Archive | January, 2020

Smoke Without Fire – Anti-Semitism Without Jews

Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

A Critical Review of Antisemitism and the Labour Party

Edited by Jamie Stern-Weiner, Verso, 2019

Below is a Review of Anti-Semitism and the Labour Party, an Ebook Below is my Review of Anti-Semitism and the Labour Party, an Ebook brought out shortly before the General Election and edited by Jamie Stern-Weiner. It is a critical review because the book fails to come to terms with what the anti-Semitism attacks are really about.

If, as I have argued for the past 4 years, the ‘anti-Semitism’ attacks by the Board of Deputies and the Zionists are not about anti-Semitism but Israel/Zionism then it is futile ‘proving’ that only 0.06% or whatever of Labour members are anti-Semitic.  Even assuming that those expelled were genuine anti-Semites whereas of course most of those, like Jackie Walker, Marc Wadsworth and myself are committed anti-racists, it is irrelevant.

The Labour Party is supposed to be the party of the working class. If that is true then it will also include all the mass of petty prejudices and chauvinism of capitalist  society, including racism, that circulate in the working class. What Marx called the ‘muck of ages’. That will inevitably include anti-Semitism. Those who plotted and planned the Board of Deputies and Zionist campaign knew full well that if they looked they could find ‘anti-Semitism’.  It has always been there. It has nothing to do with Jeremy Corbyn and the Left. 

‘Anti-Semitism’ provided the ideal pretext to attack Corbyn and unfortunately in accepting the framework of the anti-Semitism attack, viz. that the attacks are genuinely about anti-Semitism, books such as this do little to help in the fightback


The Zionist demonstration against ‘antisemitism’ outside Parliament March 2018 – it was the first ‘antiracist’ demonstration that Norman Tebbit, Ian Paisley and Sajid David had attended

This is the fatal mistake that Jewish Voice for Labour made. It assumes the campaign was about Jews but of course it was not. That is why you have the phenomenon of non-Jewish racists, like the hapless Lukey Stanger, attacking Black anti-racists as ‘anti-Semitic’.

This isn’t so strange as it seems.  When Donald Trump told 4 Black Congresswomen to ‘go home’ he added for completeness that they were ‘anti-Semites’ because they hated Israel. In Donald Trump and the Zionists’ eyes, Israel = Jews


The Zionist Campaign to Paint Corbyn as an Antisemite had to overcome the difficulty that he was an antiracist activist

Jamie sent me a copy of the book on 26th November and we engaged in a short correspondence.  I wrote that though his and Alan Maddison’s article ‘Smoke Without Fire’ was impressive, nonetheless

The point though is that however logical, fact filled etc. it is it fails to understand one point. This campaign is not based on logic or rationale.  It is a campaign in defence of ruling class capitalist interests and the Zionist leaders are quite happy to perform like dancing bears for that establishment.  It is in many ways reminiscent of the role that Jews used to play in Eastern Europe, the tools of the nobles or kings which brought so much wrath down on their heads.


The anti-Semitic slogan of the ‘antisemitism’ smear merchants – it implies that all Jews are of the ‘few’ not the ‘many’

Jamie replied that

‘Of course, the campaign serves interests – but that does not mean its claims should not be debunked. The Iraq War also served ruling interests, but it was still important to critique the arguments for war on the evidence.’

Which is of course true but the problem is that politically the whole campaign is based on debunking the lies of our opponents rather than pushing an alternative narrative that is about Palestine and Zionism.

Although I didn’t realise it at the time, one of the weakest essays in the collection by Richard Kuper, ‘Hue and Cry over UCU’, was written in 2011 for Open Democracy on the situation concerning the University College Union. The article was relevant then and irrelevant now. Richard’s comments on the EUMC Working Definition of Anti-Semitism now the IHRA are ill-thought out and I’m sure he would no longer stand by them, in particular his comment that refers to ‘six relatively unproblematic examples of antisemitism’ being the first 6 examples of ‘anti-Semitism’ that is given.

In one sense this series of essays, which are highly uneven in quality, encapsulate all the mistakes made by people in the ‘anti-Semitism wars’ in the Labour Party.

As these wars show every sign of continuing I can only hope that some attention is paid to this analysis.

Tony Greenstein


Jamie Stern-Weiner did his best to avoid any serious discussion of the relationship of Zionism to the antisemitism campaign

Smoke Without Fire

(this review appears in Weekly Worker)

It is said that those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. It would seem that the contributors to this title were determined to prove the truth of this aphorism.

The centrepiece of this Internet book is Smoke Without Fire, referring to the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign against the Labour Party: Their conclusion being that:

‘no persuasive evidence has been presented to demonstrate that antisemitism within the Labour Party has increased since 2015..’

How then to account for the widespread perception to the contrary? Why is it that between 15 June 2015 and 31 March 2019 there were five and a half thousand articles on Labour ‘anti-Semitism’ in the national press? [1]

Or to put it another way. How is it that the Windrush Scandal, when dozens of Black British citizens were illegally deported to the Caribbean has garnered only a fraction of such coverage? Why is it that genuine racism is a matter of indifference for the British media but ‘anti-Semitism’ garners such attention


Jamie Stern-Weiner and friends have consciously avoided the question of Israel and Jamie clearly harbours illusions in Zionism as an ideology

Weiner and Maddison’s observe that:

‘There were no witches in Salem; Jewish elders did not gather in a graveyard at night; a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy did not target Nazi Germany. The allegation that Labour is rife with antisemitism is of a piece with these fantastic antecedents.

But if the allegations of anti-Semitism against the Labour Party are of a piece with the belief that Salem was host to a coven of witches, then what were they about?  Where did they come from?  On this Weiner and Maddison and indeed virtually all the contributors are silent.

If Labour’s ‘anti-Semitism’ affair was not about anti-Semitism then what was it about? Virtually no one in this collection is prepared to call out the BBC/Daily Mail smear campaign for what it was. A vicious, right-wing campaign, using bogus allegations of anti-Semitism as a stick to beat a left-wing leader of the Labour Party who was held to represent a threat to all that the British Establishment held to be dear to them.

When the Daily Mail and the BBC are concerned about racism, then surely it cannot be too difficult to figure out what has happened? There seems to be a reluctance amongst these luminaries of the left elites to say what is or should be obvious namely that we have just witnessed the destabilisation of a political party by state actors, British and foreign.

At the beginning of 2017 Al Jazeera broadcast a four-part programme, The Lobby, which provided a snapshot of what had been happening.  Clearly the Israeli state and its surrogates, Labour Friends of Israel and the Jewish Labour Movement, were actively organising for the overthrow of Corbyn using anti-Semitism as their chosen weapon.

Equally clearly the British and American states were also involved. That is why there was no interest by the British government in inquiring as to why an Israeli intelligence operative, Shai Masot, was plotting the downfall of Britain’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Alan Duncan. Anyone acquainted with the actions of the CIA and the intelligence agencies, as documented by ex-CIA agent Phil Agee in Inside the Companyshould not have been surprised.

Just contrast this with the reaction should Al Jazeera’s programme have focussed on the activities of an Iranian political agent seeking the downfall of particular government ministers.

In Jeremy Corbyn we had the election of someone who was anti-Nato, a supporter of the Palestinians and a well known opponent of US foreign policy, to the leadership of the second major party in the US’s closest ally in Europe. Why would the Americans not intervene to prevent Corbyn becoming Prime Minister? Do the left social democrats and liberals who contributed to these essays really believe that the United States wouldn’t intervene in British politics if its interests were at stake?

In 20 or 30 years, when the present furore has died down, some enterprising young researcher or journalist, perhaps on The Guardian, will obtain details under freedom of information legislation about what really happened, which was a conspiracy against democracy.

Antisemitism and the Labour Party was distributed as an EBook two weeks before December 12th. It claimed to ‘bring(s) together the most rigorous and penetrating analytical writings on the ‘Labour antisemitism’ affair.’ Unfortunately, with the exception of two articles by Norman Finkelstein and that by Justin Schlosberg, all the contributions suffer from the same fallacy, namely that what it calls the ‘strange events that have warped British politics since 2015’ are actually about anti-Semitism.

Finkelstein in his chapter on the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism points the finger at Zionism and Israel but others seem strangely reluctant. Daniel Finn’s Corbyn Under Fireconcludes that if Chakrabarti’s  recommendation‘to

‘use the term “Zionist” advisedly, carefully and never euphemistically … and to ‘resist the use of Hitler, Nazi and Holocaust metaphors, distortions and comparisons in debates about Israel/Palestine’

had been heeded then ‘some of the controversies of the past two years could have been avoided.’ Complete nonsense. Indeed the exact reverse of the truth. Far from avoiding the use of the term ‘Zionist’ people should have emphasised that the attacks on the Labour Party came from the Zionist

If Luciana Berger could resurrect a six year old long erased mural in the East End to attack Corbyn with then why would Hitler comparisons make any difference?

But if people had fought back and not accepted the ‘anti-Semitism’ framework.  If they had argued that ‘Zionism’ meant a political settler colonial project that anti-Semites like Trump and Orban were only too happy to support then perhaps some much needed political clarification might have been injected.

Is it seriously suggested that when the Israel State funds campaigns against miscegenation and when mobs chant ‘Death to the Arabs’ or when Israeli law recognises the right of Jewish communities to bar Arabs as members, that comparisons with pre-Holocaust Nazi Germany are inappropriate?  That when Israel uses the Holocaust to justify its barbarism that it is inappropriate for us to respond in kind?

Was it anti-Semitic for Hannah Arendt in ‘Eichmann in Jerusalem: the Banality of Evil’ to compare Israeli laws forbidding marriage between Jew and Arab with those of the Nuremburg Laws? Was Professor Ze’ev Sternhell, an expert on fascism and a childhood survivor of the Polish ghetto of Przemyśl, wrong to write that in Israel there is a ‘Growing Fascism and a Racism Akin to Early Nazism’?

Jamie Stein-Werner continues where Finn left off with his report on the 2017 Labour Party Conference. He says that

‘whereas ‘Nazis[m]’ and ‘apartheid’ unambiguously refer to extreme oppression, ‘Zionism’ might denote any one along a spectrum of beliefs ranging from the harmful to the benign (e.g., support for the right of Jews to collective self-determination.’

It’s no wonder that the JLM had it so easy when even our supporters fail to understand that Zionism was a reflection of anti-Semitism and is the ideological font of racial supremacy in Israel.

This acceptance of Jewish racism originated with Jon Lansman’s Left Futures and Why the Left Must Stop Talking About ‘Zionism’. The fact that every act of racism in Israel is justified by reference to the ‘ideals’ of the Zionist vision is simply obliterated.

When appeals were made for the right of African refugees to stay in Israel Interior Minister Elli Yishai was quoted as saying that ‘The migrants are giving birth to hundreds of thousands, and the Zionist dream is dying’[2] The whole debate around these refugees was conducted in terms of Zionism’s desire for as Jewish a state as possible and a permanent Jewish demographic majority.

Every act of racism in Israel is carried out in the name of preserving the ‘Jewish’ state and its majority. It is the failure to take this on board in their critique of Israel and Zionism that lies behind much of the failure of the opposition to the anti-Semitism witchhunt.

Only Finkelstein raised the issue of genuine racism against Black people which should have been the major plank of our fightback.

How many Jews have been shot dead by police or railroaded into jail? Whereas being Black or Muslim closes doors, being Jewish opens them.

Where was the anger with those, Tory and New Labour, who had introduced a ‘hostile environment’ policy which led to Windrush? Not one contributor pointed the finger at the Labour Right’s complicity in supporting the 2014 Immigration Act and in playing the race card.

I have long campaigned to highlight Tom Watson’s support for Labour MP Phil Woolas who was removed as an MP by the High Court after having waged an election campaign based on ‘making the white folk angry’. Or Watson’s role in the 2004 by-election in Hodge Hill where he issued a leaflet ‘”Labour is on your side, the Lib Dems are on the side of failed asylum seekers.”

There was a total failure by Corbyn to call out the Daily Mail and Sun, who employed Katie Hopkins, who described refugees as ‘cockroaches’. This is also reflected in the contributions to this book.  We should have responded to the hypocritical nature of the attacks on us rather than scurrying to find ‘evidence’ of how many anti-Semites there were in the Labour Party


Sentiments that Rebecca Long-Bailey finds difficult to endorse

6 days before the General Election I wroteExpect the worst, hope for the best. The night before the election, whilst campaigning for Chris Williamson, I penned an Open Letter to Seamus Milne which read that ‘the strategy of apologising for ‘anti-Semitism’ and appeasement of the Right had led to Disaster’.

I had sleepless nights asking myself how Corbyn could win. ‘What’ I asked myself, ‘had I missed’?  People were confident. Hundreds of Momentum supporters were flooding marginal constituencies. Was I a natural born Jeremiah, forever a Cassandra? It was clear to me that Corbyn Labour’s inability to stand up for its beliefs and to rebut the smears were going to result in an election defeat. The only question was ‘how bad it was going to be’. In 2017, when even my closest comrades in Brighton and Hove Momentum were gloomy I had been optimistic. In two blog articles I had predicted a hung parliament and even victory.

It was the inability of Corbyn and McDonnell to fight back against this state-inspired campaign, including throwing Chris Williamson to the wolves, that spelt the end. It was not that ‘anti-Semitism’ was raised on the doorstep, rather that his permanent apologising, temporising, failing to answer questions and an inability to go on the offensive and face down his critics that was not only depressing but demeaning. Corbyn appeared weak and it was this that led to the low opinion of him on the doorsteps. After all how would Corbyn and McDonnell stand up to a much fiercer onslaught when in government?

When I had been suspended in March 2016 for ‘comments you are alleged to have made’ (I only learnt what these comments were when I read The Telegraph and Times two weeks later) it was immediately clear that the allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’ had nothing to do with anti-Semitism. In 2018 I was expelled as part of the ‘anti-Semitism’ moral panic as was Marc Wadsworth and then Jackie Walker. Ken Livingstone was forced out too and yet Corbyn failed to speak out

Anti-Semitism and the Labour Party contains 20 different contributions and there are 21 different testimonies from Jews in the Labour Party. The most obvious lacuna is that nowhere in the nearly 300 pages is there any contribution from someone, Jewish or non-Jewish, who has been the victim of Labour’s ‘anti-Semitism’ witchhunt.  Neither Jackie Walker, Ken Livingstone, Chris Williamson, Marc Wadsworth, Asa Winstanley or myself was invited to contribute. It is as if the testimony of those who were at the sharp end of what happened was of no account.

This arrogance reminds me of the question posed by Rudolph Vrba, the Jewish escapee from Auschwitz in April 1944. Vrba was deliberately ignored and rendered anonymous by Israel’s Holocaust historians, because what he had to say did not accord with Zionism’s holocaust narrative. Vrba asked who was the better historian: ‘those of us who saw the Nazis in action in Auschwitz’ or ‘those who did not have direct experience with the Nazis’[3]

This book contains many good essays but there are also a considerable number of mundane stocking fillers. One of the worst is by David Rosenberg of the Jewish Socialist Group. Appearing in July David spoke of ‘improvements’ in Labour’s procedures for handling complaints of anti-Semitism. David imagined that Labour’s right-wing had

‘been pushed back. The detail will be discussed more and refined before Labour Conference. And it has been confirmed that antisemitism will not be separated out but these processes will apply to all complaints that discrimination/abuse has occurred against members across the range of protected characteristics.

This is a pure flight of fantasy. At the Labour Party conference it was agreed that people would be expelled by a fast track procedure without so much as a hearing. In practice any statement critical of Israel can and does lead to expulsion. David was also silent on the unlawful suspension of Chris Williamson.

In reality this campaign was not about procedures. The focus on that was another red herring which unfortunately David and much of the JSG swallowed. However good the procedures (to do what?) they could never have satisfied Labour’s opponents.

Meanwhile all other examples of racism have been ignored. Black and Muslim people have been primary targets of the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign.  Anti-racist campaigner Marc Wadsworth, who played a pivotal role in the Stephen Lawrence campaign was expelled at the behest of Ruth Smeeth, a former Israel lobbyist for BICOM.

In Brighton and Hove notorious right-winger, Lukey Stanger, who stated that Travellers were ‘frequently a nasty blight on communities’ has been suspended for months with no sign of an impending expulsion. Stanger was protected by Tom Watson.

Luke Akehurst, the Director of We Believe in Israel who openly campaigned to defend Israel’s murder of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators, including children, in Gaza by Israeli snipers,[4] has not been disciplined.  We can only assume that Palestinian lives are worth less than Israeli or Jewish lives.

David Rosenberg bears a greater responsibility than most. He lives in Corbyn’s constituency and knows Corbyn personally. David did his best to ensure that there was no criticism of Corbyn’s feeble tactics even though it should have been obvious that it was only counter-pressure that might have led to Corbyn fighting back.

Even worse Jon Lansman was (is?) a member of the JSG. When I posted an article on the Jewish Socialists’ Facebook Group it was removed by David’s partner, Julia Bard. When I persisted in criticising the JSG’s refusal to support Jackie Walker I was removed altogether.

David has been pivotal in the formation of Jewish Voice for Labour. I refused to join JVL because I opposed a Jewish only group when the ‘anti-Semitism’ attacks were not about Jews or anti-Semitism. The first rule of any political campaign is not to accept your opponents’ terms of reference.

That is why JVL has failed to make any impression on the witchhunt or anti-Semitism campaign. The attacks were always about Israel, Zionism and wider British foreign policy, not Jews or anti-Semitism. JVL consistently refused to criticise Corbyn’s weak leadership or raise the wider question of racism in the Labour Party.

In the Chimera of British Anti-Semitism Norman Finkelstein notes that the fear in the Jewish community of an impending Corbyn government did not mean they had anything to fear.

If residents of Salem, Massachusetts, experienced deep anxiety about witches; if Americans experienced deep anxiety about Communists; … if, for that matter, Christians experienced deep anxiety about Jewish ritual child-murderers – if an anxiety is widespread, surely it doesn’t necessarily, or even probably, follow that it is a rational fear. It could just as plausibly have been induced by powerful social forces standing to benefit from a deliberately contrived paranoia. (p.41)

Instead of tackling head on reports of the disaffection of British Jews the Jewish Chronicle’s campaign to instil fear was simply ignored and allowed to fester.

Where I disagree with Finkelstein’s is his references to an ‘outsized Jewish political power’. It is true that Zionist groups such as the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute boasts of such power. It is also true that Jews are disproportionately represented amongst the wealthy, in the media, politics and academia.

But does this therefore translate into Jewish Power? Do all Jews possess the same class interests? Unless we believe that Jews are acting in concert, as an organised block or caste, then we should avoid the ethnicisation of what are historic, political, social and economic phenomenon.

There is no separate Jewish interest or lobby in society. Of course the Zionist lobby purports to represent all Jews but we should not accept their claim. In the United States politics is ethnicised precisely because of the weakness of class politics. Lenni Brenner is another American anti-Zionist who falls into this trap.

Finkelstein is a brilliant writer however he is not infallible. Although he is not using the concept of ‘Jewish power’ in an anti-Semitic sense there is no doubt that ‘Jewish Power’ is both an anti-Semitic and a Zionist concept. It suits Zionism to pretend that Jews worldwide, apart from us ‘self haters’ all support Israel. It suits anti-Semites to make ‘Jew’ and ‘Israel’ synonymous.

It was Paul Eisen, whose alleged association with Corbyn first began the anti-Semitism campaign, who published ‘Jewish Power’, the first of 3 articles which mapped his coming out as a holocaust denier.[5]


Being Jewish is no barrier to being accused of ‘antisemitism’

When Finkelstein says that ‘Were it not for the outsized power of British Jews, it’s hard to conceive that British society would be interminably chasing after a hobgoblin’ he has completely missed the point.  Just as there can be anti-Semitism without Jews, as in Eastern Europe, so there can be an anti-Semitism smear campaign without Jews as the United States may be about to prove with Bernie Sanders.

Daniel Finn got it right when he wrote that ‘Israel’s supporters are not an external force that has bent the British ruling class to its will. They are the outriders of that class.’ Zionism is the ruling class’s cutting edge. The fake anti-Semitism campaign had nothing whatsoever to do with ‘Jewish Power’. Daniel is also right when he wrote that ‘A narrative can still be false even if it contains truthful elements: in fact, there are very few that don’t.’  Indeed I would argue that in that one sentence Daniel summed up everything about the ‘anti-Semitism’ smears. Yes there were anti-Semites in the Labour Party. There always have been. The campaign was not however about them.

Of course there will be people with anti-Semitic or conspiracy ideas in their heads in the Labour Party. There always have been. But it was only when Corbyn was elected leader that the hunt began to find them. Such people are not a threat to Corbyn or even anti-Semitic in any meaningful sense. They are certainly no threat to Jews.

There will also be people in Labour who support racist immigration controls, who believe that migrants take British jobs and who believe that Gypsies are a social nuisance. The way to deal with them is by way of education and debate.  If Labour is to be the party of the working class then it cannot exclude those who offend its middle class sensibilities.

It is a sign of the theoretical and political poverty of the Labour Right that it resorted to disciplinary measures and it is equally a measure of the intellectual bankruptcy of the Labour Left that it has given way to the Right on this. This book does not challenge that vacuum.

Jews in Britain were the alibi, the pretext for the British Establishment. It was extremely useful to be able to wage the war against Corbyn in the name of Britain’s Jews. In much the same way that British imperialism justified its occupation of India by reference to its campaign against Suttee not the exploitation of the Indian peasantry. Opposition to anti-Semitism had a ring of moral righteousness that support for austerity lacked!

It was however the weakness of the Labour Left and this book reflects that weakness, that it failed to draw any conclusions from who supported the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign. The same Daily Mail which supported Hitler and the British Union of Fascists and which campaigned against the admission of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. Then there was the BBC and the Sun. Yet not once did Corbyn or Lansman point out these basic facts.

The ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign was adopted by a Tory Party which has historically been riddled with anti-Semitism and which even today sits, in the European Parliament in the ECR group with fascists and anti-Semites.

Justin Schlosberg and Laura Laker’s article ‘Labour, Antisemitism, and the News – A Disinformation Paradigm’ is well worth reading for the detail it provides on the overwhelming bias, not only of the printed press but the broadcast media and the BBC in particular. They are the only contributors to refer to the outrageous and unlawful suspension of Chris Williamson MP.

Richard Kuper’s outdated Hue and Cry over the UCU adds nothing to the criticism of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism by Hugh Tomlinson QC, Geoffrey Robertson QC and Sir Stephen Sedley. It is truly abysmal. It is difficult to know why it was included. Kuper refers to ‘six relatively unproblematic examples of antisemitism’ amongst the 11 illustrations of ‘anti-Semitism’. In fact they are all problematic. His first example is

‘Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.’

Is Richard seriously suggesting that calling for the killing of Jews in the name of a ‘moderate’ ideology or religion is acceptable? Clearly what this ‘illustration’ is about is demonising Muslims.

Richard also says that ‘using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism’ – could hardly be anything but anti-Semitic.

Where has Richard been? It is part of Zionist hasbara  (propaganda) to associate criticism of Israeli practices today with medieval anti-Semitism. When criticism is made of documented examples of settlers poisoning Palestinian water sources, this is compared to medieval allegations that Jews poisoned wells. As Finkelstein notes:

Israeli hasbara (propaganda) itself promiscuously exploits the ‘blood libel’ charge (i.e., that Jews murdered Christian children for ritual purposes) in order to silence critics by reversing its sting. mere mention of Palestinian children killed by Israel typically prompts accusations of a ‘Global Blood Libel against Israel’

Richard says that another example ‘Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination’‘could be antisemitic.’ I disagree. There is no scenario in which this is anti-Semitic. It is the concept of a single Jewish people, in practice a Jewish race, which is anti-Semitic.

In what is a far more well thought out analysis of the IHRA Finkelstein argues that socialists, who for too long have sought to restrict free speech on the grounds of not ‘hurting the feelings’ of one group or another or because of a desire to achieve a ‘safe space’ (are there any under capitalism?) have colluded with the government’s attacks on free speech.

It is on the grounds of free speech that the Left should have made its stance, instead of being the censorious, nannying busy bodies that too many on the left have become. Instead of banning or expelling people for transphobia we should have encourage debate on the issue.

Finkelstein quotes Marx saying that ‘You must have doubts about everything’. This should be emblazoned on the Left’s banners.

Finkelstein also points to the problems with Brian Klug’s alternative definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ as

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

I agree that anti-Semites often take issue with Jews for what they are, not for what they are not.  So someone who hates Jews for being too clever or good businessmen is not anti-Semitic! Brian’s definition is too clever by half and we would do better to rely on the OED definition of anti-Semitism: ‘hostility to or prejudice against Jews.’

Only Antony Lerman makes the point in When Jews Are Just Fodder for the Tory Propaganda Machine that when Tories, like Jacob Rees-Mogg make reference to Jews as the ‘Illuminati’ pulling the strings, a genuinely anti-Semitic remark, no one criticises himThe same could be said of Boris Johnson’s book 72 Virgins which is replete with racist and anti-Semitic comments. This and the Tories support for Viktor Orban in the European Parliament

Jeremy Gilbert’s trite Antisemitism, Cosmopolitanism and the Politics of Labour’s ‘Old’ and ‘New’ Right-Wings is another Xmas stocking filler. Jeremy tells us that ‘there will be no more suspensions of party members simply because they support Corbyn and the party machinery think they can get away with suspending them.’ Where has Jeremy been?

Tom Mills and David Miller’s article for Ceasefire ‘Notes on Power, Elites, and Anti-Racism’ is a useful corrective to the idea that seems to have gotten hold that criticising elites in society is now anti-Semitic (presumably because Jews make up most of the elites!). According to Siobhan McDonagh MP, not the sharpest tool in the Labour Right’s toolbox, anti-capitalism is anti-Semitic because Jews are capitalists!  Thus the fake ‘anti-Semitism’ comes full circle.

The final article is ‘Jews, Antisemitism and the Law’ by Naomi Wayne who works for the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland. It is a timely reminder of the pending investigation by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, who have made a partisan political intervention in Labour’s internal affairs launching an Inquiry into the accusations of anti-Semitism. 

When all the candidates for Labour leadership have committed themselves to accepting the EHRC investigation report we should be clear that this is a ruling class stitch-up.

Unfortunately this Ebook is less than the sum of its parts. I recommend that those interested in this subject read Bad News for Labour, whose book launch the Zionists tried unsuccessfully to stop at the Labour Party Conference and the earlier Labour’s Anti-Semitism Wars, to which I contributed.

Tony Greenstein


[1]               Philo, Berry Schlosberg, Lerman & Miller, Bad News for Labour, p. vii,Pluto Press, London, 2019.

[2]           Israel PM: illegal African immigrants threaten identity of Jewish state, Guardian 20.5.12.

[3]           Ruth Linn, Escaping Auschwitz: A Culture of Forgetting – p. 108.
[4]https://twitter.com/lukeakehurst/status/996742505193525248?lang=en
[5]           You can read Eisen’s article here and a response by Joel Finkel here. You will not that at this stage Finkel did not call Eisen a holocaust denier but it was clear, not least from his defence of Israel Shamir, that he was on the road to becoming one.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, CampaignsComments Off on Smoke Without Fire – Anti-Semitism Without Jews

Without an anti-Zionist critique solidarity with the Palestinians is nothing more than charity

Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

Solidarity with the Palestinians is primarily a Political not a Human Rights issue


Theodor Herzl appropriated the Star of David

I was reading through the papers for the Palestine Solidarity Campaign AGM this Saturday. I did a word search on ‘Zionism’ and ‘Zionist’. In the entire Annual Report, the first 18 pages of the 32 pages of conference documents, the words do not appear.  They only occur in resolutions from members.

This is not a pedantic point. Imagine the Anti-Apartheid Movement opposing the human rights violations of the White Supremacist state without once mentioning Apartheid! Or opposing the terrible conditions that existed amongst the slaves in the sugar islands in the 18th century without once mentioning the cause – slavery.

The refusal, because it is a refusal to mention the dread word ‘Zionism’ is fundamental to the political cowardice and timidity of the Socialist Action leadership of PSC. It is pro-Palestinian without being anti-Zionist. It’s like being a vegan whilst going hunting animals.

PSC has no analysis of the Israeli state. PSC calls Israel an apartheid state, which is correct, but how it got there is a mystery. Presumably it was, as the Zionists claim, an act of God. PSC literally has nothing to say about the Zionist movement and how and why Israel became a racist and apartheid state. That is why it avoids criticising the Zionist movement in Britain today.

Thus it is that when the Zionists of the Jewish Labour Movement wanted to make mere mention of the word ‘Zionism’ an example of the ‘abuse’ of Jews and therefore ‘anti-Semitism’ there was no resistance from PSC since they don’t even use the word themselves. Everything is on the level of human rights and discrimination.

Yes of course Israel systematically discriminates against Palestinians and tramples on their human rights but if you read the literature and output of PSC you would never know why that was so.

Thus it is that some of the worst Zionists in the Labour Party, Emily Thornberry and Lisa Nandy (who amazingly is Chair of Labour Friends of Palestine despite being an avowed supporter of the anti-Semitism campaign) have appeared on the platform of PSC.


India’s BJP Prime Minister Narendra Modi finds solace with a fellow bigot and racist

Thornberry is quite prepared to condemn individual Israeli actions, such as demolitions or shooting of unarmed protestors.  However she also supports Israel as an ethnically Jewish and therefore racist state. She is a patron of Labour Friends of Israel and a hard line Zionist


Whilst most Jews boycotted Nazi Germany the Zionists struck up a trade agreement with it

In what Asa Winstanley called ‘a groveling address in front of the Israeli ambassador at the Labour Friends of Israel annual dinner’ in November 2017, Thornberry declared that

‘even today… modern Israel stands out as a beacon of freedom, equality and democracy, particularly in respect of women and LGBT communities.’

In an articlefor Labour List Thornberry stated that ‘People who believe Israel does not have the right to exist should be drummed out of the Labour Party.’  According to ThornberryWe need to get on our hands and knees and ask for forgiveness to the ‘Jewish community.’

Yet because this vile racist is prepared to condemn some Israeli human rights abuses she is considered a fit person to adorn PSC platforms. The same is equally true of Lisa Nandy who stated during the recent leadership election debates that:

‘“We gave the green light to anti-Semites,” said Nandy. “Never again do I want to be door knocking with members of the party and be called racist.”


According to Chakrabarti’s pathetic report, Auschwitz hero and escapee Rudolf Vrba was antisemitic for comparing Zionists to Nazis

Shami Chakrabarti in her Report stated that

‘But surely it is better to use the modern universal language of human rights, be it of dispossession, discrimination, segregation, occupation or persecution and to leave Hitler, the Nazis and the Holocaust out of it?

It is of course tempting and easy to promote Palestine as an issue of human rights.  Only the hardest of hard line Zionists would defend Israel’s treatment of Palestinian children. But at its core Palestine solidarity is not a human rights issue but a political question of the Zionist attempt to make the Israeli state as Jewish as possible.

Israel is a state of a special kind. A self-proclaimed ethno-national state that represents only part of its population. It is a state that bases its claim to legitimacy on the Holocaust despite the fact that it treats the actual Holocaust survivors still alive today despicably


According to the Zionists Ze’ev Sternhell, a childhood survivor of the Polish Ghetto of Premzyl is an anti-Semite

According to the German Finance Ministry Germany has paid $78 billion pounds in reparations to the survivors of the Holocaust. Yet instead of giving it directly to the victims it went via the Israeli government and the Jewish Claims Conference, a byword in nepotism and corruption.

It is estimated that one-third of Holocaust survivors today in Israel live in poverty. Zuta needs a ventilator but could not afford the cost of $5,000 to purchase one.  So she was trapped in her home for 3 years. $5,000, a fraction of the cost of bombing a house in Gaza but the latter is more important.

Dor Roth made headlines in 2013 when she memorably 
shouted down members of a committee at a hearing in the Israeli parliament.

Ben-Gurion made a pact, promising we would receive money for the rest of our lives,” 

Roth demanded, in reference to Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion. “What have you done with the money?” she screamed, pointing her finger at the seemingly unfazed politicians. 

“Seeing a Holocaust survivor who can’t afford to heat his home in the winter and can’t afford to buy food or medicine is your disgrace. I don’t care about your committees. They mean nothing to us. I came all the way here to ask you one thing: Let us die in dignity.”

In the name of the Holocaust Israel has aligned itself with virtually every tyrant and dictator across the globe


Pogroms in Israel – just like those in Eastern Europe

That is why Chakrabarti is wrong.  When Israel uses the Holocaust, the Nazis and Hitler to legitimate itself then it is reasonable to look into comparisons between Zionism and Nazism.

The reason that the Palestinians are not primarily a human rights issue is because in the world as it is today there are worse examples of human rights atrocities.  The Rohinga in Burma, Kashmir, the Kurds of Turkey


Emily Thornberry’s opposition to BDS was not an obstacle to being a guest of PSC

It was the same with South Africa. It was one of the themes of apologists for Apartheid to point to the record of the Black African countries surrounding South Africa. Mugabe was hardly an example of a regime at peace with its population. Botswana and many other African countries had and still have despicable human rights records.

However Apartheid in South Africa was unique because it treated people in a particular way because of some unchangeable characteristic of theirs – colour in South Africa, race (religion) in Nazi Germany and religion (nationality/race) in Israel.

That is what makes Israel unique. The treatment of the Palestinians occurs because they are not Jews. Whereas Iran oppresses all Muslims just about equally Israel reserves its main force of oppression for the Palestinians, including those who are Israeli citizens.

It is because PSC is not anti-Zionist that they were unable to respond to the ‘anti-Semitism’ attacks of the Zionists.  When the ‘anti-Semitism’ narrative became a predominant one in Britain PSC’s voice was missing because it had nothing to say. 

It was unable, for example to argue that Zionism has always traded on anti-Semitism indeed been in alliance with it.  Nor could it argue that Zionism and anti-Semitism both shared a common characteristic – that the Jews did not belong in the countries they lived in. Nor could they call out the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Labour Movement for being primarily Zionist groups because for PSC even the word ‘Zionist’ is now a no go area.

However the word Zionist and an analysis of Zionism is more relevant than ever.  You cannot understand Israel and its role in the world unless you understand how it came into being and you cannot do that unless you understand the role and history of the Zionist movement. That history include the history of Zionist collaboration with anti-Semitism, which includes the Nazis.  When Ken Livingstone was leader of the GLC he gave enormous help to the fledgling PSC. He however was given no support when he came under attack by the Zionists.

In short if you aren’t an anti-Zionist you aren’t in the end a true friend of the Palestinians.  You are really like one of those people, Thornberry and Nandy, who claim to be friends of both Zionism and the Palestinians.  But as Jesus observed, you cannot serve two masters and in practice Thornberry and Nandy, being exponents and supporters of the relationship with the United States, are committed Zionists even whilst they proclaim their sympathies with the Palestinians.

PSC in its desperate search for respectability has abandoned any form of anti-Zionism because it doesn’t want to put off its erstwhile friends amongst the trade union bureaucracy.

There is also another reason to be an anti-Zionist. Israel calls itself a Jewish state and not surprisingly some people react to that and the cruel behaviour of Israel by attributing that to Jews as a whole.  Having an anti-Zionist critique means that the blame is put where it belongs, on the western support that enables Israel to do what it does.

Tony Greenstein

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Without an anti-Zionist critique solidarity with the Palestinians is nothing more than charity

Nazi state, is the only state in the world where torture is legal


Israel, is the only state in the world where torture is legal

Israeli Doctors are Actively Complicit in Aiding and Abetting Torture but according to Emily Thornberry that IS WHY Israel a ‘beacon of freedom’

According to Emily Thornberry “Modern Israel is a beacon of freedom, equality and democracy”. Israel is also the only state in the world where torture is legal. See It’s now (even more) official: torture is legal in Israel

In 1987 the Landau Commission, which was set up as a result of the Bus 300 Affair, when two Palestinian prisoners were murdered by senior officers (one General Yitzhak Mordechai was later promoted to Command of the Southern Region), found that the use of violence, or ‘moderate physical pressure’ as they termed it, against prisoners was an acceptable method of interrogation. They argued, in the light of what they called “the concept of the lesser evil”, tha


Elyakim Rubinstein, Supreme Court Justice who approved of the use of torture

“actual torture . . . would be perhaps be justified in order to uncover a bomb about to explode in a building full of people . . . whether the charge is certain to be detonated in five minutes or in five days.”

“To put it bluntly, the alternative is: are we to accept the offence of assault entailed in slapping a suspect’s face, or threatening him, in order to induce him to talk and reveal a cache of explosive materials meant for use in carrying an act of mass terror against a civilian population, and there by prevent the greater evil which is about to occur? The answer is self evident.”[15]

This was the justification that the Nazis used for torture. Defence of the State against its enemies. Chaired by Supreme Court Judge Moshe Landua, the Commission’s Report stated


Israeli torture victim

“The effective interrogation of terrorist suspects is impossible without the use of means of pressure, in order to overcome an obdurate will not to disclose information and to overcome the fear of the person under interrogation that harm will befall him from his own organization, if he does reveal information.”[16]

“The means of pressure should principally take the form of non-violent psychological pressure through a vigorous and extensive interrogation, with the use of stratagems, including acts of deception. However, when these do not attain their purpose, the exertion of a moderate measure of physical pressure cannot be avoided.”

In 1999 the Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court, ruled in Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v the Government of Israel, PD 73(4) 817 (1999) that the law does not permit the use of torture. However they also ruled that in a ‘ticking bomb’ case the use of such methods might not  cause the torturers to be legally culpable.

Prof. Yuval Shany explained in Back to the ‘Ticking Bomb’ Doctrine how the decision of Israel’s High Court in December 2017 in Abu Ghosh v. Attorney-General effectively reinvigorated the ‘ticking time bomb’ defence of Israel’s torturers.

The result is, as Btselem documents, that Shin Bet have continued to use torture as a routine method of interrogation with the connivance of the Israel’s Supreme Court. Since 1967 73 prisoners have been tortured to death.

Last December a Report from Addameer, the Palestinian Prisoner Support Unit and Legal Aid Group stated that

The occupation authorities, in particular, the Israeli intelligence agency “Shabak” resorts to torture and ill-treatment as standard operating procedure in a systematic and wide-scale approach against Palestinian detainees. Over the past three months, the intelligence agency subjected a number of detainees at Israeli interrogation centers to severe physical and psychological torture without any form of monitoring and protection.

The reaction of the Israeli state to Addameer’s Report was to impose a ‘gag order’ preventing them from printing details of the case of torture.  This too, as Emily will explain is another example of Israeli democracy at its best!

Other examples include 21-year-old Palestinian student Mays Abu Ghosh who is currently in an Israeli jail cell and a victim of torture. Mays, who was arrested for her activism, has been interrogated so violently that her parents could barely recognize her – yet this horrific story is being met with no huge outcry and very little media attention.

On August 29, Mays was arrested in her home during a sweep of Palestinian student activists and detained under trumped-up charges.


Demonstration protesting at the death under torture of Arafat Jaradat in an Israeli G4S prison

As a student journalist, Mays has been a vocal advocate of Palestinian rights. Now she’s being tortured for her lifelong resistance to displacement, and being labeled a “major terrorist” for her work organizing with fellow students against Israeli oppression of Palestinians. Her “crimes” include participating in a conference about the Palestinian right of return in Lebanon, and speaking about her late brother on a radio program.

When her parents were finally allowed to visit, Mays was so bruised and visibly wounded she was almost unrecognizable. Her mother couldn’t hug her because her body was in too much pain.

Join us in calling for an END to Israeli torture and for the release of Mays Abu Ghosh and the many others wrongly jailed.

Addameer describes some of the torture techniques


The Banana Position – Israel’s own invention

Positional torture (stress positions)

Israeli intelligence officers forced the detainees into a number of stress positions such as the banana position,[2] the frog position, sitting on an imaginary chair, squatting and many other different positions. Almost in all of these stress positions, the detainees would lose their balance and fall on the ground, which would lead to a harsh beating by the officers and then forcing the detainee back into the stress position. Other used stress positions included standing on their toes while their hands were shackled above their heads to a wall. Another position included sitting on a chair while handcuffed to the back, where the hands were positioned on a table behind the detainee’s chair. A third position involved the detainee laying on the ground with his/her hands chained to each other with iron cuffs and positioned behind his/her back. This position also includes officers sitting on the detainee to place pressure on his/her body while beat him/her ferociously.


Illustrative use of torture

Harsh beatings: 

Israeli occupation intelligence officers used extreme methods of beatings against the detainees using their hands, legs, knees and even their fingers. The officers hit, slapped, punched, poked (using their fingers), and kicked the detainees. These methods resulted in severe and life-threatening injuries that included broken ribs, inability to walk, brutal bruises, swelling marks on the skin, ulcer wounds…etc. The officers, who exceeded five in number in some cases used to blindfold the detainees’ eyes so they would not expect the beating or know where it is coming from. Several of those detainees appeared in their court sessions with marks on their bodies, expressing severe pain, or in some cases arrived on wheelchairs. In one of the cases, the harsh beating was committed with the intention to kill the detainee, who was in fact transferred to the hospital in serious condition after around 30 hours of severe and extreme methods of beatings. In another case, the harsh beating aimed at injuries caused by a police dog during the arrest, the interrogators intended to target those previously obtained injuries, which were mainly on the detainee’s genital area causing the wounds to re-open twice. Also, in many other cases, the method of pulling the facial hair from its roots causing injuries and swelling marks was used


An actor plays the role of torture victim

·         Sleep deprivation: 

this technique was implemented through different methods, in some cases the detainees spent around twenty days sleeping from one to three hours a day. Even when those detainees were sent to their cells to sleep, they would be disturbed with loud and eerie sounds made by the prison guards, the voices of other detainees being harshly beaten or the sound of knocking on their cell doors. In some cases, sleep deprivation ranged from 30 to 60 continuous hours, where the detainee would not be sent to sleep at all during these hours and would be woken up if he/she falls asleep during the interrogation. Some detainees were harshly slapped on their faces to wake up, others were also splashed with water. Detainees described the slaps as extremely severe causing them to feel dizzy.·         

The use of family members (emotional blackmailing): 

psychological torture and ill-treatment were used on the majority of these detainees, focusing on threats against their family members, and loved ones. Israeli occupation forces used the policy of collective punishment through arresting and bringing in some of the family members mostly to al-Mascobiyya interrogations center and Ofer prison. Eight family members for seven different detainees were arrested, and another ten family members were brought in for questioning. Some of these relatives were kept for a number of days while others were kept for hours. In all the cases, family members and loved ones were mainly brought in to pressure the detainees themselves. The interrogators made the detainees assume that their relatives got arrested and will be tortured as well. Relatives included fathers, mothers, brothers, daughters, wives, etc


Palestinians dressed up as torture detainees

Interrogation at Israeli secret prisons: 

at least one of the detainees Addameer has documented their cases have stated that they were taken to unknown centers. The detainee said that the interrogators at this center were all face-covered and wearing a different uniform than the known usual uniforms. It has been revealed in the past that Israel has secret prisons that are removed from maps and airbrushed aerial photographs.[3]

Others such as Samir Arbeed have been left permanently disabled as a result of their experiences See Israel/ OPT: Legally-sanctioned torture of Palestinian detainee left him in critical condition

What is particularly reprehensible is the involvement of Israeli doctors and physicians in the use of torture. Doctors who monitor prisoners in order that they can help the torturers decide how far to go, who declare when a prisoner is fit enough for further torture and who deliberately lie in medical reports in order to cover for the torturers. Comparisons with American doctors who collaborated with the CIA in water boarding and SS doctors spring to mind.  See the article below How Israeli doctors enable the Shin Bet’s torture industry.

And far from the Israeli Medical Association opposing this they give the green light for such doctors to continue what they are doing. See for example the article by John Yudkin, Emeritus Professor at University College, London.

Physicians for Human Rights-Israel has stated that if the IMA refused to allow doctors to serve in security units commonly deploying torture the practice would come to a halt. The medical presence in these units offers moral legitimation to Israel’s interrogators. See Global medical watchdog complicit with Israeli abuses


Yoram Blachar

In 2009 more than 700 doctors from around the world 
called for the Israeli President of the World Medical Association, Yoram Blachar, to step down, calling him “unfit for office” and claiming that he had turned a blind eye to the “institutionalised involvement of doctors” in torture in Israel.

In a letter they said that the appointment of Blachar, who was President of the Israeli Medical Association as president of the WMA was “a matter of grave concern.” The signatories, who included professors and doctors from 43 countries, said that the appointment

“makes a mockery of the principles on which the WMA was founded in 1947, which was a response to egregious abuses by Germany and Japan in World War Two.”

Other prominent doctors who 

support Israel’s use of torture include Sir Michael Marmot, former President of the WMA and a Professor at UCL.

Last November Heba al-Labadi and Abdul Rahman Mi’ri, two Jordanians who had been savagely tortured, were released from Administrative Detention (i.e. imprisonment without trial), Heba went on a 40 day hunger strike and this forced the Jordanian government to insist on the release of its nationals or face a freeze or worse in their diplomatic relations. The arrest of Labadi Mi’ri, a cancer survivor, was a major PR disaster for Israel. See A lesson for the Palestinian leadership: Real reasons behind Israel’s arrest and release of Labadi, Mi’ri

Tony Greenstein

How Israeli doctors enable the Shin Bet’s torture industry

By +972 Magazine October 7, 2019

From approving brutal interrogation techniques to writing false medical reports, doctors in Israel have taken an active role in the torture of Palestinian prisoners.

By Ruchama Marton

If the Shin Bet runs a school for its agents and interrogators, the curriculum most certainly includes a class on how to tell a lie. The texts taught, it seems, do not change with the years. In 1993, responding to accusations that the Shin Bet brutally tortured Palestinian detainee Hassan Zubeidi, then Commander of the IDF Northern Command Yossi Peled told Israeli journalist Gabi Nitzan that “there is no torture in Israel. I served for 30 years in the IDF and I know what I am talking about.”

Twenty-six years later, Deputy Chief of the Shin Bet and former Shin Bet interrogator, Yitzhak Ilan repeated the same line to news presenter Ya’akov Eilon on national television while speaking about Samer Arbeed, a 44-year-old Palestinian who was hospitalized in critical condition after he had been reportedly tortured by the Shin Bet. Arbeed is suspected of organizing a deadly bombing that killed a teenage Israeli girl and wounded her father and brother at a spring in the West Bank in August. Ilan bristled at the notion that the Shin Bet was somehow responsible for Arbeed’s condition.

Putting aside these absurd forms of denial, as a doctor and founder of Physicians for Human Rights – Israel, I have always been troubled by how Israeli doctors cooperate with and enable Israel’s torture industry.

In June 1993, I organized an international conference in Tel Aviv on behalf of PHR against torture in Israel. At the conference, I presented a Shin Bet medical document that had been discovered by chance by Israeli journalist Michal Sela. In the document, the Shin Bet doctor was asked whether the prisoner in question had any medical restrictions when it came to keeping them in isolation, whether they could be tied, whether their face could be covered, or whether they could be made to stand for prolonged periods of time.

The Shin Bet denied such a document ever existed. “There is no document. It was simply an experimental paper that is not in use,” the agency claimed. Four years later, a second document, suspiciously similar to the first, came to light. That document asked doctors to sign off on torture in accordance with several previously agreed-upon clauses.

The first document, along with other findings, were published in the book titled “Torture: Human Rights, Medical Ethics and the Case of Israel.” The book cannot be found in Israel; Steimatzky, Israel’s oldest and largest bookstore chain, has banned its sale. Perhaps this is further proof that there is no torture in Israel.

After the document was uncovered, PHR turned to the Israel Medical Association and asked it to join the struggle against torture. The IMA requested that PHR hand over the names of the Shin Bet doctors who signed off on the document so that they could be dealt with internally.

I refused to hand over the names and told the IMA attorney that I was not interested in going after rank-and-file doctors — I wanted to change the entire system. That meant doing away with legitimacy granted to confessions exacted under torture, educating IMA members about non-cooperation with torturers, and particularly providing active help to those doctors who do report on suspicion of torture or brutal interrogations.

Back then, the IMA was satisfied with putting our statements while doing nothing to prevent the Shin Bet’s doctors from cooperating with torture. Furthermore, the organization failed to fulfill its obligation to establish a forum for doctors to report on suspected torture.

An ethical, moral, and practical failure

But it is not only doctors in the Shin Bet and the Israel Prison Service that collaborate with torture. Doctors in emergency rooms across Israel write false medical opinions in accordance with the demands of the Shin Bet. Take, for example, the case of Nader Qumsieh from the West Bank city of Beit Sahour. He was arrested in his home on May 4, 1993 and was brought to Soroka Medical Center in Be’er Sheva five days later. There a urologist diagnosed him a hemorrhage and a torn scrotum.

Qumsieh testified that he was beaten during his interrogation and kicked in his testicles.

Ten days later, Qumsieh was brought before the same urologist for a medical examination, after the latter had received a phone call from the Israeli military. The urologist wrote a retroactive letter (as if it had been written two days earlier), without actually conducting an additional examination of the patient, in which he said that “according to the patient, he fell down the stairs two days before he arrived in the emergency room.” This time, the diagnosis was “superficial hematoma in the scrotal area, which corresponds to local bruises sustained between two and five days prior to the examination.” The urologist’s original letter, written after the first examination, disappeared from Qumsieh’s medical file.

History teaches us that doctors everywhere easily and effectively internalize the regime’s values, and many of them become loyal servants of the regime. That was the case in Nazi Germany, in the United States, and in various countries in Latin America. The same goes for Israel. Qumsieh’s case, along with countless others, reflects the ethical, moral, and practical failure of the medical establishment in Israel vis-à-vis torture.

Already back in the 18th century, jurists — rather than doctors — published legal opinions accompanied by proof that there is no connection between causing pain and getting to the truth. Thus, both torture and confessions exacted through pain were legally disqualified. One can only assume that the heads of the Shin Bet, the army, and the police know this bit of history.

And yet, torture — which includes both mental and physical cruelty — continues to take place on a large scale. Why? Because the real goal of torture and humiliation is to break the spirit and body of the prisoner. To eliminate his or her personality.

The legal understanding for forbidding torture is based on the utilitarian idea that one cannot arrive at the truth through inflicting pain . But doctors are committed — first and foremost — to the idea that anything that causes physical or mental harm to a patient is prohibited.

The Shin Bet medical eligibility document allows for sleep prevention, it allows interrogators to expose prisoners to extreme temperatures, to beat them, to tie them for long hours in painful positions, to force them to stand for hours until the vessels in their feet burst, to cover their heads for prolonged periods of time, to sexually humiliate them, to break their spirits by severing their ties to family and lawyers, to keep them in isolation until they lose their sanity.

The Shin Bet’s medical eligibility form is not the same as the one used to check eligibility to join the air force or even to drive a car. This kind of “eligibility” leads the prisoner directly into the torture chamber — and the doctor knows this. The doctor knows to what kind of systematic process of pain and humiliation he or she is lending their consent and approval. It is doctors who oversee the torture, examine the tortured prisoner, and write the medical opinion or the pathology report.

The white robe passes through the torture chamber like a lurking shadow during interrogations. A doctor who cooperates with Israel’s torture industry is complicit in that very industry. If a prisoner dies during interrogation, the doctor is an accomplice to his or her murder. Doctors, nurses, medics, and judges who know what is taking place and prefer to remain silent are all accomplices.

We must unconditionally oppose all forms of torture — without exceptions. We, citizens of a democratic state, must refuse to cooperate with the crime of torture, and all the more so when it comes to doctors.

We must also not hide behind the idea that torture is a symptom of the occupation while telling ourselves that the practice will disappear when the occupation ends. Torture is a worldview according to which human rights have no place or value. It existed well before the occupation and it will continue to exist if we do not change that worldview.

Violent and cruel investigative practices do not benefit national security even if they are committed on its behalf. Torture causes a spiraling destruction of our very social fabric. Not only do those who carry out this terrible kind of “work” lose the values of morality, human dignity, and democracy, but also all those who remain silent, unwilling to know. In fact, all of us.

Dr. Ruchama Marton is the founder of Physicians for Human Rights – Israel. This article was first published in Hebrew on Local Call. Read it here.

Israel/ OPT: Legally-sanctioned torture of Palestinian detainee left him in critical condition

30 September 2019, 16:58 UTC

Updated: 30 October 2019, 12:07 UTC

The legally-sanctioned torture of a Palestinian detainee during interrogation by officers from Shin Bet, Israel’s Security Agency, further exposes the complicity of Israel’s authorities, including its judiciary, in the systematic violation of the human right to be free from torture, said Amnesty International today.

Samir Arbeed was arrested on 25 September on suspicion of being involved in the killing of a 17-year-old Israeli girl Rina Shnerb.According to Israeli media reports and Samir’s lawyer, a “judicial body” granted Shin Bet special permission to “use exceptional ways to investigate” in his case, effectively sanctioning the use of methods amounting to torture during his interrogation.

“It is utterly outrageous that the use of torture during interrogations continues to be sanctioned by the Israeli authorities, from the Shin Bet, through the executive branch and all the way to the Supreme Court,”

said Saleh Higazi, Amnesty International’s Deputy Middle East and North Africa Director.

“Under international treaties, which legally bind Israel, the use of torture cannot be justified under any circumstances. This case exposes Israel’s claims that its judiciary upholds human rights as a complete sham.”

The use of torture cannot be justified under any circumstances. This case exposes Israel’s claims that its judiciary upholds human rights as a complete sham

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on Nazi state, is the only state in the world where torture is legal

Emily Thornberry, (Lady Nugee), is standing as the racist Zionist candidate for leadership of the Labour Party

Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem,SR

According to Thornberry – Israel is a ‘beacon of freedom, equality and democracy’ despite torture being routinely used, censorship being standard and imprisonment without trial being the norm for Arabs

Emily Thornberry has, quite undeservedly, gained a reputation, as being on the Left, albeit the soft-Left. This is because she was one of the few who didn’t resign in the ‘chicken coup’ of the summer of 2016. There can be no doubt however that Thornberry is a die-hard racist and Zionist.

According to Thornberry, if you don’t support a Jewish state, a state based on Jewish ethnicity, a state that excludes non-Jews from the national collective, then you are ‘anti-Semitic’.


Palestinian child imprisonment is one of Thornberry’s examples of Israeli democracy at its best

It is a sign of the political and intellectual poverty of social democracy that people like Thornberry have no understanding of history. The idea that one’s civic and political rights should depend on one’s religion went out with the French Revolution.

Britain took slightly longer than France before Jewish Emancipation was enacted. It was finally on 26 July1858 that Lionel de Rothschild took his seat as the first Jewish member of the House of Commons. He had first been elected for the City of London in 1847 but had had to swear an oath ‘on the true faith of a Christian’.


According to Emily Thornberry this is an example of why Israel is a ‘beacon of freedom’

The battle against religious coercion and for the separation of Church and State was one of the main democratic achievements of the bourgeoisie revolutions. Under feudalism rights were inherited.

Israel is a Jewish state as was spelt out by Benjamin Netanyahu in response to popular Israeli actress, Rotem Sala who exclaimed:

Dear god, there are also Arab citizens in this country. When the hell will someone in this government convey to the public that Israel is a state of all its citizens and that all people were created equal, and that even the Arabs and the Druze and the LGBTs and – shock – the leftists are human.”

Netanyahu promptly explained that 

‘“First of all, Israel is not a country of all its citizens. According to the nation-state law that we passed, Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish nation,”

Netanyahu was of course correct. Israel is a state of the Jewish people not its non-Jewish citizens. According to Thornberry, if you support the same solution that was achieved in South Africa, a non-racial state for all who live there, then you are anti-Semitic.

This is what Labour’s ‘anti-Semitism’ crisis has been about. That is why the IHRA ‘definition’ of anti-Semitism,that the Zionists were so insistent on, conflates anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. According to Lady Nugee We need to get on our hands and knees and ask for forgiveness to the ‘Jewish community.’  According to Thornberry

When an expert looks into a problem you have – whether it’s a doctor, a mechanic, or a plumber – you take their advice and follow it without thinking twice.

So when the Board of Deputies, the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), and imminently the Equalities and Human Rights Commission give the Labour Party specific recommendations about how we need to root out the poison of antisemitism from our movement, our starting point must not be to dispute their proposals but ensure every single one is implemented unless we can rationally explain why not.

The mind numbing stupidity of Lady Nugee beggars belief. The BOD, JLM are all political actors not technical experts. As for the EHRC they are a state body whose interference in a democratic political party should have been condemned from the beginning. The fact that Nugee welcomes the EHRC intervention demonstrates how distant she is from socialist politics.

The idea that there are any ‘experts’ when it comes to anti-Semitism is debatable. But the idea that the JLM, affiliated to the World Zionist Organisation, which funds the theft of Palestinian land is an ‘expert’ in anti-racism is obscene. The JLM are racist apologists.

In what the Independent described as ‘a warning aimed at members of Jeremy Corbyn’s inner circle’ Thornberry called for staff fingered by the EHRC to be “out the door immediately”. Her comments were seen as ‘an attack on Mr Corbyn’s senior advisers, including his former chief of staff Karie Murphy’. Clearly Lady Nugee’s loyalty to Corbyn was contrived and calculated.

Thornberry is also an opportunist.  She is one of 36 Labour Friends of Israel sponsors who are also supporters of Labour Friends of Palestine.  She not only supports the Palestinians but she also supports their oppressors!  That’s what’s called even-handedness.


Substitute ‘Thatcher’ for ‘Thornberry’ and ‘South Africa’ for ‘Israel’ and you should have the measure of Lady Nugee

In an article for Labour List Thornberry stated that ‘People who believe Israel does not have the right to exist should be drummed out of the Labour Party.’  What she means is Israel’s right to be a racist state not the right of Israelis to live there under a non-racial regime just like White South Africans were welcomed to stay after the end of Apartheid. What matters to Nugee is Israel’s role as the West’s warrior state.

The Balfour Declaration

Similarly Thornberry used a speech commemorating the centenary of the Balfour Declaration, which began the process of Palestinian ethnic cleansing, to make the same point. She stated that

‘there should be no place in modern society, and – let me stress – no place in the Labour Party for anyone who holds that kind of abhorrent view.’

It would seem that if you deny the right of a racist state, Israel, South Africa or Nazi Germany, to exist then you have no place in modern society, let alone the Labour Party! Maybe, being a lawyer, Thornberry wants to reinstate the feudal concept of the outlaw.

Of course it was somewhat ironic for Thornberry to denounce racism when praising the Zionists’ friend Arthur Balfour. Balfour when Prime Minister introduced the Aliens Act 1905 preventing Jewish refugees from Czarist Russia entering Britain was. Before become Foreign Minister he was also known as ‘Bloody Balfour’. As Chief Secretary for Ireland he ordered troops to open fire killing 3 Irishmen who were demonstrating in Mitchelstown, County Cork.  In 1893, he spoke in parliament describing how Cecil Rhodes, the godfather of white supremacy, was “extending the blessings of civilization.”  Two years later – then in opposition – he described Black people as “less intellectually and morally capable” than whites. [The racist worldview of Arthur Balfour, David Cronin]

Clearly paying tribute to a racist and imperialist went to Thornberry’s head.  Under the guise of opposing racism, she called for anti-racists to be expelled from the Labour Party and society. Let us remind ourselves of who the man was who signed the Balfour Declaration, which enabled Britain to give the land of the Palestinians to the Zionist settlers.

In 1906, the House of Commons was engaged in a debate about the native blacks in South Africa. Nearly all members of Parliament agreed that the disenfranchisement of the blacks was evil. Not so Balfour, who – almost alone — argued against it.

“We have to face the facts men are not born equal, the white and black races are not born with equal capacities: they are born with different capacities which education cannot and will not change.”  

It is no surprise that Balfour is a hero to the Zionists. What is surprising is that he is a hero to a prominent Labour politician.

It should be noted that like most non-Jewish Zionists, Balfour also didn’t like Jews very much either. He told Chaim Weizmann, President of the Zionist Organisation and Israel’s first President, that ‘he agreed with some of Cosima Wagner’s ‘anti-Semitic postulates’. Apparently Germany’s Jews had

captured the German stage, press, commerce and universities and were putting into their pockets, only a hundred years after emancipation, everything the Germans had built up in centuries”. [Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error, p. 153].

As Leonard Stein noted, if Balfour was an ardent Zionist, “it was not out of a sentimental tenderness for Jews”. When the leader of British Jewry, Lucien Wolf, appealed to him to intercede with the Russian government to end Jewish persecution, Balfour “admitted that the treatment of the Jews was abominable beyond all measure”, but went on to remind Wolf that “the persecutors had a case of their own”.  See Centrepiece of imperial strategy.

Corbyn apparently passed the invitation to speak to Thornberry who was only too happy to pay tribute, on behalf of the Labour Party, to someone who was both an anti-Semite and a white supremacist.

It is understandable that the Jewish Labour Movement should honour the memory of Balfour. The JLM’s ‘sister party’ the almost defunct Israeli Labour Party organised a colour bar in Palestine. Jewish employers who employed Arabs were picketed by the Zionist trade union Histadrut

Historically Labour support for Zionism and colonisation in Palestine was on a par with its support for the British Empire. It was only a minority of Labour members under people like Fenner Brockway who supported the Movement for Colonial Freedom (renamed Liberation) from 1947 onwards.  The Attlee government built the welfare state on the backs of Black and Asian people.

The Kibbutz was portrayed as an oasis of socialism where there were no private property relations and everything was shared in common.  The fact that no Arab could be a member of the Kibbutz was ignored. The natives rarely featured in social democracy’s vision of the world. Today the Kibbutzim are no longer mentioned.

It was the Lebanon War in 1982 that led to a political realignment. Tony Benn, Eric Heffer and others on the Labour Left resigned from Labour Friends of Israel after the latter’s support for the Lebanon War. It was the Right who took up the cudgels for Zionism. This was because of the increasingly open support for the Israeli state from America. The Right of the Labour Party, as symbolised by Blair’s support for Bush’s war in Iraq, has always seen support for US foreign policy as axiomatic.

The Labour Left today has forgotten why Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn supported the Palestinians. Israel was seen, rightly, as the armed watchdog of US imperialism and the West, not as some kind of cuddly refuge for Jews searching for their identity. 

There should be no place in Labour for Israel’s ‘Right to Exist’

Thornberry made two statements that need to be challenged.  If you challenge the Israeli state’s ‘right to exist’ then you should not be in the Labour Party.  I wonder if Lady Nugee would have said the same about the Apartheid State’s ‘right to exist’. We should challenge every racist and ethno-nationalist state’s ‘right to exist’.  No state has a ‘right to exist’ least of all racist states.  Only human beings have the right to exist.  

The Israeli state is a special kind of state like its South Africa cousin of 25 years ago. It is a self-declared ‘Jewish state’ – which means it is a State of Jews, not merely Jews in Israel but throughout the world.  A Report by the Pew Research Centre Israel’s Religiously Divided Society showed that 48% of Israeli Jews support the physical expulsion of Israel’s Arab citizens, compared to 46% who don’t.

The Israeli state is the most racist state in the world. The Israeli Democracy Institute’s 2017 Report Jews and Arabs:  Conditional Partnership’ found that 2/3 Israeli Jews are opposed to Arabs buying land anywhere but in Arab areas (3% of Israel’s total land) and 25% oppose them buying any land!  This is the state that Emily Thornberry defends up to the point of expelling socialists from Labour. This is the state that Thornberry calls a ‘beacon of freedom’.

A Palestinian State

Thornberry’s response is that a Palestinian state should exist side by side with Israel. In other words Partition, segregation and ethnic cleansing.  Such a state wouldn’t even be a Bantustan. The Bantustans  in South Africa had greater powers than the enclaves envisaged for the Palestinians.

After 50 years of military dictatorship in the West Bank and Gaza (as well as the Golan Heights) there is no prospect of any Palestinian state emerging.  The leader of the Israeli Labour Party, Avi Gabbay made Labour’s position quite clear in an interview with Israel’s Channel 2.  

“I won’t evacuate settlements in the framework of a peace deal, If you are making peace, why do you need to evacuate?  If you are making peace, why do you need to evacuate?”

Without dismantling the settlements there can never be a two state solution. Gabbay is right. No Israeli government could possibly withdraw over ½ million settlers without a civil war. There is no political force in Israel that wants a 2 state solution.  Zionism has always claimed the whole of the Land of Israel, not half. God gave all of it!

Thornberry is aware of this.  She knows that the settlements are here to say. She also knows that Israel cannot give the vote or accord any basic democratic political or civil rights to the 5+ million Palestinians living under occupation without the end of the Jewish state.

As the Jewish National Fund, one of the main architects of Israeli apartheid made clear when challenged over its policy of only allocating land to Jews,

 ‘A survey commissioned by KKL-JNF reveals that over 70% of the Jewish population in Israel opposes allocating KKL-JNF land to non-Jews, while over 80% prefer the definition of Israel as a Jewish state, rather than as the state of all its citizens.’

The situation in the Occupied Territories will continue indefinitely because Israel is not prepared to become a democratic state at the expense of being a Jewish state.  In reality there are no Occupied Territories. There is no border except in the heads of racist hypocrites like Thornberry, between Israel and the West Bank. The Green Line has gone. It does not appear on Israeli maps. In its place is an Apartheid state from the Mediterranean to the Jordan in which half the population has no rights whatsoever and a small proportion of the Palestinian, some 1.5 Israeli citizens are seen as a fifth column in Israel’s midst, awaiting a future move to ‘transfer’ them.

Those who talk of a non-existent Peace Process are deliberately drawing a shroud over the real issue, democratic rights for all Israelis and Palestinians.If Thornberry can’t understand that human beings should not be divided on grounds of ethnicity it is she who should be expelled.

Israel uses torture routinely against Palestinian prisoners and it even uses it against children, Palestinian children of course. 60% of Palestinian children who are detained are tortured by Israeli forces.

Yet in what Asa Winstanley called ‘a groveling address in front of the Israeli ambassador at the Labour Friends of Israel annual dinner’ in November 2017, Emily Thornberry declared that

‘even today… modern Israel stands out as a beacon of freedom, equality and democracy, particularly in respect of women and LGBT communities.’

As Private Eye used to say:  ‘Pass the sick bag Alice.’

Tony Greenstein

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on Emily Thornberry, (Lady Nugee), is standing as the racist Zionist candidate for leadership of the Labour Party

Money can’t ‘fix’ Palestine’s occupied economy

Whatever the Bahrain workshop proposes is doomed to failure. Here is why.

by Yara Hawari

Israeli security forces pass by a shop selling decorations for the upcoming holy month of Ramadan as they patrol an alley in Jerusalem's Old City  on July 8, 2013 [File: Reuters/Ammar Awad]
Israeli security forces pass by a shop selling decorations for the upcoming holy month of Ramadan as they patrol an alley in Jerusalem’s Old City on July 8, 2013 [File: Reuters/Ammar Awad]

This week the much-awaited Bahrain workshop is to take place in Manama, with various Arab and Western officials in attendance. The event is supposed to present the new economic plan for the occupied Palestinian territories, besieged Gaza and the wider region, which will allegedly get the Palestinian economy “going the right way“. 

While we shouldn’t be surprised that a rich white man, such as President Donald Trump, wants to throw money at a problem to make it go away, it is quite disappointing to see that there are some who are buying into the narrative that a simple economic plan can be a solution to the decades-old “Palestinian issue”.

It should be obvious to all that an occupied economy cannot “go the right way” even if billions are poured into its sectors. An occupation stunts economic development by default and no proposed financial “fixes” would ever work until it is fully lifted.

An economy under occupation

The economy of historic Palestine, once a thriving region, sharply deteriorated after the foundation of the Israeli state in 1948 and the subsequent occupation of Palestinian land. A series of “peace” agreements made in the early 1990s as part of the Oslo Accords brought Palestine under complete economic subjugation.

The 1994 Paris Protocol was particularly damaging. It imposed an unequal customs union, granting Israeli businesses direct access to the Palestinian market but restricting Palestinian goods’ entry into the Israeli one; it gave the Israeli state control over tax collection; and it further entrenched the use of the shekel in the occupied Palestinian territories, leaving the newly formed Palestinian Authority with no means to impose fiscal control or adopt macroeconomic policies.

This in effect means that today Israel has full direct and indirect control over the levers of the Palestinian economy. The military occupation complements it by allowing the Israeli state to exercise physical control over the Palestinians’ everyday economic activity and expand the colonisation of Palestinian land. What does this look like on the ground?

In Gaza, 35 percent of the farmland falls within the so-called “buffer zone” designated and enforced as such by the Israeli army. Farming this land leaves people at risk of coming under live fire. Other farmland in Gaza has been periodically aerially sprayed with herbicides by Israeli planes which resulted, on one occasion in January 2018, in losses worth $1.3m.

In the occupied West Bank, most of the natural resources and most fertile land fall in Area C (61 percent of the West Bank) which is under absolute Israeli control. This includes 95 percent of the Jordan Valley, which is heavily cultivated by illegal Israeli settlements. Indeed the loss of access to Area C is estimated to cost the Palestinian economy around $480m per year and is responsible for the unemployment of 110,000 Palestinians.

The Bantustanisation of the West Bank further stunts economic growth by restricting freedom of movement both people and goods. Israel is in complete control of most of Palestinian infrastructure and is able to restrict access to it, as it pleases. For years, it curbed the development of mobile services by imposing various restrictions on it, including a ban on the introduction of 3G technology. One report estimated that as a result, Palestinian mobile operators suffered losses of between $436m and $1.5bn in the period of 2013-2015.

Israel also restricts Palestinian access to various roads and passes in the West Bank on an everyday basis. A World Bank study estimated that in 2007, the Palestinian economy lost $229m or six percent of its GDP due to the negative effects of the numerous Israeli checkpoints dispersed across the occupied territories.

In Gaza, Israel has upped the ante and imposed a complete blockade, restricting the entry of almost all goods. This has devastated the agriculture and the manufacturing industries and resulted in the unemployment of 50 percent of the population. In addition, the Israeli army bombs regularly the strip completely destroying basic infrastructure, rending the area uninhabitable by 2020, according to the UN.

As a result of the combined effects of economic and military occupation, the Palestinian economy is severely underdeveloped, local production diminished, unemployment skyrocketing and traditional sectors reduced to shambles.

Given the domination and privileges of the Israeli economy over the Palestinian one, the Palestinian business can neither compete nor produce enough to meet local demand. Israeli businesses are making money not only by dominating the Palestinian market and exploiting their privileged position, but also by using Palestinian labour rendered extremely cheap by the lack of native economic opportunity.

As a result, many Palestinians find themselves in the unenviable position of being forced to buy goods produced by their occupier on land stolen from them with money earned in labour for occupying businesses and in currency imposed on them again by the same occupying forces.

Neoliberalism and depoliticisation

Apart from entrenching Israel’s dominance over the Palestinian economy, the Oslo Accords also produced a governing entity highly dependent on outside forces – the Palestinian Authority (PA). Under Western pressure, it has fully embraced neoliberalism and helped create an ever-increasing wealth gap within the Palestinian population, making life much harder for the Palestinian working class.

The PA’s restructuring in its 2007 “Palestine Reform and Development Plan”‘ is an example of this par excellence. It was developed with the help of the World Bank and British Department for International Development (DFID) among others and introduced various damaging policies, including massive reductions in public spending. In 2015, only 16 percent of the PA’s annual budget was spent on education, nine percent on health and one percent on agriculture, whereas 26 percent was dedicated to the security sector (which through its policy of coordination works with the Israeli occupation to suppress Palestinian resistance).

The restructuring also encouraged borrowing, increasing the indebtedness of the general population manifold. Currently, the private sector owes close to $2.8bn to banks, while private individuals have taken out loans worth some $3.2bn. Over the past 10 years, car loans have jumped sixfold from $40m in 2008 to $250m at the end of last year.

Thus, in Ramallah, the de facto capital of the PA, could easily be mistaken for a prosperous city with middle-class neighbourhoods full of plush villas and shiny BMW’s. But this is just a facade for the devasting effects of neoliberalism and occupation on the Palestinian people. 

The indebtedness of Palestinians also allows for furthering social control and depoliticisation. Today, some 150,000 Palestinians are employed by the PA and some 100,000 others work in Israel, many of whom have taken out loans. They all face the threat of losing their employment (and potentially their home, car, etc) if they are seen to be involved in “undesirable” political activities. The Israelis regularly rescind work permits for entire extended families if a member is found to be engaged in anti-occupation activities.

The result of all of this is not only increasing poverty and hardship, but also growing individualisation which has contributed to fragmentation and political polarisation within Palestinian society.

It is within this context that the Bahrain workshop is to be held. Whatever the outcomes, they will not “fix” the Palestinian economy because they would not address the main problem: the Israeli occupation. The colonisation and oppression of Palestine cannot be remedied with a depoliticised economic solution.

To Palestinians, it is clear that the “economic peace” that is on offer is just another attempt to buy them off. Even the PA and prominent Palestinian businessmen have rejected it.

Yet the workshop is a symptom of a much larger global problem. Systems of racial domination and capital work together to oppress; it is in their interest to ensure that politics are kept separate from the economy.

In post-apartheid South Africa, liberation was not fully achieved because of the separation of politics from economics. While racial capitalism was an important part of the ideological discussions of the African National Congress, it restricted its own anti-apartheid agenda to the political and social spheres. It made significant concessions to the economic elites and embraced neoliberalism, which today is responsible for the gross inequality in South African society and the continuing suffering of the black urban working-class and rural populations.

To avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, it must be recognised that in Palestine, there can never be “economic peace” as long as Palestinians are being denied their rights. The world must join the Palestinians in rejecting Trump’s deal and the Bahrain Workshop and reiterating that the only solution to the Palestinian question is a political one – i.e. the complete lifting of the Israeli occupation and the dissolution of its apartheid regime. Anything short of that is doomed to failure.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Money can’t ‘fix’ Palestine’s occupied economy

UK Zionist terror group demands Labour leadership candidates pledge subservience and self-censorship

Zionist lobby

On the ten demands the Board of Deputies of British Jews make of the six Labour leadership candidates. Some can be construed as anti-Semitic

JezzabeauC writes:

I was absolutely staggered when I read that the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BoD) had compiled a list of 10 “policies” which it “asked” the six Labour leadership candidates to sign. So far five out of the six candidates have signed. Clive Lewis is the only candidate not to have signed. (While writing this I learned that Lewis has stood down from the contest).

When I first read about this I was angered because the BoD is a known Tory supporter and is also pro-Israel, and the Labour Party is supposed to stand up for, and support, oppressed peoples like the Palestinians. It is bad enough that both Emily Thornberry and Jess Phillips support Labour Friends of Israel (LFI). To be a member of LFI you do not have to be a Labour Party member or Jewish; the same applies to the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). The LFI was implicated in the four part Al-Jazeera documentary The Lobby when the then Labour MP and leader of LFI Joan Ryan was secretly videotaped conspiring with Israeli embassy staffer Shai Masot on how to take MPs down.

The BoD’s “Policy” number four names two ex-Labour Party members demanding that they never be re-admitted to the Labour Party. I will not name those two people but suffice it to say that one of these two people is Jewish which surely would make this “policy” anti-Semitic. “Policy” number five does not actually mention any names but you know who the BoD is referring to when it states: “Provide no platform for bigotry: any MPs, peers, councillors, members or CLPs [Constituency Labour Parties] who support, campaign or provide a platform for people who have been suspended or expelled in the wake of anti-Semitic incidents should themselves be suspended from membership.”

It was when I reached “policy” number eight that I decided to go and reread the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism which the Labour Party agreed to and one would assume the BoD would adhere to. It states: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.” It also says that this is a “non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism” which to my mind brings into question all the people suspended or expelled from the Labour Party due to unfounded and/or unproven allegations of anti-Semitism.

“Policy” number eight, which really caught my attention, states: “Engagement with the Jewish community to be made via its main representative groups: Labour must engage with the Jewish community via its main representative groups, and not through fringe organisations and individuals.” Mike Sivier responds to this policy very succinctly and, in my opinion, correctly. He says: “This is an example of genuine anti-Semitism. The Board of Deputies is trying to ensure that groups representing a more common-sense attitude, like Jewish Voice for Labour and Jewdas, are denied a voice. That’s denying Jewish people a right to self-determination, and its a claim that members of this organisation are ‘the wrong kind of Jew’. Despicable. It’s also undemocratic, of course…”

After reading the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism and agreeing that Mike Sivier had written the simple and definite truth, I would say that in my opinion all five of the Labour leadership candidates should carefully rethink their positions and rescind their agreements to these demands – which is what they are: they are demands not policies. Labour is a socialist party and should not be dictated to by outside influences, especially when those influences are Tory supporters. The fact that they also want the JLM to oversee anti-Semitic training would make me laugh if it was not so disturbing. The JLM is a right wing organisation with ties to the Israeli embassy, which was revived when Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party in 2015. The JLM was actually formed in 2004 as a successor to Poale Zion, which was a movement of Marxist-Zionist Jewish workers founded in Poland, Europe and Russia in the early 20th century.

I am now in two minds as to whether I should remain a member of the Labour Party and fight the right wing elements from within, or just say “enough is enough”, like some others, and resign my membership.

UK Labour Party on its hands and knees before Israel’s Zionist terror networks

UK Labour Party on its hands and knees before Israel’s Zionist terror networks

In “QuickPress”

The UK’s Labour Party: For the 0.5%, not the 99.5%

The UK’s Labour Party: For the 0.5%, not the 99.5%

In “QuickPress”

Is free speech now dead in the UK’s Labour Party?

Is free speech now dead in the UK’s Labour Party?

In “British stooges”

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on UK Zionist terror group demands Labour leadership candidates pledge subservience and self-censorship

UK Labour Party on its hands and knees before Israel’s Zionist terror networks

UK Labour Party

UK Labour on its knees before Israel lobby
Gilad Atzmon writes:

Historically, a popular coup against an opposition party is rare. In the last General Election Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party provided us with just such an exceptional spectacle.

Labour managed to alienate its voters. Its leader turned his back on his strongest allies, including Ken Livingstone and Chris Williamson. For some reason Corbyn’s Labour turned itself into an Orwellian authoritarian apparatus; it even dug into its members’ social media accounts, picking out “dirt” (i.e. human right concerns) in order to appease one distinctive foreign lobby.

Consequently, many ardent Labour supporters angrily rejected their political home. They left the party and may never return.

The conduct of the contenders for Labour’s leadership in the last few days reveals that Britons were right to humiliate the party.

At the moment, Labour’s leadership candidates are, without exception, competing among themselves to see who goes the lowest in pledging allegiance to a lobby associated with a foreign state that is currently under investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for committing crimes against humanity.

Leadership contender Emily Thornberry is apparently on her “hands and knees… asking for forgiveness”. And she is not the only one. The ZionistTimes of Israel’s headlines yesterday revealed that the top candidates for Labour leadership have all vowed to lead the fight against “anti-Semitism”. It said: “Keir Starmer backs automatic expulsion for offenders; Rebecca Long-Bailey – Corbyn bears personal responsibility for crisis; Jess Phillips suspends aide over anti-Semitic tweets.”

On BBC Radio, front runner Keir Starmer said: “We should have done more on anti-Semitism.” I wonder, what did Starmer mean by that? What is the next step after thought policing and spying on party members? Re-education centres? Indoctrination facilities? Hypnosis or maybe physiological treatment, or perhaps lobotomy for those who dare to tell the truth about Israel and its lobby?

Meanwhile, the Mail on Sunday reported that leadership contender, Jess Phillips had on 10 January suspended an aide who equated the Jewish State with the Islamic State group. 

Two days ago we learned that Zionist pressure on the Labour Party isn’t fading away. The Board of Deputies of British Jews (BoD) published its demands of the candidates for Labour’s leadership. The ultra-Zionist Jewish Chronicle wrote: “The Board of Deputies has demanded each of Labour’s candidates for leader and deputy leader sign up to its 10 ‘pledges’ in order to ‘begin healing its relationship with the Jewish community’…”

Israel lobby demands of UK Labour

Israel mouthpiece Board of Deputies of British Jews’ demands of Labour Party

Predictably, the demands made by the BoD do not accord with Western and Christian values of pluralism and tolerance. The BoD demands that contenders “pledge” to “prevent re-admittance of prominent offenders”. One may wonder what about forgiveness and compassion, are those fundamental Western values foreign to our Labour leadership candidates?

The BoD insists that leadership contenders pledge to “provide no platform for those who have been suspended or expelled for anti-Semitism”. What about freedom of speech and free debate? Are those also alien to Labour’s future leaders?

The bizarre development here is that Labour’s leadership candidates are engaged in an undignified battle to gain the Board of Deputies of British Jews’ support.

The new Labour leader is expected to support the bizarre idea that the Zionist Jewish Labour Movement will grant the kosher certificate for its “anti-racism education programme”. I thought to myself that if the Jewish Labour Movement is so good in “anti racism education”, maybe, and before anything else, it should contribute towards the cleansing of racism in Israel.

The fact that a Jewish organisation such as the BoD is so bold as to publish such ludicrous demands from a British national party is no surprise. The bizarre development here is that Labour’s leadership candidates are engaged in an undignified battle to gain the BoD’s support. 

I am not critical of the Jewish lobby and its orbit of Zionist pressure groups. Those bodies clearly accomplished their mission. But it is astonishing how dysfunctional the Labour Party and its leadership are. The party can’t even draw the most elementary lesson from its recent electoral disaster.

Those who follow my work know that I have predicted the unfortunate downfall of Labour and the demise of the left in general. The left, as I have been arguing for a while, has failed to reinstate its relevance and authenticity. It is unfortunately dead in the water.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Share this:

Related

Open letter to British MPs on their witch-hunts of pro-Palestinian figures

Open letter to British MPs on their witch-hunts of pro-Palestinian figures

28th July 2019

In “Israel Stooges”

Britain’s witchfinders are ready to burn Jeremy Corbyn

Britain’s witchfinders are ready to burn Jeremy Corbyn

2nd March 2019

In “British stooges”

First-hand account: Zionist terror networks slash and ban banner at UK Labour Party conference

First-hand account: Zionist terror networks slash and ban banner at UK Labour Party conference

26th September 2019

In “QuickPress”

on its hands and knees before Israel’s Zionist terror networks

UK Labour on its knees before Israel lobby
Gilad Atzmon writes:

Historically, a popular coup against an opposition party is rare. In the last General Election Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party provided us with just such an exceptional spectacle.

Labour managed to alienate its voters. Its leader turned his back on his strongest allies, including Ken Livingstone and Chris Williamson. For some reason Corbyn’s Labour turned itself into an Orwellian authoritarian apparatus; it even dug into its members’ social media accounts, picking out “dirt” (i.e. human right concerns) in order to appease one distinctive foreign lobby.

Consequently, many ardent Labour supporters angrily rejected their political home. They left the party and may never return.

The conduct of the contenders for Labour’s leadership in the last few days reveals that Britons were right to humiliate the party.

At the moment, Labour’s leadership candidates are, without exception, competing among themselves to see who goes the lowest in pledging allegiance to a lobby associated with a foreign state that is currently under investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for committing crimes against humanity.

Leadership contender Emily Thornberry is apparently on her “hands and knees… asking for forgiveness”. And she is not the only one. The ZionistTimes of Israel’s headlines yesterday revealed that the top candidates for Labour leadership have all vowed to lead the fight against “anti-Semitism”. It said: “Keir Starmer backs automatic expulsion for offenders; Rebecca Long-Bailey – Corbyn bears personal responsibility for crisis; Jess Phillips suspends aide over anti-Semitic tweets.”

On BBC Radio, front runner Keir Starmer said: “We should have done more on anti-Semitism.” I wonder, what did Starmer mean by that? What is the next step after thought policing and spying on party members? Re-education centres? Indoctrination facilities? Hypnosis or maybe physiological treatment, or perhaps lobotomy for those who dare to tell the truth about Israel and its lobby?

Meanwhile, the Mail on Sunday reported that leadership contender, Jess Phillips had on 10 January suspended an aide who equated the Jewish State with the Islamic State group. 

Two days ago we learned that Zionist pressure on the Labour Party isn’t fading away. The Board of Deputies of British Jews (BoD) published its demands of the candidates for Labour’s leadership. The ultra-Zionist Jewish Chronicle wrote: “The Board of Deputies has demanded each of Labour’s candidates for leader and deputy leader sign up to its 10 ‘pledges’ in order to ‘begin healing its relationship with the Jewish community’…”

Israel lobby demands of UK Labour

Israel mouthpiece Board of Deputies of British Jews’ demands of Labour Party

Predictably, the demands made by the BoD do not accord with Western and Christian values of pluralism and tolerance. The BoD demands that contenders “pledge” to “prevent re-admittance of prominent offenders”. One may wonder what about forgiveness and compassion, are those fundamental Western values foreign to our Labour leadership candidates?

The BoD insists that leadership contenders pledge to “provide no platform for those who have been suspended or expelled for anti-Semitism”. What about freedom of speech and free debate? Are those also alien to Labour’s future leaders?

The bizarre development here is that Labour’s leadership candidates are engaged in an undignified battle to gain the Board of Deputies of British Jews’ support.

The new Labour leader is expected to support the bizarre idea that the Zionist Jewish Labour Movement will grant the kosher certificate for its “anti-racism education programme”. I thought to myself that if the Jewish Labour Movement is so good in “anti racism education”, maybe, and before anything else, it should contribute towards the cleansing of racism in Israel.

The fact that a Jewish organisation such as the BoD is so bold as to publish such ludicrous demands from a British national party is no surprise. The bizarre development here is that Labour’s leadership candidates are engaged in an undignified battle to gain the BoD’s support. 

I am not critical of the Jewish lobby and its orbit of Zionist pressure groups. Those bodies clearly accomplished their mission. But it is astonishing how dysfunctional the Labour Party and its leadership are. The party can’t even draw the most elementary lesson from its recent electoral disaster.

Those who follow my work know that I have predicted the unfortunate downfall of Labour and the demise of the left in general. The left, as I have been arguing for a while, has failed to reinstate its relevance and authenticity. It is unfortunately dead in the water.

Open letter to British MPs on their witch-hunts of pro-Palestinian figures

Open letter to British MPs on their witch-hunts of pro-Palestinian figures

In “Israel Stooges”

Britain’s witchfinders are ready to burn Jeremy Corbyn

Britain’s witchfinders are ready to burn Jeremy Corbyn

In “British stooges”

First-hand account: Zionist terror networks slash and ban banner at UK Labour Party conference

First-hand account: Zionist terror networks slash and ban banner at UK Labour Party conference

In “QuickPress”

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on UK Labour Party on its hands and knees before Israel’s Zionist terror networks

The UK’s Labour Party: For the 0.5%, not the 99.5%

Labour as the party of the minority within the minority
Gilad Atzmon writes:

If insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results, then the British Labour Party is institutionally insane and beyond recovery.

Labour’s leadership candidates didn’t learn a thing from their party’s humiliating electoral defeat last month. Instead of returning to universal anti racist politics consistent with the so-called “Labour values”, the compromised contenders for the party’s leadership bow to the demands made by the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BoD), a self-selected pressure group that claims to represent 0.5 per cent of the British public. Our Labour leadership candidates have attended to whims uttered by a tiny privileged voice while ignoring at least 99.5 per cent of the British public. “For the very few and no one else,” falls short of describing this political suicide.

This weekend, Labour’s first leadership hustings in Liverpool provided another spectacular display of the candidates’ spineless and unprincipled behaviour. Each waited his or her turn to utter embarrassing statements that they hoped would appease their party’s bitterest enemy.

Jess Phillips

During the event, leadership candidate Jess Phillips took a furious swipe at her rivals’ “alleged silence over anti-Semitism”. She claimed thatLabour‘s failure on anti-Semitism had lost the party its “moral high ground” in the battle against racism. She referred in her comments to Rebecca Long-Bailey, Emily Thornberry and Sir Keir Starmer, who had all been part of Corbyn’s team.

Emily Thornberry

Emily Thornberry, who just a week ago was on “her hands and knees” asking for Jewish “forgiveness”, hit back at the accusations, saying she has always been clear that anti-Semitism “undermines us as a party”. Vowing to kick out so-called “anti-Semites”, she said: “What the Israeli government is doing at the moment is completely unacceptable. But that is not the fault of the Jews.”

Someone should remind this “kneeling enthusiast” [Emily Thornberry] that in his entire career Jeremy Corbyn never criticised Jews, Judaism or Jewishness.

Someone should remind this “kneeling enthusiast’ that in his entire career Jeremy Corbyn never criticised Jews, Judaism or Jewishness. He did criticise Israel and Zionism, while making a clear distinction between Jews and Zionism. It is his criticism of Israel and its politics that made Corbyn and the party “anti-Semitic” in the eyes of the Zionist pressure groups. If Thornberry insists on getting on her hands and knees to ask for a pardon, she ought to understand the “fault” that has been attached to her party, otherwise her conduct fits too well with the definition of insanity.

Keir Starmer, Rebecca Long-Bailey and Lisa Nandy

Frontrunner Keir Starmer and the other two leadership candiates, Rebecca Long-Bailey and Lisa Nandy, all repeated the same line. Each vowed to repair Labour’s relationships with British Jews. There is nothing inherently wrong with altering the party’s appeal to Jews but the leadership candidates must have failed to notice that Corbyn wasted his political energy as a party leader trying to do just that.

In the early stages of his leadership, Corbyn’s popularity was the result of the false perception that he was an ideologically principled leader. It was Corbyn’s anti-war stand, opposition to Anglo-American imperialism and Zionism that so many liked. As time passed, it became clear that Corbyn, the person, had little or nothing in common with his revolutionary image. He zigzagged around every possible topic, including anti-Semitism and Zionism, as well as Brexit. The man who at one stage was perceived as the left’s icon publicly transformed himself into a caricature of a political “left over”. Corbyn lost the election because he was unfit to dwell in Number 10. People realised that if Corbyn couldn’t handle a tiny foreign lobby, he would struggle to deal with a statesman such as Vladimir Putin.

But there was a lesson entangled in Corbyn’s political demise. When Corbyn showed a bit of  willingness to resist the lobby’s pressure, his public support grew dramatically. Two weeks before the election, while being interviewed by the BBC’s Andrew Neil, Corbyn refused to apologise to the Jewish community. He took a firm stand and upheld a universal anti-racist approach to discrimination. His rise in the polls was immediate. In some of polls Labour halved the gap with the Tories. At the time, I was sceptical about Corbyn’s bravery. I thought his reaction was likely accidental. Perhaps he wasn’t prepared for the question and forgot to crawl on demand. It only took a few days before Corbyn and his shadow chancellor reverted to their usual apologetic take on the matter. The rest is history. Corbyn’s Labour suffered its worst electoral defeat in 84 years.

This week we learned that Labour’s leadership candidates haven’t learned a thing. Insanely, they repeated Corbyn’s mistakes, maybe expecting different results. Instead of producing a firm position consistent with their party’s universal ideology, they competed to appease the whims and demands of one hostile foreign lobby. As in every tragic story, there was a glimpse of hope: MP Diane Abbott reported in a tweet from the Liverpool hustings that “Richard Burgon gets the most applause of anyone at the Liverpool deputy leadership hustings for his thoughtful response on the anti-Semitism issue”.

Listening to candidate for the deputy leadership Richard Burgon’s comments reveals that his seemingly firm stand against the “anti-Semitism blitz”, did indeed receive warm applause from the Labour Party members in the room. However, a careful listen to his position shows that his stance on the issue is even more ridiculous than that of the other candidates. Burgon refuses to sign the BoD’s demands because he wants to work with the BoD as well as “all other Jewish organisations’. Burgon was referring particularly to the “minority within the minority, whether it would be LGBT Jewish people or Black Jewish people…”

Rather than looking for a “minority within a minority” to flirt with, Burgon and the Labour Party would do well to reinstate the party’s flat rejection of racism of all types.

The party that claimed to act for ‘the many, not the few; is now concerned with 5 per cent (considered the demographics of sexual orientation and gender identity within Western society) of the 0.5 per cent of the entire British population. In mathematical terms, Burgon rejects the BoD’s demands because he is concerned with a population that comprises 0.000025 of the country’s entire population. I haven’t  bothered to look at the percentage of Black Jews in Britain as there is no indication that such a community exists or is at all organised. And if it does exist, it has yet to oppose the BoD’s alleged hegemony.

Rather than looking for a “minority within a minority” to flirt with, Burgon and the Labour Party would do well to reinstate the party’s flat rejection of racism of all types. If such an approach falls short of satisfying the Israel lobby, the Labour Party is free to continue without its approval. This is the only meaning of acting as a true opposition party.

It all paints a very grim picture. The Labour Party in its current form is an occupied zone. It is not occupied by Zionists or Blairites as we often hear. It is conquered by its own insanity. The positive reaction to Burgon’s comments suggests that Labour supporters are still attuned to their party’s ideas. It is just the leadership that has drifted.

UK Labour Party on its hands and knees before Israel’s Zionist terror networks

UK Labour Party on its hands and knees before Israel’s Zionist terror networks

In “QuickPress”

The Zionists’ war on Corbyn: What you need to know

The Zionists’ war on Corbyn: What you need to know

In “British stooges”

UK Labour self-destructs under 'anti-Semitism' onslaught

UK Labour self-destructs under ‘anti-Semitism’ onslaught

In “Britain”IsraelDisinformation and PropagandaZionist terror networks (Zionist lobby)JewsBritain

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on The UK’s Labour Party: For the 0.5%, not the 99.5%

Trump’s “Deal of the Century” – a racist attempt at bribery that is destined to fail

Deal of the Century bribery
By Lawrence Davidson

The Deal of the Century

President Trump’s peace plan for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, or at least the economic side of it, was discussed at a meeting in Bahrain on 25 and 26 June. The plan, euphemistically entitled “Peace to Prosperity” and the “Deal of the Century” is also, inaccurately, likened to a “Marshall Plan for Palestinians”. It is based on the assumption that money, ultimately the better part of $50 billion, can lure the Palestinian people into surrender – that is, the surrender of their right to a state of their own on their stolen ancestral land as well as the right of return for the 7.5 million Palestinians who have been forced into exile. Upon surrender, according to the plan, “an ambitious, achievable… framework for a prosperous future for the Palestinian people and the region” will be put into place. How this idealised future is to be integrated into the apartheid and Bantustan system of control that constitutes the Israeli government’s “facts on the ground” is left unexplained.

This bit of gilded bait was put together by “senior White House adviser” Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law; Jason Greenblatt, chief lawyer of the Trump organisation and now US envoy for international negotiations; and David Friedman, the president’s bankruptcy lawyer who is now the US ambassador to Israel. All of these men are at once unqualified for their present positions as well as Zionist supporters of Israeli expansionism. It is not surprising then that the Israeli government has welcomed this effort. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said that he “would listen to the American plan and hear it fairly and with openness”. On the other hand, the Palestinian West Bank leader, Mahmoud Abbas, who is boycotting the Bahrain meeting, said, “As long as there is no political [solution], we do not deal with any economic [solution].”

There are no doubt some Palestinians who are upset at Abbas’s position: perhaps some business people, often-unpaid bureaucrats, and a portion of the frustrated middle class, who will be dearly tempted by the promise of all that money. These are people who, given over a century of struggle, see no hope of a just political settlement. 

Nonetheless, those tempted might consider these facts: 

  1. All those billions of dollars are, as yet, hypothetical. The money is not in the bank, so to speak. And, it is not a given that Trump can actually raise the funds. Thus, for all those ready to trade justice for dollars, it might be premature to actually make the leap.
  2. There is a prevailing belief among the Trump cabal putting this plan together that the Palestinians themselves are incapable of running the proposed development programmes. They are assumed to be too corrupt or tainted with “terrorist” backgrounds to be trusted. Thus, the question of who would run this effort (Israelis? American Zionists? anyone other than those dedicated to Palestinian interests?) is left unanswered. Relative to this question, it should be kept in mind that the Israelis have made something of a science of robbing the Palestinians of their resources. They are hardly likely to stop now.
  3. The raising of money for the Trump plan is in competition with a UN effort to raise $1.2 billion for UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency), the agency that supports programmes for Palestinian refugees. This fund-raiser is literally running at the same time as the Bahrain meeting. If the Trump plan gains traction, there might well be pressure to shut down UNRWA altogether. 

Is this really an honest proposal to provide the Palestinians with prosperity? The history of “third world” development efforts sponsored by and run under the guidance of “first world” powers, be they Western governments or institutions like the IMF, is largely one of failure.There is no reason to believe that the Trump plan will fare any better. While these problematic economic efforts may eventually fall short, the political conditions almost certain to be attached to the aid will probably require immediate cessation of all anti-Zionist activities, including the relatively successful ongoing boycott of Israel. 

The precedent

It might come as a surprise, but this is not the first time that financial bribery to procure Arab cooperation with Zionist ambitions has been tried.

There is a historical precedent for Donald Trump’s attempted “deal of the century” that is detailed in my book,America’s Palestine (cheap used copies of which are available online). Here is how that precedent went:

Back in 1942, the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann told members of the US State Department’s Division of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA) that Winston Churchill wished to make the Saudi king, Ibn Saud, “the boss of bosses in the Arab World”. The only condition to this offer was that Ibn Saud must “be willing to work out with Weizmann to achieve a sane solution to the Palestine problem”. Weizmann further claimed that US President Franklin Roosevelt was “in accord on this subject”. 

The response of the head of the NEA, Wallace Murray, a man who knew the Middle East much better than did Chaim Weizmann, was one of scepticism. Murray noted that British influence over Ibn Saud was small and that he doubted the Saudi king wanted to be the Arab “boss of bosses”. Finally, he expressed doubt that anything the Zionists would consider a “solution” would be something Ibn Saud would consider to be “sane”.

Nonetheless, the Zionists persisted along these lines and soon came up with a plan where, in return for a Jewish Palestine, Ibn Saud would be made the “head of an Arab federation in control of a “development” budget of £20 million”.

At this point Murray became adamant that this would never work. He predicted that Ibn Saud would interpret the offer as a bribe – the offer of a throne in exchange for turning Palestine over to the Zionists. He would interpret the £20 million as a “slush fund”. Consequently, there was every reason to believe that the Saudi ruler would see this whole plan as a personal insult. So, Murray suggested that “the less we have to do with the… proposals of Dr Weizmann the better”.

As it turned out, Roosevelt disagreed with Murray and after a conversation with Weizmann in early June 1943, authorised an approach to Ibn Saud along the lines of the Zionist plan. Why did he ignore Murray in favour of Weizmann? Because Murray’s accurate assessment of Ibn Saud conflicted with Roosevelt’s stereotyped view of Arabs. This is revealed in the minutes of the June meeting with Weizmann wherein the president said that “he believes the Arabs are purchasable”. In other words, following a common Western view, the president saw the Arabs as a backward people who would do just about anything for the right amount of bakshish.

Subsequently, the entire scheme came to naught when, in the autumn of 1943, Ibn Saud rejected it out of hand. He would subsequently tell Roosevelt that the Jews should “be given the choicest lands and homes of the Germans who had oppressed them”. When the president replied that the Jews would not wish to stay in Germany after the war, Ibn Saud noted that the “allied camp” had “50 countries” in it. Surely, they could find enough open space (he even alluded to the underpopulated areas of the American West) to take in Europe’s Jewish refugees. Roosevelt came away from the exchange rather shaken. He finally understood from it that “the Arabs mean business” when it comes to Palestine.

Conclusion

The world has changed a lot since the 1940s. Ibn Saud has been replaced by Saudi Crown Prince Muḥammad bin Salmān. This can be seen as real step down in terms of personal integrity and strategic judgment. Franklin Roosevelt has been replaced with Donald Trump. I will let readers make their own judgments on this change. Actually, the thing that has stayed constant, perhaps because it was always devoid of real empathy for the Palestinians, is the nature of Zionist leadership. Thus, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, has said that the only way the Palestinians can be economically liberated is through their political surrender. But as suggested above, Israel is now a confirmed apartheid state that feels its own “security” necessitates both military and economic control of the Palestinians. Given that reality, Danon’s notion of economic liberation means about as much as Weizmann’s promise of someone else’s (i.e., Britain’s) money. And then there is the replacement of Chaim Weizmann (the Zionist pre-state leader) with Binyamin Netanyahu. The former may have had more persuasive charm than the latter, but certainly their goals were, and continue to be, the same.

It is Zionism’s ambition to possess biblical Palestine that has reduced the Palestinians to destitution. Perfectly predictable and legal Palestinian resistance is the excuse the Israelis use to cover up the segregationist and impoverishing policies that are necessitated by their ideological worldview. And now Trump and his Zionist son-in-law come forward with their plan, fully expecting the Palestinians to trust the Americans and their Israeli allies to make them “developed” and prosperous? I wonder what Ibn Saud would say to that?

Trump’s peace plan has been designed to fail – exactly like its predecessors

Trump’s peace plan has been designed to fail – exactly like its predecessors

In “Home”

“Deal of the Century” or Aeon of Disasters?

In “American stooges”

Arabs reward Zionist aggression

The so-called “Middle East peace process” may be about to start moving, but in the wrong direction. On 29 April, Sheikh Hamad bin Jasim al-Thani, the Qatari prime minister and foreign minister, signalled that the Arab states are prepared to entertain the possibility of land swaps that would allow Israel…

1st May 2013

In “QuickPress”

Posted in Palestine Affairs, Middle East, USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Trump’s “Deal of the Century” – a racist attempt at bribery that is destined to fail

Britain is acting as the US’s sanctions lapdog; will it follow into all-out war?

If the British imperialists fall in line with the US’s drive to war against Iran, they will share the bitter fruits of humiliation and defeat with their partner in crime.

No Gulf War

The USA is the world’s number one crusher of workers’ and oppressed peoples’ liberties. Its maniacal drive towards war with free Iran could plunge us all into World War Three.

This article is reproduced from the No Gulf War website with thanks.

The antiwar group will be holding a public meeting opposing war with Iran this Friday at 7.00pm in Southall, west London, addressed by George Galloway. Entrance is free. Reserve your place now.

*****

Thwarted in its efforts to impose regime change on the Syrian people, US imperialism is gearing up for war against Iran. Britain is closely implicated in the bellicose preparations, but is showing signs of hesitancy as social unrest at home gathers pace.

Having spent the summer engineering a series of naval incidents in the Persian Gulf, pointing the finger of blame at Tehran for what carry all the hallmarks of false flag provocations, US imperialism is now massing an armada of warships and troops in the region, codenaming its manoeuvres Operation Sentinel, supposedly with the aim of ‘protecting shipping’ passing through the strait of Hormuz, but in reality to prepare for war with Iran.

Britain, the junior partner in the Anglo-American imperialist alliance, has already dispatched two warships in support, and has been a key player in this war of nerves. In early July a tanker bearing Iranian oil, the MT Grace 1, was illegally detained in a joint raid by Royal Navy Marines and the Gibraltar police.

The excuse for this act of piracy was the allegation (unproven, and denied by Tehran) that the ship was bound for Syria, and was therefore in breach of European Union sanctions against that country. This excuse was chosen because officially the EU and Britain do not support US sanctions against Iran, only against Syria.

But imperialism is trying to steer British public opinion towards yet another US-led war in the middle east at a moment when the refusal of parliament to carry out the wishes of the public as expressed in the Brexit referendum is undermining the confidence of the public in the whole parliamentary racket.

Whilst some in ruling class circles might favour another foreign war to distract the population from Brexit, harder heads will view with dismay the prospect of seeing the country dragged into another failed US military adventure at a time when social unrest is already starting to seethe.

A straw in the wind has been the U-turn recently performed by the British authorities in Gibraltar. After having colluded in the Royal Navy’s seizure of the MT Grace 1, the Gibraltar government got cold feet about prolonging the detention when it became clear that the ship was not planning on heading for Syria.

Since Britain does not publicly support US president Donald Trump’s actions in tearing up the Iran nuclear deal and reimposing sanctions, there was no longer any excuse to hang on to the vessel. Declaring that it was not bound by US law, Gibraltar then sent the ship on its way, leaving the US justice department to shoot off an impotent warrant for the seizure and forfeiture of the tanker and its oil.

Whilst too gutless to openly challenge the legality of the sanctions Washington has now reimposed on Iran (and on all those who do business with her), British imperialism has so far (publicly) tried to distance itself from the US policy of open economic war against the Iranian people.

If the British imperialists ends up falling in line with the US’s sanctions and war against Iran, they should understand that that they will also share the bitter fruits of humiliation and defeat with their partner in crime.

Posted in USA, UKComments Off on Britain is acting as the US’s sanctions lapdog; will it follow into all-out war?

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING