials in Uzbekistan of several victims of extreme torture, and having worked with survivors from Sierra Leone and elsewhere, I can tell you that yesterday changed my mind entirely and Julian exhibited exactly the symptoms of a torture victim brought blinking into the light, particularly in terms of disorientation, confusion, and the real struggle to assert free will through the fog of learned helplessness.
I had been even more sceptical of those who claimed, as a senior member of his legal team did to me on Sunday night, that they were worried that Julian might not live to the end of the extradition process. I now find myself not only believing it, but haunted by the thought. Everybody in that court yesterday saw that one of the greatest journalists and most important dissidents of our times is being tortured to death by the state, before our eyes. To see my friend, the most articulate man, the fastest thinker, I have ever known, reduced to that shambling and incoherent wreck, was unbearable. Yet the agents of the state, particularly the callous magistrate Vanessa Baraitser, were not just prepared but eager to be a part of this bloodsport. She actually told him that if he were incapable of following proceedings, then his lawyers could explain what had happened to him later. The question of why a man who, by the very charges against him, was acknowledged to be highly intelligent and competent, had been reduced by the state to somebody incapable of following court proceedings, gave her not a millisecond of concern.
The charge against Julian is very specific; conspiring with Chelsea Manning to publish the Iraq War logs, the Afghanistan war logs and the State Department cables. The charges are nothing to do with Sweden, nothing to do with sex, and nothing to do with the 2016 US election; a simple clarification the mainstream media appears incapable of understanding.
The purpose of yesterday’s hearing was case management; to determine the timetable for the extradition proceedings. The key points at issue were that Julian’s defence was requesting more time to prepare their evidence; and arguing that political offences were specifically excluded from the extradition treaty. There should, they argued, therefore be a preliminary hearing to determine whether the extradition treaty applied at all.
The reasons given by Assange’s defence team for more time to prepare were both compelling and startling. They had very limited access to their client in jail and had not been permitted to hand him any documents about the case until one week ago. He had also only just been given limited computer access, and all his relevant records and materials had been seized from the Ecuadorean Embassy by the US Government; he had no access to his own materials for the purpose of preparing his defence.
Furthermore, the defence argued, they were in touch with the Spanish courts about a very important and relevant legal case in Madrid which would provide vital evidence. It showed that the CIA had been directly ordering spying on Julian in the Embassy through a Spanish company, UC Global, contracted to provide security there. Crucially this included spying on privileged conversations between Assange and his lawyers discussing his defence against these extradition proceedings, which had been in train in the USA since 2010. In any normal process, that fact would in itself be sufficient to have the extradition proceedings dismissed. Incidentally I learnt on Sunday that the Spanish material produced in court, which had been commissioned by the CIA, specifically includes high resolution video coverage of Julian and I discussing various matters.


‘The US government was dictating its instructions to Lewis, who was relaying those instructions to Baraitser, who was ruling them as her legal decision.’ 
The evidence to the Spanish court also included a CIA plot to kidnap Assange, which went to the US authorities’ attitude to lawfulness in his case and the treatment he might expect in the United States. Julian’s team explained that the Spanish legal process was happening now and the evidence from it would be extremely important, but it might not be finished and thus the evidence not fully validated and available in time for the current proposed timetable for the Assange extradition hearings.
For the prosecution, James Lewis QC stated that the government strongly opposed any delay being given for the defence to prepare, and strongly opposed any separate consideration of the question of whether the charge was a political offence excluded by the extradition treaty. Baraitser took her cue from Lewis and stated categorically that the date for the extradition hearing, 25 February, could not be changed. She was open to changes in dates for submission of evidence and responses before this, and called a ten minute recess for the prosecution and defence to agree these steps.
What happened next was very instructive. There were five representatives of the US government present (initially three, and two more arrived in the course of the hearing), seated at desks behind the lawyers in court. The prosecution lawyers immediately went into huddle with the US representatives, then went outside the courtroom with them, to decide how to respond on the dates.
After the recess the defence team stated they could not, in their professional opinion, adequately prepare if the hearing date were kept to February, but within Baraitser’s instruction to do so they nevertheless outlined a proposed timetable on delivery of evidence. In responding to this, Lewis’ junior counsel scurried to the back of the court to consult the Americans again while Lewis actually told the judge he was “taking instructions from those behind”. It is important to note that as he said this, it was not the UK Attorney-General’s office who were being consulted but the US Embassy. Lewis received his American instructions and agreed that the defence might have two months to prepare their evidence (they had said they needed an absolute minimum of three) but the February hearing date may not be moved. Baraitser gave a ruling agreeing everything Lewis had said.
At this stage it was unclear why we were sitting through this farce. The US government was dictating its instructions to Lewis, who was relaying those instructions to Baraitser, who was ruling them as her legal decision. The charade might as well have been cut and the US government simply sat on the bench to control the whole process. Nobody could sit there and believe they were in any part of a genuine legal process or that Baraitser was giving a moment’s consideration to the arguments of the defence. Her facial expressions on the few occasions she looked at the defence ranged from contempt through boredom to sarcasm. When she looked at Lewis she was attentive, open and warm.
The extradition is plainly being rushed through in accordance with a Washington dictated timetable. Apart from a desire to pre-empt the Spanish court providing evidence on CIA activity in sabotaging the defence, what makes the February date so important to the USA? I would welcome any thoughts.
Baraitser dismissed the defence’s request for a separate prior hearing to consider whether the extradition treaty applied at all, without bothering to give any reason why (possibly she had not properly memorised what Lewis had been instructing her to agree with). Yet this is Article 4 of the UK/US Extradition Treaty 2007 in full:
On the face of it, what Assange is accused of is the very definition of a political offence – if this is not, then what is? It is not covered by any of the exceptions from that listed. There is every reason to consider whether this charge is excluded by the extradition treaty, and to do so before the long and very costly process of considering all the evidence should the treaty apply. But Baraitser simply dismissed the argument out of hand.
Just in case anybody was left in any doubt as to what was happening here, Lewis then stood up and suggested that the defence should not be allowed to waste the court’s time with a lot of arguments. All arguments for the substantive hearing should be given in writing in advance and a “guillotine should be applied” (his exact words) to arguments and witnesses in court, perhaps of five hours for the defence. The defence had suggested they would need more than the scheduled five days to present their case. Lewis countered that the entire hearing should be over in two days. Baraitser said this was not procedurally the correct moment to agree this but she will consider it once she had received the evidence bundles.
(SPOILER: Baraitser is going to do as Lewis instructs and cut the substantive hearing short).
Baraitser then capped it all by saying the February hearing will be held, not at the comparatively open and accessible Westminster Magistrates Court where we were, but at Belmarsh Magistrates Court, the grim high security facility used for preliminary legal processing of terrorists, attached to the maximum security prison where Assange is being held. There are only six seats for the public in even the largest court at Belmarsh, and the object is plainly to evade public scrutiny and make sure that Baraitser is not exposed in public again to a genuine account of her proceedings, like this one you are reading. I will probably be unable to get in to the substantive hearing at Belmarsh.
Plainly the authorities were disconcerted by the hundreds of good people who had turned up to support Julian. They hope that far fewer will get to the much less accessible Belmarsh. I am fairly certain (and recall I had a long career as a diplomat) that the two extra American government officials who arrived halfway through proceedings were armed security personnel, brought in because of alarm at the number of protestors around a hearing in which were present senior US officials. The move to Belmarsh may be an American initiative.
Assange’s defence team objected strenuously to the move to Belmarsh, in particular on the grounds that there are no conference rooms available there to consult their client and they have very inadequate access to him in the jail. Baraitser dismissed their objection offhand and with a very definite smirk.
Finally, Baraitser turned to Julian and ordered him to stand, and asked him if he had understood the proceedings. He replied in the negative, said that he could not think, and gave every appearance of disorientation. Then he seemed to find an inner strength, drew himself up a little, and said:
I do not understand how this process is equitable. This superpower had 10 years to prepare for this case and I can’t even access my writings. It is very difficult, where I am, to do anything. These people have unlimited resources.
The effort then seemed to become too much, his voice dropped and he became increasingly confused and incoherent. He spoke of whistleblowers and publishers being labeled enemies of the people, then spoke about his children’s DNA being stolen and of being spied on in his meetings with his psychologist. I am not suggesting at all that Julian was wrong about these points, but he could not properly frame nor articulate them. He was plainly not himself, very ill and it was just horribly painful to watch. Baraitser showed neither sympathy nor the least concern. She tartly observed that if he could not understand what had happened, his lawyers could explain it to him, and she swept out of court.
The whole experience was profoundly upsetting. It was very plain that there was no genuine process of legal consideration happening here. What we had was a naked demonstration of the power of the state, and a naked dictation of proceedings by the Americans. Julian was in a box behind bulletproof glass, and I and the thirty odd other members of the public who had squeezed in were in a different box behind more bulletproof glass. I do not know if he could see me or his other friends in the court, or if he was capable of recognising anybody. He gave no indication that he did.
In Belmarsh he is kept in complete isolation for 23 hours a day. He is permitted 45 minutes exercise. If he has to be moved, they clear the corridors before he walks down them and they lock all cell doors to ensure he has no contact with any other prisoner outside the short and strictly supervised exercise period. There is no possible justification for this inhuman regime, used on major terrorists, being imposed on a publisher who is a remand prisoner.
I have been both cataloguing and protesting for years the increasingly authoritarian powers of the UK state, but that the most gross abuse could be so open and undisguised is still a shock. The campaign of demonisation and dehumanisation against Julian, based on government and media lie after government and media lie, has led to a situation where he can be slowly killed in public sight, and arraigned on a charge of publishing the truth about government wrongdoing, while receiving no assistance from “liberal” society.
Unless Julian is released shortly he will be destroyed. If the state can do this, then who is next?

A Zionist Quiz from Stuttgart – Holocaust Heroes and Survivors Accuse Zionism

$
0
0
Hotel Silber, Gestapo Headquarters and the Jewish Deportations from Germany
During my talk in Stuttgart
This blog has had a temporary respite over the past few days. That is because I am in Germany. I was invited by the Palestine solidarity group in Stuttgart to address a public meeting, which I did on Friday evening. To a packed audience I spoke on the topic of Zionism and Anti-Semitism.
Part of the audience of over 80 in Stuttgart

To test your knowledge of Zionism I have included a series of quotations which I used in my talk. Let’s see how many you can get them right! The answers are at the bottom underneath quotations from survivors of the Holocaust about the similarities between Zionism, Israel and the Nazis.
The centre of Stuttgart
The city of Stuttgart
On the Saturday my hosts took me into the centre of Stuttgart, a large industrial city in South Germany, the home of Mercedes Benz, Daimler, Bosch and Porsche. We visited Hotel Silber, now a museum but during the war the headquarters of the Gestapo.
Crowds outside Hotel Silber
Hotel Silber in the 1930's
The deportation of the Jews of Stuttgart
There is a permanent exhibition there now showing the deportation of the 2,500 Jews of Stuttgart beginning in October 1941, a month after the Yellow Star was made compulsory. 
Stuttgart Jews on the train to Riga in Latvia - 90% of them would never return

You can read about it hereand see a video here. It states that the deportations were mainly to either the ‘model’ concentration camps of Thereisenstadt in Czechoslovakia (wrongly called an extermination camp in the film) or Auschwitz. However in October 1941 Auschwitz was not yet operational and wouldn't be for mass gassings until March 1942 so it is likely that the Jews of Stuttgart were sent to Riga, whose Jewish ghetto had been cleared by means of mass executions of the Latvian Jews.  See here.  
Less than 10% of the Jews who were deported from Stuttgart survived.

Below are the quotations I used as part of my talk in Stuttgart.  See how many you get!
Zionist Quotations Quiz
1.           Hitler’s rise was “a huge political and economic boost for the Zionist enterprise.’
2.           ‘In Paris... I achieved a freer attitude towards anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, I recognise the emptiness and futility of trying to 'combat' anti-Semitism.’
3.           Anti-Semitism, too, probably contains the Divine will to Good, because it forces us to close ranks, unites us through pressure, and through our unity will make us free.’
4.           ‘Judaephobia is then a mental disease, and as a mental disease it is hereditary, and having been inherited for 2,000 years, it is incurable.’
5.           I have spent most of my life in combating these very doctrines, [that Jews form a separate nation] when presented to me in the form of anti-Semitism, and I can only regard them as the more dangerous when they come to me in the guise of Zionism. They constitute a capitulation to our enemies.’
6.           The Nazi government 'is in agreement with the great spiritual movement within Jewry itself, Zionism, whose position is based on the recognistion of the unity of Jewry throughout the world, and the rejection of all ideas of mixing in’
7.           ‘the activity of the Zionist-oriented youth organizations that are engaged in the occupational restructuring of the Jews for agriculture and manual trades prior to their emigration to Palestine lies in the interest of the National Socialist state’s leadership.’
8.           ‘If we do not admit the rightfulness of anti-Semitism we deny the rightfulness of our own nationalism... Instead of establishing societies for defence against 1.           ‘If we do not admit the rightfulness of anti-Semitism we deny the rightfulness of our own nationalism... Instead of establishing societies for defence against the anti-Semites who want to reduce our rights, we should establish societies for defence against our friends, who desire to defend our rights.’
Hans and Sophie Scholl of the White Rose group were held at Hotel Silber in November 1937 before being released, arrested in Munich and executed in February 1943
9.         ‘our people were rather hard on him [William Evans-Gordon MP, founder of the anti-Semitic British  Brothers League in 1901. The Aliens Bill in England and the movement which grew around it were natural phenomenon which might have been foreseen... Sir William Evans-Gordon had no particular anti-Jewish prejudices... He acted as he thought, according to his best lights and in the most kindly way, in the interests of his country… he was sincerely ready to encourage any settlement of Jews almost anywhere in the British Empire, but he failed to see why the ghettos of London or Leeds or Whitechapel should be made into a branch of the ghettos of Warsaw and Pinsk.’ (my emphasis)
10.      If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael, then I would opt for the second alternative. For we must weigh not only the life of these children, but also the history of the People of Israel.’ This was a reaction to the British Kindertransport scheme to allow 10,000 Jewish children from Germany into Britain in 1938-39.
11.      ‘As the European Holocaust erupted, X saw it as a decisive opportunity for Zionism... X above all others sensed the tremendous possibilities inherent in the dynamic of the chaos and carnage in Europe... In conditions of peace,… Zionism could not move the masses of world Jewry. The forces unleashed by Hitler in all their horror must be harnessed to the advantage of Zionism. ... By the end of 1942… the struggle for a Jewish state became the primary concern of the movement.’
13.      ‘The Nazis victory would become “a fertile force for Zionism.”
14.       “It was morally disturbing to seem to be considered as the favoured children of the Nazi Government, particularly when it dissolved the anti-Zionist youth groups, and seemed in other ways to prefer the Zionists. The Nazis asked for a 'more Zionist behaviour.”
15.      ‘Zionism must be vigorously supported in order to encourage a significant number of German Jews to leave for Palestine or other destinations.’ As Nicosia noted, X‘intended to use Zionism as a legal justification for depriving German Jews of their civil rights’ and he ‘sanctioned the use of the Zionist movement in the future drive to eliminate Jewish rights, Jewish influence and eventually the Jewish presence in Germany.
16.      ‘Zionism has no illusion about the difficulty of the Jewish condition which consists above all in an abnormal occupational pattern and in the fault of an intellectual and moral  pattern and in the fault of an intellectual and moral posture not rooted in one’s own tradition… an answer to the Jewish question truly satisfying to the national state can be brought about only with the collaboration of the Jewish movement that aims at a social, cultural an moral renewal of Jewry…On the foundation of the new state, which has established the principle of race... fruitful activity for the fatherland is possible. Our acknowledgement of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we don’t wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we too are against mixed marriages and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group… The realisation of Zionism could only be hurt by resentment of Jews abroad against the German development. Boycott propaganda… is in essence fundamentally unZionist, because Zionism wants not to do battle but to convince and to build.’
17.      Palestine was  an institute forthe fumigation of Jewish vermin’
18.      When a friend of X called him an anti-Semite he retorted ‘I have already established here [in his diary] that I despise the cancers of Judaism more than does the worst anti-Semite.’
19.           Describing the reaction of Polish Jewish workers to Zionism in the 1930’s: ‘to the Jewish workers anti-Semitism seemed to triumph in Zionism, which recognised the legitimacy and the validity of the old cry ‘Jews get out!' The Zionists were agreeing to get out.’

Marika Sherwood

1
“Sometime after [1956] I heard a news item about Israelis herding Palestinians into settlement camps. I just could not believe this. Weren’t the Israelis also Jews? Hadn’t we – they – just survived the greatest pogrom of our history? Weren’t [concentration] camps – often euphemistically called ‘settlement camps’ by the Nazis – the main feature of this pogrom? How could Jews in any measure do unto others what had been done to them? How could these Israeli Jews oppress and imprison other people? In my romantic imagination, the Jews in Israel were socialists and people who knew right from wrong. This was clearly incorrect. I felt let down, as if I was being robbed of a part of what I had thought was my heritage. …

I have to say to the Israeli government, which claims to speak in the name of all Jews, that it is not speaking in my name. I will not remain silent in the face of the attempted annihilation of the Palestinians; the sale of arms to repressive regimes around the world; the attempt to stifle criticism of Israel in the media worldwide; or the twisting of the knife labelled ‘guilt’ in order to gain economic concessions from Western countries. Of course, Israel’s geo-political position has a greater bearing on this, at the moment. I will not allow the confounding of the terms ‘anti-Semitic’ and ‘anti-Zionist’ to go unchallenged.”

Dr. Marika Sherwood, ‘How I became an anti-Israel Jew’, Middle East Monitor, 7/3/18. Marika Sherwood is a survivor of the Budapest ghetto.  In March 2017 she planned to deliver a talk entitled 'You're doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to me'. However after a visit from the Israeli Ambassador Mark Regev to the University’s Head of Student Experience Tim Westlake the title of the talk was changed at the insistence of the university authorities.  Thus at the behest of a foreign state, Manchester University changed the title of a talk of a Holocaust survivor.  All of course in the name of the  bogus IHRA definition of ‘anti-Semitism’. See the Independent.
2
“Israel, in order to survive, has to renounce the wish for domination and then it will be a much better place for Jews also. The immediate analogy which a lot of people are making in Israel is Germany. Not only the Germany of Hitler and the Nazis but even the former German Empire wanted to dominate Europe. What happened in Japan after the attack on China is that they wanted to dominate a huge area of Asia. When Germany and Japan renounced the wish for domination, they became much nicer societies for the Japanese and Germans themselves. In addition to all the Arab considerations, I would like to see Israel, by renouncing the desire for domination, including domination of the Palestinians, become a much nicer place for Israelis to live.”
Dr. Israel Shahak, Middle East Policy Journal, Summer 1989, no.29.
3
“I am pained by the parallels I observe between my experiences in Germany prior to 1939 and those suffered by Palestinians today. I cannot help but hear echoes of the Nazi mythos of ‘blood and soil’ in the rhetoric of settler fundamentalism which claims a sacred right to all the lands of biblical Judea and Samaria. The various forms of collective punishment visited upon the Palestinian people – coerced ghettoization behind a ‘security wall’; the bulldozing of homes and destruction of fields; the bombing of schools, mosques, and government buildings; an economic blockade that deprives people of the water, food, medicine, education and the basic necessities for dignified survival – force me to recall the deprivations and humiliations that I experienced in my youth. This century-long process of oppression means unimaginable suffering for Palestinians.” 
Dr. Hajo Meyer, ‘An Ethical Tradition Betrayed’, Huffington Post, 27/1/10.
Hajo Meyer was a survivor of Auschwitz.

 4
“As a Jewish youngster growing up in Budapest, an infant survivor of the Nazi genocide, I was for years haunted by a question resounding in my brain with such force that sometimes my head would spin: ‘How was it possible? How could the world have let such horrors happen?’

 It was a naïve question, that of a child. I know better now: such is reality. Whether in Vietnam or Rwanda or Syria, humanity stands by either complicitly or unconsciously or helplessly, as it always does. In Gaza today we find ways of justifying the bombing of hospitals, the annihilation of families at dinner, the killing of pre-adolescents playing soccer on a beach. …

There is no understanding Gaza out of context – Hamas rockets or unjustifiable terrorist attacks on civilians – and that context is the longest ongoing ethnic cleansing operation in the recent and present centuries, the ongoing attempt to destroy Palestinian nationhood.

The Palestinians use tunnels? So did my heroes, the poorly armed fighters of the Warsaw Ghetto. Unlike Israel, Palestinians lack Apache helicopters, guided drones, jet fighters with bombs, laser-guided artillery. Out of impotent defiance, they fire inept rockets, causing terror for innocent Israelis but rarely physical harm. With such a gross imbalance of power, there is no equivalence of culpability. …

And what shall we do, we ordinary people? I pray we can listen to our hearts. My heart tells me that ‘never again’ is not a tribal slogan, that the murder of my grandparents in Auschwitz does not justify the ongoing dispossession of Palestinians, that justice, truth, peace are not tribal prerogatives. That Israel’s ‘right to defend itself,’ unarguable in principle, does not validate mass killing.

Dr. Gabor Mate, ‘Beautiful Dream of Israel has become a Nightmare’, Toronto Star, 22/7/14.
Gabor Mate is a survivor of the Budapest ghetto.
Zeev Sternhell

5
“The left is no longer capable of overcoming the toxic ultra-nationalism that has evolved here [in Israel], the kind whose European strain almost wiped out a majority of the Jewish people. The interviews Haaretz’s Ravit Hecht held with [the right-wing Israeli politicians] Smotrich and Zohar (December 3, 2016 and October 28, 2017 ) should be widely disseminated on all media outlets in Israel and throughout the Jewish world. In both of them we see not just a growing Israeli fascism but racism akin to Nazism in its early stages.

Like every ideology, the Nazi race theory developed over the years. At first it only deprived Jews of their civil and human rights. It’s possible that without World War II the ‘Jewish problem’ would have ended only with the ‘voluntary’ expulsion of Jews from Reich lands. After all, most of Austria and Germany’s Jews made it out in time. It’s possible that this is the future facing Palestinians.”:

Zeev Sternhell is a survivor of the Przemysl ghetto in Poland.
6a
“The Zionist movement of Europe played a very important role in the mass extermination of Jews. Indeed, I believe that without the cooperation of Zionists it would have been a muchmore difficult task….

[The Zionists] said that we are not Czechoslovaks or we are not Germans, we are not French, we are Jews and we must, as Jews, go back to our country, to Israel or to Palestine and found our state …

Then came the Nuremberg Law, which was a law, issued by a nominally civilized state [Nazi Germany], which said that Jews do not belong to Europe, but to Palestine. …

So, on one platform, Nazism and Zionism had something in common: they both preached that Jews don’t belong to Europe but to Palestine. ...

And naturally, the Germans said: ‘You see the Jews may not trust us but they will trust you’, to the Zionists, ‘because they have seen that they have always told them actually the truth: that you belong to Palestine, that you are a foreign element here.’ … 

And so the Jewish councils were preferably selected from well-known Zionists. And, because the well-known Zionists became respectable, many Jews who were respectable anyway became Zionists. So they formed Jewish councils from a Zionist core, fortified by respectable members of society: top lawyers, top business people, top economists and that was the Jewish councils. ...

They were promised by the Germans or by the local fascist government to be protected from any discrimination because they are needed for administering of the Jewish affairs. …

So you had here already a Zionist clique enforced by money of big Jewish businessmen who would be prepared to go along with the discrimination against the masses of the Jewish population which were neither rich nor Zionist, and in other words did not belong to the clique. …

So I didn’t trust them in spite of the fact that the Nazis gave them the right after the Nuremberg Laws. I considered them plain fascists and I considered them from the very start as despicable creatures who deal with the fascists and take profit out of it in order to be exempted from discrimination conducted against the others. …
So I didn’t trust the Nazis any more or any less than the Jewish Zionist councils. Indeed, I realised that the Zionists and the Nazis are approximately identical enemies of mine who have got both one thing in common, to get me out from home with 25 kilos to an unknown place and to leave my mother completely defenceless at home. …

The young people, the core of resistance, is always 16 to 30. Every soldier knows that they are the best material for fighting. … I was flabbergasted by the fact that the Zionists who pretended to be the protectors of the Jews, the first thing which they agreed to was to let go away a potential core of resistance who could in the last resort protect the families with force if necessary. … 

Dr. Rudolph Vrba,Oral history interview with Rudolf Vrba’ , World at War TV Series, 1972, 1st section, extracts from 32 to 45mins.
Rudolf Vrba was a survivor of  Majdanek and Auschwitz. He escaped from Auschwitz in 1944 in order to warn the Jews of Hungary about the Nazi extermination programme. Tragically, some Zionist leaders had other ideas.
6b
“I am a Jew. In spite of that – indeed because of that – I accuse certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war.

This small group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in Hitler’s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of silence. Among them was Dr. [Rudolf] Kastner, leader of the council which spoke for all Jews in Hungary…

While I was prisoner number 44070 at Auschwitz – the number is still on my arm – I compiled careful statistics of the exterminations … I took these terrible statistics with me when I escaped in 1944 and I was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas chambers. … Kastner went to Eichmann and told him, ‘I know of your plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.’

Eichmann not only agreed, but dressed Kastner up in S.S. uniform and took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends. Nor did the sordid bargaining end there.

Kastner paid Eichmann several thousand dollars. With this little fortune, Eichmann was able to buy his way to freedom when Germany collapsed, to set himself up in the Argentine…”

Dr. Rudolf Vrba,Daily Herald, February 1961 (cited in Ben Hecht, Perfidy, 1962, p. 231). 
6c
“Why did Doctor Kastner betray his people when he could have saved many of them by warning them, by giving them a chance to fight, a chance to stage the second ‘Warsaw [uprising]’ which Eichmann feared? …

Could it be, therefore that the defeatist mood of Doctor Kastner was reinforced by the memory of words used by Doctor Chaim Weizmann, first President of Israel, when he addressed a Zionist convention in London in 1937? He said:

 I told the British Royal Commission that the hopes of Europe’s six million Jews were centred on emigration. I was asked: ‘Can you bring six million Jews to Palestine?’ I replied: ‘No.’ The old ones will pass. They will bear their fate or they will not. They are dust, economic and moral dust in a cruel world … only a branch will survive … They had to accept it. … If they feel and suffer, they will find the way – Beacharit Hayamim [‘When the Messiah comes, all the dead will be revived’] – in the fullness of time … I pray that we may preserve our national unity, for it is all we have. 

‘Only a branch will survive …’. Did Kastner, like Hitler, believe in a master race, a Jewish nation created of Top People for Top People by Top People? Was that the way in which he interpreted Doctor Chaim Weizmann's somber oration and was he right in so doing? If so, who was going to select the branch? Who was going to say which grains would form the heap of moral and economic dust, destined to await the coming of the Messiah? …

[My family,] presumably, formed the dust which was to be swept into the ovens by the Nazis who used Jewish leaders as their brooms …”

Dr. Rudolf Vrba, I Escaped from Auschwitz, 2002, pp. 281-2.
[Rudolf Vrba’s views were always controversial, but even Zionist newspapers such as the Jewish News, (15/12/16) and the Jerusalem Post, (16/2/17) have, in recent years, published strong criticisms of Kastner’s role in the Holocaust. For more on this whole controversy, see: Tony Greenstein, Weekly Worker, (1/6/17) and Ruth Linn,‘Rudolf Vrba and the Auschwitz Reports: Conflicting Historical Interpretations’ (2011) .]
Marek Edelman
7
“[During the war] it never even entered any of our minds that the Zionists were deliberately remaining passive in regard to the physical destruction of the Jews in order to additionally justify the founding of the State of Israel… But today, even acknowledged historians speak out loud about the way that some of the Zionists living in Palestine exploited the Holocaust politically! … 

[The first Israeli Prime Minister] Ben Gurion believed that the worse it is for the Jews in Europe, the better for Israel. He put that into practice… Ben Gurion washed his hands of the Diaspora… As early as a Mapai party conference in December 1942, he said that the tragedy of the European Jews did not ‘directly concern’ them. Those were the words of a leader who was willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of Jews to the idea of a Jewish state. I’m not saying he could have saved thousands of people, but he could have fought for those thousands of people. He did not do so. I don’t know whether this was deliberate.”

Dr Marek Edelman, 2016. Being On the Right Side: Everyone in the Ghetto Was a Hero, pp. 223, 448.
Marek Edelman was a survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto and a commander of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.
8
[As for Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin] ‘Fascist’ is a definition I can accept. I think even Begin would not deny it. He was a student of Jabotinsky, who represented the right wing of Zionism, who called himself a Fascist and was one of Mussolini’s interlocutors. Yes, Begin was his pupil. That is Begin’s history…. [The Holocaust] is Begin’s favourite defence. And I deny any validity to that defence. 
Primo Levi, The Voice of Memory: Primo Levi Interviews, 1961-1987, pp. 285-286. The quote is from 1982. Primo Levi was an Auschwitz survivor.
The Gaza Boat on which Reuben Moscovitz Sailed
9
I as a Holocaust survivor cannot live with the fact that the State of Israel is imprisoning an entire people behind fences. …  It's just immoral.

What happened to me in the Holocaust wakes me up every night and I hope we don't do the same thing to our neighbours. … [I compare] what I went through during the Holocaust to what the besieged Palestinian children are going through.

Reuben Moscovitz, ‘Jewish Gaza-bound Activists: IDF Used Excessive Force in Naval Raid’, Haaretz, 28/9/10. Reuben Moscovitz was survivor of the Holocaust in Romania

Answers to Zionist Quiz
1.           David Ben-Gurion
2.           Theodor Herzl
3.           Theodor Herzl
4.           Leo Pinsker
5.           Lucien Wolf, the Secretary of the Conjoint Foreign Committee of the Board of Deputies
6.           Reinhardt Heydrich
7.           Reinhardt Heydrich
8.           Jacob Klatzkin
9.           Chaim Weizmann
10.      David David Ben-Gurion
11.      Berl Katznelson
12.      David David Ben-Gurion
13.      David David Ben-Gurion
14.      Rabbi Joachim Prinz, a leader of German Zionism and later Vice Chair of the American Jewish Council
15.      Alfred Rosenberg, main Nazi theoretician hanged at Nuremburg
16.      Zionist Federation of Germany letter to Hitler of 21.6.33.
17.      Pinhas Rosenbluth, first Israeli Minister of Justice
18.      Arthur Ruppin, member of the Zionist Executive, first Director of the Palestine Office and Father of Israeli Land Settlement.
19.  Isaac Deutscher

Even Israel’s Court Arabs are Humiliated and Insulted by the Racists who are Employed at Ben-Gurion Airport

$
0
0

However Servile and Loyal Israel’s Druze Citizens Are  they are Still Arabs and they Cannot Expect Equality with Jews


Ben-Gurion airport is notorious for racial profiling.  If you are an Arab or Black you can expect to be stopped, harassed and abused and sometimes assaulted. It goes with the territory. It's what they call ‘security.’
Israel has always singled out the Druze population for special treatment compared to the rest of Israel’s Arab population. It is part of the colonial divide and rule tactic.  Druze citizens of Israel (not those in the Golan) are drafted to serve in the army and receive extra benefits and privileges because of this.
That is why it came as a rude shock to them when Netanyahu pushed through the Jewish Nation State Law last year which made it clear that however ‘loyal’ they were, Israel was a state of the Jewish people not its non-Jewish citizens even if they are the worst collaborators.
Being collaborators and court Arabs made no difference.  The simple fact is that however loyal to the state the Druze are, and many are members of Zionist organisations and parties, they are still not part of the master race.
At the April 2019 elections this meant that instead of the Druze voting for Likud and even further right-Zionist parties, they voted in large numbers for Meretz, the left-Zionist party.  Without this support Meretz would not have had representatives in the Knesset.
Ben Gurion Airport
Obviously this was not a situation that could continue. No Zionist party can expect to rely on non-Jewish votes to remain politically viable so Meretz merged into the Democratic Camp with right-wing former Labour Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Druze votes transferred to the Blue and White party and I suspect the Joint List.
There has been a radicalisation in recent years in the Druze community as it has become more and more evident that Zionism does not have a place for them.
Ayub Kara, a very right-wing Druze member of the Likud party, fell out with Netanyahu and in the recent elections failed to gain a seat in the Knesset.
Passport Control
The experiences of Reda Mansour, Israel’s Ambassador to Panama, speak volumes about the contempt and disdain that Israel has for its Arab collaborators.  He was treated in the same way as any Arab would be at Ben-Gurion airport. 
However it is his own fault and one should not have sympathy for him. He has to understand, as the spokesperson for the airport made clear, that it is very difficult for the authorities at Ben-Gurion airport to distinguish between collaborators and people with principle.
Although it would be helpful if collaborators carried the Mark of Cain, unfortunately the Lord is no longer willing to oblige. In any case, most of those who carry out security work at the Airport are of the view that all Arabs are the same and that the only good Arab is a dead Arab.  Not being politically sophisticated Zionist liberals, they make no distinction between the corrupt and servile and leftist activists!
One can see and understand Reda Mansour’s pain and anger and indeed sympathise.  As he says, the town he comes from
Isfiya is not a town in the [Palestinian] territories, but a home to the main military cemetery for fallen Druze soldiers who died during their service in the Israel Defense Forces."
What can be more insulting than to treat him as if he was just another Arab living under Occupation or, even worse, as a Palestinian.
The reaction of the Israeli Airport Authority’s spokesman, Ofer Lefler, is priceless.  It is difficult to understand those who accuse security bureaucrats of not having a sense of humour. She said that the reason for the harassment is that ‘the security guard is doing everything she can to protect her and the State of Israel."
The good Ambassador should know that harassment of Arabs is clearly integral to if not essential to the security of the Jewish state. Even more amusing is Lefler’s statement that ‘security checks are performed “regardless of religion, race or gender and equitably.” ‘
Racial profiling at Israel’s Ben-Gurion airport, not just of Arabs but Black people is legendary. One must take one’s hat off to an official spokesman with such a droll sense of humour laced with a biting sense of irony.
Mansour is of course used by Israel to show that even Arabs can become Ambassadors. Of course he is Ambassador to the non-state of Panama, which is kind of an extension to the United States. It is really Trump’s side office and so although, for purposes of diplomatic niceties Mansour is called an Ambassador in reality he is little more than an errand boy to Israel’s US Ambassador Ron Dermer. Britain has an Ambassador (& even a Deputy Ambassador who I once knew!!) to the Vatican but no one pretends that this is the most sought after diplomatic post.
Tony Greenstein
i24NEWS
August 03, 2019, 5:28 PM - latest revision August 14, 2019, 12:29 PM
“Thirty years of humiliation and you still haven't finished,” Mansour lamented in a Facebook post
Israel's Ambassador to Panama lashed out at Ben Gurion Airport security via social media on Saturday after he and his family were abruptly stopped for questioning.
Dr. Reda Mansour, a Druze diplomat who has been working for Israel's Foreign Ministry for decades, uploaded a lengthy Facebook post recalling his latest experience including “thirty years of humiliation” suffered at the transportation hub.   
Mansour claims that airport security officials began questioning him outside the entrance of the building after over hearing he and his group were from Isfiya, a Druze-majority village located in northern Israel near Haifa. 
Mansour said that one security official began barking out demands to see their passports and travel destination before letting them onto the premises. 
After security had let them through, Mansour recalled the conversation he had with his daughter walking to their terminal, who complained that “It's so upsetting to see how (the security guard) talked to you while you were smiling the whole time and politely replying to her!”
Mansur wrote that he finally began going over the incident while he and his family were traveling through the air.
"During the night, I thought to myself while on the plane: Go to hell Ben Gurion Airport. 30 years of humiliation and you are still not done. In the past, you would beat us at the terminal, today you've progressed to treating us as suspects at the checkpoint at the entrance [to the airport]."
Thirty years of humiliation and you still haven't finished," he continued. "Isfiya is not a town in the [Palestinian] territories, but a home to the main military cemetery for fallen Druze soldiers who died during their service in the Israel Defense Forces."
Mansour concluded his post by stating: "I advise that that you take your security guards and those in charge of their training to visit this cemetery and teach them about self-sacrifice and respect. Until then, I have only this to tell you: You make me sick."
In response to Mansour’s Facebook post, Israel Airports Authority spokesman Ofer Lefler said in a statement that security checks are performed “regardless of religion, race or gender and equitably.”
"When we encounter more than 25 million passengers a year, there will be those who'll choose to be offended by a security guard who is merely doing her job. Even before an inquiry had been launched and only from reading the Facebook post, [I can say] there is nothing wrong with the security guard's conduct."
"My best friends, as well as your friends and relatives are buried in military cemeteries. I suggest that the respectable ambassador tell his daughter that the security guard is doing everything she can to protect her and the State of Israel," Lefler added.

Israeli Diplomat Says Humiliated by Racial Profiling at Ben-Gurion Airport: 'Makes Me Sick'

Ambassador Reda Mansour, a Druze, says he and his family were treated as suspects upon arrival at Tel Aviv airport.  Spokesman says 'nothing wrong,' arguing he 'chose to be offended' Foreign minister 'won't let it happen again'
Aug 04, 2019 6:46 PM
Israel's Ambassador to Panama Reda Mansour, who is Druze, harshly criticized on Saturday the treatment he and his family received during an inspection at Ben-Gurion Airport, saying they were humiliated and treated as suspects by security guards.
Mansour described the incident in a Facebook post, claiming he was asked to pull over and wait as he arrived at a checkpoint at the airport entrance, after the security guards were told he and his family came from the Druze-majority village of Isfiya.  
Israeli Ambassador to Panama Reda Mansour.Mfclemos
"During the night, I thought to myself while on the plane: Go to hell Ben-Gurion Airport. 30 years of humiliation and you are still not done. In the past, you would beat us at the terminal, today you've progressed to treating us as suspects at the checkpoint at the entrance [to the airport],"Mansour wrote.
He added that "Isfiya is not a town in the [Palestinian] territories, but a home to the main military cemetery for fallen Druze soldiers who died during their service in the Israel Defense Forces.
"I advise that that you take your security guards and those in charge of their training to visit this cemetery and teach them about self-sacrifice and respect. Until then, I have only this to tell you: You make me sick."
The Israel Airports Authority spokesman was the only official to respond to Mansour's claims the same day, saying "the security inspection at Ben-Gurion Airport is carried out regardless of race, religion, and sex. When one meets more than 25 million passengers a year, there will be those who'll choose to be offended by a security guard who is merely doing her job. Even before an inquiry had been launched and only from reading the Facebook post, [I can say] there is nothing wrong with the security guard's conduct."
"My best friends, as well as your friends and relatives are buried in military cemeteries. I suggest that the respectable ambassador tell his daughter that the security guard is doing everything she can to protect her and the State of Israel," Lefler added.
Mansour, who was born in Isfiya, is an Israeli diplomat and poet. He held a number of senior posts in the Foreign Ministry in addition to publishing poems and prose.
Most Druze men in Israel join the Israeli army, and the community as a whole has traditionally set itself apart from the general Arab public in its alliance with the state. However, the Druze minority in Israel is still discriminated against in many ways.
Some Israeli lawmakers also commented on the accusations of racial profiling on Saturday and a groupd of Foreign Ministry retirees expressed their solidarity with Mansour in a letter published Sunday, but it was only later on Sunday that the Foreign Ministry, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Reuven Rivlin released any statements about the incident.
Netanyahu said only he spoke with the ambassador after the incident, adding in a statement that he has "great appreciation for the way he represents the State of Israel in Panama."
"The Druze community is dear to our hearts and we would continue to act in every way to strengthen the brotherly bond with them,"Netanyahu added.
The Foreign Ministry released a statement saying it "would examine the incident, in coordination with Israel Airport Authority and Ambassador Mansour.
"We believe that the main encounter that takes place between public servants, including those who are in charge of security, and visitors departing Israel or arriving in the country must be carried out with professionalism while maintaining mutual respect," the statement read.
Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz added that he was sorry for the incident. "I cherish the work you have done, hug you and your family and the entire Druze community," he said in a statement.
"I will act to make sure cases like this will not happen again," Katz added.
Foreign Ministry retirees wrote a letter supporting Mansour. "Dear Reda, we've decided to write to you personally and express our sorrow for the experience you endured," the letter read.
"We were appalled by the treatment you, your daughter and the rest of your family received during the security inspection at Ben Gurion Airport as well as the condescending statement issued by the Israel Airport Authority spokesperson following the incident, which ignored your feelings.
"Throughout the years, we've seen you invest your heart and soul in the representation of the State of Israel in the world. You are an excellent ambassador and a pride to all of us. Please express our support to your daughter and the rest of your family.
"We are convinced that our friends at the Foreign Ministry will later find the way to show you their support," the letter said.
Rivlin: 'What matters is that you felt hurt'
President Rivlin said Sunday that although he was confident a serious investigation was underway, "what matters is what you feel, and if you felt so hurt, then we have to give it due consideration."
Saluting Mansour's diplomatic work, Rivlin also had a special thought for the relationship between Jews and Druze in Israel. "The alliance between us and the Druze is an alliance built in life, not just in death. We need to make sure we keep building it every day, every hour, and not just in times of crisis and battle," the president said.
On Saturday, Meretz chairman Nitzan Horowitz said in a statement that "Ambassador Mansour is not alone. The Netanyahu regime brands first and second-class citizens."
Meretz lawmaker Mossi Raz added that "the arbitrary [security] inspections at Ben-Gurion Airport are the best Hasbara campaign for those opposing Israel in the world," while fellow party member Tamar Zandberg said "the racist profiling at the airport must stop. It has nothing to do with security."

The Ghost of Tony Blair and Neil Kinnock is once again Stalking Labour's Southside HQ

$
0
0

Reinstate Chris Williamson NOW & Reinstate Jo Bird to the Riverside List of Candidates and Disaffiliate the Scab Jewish Labour Movement

Twenty two years ago Louise Ellman was parachuted into Liverpool Riverside constituency. Riverside includes the Liverpool 8 area of Liverpool. With high deprivation, poverty and a large Black population it deserves a socialist candidate not another Labour right-wing careerist.
Former Director of Labour Friends of Israel Berger specialises in inventing allegations of antisemitism
 In 2010 Luciana Berger was parachuted by New Labour into the Liverpool Wavertree constituency. In both cases these white ladies had nothing in common with their constituents. In both cases they were Zionists and supporters of the Israeli state. Ellman is President of the Jewish Labour Movement and Berger was Director of Labour Friends of Israel.
Louise Ellman - a supporter of Israeli child abuse
Ellman distinguished herself in Parliament by her supportof the Israeli Military’s abuse of Palestinian children. Unfortunately she was not disciplined whereas I was expelled for calling her out.
This year both have left the Labour Party, Berger to join the Lib-Dems, Ellman to go to hell. Neither of them were ever socialists and it is good they have gone.
Both constituencies have been desperate to have an MP who represented their working class constituents. Riverside wished to select Jo Bird, a Jewish councillor from across the water in The Wirral.
Labour’s National Executive Council has instead decided to impose ‘long lists’ mainly made up of right-wing nonentities – not just in Liverpool but in Joan Ryan’s old seat of Enfield North and elsewhere in the country.
Jo Bird, of course, being an anti-Zionist Jew was immediately the target of the Jewish Labour Movement.  The same Jewish Labour Movement which is refusing to support Labour in the General Election. See The Riverside Scandal.
The obvious question to ask is why the hell is the Israeli government’s representative in the Labour Party allowed to stay as an affiliated socialist society when
a.     It doesn’t support Labour’s election campaign
b.    It opposes the elected leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn
The racism of Tom Watson has been deliberately ignored
Once upon a time when Momentum was on the left, the NEC was narrowly controlled by the Left.  Today that has gone  Lansman and Tom Watson have joined hands together.  Watson’s racist record is forgotten and forgiven by the racist leader of Momentum, Jon Lansman.
Meanwhile another anti-racist, this time an existing Labour MP Chris Williamson remains suspended on the most ludicrous of charges. Amongst its allegations was:
Undermining the Party's ability to campaign effectively against antisemitism by publicly characterising the disciplinary processes of the Party in relation to cases of alleged racism as politically motivated and/or not genuine.
In other words, Chris has suggested that allegations of anti-Semitism are not genuine but politically motivated. Where can he have possibly got this idea from?  Well one answer might be this week’s Jewish Chronicle.  I am ‘fortunate’ in that every week I get a letter from the Editor, right-wing sloth-bag Stephen Pollard.  This week he informs me that
Dear Reader,
Over the next six weeks we will discover if the British public are prepared to put an antisemite into Number Ten. The polling evidence to date suggests not. But that’s all it is – polls. And as we know from 2017, real voting can be very different.
No he wasn’t referring to Boris Johnson either. Since accusing people of  making false accusations of anti-Semitism is itself apparently an example of ‘anti-Semitism’ and therefore a disciplinary offence why has Jeremy Corbyn not been suspended? Every day the Zionists openly state that he is anti-Semitic.  Logic dictates that Corbyn should be suspended. This is the Alice in Wonderland logic of the Zionists.  Deny an accusation and you are guilty.
Equally reprehensible is the reappearance of the old Blair-Kinnock trick of nationally imposed candidates.  Once upon a time this was unknown.  Local parties were responsible for their own selections.  Corbyn was a long standing advocate of this and if the NEC had done this in his time he would not have been an MP.
It is an utter disgrace that Momentum’s scab leader Jon Lansman and others have gone along with this.
The Jewish Chronicle and the Zionists ran their usual vitriolic scare stories about Jo Bird, Labour line up 'Jew process' councillor as Dame Louise Ellman replacement and the NEC jumped. Jo Bird’s candidacy should go ahead and it should be for the members of Riverside not Jon Lansman or other right-wing Zionists on Labour’s NEC to decide.
Jo Bird is an excellent Jewish councillor.  An anti-racist and anti-Zionist. The racist Jewish Labour Movement don’t like her.  Good. That is more reason for Riverside to be given the chance to select her.
Corbyn by staying silent is making another rod for his own back. It is guaranteeing that regardless of the election result we will lose as there will be a hostile anti-Corbyn majority on the back benches.
Momentum itself has lost all reason for its existence.  It believes it can repeat what it did in 2017 in the General Election.  Unfortunately it believes its own propaganda. It wasn’t Momentum but the mood engendered by a radical manifesto that won it for Corbyn.
Today the mood is very different and Momentum’s shift to the Right is helping that climate of reaction.
We should demand that local parties be able both to deselect and select who they wish to without interference from the NEC.  It is clear that trigger ballots have been an utter failure if the racist supporter of child abuse that is Margaret Hodge has been reselected in Barking, once the constituency of that left-wing icon, Jo Richardson.
What is happening internally in the Labour Party is ominous and suggests that large sections of the Left have given up all hope of change still less victory.
There are some people who believe that in the middle of a General Election we should keep quiet and say nothing but if the MPs who are elected are all right-wing clones of Tom Watson Jeremy Corbyn will not be Prime Minister.  It is as simple as that and people like McDonnell, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, Laura Pidcock and yes Dennis Skinner who go along with that are betraying socialists inside and outside the Labour Party and the working class itself.
The decision of the NEC to rejectsocialist candidates in Enfield North to replace the detested Joan Ryan is equally reprehensible.
It is therefore a great pity that the Labour Representation Committee should have chosen this of all times to choose to split from the Labour Left Alliance thus weakening the left in the Labour Party at a time when the Right is in the ascendancy. I have posted a statementof my own making it clear what I think about what has happened.
Tony Greenstein

Corbyn can win BUT it is unlikely without a clear position on Brexit and a clear rejection of the anti-Semitism narrative

$
0
0

A hung parliament is likely but 2019 will not be a rerun of 2017-Johnson is not May



On 20th April 2017 this blog was virtually alone in predicting that a hung parliament was likely and that Corbyn could even win. In Labour Can Win if Corbyn is Bold – the Key Issue is Poverty and the Transfer of Wealthwhen Theresa May was being praised to the skies and her lead was over 20% I opened my article with these words:
‘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.
People may remember that she was being lauded as ‘strong and stable’, a slogan that came back to haunt and mock her.
On June 3rd, five days before the General Election, when the Tories were still tipped to win an overall majority I wrote another article
I continued
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.
Ed Miliband failed to support Corbyn having been such an abysmal failure himself
In the previous General Election, in Miliband’s Labour Seeks the Safety of Consensus PoliticsI wrote:
In last week’s Brighton Independent I had an article which suggested that Miliband was determined to lose.  Of course he’d like to win but he refuses to break from the consensus behind austerity.  Instead of boldly saying that austerity is the road to ruin and Labour is going to reverse the welfare cuts, tax the rich at 80%, reverse major privatisations and pay no compensation bar the price which was paid (minus  profits taken), Miliband tries to present himself as the safe alternative to the Tories.
I predicted, not an overall Tory majority but that they would form the largest party.  In the event they secured a small majority which Theresa May proceeded to throw away. So what is my prediction this time around?

Ruth Smeeth is a US State Asset as Wikileaks revealed - Corbyn has been too hapless to call this 'victim' of antisemitism out
The first thing is that the ruling class and their media are not going to be complacent again. Whereas the Labour Right and the Zionists did their best to distance themselves last time around from Corbyn I would be very surprised if some of these creatures, including the Labour Right, didn’t engage in direct attacks on Corbyn and the Left.  Margaret Hodge and Ruth Smeeth for example. The far-Right Editor of the Jewish Chronicle set the ball rolling with a poisonous letter to readers, which he kindly copied to me.  It read:
Dear Reader,
Over the next six weeks we will discover if the British public are prepared to put an antisemite into Number Ten. The polling evidence to date suggests not. But that’s all it is – polls. And as we know from 2017, real voting can be very different.
Our splash this week isthe unprecedented advice from Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain to his congregants across 16 different constituencies to vote for whichever candidate is best placed to stop Labour. It’s a stark illustration of the atmosphere surrounding this election in our community: a tense foreboding lest Labour win.

The Jewish Labour Movement, which is an affiliated ‘socialist’ society has openly made it clear that it won’t be supporting the Labour Party in these elections. Jewish group removes campaigning support for Labour in election

Blair made this disgusting woman Children's Minister - it was like placing a rattlesnake in a baby's cradle - Corbyn's failure to remove her is testimony to his lack of seriousness
The obvious step to take, their immediate disaffiliation has not even been contemplated yet when one thinks of how the most trivial alleged breaches of discipline have been rewarded with suspensions and expulsions, including that of Chris Williamson, then one despairs about the uselessness of the Campaign Group (which has remained silent) and what passes for Momentum’s leadership. By failing to take any stance whatsoever on the attacks on himself and the Left Corbyn has immeasurably weakened himself.

There are too many variables in this election to make a firm prediction but those who imagine that Corbyn is going to gain a majority are going to be disappointed. When you lose control of the narrative, as Corbyn has done over ‘anti-Semitism’ then the chances of regaining the initiative are slim.

Theresa May was an ideal opponent.  Everything she did turned to dust for example refusing to debate Corbyn head to head.  Johnson has no intention of making the same mistakes.

The other major failure is Brexit. Leaving aside the laughable Lexit, it should be clear to all that Brexit is a project of the nationalist Right.  Trump, Farage, Rees-Mogg are not natural bedfellows of the Left. Brexit is the last throw of the Empire Loyalists who imagine that an independent capitalist Britain can survive on its own. What it really means is serious deregulation which will make the EU seem like some form of nirvana with its Working Time Regulations and Health & Safety Directives..
Of course that doesn’t mean the European Union is a socialist paradise.  What it means is that European capitalism has laid the basis of a European unity that it cannot fulfil.  That is where socialism comes in.  To revert to the past is akin to what Marx said about feudal socialism in the Communist Manifesto. It is particularly appropriate today:
half lamentation, half lampoon; half an echo of the past, half menace of the future; at times, by its bitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to the very heart’s core; but always ludicrous inits effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history.
Corbyn’s dithering and indecision, his refusal to come out against Brexit and in support of the totally incomprehensible position of renegotiating Brexit and then putting it to a referendum, will appeal to no one. It is a simple fact that remaining in Europe is better than any form of Brexit and why should people believe Corbyn can renegotiate it anyway?
 It is perfectly possible to approach working class voters in the North with the clear message that it was austerity, Thatcherism and monetarism which closed the mines, shipyards  and docks not Europe. It is equally possible to point to the potentially devastating economic consequences of abandoning one’s largest market but to try and appeal to both Remainers and Brexiteers is a hopeless task. In practice Corbyn will end up satisfying no one, falling between 2 stools.
What Corbyn has done is to allow the Lib Dems, who experienced near death experiences in both 2015 and 2017 to come back from the dead. Led by Madam Austerity herself, Jo Swinson, they have gone from 7% to 20%.  That is a direct product of Corbyn’s abysmal strategy.
What it means electorally is that Labour have gone down from the mid 30s to about 23% in the polls.  No government can be formed with those figures.  Whether Corbyn can pull it back with an attack on the elites without an overall narrative is questionable to say the least.
The Lib Dems will undoubtedly pick up Tory seats though how many is anyone’s guess.  Despite Swinson talking of forming her own government I would suspect that 25-30 seats would be their realistic target.  
The other unknown is, of course, the Brexit Party. Farage has stated today that he will contest every seat without a Brexit pact.  We will see.  I suspect he will come under enormous pressure not to let Corbyn in by default. If he resists then I doubt that the Brexit party will be much more than a minor irritant.
In Scotland the SNP are forecast to pick up 50+ seats at both Labour and the Tories expense.
It is a foolish person who makes a prediction at this stage but I would hazard a guess that Corbyn will do well to achieve the number of seats he did last time around. If the SNP and Lib Dems gain seats then I expect the Tories to fall back to around 290 with Labour on 250.  However it is very early days yet.
Corbyn may pay heavily for his failure to support Open Selection which would have seen the removal of much of Labour’s right-wing. In the event of Labour gaining around 280-290 seats and being able to form a government with SNP support then we can expect a rebellion by those Labour MPs who, like Hodge and Smeeth, will never vote for Corbyn as Prime Minister.
In so far as Labour HQ are now vetoing Corbyn supporters like Jo Bird I have no great optimism, as I did in 2017, for the election.
Russell Lloyd-Moyle the Labour MP for Brighton Kemptown - his seat could be ultra marginal
On a local level I live in Brighton Kemptown.  It has always been a marginal constituency and has swung between Labour and Tory over the past half century.  It was held from 1970-1997 by the Tories and from 1997-2010 by Labour.  It was first gained by Dennis Hobden for Labour in 1964 by 7 votes and he increased that to 800 in 1966.  During the period of New Labour Des Turner never achieved more than 5,000 majority before it returned to the Tories in 2010. In short it has been held by Labour for 21 years out of 55.
In 2017 the Greens stood down and Labour’s Lloyd Russell-Moyle had a majority of nearly 10,000, which was absolutely phenomenal and unlikely to be repeated. If the Green Party stands the seat will become highly marginal.  The heaviest Labour ward, Hanover, was moved into the Pavilion constituency as part of the last redrawing of boundaries and Peacehaven was added on making it more Tory.
Why then was there such a massive majority in 2017? I have no doubt that Labour was seen as the party of Remain. Even in Rottingdean, once the safest Tory ward in Britain, my estimate is that Labour gained half the votes.  That is unlikely to be repeated given Labour’s disastrous positioning such that it has managed to simultaneously alienate both Remainers and Brexiteers. Although Lloyd RM is an ardent Remainer people are more influenced by the national party than the local candidate.
Can economic radicalism by in and of itself win out? I fear that Boris Johnson’s populism and nativism may win out. I hope I am wrong but spending the last 2 years appeasing Labour’s racist Right and the Zionists coupled with a refusal to say niet to the Brexiteers may mean that the Corbyn Revolution is coming to an end.  If so then Corbyn and his adoring fans will have themselves to blame for not having called the bluff of Tom Watson, Margaret Hodge and the rest of the corrupt and racist right-wing careerists who inhabit the PLP.
Anyone who believes that the deep state has not been plotting the last 4 years and that 'antisemitism' is part of that is either stupid or naive beyond belief
In particular the decision at the 2018 Labour Party conference by Corbyn to reject Open Selection and clear out the right-wing rabble in the PLP whilst turning on people like Chris Williamson and also Kelvin MacKenzie may have consequences at the polling booths.
At the last election Momentum was seen as having contributed significantly to the result.  This time because of its lack of democracy, in essence a plaything of its owner Jon Lansman, it is unlikely to be able to repeat the performance.  It has lost at least one-third of its members and nearly all of those who pay a nominal subscription are paper members.  No one has done more than Lansman to lose this election through his sectarian Zionism and his endorsement of the Israeli, US and British strategy of destabilising Corbyn.
I hope I am wrong but I fear I am not.
Tony Greenstein

Viewing all 2428 articles
Browse latest View live