Paul Eisen

Paul Eisen

Tuesday, 18 June 2013

Poor old PSC!

I was never much of a PSC member. I was on the roll but that was only because if you were anything in Palestinian solidarity well, you had to be in the PSC. But I never got involved. Basically all that politburo-style activism just bored me.

But when I was accused of Holocaust denial (guilty) and anti-Semitism (not entirely innocent) there were moves to expel me. Well, they didn't expel me but only because, before they got round to it, I resigned. I simply couldn't take any more.

But I was only the first. After me came many more - some mentioned in the piece below and referenced here, here, here, here and here.

The piece below, which appeared on a website called "Stand For Peace" (ha, ha)  has recently been circulated but it's made the rounds before. It's complete and utter hogwash of course but it, and pieces like it, always cause the PSC leadership to panic. More urgent meetings (called by 'anti-Zionist Jews), more resolutions (moved by 'anti-Zionist Jews), more crawling (to 'anti-Zionist Jews') and more expulsions (for 'anti-Zionist' Jews).

It didn't work then and it won't work now. As Winston Churchill said to someone-or-other something like "You had to choose between dishonour and war. You chose dishonour but you will still have war."

Poor old PSC!

Palestine Solidarity Campaign

What is the PSC?

The Perception

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign claims on its website that it was created to “promote solidarity with the Palestinian people…to promote Palestinian civil society in the interests of democratic rights and social justice…in opposition to racism, including anti-Jewish prejudice”.

The PSC employs a liberal and democratic narrative to advocate its message, and portrays itself as an organisation committed to supporting human rights. We believe the reality to be very different. See for yourself.

The Facts

The BBC describes the PSC as a ‘radical’ organisation noted for its support of terror groups. This website is the first of its kind to examine comprehensively the activities of the PSC and to highlight the moral disparities between the public rhetoric of the organisation and its links to supremacist organisations, promotion of racist and homophobic hate speech and the endemic culture of incitement to violence that we believe is institutionalised within the PSC.

By running a powerful network of groups across the country, the PSC regularly provides a platform to homophobic and racist speakers. One recent example detailed in this website is the radical hate preacher Raed Salah. When confronted with numerous examples of Salah’s bigotry, the PSC launched a campaign entitled “Justice for Raed Salah” – demonstrating that while the PSC’s narrative is cloaked in human rights discourse, it is more than happy to condone bigotry and hate speech that actively undermine the human rights of others.

The PSC’s support for racism and violence goes far beyond merely propagating the views of guest speakers; PSC members have repeatedly espoused virulently racist views – rhetoric almost identical to that encouraged by far-right organizations.

In December 2009, at a PSC event, one attendee named John Sullivan referred to Jews as “evil” and “parasites”. PSC member and Green Party candidate Pippa Bartolotti recently visited Syria and was photographed waving the swastika of the SSNP (Syrian Social Nationalist Party), a group which is so unapologetic about its Nazism and racist aims, that members greet one another with a Heil Hitler salute. This year at a PSC rally, protesters screamed “Khybar al Yahud”, which refers to the battle of Khybar in which thousands of Jews were massacred.

But the PSC’s bigotry is not confined merely to racism – the organisation is also accused of homophobia. In 2006, Outrage, an organization that campaigns for gay rights around the world, attended a PSC event at which they raised concerns about the systematic brutalization and murder of gay people in Gaza and the Disputed Territories. They were subsequently attacked en-masse by PSC members and the violence was condemned by noted gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.

The failure of the PSC leadership to condemn the activities of its core members, while at the same time providing national platform for fascist ideologues such as Salah, is indicative of, at best, toleration of such ideas; and at worst, endorsement.

It is our opinion that the examples provided in this website demonstrate that the PSC is an extremist, racist organisation, which tolerates homophobia and other forms of illiberalism. Well-meaning organizations that collaborate with the PSC on the basis of a presumed mutual belief in human rights, democracy and peace, should be informed of the PSC’s true nature; all political and human rights organisations that wish to demonstrate probity should take steps to distance themselves from the PSC’s anti-peace and counter-cohesive message.


Who is Behind the PSC?

Founded in 1982, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) states that its purpose is to promote “peace and justice for the Palestinian people”. It claims a membership of around four and a half thousand members. The PSC is operated by an executive committee of twenty persons which maintains forty regional groups across England and Wales, and has independent groups in both Scotland and Ireland.

The Palestinian issue has long been an obsession of both the far-Left and far-Right. Inevitably, some collaboration between the two has occurred. The International Marxist Group claims it was the principal actor in the formation of the PSC. Additionally, activists from the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) were involved in the early stages of the PSC, and in the 1990s, the SWP had become a leading component of the organisation.

Former IMG and Socialist Action (SA) activists increased their presence with in the PSC in the late 1990s. Two members of the current PSC Executive, Betty Hunter and Bernard Regan, were IMG members. In addition, two of the four PSC employees have been active within the SA’s ranks.

The PSC engages in a great deal of political lobbying, and regularly appeals to both British and EU politicians. It manages a group of MPs who coordinate their activities and raise relevant issues in Parliament – working to bring those putatively responsible for “war crimes” to justice, lobbying government to ban the import of settlement goods, and demanding an end to Britain’s arms trade with Israel. The PSC also calls upon the EU to suspend its Association Agreements with Israel.

As mentioned, the PSC is not just present on the far-Left, but it has worked with individuals and groups that we believe to espouse fascist ideologies; including far-Right activist Paul Eisen, and groups such as the British Muslim Initiative and Friends of Al-Aqsa. Additionally, leading members of the PSC have been linked to political parties such as the Syrian pro-Nazi SSNP.

The Scottish PSC is less careful than its English counterpart to hide its true colours. One example among many is an article published by its chair, Mick Napier, after the terrorist attack on the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva in Jerusalem in March 2008, in which critics argue that Napier vindicated the murder of the students and suggested Jews steal Palestinian organs – an invocation of the ancient European blood libel.


On the left: Martin Linton MP, who referred to the ‘long tentacles‘ of Zionism controlling the electoral system – a conspiracy theory also propagated by the Nazis. Right: Baroness Tonge, who called for an enquiry into ridiculous claims that Israeli Jews helping after the earthquake in Haiti were stealing organs from Haitian children – another invocation of the ancient anti-Jewish blood libel.


Anti-Semitism


Holocaust Denial and Jewish Power Conspiracy

Ellie Merton, chair of Waltham Forest PSC, appears to have no qualms with open anti-Semitism. Merton is a strong supporter of the infamous anti-Jewish, pro-terror Ken O’Keefe and his ‘Road to Hope’ convoy, which was strongly supportive of the recently deposed government of Libyan dictator Gaddafi.

The website of Waltham Forest PSC recommends, and links to, the notorious Deir Yassin Remembered website, an organisation heavily criticised for its promotion of Holocaust denial.

Merton has claimed that the brutal murders in Norway by Anders Breivik were part of a conspiracy by the Israeli government.

Gill Kaffash is the former Secretary of the Camden branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Here are her comments to Iranian news agency IRNA about the Holocaust:

“There is no doubt that a great number of Jews along with other victims of the Nazi army were killed by Hitler. However, historical phenomena need to be further examined to uncover the truth. Therefore banning opposition to the theses termed as `invariable reality` is irrational.”

Paul Eisen has noted that while he was supporting Holocaust denial within the PSC, Kaffash provided ‘solidarity’, as noted in his essay, ‘My Life as a Holocaust Denier’.

Cliff Hanley is the former Chair and Secretary of Bristol PSC. His blog refers to the infamous Holocaust Denier Anthony Lawson and states that both 9/11 and Wikileaks are part of a Jewish conspiracy. Furthermore, he has sent messages to the Bristol PSC mailing list on how the ‘Jewish lobby works’.

Sammi Ibrahem was chair of the West Midlands PSC, and runs an anti-Jewish website called Shoah.org.uk. Ibrahem is not a Holocaust denier; rather, and far more shockingly, he supports the Nazi attempt to eradicate the Jewish people. Ibrahem has voiced his admiration for the Nazi regime and poured scorn on Jewish holocaust victims. Here, he laments the trials of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg:

“I bow my head in reverence to those who were judicially murdered at Nuremberg. They were the world’s martyrs, not villains. Not one of them would have been condemned to death in a fair trial – not one! They sacrificed an entire nation, and in the end themselves, to save Western civilization. They were defeated by thugs in robes and gangsters in uniform – and by the conspiracies hatched by shysters from the ghettos of Eastern Europe.”

The Scottish branch of the PSC offers a free book to all new members: Shlomo Sand’s The Invention of the Jewish People – a book whose central argument is that the Jewish people, as a single collectivity, do not exist. They recently supported Paul Donnachie, a student at St. Andrews University in Scotland, who was charged and found guilty of racially abusing a Jewish student. Despite the ruling, the SPSC continue to voice their support for Donnachie’s actions.

Norwich PSC had an article on its website that claimed that the function of the Holocaust Educational Trust was: “maintaining a culture of gentile guilt and Jewish victimhood in British schools.”


The Liverpool PSC website includes a page titled “The Power of Zionists“. The first item under this headline is this cartoon, showing a Jewish man with a hooked nose and a Star of David flag, ordering an American soldier to fight a war.

According to one report, in 2007 this sticker was distributed in the United States by the neo-Nazi group White Aryan Resistance (WAR), and may have actually been produced by them. It is still available for download from the WAR website on a page of extremely offensive antisemitic cartoons (under the heading, “Kikes“).

Liverpool PSC has also suggested that there are too many Jews in Parliament.


“Khybar, Khybar al-Yahud”

In 2011, a protest outside the Israeli embassy, partly organised by the PSC, had the crowds waving Hezbollah and Hamas flags – groups that have both declared their wish to eradicate the Jewish people from the face of the earth.

The crowds chanted ‘Khybar, Khybar al-Yahud’. Al-Yahud is Arabic for ‘the Jews’, and Khybar is in reference to the ancient slaughter of the Jewish tribe in Medina. In other words: Slaughter the Jews.

At 5 mins 20:


“Jews are parasites…evil…vindictive”

In December 2009, the PSC held an event in Bloomsbury. A number of activists turned up who espoused a far-right supremacist mindset. Captured on video, a man who identifies himself as John Sullivan (left) stated “Everybody knows what a nasty, unpleasant people Jewish people are in England…you are parasites…you’re cruel, unpleasant people…Jewish people, if you look through history are vindictive, probably evil…f*** off back to Israel.”

Support for Hamas

The PSC has openly and repeatedly made clear its support for Hamas. In October 2010, PSC representatives met with Mahmoud Al-Zahar, a Hamas leader in Gaza, who has made deeply homophobic and anti-Semitic comments.

In January 2009, he called for the killing of Jewish children “all over the world” and in an interview published by Reuters on 28 October 2010, he attacked the West for supporting Israel, saying “you do not live like human beings. You do not [even] live like animals. You accept homosexuality”. On 29 July 2011 Zahar said “we are not going to accept Israel as the owner of one square centimetre because it is a fabricated state.”

The list of examples could go on and on. To make our point, let’s take a look at just one PSC branch, based in York, whose senior members include staff from the University of York.



In 2009, Andrew Collingwood, a PSC activist, published photos of a protest in which he was involved, including one of a placard that featured a witch with accentuated Jewish features, which posited that anti-Semitism is a made-up concept.

In response to criticisms from anti-racism groups, Collingwood, a well-known member of the infamous York branch of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign suggested that accusations of anti-Semitism were a result of political chicanery.

The former Chairman and current Secretary; of the same branch, Terry Gallogly, encouraged members of his mailing list to distort a poll in a Jewish newspaper discussing the problems of the violent English Defence League in order to paint British Jews as racists. Leading PSC activist Tony Greenstein applauded Gallogly for this attempted smear.



Gallogly, also a member of the national executive of the Palestine Solidarity Committee, was part responsible for a visit to the University of York by the infamous Aharon Cohen of the extremist sect Neturei Karta in 2007. The previous year, Cohen had stated that the Holocaust victims “deserved it”.

Furthermore, the previous chair, Stephen Leah, helped produce a report that promoted the writings of the Christian Far Right author Stephen Sizer, who has been condemned for his links to Holocaust deniers.

In 2004 a vigil was held at Clifford’s Tower to commemorate the terrible massacre of Jews in 1190. This was gatecrashed by PSC activists, who saw fit to exploit the massacre of more than 110 Jews with their own political agitprop.


Support for the Far-Right

Scottish PSC member John Wight recently provided links to an extremist far-right website called codoh.com – the ‘Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust’ on the Engage website. Wight has said:

“As soon as the scales fall from the eyes of international Jewry with regard to the racist and fascist ideology that is Zionism, the world will begin to emerge from the iron heel of war and brutality in the Middle East.”

Similarly, Edinburgh PSC chair Mike Napier has referenced a number of neo-Nazi websites in an article vindicating the murder of eight Jewish students.

Endorsement of the far-right and overt anti-semitism now appears commonplace within the PSC. Reading PSC member Anthony Gratrex recently wrote:

“You state that the jews do not control the media but that it is under self censorship. This is patently wrong and only a cursory glance using the internet will show that a majority of the media is Jewish owned or controlled. During the interview you use the expression “who pays the piper calls the tune” and that is precisely the problem when one considers who controls the international banking system.”

Infamous lunatic Gilad Atzmon is also a favourite of many PSC members. Atzmon claims that Fagin and Shylock accurately represent Jewish identity, the credit crunch was caused by the Jews, the Holocaust is a religion, and Hitler may be proved right about the Jews. These are some of his latest arguments, but he has been critical of what he sees as “Jewish” politics for quite some time now, envisaging a “Zio-Punch” causing the credit crunch, and a Jewish lobby in Germany that provoked the Nazis into fighting back.

Atzmon’s fans include Tony Gratrex of Reading PSC, Dave Chappell of Exeter PSC and Cliff Hanley of Bristol PSC (Hanley himself is also a big fan of notorious Holocaust denier Anthony Lawson)

In 2011, The PSC voted down a motion opposing Atzmon’s friends, far-right Holocaust deniers Paul Eisen and Israel Shamir.

Tony Gosling, resident far-Right lunatic (and homophobe) of Bristol PSC, believes that we shouldn’t doubt the authenticity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a Russian forgery about Jews supposedly trying to take over the world (and used by the Nazis to justify their attempt to eradicate the Jewish people).

Gosling also believes the Bilderberg Group is a sinister attempt by Jews to run the world – an invocation of the most ancient ‘power-grabbing’ anti-semitic tropes.

Leading PSC member and Green Party candidate Pippa Bartolotti has been photographed with PSC memorabilia while holding the flag of the Syrian neo-Nazi group, the SSNP.

Run by fundamentalist Christians and founded in 1932, the same year that the Nazi party won 230 seats in the Reichstag, the SSNP is one of the oldest fascist parties in the Middle East, and – as The Atlantic has noted – the group pays frequent homage to the 1930s European Nazism:


“They greet their leaders with a Hitlerian salute; sing their Arabic anthem, “Greetings to You, Syria,” to the strains of “Deutschland, Deutschland über alles”; and throng to the symbol of the red hurricane, a swastika in circular motion.

These are the hallmarks of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP), the oldest terrorist organization in existence today and one of the most secret and deadly. Despite its long history of violence, Western security organs were recently taken by surprise when they learned that a well-camouflaged arm of the SSNP had succeeded in setting up a large terror network in Western Europe—complete with safe houses, weapons caches, and forged passports—and that it was the SSNP that had set off a series of deadly explosions in the heart of Paris, to gain the release of Georges Ibrahim Abdallah. The United States, too, has felt the effects of the SSNP. The explosion aboard a TWA flight nearing Athens in April of 1986, which cost the lives of four passengers—one of them an infant—has been traced to May Mansur, of Tripoli, a veteran member of the SSNP, who debarked at a previous stopover afterplacing a bomb under her seat.”

Evangelical Fundamentalism

Stephen Sizer is a regular speaker at PSC events, most recently at the York and Reading branches. He went to Iran in 2006, where he joined hands with Zahra Mostafavi, the daughter of murderous dictator Ayatollah Khomeini.

[/image_gallery]

By his own admission, Sizer was invited to Iran by Mostafavi. His tour was organised by the head of the NEDA Institute, Dr. Jawad Shabarf. The NEDA institute has previously called on the services of Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson to help organise the Iranian Holocaust denial conference.

Sizer endorses various anti-gay statements by conservative churchmen, and recommends the website of True Freedom Trust, an organisation which teaches that gay people should repress their sexuality and remain celibate for the rest of their lives.

Sizer and his church have endorsed the ‘Jerusalem Declaration’, a document produced by the 2008 Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), which brought together Western and African hardline clerics fixated on homosexuality. GAFCON led to the formation of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA), an organisation supported by ‘Stephen… [one of] our ordained pastors’.

The FCA produced a document entitled, Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today. This paper launched an attack on the sin of ‘innovation’ in Christianity (p.18) and on the usual suspects – ‘the forces of militant secularism and pluralism’ (p.3). It states that its objective is ‘bringing every aspect of our culture under the authority of Scripture’ (p.31). Being Faithful states that ’same-sex attractions’ are ‘an expression of disobedience to God and his good purposes for human beings’, that gay people have ‘made’ a ‘false identity’ for themselves ‘instead of accepting the identity given by God’, and that gay relationships are ‘distortions of God’s original intention’ which, ‘by ignoring God’s creational intention … continue the brokenness of relationships’ (pp.53-54). ‘Homosexual practice’, the FCA claim, ‘is offensive’ (p.62).

Sizer describes himself as an ‘active member of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. The PSC has never sought to distance itself from Sizer or condemned his views; in fact, they invited him to speak at the PSC’s 2011 conference.

Why does the PSC work with anti-gay Christian fundamentalists?


Homophobia

Tony Gosling, darling of the Bristol PSC, told the Muslim News he was “personally disgusted” by books that teach about homosexual relationships: “No way should kids be indoctrinated in this way. Anyone who says so is branded as homophobic which they are not; it’s the gay mafia in full swing.”

Peter Tatchell, the gay rights activist, has voiced his anger at the homophobia apparent in the PSC:

… members of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) – are questioning the right of the queer activist group OutRage! to fight back against the officially-sanctioned persecution of queers in the Palestinian-controlled areas of Gaza and the West Bank.

According to the PSC, OutRage! is “attempting to defame” the Palestine solidarity movement and is “damaging the cause of solidarity with Palestinians”. In particular, it objected to OutRage! revealing how PSC officials and stewards had attempted to silence criticism of Palestinian homophobia.

But we also called for an end to the torture and murder of lesbians and gays by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA). Our placards additionally read, “Palestine: Stop persecuting queers”.

It was never our intention to disrupt the PSC rally or create a commotion. We had a small, low-key presence. Our aim was to raise awareness. We wanted to alert supporters of Palestine, in the hope they would help us pressure the Palestinian leadership to halt its oppression of queers.

What turned a minor presence into a major incident was the repressive response of the PSC organisers and stewards. They surrounded us, ordering us to the back of the demonstration. When we refused, they blocked out our placards with their own, obscuring our message. PSC officials also shouted us down, preventing us talking with journalists and other protesters who wanted to find out more about the suffering of queers in Palestine.

The PSC now denies this intimidation and censorship took place. But it was filmed by a Channel 4 documentary maker, Darren Lewey, and photographed by four professionals, including the respected left-wing and pro-Palestine photographer Paul Mattsson. They all corroborate OutRage!’s version of events.

In a bid to deflect criticism, the PSC has issued a statement saying it opposes homophobia. Fine words. But what has it actually done to challenge the violent homophobia of the PLO, Hamas and PA? I wrote to the PSC nine years ago, asking them to urge the PLO to stop killing queers. The PSC did nothing. I emailed the PSC office six weeks ago requesting dialogue. They never replied.

The PSC accuses OutRage! of damaging solidarity with the Palestinians. That’s right PSC, blame the people who defend the victims, and let the oppressors off the hook.

In addition to Tatchell’s experience, the PSC has a long history of supporting groups who preach an extreme hatred of homosexuals. Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the iERA are both extremist groups for whose speakers the PSC has provided a platform. Tzortzis believes homosexuality should be criminalised.


Inciting Violence

In early 2011, a Facebook page appeared calling for renewed violence in the Palestinian territories. The page contained the text: “Judgment Day will be brought upon us only once the Muslims have killed all of the Jews.” The page had more than 340,000 fans. The first two intifadas claimed thousands of Palestinian and Israeli lives, many of whom were murdered by terrorist attacks. The PSC joined the cacophony of extremist voices calling for a renewal of such ‘resistance’.



Following a great deal of support from pro-violence movements for a Third Intifada, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign helped organise a rally in favour. As if this rejection of the peace process and support for violent struggle is not terrifying enough to the non-partisan observer, there were recorded instances of chants referencing the slaughter of Jews and voicing support for Hezbollah, the Lebanese terrorist organisation.

At 5 mins 20 in the video below, the crowds chanted ‘Khybar, Khybar al-Yahud’ . al-Yahud is Arabic for ‘the Jews’, and Khybar is in reference to the ancient slaughter of the Jewish tribe in Medina. Although one protestor was arrested, none was charged for the organised screaming that encouraged the murder of the Jewish people.


Opposition to Peace

The PSC’s critics charge it with failing to be pro-Palestinian, and rather solely anti-Israel. Its obsession with Israel is well-documented, but does the PSC take steps to actively endanger peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict?

TRADE UNIONS

The PSC’s own website notes that it “works closely with trade unions and currently has seventeen unions affiliated – representing more than 80% of trade union members of the TUC – while a growing number of trade union branches and regions are affiliating to the campaign.” PSC chair Hugh Lanning is also the deputy chair of the Public Commercial Services Union.

Britain’s Trade Union Congress (TUC) ended its annual conference with a call on its affiliates to review any bilateral relations they might have with Israeli organisations.

According to an amendment proposed by the PCS civil service union, “Congress calls on all unions on the basis of this policy to review their bi-lateral relations with all Israeli organisations, including Histadrut.”

TULIP, a pro-peace organisation dedicated to bringing Israeli and Palestinian trade unions together noted with disappointment:

“Israel is being singled out, and the Histadrut is being isolated, because that is what the Iranian regime wants – and it using not only its proxies in Hamas and Hizbollah to do so, but its arm in the British trade union movement – the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

The PSC has successfully pushed British unions to uncritically embrace the view of the rabidly anti-union dictators in Tehran regarding Israel and its trade unions.”

PSC LOGO

The PSC logo reflects a map of a greater Palestine with no room for an Israeli state at all. This, as Green Party MP Caroline Lucas has noted, implies a deliberate refusal of Israel’s right to exist. Some proponents of the PSC argue that although the speakers hosted by the group frequently call for Israel’s destruction, it does not reflect the wider aims of the organisation; however, to many observers, the refusal to adopt a logo indicative of peace suggests otherwise.

PEACEFUL RESOLUTION?

Given the evidence presented so far, some might argue that although the PSC appears to have few qualms linking themselves to both deeply illiberal and openly bigoted ideologues, at least they are working for peaceful resolution and the self-determination of the Palestinian people. Unfortunately, this appears to not be the case. By examining the PSC’s activities over the last ten years, we have concluded that the PSC subsists on reactionary thinking – its claim of probity clearly at odds with its apologism for violence and failure to demonstrate a genuine desire for peace.

The PSC does not differentiate between the land on which Israel was established in 1948 and the land gained in the defensive 1967 war. Israel proper is frequently described as “occupied territory.” This is hardly a progressive case for ending the conflict; in fact, it can be viewed as a deliberate legitimisation of violence and destruction.

Martial Kurtz, National Organiser for the PSC, has said, “It will be for the Palestinians to decide which way this is going. A one-state solution, as a bi-national democratic state, will indeed mean the end of an Israeli Jewish state, as it exists.”

The PSC website states that it is “in opposition to…[the] Zionist nature of the Israeli state”. There is a consummate hypocrisy in supporting the self-determination for one people while denying it for another. This is yet further suggestion that the PSC is not committed to peace.

The Israelis have accepted that the 950,000 Jews forced from their homes in Arab states from the 1940s onwards do not require any form of compensation, as few would wish to return. However, the return of Palestinian refugees who fled after the Arab states invaded Israel in 1948 is a key issue, and a driving force behind the emotional justification of pro-Palestinian activism.
It is understood by genuine advocates for peace on both the Palestinian and Israeli sides that a compromise will have to be found over the issue of refugees. The PSC, however, advocates for the Palestinians to have an absolute “right of return” to their homes, or their ancestors’ homes, abandoned on Israel’s creation in 1948. It is this sort of absolutism – this unwillingness to negotiate – that is overtly detrimental to the prospects of peace.

Once idealism sets in this strongly, truth itself is the usually the first to suffer. The outpourings, radicalism and obsessiveness of the PSC are an all clear example of this. For example, the PSC condemns Israel for “aggression against neighbouring states” but consistently fails to mention in its literature and events that Israel was attacked in 1948 (Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria), 1967 (Egypt, Jordan and Syria) and 1973 (Egypt and Syria).

This suggests a deep level of irrationalism, justified by the blinding light of absolutist idealism. The notion of truth in the PSC’s employ is clearly considered superfluous; a deficiency shrouded from question with the invocation of emotional tales of victims from bloody conflict. In our opinion, this shameless demagoguery easily explains the PSC’s casual acceptance of extremist ideas.

Most leaders within the PSC openly reject the two-state solution, including Ghada Karmi, who seeks a UN resolution “exposing the inequity and dishonesty of the two-state solution”, and Dr. Ilan Pappe, a prominent ‘one-state solution’ proponent.

Ron Paul (and me) on Syria

This is by Ron Paul and was circulated by Robert Faurisson. It tells, what I agree is the simple truth that the war in Syria is just the latest in a line of useless, catastrophic wars for the United States and the West. 

But it leaves out another simple truth which is that Syria is the latest of tough, well-funded and well-armed states (Iraq and Libya are two others, as is Iran) targeted for destruction by Israel and the Jewish lobby. And why? Because they are credible political and military opponents of the Jewish state and of Jewish power. 

They're completely bonkers of course. If Israel thinks it's surrounded now by millions of enemies sworn to its destruction, just wait till Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria are all Jihadi.

 

Obama’s Syria Policy Looks a Lot Like Bush’s Iraq Policy - Ron Paul

Texas Straight Talk / June 17, 2013

http://www.the-free-foundation.org/tst6-17-2013.html President Obama announced late last week that the US intelligence community had just determined that the Syrian government had used poison gas on a small scale, killing some 100 people in a civil conflict that has claimed an estimated 100,000 lives. Because of this use of gas, the president claimed, Syria had crossed his “red line” and the US must begin to arm the rebels fighting to overthrow the Syrian government. – Setting aside the question of why 100 killed by gas is somehow more important than 99,900 killed by other means, the fact is his above explanation is full of holes. The Washington Post reported this week that the decision to overtly arm the Syrian rebels was made “weeks ago” – in other words, it was made at a time when the intelligence community did not believe “with high confidence” that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons. – Further, this plan to transfer weapons to the Syrian rebels had become policy much earlier than that, as the Washington Post reported that the CIA had expanded over the past yearits secret bases in Jordan to prepare for the transfer of weapons to the rebels in Syria.

The process was identical to the massive deception campaign that led us into the Iraq war. Remember the famous quote from the leaked “Downing Street Memo,” where representatives of British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s administration discussed Washington’s push for war on Iraq? – Here the head of British intelligence was reporting back to his government after a trip to Washington in the summer of 2002: “Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

That is exactly what the Obama Administration is doing with Syria: fixing the intelligence and facts around the already determined policy. And Congress just goes along, just as they did the last time. – We found out shortly after the Iraq war started that the facts and intelligence being fixed around the policy were nothing but lies put forth by the neo-con warmongers and the paid informants, like the infamous and admitted liar known as “Curveball.” But we seem to have learned nothing from being fooled before. – So Obama now plans to send even more weapons to the Syrian rebels even though his administration is aware that the main rebel factions have pledged their loyalty to al-Qaeda. Does anyone else see the irony? After 12 years of the “war on terror” and the struggle against al-Qaeda, the US decided to provide weapons to the allies of al-Qaeda. Does anyone really think this is a good idea? – The Obama administration promises us that this is to be a very limited operation, providing small arms only, with no plans for a no-fly zone or American boots on the ground. That sounds an awful lot like how Vietnam started. Just a few advisors. When these few small arms do not achieve the pre-determined US policy of regime change in Syria what is the administration going to do? Admit failure and pull the troops out, or escalate? History suggests the answer and it now appears to be repeating itself once again.

The president has opened a can of worms that will destroy his presidency and possibly destroy this country. Another multi-billion dollar war has begun.

Anti-fascists fuel the fire of hate - Sunday Telegraph

The self-appointed opponents of bigotry can be as ugly as the racist groups they oppose.

Police detain a UAF protester outside the Houses of Parliament last weekend.
Police detain a UAF protester outside the Houses of Parliament last weekend.  Photo: CARL COURT/AFP

Is the Catholic church now just a bit too good for the Jews?

Do read this article "Pope Francis is good for the Jews" which appeared in the Wall Street Journal (If the newsprint is too small, there's a transcript at the bottom of the post) and then read Michael Hoffman's "Three questions for the Wall Street Journal"

I confess I'm not at home with the language of Michael's questions - the idea of anyone group being 'damned' for something they do or do not believe does make me nervous. Also, I find it hard to engage with the idea of the Talmud as so central to Jewish life. I'm as supercilious as the next Jew (and just as dismissive of all the poor un-chosen), but really, I don't think I've ever seen a Talmud.

Still, I can see that if Jesus, the Son of God, came to teach people (then, the Jews) a better way, then for His church to cease to do the same does rather destroy its very point of existence.

And I can also say that Christians do far too much crawling to Jews - it does them no good and it certainly does us Jews no good. - and the Catholic church has often seemed to offer an antidote to this.

So all is not lost. Check out some great Catholic voices: E. Michael Jones and his magazine Culture Wars, Bishop Richard Williamson
here, here, and here, Michael Hoffman himself here, here and here and finally dear Michael Prior 
 
 



Wall Street Journal editorial says "Pope Francis is good for the Jews"



Three questions for the Wall Street Journal

 
Three questions for the Wall Street Journal
 
1. In the Wall Street Journal editorial by Francis X. Rocca, Rome bureau chief for the Catholic News Service, modern popes are praised for repudiating the apostles, popes and saints of the past who sought to convert Jews and Judaics from Talmudic falsehood to the truth of Jesus Christ. Rocca's definition of a rehabilitated Catholic is someone who cooperates with Judaic self-worship and abandons Christ-rejecting Judaics to their damned condition. Is this not a virulent form of "Jew hate," disguised as reconciliation?

2. Why did Jesus Christ incarnate on earth if not to convert the Jews and to have his followers convert all people, including the Judaics of the present? How can "Jews" be exempt from the Gospel commission to convert in light of Jesus words in Matthew 15:24?

3. How is any "convenant" with the God of Israel maintained by adherents of Orthodox Judaism who nullify the Word of God in favor of their Babylonian Talmud, and the pagan, soothsayer traditions from which it is derived?
 


Nearly half a century ago, the Second Vatican Council corrected the Roman Catholic Church's historical attitude toward Jews with the document "Nostra Aetate," which exonerated the Jewish people of any collective guilt for the killing of Jesus and affirmed that God's covenant with them had never been abrogated.

The document remains a source of controversy among Catholics, particularly over the question of whether they should ever seek to convert Jews, or merely, as "Nostra Aetate" says, await "that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord with a single voice." Yet the 1965 document unquestionably opened a period of unprecedented dialogue and dramatic overtures by Catholic leaders—a movement that promises to continue, and even rise to another level, under
Pope Francis.

While Jews have an obvious interest in communication and harmony with the world's largest church, the interest for Catholics is more complex. Dialogue allows the church to repudiate the anti-Semitism encouraged or tolerated by its leaders and members over the centuries, and to acknowledge what "Nostra Aetate" called its "sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles." A Catholicism that regards the people of its divine founder with anything other than love and honor is a religion profoundly at odds with itself.

Pope John Paul II, who grew up with friends from Poland's large prewar Jewish community, became in 1986 the first pope of modern times to visit a synagogue—in the very Roman Ghetto where his predecessors had kept Jews confined until the late 19th century. The pope visited Jerusalem in 2000 and prayed at the Western Wall, expressing sadness for past injuries to Jews. John Paul also opened full diplomatic relations between Israel and the Holy See.

Pope Benedict XVI followed John Paul's lead, also visiting the Rome synagogue and Israel, and he reiterated and elaborated on Vatican II's denial that the Jewish people were culpable for Jesus' death. Benedict also modified John Paul's famous description of Jews as Christians' "elder brothers," in favor of what he deemed a more unambiguously reverent term, "fathers in the faith." When Benedict's decision in 2009 to readmit to the Catholic Church an excommunicated traditionalist bishop who turned out to be a public Holocaust denier stirred an international furor, the pope pointedly thanked "our Jewish friends" for their support.

Benedict's words and gestures, coming from a German who had served (unwillingly) in the Hitler Youth and then his country's military during World War II, had a special historical resonance. They also indicated that friendship with the Jews was a principle of church teaching rather than merely the inclination of a given pontiff.

Nevertheless, given the rising urgency of pursuing a dialogue with Islam, it was hardly obvious that Benedict's successor in Rome would promote the church's relationship with Judaism with the same focus and zeal, especially if the new pope came from outside Europe.

As it turned out, the College of Cardinals could not have elected a man with a clearer commitment to Catholic-Jewish relations than Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio. As archbishop of Buenos Aires, he had celebrated Rosh Hashanah and Hannukah in local synagogues, voiced solidarity with Jewish victims of terrorism, and co-written a book with a prominent rabbi. Touching on one of the most sensitive points in the relationship between Catholics and Jews, Bergoglio had called for the Vatican to open its archives from the pontificate of Pius XII, who reigned from 1939 to 1958, to address lingering questions about whether the wartime pope had done or said enough to oppose the Nazi genocide.

It is relevant in this connection that the new pope comes from Buenos Aires, the city with the largest Jewish community in the Southern Hemisphere. No pope since the church's early centuries has come from a society as culturally diverse as modern Argentina, which Francis has celebrated for its blend of ethnicities and religions.

This background helps explain the strikingly matter-of-fact and unselfconscious character of his book-length conversation with Rabbi Abraham Skorka of Buenos Aires, published in Spanish three years ago and recently brought out in English under the title "On Heaven and Earth." Only a few pages of the discussion between the then-cardinal and the rabbi touch on the historical tensions between Catholics and Jews or how they might be resolved—questions that have traditionally loomed large in Catholic-Jewish exchanges.

Instead, the book presents two religious leaders reflecting together as friends on topics as varied as feminism, globalization and same-sex marriage. The two men compare notes on the approaches of their respective traditions, often agreeing yet not hesitating to note differences. In the (future) pope's own words: "With Skorka I never had to compromise my Catholic identity, just as he never did with his Jewish identity, and this was not only because of the respect we have for each other, but also because that is how we understand interreligious dialogue."

Half a century after Vatican II, following John Paul's pioneering opening to Judaism and its confirmation under Benedict, Pope Francis's pontificate now offers the prospect of an achievement no less historic for Catholic-Jewish relations: normalcy.
 

Zionism and Anti-Semitism:; A strange alliance through history - Allen Brownfeld

I've never much liked the "Zionists collaborated with the Nazis" thing. First, it seeks, yet again, to demonise the Nazis but also because it's usually from Jewish Marxists as part of the never-ending Zionist/Marxist Jewish family squabble - so wonderfully effective in confusing non-Jews!

But this is different, not least because this is written by Allan C. Brownfeld - guiding light of the truly anti-Zionist
 American Council for Judaism and a true 'Jew of conscience'



Zionism and Anti-Semitism:
A Strange Alliance Through History - Allan C. Brownfeld

 It has, for many years, been a tactic of those who seek to silence open debate and discussion of US Middle East policy to accuse critics of Israel of "anti-Semitism."

In a widely discussed article entitled "J'Accuse" (Commentary, September 1983), Norman Podhoretz charged America's leading journalists, newspapers and television networks with "anti-Semitism" because of their reporting of the war in Lebanon and their criticism of Israel's conduct. Among those so accused were Anthony Lewis of The New York Times, Nicholas von Hoffman, Joseph Harsch of The Christian Science Monitor, Rowland Evans, Robert Novak, Mary McGrory, Richard Cohen and Alfred Friendly of The Washington Post, and a host of others. These individuals and their news organizations were not criticized for bad reporting or poor journalistic standards; instead, they were the subject of the charge of anti-Semitism.

Podhoretz declared: "... The beginning of wisdom in thinking about this issue is to recognize that the vilification of Israel is the phenomenon to be addressed, not the Israeli behavior that provoked it ... We are dealing here with an eruption of anti-Semitism."

To understand Norman Podhoretz and others who have engaged in such charges, we must recognize that the term "anti-Semitism" has undergone major transformation. Until recently, those guilty of this offense were widely understood to be those who irrationally disliked Jews and Judaism. Today, however, the term is used in a far different way -- one which threatens not only free speech but also threatens to trivialize anti-Semitism itself.

Anti-Semitism has been redefined to mean anything that opposes the policies and interests of Israel. The beginning of this redefinition may be said to date, in part, from the 1974 publication of the book The New Anti-Semitism by Arnold Forster and Benjamin R. Epstein, leaders of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. The nature of the "new" anti-Semitism, according to Forster and Epstein, is not necessarily hostility toward Jews as Jews, or toward Judaism, but, instead a critical attitude toward Israel and its policies.

Later, Nathan Perlmutter, when he was director of the Anti-Defamation League, stated that, "There has been a transformation of American anti-Semitism in recent times. The crude anti-Jewish bigotry once so commonplace in this country is today gauche ... Poll after poll indicates that Jews are one of America's most highly regarded groups."

'Semitically Neutral Postures'
Perlmutter, however, refused to declare victory over such bigotry. Instead, he redefined it. He declared:
The search for peace in the Middle East is littered with mine fields for Jewish interests ... Jewish concerns that are confronted by the Semitically neutral postures of those who believe that if only Israel would yield this or that, the Middle East would become tranquil and the West's highway to its strategic interests and profits in the Persian Gulf would be secure. But at what cost to Israel's security? Israel's security, plainly said, means more to Jews today than their standing in the opinion polls ...
What Perlmutter did was to substitute the term "Jewish interests" for what are, in reality, "Israeli interests." By changing the terms of the debate, he created a situation in which anyone who is critical of Israel becomes, ipso facto, "anti-Semitic."

The tactic of using the term "anti-Semitism" as a weapon against dissenters is not new. Dorothy Thompson, the distinguished journalist who was one of the earliest enemies of Nazism, found herself criticizing the policies of Israel shortly after its creation. Despite her valiant crusade against Hitler, she, too, was subject to the charge of "anti-Semitism." In a letter to The Jewish Newsletter (April 6, 1951) she wrote:
Really, I think continued emphasis should be put upon the extreme damage to the Jewish community of branding people like myself as anti-Semitic ... The State of Israel has got to learn to live in the same atmosphere of free criticism which every other state in the world must endure ... There are many subjects on which writers in this country are, because of these pressures, becoming craven and mealy-mouthed. But people don't like to be craven and mealy-mouthed; every time one yields to such pressure one is filled with self-contempt and this self-contempt works itself out in a resentment of those who caused it.
A quarter-century later, columnist Carl Rowan (Washington Star, Feb. 5, 1975) reported:
When I wrote my recent column about what I perceive to be a subtle erosion of support for Israel in this town, I was under no illusion as to what the reaction would be. I was prepared for a barrage of letters to me and newspapers carrying my column accusing me of being "anti-Semitic" ... The mail rolling in has met my worst expectations ... This whining baseless name-calling is a certain way to turn friends into enemies.
What few Americans understand is that there has been a long historical alliance -- from the end of the 19th century until today -- between Zionism and real anti-Semites -- from those who planned pogroms in Czarist Russia to Nazi Germany itself. The reason for the affinity many Zionist leaders felt for anti-Semites becomes clear as this history emerges.

Theodor Herzl
When Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism, served in Paris as a correspondent for a Vienna newspaper, he was in close contact with the leading anti-Semites of the day. In his biography of Herzl, The Labyrinth of Exile, Ernst Pawel reports that those who financed and edited La Libre Parole, a weekly dedicated "to the defense of Catholic France against atheists, republicans, Free Masons and Jews," invited Herzl to their homes on a regular basis.
Alluding to such conservatives and their publications, Pawel writes that Herzl "found himself captivated" by these men and their ideas:
La France Juive [of Edouard Drumont] struck him as a brilliant performance and -- much like [Eugen] Dühring's notorious Jewish Question ten years later -- it aroused powerful and contradictory emotions ... On June 12, 1895, while in the midst of working on Der Judenstaat, [Herzl] noted in his diary, "much of my current conceptual freedom I owe to Drumont, because he is an artist." The compliment seems extravagant, but Drumont repaid it the following year with a glowing review of Herzl's book in La Parole Libre.
In the end, Pawel argues, "Paris changed Herzl, and French anti-Semites undermined the ironic complacency of the Jewish would-be non-Jew." Yet Herzl was not entirely displeased with anti-Semitism. In a private letter to Moritz Benedikt, written in the final days of 1892, he writes: "I do not consider the anti-Semitic movement altogether harmful. It will inhibit the ostentatious flaunting of conspicuous wealth, curb the unscrupulous behavior of Jewish financiers, and contribute in many ways to the education of the Jews ... In that respect we seem to be in agreement."

Herzl's book Der Judenstaat ("The Jewish State"), was widely disparaged by the leading Jews of the day, who viewed themselves as French, German, English or Austrian citizens and Jews by religion -- with no interest in a separate Jewish state. Anti-Semites, on the other hand, eagerly greeted Herzl's work. Herzl's arguments, Pawel points out, were "all but indistinguishable from those used by the anti-Semites." One of the first reviews appeared in the Westungarischer Grenzbote, an anti-Semitic journal published in Bratislava by Ivan von Simonyi, a member of the Hungarian Diet. He praised both the book and Herzl, and was so carried away with his enthusiasm that he paid Herzl a personal visit. Herzl wrote in his diary:
My weird follower, the Bratislava anti-Semite Ivan von Simonyi came to see me. A hypermercurial, hyperloquacious sexagenerian with an uncanny sympathy for the Jews. Swings back and forth between perfectly rational talk and utter nonsense, believes in the blood libel and at the same time comes up with the most sensible modern ideas. Loves me.
After the barbaric Kishinev pogrom of April 1901, when hundreds of Jews were killed or wounded, Herzl came to Russia to barter with V. K. Plehve, the Russian interior minister who had incited the pogrom. Herzl told Jewish cultural leader Chaim Zhitlovsky: "I have an absolutely binding promise from Plehve that he will procure a charter for Palestine for us in 15 years at the outside. There is one condition, however, the revolutionaries must stop their struggle against the Russian government."
Zhitlovsky, incensed at Herzl for dealing with a killer of Jews, and aware that Herzl had been outsmarted, persuaded him to abandon the idea. Still, the Zionist leaders in Russia agreed with the government that the real responsibility for the pogroms rested with the Jewish Bund, a socialist group urging democratic reforms in the Czarist regime. Zionists wanted Jews to remain aloof from Russian politics until it was time to leave for Palestine.

The head of the secret police in Moscow, S.V. Zubatov, was sympathetic to Zionism as a way to silence Jewish opponents of the repressive Czarist regime. In her book The Fate of the Jews, Roberta Strauss Feuerlicht reports that
Zionism appealed greatly to police chief Zubatov, as it does to all anti-Semites, because it takes the Jewish problem elsewhere. Both Zubatov and the Zionists wanted to destroy the Bund, Zubatov to protect his country, and the Zionists to protect theirs. Zionism's success is based on a Jewish misery index; the greater the misery, the greater the wish to emigrate. The last thing the Zionists wanted was to improve conditions in Russia. Zionists served Zubatov as police spies and subverters of the Bund ...
In his book Jewish History, Jewish Religion, Israel Shahak points out that
Close relations have always existed between Zionists and anti-Semites; exactly like some of the European conservatives, the Zionists thought they could ignore the "demonic" character of anti-Semitism and use the anti-Semites for their own purposes ... Herzl allied himself with the notorious Count von Plehve, the anti-Semitic minister of Tsar Nicholas II; Jabotinsky made a pact with Petlyura, the reactionary Ukrainian leader whose forces massacred some 100,000 Jews in 1918-1921 ... Perhaps the most shocking example of this type is the delight with which Zionist leaders in Germany welcomed Hitler's rise to power, because they shared his belief in the primacy of "race" and his hostility to the assimilation of Jews among "Aryans." They congratulated Hitler on his triumph over the common enemy -- the forces of liberalism.
'We Jews'
Dr. Joachim Prinz, a German Zionist rabbi who subsequently emigrated to the United States, where he became vice-chairman of the World Jewish Congress and a leader in the World Zionist Organization, published in 1934 a book Wir Juden ("We Jews") to celebrate Hitler's so-called German Revolution and the defeat of liberalism. He wrote:
The meaning of the German Revolution for the German nation will eventually be clear to those who have created it and formed its image. Its meaning for us must be set forth there: the fortunes of liberalism are lost. The only form of political life which has helped Jewish assimilation is sunk.
The victory of Nazism ruled out assimilation and inter-religious marriage as an option for Jews. "We are not unhappy about this," said Dr. Prinz. In the fact that Jews were being forced to identify themselves as Jews, he saw "the fulfillment of our desires." Further, he states,
We want assimilation to be replaced by a new law: the declaration of belonging to the Jewish nation and the Jewish race. A state built upon the principle of the purity of nation and race can only be honored and respected by a Jew who declares his belonging to his own kind. Having so declared himself, he will never be capable of faulty loyalty towards a state. The state cannot want other Jews but such as declare themselves as belonging to their nation...
Dr. Shahak compares Prinz's early sympathy for Nazis with that of many who have embraced the Zionist vision, not fully understanding the possible implications: "Of course, Dr. Prinz, like many other early sympathizers and allies of Nazism, did not realize where that movement was leading ..."

Zionist-Nazi Alliance Proposal
Still, as late as January 1941, the Zionist group LEHI, one of whose leaders, Yitzhak Shamir, was later to become a prime minister of Israel, approached the Nazis, using the name of its parent organization, the Irgun (NMO). The naval attaché in the German embassy in Turkey transmitted the LEHI proposal to his superiors in Germany. It read in part:
It is often stated in the speeches and utterances of the leading statesmen of National Socialist Germany that a New Order in Europe requires as a prerequisite the radical solution of the Jewish question through evacuation. The evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is a precondition for solving the Jewish question. This can only be made possible and complete through the settlement of these masses in the home of the Jewish people, Palestine, and through the establishment of a Jewish state in its historic boundaries.
The LEHI proposal continues: "The NMO ... is well acquainted with the good will of the German Reich Government and its authorities towards Zionist activity inside Germany and towards Zionist emigration plans." It goes on to state:
The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis and bound by a treaty with the German Reich would be in the interests of strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East ... The NMO in Palestine offers to take an active part in the war on Germany's side ... The cooperation of the Israeli freedom movement would also be in line with one of the recent speeches of the German Reich Chancellor, in which Herr Hitler stressed that any combination and any alliance would be entered into in order to isolate England and defeat it.
The Nazis rejected this proposal for an alliance because, it is reported, they considered Lehi's military power "negligible." [For more on this, see: M. Weber, "Zionism and the Third Reich" in the July-August 1993 Journal, pp. 29-37.]

Rabbi David J. Goldberg, in his book To the Promised Land: A History of Zionist Thought, discusses the life and thought of the leader of Zionist revisionism, Vladimir Jabotinsky, who was the great influence upon the life of Menachem Begin. "The basic tenets of Jabotinsky's political philosophy," writes Goldberg,
are subservience to the overriding concept of the homeland: loyalty to a charismatic leader, and the subordination of the class conflict to national goals. It irked Jabotinsky when, over 20 years later, he was accused of imitating Mussolini and Hitler. His irritation was justified: he had anticipated them ... Given that for Jabotinsky echoing Garibaldi "there is no value in the world higher than the nation and the fatherland," it is not altogether surprising that he should have recommended an alliance with an anti-Semitic Ukrainian nationalist. In 1911, in an essay entitled "Schevenko's Jubilee," he had praised the xenophobic Ukrainian poet for his nationalist spirit, despite "explosions of wild fury against the Poles, the Jews and other neighbors," and for proving that the Ukrainian soul has a "talent for independent cultural creativity, reaching into the highest and most sublime sphere."
In a review of the book In Memory's Kitchen: A Legacy From The Women of Terezin, Lore Dickstein, writing in The New York Times Book Review, notes that, "Anny Stern was one of the lucky ones. In 1939, after months of hassle with the Nazi bureaucracy, the occupying German army at her heels, she fled Czechoslovakia with her young son and emigrated to Palestine. At the time of Anny's departure, Nazi policy encouraged emigration. 'Are you a Zionist?' Adolf Eichmann, Hitler's specialist on Jewish affairs, asked her. 'Ja wohl,' she replied. 'Good,' he said, 'I am a Zionist too. I want every Jew to leave for Palestine'."

A 'Close Relationship'
The point has been made by many commentators that Zionism has a close relationship with Nazism. Both ideologies think of Jews in an ethnic and nationalistic manner. In fact, Nazi theoretician Alfred Rosenberg frequently quoted from Zionist writers to prove his thesis that Jews could not be Germans.
In his study, The Meaning of Jewish History, Rabbi Jacob Agus provides this assessment:
In its extreme formulation, political Zionists agreed with resurgent anti-Semitism in the following propositions: 1. That the emancipation of the Jews in Europe was a mistake. 2. That the Jews can function in the lands of Europe only as a disruptive influence. 3. That all Jews of the world were one "folk" in spite of their diverse political allegiances. 4. That all Jews, unlike other peoples of Europe, were unique and unintegratible. 5. That anti-Semitism was the natural expression of the folk-feeling of European nations, hence, ineradicable.
Nazi theoretician Rosenberg, who was executed as a result of his conviction for war crimes at the Nuremberg trials, declared under direct examination that he had studied the writings of Jewish historians [IMT, vol. 11, pp. 451-452]. He continued:
It seemed to me that after an epoch of generous emancipation in the course of national movements of the 19th century, an important part of the Jewish nation found its way back to its own tradition and nature, and more and more consciously segregated itself from other nations. It was a problem which was discussed at many international congresses, and [Martin] Buber, in particular, one of the spiritual leaders of European Jewry, declared that the Jews should return to the soil of Asia, for only there could the roots of Jewish blood and Jewish national character be found.
Long-Standing Alliance
Feyenwald, the Nazi, in 1941 reprinted the following statement by Simon Dubnow, a Zionist historian and author:
Assimilation is common treason against the banner and ideals of the Jewish people ... One can never "become" a member of a national group, such as a family, tribe or a nation. One may attain rights and privileges of citizenship with a foreign nation, but one cannot appropriate for himself its nationality too. To be sure the emancipated Jew in France calls himself a Frenchman of the Jewish faith. Would that, however, mean that he became part of the French nation, confessing to the Jewish faith? Not at all ... A Jew ... even if he happened to be born in France and still lives there, in spite of these, he remains a member of the Jewish nation.
Zionists have repeatedly stressed -- and continue to do so -- that, from their viewpoint, Jews are in "exile" outside of the "Jewish state." Jacob Klatzkin, a leading Zionist writer, declared: "We are simply aliens, we are foreign people in your midst, and we emphasize, we wish to stay that way." This Zionist perspective has been a minority view among Jews from the time of its formulation until today.

When the term "anti-Semitism" is casually used to silence those who are critical of the government of Israel and its policies, it should be noted that Zionism's history of alliance with real anti-Semitism has been long-standing, and this has been so precisely because Zionism and anti-Semitism share a view of Jews which the vast majority of Jews in the United States and elsewhere in the world have always rejected.

This rarely discussed chapter of history deserves study, for it illuminates many truths relevant to the continuing debate, both with regard to Middle East policy and the real nature of Jews and Judaism.

About the Author
Allan C. Brownfeld is a syndicated columnist and associate editor of the Lincoln Review, a journal published by the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, and editor of Issues, the quarterly journal of the American Council for Judaism. This article is reprinted from the July-August 1998 issue of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

Monday, 17 June 2013

Thus did I redeem the land...

This is a JNF collecting tin - one of hundreds of thousands of similar tins in hundreds of thousands of Jewish homes throughout the western world - and just like the one that sat for years on a shelf in our kitchen.
 
Nobody ever put anything in it but once a year this old guy came round to empty it and my mum and dad would suddenly get in a panic to give him something. The money was specifically to 'build Eretz Israel'. God knows what it was really used for but, as far as this little kid was concerned, it was to plant trees "to bind the soil". Why, I even had a little book in which I stuck 'leaves' on trees - each leaf paid for by some friend or relative I'd cajoled into helping me to 'redeem the land'.
To the child me, Israel was a sunny garden full of fruit trees and singing children. The sun shone all day, and everyone picked fruit and then, as the sun went down, they danced till dawn. I stuck stamps in my JNF stamp book - tiny trees, five shillings each, collected from friends and relatives, and, when you’d filled the book, a real tree was planted. “to bind the soil.” Thus did I redeem the land.
                                                            From  "We stand with Israel"

Yes, I know it's all wrong and I now know the narrative covered up some terrible atrocities and a grievous crime. But I can't help a part of me still engaging with what seemed then to be a most heroic narrative.

And there's something else I can't help feeling: Whatever one may think about Jews and Zionists, they sure know how to fight their collective corner. Would their victims knew the same!

Anyway, the pieces below are about the very real and not-so-nice side of JNF activity - stealing land from Palestinians to give to Jews.  It's posted by Jews for Justice for Palestinians (JFJFP) - a group who, though inevitably sometimes exhibiting all the least likeable aspects of Jewish collective behaviour, also are capable of great compassion and generosity. 

They're certainly better than the Jewish 'anti-Zionists' (usually Marxist) who, to my mind, are a cold, heartless and ultimately murderous bunch.

 

Attack on JNF’s theft of names and land

The article about South African ambassador Ismail Coovadia is followed by one about the JNF’s repeated efforts to build a forest over Al Arakib. Notes and links at end.


British Park, Israel, funded by British supporters of JNF. It is built over the ruins of two forcibly depopulated Palestinian villages, Ajjur and Zakariyya.

Not in my name rages SA diplomat
By Fatima Asmal, Mail and Guardian
June 14, 2013

A furious Ismail Coovadia has repudiated a bid to ‘honour’ him with trees planted on contested land.

The former South African ambassador to Israel says he’ll be returning a certificate informing him that 18 trees had been planted in his honour in an Israeli forest by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs.

Ismail Coovadia, whose term came to an end in December last year, told the Mail & Guardian that when he returned to South Africa he opened the certificate, expecting it to acknowledge his period of ambassadorial service but was disturbed to learn that the trees had been planted in his name and without his permission in a forest planted by the JNF.

According to an article published by Human Rights Watch, “Erasing Links to the Land in the Negev”, the “Ambassadors Forest” was inaugurated in December 2005 and lies on the demolished Bedouin village of al-Araqib. It is one of several forests planted by the JNF in Israel.

Others include Switzerland Forest, Canada Park, British Park, Norwegian Kings Forest and South Africa Forest.

In a letter sent to the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement of South Africa, Coovadia stated that the certificate was “nothing less than an offence to his dignity and integrity”.

“Regrettably, my permission was not sought to plant a tree in my or the name of a South African ambassador on usurped land, the rightful land of the Palestinians and Bedouins. … I was not a party to, and never will be, to the planting of ’18 trees’, in my ‘honour’ on expropriated and stolen land.

“In view of this inhuman act against ordinary people, I shall be returning the ‘certificate’ to the director general of the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs with a humble request to remove the “18 trees … planted … in my ‘honour’.”

Political point-scoring
Meanwhile, two members of Stop the JNF – a worldwide group which campaigns against the fund – Alan Horwitz and Shereen Usdin, said they had also received letters from the South African chapter of the organisation informing them that trees had been planted in their names. Horwitz said he believed this constituted a case of political point-scoring on the part of the JNF.

“They want to show us they can co-opt us in, whether we like it or not,” he said.


Hulda Forest, commemorating Theodor Herzl

Asked whether it was ethical to plant trees in the name of individuals without first acquiring their permission to do so, Amber Cummins the deputy director of JNF South Africa, said: “We are just the organisation that received the donation and were just carrying out the donor’s wishes.

“This was an unusual case. Usually it’s for their own family members that people make donations, for example people donate money to put up plaques in the name of their deceased parents. But in this case, we received an anonymous donation and were told to put up a plaque in their names [Horwitz and Usdin] and that’s what we did,” she said.

Cummins said the fund was responsible for forestry throughout Israel. It had “originated in 1901 as the financial arm of the Zionist movement and had distributed charity boxes to Jewish families all over the world into which people would put coins. The purpose was to purchase land wherever available in Palestine at full prices, from whomever was willing to sell it in the hope that this area would eventually become Israel,” she explained.


Mount Gilboa overlooks the famously fertile and cultivated Jezreel valley -invisible to Zionist eyes . Laurence Oliphant described it in 1887 as “a huge green lake of waving wheat, with its village-crowned mounds rising from it like islands; and it presents one of the most striking pictures of luxuriant fertility which it is possible to conceive.”
“In terms of Ottoman Law, if one purchased land and one wasn’t a resident on that land, one way of securing the land was to plant trees on it. So this became a major focus of the JNF. At that time the land was as barren as is possible – the greening of the land was very important to the pioneers as well as in terms of settling the land, and it was also beneficial to the entire Middle East in terms of the benefits of afforestation.”

Forcibly depopulated
Cummins said that there are now about 260-million trees in Israel.

JNF South Africa is largely responsible for South Africa Forest, which is featured in a documentary, The Village under the Forest, that recently premiered at the Encounters Film Festival.

In her production notes, filmmaker Heidi Grunebaum writes that the forest was planted on a destroyed Palestinian village “Lubya was forcibly depopulated in mid-July 1948 by Israeli military units, during what is called The War of Independence in Israeli nationalist histories and what Palestinians call the Nakba [Catastrophe],” she wrote.

However, Cummins questioned whether Lubya* existed in 1948.

“The information I’m getting from Israel – which is not confirmed –indicates that it didn’t even exist at the time of 1948. It had, in fact, been destroyed many years before that and nobody had even lived there; it was just rubble with a few structures and olive trees and they are trying to investigate that now.”

Grunebaum said that Palestinian oral historian Dr Mahmoud Issa wrote a book about Lubya, in which his parents had lived.

“His book is based on years of archival research and on oral recordings from 700 interviews with Lubyans inside Israel, in the Palestinian diaspora in Arab countries and in European countries.”

Self-exile claim ‘is a fabrication’

Every year on May 15 hundreds of thousands of Palestinians around the world commemorate the Nakba (Catastrophe) in remembrance of the displacement that preceded and followed the Israeli Declaration of Independence in 1948.

According to the Jewish National Fund’s Amber Cummins, 711000 Arabs left their homes voluntarily “in the face of the war of aggression against Israel”.

“We know that at the time that Israeli independence was declared, the surrounding Arab countries called on Arabs who lived in Israel to move out, to flee, promising them a swift victory over Israel and that they would wipe Israel off the face of the map whereupon they would be able to return to their homes with more land than they had before.

“With that … Arabs left voluntarily. There was no expulsion/nakba, it was an evacuation, a voluntary evacuation, they fled. Everybody was leaving, so in all probability, the people who didn’t want to leave also left when they saw those people leaving,” she said. “Israel didn’t have the military force available to expel these people. Most of them were Holocaust survivors being pushed from pillar to post around Europe. The whole country had three or five tanks. It is made out that this vicious Israeli army carried out this expulsion. How could they have?”

But Ran Greenstein, a professor of sociology at Wits University who specialises in the study of Israeli/Palestinian and South African history and politics said that the facts of the war were well documented by Israeli historians, Palestinians scholars, as well as the verbal accounts of survivors on both sides. “The Institute of Palestine Studies has created a site that includes dozens of memoirs, analyses and records about the Nakba,” he pointed out.

Israeli historian Ilan Pappé, who directs the European Centre for Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, said: “It’s a fabrication that there was a call from the Arabs to leave. The professional Israeli historiography found out that there was no such call. Recently, in Haaretz, it was revealed how this lie was marketed after the war as part of a propaganda effort to cover the ethnic cleansing.

“Arab armies entered Palestine on May 15 1948, when 300 000 Palestinians had already become refugees. By that time, the whole Palestinian population of Haifa and Jaffa, nearly 110000 people altogether, had been expelled. The Arab governments did not want to send in their armies, but after the massacre of Deir Yassin on April 9 1948, there was public pressure to stop the ethnic cleansing and hence, the entrance of the armies to Palestine.”


Sheikh Sayakh standing on a concrete slab, all that remains of one of the houses in Al-Arakib.


The Negev: A Bedouin Village versus a JNF Forest

By Allen Katzoff, Times of Israel
March 15, 2012 

There was a clear blue sky after many days of rain when we drove to Al-Arakib near Be’er Sheva down in the Negev. The air was cool but the sun was strong. All around us the desert was in bloom as we turned onto the dirt road, passed a small cemetery on the left and pulled up before a large three-sided Bedouin tent. In the distance I could see groves of trees on higher ground. But the surroundings around the tent were barren, just sandy ground and rocks. I was soon to find out why.

I was visiting Al-Arakib with Rabbi Arik Ascherman, Director of Special Projects at Rabbis for Human Rights, on one of his regular visits to the area. The Bedouin in the Negev have become a particular concern for Arik. His organization’s focus is based on the biblical precept that all people are created in the image of God (B’tzelem Elokim) and that Jews have a moral obligation to fight injustice wherever it occurs.

Soon after we were seated on carpets in the tent, Sheikh Sayakh, an older distinguished-looking man wearing a keffiyeh, entered and grasped Arik’s hand between his, smiling broadly and greeting him warmly like a dear friend. While traditional Bedouin coffee was served, I heard the village’s story.


A row of saplings recently planted by the JNF close to Al-Arakib. These plantings are rapidly encroaching on what used to be the center of the village.

For generations, the people of Al-Arakib lived on their land, farming and herding sheep and goats. Olive orchards surrounded the village. In 1951, the villagers complied with a government request to leave their land for six months to make room for army exercises. Subsequently they were not allowed to return. Israel then expropriated the land without compensation claiming it was not legally owned. The village residents did not learn of the seizure until twelve years ago when they returned to live on their ancestral lands upon hearing that the Jewish National Fund (JNF) was to blanket their village and fields with a forest.

Today the issue is in court proceedings. Villagers still have receipts of land taxes they paid during the Ottoman and British Mandate periods as well as their traditional land purchase contracts that were recognized as valid by those governments. However, because actual land registration under the Ottomans and British was fragmentary, the residents of Al-Arakib, like most other Bedouin in the Negev, have no registry deeds.

Al-Arakib is one of 35 Bedouin settlements in the Negev, all in the same predicament. Most of these villages, which account for 5% of the Negev, predate the establishment of the state but the government claims the Bedouin are illegal squatters. Almost all houses have demolition orders against them because building permits are unobtainable. The Bedouin pay taxes, their children serve in the Israeli army, and many commute to jobs outside the villages. But they are not provided with electric or water hookups, sewers or trash collection. Yet they still choose their traditional lifestyle on their ancestral land in the desert.

The Israeli government perceives a demographic problem in the Negev: there are too many Bedouin and too few Jews. Last year the government approved the Prawer Plan that calls for the forced relocation of over 30,000 Bedouin from these villages into urban Bedouin towns. The towns are the poorest in Israel: crime-ridden, with severe housing shortages and sky-high unemployment. Once the villagers are removed, the JNF will plant forests and the state will build new towns to attract Jewish residents. Bedouin will not be welcome.

Which bring us back to Al-Arakib. On July 26, 2010, Prime Minister Netanyahu issued a warning that “a situation in which a demand for national rights will be made from some quarters inside Israel, for example in the Negev, should the area be left without a Jewish majority. Such things happened in the Balkans, and it is a real threat.” The next day, over one thousand soldiers backed by helicopters and bulldozers arrived at the village without warning. In three hours they demolished the homes of three hundred people. No one was allowed to remove their belongings before the demolitions. Large items such as cars and generators were seized. One thousand olive trees were destroyed. (Click here to view a video of that day). [English subtitles]

The residents of Al-Arakib decided not to leave since leaving would have surrendered their land forever. They immediately scavenged through the wreckage for materials to build temporary shelters. The army returned eight days later to demolish those. And the process then repeated itself. The latest demolition was number 33. The remaining villagers now have their makeshift shelters and some prefab buildings in the old village cemetery. That affords them some protection because the government so far dares not intrude on sacred Muslim ground.

Sheik Sayakh walked with us through the remaining land of the village. Here and there were some concrete slabs, remnants of the old houses. But miraculously, small olive saplings were sprouting from the stumps of the old trees. Apparently olive trees are hard to kill unless you dig out the entire root system. A few hundred meters away, the JNF had just planted rows of samplings, bringing the forest much closer to the village. Soon eucalyptus trees will be planted all through that area, but scattered among them as they grow will be hundreds of olive trees, a living memorial to what once was.

Al-Arakib is emblematic of what will happen when the Prawer Plan is implemented. Thousands of Bedouin view the village as a trial run for what will befall them. A friend of mine, who has spent decades working in Bedouin towns, says the young, who in the past might have served in the army and gone to college, are becoming alienated and radicalized. In a recent press report it was recounted how a young Bedouin, who had served in the Israeli army, received his order to appear for his annual reserve duty on the same day he received from the government a demolition notice for his home. No firm date is given with these notices. The bulldozer will simply show up one day at this soldier’s door.


Notes and Links

* Documentary uncovers Lubya, The Village Under The Forest“The hidden remains of the destroyed Palestinian village of Lubya, which lie beneath the purposefully cultivated South Africa Forest, are the subject matter of a new documentary called The Village Under The Forest, which will premier in Africa at the Encounters Documentary Festival in June 2013.

Directed by Emmy-winner Mark J Kaplan and written and narrated by scholar and author Heidi Grunebaum, The Village Under The Forest unfolds as a personal meditation from the Jewish diaspora.

Israeli policies of dispossession reminiscent of South African apartheid, Al Jazeera, October 2012, critique of JNF from South African anti-apartheid perspective.

Trees in, Palestinians out, Robert Cohen, January 2013.

The Jewish National Fund was set up in 1901 to buy land for Jewish settlement in Palestine. It became, with its collection boxes, the single most important financial and sentimental tie between pre-Israel Jews and land in Palestine. It is now effectively an agency of the Israeli government, owning over 13% of all the land and presenting itself as primarily an environmental agency. Central to this claim is its Blueprint Negev.

The JNF collection box, distributed from 1904 to about 1 million Jewish homes to ‘redeem’ the land from Ottoman, then British, control.

Stop the JNF campaign

About: What is the campaign to stop the JNF?

Stop the JNF 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 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.