Archive | November 10th, 2018

Commission Finds NATO Bombs Continue to Kill Serbs 19 Years After 1999 Strikes

NOVANEWS

Image result for Yugoslavia WAR CARTOON

NATO carried out a 78-day campaign of airstrikes against Yugoslavia in 1999 after accusing Belgrade of committing war crimes in Kosovo. The strikes left up to 5,700 civilians dead, and contaminated part of southern Serbia with radiation from the depleted uranium rounds used by the alliance.

The Serbian government-designated Commission Investigating the Effects of NATO’s 1999 Bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has provided Sputnik with important information about some of its preliminary findings.

Speaking to Sputnik Serbian, commission head Dr. Darko Laketic explained that in the course of visits to cities, towns and municipalities affected by the NATO bombings, the commission has been able to establish what appears to be evidence of a link between the depleted uranium rounds dropped in these areas and a rise in cancer incidence.

According to the physician, in the city of Vranje, southern Serbia, out of 40 people who came into direct contact with soil contaminated by depleted uranium, ten have died, with “the majority of the deaths caused by malignant neoplasms.”

“Many people who have been to the affected areas suffer from the symptoms of erythema and ulcerous eruptions of an unknown etiology on their skin,” Dr. Laketic added.

Commission members have already visited Vranje, Pancevo and Novi Sad, and plan to visit Kragujevac, with all of these areas facing heavy NATO bombing in 1999. “These are our priority regions. We are collecting medical and statistical data from medical institutions in these areas and interviewing people who have come into contact with contaminated soil,” Laketic explained.

The doctor noted that in the village of Borovac, another area struck by NATO bombs, three residents, or one percent of the village’s total population, are suffering from malignant brain damage.

Dr. Laketic noted that an increase in oncological diseases has also been observed in Pcinjski District, and said that this was particularly significant, since the area’s population is younger than the Serbian average.

The commission is now working on the creation of a large, systematized database.

“We are investigating the effects of toxic substances. Our task is to establish the causal links between [NATO’s] actions and illnesses. Having established them, we will receive weighty arguments for organized efforts in the detection, prevention and treatment of cancer at its early stages in those regions where it is necessary,” the doctor said.

According to Dr. Laketic, in addition to depleted uranium, other toxic substances released during NATO’s bombardment, such as chlorine, benzene, and polychlorinated biphenyls are also proven to cause illness, including malignant neoplasms which can lay dormant for five, ten or even twenty years after a person first comes in contact with them.

Established in June, the commission hopes to complete its first preliminary report by 2020. Dr. Laketic will report on the status of his team’s investigation in the Serbian National Assembly in December.

According to openly available data, in the late 1990s, the average Serbian death rate from oncological illnesses hovered between 9,000 and 12,000 people per year. By 2014, however, the figure doubled to 22,000, with the number of newly diagnosed cancer patients reaching 40,000.

Some medical doctors and scientists have attributed the jump in cancer rates to NATO’s use of depleted uranium rounds during its bombing, and have pointed to the rise in leukemia and lymphoma, cancer types affecting tissue most sensitive to ionizing radiation. Other experts have maintained that there yet to be conclusive proof of a relationship between cancer rates and the depleted uranium rounds, since cancers have been growing across Serbia, while depleted uranium rounds were dropped primarily in southern Serbia. According to World Cancer Research Fund statistics, Serbia is 18th in the world in total incidence of cancers, with 307.9 cases per 100,000 residents reported in 2018.

Posted in Croatia, Kosovo, SerbiaComments Off on Commission Finds NATO Bombs Continue to Kill Serbs 19 Years After 1999 Strikes

The faulty logic behind the Zionist attack on BDS

Right to boycott Israel

By Lawrence Davidson 

Boycotts are historically common

If you search the topic boycotts on Google you immediately realise how historically common they are. There are a lot to choose from, and one of the first listed is the 1769 boycott instituted by the First Continental Congress against Great Britain over the issue of “taxation without representation”. That makes a boycott against a perceived oppressive power an integral part of American heritage.

As you move into the modern era, a reaction against racism also becomes a noticeable motivating factor for many boycotts. The Chinese instituted a boycott against the United States over the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1892 and 1904. Then, in 1933, the American Jewish Congress declared a boycott of Nazi Germany in protest against its racially motivated oppression of the German Jewish community. In the 1940s, Gandhi would encourage Indians to boycott imperial Britain. In the 1950s and 1960s, African Americans would boycott segregated institutions in the US South. In the 1960s through the 1990s, much of the world would boycotted South Africa over the issue of apartheid. And this is but a short list.

In 2005, 170 Palestinian civil society organisations, including unions, refugee networks, women’s organisations and political parties, put out a call for a boycott of Israel. This was to be a non-violent effort to put pressure on the Zionist state to conform to international law and cease its oppression of the Palestinians. The call was also for divestment from Israel and all entities that assisted and profited from its behaviour, as well as for eventual sanctions. This is known as the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, or BDS for short.

Redefining anti-Semitism

Even though Jews had suffered from Nazi persecution and ethnic cleansing during World War II and had used boycott as a weapon against their oppressors, the Israelis and their Zionist supporters have taken great umbrage at the call for boycott by the Palestinians. They see it as “anti-Semitic”.

For instance, in the US the Zionist Anti-Defamation League has this to say about the BDS campaign on its website:

Many of the founding goals of the BDS movement, including denying the Jewish people the universal right of self-determination… are anti-Semitic. Many individuals involved in BDS campaigns are driven by opposition to Israel’s very existence as a Jewish state… And, all too often, BDS advocates employ anti-Semitic rhetoric and narratives to isolate and demonize Israel.

This statement expresses the “official” Israeli/Zionist position, and at its core is a purposeful conflation of the Jewish people and the Israeli state. By insisting on this identification of Israel and all Jews, the Zionists are able to redefine anti-Semitism. Indeed, they take a very old and well-understood phenomenon and give it a radically new, and quite suspect, definition.

The traditional definition of anti-Semitism is a dislike of or bias against Jews by virtue of their imagined inherent “Jewishness”. Note that this is very different from objecting to, say, the criminal behaviour of someone or some group that just happens to be Jewish. In the first case, it is “Jewishness” that you object to. That is anti-Semitism. In the second case, it is criminal behaviour that you object to, regardless of whether the criminal is Jewish. That is not anti-Semitism

However, by arbitrarily conflating all Jews with the Israeli state, the Zionists tell us that criticism or opposition to Israeli state behaviour – even if that behaviour is criminal – is anti-Semitic. This is because Israel stands in for all Jews. Thus, they redefine anti-Semitism in a way that allows Israel to sidestep all moral responsibility by turning the argument around and pointing fingers at their critics. For instance, do you object to Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians? Well, for the Zionists the issue is no longer the criminal nature of ethnic cleansing, but the alleged anti-Semitism of those criticising that behaviour.

Background information

Let’s consider this Zionist manoeuvre against the following background. Consider the following:

— In June, 2018, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), representing 1.5 million Americans, “voted unanimously” to support the BDS campaign.

— In July, 2018, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church USA voted to support BDS by screening suspect companies that might be aiding Israel in the violation of Palestinian human rights and divest from them if this proves to be the case. The Episcopal Church USA represents 3 million Americans.

— There are, in fact, dozens of Jewish organisations worldwide supporting the BDS campaign. These have thousands of members.

Altogether we are talking about millions of people, both Christian and Jewish, a good percentage of whom support, or at least are in sympathy with BDS. Are they all anti-Semitic? According to the Zionist’s novel definition – the one that conflates Jews with the Israeli state – the answer is yes. But clearly this assertion can’t be right.

Logical fallacies and erroneous thinking

The Zionist gambit is actually an act of obfuscation using a logical fallacy called the “straw man“. It is “based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be attacking a straw man”.

Thus, as suggested above, every time someone charges that the state of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is, say, in violation of international law, the issue of the validity of this charge is replaced by “straw man”, which in this case is alleged anti-Semitism of the critic. It is to be noted that in most of these confrontations only one side has any real evidence. The critic might point to evidence of ethnic cleansing, property destruction and land theft, and various policies that have, according to David Harel, the vice-president of the Israel Academy of Science and Humanities, turned Israel into an “apartheid” state. On the other side, however, those using the straw man fallacy often have no objective evidence at all. Their claim of anti-Semitism is based on their own idiosyncratic definition of this prejudice. Making a case in this way also involves “begging the question” or “circular reasoning”, which are also erroneous ways of arguing. This occurs when a person “assumes as evidence for their argument the very conclusion they are attempting to prove”.

Conclusion

The great 18th-century Scottish philosopher David Hume once remarked(referring to the subject of miracles) that “those with strong religious beliefs are often prepared to give evidence that they know is false, with the best intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting so holy a cause”. We can ascribe this sentiment to the true believer of just about any belief system deemed “holy” in one sense or another. Certainly those with strong Zionist beliefs would qualify – though I am pretty sure theirs are not “the best intentions in the world”.

Hume goes on to say that “people are often too credulous when faced with such witnesses, whose apparent honesty and eloquence… may overcome normal scepticism.” Thus, the faulty logic of the Zionist attack on the BDS campaign has not prevented partial success. This is particularly true in the halls of power where faulty logic is combined with Zionist lobby power that can help or hinder the politician’s re-election. Here Zionist power and influence are being used to actually outlaw BDS. To date some 25 US states have tried to do this even though, as an infringement of free speech, their efforts are clearly unconstitutional. In this case lobby power proves more compelling than either the US constitution or logic.

Let’s end by quoting George Orwell. His experiences with the pervasive propaganda used by all sides just before and during World War II gave him “the feeling that the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.” Such efforts have not stopped. The Zionists are still doing their best to make it so.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on The faulty logic behind the Zionist attack on BDS

BDS, human rights and the Jews

NOVANEWS
BDS at 12 years

By Lawrence Davidson

BDS at twelve

As of July 2017, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israeli racism and apartheid is 12 years old. This means that over the last dozen years a worldwide grassroots movement has grown up – a movement of civil society – that has organised active opposition to Zionist racism and Israeli oppression. While the vast majority of governments have either ignored or assisted Israel’s violations of international law and the basic principles of human rights, millions of “civilians” have refused to follow their leaders on this issue.

The BDS movement is now far ranging. It presses for divestment from companies that support or do business with Israel, particularly those that operate in the occupied territories. It urges the boycott of all Israeli products, from foodstuffs to cosmetics. It protests against the appearance of Israeli cultural organisations outside of Israel. It urges the boycott of Israeli academic institutions that lend support to the state (an effort that, in 2015, Israeli President Reuven Rivlin called a “strategic threat of the first order”). And, it discourages tourist and artist visits to Israel, particularly by well-known celebrities. For more information about specific BDS achievements over the last 12 years, go to website of the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights.

In all these efforts the movement has proved increasingly successful. Some surveys have suggested that as many as one-third of Americans and 80 per cent of Canadians support BDS. The movement is also strong in Western Europe and growing in Australia and Latin America. Thus, no one should sell this ongoing campaign short. Certainly, the Israeli government does not. Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy devotes a lot of time and money to “push back” against the BDS movement. Israel’s attempt to counter this growing popularity is grounded on a simplistic, libellous campaign that seeks to identify the BDS movement as a new form of anti-Semitism.

At least among the general population, there are two things that make this a very hard sell: (1) a lot of BDS supporters are Jewish, underlining the fact that the Zionist state and Judaism are not the same thing, and (2) the state of Israel continues to reinforce the BDS characterisation of it as a racist state by public acts of discrimination against Palestinians.

As more people come to support BDS, fewer people support Israel. A surveyreleased in mid June 2017 by an organisation known as The Brand Israel Group, “a coalition of volunteer advertising and marketing specialists” who consult for pro-Israel organisations, indicated that “approval of Israel among American college students dropped by 27 per cent between the group’s 2010 and 2016 surveys” while “Israel’s approval among all Americans dropped by 14 points”. Brand Israel’s conclusion: “the future of America no longer believe that Israel shares their values”. This is the case not because of any big increase in anti-Semitism, but due to ever-growing evidence of Israeli racism.

Political roadblocks

Unfortunately, Israel’s inability to keep a favourable public image does not necessarily mean its near-term defeat. Here in the US there are two reasons for this: (1) as obnoxious as Israeli behaviour is, and also as obscenely massive the US aid package that helps to sustain that behaviour, neither the behaviour nor the aid package is yet a prime voting issue for most American citizens, and (2) due to the resulting lack of political pressure from the voters, American Zionists still have a clear field to use money and other forms of patronage to pressure both the US Congress and the political parties to ignore the blatant racism and continue to strongly support the Zionist state.

That support can extend to becoming Israel’s ally in the effort to defame and then try to destroy BDS. The argument that BDS is a modern form of anti-Semitism has become the backbone of an effort to make it illegal. As noted above, the BDS movement is not anti-Semitic. It is anti-Zionist, which in fact makes it anti-racist. There is plenty of evidence that the Zionists do indeed practice racism in Israel and its occupied territories, and therefore, in truth, the Zionist charge against BDS creates a paradox. It requires you to accept that a supporter of BDS can simultaneously be anti-Semitic and anti-racist. Alas, in the absence of voter pressure, this absurdity does not matter to most US politicians. Nor does the fact that outlawing BDS constitutes an obvious violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

BDS, human rights and Jewish morality

On a wider field, two things are simultaneously at stake: the future viability of human rights and the moral status of the Jewish people. First, consider the threat to human rights as an international principle. The Zionists seem to believe that what weakens the viability of human rights is that one country – Israel – is being “picked on” for misbehaving, while other countries, allegedly doing the same things or worse, are not similarly censured. Despite the fact that there happens to be good reasons for “picking on Israel”, this Zionist complaint is an exaggeration used to deflect legitimate criticism. It also misses the point.

The threat to human rights does not come from individuals overly blaming one country for what others also do. It comes from people – in the form of governments, lobbyists and a sadly misled element of the Jewish community – actually championing Israel (or any other racist country for that matter) while it pursues overtly discriminatory policies based on, in this case, religion. This precedent, persisting over decades, must end up deadening the ability of governments, as well as the United Nations, to take human rights seriously and develop mechanisms for their promotion and protection.

The same situation that threatens the integrity of human rights standards threatens the moral character of the Jewish people. In a recent article entitled “Israel’s irrational rationality”, David Shulman, Professor emeritus at Hebrew University, confesses that it is Israeli government policy to maintain “a steady level of state terror directed against a large civilian population [Palestinians]… All of it stains the character of the state and has, in my experience, horrific effects on the minds and hearts of young soldiers who have to carry out the orders they are given.” However, Shulman knows it does not stop there. He observes that what we have here is an “ongoing moral failure of the country as a whole”.

Yet who constitutes “the country as a whole”? The ideology of Zionism demands an identification of Israel with the Jewish people – all of whom, according to Israeli law, are virtual Israeli citizens whether they want to be or not. This means that the Zionists insist that the Jewish people as a whole be identified with Israel’s practices and policies – including the disregard for human rights and implementation of “ongoing state terror”.

Conclusion

Despite this Zionist contention that Israel and the Jews are equivalent, we know that this cannot be literally true. Israel’s sins cannot be the sins of the Jewish people as a whole. At the beginning of this essay I indicated that increasing number of Jews are actively supporting Palestinian rights and thus opposing both Israel’s undermining of the principle of human rights and its erosive effect on the moral status of the Jewish people.

However, the logic of the situation does make one thing literally true, and that is that the Zionist ideology, as it has evolved in practice, is a dangerous enemy of Jewish morality. As long as Zionism stands against human rights while at the same time insisting that Israel stands in for the Jews, it must be the enemy. Ignorance of this logic is also an enemy. Therefore, it is time to heed the call of Rebecca Vilkomerson, head of Jewish Voice for Peace: “Seventy years into the ongoing dispossession and displacement of Palestinians, 50 years into Israel’s military occupation, and 10 years into the siege of Gaza, we think it is time for American Jewish communities [and those in the rest of the world as well] to have some really uncomfortable conversations.”

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on BDS, human rights and the Jews

Rosenberg’s conundrum: Zionism vs reality

 

Zionism is racism

UN resoulution no 3379 November 1975

Michael Jay Rosenberg is a well-known, sharp-minded critic of the Israeli government. But he is also a “liberal Zionist” who believes in the legitimacy and necessity of a Jewish state. This point of view has led him to attack the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement in a recent piece, “The goal of BDS is dismantling Israel”. In the process he seriously underestimates the movement’s scope and potential in an effort to convince himself and others that BDS has no chance of actually achieving the goal he ascribes to it. However, the only evidence he cites of the movement’s weakness is the recent failure ofthe University of Michigan’s student government to pass a divestment resolution. At the same time he fails to mention an almost simultaneous decision by Chicago’s Loyola University student government to seek divestment. Rosenberg also makes no reference to BDS’s steady and impressive efforts in Europe.

Rosenberg continues by asserting that the reason the boycott movement “keeps failing” is because its goal is to destroy Israel rather than to attack the occupation and pressure for a two-state solution. “The BDS movement is not targeting the occupation per se. Its goal is to end the state of Israel itself.” What does that mean? Well, according to Rosenberg it means “replacing Israel itself with a state” that would be “in theory, hospitable to Jews [but] would no longer be Israel”.

…the boycotters have two choices: to give up the cause or to pressure for the transformation of Zionist Israel into a democratic, religiously and ethnically egalitarian state – a new Israel. This is what Mr. Rosenberg calls “dismantling Israel”.

At this juncture there are several points in Rosenberg’s thinking that warrant scrutiny. First of all, his emphasis on “in theory” in the comment above implies that, in his view, only a Zionist state can really be “hospitable to Jews”. Take the Zionism out of Israel and you really have to take the Jews out as well.

One can understand his concern, since he is aware of the wrongs committed by the Israeli government and knows that reconciliation with the Palestinians will not come easily. However, given the right sort of compromises, his fear for the well-being of Jews in a non-Zionist Israel does not have to necessarily translate into fact.

Secondly, he is still arguing that a two-state solution is possible. “The solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is two states for two peoples.” Maybe “in theory” that is the case. However, “in the real world” (to use Rosenberg’s words) it is almost impossible to envision this happening given the make-up of the Israeli power structure and its worldview.

Most of those who organize and participate in the movement to boycott Israel know that the two-state solution is dead in the water. Even if the present negotiations led by Secretary of State John Kerry produce some pale imitation of a Palestinian state, it is hard to see it amounting to anything but a Bantustan. The fact is, even now, there is only one state between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and that is Zionist Israel. Having realized this, the boycotters have two choices: to give up the cause or to pressure for the transformation of Zionist Israel into a democratic, religiously and ethnically egalitarian state – a new Israel. This is what Mr. Rosenberg calls “dismantling Israel”.

The South Africa precedent plus the right of return

Those seeking a genuine democratization of Israel are encouraged by the past dismantlement of apartheid South Africa. But Rosenberg will have none of this either. He points out that in that case it was “the South African apartheid regime that was abolished, not the country known as South Africa”. Here he is not clearly thinking his point through. The boycott movement helped destroy an apartheid ideology and its institutionalized manifestation, the government of Republic of South Africa. That, perforce, altered the essential character of the country. There is no difference between that and the present boycott goal of the destruction of the Zionist ideology and its institutionalized manifestation, the government of the state of Israel. That also must result in a change in the character of that country.

Finally, Rosenberg points to the demand embodied in UN Resolution 194, and supported by the BDS movement, which calls for the return of Palestinian refugees evicted in 1948. This really scares him and understandably so. From the Zionist perspective, the demographics of Israel are precarious enough as it is. Allow back a sizeable number of non-Jewish refugees and the maintenance of a Jewish majority in Israel becomes impossible. On this note, I have a Palestinian friend who asserts that one refugee should be resettled in pre-1967 Israel for every Israeli settler living beyond the Green Line. Would Mr Rosenberg think this fair?

When it comes to Palestinian refugees, what Rosenberg appears not to take seriously is the long-recognized fact that, when and if the implementation of the right of return ever takes place, it will certainly be the result of negotiations aimed at minimizing social disruption.

Conclusion

None of this analysis of Rosenberg’s position is meant to deny that he does raise a very serious question: can justice be achieved for the long-suffering Palestinians while preserving Israel as an exclusive Jewish state? He wants to answer this question in the affirmative and he thinks a two-state solution will allow him to do so.

Unfortunately, that is “not how the real world works” (his phrase again) in Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem. The truth is that this solution has been taken off the table by the Israelis themselves. We are left with a unitary Zionist state. The answer to the question of whether such a state is compatible with justice for the Palestinians is simply no. Zionism, like apartheid before it, has to go – for the sake of the Palestinians and also for a more promising future for the Jews.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Rosenberg’s conundrum: Zionism vs reality

With Brazil’s Bolsonaro, ”Israel” finds another natural partner on the far-right

Jair Bolsonaro

By Jonathan Cook in Nazareth

The victory of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil’s presidential election last week has won Israel a passionate new friend on the international stage. The world’s fifth most populous nation will now be “coloured in blue and white”, an Israeli official said, referring to the colours of Israel’s flag.

The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, immediately called to congratulate Bolsonaro, a former army officer with a pronounced nostalgia for his country’s 20-year military dictatorship. Critics describe him as a neo-fascist.

According to Israeli media reports, it is “highly probable” that Netanyahu will attend Bolsonaro’s inauguration on 1 January.

The Brazilian president-elect has already promised that his country will be the third to relocate its embassy to Jerusalem, after the United States and Guatemala. That will further undermine Palestinian hopes for an eventual state with East Jerusalem as its capital.

… Israel has relished the recent emergence of far-right leaders across the Americas and Europe, often to the horror of local Jewish communities.

Bolsonaro has told Israel that it can count on Brazil’s vote at the United Nations, and has threatened to close the Palestinian embassy in Brasilia.

One might imagine that Netanyahu is simply being pragmatic in cosying up to Bolsonaro, given Brazil’s importance. But that would be to ignore an unmistakable trend: Israel has relished the recent emergence of far-right leaders across the Americas and Europe, often to the horror of local Jewish communities.

Bolsonaro has divided Brazil’s 100,000 Jews. Some have been impressed by the frequent appearance of Israeli flags at his rallies and his anti-Palestinian stance. But others point out that he regularly expresses hostility to minorities.

They suspect that Bolsonaro covets Israel’s military expertise and the votes of tens of millions of fundamentalist Christians in Brazil, who see Israel as central to their apocalyptic, and in many cases anti-Semitic, beliefs. Not that this worries Netanyahu.

He has been engaged in a similar bromance with Viktor Orban, the ultra-nationalist prime minister of Hungary, who barely veils his Jew-baiting and has eulogised Miklos Horthy, a Hungarian leader who collaborated with the Nazis.

Netanyahu has also courted Poland’s far-right prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki, even as the latter has fuelled holocaust revisionism with legislation to outlaw criticism of Poland for its involvement in the Nazi death camps. Millions of Jews were exterminated in such camps.

Israel is cultivating alliances with other ultra-nationalists – in and out of power – in the Czech Republic, Italy, Switzerland, Germany and Austria.

The conclusion drawn by Jewish communities abroad is that their wellbeing – even their safety – is now a much lower priority than bolstering Israel’s diplomatic influence.

… hard to ignore is that Israeli leaders, while they regularly denounce US and European left-wingers as anti-Semites for criticising Israel over its abuse of Palestinians, have remained studiously silent on Trump’s inflammatory statements.

That was illustrated starkly last week in the immediate aftermath of a massacre at a Pittsburgh synagogue on October 27. Robert Bowers gunned down 11 worshippers in the worst anti-Semitic attack in US history.

Jewish communities have linked the awakening of the white-nationalist movement to which Bowers belonged to the Trump administration’s hostile rhetoric towards immigrants and ethnic minorities.

In Pittsburgh, huge crowds protested as Trump paid a condolence visit to the Tree of Life synagogue, holding banners aloft with slogans such as: “President Hate, leave our state.”

Equally hard to ignore is that Israeli leaders, while they regularly denounce US and European left-wingers as anti-Semites for criticising Israel over its abuse of Palestinians, have remained studiously silent on Trump’s inflammatory statements.

Chemi Shalev, a commentator for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, noted the disturbing impression created by Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador to the US, escorting Trump through Pittsburgh. Dermer looked like a “bodyguard”, shielding the president from local Jewish protesters, Shalev observed.

Meanwhile, tone-deaf diaspora affairs minister Naftali Bennett, leader of the largest Israeli settler party, the Jewish Home, milked the local community’s pain over the Pittsburgh massacre to Israel’s advantage. At an official commemoration service, he compared Bowers’ bullets to rockets fired by Palestinians, describing both as examples of anti-Semitism.

In an online post before the attack, Bowers singled out the synagogue for its prominent role helping refugees gain asylum in the US.

Trump has rapidly turned immigration into a “national security” priority. Last week, he sent thousands of US troops to the border with Mexico to stop what he termed an “invasion” by refugees from Central America.

Drawing on the histories of their own families having fled persecution, liberal Jews such as those at the Pittsburgh synagogue believe it is a moral imperative to assist refugees escaping oppression and conflict.

[Naftali] Bennett has termed the [African] refugees “a plague of illegal infiltrators”, while the culture minister, Miri Regev, has labelled them a “cancer”. Polls suggest that more than half of Israeli Jews agree.

That message is strenuously rejected not only by Trump, but by the Israeli government.

In a move Trump hopes to replicate on the Mexico border, Israel has built a 250 kilometre wall along the border with Egypt to block the path of asylum-seekers from war-torn Africa.

Netanyahu’s government has also circumvented international law and Israeli court rulings to jail and then deport existing refugees back to Africa, despite evidence that they will be placed in grave danger.

Bennett has termed the refugees “a plague of illegal infiltrators”, while the culture minister, Miri Regev, has labelled them a “cancer”. Polls suggest that more than half of Israeli Jews agree.

Separately, Israel’s nation-state law, passed in the summer, gives constitutional weight to the notion that Israel belongs exclusively to Jews, stripping the fifth of the population who are Palestinian citizens of the most basic rights.

More generally, Israel views Palestinians through a single prism: as a demographic threat to the Jewishness of the Greater Israel project that Netanyahu has been advancing.

In short, Israel’s leaders are not simply placating a new wave of white-nationalist and neo-fascist leaders. They have a deep-rooted ideological sympathy with them.

For the first time, overseas Jewish communities are being faced with a troubling dilemma. Do they really wish to subscribe to a Jewish nationalism in Israel that so strongly echoes the ugly rhetoric and policies threatening them at home?

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, BrazilComments Off on With Brazil’s Bolsonaro, ”Israel” finds another natural partner on the far-right

A tale of two massacres: Pittsburgh and Hebron

Robert Bowers and Baruch Goldstein

By Lawrence Davidson

A massacre of Jews

On the morning of 28 October 2018 Robert Bowers walked into a suburban Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, synagogue filled with worshippers. He was armed with an assault rifle and several handguns. Bowers proceeded to kill 11 people and wound six. It was the deadliest attack on Jews in American history.

Bowers is a 46-year-old truck driver who lived alone in a small apartment in the Baldwin section of Pittsburgh. Though described by neighbours as “normal”, Bowers was clearly a loner. “He kept to himself and neighbours never saw him with visitors.” Posting an online picture of his three “Glock”-brand handguns, he referred to them as “my glock family.”

His social life may have been largely restricted to social media, and there he freely expressed himself. He found his comfort zone on a righ-twing website entitled GabGab promotes a concept of unfettered free speech. In theory, this might sound like an admirable aim, but in practice it can just turn into an arena to vent hatred, conspiracy theories and incitement of oneself and/or others to violence. Apparently, that was the environment that attracted Robert Bowers.

Though he claimed that he did not like Donald Trump, there seems little doubt that Trump’s rabid hostility to immigrants, expressed in provocative language, created the context for Bowers’s acting out as he did.

Bowers used Gab to express classic anti-Semitic views. He wrote that “jews [sic] are the children of satan [sic]”, and asserted that President Trump’s mantra of “making America great again” was impossible to realise as long as there is “a kike infestation”. Bowers hated Jews first and foremost because they were Jews. But he also hated them for what they were allegedly doing to “his people” – driving “white Americans”, and by extension “Western civilisation”, to extinction. 

Specifically, the Jews were doing this by helping to bring immigrants into the US. Though he claimed that he did not like Donald Trump, there seems little doubt that Trump’s rabid hostility to immigrants, expressed in provocative language, created the context for Bowers’s acting out as he did. Against this backdrop, Bowers became focused on the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society(HIAS), a not-for-profit group that aids refugees. Bowers convinced himself that the HIAS, “likes to bring invaders in that kill our people“. The Pittsburgh Synagogue he attacked supported HIAS.

It is worth repeating that Robert Bowers is an authentic anti-Semite. He hates Jews because they are Jews. That understood, he then went looking for alleged Jewish behaviours to rationalize acting out his hatred. I emphasise this point because there are Zionists who are now trying to conflate Bowers with an artificially manufactured category of alleged anti-Semites – people who are simply critical of Israel. For instance, following the Pittsburgh massacre the Israeli ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, took the opportunity to equate real anti-Semites like Bowers with the ones the Zionists have simply manufactured. In a media interview he asserted that “to simply say that this [Bowers’s attack on Jews]… only comes on one side [the extreme right], is to not understand… the reality of anti-Semitism”. Dermer then asserted that “one of the big forces in college campuses today is anti-Semitism. And those anti-Semites are usually not neo-Nazis, on college campuses. They’re coming from the radical left.” It is to be noted that this so-called anti-Semitism on the campuses is almost completely based on opposition to Israel’s own racist policies and practices. Describing such opposition as the same as the behaviour of Robert Bowers is obscene.

A massacre of Arab Muslims

While anti-Semitism is very old, the sort of category-specific hatred it displays (in this case the category of all Jews) is not unique. Indeed, the same sort of irrational, violence-engendering hatred has been produced by homogeneous national groups that cultivate fear of stereotyped minority elements within their midst.

With this fact in mind we can identify another massacre similar to the one carried out by Robert Bowers. This one was perpetrated by the American-Israeli settler by the name of Baruch Goldstein.

On the morning of 25 February 1994 Baruch Goldstein walked into the mosque at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in the Palestinian West Bank town of Hebron. Like the synagogue in Pittsburgh some 24 years later, the mosque was full of worshippers. Goldstein was armed with an assault rifle and 140 rounds of ammunition. He proceeded to kill 29 people and injure over 100 others.

Goldstein was a Zionist extremist and an active member of the anti-Arab Kach Party. Goldstein hated all Arab Muslims in much the same way Bowers hated all Jews. His hatred was racially based and independent of the political or social behaviour of any particular Arab Muslim individual. For instance, serving as a physician with the Israeli army and later in a civilian capacity, Goldstein “refused to treat Arabs, even Arab soldiers serving in the IDF [Israeli army]”.

Goldstein’s social circle was the Kach Party, an ultra-nationalist orthodox religious organisation founded by the American-Israeli Meir Kahane. The party’s doctrine called for the expulsion or subordination of all Arabs in Israel, including in the occupied territories. There was an unquestioned assumption that all such people opposed the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. This assumption also justified the party’s advocating violence against Arabs and Muslims. Given this worldview, Baruch Goldstein, like Robert Bowers, saw a specific, racially and religiously defined group of people as a mortal threat – they were “invaders” who would “kill our people”. And here, both individuals acted in the same murderous way.

The violent culture

The two men shared something else – cultures that encourage violence. In Bowers case it is a culture that has always valued guns as a symbol of liberty and individual potency. As such, unrestricted access to guns is, presently, more valuable than the lives of citizens. Isolated within the “virtual” social circle of Gab, and taking cues from President Trump’s anti-immigrant rants, Bowers, the anti-Semite, was simultaneously heavily armed and liberated from civil or moral inhibitions. The consequence was a massacre of Jews at prayer.

Baruch Goldstein’s cultural milieu also engendered violence. His was a culture shaped by an ideology that convinced its adherents that they were in eternal danger from the non-Jewish world. This sense of danger focused Israelis on the Arab and Muslim minority caught within the borders of their expanding colonialist state. These unwanted residents, who dared to resist Israel’s racist pretensions, were consistently demonised. This milieu liberated Goldstein of his civil and moral inhibitions. His was also a culture where Israeli Jews are heavily armed. The consequence was a massacre of Arab Muslims at prayer.

Conclusion

No doubt Robert Bowers is a hero to some who knew him through Gab and through his turning racist theory into murderous practice. Baruch Goldstein is still a hero to the religious radicals he lived among.There are yearly pilgrimagesto his well-kept gravesite.

Such people as Bowers and Goldstein are always with us. The question is, do we maintain a culture that empowers them? In both the case of Israel and the United States the answer at present appears to be yes – though there is a noticeable difference here.

In the case of Israel, given that the exclusionist ideology of Zionism is the very basis of national culture, the empowerment of racist hatred against Arabs and Muslims is almost inevitable.

In the case of the United States, there are still millions of citizens who stand against the racist and white nationalist sentiments that presently poison the culture. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, there was a national effort to humanise the nation’s laws and behaviour within the public sphere. This was largely the product of the Civil Rights Movement. Today the US is in the midst of a cultural civil war waged by those who would destroy that progress. In other words, here things are in flux and a culture infused with human and civil rights is still an option. Indeed, taking that option is the real way of “making America great again”.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, USA, ZIO-NAZI, West Bank1 Comment

UK Labour Party in grip of Zionist inquisition 

Misuse of anti-Semitism

By Stuart Littlewood

The orchestrated smear campaign against pro-Palestine sympathisers sent me reaching for my pen. But Gilad Atzmon too was eyeing the Labour Party’s crazed witch hunt for “anti-Semites” with misgiving and had already declared, in his usual robust way, that Labour under Jeremy Corbyn was not so much a party as a piece of Zionist-occupied territory.

Writing in his blog about Corbyn’s and McDonnell’s servile commitment to expel anyone whose remarks might be interpreted by Zionist mafioso as hateful or simply upsetting to Jews, Atzmon concludes: “Corbyn’s Labour is now unequivocally a spineless club of sabots goyim [which I take to mean non-Jewish dogsbodies who do menial jobs that Jews are forbidden to do for religious reasons].

“The Labour Party’s policies,” says Atzmon,

are now compatible with Jewish culture: intolerant to the core and concerned primarily with the imaginary suffering of one people only. These people are not the working class, they are probably the most privileged ethnic group in Britain. Corbyn’s Labour is a Zionist occupied territory… It proves my theses that the left is not a friend to Palestine, the oppressed or the workless people.

I would have never believed that Jeremy Corbyn would engage in such colossally treacherous politics. I did not anticipate that Corbyn would become a Zionist lapdog. Corbyn was a great hope to many of us. I guess that the time has come to accept that the left is a dead concept, it has nothing to offer.

This writer too is shocked after signing up as a supporter (though not a member) of the Labour Party with the express purpose of voting in the leadership election for that beacon of common sense, that staunch champion of high ideals, that great white hope who would start a revolution in British politics and sweep away the crap and corruption left behind by Blair and Brown.

Boy, was I in for a disappointment!

Zionist inquisitors

The latest casualty in this ugly Zionist power-play is former mayor of London Ken Livingstone. In a heated public spat with one of the party’s chief inquisitors, John Mann MP, he had the temerity to defend a female member of parliament, Naz Shah, who had fallen foul of the party’s anti-Semitism police for comments made on Facebook before becoming an MP.

She had suggested that Israel be transferred to the United States. She apologised profusely, but Labour’s Israel lobby went ballistic after raking up this old remark.

It scarcely needs saying that Zionism may mean self-determination for the Jewish people but it has cruelly denied the Palestinians their right to self-determination for decades.

Had they forgotten that their hero, David Ben-Gurion himself, was mad-keen on population transfer – of Palestinian Arabs, that is? So what’s to get excited about?

Mann happens to be chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Anti-Semitism. One-sidedness is the name of his game.

What seems to have generated greatest sound and fury is this observation by Livingstone:

When Hitler won his election in 1932 his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.

Joan Ryan MP, Chair of Labour Friends of Israel, said:

To speak of Zionism – the right of the Jewish people to self-determination – and Hitler in the same sentence is quite breathtaking. I am appalled that Ken Livingstone has chosen to do so… He should be suspended from the Labour Party immediately.

It scarcely needs saying that Zionism may mean self-determination for the Jewish people but it has cruelly denied the Palestinians their right to self-determination for decades. Nevertheless Livingstone is suspended from the party after 47 years.

The president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Jonathan Arkush, can be relied on to put in his two-pennyworth on these occasions, and he didn’t disappoint:

Ken Livingston’s comments were abhorrent and beyond disgraceful. His latest comments combine holocaust revisionism with anti-Semitism denial, when the evidence is there for all to see. He lacks any sense of decency. He must now be expelled from the Labour Party.

On the suspension of Naz Shah, Arkush was in overdrive:

If the Labour Party is to re-establish its credibility on this issue, it needs to take four important steps forward:

First, there must be a credible inquiry into the entire Naz Shah episode. Secondly, the party has to take effective measures to eradicate anti-Semitism wherever it occurs within its membership.  Thirdly, the leader must make it clear that allegations of anti-Semitism are not to be dismissed as arguments about Israel. Fourthly, Jeremy Corbyn must now respond to our repeated calls for him to accept that his meetings with rank anti-Semites before he became leader were not appropriate and will not be repeated.

Witch hunters’ balloon pricked

Whether Livingstone’s claim that Hitler was a Zionist is correct, I know not and care not. He presumably checked his facts and was itching to score with this mischievous titbit. Whether that was a wise thing to do is a matter for idle chatter, not expulsion. Meanwhile Zionist hotheads inside and outside the party would do well to pay attention to the The Jewish Socialists’ Group, which has some sound advice for them and sticks a pin in their not-so-pretty balloon with this measured statement:

Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are not the same. Zionism is a political ideology which has always been contested within Jewish life since it emerged in 1897, and it is entirely legitimate for non-Jews as well as Jews to express opinions about it, whether positive or negative. Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews.

Criticism of Israeli government policy and Israeli state actions against the Palestinians is not anti-Semitism. Those who conflate criticism of Israeli policy with anti-Semitism, whether they are supporters or opponents of Israeli policy, are actually helping the anti-Semites. We reject any attempt, from whichever quarter, to place legitimate criticism of Israeli policy out of bounds.

Accusations of anti-Semitism are currently being weaponised to attack the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party with claims that Labour has a “problem” of anti-Semitism. This is despite Corbyn’s longstanding record of actively opposing fascism and all forms of racism, and being a firm a supporter of the rights of refugees and of human rights globally.

A very small number of such cases seem to be real instances of anti-Semitism. Others represent genuine criticism of Israeli policy and support for Palestinian rights, but expressed in clumsy and ambiguous language, which may unknowingly cross a line into anti-Semitism. Further cases are simply forthright expressions of support for Palestinian rights, which condemn Israeli government policy and aspects of Zionist ideology, and have nothing whatsoever to do with anti-Semitism.

The Jewish Socialists’ Group goes further and suggests that the attacks come from four main sources: the Conservative Party, Conservative-supporting media and pro-Zionist Israeli media sources, right-wing and pro-Zionist elements claiming to speak on behalf of the Jewish community, and opponents of Jeremy Corbyn within the Labour Party. These groups make common cause to wreck the Corbyn leadership, divert attention from Israeli government crimes and discredit those who dare to criticise Israeli policy or the Zionist enterprise.

In short, the Jewish Socialists’ Group says what needs to be said and puts the witch hunter generals firmly in their place.

Of course, if Labour – or the Conservatives – truly wished to be squeaky-clean in matters of racism they would disband their Israel fan clubs (i.e. Friends of Israel) and suspend all who refuse to condemn Israel’s brutal acts of ethnic cleansing and other war crimes. If people holding public office put themselves in a position where they are influenced by a foreign military power, they flagrantly breach the Principles of Public Life. There are far too many Labour and Conservative MPs and MEPs who fall into that category.

The Labour Party announced today it is considering reviewing its rules to send a clear message of zero-tolerance on anti-Semitism. For balance, why not match this with zero-tolerance of those who use the party as a platform for promoting the criminal Israeli regime and its continuing territorial ambitions? Go on, Labour, prove Atzmon wrong – prove the party is not Zionist occupied territory.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on UK Labour Party in grip of Zionist inquisition 

Britain’s Zionist Inquisition in full cry

Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism

Their quarry: anti-racist Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Their weapons: anti-Semitism smears. Their purpose: to oust Corbyn and replace him with a compliant pro-Israel stooge.

By Stuart Littlewood

The row over anti-Semitism has erupted yet again in the UK Labour Party, as predicted a few months ago by Miko Peled, the Israeli general’s son, who warned that

they are going to pull all the stops, they are going to smear, they are going to try anything they can to stop Corbyn… the reason anti-Semitism is used is because they [the Israelis] have no argument…

So Israel’s pimps at Westminster, never happy unless they’re telling everyone what to think and say, are frantically insisting that the Labour Party adopts the discredited International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism in its unedited entirety and incorporates it into the party’s code of conduct. Many party members believe they have blown up the matter out of all proportion simply to settle their long-standing score – as Peled says – with the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, a genuine anti-racist, champion of Palestinian rights and critic of Israel.

This is what the IHRA definition says:

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

It includes these 11 “contemporary examples of anti-Semitism:”

  • Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
  • Making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
  • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
  • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the holocaust).
  • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the holocaust.
  • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
  • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterise Israel or Israelis.
  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Jewish community leaders are furious that Labour’s ruling body, the National Executive Committee (NEC), disagrees with four of these examples and refuses to include them in the party’s new code of conduct. The NEC, of course, is mindful that the code must be enforceable across half-a-million members with differing opinions, many of whom are tired of the constant whining. An emergency motion orchestrated by the Jewish lobby, forcing the NEC to take on board the whole IHRA package with all its examples and humiliating Corbyn in the process, was supposed to be considered yesterday but is now postponed till September.

The NEC explains its omissions by saying accusations of dual nationality are wrong rather than anti-Semitic. It strikes out altogether the idea that calling the state of Israel “a racist endeavour” is anti-Semitic, no doubt for the simple reason that it is racist. Israelis have for decades practised apartheid, casting their non-Jewish population as second-class citizens, and now it’s enshrined in their new nationality laws, in black and white. What’s more, Israel’s illegal occupation has denied Palestinians their right to self-determination for the last 70 years. The NEC also chooses not to forbid the use of symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism and comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis unless there’s evidence of anti-Semitic intent.

Sounds reasonable, you might think. But 68 rabbis have accused the Labour leadership of acting “in the most insulting and arrogant way” by leaving out or modifying those controversial bits. In a letter to the Guardian they say it’s not the Labour Party’s place to rewrite it.

The arrogance is theirs, I think. Here’s why. The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee recommended adoption of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism subject to the inclusion of two caveats:

(1) It is not anti-Semitic to criticise the government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.

(2) It is not anti-Semitic to hold the Israeli government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.

The government agreed but dropped the caveats saying they weren’t necessary. Subsequently, the IHRA definition has run into big trouble, being condemned by leading law experts as “too vague to be useful” and because conduct contrary to the IHRA definition is not necessarily illegal. They warn that public bodies are under no obligation to adopt or use it and, if they do, they must interpret it in a way that’s consistent with their statutory obligations and with the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is deeply flawed

Crucially, freedom of expression applies not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that “offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population” – unless they encourage violence, hatred or intolerance. Calling Israel an apartheid state or advocating BDS [boycott, divestment and sanctions] against Israel cannot properly be characterised as anti-Semitic. Furthermore, any public authority seeking to apply the IHRA definition to prohibit or punish such activities “would be acting unlawfully”.

The right of free expression, as Labour’s Zio-Inquisitors ought to know, is now part of UK domestic law by virtue of the Human Rights Act. Furthermore, the 1986 Education Act established an individual right of free expression in all higher education institutions. Then there’s Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which bestows on everyone “the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. As always, such rights are subject to limitations required by law and respect for the rights of others.

So, the IHRA definition is a minefield. It’s not something a sane organisation would incorporate into its code of conduct – certainly not as it stands. It contravenes human rights and freedom of expression. But when did the crackpots in the Israel lobby ever care about other people’s rights?

The whole fuss borders on the farcical when you ask what anti-Semitism means. Who are the Semites anyway? Everyone avoids this question like the plague. Why? It’s embarrassing. DNA research shows that most of those living today who claim to be Jews are not descended from the ancient Israelites at all and the Palestinians have more Israelite blood. So they are the real Semites. Research by Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, published by the Oxford University Press in 2012 on behalf of the Society of Molecular Biology and Evolution, found that the Khazarian Hypothesis is scientifically correct, meaning that most Jews are Khazars. The Khazarians converted to Talmudic Judaism in the 8th Century and were never in ancient Israel.

Probably no more than 2 per cent of Jews in Israel are actually Israelites. So, even if you believe the propaganda myth that God gave the land to the Israelites, He certainly didn’t give it to Netanyahu, Lieberman and the other East European thugs who rule the apartheid state.

As former Israeli Director of Military Intelligence, Yehoshafat Harkabi wrote:

It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.

Well, that tragic irony has come to pass. As has been suggested before, so-called anti-Semitism is a matter best resolved by the Jewish ‘family’ itself. There’s no reason to bother Corbyn or the Labour Party with it.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on Britain’s Zionist Inquisition in full cry

Who are the true Semites in the topsy-turvy world of anti-Semitism?

Israel's "anti-Semitism" weapon

UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, the prime-minister-in-waiting, is under relentless attack by Zios (a newly prohibited word) for not stamping out anti-Semitism. But isn’t it a problem for his accusers to solve?

By Stuart Littlewood

As the Israeli general’s son Miko Peled warned Labour activists last year, “They are going to pull all the stops, they are going to smear, they are going to try anything they can to stop Corbyn… the reason anti-Semitism is used is because they [the Israelis] have no argument, there is nothing to say.”

And now the Zionist Inquisition and mainstream media have ganged up to crucify Corbyn for the crimes of others. Of course, Corbyn could and should have done more to crush or at least distance himself from the loonies who post deliberately hateful anti-Jewish comments. But it seems likely that many of those vile scribblers are part of the vast army of Israeli hasbara trolls and dirty-tricks agents deployed to torpedo Corbyn and the pro-Palestinian cause. They will simply re-appear in different guise.

Isn’t this a matter for the Jewish “family” to resolve?

Israel is the criterion according to which all Jews will tend to be judged. Israel as a Jewish state is an example of the Jewish character… Any flaw in Israeli conduct, which initially is cited as anti-Israelism, is likely to be transformed into empirical proof of the validity of anti-Semitism. It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.

Not my words, of course, but an observation by former Israeli Director of Military Intelligence Yehoshafat Harkabi in his book Israel’s Fateful Hour. His view is held by many others.

So, if nothing is done to address the causes of anti-Israelism (which is the outrage many people feel) it may turn into anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism therefore appears to be a matter between Jews everywhere and best left to them. Why bother Jeremy Corbyn with it?

Too late, the knives are out and stabbing furiously.

On the other side of the coin, as I write I’m receiving reports that Israel has blocked hundreds of Palestinian Christians in Gaza from travelling to pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem this Easter. Only those who are over 55 are allowed out of the prison camp, so many of them will have to travel without their relatives. Israel routinely imposes age restrictions, often announcing holiday permit policies at the last minute, or even after a holiday begins, making it almost impossible for Palestinians to make travel plans.

It’s all part of the usual lockdown of the West Bank and Gaza Strip for the eight days around the Jewish Passover holiday. And I’ve just seen videos taken in Jerusalem showing Israeli police attacking Palestinians during a Palm Sunday procession. These and other outrages are committed again and again by “the only democracy in the Middle East”, which claims to guarantee freedom of worship.

We’ve all watched in horror on TV Israeli tanks and snipers firing at unarmed Palestinian protesters in Gaza on their own side of the border, killing 15 and injuring 1,400 with live fire, rubber-coated steel pellets and tear gas for going too near the prison fence that prevents them returning to their homes and farms. Some 773 had bullet wounds. This was a non-violent gathering organised by civil society. It should be remembered that Israel imposed a 300 metre no-go buffer on the Gaza side of the border fence, sometimes extending well beyond and creating a very wide high-risk zone that robs thousands of Gazans of valuable agricultural land. These killing fields are often used by sadistic Israeli snipers for sport.

Several sources report that the Israeli Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) threatened the owners of 20 Gaza bus companies that “you and your families will be held personally responsible” if their buses brought protesters to the border. This is another typical outrage by the “the world’s most moral army”. How low, how gross its unbridled barbarism, how brutal its behaviour before anti-Israel reaction flips into anti-Semitism?

Yet Corbyn still sends out his Happy Passover messages!

Lecturing Corbyn like he’s a naughty schoolboy

While Israel ratchets-up its criminal behaviour, what are we to make of the latest instructions to Corbyn from the self-appointed leaders of the UK Jewish community, Jonathan Arkush (Board of Deputies of British Jews – BDBJ) and Jonathan Goldstein [Jewish Leadership Council – JLC]? Note the rude, dictatorial tone.

For whatever reasons, you have not, until now, seemed to grasp how strongly British Jews feel about the situation…

Any meeting between us must produce concrete, practical outcomes to be implemented by the party; there is no point in meeting if the situation remains the same or continues to worsen… We propose an agenda of actions for discussion:

  • The party leadership, and you personally, must be seen and heard to lead this work. Only your voice can persuade your followers that this a necessary and correct course of action. If actions need to be passed by the NEC [National Executive Committee] or other party bodies, you need to take personal responsibility for ensuring this happens. 
  • Outstanding and future cases to be brought to a swift conclusion under a fixed timescale. An independent, mutually agreed ombudsman should be appointed to oversee performance, reporting to the party and to the Board of Deputies and Jewish Leadership Council.
  • MPs, councillors and other party members should not share platforms with people who have been suspended or expelled for anti-Semitism and CLPs [Constituency Labour Parties] should not provide them with a platform. Anybody doing so should themselves be suspended…
  • The party should circulate the IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of anti_Semitism, with all its examples and clauses, to all members and branches. The party should work with mainstream Jewish community organisations to develop and implement education about anti-Semitism. This should include a clear list of unacceptable language, such as the use of “Zio” and “Zionist” as terms of abuse…
  • Public confirmation that the party will seek to understand and engage with the Jewish community via its main representative groups, and not through fringe organisations who wish to obstruct the party’s efforts to tackle anti-Semitism.
  • Nobody should be vilified for opposing anti-Semitism. Those Labour Party members and Labour-supporting blogs pushing the abuse are largely doing so in your name. They need to hear you say, publicly and in your own voice, that we had every right to protest about anti-Semitism, and that Labour MPs had every right to support us; that our concerns about anti-Semitism are sincere and not a “smear” as has been widely alleged (including on your own Facebook page)… and that anyone directing abuse, intimidation or threats at those of us who oppose anti-Semitism is damaging your efforts to eliminate it and to start rebuilding trust. We firmly believe that this must happen urgently, and certainly before we meet.

Disrespectful

There’s plenty wrong with this missive besides its arrogance. Many admirable Jewish groups vehemently campaign against Israel’s crimes. The idea that Labour should only engage with the Jewish community through the BoD and JLC is ludicrous and an insult to those Jews who’ll have nothing to do with them.

The idea that anyone involved with deciding disciplinary cases within the Labour Party should report to the BDBJ and JLC is simply insane.

And the idea that the Labour Party, down to branch level, should be “educated” by Jewish community organisations using the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is a non-starter. Here’s why. It says:

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

The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee accepted this definition subject to the inclusion of two caveats:

  • It is not anti-Semitic to criticise the government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.
  • It is not anti-Semitic to hold the Israeli government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.

The Select Committee recommended the amended definition be “formally adopted by the UK government, law-enforcement agencies and all political parties”. The government agreed but dropped the caveats saying they weren’t necessary.

Consequently, it has been condemned by experts as “too vague to be useful”. Eminent human rights lawyer Hugh Tomlinson QC said it wasn’t a legally binding definition and lacked clarity. Therefore, any conduct contrary to the IHRA definition couldn’t necessarily be ruled illegal.

In Tomlinson’s view, it was “most unsatisfactory” for the government to adopt such a definition, and it could only be considered as a freestanding statement of policy. Public bodies were under no obligation to adopt or use it, nor should they be criticised for refusing. If public authorities did decide to adopt it they must interpret it in a way that’s consistent with their statutory obligations and with the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Freedom of expression applies not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that “offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population” – unless, of course, they encourage violence, hatred or intolerance.

Public authorities are also under an obligation “to create a favourable environment for participation in public debates for all concerned, allowing them to express their opinions and ideas without fear, even if these opinions and ideas are contrary to those defended by the official authorities or by a large part of public opinion, or even if those opinions and ideas are irritating or offensive to the public”.

Calling Israel an apartheid state or advocating BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) against Israel couldn’t properly be characterised as anti-Semitic. Furthermore, any public authority seeking to apply the IHRA definition to prohibit or punish such activities “would be acting unlawfully”.

Retired Lord Justice of Appeal Sir Stephen Sedley also offered advice, criticising the IHRA working definition for lack of legal force and because “it is not neutral: it may well influence policy both domestically and internationally”.

He added that the right of free expression, now part of our domestic law by virtue of the Human Rights Act, “places both negative and positive obligations on the state which may be put at risk if the IHRA definition is unthinkingly followed”. Moreover the 1986 Education Act established an individual right of free expression in all higher education institutions “which cannot be cut back by governmental policies”.

In Sedley’s view, the IHRA definition is open to manipulation. “What is needed now is a principled retreat on the part of government from a stance which it has naively adopted.”

In any case, Labour Party members will surely know that Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights bestows on everyone “the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. Such rights, of course, are subject to the usual limitations required by law and respect for the rights of others.

An inconvenient truth?

So, how could the IHRA definition ever be accepted by Labour? Would the party really allow itself to be pushed by the BDBJ and JLC into such a minefield? Who are the Semites anyway?

Recent DNA research indicate that most of those living today who claim to be Jews are not descended from the ancient Israelites at all and the Palestinians have more Israelite blood than the Jews – they are the real Semites. Research conducted by Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and published by the Oxford University Press in 2012 on behalf of the Society of Molecular Biology and Evolution, found that the Khazarian hypothesis is scientifically correct, meaning that most Jews are Khazars. Probably no more than 2 per cent of Jews in Israel are actually Israelites.

The anti-Semites are actually the racist Israeli regime, its nasty witch-hunters and the brainwashed stooges among our politicians, in our government and embedded in our political parties – including Corbyn’s accusers.

The Khazarians, who were never in Israel, converted to Talmudic Judaism in the 8th Century. So, even if you believe the myth that God gave the land to the Israelites, he certainly didn’t give it to the Khazarians. Russian “Jews” like the thug Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s defence minister, and countless others who flooded into the Holy Land intending to kick the Palestinians out, have no biblical or ancestral claim to Old Israel. Lieberman rejects UN calls for an inquiry into the Easter slaughter of Palestinians on the Gaza border, mentioned above and condemned across the world, and says his soldiers “deserve a medal”. That other unpleasant individual, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, was also full of praise, saying “well done to our soldiers”.

The Johns Hopkins study was published five years ago. Has it been refuted? If they got it right, and Palestinians are the true Semites, the whole anti-Semitism thing becomes an upside-down nonsense. The anti-Semites are actually the racist Israeli regime, its nasty witch-hunters and the brainwashed stooges among our politicians, in our government and embedded in our political parties – including Corbyn’s accusers.

Yes, Jeremy Corbyn needs to dislodge the anti-Jew morons and racist crackpots, of which there are many in all parties. They are drawn to politics like moths to a flame and always will be. He should also disband Labour Friends of Israel – an aggressive mouthpiece for a foreign terror regime has no place in a British political party. For balance the pro-Palestine camp inside and outside the political parties needs to purge its foul-mouthed nitwits.

What to do with the Goldstein/Arkush letter? It would be politically incorrect to bin it. Maybe it ought to be filed in Labour’s pending tray until the BDBJ and JLC publicly admit that there’s something very rotten in the State of Israel, condemn the Israeli regime’s wanton cruelty and mega-crimes against the Palestinian people, and promise to help sort out their “family” problem.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on Who are the true Semites in the topsy-turvy world of anti-Semitism?

“Official” UK anti-Semitism definition gets two-finger salute from legal experts

Israeli flag overshadowing UK Union Jack

By Stuart Littlewood

The enemies of free speech were having a whale of a time – until this week. Britain’s political parties, further education establishments and BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) groups had been bludgeoned into silence on Israel’s crimes by a bogus definition of anti-Semitism formally adopted and deployed by government, police and assorted pro-Israel pimps, stooges and creeps.

Their bully-boy tactics have now been upset by Free Speech on IsraelIndependent Jewish VoicesJews for Justice for Palestinians and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, who asked top legal experts for an opinion on this sinister farce.

Wilfully flawed definition

The root cause was been an exceptionally silly, non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism issued by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) as follows:

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

The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee accepted the IHRA definition subject to the inclusion of two caveats:

  • It is not anti-Semitic to criticise the government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.
  • It is not anti-Semitic to hold the Israeli government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.

The Select Committee recommended this amended definition be “formally adopted by the UK government, law-enforcement agencies and all political parties, to assist them in determining whether or not an incident or discourse can be regarded as anti-Semitic”. The government agreed but dropped the caveats, saying they weren’t necessary.

Definition “too vague to be useful”

Eminent human rights lawyer Hugh Tomlinson QC has sharply criticised the definition.

Firstly, it wasn’t a legally binding definition so didn’t have the force of a statutory one. And it couldn’t be considered a legal definition of anti-Semitism as it lacked clarity. Therefore, any conduct contrary to the IHRA definition couldn’t necessarily be ruled illegal.

Secondly, the language was far too vague to be useful as a tool, and it was “most unsatisfactory for the government to adopt a definition which lacks clarity and comprehensiveness”. In Tomlinson’s view, the government’s decision to adopt the IHRA definition was simply a freestanding statement of policy – a mere suggestion as to a definition of anti-Semitism that public bodies might wish to use. No public body was under an obligation to adopt or use it, or, given the unsatisfactory nature of the definition, should be criticised for refusing.

He warned that if a public authority did decide to adopt the definition then it must interpret it in a way that’s consistent with its statutory obligations. In particular, public authorities cannot behave in a manner inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Freedom of expression applies not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that “offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population”. Unless, of course, they amount to a call for violence or a justification of violence, hatred or intolerance.

A further obligation put on public authorities is “to create a favourable environment for participation in public debates for all concerned, allowing them to express their opinions and ideas without fear, even if these opinions and ideas are contrary to those defended by the official authorities or by a large part of public opinion, or even if those opinions and ideas are irritating or offensive to the public”.

So, in Tomlinson’s opinion the IHRA Definition does not mean that calling Israel an apartheid state that practises settler colonialism, or advocating boycott, divestment or sanctions (BDS) against Israel, can properly be characterised as anti-Semitic. Furthermore, a public authority seeking to apply the IHRA definition to prohibit or punish such activities “would be acting unlawfully”.

Government’s “naive stance”

Retired Lord Justice of Appeal Sir Stephen Sedley also weighed in with advice, criticising the IHRA working definition for lack of legal force. “At the same time, it is not neutral: it may well influence policy both domestically and internationally.”

He added that the right of free expression, now part of our domestic law by virtue of the Human Rights Act, “places both negative and positive obligations on the state which may be put at risk if the IHRA definition is unthinkingly followed”. Moreover, the 1986 Education Act established an individual right of free expression in all higher education institutions “which cannot be cut back by governmental policies”.

According to Sedley, the IHRA definition is open to manipulation. In his view, “what is needed now is a principled retreat on the part of government from a stance which it has naively adopted in disregard of the sane advice given to it by the Home Affairs Select Committee”.

Many objections to this “official” anti-Semitism definition, and the way it is used, are underpinned by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which says:

  • Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
  • The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Also, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights bestows on everyone “the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. All such rights, of course, are subject to the usual limitations required by law and respect for the rights of others.

Attempt to bury UN report on Israeli apartheid

Perhaps university vice-chancellors and party leaders will now find the backbone to resist the bluster and intimidation of the pro-Israel lobby, especially after the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) produced a report (on 15 March) establishing what most of us have known for donkey’s years: that Israel is a thoroughly nasty apartheid regime.

The report was authored by Richard Falk, Professor of International Law and Practice Emeritus at Princeton University and a former UN human rights rapporteur for the Palestinian territories, and Virginia Tilley, Professor of Political Science at Southern Illinois University. It established on the “basis of scholarly inquiry and overwhelming evidence, that Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid”. Such was the fuss kicked up that it has been withdrawn from UN websites.

But don’t worry, you can read it in full here. If short of time skip to the Conclusions (page 52), which include:

The authors urge the United Nations to implement this finding by fulfilling its international responsibilities in relation to international law and the rights of the Palestinian people as a matter of urgency, for two reasons.

First, the situation addressed in the report is ongoing… In the case of Israel-Palestine, any delay compounds the crime by prolonging the subjugation of Palestinians to the active practice of apartheid by Israel. Prompt action is accordingly imperative to avert further human suffering and end a crime against humanity that is being committed now.

Secondly, the extreme gravity of the charge requires prompt action. Since the 1970s, when the international campaign to oppose apartheid in southern Africa gathered momentum, apartheid has been considered in the annals of the United Nations and world public opinion to be second only to genocide in the hierarchy of criminality.

This report accordingly recommends that the international community acts immediately, without waiting for a more formal pronouncement regarding the culpability of the state of Israel, its government and its officials for the commission of the crime of apartheid…

The authors of this report conclude that the weight of the evidence supports beyond a reasonable doubt the contention that Israel is guilty of imposing an apartheid regime on the Palestinian people. The prohibition of apartheid is considered “jus cogens” in international customary law. States have a separate and collective duty (a) not to recognise an apartheid regime as lawful; (b) not to aid or assist a state in maintaining an apartheid regime; and (c) to cooperate with the United Nations and other states in bringing apartheid regimes to an end [my emphasis]. A state that fails to fulfil those duties could itself be held legally responsible for engaging in wrongful acts involving complicity with maintaining an apartheid regime.

Another excellent piece of work by Richard Falk, for which he’ll get no thanks. As many of you know, he is himself Jewish.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on “Official” UK anti-Semitism definition gets two-finger salute from legal experts


Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

November 2018
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930