May 29, 2016

Zionists order Corbyn to follow John Vorster to Yad Vashem

This is interesting.  Having jumped through hoops to appease the UK's Zionist movement it turns out that Jeremy Corbyn may have disobeyed a direct order to indulge in a bit of holocaust hypocrisy at Israel's holocaust museum, Yad Vashem.  Here's The Guardian:
Jeremy Corbyn faced fresh criticism over his handling of antisemitism allegations after Labour’s sister party in Israel said it had had no reply to a letter its leader [Isaac Herzog] sent to him a month ago expressing dismay and inviting him to Jerusalem to see the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum.
Visits to Yad Vashem are something of a walk of shame given some of its past visitors.  Here's John Vorster, a one time president of apartheid era South Africa and a nazi internee during WWII:

The picture is from Yad Vashem's own website.

And apart from Israel's own leaders, Vorster isn't the only racist to have graced Yad Vashem with his presence.   Here's Poland's Michal Kaminski of the virulently nationalist, Civic Platform Party visited Yad Vashem too:

Here's Tony Greenstein on Kaminski:
Kaminski led the campaign against a national Polish apology for the burning alive of up to 900 Jews in Jedwabne by Poles in 1941 (see )  Kaminski was formerly a member of the fascist National Revival of Poland Party. 
Vorster and Kaminski are just the kind of people you might expect to turn up at the jewel in the Zionist crown.  That tribute to Jewish suffering that says that no-one else matters and Israel can do no wrong.

And so to Corbyn:
Herzog invited Corbyn to bring a delegation to Yad Vashem to witness that the last time the Jews were forcibly transported “it was not to Israel but to their deaths”. An Israeli Labour party official confirmed that it had “not had a reply” after rumours circulated in the Jewish community in London that no response had been received in Jerusalem or issued from London.
 So no answer from Corbyn so far so we can only hope that if he does ever answer he won't make that walk of shame.

But not content with implying that Corbyn has done something wrong, rather than the first thing he's done right since this whole orchestrated smear campaign began, Toby Helm (The Observer journo who wrote the piece) managed to take do something no self-respecting journalist should ever do.  He took a Zionist's words at face value.  Let's see that again:
the last time the Jews were forcibly transported “it was not to Israel but to their deaths”
Now that's just not true.  There have now been many instances of Jews being forced to go to Israel when they haven't wanted.  Even West Germany back in the 1980s handcuffed Soviet Jews and bundled them on to El Al planes bound for Israel.  Poland had an antisemitic campaign in the 1960s where an agreement with Golda Meir had Jews being forced to go to the Israel they didn't even approve of.  And with the collapse of the Soviet Union Jews who wished to go elsewhere once again found themselves being forced to go to Israel. For that unhappy episode, see 972 Mag.

May 25, 2016

Leon Rosselson at Housmans

Wednesday 1st June 2016, 7pm
Entry £3, redeemable against any purchase

Leon Rosselson is appearing at Housmans Bookshop in Caledonian Road.

Here's the invite from the man himself:

I'll be talking (and singing) about this pamphlet, and the accusations of 'anti-semitism' in the Labour Party, at Housmans Bookshop, 5 Caledonian Road, London N1 9DX. No idea who'll be there but I hope to see some friendly faces.

May 18, 2016

Who sneers at "AsaJews" and says Jews have "big noses and loud behaviour"?

Well search the internet for examples of the usual suspects like certain Islamists and neo-Nazis and if you turn up anything at all it will probably be quotes from the various Zionist sites I linked in my previous post.

But I remembered writing to the Jewish Chronicle in response to a libelous article by David Aaronovitch.  I've been published there before, at least twice in response to pieces by Aaro but the time I had in mine proved beyond question that he is a bare faced liar and so they wouldn't publish. My letter's here and I remembered roughly the last bit:
Still, in these ecumenical times I think it's nice that a non-Jew such as David Aaronovitch can write for the Jewish Chronicle but when he invokes stereotypes like "big noses and loud behaviour" I'd say he's crossed a line. Surely in the JC a Jew's anti-Zionism is preferable to a gentile's anti-Semitism.
I actually found my old post whilst looking for the David Aaronovitch article that prompted it.  What I couldn't find was the article by Aaro.  It could be that the JC smartly disappeared it.  But not to worry. I smartly pasted a copy (together with a running critique) here.  Here's the bit I was referring to at the end of my letter:
Ah yes, say some readers, we are way ahead of you. Mr Elf and Mr Greenstein are archetypal “self-haters”. They are typical Jews who hate Jews (an organisation, come to think of it, which would complete the long, self-indulgent list of Jews For or Against This or That). They wish somehow to lose their unwanted Jewishness by currying favour with the goyische welt. They like the Nobel prizes and the comedy, but they don’t want to be associated with the big noses and loud behaviour in Waitrose
He actually goes on to say:
The boycotters, and especially the Jews for Boycotts, are not self-hating Jews — they’re adolescents. It isn’t themselves they hate, but Daddy and Mummy. In fact, they’re so vain they probably think this piece is about them.
Clever huh?  So according to Aaro, Jews have big noses, are loud and Jewish parents are Zionists?  In case you think he missed an antisemitic stereotype like say the money thing, here's how he started the piece:
It has long been one of the perverse talents of British middle-class activists
So there we are, according to David Aaronovitch, Jews have big noses, are loud, Jewish parents are Zionists and we are all middle class too.  I must remember that when I spend 12 hours in a minicab I don't even own.

Now why couldn't I find Aaro's masterpiece on Google except on my own blog?  Maybe he got the right to be forgotten.  Dodgy characters can do that when they've been rehabilitated out of their dodginess but Aaro hasn't.  He hasn't changed at all.

And that brings us to the antisemitic AsaJew put down.  The latest campaigner against "antisemitism", Baroness Royall, makes a specific point of this one in her blog post for the UK Labourite wing of the World Zionist Organisation:
Many students reported that should a Jewish student preface a remark “as a Jew …” they are likely to face ridicule and behaviour that would not be acceptable for someone saying “as a woman …” or “as an Afro-Caribbean”.  This should not be tolerated.  
We need to note here that Baroness Royall offers no evidence of what she claims but if you google AsaJew you will pretty much only find Zionists throwing this particular antisemitic putdown around. Aaronovitch is not just not an exception, he even offers advice on when or how it should or can be used or abused:
Of course Aaro works for Murdoch, probably the biggest Zionist in Christendom, and typically also antisemitic:
And as a JC regular he also works for Stephen Pollard, assuming the editor of the JC is the commentator's boss. And here's Pollard:

Of course no one has to pay for Aaro's racist outbursts at The Times or the JC but he is also something of a regular on BBC Radio 4 and if you live in the UK, as I do, and you own a television, which I do, you do have to pay for the BBC so most Brits have to pay for David Aaronovitch one way or another.

So while the Labour Party is allowing Zionists to goosestep all over it, silencing criticism of Israel amid a welter of bogus allegations of antisemitism,  those most likely to hurl antisemitic abuse at their political opponents are given a free, indeed a paid for, hand.

What kind of racist low life uses "AsaJew" as a putdown?

Have a little look at Baroness Royall's blog post over at the blog of the ethnic cleansing enthusiasts, the Jewish Labour Movement:
I know that you will share my disappointment and frustration that the main headline coming out of my inquiry is that there is no institutional Antisemitism in Oxford University Labour Club.  That is true, but it is only part of the story.  I am clear that in the OULC there is a cultural problem which means that Jewish students do not always feel welcome.  And we have to take action to change this situation.   Many students reported that should a Jewish student preface a remark “as a Jew …” they are likely to face ridicule and behaviour that would not be acceptable for someone saying “as a woman …” or “as an Afro-Caribbean”.  This should not be tolerated.  
Now astute readers will see immediately what has happened here.  Baroness Royal was supposed to go into the Oxford University Labour Club and find lots of evidence of antisemitism.  She couldn't find anything that would pass muster, even on a Zionist blog, as evidence so she's invented an example or she's running with the invented examples of other people.

See this again,
Many students reported that should a Jewish student preface a remark “as a Jew …” they are likely to face ridicule and behaviour that would not be acceptable for someone saying “as a woman …” or “as an Afro-Caribbean”.  This should not be tolerated.  
See that?  "as a Jew".   People can face ridicule for saying that.  Really, there are racists out there who will ridicule you for prefacing a remark "as a Jew".  What kind of scum can they be?  Surely there's some evidence.  I know, let's try googling "AsaJew".

And what do we see?

First up we have UK Media Watch and an article headed "As a Jew explained".  Taste:
Jewish anti-Zionists give their identity politics a strange twist. Instead of claiming to represent the opinion of most of their fellow Jews, they mobilize their identity “asaJew” in order to give their oppositional view more legitimacy. 
 Then there's the Jewish Chronicle.  Here's JC editor, Stephen Pollard:
The AsAJews only ever come from one side of the fence: anti-Zionist, pro-boycott and anti-anti-antisemitism. Have you ever heard anyone say: “As a Jew, I must say how much I support Israel’s right to exist”, or “As a Jew, let me state how much I disagree with the idea of a boycott”?
Next up there's even a hashtag for this racist expression: #AsaJew.  Let's have a look at that. On second thoughts, this is a family blog but I didn't see any anti-Zionists sneering at the expression "As a Jew".

Now I would have skipped over this Reddit but the little bit of blurb on the google page drew me in:
This subreddit is for public shaming of loudmouthes thinking that pretending being jewish adds them credibility. A typical post of this kind of person starts with "As a former jew, converted to humanity..."
So much has this "AsaJew" putdown been chucked around it even got an entry in The Encyclopedia of Decency back in 2009

Bizarre ethnoreligious insult used by wackadoodle wingnuts to demean and disregard the opinions of non-wingnut members of the Jewish faith that this writer, for one, is not touching with a fucking bargepole.
Posted by Malky Muscular at 09:17
Labels: Insults

And they are the top entries I found on the google search and yet Baroness Royall had no awareness of them.   If I had kept going I could have listed Harry's Place and a Harry's Placer called Marc Goldberg.  But as I said this is a family blog and besides the list of Zionists using the antisemitic putdown "AsaJew" is literally endless since more come on stream every day.

Now I can well understand Baroness Royall treating false allegations as evidence but what I don't understand is how she missed so many egregious examples of Zionist antisemitism as to leave such a hostage to fortune. 

May 12, 2016

Young Zionists censor themselves!

See if you can spot the difference between these two extracts from a post that appeared on the Israeli Labour Party's UK branch website.
This is what you see now:
In recent weeks The Guardian has published a series of letters (like this one and thisone) from groups of individuals setting out positions on Zionism & antisemitism that are far removed from mainstream Jewish Labour perspectives.  
 And this is what appeared yesterday:

Curiously I can't access the site via google cache to check the rest of what they wrote but I had a feeling they'd excise the offensive suggestion that Jewish critics of Israel aren't quite the real thing. They're actually complaining that their letter to The Guardian wasn't published and they lament The Guardian's lack of balance.  But have a good look at the letter.  Maybe The Guardian was doing them a favour by not publishing it but then The Guardian's been doing the Zionists quite a lot of favours lately.

PS: The Jewish Labour Movement is a "faction within the World Zionist Organisation"

May 03, 2016

Why is a Sun reporter supporting Momentum Head Jon Lansman?

I noticed a Sun reporter, @MrHarryCole touting Jon Lansman ludicrous idea of banning the word "Zionism" from discussions in Labour Party circles.  I thought it was odd for anything anyone connected to Corbyn to get Sun approval.  Sam Kiley, an ardent Zionist, before he began working for Murdoch at Sky actually left The Times because of Murdoch's aggressive proprietorial interventionism for Israel's sake.

Here's his tweet:
Obviously leftists noticed how Jon Lansman of the supposed grass roots Corbynite support group, Momentum, had won the approval of a Murdoch staffer.  It's hard to imagine that a pat on the back for a Corbynite from a Murdoch staffer would happen without approval from the Digger himself.  It would be like Ha'avara happening without Hitler's approval. At the time I didn't think too much of the Sun imprimatur.  I just tweeted how it was ludicrous to ban the word "Zionism" from Labour Party discussions.  But I then got retweeted by this Harry Cole chap, look:
Now look at the thread after the tweet Cole quote/retweeted:

See my little offering there?
Well at this point Jon Lansman's Comrade Harry Cole seems to have had a panic because now look:

See that? The guy engages with me by QRTing my tweet then blocks me. But did you see the side bar when it asks you to consider following something similar to what you were looking at? Yup, The Telegraph - no surprise there - and Jon Lansman. And why am I not surprised at that one?

So what have we learned? Jon Lansman is either a Zionist himself or at least someone willing to appease Zionism for some short term gain. He certainly seems to have pleased someone at the Murdoch stables. And when I mentioned the Diggers interests in the Golan heights the previously cocky Harry Cole had a panic.

And what haven't we learned? Well what I, rather than we, haven't learned is what the flip is going on?

May 02, 2016

More on Hitler's support for Zionism

Here's another comment from the Crooked Timber site post supposedly about this orchestrated campaign against the Labour leadership and left.  This comment was from Corey Robin:
This is from Saul Friedlander, Nazi Germany and the Jews. Volume I: The Years of Persecution, 1933-1939. Friedlander, along with Yehuda Bauer, is considered the dean of Holocaust historians.
In addition, the material difficulty of emigrating was considerable, especially in a period of economic uncertainty; it entailed an immediate and heavy material loss….
In one instance only were the economic conditions of emigration somewhat facilitated. Not only did the regime encourage Zionist activities on the territory of the Reich, but concrete economic measures were taken to ease the departure of the Jews for Palestine. The so-called Haavarah (Hebrew: Transfer) Agreement, concluded on August 27, 1933, between the German Ministry of the Economy and Zionist representatives from Germany and Palestine, allowed Jewish emigrants indirect transfer of part of their assets and facilitated exports of goods from Nazi Germany to Palestine. As a result, some one hundred million Riechsmarks were transferred to Palestine, and most of the sixty thousand Germany Jews who arrived in that country during 1933-39 could thereby ensure a minimal basis for their material existence.

…About Zionism itself, moreover, Nazi ideology and Nazi policies were divided from the outset: while favoring, like all other European extreme anti-Semites, Zionism as a means of enticing the Jews to leave Europe, they also considered the Zionist organization established in Basel in 1987 as a key element of the Jewish world conspiracy….

Even before the conclusion of the Haavarah Agreement, such “cooperation” [between the Nazis and the Zionists] took bizarre forms. Thus, in early 1933, Baron Leopold Itz Edler von Mildenstein, a man who a few years later was to become chief of the Jewish section of the SD (the Sicherheitsdienst, or security service, the SS intelligence branch headed by Reinhard Heydrich), was invited along with his wife to tour Palestine and write a series of articles for Goebbels’s Der Angriff . And so it was that the Mildensteins, accompanied by Kurt Tuchler, a leading member of the Berlin Zionist Organization, and his wife, visited Jewish settlements in Eretz Israel. The highly positive articles, entitled “A Nazi Visits Palestine,” were duly published, and, to mark the occasion, a special medallion cast, with a swastika on one side and a Star of David on the other.

Zionist hopes were moderated by practical worries about excessive numbers of immigrants. “In order that the immigration not flood the existing settlement in Palestine like lava,” Ruppin declared at the Zionist Congress held in Prague in the summer of 1933, “it must be proportionate to a certain percentage of that settlement.” This remained the policy for several years to come, and well after the passage of the 1935 Nuremberg racial laws, both the German Zionists and the leader of the Yishuv were still envisaging an annual rate of fifteen to twenty thousand German-Jewish emigrants, extending over a period of twenty to thirty years.
Later in the book, Friedlander talks about a growing move in the mid to late 1930s against the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine among certain sectors of the Nazi Foreign Ministry. This led to increasing opposition to that Haavarah agreement, which was the Nazi policy for facilitating Jewish emigration to Palestine. But this is what Friedlander has to say about that growing opposition to the Haavarah agreement:
But no one [in the Nazi foreign ministry] dared to take any concrete measures against the agreement, as Hitler had not yet expressed his viewpoint. His decision announced at the end of January 1938, clearly implied maintenance of the Haavarah: Further Jewish emigration [to Palestine] by all possible means . The bureaucracy was left with only one choice: Comply. And so it did. 

Lots of Zionists are quick to point out that Hitler said he didn't like Zionists in Mein Kampf  but the above excerpt shows that he seems to have changed his mind some time between the 1925 publication of Hitler's book and Ha'avara in 1933.

It's stuff like this that is going to have the Zionists biting off more than they can chew especially if they try to take on Ken Livingstone.

Hitler's support for Zionism

I hardly blog anymore but I thought I ought to grab some stuff from the net while it's hot.  Ken Livingstone is the latest casualty in the orchestrated campaign against the Labour leadership and left because he said something like, "Hitler supported Zionism".

There's a not entirely bad article on the Crooked Timber website by some banker (really) called Daniel.  I'm not quite sure what he's saying and frankly I don't really trust him because I think he's saying that there seems to be something in these allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party but he doesn't give many or even examples.  But I'm just grabbing this quote from Hannah Arendt which the commenter seems to think supports Ken:
But quite apart from all slogans and ideological quarrels, it was in those years a fact of everyday life that only Zionists had any chance of negotiating with the German authorities, for the simple reason that their chief Jewish adversary, the Central Association of German Citizens of Jewish Faith, to which ninety-five per cent of organized Jews in Germany then belonged, specified in its bylaws that its chief task was the “fight against anti-Semitism”; it had suddenly become by definition an organization “hostile to the State,” and would indeed have been persecuted—which it was not—if it had ever dared to do what it was supposed to do. During its first few years, Hitler’s rise to power appeared to the Zionists chiefly as “the decisive defeat of assimilationism.” Hence, the Zionists could, for a time, at least, engage in a certain amount of non-criminal cooperation with the Nazi authorities; the Zionists too believed that “dissimilation,” combined with the emigration to Palestine of Jewish youngsters and, they hoped, Jewish capitalists, could be a “mutually fair solution.” At the time. many German officials held this opinion, and this kind of talk seems to have been quite common up to the end. A letter from a survivor of Theresienstadt, a German Jew, relates that all leading positions in the Nazi- appointed Reichsvereinigung were held by Zionists (whereas the authentically Jewish Reichsvertretung had been composed of both Zionists and non- Zionists), because Zionists, according to the Nazis, were “the ‘decent’ Jews since they too thought in ‘national’ terms.” To be sure, no prominent Nazi ever spoke publicly in this vein; from beginning to end, Nazi propaganda was fiercely, unequivocally, uncompromisingly anti-Semitic, and eventually nothing counted but what people who were still without experience in the mysteries of totalitarian government dismissed as “mere propaganda.” There existed in those first years a mutually highly satisfactory agreement between the Nazi authorities and the Jewish Agency for Palestine—a Ha’avarah, or Transfer Agreement, which provided that an emigrant to Palestine could transfer his money there in German goods and exchange them for pounds upon arrival. It was soon the only legal way for a Jew to take his money with him (the alternative then being the establishment of a blocked account, which could be liquidated abroad only at a loss of between fifty and ninety-five per cent). The result was that ¡n the thirties, when American Jewry took great pains to organize a boycott of German merchandise, Palestine, of all places, was swamped with all kinds of goods “made in Germany.”
There's a lot more out there to demonstrate that Hitler supported Zionism from the time he came to power to the outbreak of WWII and if I remember I'll grab it and post it.

Zionists are beside themselves that what Ken Livingstone said, whilst clumsy and wrong in parts, was essentially true and certainly not antisemitic.  But of course they could have done without an exercise in Zio-Nazi collaboration getting an airing because as much as they seem to be able to get Labourites suspended with a snap of their fingers, the question has to be asked, what were the Zionists doing collaborating with such a rabid Jew hater?

They were saving Jews of course.  But were they?  See the deal.  Jews could get much more money out of Germany if they went to Palestine than if they went elsewhere.  Now if you understand Zionism then you will understand that Zionists prefer to get Jews to Palestine than to anywhere else and the Zionist leadership were clear that they would rather have x amount of Jews in Palestine the twice that number safe elsewhere.

But Hitler had to approve this deal.  Why would he approve it?  Simples! to get rid of Jews. But why Palestine?  Because it was easier.  But it wasn't easier.  Jews could go to other places.  The main difficulty was turning up penniless.  The question of why Zionists wanted Jews in Palestinian is like asking why Zionists wanted to be Zionists.  But the big question and it's still a mystery is why was Hitler so keen not simply to get rid of Jews but to get Jews to go to Palestine.

Perplexing one that and one Zionists aren't to keen to answer.  Maybe we'll never know.  But what we do know is that for a time back there, Hitler supported Zionism.

April 28, 2016

What kind of rabid antisemite would accuse an Israeli tank commander of targeting children?

Look at this quote:
She reacted like some Israeli tank commander on being confronted by a stone-throwing Palestinian.
It was over something to do with education policy and a spat between Theresa May and Michael Gove. So what's that got to do with how Israeli soldiers routinely respond to Palestinian children, ie, by killing them?  Well nothing except the person saying it was pointing out that Theresa May had overreacted or responded angrily and disproportionately.

So was it a sympathiser with the Palestinian cause ever eager to embarrass Israel at every possible turn?  Nope, it was actually Toby Young, a fanatical Zionist who simply hadn't got the hang of the Zionist project and how to promote it.  For Young, Israel's wanton disregard for Palestinian lives is something to joke or even brag about whereas your more seasoned and savvy Zionist knows to deny or justify these things to the wider public.

But Toby Young was being watched by Zionists who have got the hang of it:
Within seconds of this being broadcast, dozens of people denounced me as an "anti-semite" on Twitter. Some people felt so strongly about it, they even tracked down my email address and let me have both barrels.
And so the upshot of this throwaway line was that Young had to haul himself across the coals and denounce himself in the Jewish Chronicle.
It was supposed to be a joke, but I now recognise it was an ill-judged remark. I was appealing to a stereotype of the Israeli Defence Forces that has been put about by Israel's enemies and is completely at odds with the reality. 
Perish the thought that Israel would fire on stone-throwing children.
If there are any Israeli tank commanders reading this, men who probably risked their own lives to avoid killing civilians, I apologise. The question of the survival of the state of Israel is no laughing matter.
I did a quick scan of Toby Young's Twitter account and he hasn't stuck the boot into the hapless Naz Shah as much as he might have been expected to but then as a rabid antisemite himself how could he?

April 23, 2016

Birmingham Uni JSoc & the World Zionist Organisation: how are they related?

Well it's not easy to find on line but it can be done in three steps.  Look:

1.  Here's the Union of Jewish Students' (UJS) website.  And here's a useful infographic taken from it:

Check out JSoc number 35.  It's Birmingham University Jewish Society.

2.  Here's the World Union of Jewish Students (WUJS) website showing the UJS to be one of its "Permanent Executive Unions"

3.  And here's the WUJS website partner page showing the World Zionist Organisation as a partner and revealing that the WUJS "holds various capacities within the WZO".  See the blurb:
The World Zionist Organization is committed to promoting the Zionist idea and enterprise as vital and positive elements of contemporary Jewish life, in accordance with the principles articulated in the Jerusalem Program.  WUJS holds various capacities within the WZO, sitting on their Board of Directors as well as various internal committees.
So, there we have it.  Disappointing then that in two days there were two Guardian articles (here and here) misrepresenting the Birmingham University Jewish Society not simply as a generalist group of Jews but as the Jewish community at Birmingham University.  This was in the context of the smear campaign against NUS President elect, Malia Bouattia, who had mentioned the Jewish society (JSoc) as being among the UK's largest and the fact that it is led by Zionists.

See The Guardian's Nadia Khomami:
But her campaign was controversial due to her past anti-Zionist activism, including comments in an article where she described the University of Birmingham – with its large Jewish community – as being “something of a Zionist outpost”, and made separate claims about “Zionist-led media outlets”
And The Guardian's Richard Adams:
Bouattia’s campaign was controversial due to her past comments describing the University of Birmingham – with its large Jewish community – as being “something of a Zionist outpost”, and made separate claims about “Zionist-led media outlets”.
Malia Bouattia has insisted that she was referring to Zionist activists as the following quote makes clear:
The University of Birmingham is something of a Zionist outpost in British Higher Education. It also has the largest JSoc in the country whose leadership is dominated by Zionist activists. 
Actually by stressing that the JSoc "leadership is dominated by Zionist activists" Bouattia allowed for the fact that some of the JSoc members may not be Zionists themselves.  She certainly wasn't conflating a Zionist organisation with the "Jewish community" as Zionists themselves tend to and as The Guardian did, twice!.

April 21, 2016

The uncontroversial speech of Malia Bouattia

This is Malia Bouattia's speech that the Zios are so het up about.  Actually I think it's very good.  It simply makes the very important point that BDS in the solidarity movement and armed resistance by Palestinians aren't mutually exclusive.  The Zios are being particularly hypocritical because they denounce BDS, armed struggle and even criticism of Israel, Zionism or Zionists all as being or causing antisemitism.

But anyway here's the upload with a hat-tip to Harry's Place who I got it from:


April 19, 2016

Exaggerators, Manipulators and Arrogant Liars - Who said it and of whom?

Here's an article that first appeared in the now defunct online magazine, Cartoon Kippah.  It's by a thinking person's Zionist called Adam Wagner who is some kind of human rights barrister.  I'm not sure how he squares that circle of support for human rights and being a Zionist but the "exaggerators, manipulators and arrogant liars" comes from his own take on the infamous Fraser v UCU (PDF) debacle of late 2012/early 2013, so here is the whole article as lifted from the Jews for Justice for Palestinians website:
By Adam Wagner, Cartoon Kippah
April 05, 2013
Sometimes we need an outsider’s perspective to bring into focus uncomfortable truths about ourselves. Just before the Passover festivities, the Employment Tribunal released a 45-page judgment full of Biblical fury which did just that.
The judgment was about a legal claim brought by a maths teacher, Ronnie Fraser, against his teaching union. He claimed that the Union had harassed him in breach of equality laws due to its handling of the Israel-Palestine debate.
The full judgment can be read here (PDF). If you have any interest in Jewish communal politics and in particular how the Israel-Palestine debate is handled, I highly recommend you read it. Perhaps set aside half an hour over a well-earned post-Passover sandwich – it’s worth it, I promise.
I won’t try to summarise Employment Judge Snelson’s findings here, but I would like to draw out a few points. The main one is that the Claimant, represented by solicitor Anthony Julius, lost in a big way. This was a total, unqualified demolition job. As an outcome, it really was ten plagues bad.
The language of the judgment is harsh and at times sarcastic. As a lawyer, you can take it from me that it doesn’t get much worse than this. This was a “sorry saga”, the Tribunal “greatly regret that the case was ever brought”, at its heart the case was “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means”. Perhaps worst of all, the claim showed a “worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression.”
Let’s just step back for a moment. Just because a judge rules on something doesn’t mean they are right. Judgments get appealed and overturned. Reading this one, and not having been in court for the weeks of evidence, there are at least two possibilities. First, that the Tribunal has taken an irrational or perverse dislike to the claimant, his lawyers and some of his witnesses – that is a real possibility, given how scathing the judgment is. The second is, however, is that the Tribunal has got it broadly right, having listened to the extensive evidence and nonetheless dismissed the case out of hand.
As I said, I wasn’t there – this is an evidence heavy case so you really have to have sat through it to reach a proper conclusion. But assuming for the purpose of this article that the Tribunal did get it right, there is a lot here to be worried about.
Let’s take just a single paragraph, number 148. Here the Judge is summarising his conclusions on the claimant’s witnesses who included British Jewish luminaries such as the author Howard Jacobson. Some gave “careful, thoughtful, courteous evidence”. Others however, “seemed more disposed to score points or play to the gallery rather than providing straightforward answers to the clear questions put to them.” Again, ouch.
Particular criticism was reserved for Jeremy Newmark, the Chief Executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, a committee of community grandees:
We regret to say that we have rejected as untrue the evidence of Ms Ashworth and Mr Newmark concerning the incident at the 2008 Congress… Evidence given to us about booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers at Congress debates was also false, as truthful witnesses on the Claimant’s side accepted. One painfully ill-judged example of playing to the gallery was Mr Newmark’s preposterous claim, in answer to the suggestion in cross- examination that he had attempted to push his way into the 2008 meeting, that a ‘pushy Jew’ stereotype was being applied to him. The opinions of witnesses were not, of course, our concern and in most instances they were in any event unremarkable and certainly not unreasonable. One exception was a remark of Mr Newmark in the context of the academic boycott controversy in 2007 that the union was “no longer a fit arena for free speech”, a comment which we found not only extraordinarily arrogant but also disturbing.
Wow. Here are some words you never want to hear in litigation: “untrue”, “false”, “preposterous”, “extraordinarily arrogant”, “disturbing”. To recap, this is the Chief Executive of an organisation which is arguably now the main ambassador of the Jewish Community to the wider British community. This may all be unfair and perverse, but if it is not then we should be worried about the implications.
Then came the MPs. Not just any MPs, but Denis MacShane and John Mann, both well known to the Jewish community; Mr MacShane chaired the The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, Mann authored the Football Association Taskforce on Tackling Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Again, it’s bad:
We did not derive assistance from the two Members of Parliament who appeared before us. Both gave glib evidence, appearing supremely confident of the rightness of their positions. For Dr MacShane, it seemed that all answers lay in the MacPherson Report (the effect of which he appeared to misunderstand). Mr Mann could manage without even that assistance. He told us that the leaders of the Respondents were at fault for the way in which they conducted debates but did not enlighten us as to what they were doing wrong or what they should be doing differently. He did not claim ever to have witnessed any Congress or other UCU meeting. And when it came to anti- Semitism in the context of debate about the Middle East, he announced, “It’s clear to me where the line is …” but unfortunately eschewed the opportunity to locate it for us. Both parliamentarians clearly enjoyed making speeches. Neither seemed at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking.
As I said, wow. These are MPs who have been lionised by the Jewish community, and in particular the Jewish Chronicle (perhaps not incidentally, Anthony Julius chairs the JC board, a point highlighted by the Judge). ”And on the topic of that Parliamentary Committee”
157… The Respondents defended themselves courteously but robustly against treatment by the Parliamentary Committee the fairness of which was, to put it at its very lowest, open to question.
The sarcasm drips off that final sentence, doesn’t it? Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that contrary to the claimant’s arguments, the Union’s meetings were “well-ordered and balanced” and that almost the entire case was “manifestly unmeritorious”. Most importantly, the Tribunal rejected out of hand the argument that “a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel or any similar sentiment” can amount to a protected characteristic.
Lessons not learned
Where does this leave us? It is tempting to see this “sorry saga” as no more than an unfortunate and hubristic litigation fail, or an “act of epic folly” as the Jewish Chronicle’s ‘Ask the QC’ QC Jonathan Goldberg commented. But I think there are wider lessons here which we would ignore at our peril.
Anyone who follows Jewish communal politics and reads the JC will recognise many in the cast of characters as well as the arguments. Anti-Zionist or pro-Palestinian campaigners are regularly branded as anti-Semites. Despite the good work of organisations like Yachad, this is still a regular and well-supported narrative at the centre of much of the Jewish communal response to criticism of Israel. But that approach – which really amounts to communal comfort food – has clearly failed. And yet it is still wheeled out: watch, for example, this stirring but flawed recent speech by the Chief Rabbi to AIPAC, an American pro-Israel lobby. They hate us, so they would say that. Etc.
Of course, some criticism of Israel is linked to or motivated by anti-Semitism, but isn’t it time to stop using vast resources to paint legitimate debate as racial hatred? As well as failing miserably as an pro-Israel argument, this approach also risks fatally undermining work against real anti-Semitism. Aren’t we just a little bit ashamed for major communal leaders and organisations to have backed a claim showing a “disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression”?
In a prediction of Michael Fish quality, the JC originally said of the case that unless UCU repented its “clear antisemitic behaviour”:
we could be set for this decade’s version of the Irving trial – a specific case which acts to crystallise broader themes and issues
It certainly did crystallise broader themes and issues. But not the ones the cheerleaders hoped for. As said above, it is possible that this Tribunal reached a perverse decision. No doubt some will say so once the recriminations begin to fly. I imagine some will even accuse the Judge of anti-Semitism. But assuming for a moment that he was right, we should, as a community, be embarrassed by this ruling. It involved not just the looney fringe but central figures in the community, who have been branded exaggerators, manipulators and arrogant liars. More importantly, the ‘anti-Zionism equals racism’ argument is plainly bankrupt and has no purchase in wider society. We should move on to something which might actually work. And that is the lesson of this sorry Passover saga.
Adam (@adamwagner1) is a barrister specialising in human rights & medical law. He is founding editor of UK Human Rights Blog….”

April 15, 2016

Zios' campaign defaming Anti-Zionist activists is "making Jews something of a laughing stock" and worse....

Here's a good couple of letters in today's Jewish Chronicle by Tony Klug and a chap called Andy Coombes.  The JC doesn't publish letters online so here's a pic I snaffled from Ben White's tweet:

Curiously the JC hasn't gone in too hard on named individuals like The Telegraph and Times did in the case of Tony Greenstein, only to find themselves humiliatingly having to retract.  It's also curious that the JC has allowed any criticism of its own sheer dishonesty. 

Given that both the letters focus on what is most obvious to anyone which is simply the dishonesty and exaggeration, it's gratifying that Tony Klug has touched on a very important aspect of specifically Jewish anti-Zionist activism: the question of inter-community relations.  Zionist have been trying for a few years to get Jewish supremacy recognised as a protected characteristic of being Jewish above ethnicity and religion.  That is, they claim their Zionist ideology or their support for Israel to be an integral part of their identity. Given the obviously racist nature of their ideology this means placing the Jewish identity above others; a disaster for community relations.  Now look at Tony Klug's words:
The incessant campaign is drowning rational thought and analysis and making Jews something of a laughing stock in the wider public, especially among the young and other demographics with their own serious problems.
Yes, Zios are making Jews look like a bunch of Woody Allens (when he used to be funny) but the impact of their dishonest racist antics is harmful to community relations and that's no laughing matter.

March 31, 2016

Stop the Jewish National Fund Campaign

Stop the Jewish National Fund Campaign

Stop the JNF
Stop the Jewish National Fund is an international campaign aimed at ending the role of the Jewish National Fund (Keren Kayemet LeIsrael/JNF-KKL) in the on-going displacement of indigenous Palestinians from their land, the theft of their property, the funding of historic and present day colonies, and the destruction of the natural environment.

The JNF continues to serve as a global fundraiser for Israeli ethnic cleansing, occupation and apartheid. Despite its historic role in a State institution of Israel (the Israel Land Authority) and in institutionalized racism and apartheid, the JNF and its affiliate organizations enjoy charitable status in over 50 countries and many also enjoy consultative status with the United Nations. In addition to the ongoing struggles against the JNF-KKL in Palestine, the campaign is underway in Canada, France, Britain, South Africa and the United States.

The film Enduring Roots: Over a Century of Resistance to the Jewish National Fund directed by Alex Safron details the history and workings of the Jewish National Fund as well as historic and ongoing Palestinian resistance to the colonization of their land. Click here for more information or to arrange a screening.

Download Stop the Jewish National Fund E-Book: Volume 4:

Plant-a-Tree in Palestine: a joint project of the Middle East Children’s Alliance, Stop the Wall, the Palestinian Farmer’s Union, and the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network.

Visit Fallen Donors Renounce Our Role in the JNF to see powerful testimony from former donors about why they now commit to exposing and confronting the JNF.

Stop The JNF Days of Action 2016

Category: Stop the Jewish National Fund Campaign ,
The Stop the JNF Campaign is calling for activists for Palestinian rights to take action between March 30 (Land Day) and April 18 (Tax Day) to amplify efforts targeting the Jewish National Fund for its role in the ongoing displacement of Palestinians from their land. The JNF enjoys tax-exempt status as a charitable organization in… Read more »

March 21, 2016

Mohammed Assaf at the Barbican 10.04.2016

Mohammed Assaf Performs At The Barbican Centre London April 2016 

محبوب العرب في لندن

Mohammed AssafBarbican 10.04.16 

Palestine’s biggest pop star sings material from his newest album alongside familiar favourites from his time on TV talent show, Arab Idol.

Produced by the Barbican in association with Marsm
His songs vary from ballads of faith and freedom – effortlessly sung with immense power, to syncopated, shuffling pop, heavily influenced by the Egyptian dance music scene and backed by swirling strings and percussion.

His rags-to-riches story, reminiscent of a Hollywood block buster, has been made into a film, The Idol, released in 2015, but it’s his raw talent and sincerity which really makes his appeal international.

Zionist Reaction starts to devour Labour Party's Jewish Children

The clearly Zionist inspired antisemitism hysteria arising out of one antisemitic tweet and one antisemitic blog post has claimed its first Jewish victim.  Tony Greenstein has now been suspended by the Labour Party by way of a Kafkaesque letter:
Dear Mr Greenstein

Notice of administrative suspension from holding office or representing the Labour Party

Allegations that you may have been involved in a breach of Labour Party rules have been brought to the attention of national officers of the Party. These allegations relate to comments you are alleged to have made which will be investigated under 2.1.8 of the party's rules. It is important that these allegations are investigated and the NEC will be asked to authorise a full report to be drawn up with recommendations for disciplinary action if appropriate.

I write to give you formal notice that it has been determined that the powers given to the NEC under 6.1.1.A of the Party's rules should be invoked to suspend you from office or representation of the party*, pending the outcome of an internal Party investigation.

In view of the urgency to protect the Party's reputation in the present situation the General Secretary has determined to use powers delegated to him under Clause V111.5 of the constitutional rules of the party to impose this suspension forthwith, subject to the approval of the next meeting of the NEC. Because of the nature of the allegations received and concerns that your presence at branch meetings may be detrimental to the Party, while subject to this administrative suspension, you cannot attend any party meetings including your own branch meeting and Annual Conference and you cannot seek office within the Party or be considered for selection as a candidate to represent the Labour Party at an election at any level** .

The General Secretary has appointed Harry Gregson, Acting Regional Director, to arrange conduct of the Party's own investigation and you will be contacted by him in due course with details as to how he intends to proceed with enquiries.

It is hoped you will offer your full co-operation to the Party in resolving this matter.

Yours sincerely

John Stolliday
Head of Constitutional Unit

c.c. Brighton, Kemptown CLP Secretary
South East Regional Labour Party

* In relation to any alleged breach of the constitution, rules or standing orders of the party by an individual member or members of the party, the NEC may, pending the final outcome of any investigation and charges (if any), suspend that individual or individuals from office or representation of the party notwithstanding the fact that the individual concerned has been or may be eligible to be selected as a candidate in any election or by-election. (Disciplinary Rules, Clause 6.1.1.A)

** A 'suspension' of a member whether by the NEC in pursuance of 1 above or by the NCC in imposing a disciplinary penalty, unless otherwise defined by that decision, shall require the membership rights of the individual member concerned to be confined to participation in their own branch meetings, unless the reason for the suspension in part or in full is their conduct in party meetings or there are concerns that their presence at branch meetings may be detrimental to the Party, and activities as an ordinary member only and in ballots of all individual members where applicable. A suspended member shall not be eligible to seek any office in the party, nor shall s/he be eligible for nomination to any panel of prospective candidates nor to represent the party in any position at any level. The member concerned will not be eligible to attend any CLP meeting other than to fulfil the requirement to participate in ballots, (Disciplinary rules, Clause 6.1.3)

March 18, 2016

Zionists admit to redefining antisemitism to suit themselves

Look at this in the Jewish News, which claims to be Britain's biggest Jewish Newspaper:
The Board of Deputies has said anti-Israel sentiment should be classed as anti-Semitism and called for a new European Union definition of Jew hatred to reflect it.
So opposition to an essentially racist state should now be considered antisemitic.  And yet zionists always denied this with regard to the discredited and ditched EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism.

But what's this further down the article:
The current Working Definition of Anti-Semitism was created by the EU’s Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) to guide law enforcement agencies, but has no legal basis.
 I've posted a comment pointing out their error:
The so-called EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism was not created by the EUMC but foisted on it by the American Jewish Committee. It was hosted on the EUMC website without comment for some time before being removed as part of a "clear out of "non-official" documents. The BBC made this clear to me in an email back in 2013. Here's a fuller quote: 
the so-called “working definition of anti-semitism” referred to in the finding and cited by the complainant was published on the website of the EU Monitoring Committee for Racism and Xenophobia in 2005. This body was replaced by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (the FRA) in 2007. A press officer at the FRA has explained that this was a discussion paper and was never adopted by the EU as a working definition, although it has been on the FRA website until recently when it was removed during a clear out of “non-official” documents. The link to the FRA site provided by the complainant in his appeal no longer works.
Of course you should run a correction.
Let's see if they run a correction.  I'm guessing they won't because zionists seem to set great store on the idea that the bogus document came from the EU itself.  Zionist university professor, Robert Fine made the false claim in his own European Sociological Association journal and another zionist academic, Ben Gidley (Bob from Brockley blog) knowingly made the same false claim in a report to the ludicrous bunch of chancers known as the All-Party Parliamentary Committee (or was it sub-committee) on "Antisemitism".

Anyway, at least the zios are now admitting to wanting to change the definition of what was anti-Jewish racism to protect Israel and its official racist ideology of Zionism and their supporters.

UPDATE: I checked at 19:20 to see if Jewish News had corrected their error and unfortunately my comment has disappeared.  I've reposted it. I thought they weren't supposed to work on the sabbath but maybe they deleted the comment before sundown.

Another day another bogus conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism

This time it's Dr David Hirsh in the Jewish Chronicle.  Dr Hirsh always used to deny being a Zionist but I never did work out how he differs from one nor do I recall him ever setting out a definition of Zionism that excluded himself.  But here he is on the Jewish Chronicle website happily denouncing anti-Zionism or opposition to Israel as being antisemitic, not simply leading to antisemitism which used to be his schtick:
Hostility to Israel is partly caused by antisemitism and is also itself a cause of further antisemitism.
Oh look, "partly".  So "Hostility to Israel is partly caused by antisemitism".  Only partly?  So what about the other parts of hostility to Israel?  Might they be caused by Israel's existence as a racist state based on colonial settlement, ethnic cleansing, segregationist laws and relentless violence towards non-Jewish natives and neighbours of Palestine?  Hirsh doesn't say, not in this article anyway.

Hirsh's latest masterpiece also appears on his own Engage website but not on the Israel lobby group BICOM's Fathom website.  Maybe he missed the deadline.

March 17, 2016

Robert Finally gets to the point

There's a book review on the Engage website, written by Zionist sociology lecturer, Robert Fine, about a book called The Definition of Anti-Semitism by a Kenneth Marcus.  Now I'm guessing that a book on antisemitism praised by Robert Fine must conflate antisemitism and anti-Zionism.  And look at this:
Marcus endorses the view that if in the past the most dangerous antisemites wanted to make the world Judenrein, free of Jews, perhaps today the most dangerous antisemites want to make the world Judenstaatrein, free of a Jewish state.
There you go.  It took him several paragraphs to get to the point he was bound to make but he gets there towards the end.

As it happens, Fine is wrong here.  Judenstaat doesn't actually mean Jewish State, it means Jews' State, ie, a state specially for the world's Jews as in The State of Israel.  I always suspect that when Zionists call Israel, a Jewish state they are making out it just happens to have a Jewish majority but the difference between Jewish State and Jews' State is significant.

Clearly a state that is for the world's Jews is discriminatory at best and may even have to tinker with the "demographics" like by ethnically cleansing some people (non-Jews) and giving privileged access to others (Jews). Opposition to such a state is anti-racist, not antisemitic, but for Fine and this Marcus chap, it is the most dangerous form of antisemitism. Why?  Well, I didn't get that far.  I just wanted to point out that here is a prominent academic having yet another go at conflating the perfectly legitimate demand for the abolition of Jewish supremacist statehood with racism against Jews.

I'm starting to get nervous about what horrors the racist war criminals of the illegitimate Zionist entity are planning to inflict on the Palestinians sometime soon.  It's usually at times like those that the Zios crank up the false allegations of antisemitism.  Or maybe it's just that intellectually dishonest chancers like Fine have devoted so much of their time and energy and staked so much of their professional reputations on this bogus conflation they don't know how to do anything else.