December 23, 2009

So what is zionism?

I just had a letter published in the UK's Independent newspaper responding to a throwaway line by Howard Jacobson that covered a "multitude of sins" by the racist war criminals of the State of Israel. Here's Jacobson:
When does sympathy for Zionist aspiration – the return of Jews to their ancient homeland – become "support", and when does that support become "active"?
And here's me:
Howard Jacobson is being economical with the truth by describing the "Zionist aspiration" as "the return of Jews to their ancient homeland" (5 December). Zionism is the idea that there should be a state in what used to be Palestine specifically for the world's Jews, and that Jews, no matter when or where they or their ancestors became Jewish, should have more right to Palestine and more rights in Palestine than the native non-Jewish population.

Mark Elf

Dagenham, Essex

I think that definition works for zionism today but I'm open to correction.

December 22, 2009

Israel does not discriminate?

What? That can't be right, can it? Well apparently it is true that Israel did not discriminate when it came to harvesting body parts from dead people without consent. The Guardian has just had to run one of its famed "Corrections and clarifications" following the headline, "Israel admits harvesting Palestinian organs". The headline now appears so, Doctor admits Israeli pathologists harvested organs without consent.

Here's how it all appears in the Corrections and clarifications section:
We should not have put the headline "Israel admits harvesting Palestinian organs" on a story about an admission, by the former head of the Abu Kabir forensic institute near Tel Aviv, that during the 1990s specialists at the institute harvested organs from the bodies of Israeli soldiers, Israeli citizens, Palestinians and foreign workers without getting permission from the families of the deceased (21 December, page 15). That headline did not match the article, which made clear that the organs were not taken only from Palestinians. This was a serious editing error and the headline has been changed online to reflect the text of the story written by the reporter.
There was nothing wrong with the original headline. It was correct, Israel did harvest Palestinian organs. The fact that the Palestinians are a captive population and that most of those killed by Israel have been innocent civilians does compound the scandal of what Israel did. Of course, harvesting body parts without consent is always a scandal in societies where organs are only donated with consent from either the deceased or their families but nicking the body parts from people who, while alive, are treated under the law as racially inferior is a far greater scandal and far more newsworthy.

I wonder who got the headline changed.

Israeli repression wave targets activists

From The Real News Network, Dec 22:



Here's RNN's summary:

In recent months, since the public push for The Goldstone Report, Israeli authorities have intensified their repression of activists on both sides of the segregation wall. Though Israel tries Palestinians and Israelis under separate legal systems, with the former being prosecuted in a military court and the later in domestic, civil courts, both have seen an escalation in detentions. The recent cases include Mohammad Srour, Mohammad Othman, and Abdullah Abu Rahma, all activists from the Occupied West Bank. The most recent arrest is of Jamal Juma', an international known human rights activist and the coordinator of the Stop the Wall Campaign, a grassroots network of popular committees fighting Israel's segregation wall.

Jamal Juma' was born in Jerusalem and attended Birzeit University, where he became politically active. Since the first Intifada, he has focused on grassroots activism. He is a founding member of the Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees, Palestinian Association for Cultural Exchange and Palestinian Environmental NGO Network. Juma' is since 2002 the coordinator of the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign. He has been invited to address numerous civil society and UN conferences, where he has spoken on the issue of Palestine and the Apartheid Wall. His articles and interviews are widely disseminated and translated into several languages. On December 16th, 2009 Jamal Juma' was arrested and is now detained at The Russian Compound in Jerusalem without charge, and without the right to see a lawyer.


On Dec. 21 The Media Line ran an article titled, Palestinians Spend Half Billion on Settlement Products. The PA recently decided to ban the sale of settlement goods in Palestinian stores in the West Bank. They say no settlement goods will be on the shelves after 2010. To underscore their seriousness, they staged a Dec. 16 photo op of PA customs officials dumping $55,000 worth of Ahava cosmetics seized from stores in Jericho, then destroyed them:











But banning settlement goods isn't all they're up to:

Beyond buying products produced on Israeli settlements, at least 25,000 Palestinians are legally employed in Israeli communities, about half of them in West Bank settlements.

Earlier this month Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad said the Palestinian Authority would begin a process of finding alternative employment for Palestinians working in Israeli settlements and eventually ban such employment altogether.

While Palestinians working on West Bank settlements are socially stigmatized, an outright ban on Palestinian employment on settlements has never materialized.

Jamal Juma, the director of the Stop the Wall campaign who met with Fayyad last week to discuss the ban, said the number of Palestinians employed in Israeli communities in the West Bank is much higher than the official numbers.

"Officially Israel gives permissions to between 10,000 and 15,000 Palestinians to work in settlements but it's more like 30,000 workers when you include Palestinians working both legally and illegally," he told The Media Line after the meeting with Fayyad. "The settlements are completely dependent on cheap Palestinian labor for their infrastructure so I think we can really hurt the settlements if all Palestinians stop working there."

Juma was arrested by Israel less than 48 hours after speaking with The Media Line.



Clearly Juma has Fayyad's ear & the PA is implementing his ideas. Thus he's a genuine threat to the settlement project, & that's why Israel has locked him up.

Stop The Wall has issued this Dec. 21 action call to demand the release of Juma, Othman, Abu Rahme & all the anti-wall activists currently rotting in the occupier's prisons.

December 21, 2009

The Gaza Freedom March: First roadblock - Egypt

One didn't expect the collaborationist Egyptian government to be friendly, but still, this is a reminder that there is no bottom to this particular pit. Max Ajl from Egypt:

I had thought to write something inspiring about my upcoming voyage to Cairo and Gaza. I still will. But first, more important matters. The Egyptian government, citing security concerns, has semi-officially decided not to let the Gaza Freedom March cross into Gaza. This is unacceptable, but beyond that, we'll skip the moral exhortations and ask for action. First, the press release, roughly, then, a few concrete steps you can take to bring polite, targeted, and heavy pressure on the government of Egypt:

Please take action.

Gaza Freedom March
UPDATE

December 21, 2009

We are determined to break the siege
We all will continue to do whatever we can to make it happen

Using the pretext of escalating tensions on the Gaza-Egypt border, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry informed us yesterday that the Rafah border will be closed over the coming weeks, into January. We responded that there is always tension at the border because of the siege, that we do not feel threatened, and that if there are any risks, they are risks we are willing to take. We also said that it was too late for over 1,300 delegates coming from over 42 countries to change their plans now. We both agreed to continue our exchanges.

Although we consider this as a setback, it is something we've encountered-and overcome--before. No delegation, large or small, that entered Gaza over the past 12 months has ever received a final OK before arriving at the Rafah border. Most delegations were discouraged from even heading out of Cairo to Rafah. Some had their buses stopped on the way. Some have been told outright that they could not go into Gaza. But after public and political pressure, the Egyptian government changed its position and let them pass.

Our efforts and plans will not be altered at this point. We have set out to break the siege of Gaza and march on December 31 against the Israeli blockade. We are continuing in the same direction.

Contact your local consulate here:

http://www.mfa.gov.eg/MFA_Portal/en-GB/mfa_websits/

Contact the Palestine Division in Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Cairo

Ahmed Azzam, tel +202-25749682 Email: ahmed.azzam@mfa.gov.eg

In the U.S., contact the Egyptian Embassy, 202-895-5400 and ask for Omar Youssef or email omaryoussef@hotmail.com

You signed on to join the the Gaza Freedom March, that was the first step. Now call the Egyptian embassy and ask your elected official to call on your behalf. Contact your local media/press to tell them you are going to Gaza. Then pack your bags and come to Cairo ready to march with our brothers and sisters in Gaza.

We look forward to seeing you all in the coming week.

The GFM Steering Committee

* * Sample text

I am writing/calling to express my full support for the December 31, 2009 Gaza Freedom March. I urge the Egyptian government to allow the 1,300 international delegates to enter the Gaza Strip through Egypt.

The aim of the march is to call on Israel to lift the siege. The delegates will also take in badly needed medical aid, as well as school supplies and winter jackets for the children of Gaza.

Please, let this historic March proceed.

Thank you.

Israel Jails leading rights activist

Israel intensifies the assault on non-violent Palestinian resistance. Jamal Juma from Stop the Wall was arrested last week.

Bethlehem – Ma’an – The Stop the Wall Campaign announced on Sunday that its coordinator, Jamal Juma, has been imprisoned by Israel since 16 December.

Juma’s arrest follows what activists say is a military-legal crackdown on popular expressions of rejection of Israeli occupation. Dozens of protest leaders, boycott campaigners, and other civil society advocates have been arrested in recent weeks.

The Ramallah-based Stop the Wall Campaign, a coordinating body for local anti-wall initiatives said in a statement “This latest arrest is yet another escalation of Israel's attack on Palestinian human rights defenders and clamp down on the right to freedom of expression and the right to association.”

According to the campaign, Israeli security summoned Juma for interrogation at midnight 15 December. After questioning he was brought to his home.

“Juma was handcuffed while soldiers searched his house for two hours as his wife and three young children looked on helplessly,” the anti-wall campaign said in a statement.

The soldiers told Juma’s wife “she would only see her husband again through a prisoner exchange.”

“Since then, Juma has been detained, and banned from speaking to a lawyer or his family, with no explanation for his arrest,” the organization added.

A prominent figure in Palestinian civil society Juma, 47, served as coordinator of the Stop the Wall Campaign since 2002 and helped found the Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees (PARC).

In September, another well-known member of the Stop the Wall campaign, Mohammad Othman, was detained by Israeli forces at the Allenby border crossing upon returning to the West Bank from Norway where he met with the country’s Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen and other officials.

On 10 December Israeli soldiers seized Abdullah Abu Rahmah, the coordinator of the anti-wall Popular Committee in the West Bank village of Bil’in, during a raid on his house.

Witnesses said that the Israeli military raided houses in Bil’in and another village, Nil’in, early on Saturday. Both villages hold weekly demonstrations against the construction of the separation wall on their land.

According to the Stop the Wall Campaign, Jamal Juma’s court date is set for Monday. (Ma'am News)

December 19, 2009

BBC rumbled

Spot the difference between the BBC post I blogged below and the story that now appears at the same url.

Here's the original:
Jewish man jeered at SOAS university debate

Page last updated at 21:28 GMT, Thursday, 17 December 2009
Footage has emerged of a man being told he is "not welcome" after revealing his Jewish name at a School of Oriental and African Studies debate on Palestine.

The film shows Jonathan Hoffman ask why Soas university allowed a man condemned as an anti-Semite by the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHR) to talk.

Upon revealing his name there are boos and shouts of "Jewish!" Anti-racism campaigners called it "chilling".

A spokesman for the London university said nobody broke hate speech rules.

The event, entitled The Case for Sanctions and Boycott [of the nation of Israel] was organised by the School of Oriental and African Studies' [Soas] Palestinian Society.

They invited South African trade unionist Bongani Masuku to speak.

The SAHR has condemned Mr Masuku for "hate speech", saying his comments "are of an extreme nature that imply the Jewish community are to be despised, scorned and ridiculed".

The overpowering racist jeering as displayed by some audience members at the event is stark and chilling

Raheem Kassam, Student Rights

The film, posted on YouTube, shows Mr Hoffman ask: "Why does the University and College Union (UCU) invite somebody who practises hate speech?"

Once boos have subsided the chairman of the debate, Tom Hickey, of the UCU, directs the speakers to "ignore" the question.

Mr Hoffman has described himself as "cross" after the "anti-Semitic" meeting.

The name Hoffman is of German-Jewish origin.

Raheem Kassam, of student anti-racism campaigners Student Rights, said: "The overpowering racist jeering as displayed by some audience members at the event is a stark and chilling revelation of what can happen when extremism is allowed to take root in universities.

"This man was first shouted down, then ignored by the event chair and panellists.

"Why? From what we hear shouted when he is speaking, because he is, 'Jewish', and 'not welcome here'."

'No law breach'

A Soas University spokesman said: "Soas has strict guidelines against hate speech and incitement to violence at public events.

"Event chairs are authorised to stop proceedings if any speaker or audience member breaks the law or engages in speech or behaviour that violates that policy."

He added: "From what is shown in the clip in question, that appears not to have been the case at this event."

The spokesman refused to say whether the university condoned the appearance of Mr Masuku.

Mr Hoffman and the university's Palestinian Society were unavailable for comment.

Mr Masuku categorically denies accusations of racism.

The incident follows recent rows about the appearance of controversial Islamist speakers at both Queen Mary, University of London, and University College London.

And now see the revised version:

Row breaks out over university meeting

A row has broken out over a meeting about Israel at a University of London college that one man described as "anti-Semitic".

Jonathan Hoffman, vice-chairman of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain, made the claim in a blog relating to a meeting at the School of Oriental and African Studies.

But others have insisted the meeting was fair and there were no anti-Semitic undertones. Other Jewish audience members spoke without being heckled.

Mike Cushman, who was part of the audience, said: "It was an extremely serious and positive meeting.

'Very sensitive'

"The jeering was directed at Jonathan Hoffman because of his individual beliefs, not because of his religion.

"It is worth noting many of the audience were of Jewish origin."

Also in the audience was Naomi Wimborne Idressi. She said: "I am a Jew and I am very sensitive about anti-Semitism. There was no anti-Semitism at the meeting.

"It was a meeting which was fervent about human rights. There was a lot of learned discussion."

Mr Hoffman had criticised the appearance of South African trade unionist Bongani Masuku, who has been condemned for hate speech by the South African Human Rights Commission.

In a blog, he described the event as an "anti-Semitic meeting" and wrote: "There were many anti-Semitic statements about Israel as an apartheid state."

After viewing the footage of the meeting, which has been published on the internet, Raheem Kassam, of campaigners Student Rights, said the response to his question constituted racist jeering.

'Strict guidelines'

But Ms Wimborne Idressi said he was booed because he is a high-profile Zionist, well known for controversial views on the Palestinian territories.

A Soas University spokesman said: "Soas has strict guidelines against hate speech and incitement to violence at public events.

"Event chairs are authorised to stop proceedings if any speaker or audience member breaks the law or engages in speech or behaviour that violates that policy.

"From what is shown in the clip in question, that appears not to have been the case at this event."

Ok, they're still trying it on but the changes to the piece beg the question of how the original piece got on to the beeb site in the first place.

Hat-tip to BRICUP for posting the original.

UPDATE 00:01 20/12/2009 - I had an email from that Raheem Kassam saying that he is no longer a member of the Conservative Party nor of the exec of the Conservative Future thingy. I now gather from a comment by Jonathan Hoffman at Harry's Place that Kassam was the originator of the allegation that Hoffman was abused specifically for being "Jewish" or "Jew-ish" whatever that latter means.

December 18, 2009

BBC lying for the Zionist Federation?

I'm not long back from a walk in the snow covered forest with my dog and a friend. The friend isn't particularly political but he told me that there had been a meeting about Israel at which a guy wasn't allowed to speak when the people found out he had a "Jewish name, Hoffman or something". He'd seen the report on BBC 1 TV teletext. I told him that I knew of a Jonathan Hoffman and he has a reputation for noisily disrupting meetings and that he may not have been allowed in or to speak because of that. Knowing my commitment to the Palestinian cause my friend was more sceptical about what I was saying than about the report he read.

When I got home I had two emails telling me about a BBC website report on the same thing together with what one of them thought was a video clip of the meeting in question.

Here's a piece of the BBC report under the headline, Jewish man jeered at Soas university debate:

Footage has emerged of a man being told he is "not welcome" after revealing his Jewish name at a School of Oriental and African Studies debate on Palestine.

The film shows Jonathan Hoffman ask why Soas university allowed a man condemned as an anti-Semite by the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHR) to talk.

Upon revealing his name there are boos and shouts of "Jewish!"

Whoever wrote the piece could find "Raheem Kassam, of student anti-racism campaigners Student Rights", who said:
"The overpowering racist jeering as displayed by some audience members at the event is a stark and chilling revelation of what can happen when extremism is allowed to take root in universities.

But they don't seem to have been able to find any of the people, including Jews other than the Zionist Federation's Jonathan Hoffman, who actually spoke at the meeting. Nor did they take the time to watch the youtube clip they said "emerged" as if it hadn't been on youtube since two days after the meeting:



Maybe I've been too hasty, maybe the clip isn't the one in question. Maybe I'm being too hasty in wondering what's the agenda of this "Student Rights" chap, Raheem Kassam? I googled him and he appears to be an activist with a group called Conservative Future, the youth wing of the Conservative Party in the UK. It doesn't mean he can't be anti-racist but it's very strange to seek a comment on a meeting about BDS from a Tory. Especially when you don't seem to have sought any comment from people who actually spoke at the meeting, except for the notorious Jonathan Hoffman.

Woops, I just remembered there's something about this on Jonathan Hoffman's own blog on the Jewish Chronicle's website. What a way to run a blog post - that's mine, not his. Sorry but I'm going to have to reproduce the whole thing here because it reveals the sheer dishonesty, on many levels, of the BBC posting. So, heeeeeere's Jonny:

Antisemitic meeting at SOAS


By Jonathan Hoffman
December 13, 2009

On 4 December Bricup held a meeting at SOAS. There were around 300 there. The Chair was Tom Hickey(UCU, UCU NEC, BRICUP). Other speakers are listed here:

http://www.bricup.org.uk/

There were many antisemitic statements about Israel as an apartheid state.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27t9MP5uuF0&feature=player_embedded

The video of the Q+A is here. At 4:50 I ask why UCU had invited a speaker (Bongani Masuku of COSATU) who had been found guilty of hate speech by the South African Human Rights Commission. I read out the last paragraph of the HRC finding. I was shouted down but managed to ask the question. When I had finished asking the question Hickey said that no-one should answer my question - not in the lecture theatre and not on the Panel. It is all in the video on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNEJGoe9G8s&feature=player_embedded

http://www.inminds.co.uk/case4boycott.4dec09.php

The rest of the meeting is on videos, click on the above link


This must be one of the things that makes Hoffman such an embarrassment to the Zio establishment. See his post from four days before the BBC post. He doesn't mention anything about being hassled about his Jewish name or of suffering any antisemitic abuse himself. He also alludes to the video that was posted by supporters of BDS and the Palestinian cause whereas the Beeb made out that the video "emerged" as some kind of embarrassment for the organisers.

The BBC has something to answer for here. What are they playing at colluding with a ZF activist in a smear campaign?

Complaints to the BBC can be fobbed off, I mean made here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

December 16, 2009

Global forum for stifling criticism of Israel

I wouldn't know about this conference if it wasn't for a letter in today's Jerusalem Post from Dr David Hirsh, former doyen of the Engage website:
Sir, - David Newman expresses one facet of a complex reality ("Smoke screen strategies," December 15) when he says that sometimes right-wing Jewish voices portray criticism as though it were anti-Semitism. Rabbi Eliezer Melamed's blood libel accusation against Defense Minister Ehud Barak is a case in point.

But by failing to take seriously the anti-Semitic potentiality of the contemporary anti-Zionist movements, Newman does little to untangle the knotted relationship between anger with Israel and hostility toward Jews. We have seen how the campaign to exclude Israelis, and only Israelis, from the global academic, cultural and economic community brings anti-Semitic ways of thinking wherever it goes. We have seen activists accusing anti-boycott lawyers of being financed by stolen Lehman Brothers money. We have seen a man found guilty of hate speech in South Africa being hosted by trade unions in the UK. We have seen "critics of Israel" drawing on far-Right conspiracy theory. We have seen any attempt to raise the issue of anti-Semitism routinely howled down by the cry, "Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic!"

The threat of contemporary anti-Semitism, including when it comes packaged in the language of Israel criticism, is real. There will be a significant stream of opinion at the Global Forum Against Anti-Semitism, which is critical of both anti-Semitism and Israeli human rights abuses. Anti-Semitism ought not to be allowed to appear as a right-wing issue.

Of course, it does not help the fight against anti-Jewish racism that this conference is hosted by Avigdor Lieberman, a man who has done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of how best to oppose racist ways of thinking.

DAVID HIRSH

Delegate to the Global Forum

London

Hirsh wasn't always so averse to accusing the "Israeli right" of "devalu[ing] the coinage of antisemitism". In fact he suggested that Netanyahu himself was guilty of that sort of thing.

Anyway, the conference is being hosted by Israel's foreign ministry and, as I said, chaired by Avigdor Lieberman. The invite is here. And the participants' list is here.

A glance down the list shows a few of the usual suspects when it comes to false charges of antisemitism and I can't see anyone with a reputation for being "critical of both anti-Semitism and Israeli human rights abuses" as per Hirsh's assertion. I did notice, however, that Hirsh isn't using his Goldsmiths University email address. I wonder why that is. Is he still employed by Goldsmiths. Have the university authorities asked him to keep their name out of this hasbara exercise? I think we should be told.

Deane Disses Dodgy Daniel's Divan

This is an excellent article by Raymond Deane

Utopia as Alibi: Said, Barenboim and the Divan Orchestra

As a classical musician involved in pro-Palestinian activism, I frequently encounter the assumption that I am an unconditional admirer of the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra (WEDO). My reservations on this score tend to produce shocked disapproval: How could I not enthuse about such an idealistic project, particularly since it was co-founded by the late Edward Said, a figure for whom I have frequently expressed respect and admiration?

In truth, I have always been a little wary of Said’s veneration for the eighteenth/nineteenth century canon of European classical music. I look in vain in his writings on the subject[1] for a historical and political contextualisation of music comparable of that to which he so perceptively subjected literature in his indispensable Culture and Imperialism.[2]

In his 2002 speech accepting the Principe de Asturias Prize, Said claimed that he and his friend the Israeli pianist and conductor Daniel Barenboim founded the WEDO “for humanistic rather than political reasons”. This surprising dualism implies that music belongs to a utopian sphere somehow removed from the dialectical hurly-burly of hegemony and resistance.

The paradoxes of Said’s position have been ably dissected by the British musicologist Rachel Beckles Willson.[3] She quotes her colleague Ben Etherington’s critique of Said’s tendency “to assert the intrinsic value of Western elite music without really exploring how that tradition escapes mediation.” Paraphrasing Said’s critique of literary scholars in his Humanism and Democratic Criticism[4] she convincingly claims that he “omitted to make ‘a radical examination of the ideology of the [musical performance] field itself.’” (Willson’s chain brackets).

Undoubtedly Barenboim has a less sublimated view of the classical repertoire than Said, and has been more broadminded than many of his superstar peers in his willingness to perform and advocate modern and “avant-garde” music. He has also displayed great independence and personal courage by criticising the Israeli establishment and repeatedly flouting Israeli laws to travel to the occupied West Bank - even bringing the orchestra to Ramallah in 2005.

In 2008, Barenboim accepted honourary Palestinian “citizenship” from the Palestinian Authority. The dissident Israeli journalist Amira Hass put this in context: “It could just as well have [been] said that the PA granted Barenboim citizenship of the moon, since the PA has no authority to grant citizenship… to anyone.”[5] She tellingly points out the broader political implications of such an action: “The PA is seen as a ’state’ with the sovereign right to grant ‘citizenship.’” The illusion of Palestinian statehood, fostered by the 1993 Oslo Accords, has served to absolve Israel from its obligations as an occupier under the 4th Geneva Convention. The gesture towards Barenboim, although empty, was pregnant with propaganda value for the Israeli state and its PA accomplices.

Barenboim’s most recent book is confusingly entitled Music Quickens Time in the US and Everything is Connected in Europe[6]. Reflecting on the fact that Hitler loved classical music, he concludes that “there is not enough thought about music, only visceral reactions almost on an animal level.” “Listening,” he tells us, “is hearing with thought.” The idea that an analytical approach to music is potentially an antidote to its instrumentalisation by fascistic forces is a radical one, but Barenboim goes a clumsy step further by repeatedly depicting musical processes as metaphors for social and political structures. Thus the failure of the Oslo process is linked to the connection between musical content and tempo: “the relationship between content and time was erroneous.” “The education of the ear” - or “auditory intelligence” - is important “for the functioning of society, and therefore also of governments.” “A nation’s constitution could be compared to a score, and the politicians its interpreters” and can be “challenged and adapted” in a democracy, “becoming a kind of collectively composed symphony.”

Unfortunately, while Barenboim professes faith in the axiom that “everything is connected”, the score written by Zionism is premised on “estrangement and alienation”, in the words of the anti-Zionist eco-socialist Joel Kovel.[7] Barenboim buys into the Zionist narrative all along the line. “The Arab population of Palestine had been unsympathetic toward Jewish immigration from the very beginning”, he tells us, as if the indigenous Jewish population hadn’t been equally suspicious of Zionist colonisation - to call it by its proper name. The totalitarian “military rule” imposed by Israel on its Palestinian minority during the early years of statehood was “abominable”, admittedly, but “necessary for its self-preservation”. The renaming of Arab streets after Israeli generals represents “at best thoughtlessness and insensitivity… and at worst an utter lack of strategy in dealing with the question of Arabs in Israel”, rather than a symbolic linchpin of Zionist conquest and dispossession.

In the midst of Israel’s “Operation Cast Lead”, the onslaught on Gaza beginning in December 2008 that led to the killing of some 1400 Palestinians, Barenboim wrote a newspaper article that, while critical of the carnage, similarly repeated a number of Zionist propaganda tropes.[8] Hamas is “a terrorist organisation”, rather than a legitimate resistance movement, and must “realise that its interests are not best served by violence”, although this offensive followed the Israeli breach of a ceasefire long maintained by Hamas. The war in Palestine is “a conflict between two peoples who are both deeply convinced of their right to live on the same very small piece of land”, not a brutal colonial assault by a powerful state on a virtually imprisoned civilian population. Of course “it is self-evident that Israel has the right to defend itself”, a truism that, except possibly for the 1973 “Yom Kippur” war, has never had any bearing on Israel’s relentlessly belligerent actions against its neighbours.


This article almost certainly played a role in causing the cancellation of Barenboim’s projected attendance at an opera performance in Ramallah in July 2009, lest it be disrupted by demonstrations. Once again Amira Hass had her finger on the pulse: “The bulk of dissent across Ramallah was not just over the performance, but over the very existence of the Barenboim-Said Foundation”.[9]

This Foundation, which provided the Children & Youth Choir and theYouth Orchestra for the opera in question, was set up by Barenboim and Said shortly before the latter’s death in 2003, when its administration passed into the capable hands of Said’s widow Mariam. Hass quotes “[a] leading activist in the Palestinian movement for a cultural boycott of Israel” (PACBI) as stating that the Foundation “does not take any position against the Israeli occupation or apartheid policies. They talk about promoting mutual understanding and coexistence through dialogue, music, etc. This is an attempt to give a normal image to a very abnormal, colonial situation.”

Already in 2004 Barenboim stated that “[a]n hour of violin lessons in Berlin is an hour where you get people interested in music. But an hour of violin lessons in Palestine is an hour away from violence and fundamentalism…”[10] This insulting formulation led the Edward Said National Conservatory of Music (ESNCM) to decline any further funding from the Foundation.

The ESNCM is a department of Birzeit University with branches in Jerusalem, Ramallah and Bethlehem. Without funding from the Foundation it is forced to exist on a shoestring, yet it provides a wide range of instruction in both western classical and Arabic music for young Palestinians regardless of class, creed, or gender, while running its own ensembles and an orchestra - The Palestine Youth Orchestra - which it hopes to expand to 100 members by 2010.

In her introduction to An Orchestra Without Borders, a collection of testimonies from WEDO members, Barenboim’s assistant Elena Cheah claims that “[a]n orchestra is a microcosm of society.”[11] In terms of the Middle East, it would appear that while the ESNCM strives, with explicit political determination and an almost total lack of encouragement from the West, to be a microcosm of the whole of Palestinian society, the WEDO represents the Israeli bourgeoisie and the more privileged sectors of Arab (including Palestinian) society. Barenboim’s claim that “young musicians from the Middle East have the freedom of choice over whether or not to come to the West-Eastern Divan workshop”, as if this option were available to young musicians from Gaza or from Lebanese refugee camps, displays an almost hubristic alienation from reality.

Alas, the testimonies from Israeli WEDO members collected in the book suggest that a “utopian” emphasis on human interaction with their Arab colleagues has done little to enhance insight into the political realities surrounding them.

For Daniel Cohen, Barenboim has “the power to help Israelis understand where they are living, and to help the Arabs to accept our existence in Israel as our right…” Clearly the young violinist doesn’t see this as a somewhat lopsided combination.

Sharon Cohen describes an argument in which “The Arabs kept saying: ‘You don’t understand about the checkpoints and the humiliation,’ and the Israelis kept saying, ‘You don’t understand about being in the army.’” Similarly, oboist Meirav Kadichevski expresses her understanding of the Palestinian sense of repression by evoking her own feelings “when I was in the army - I also felt repressed.” Clearly for these former soldiers there is no incongruity in equating the oppressor’s discomfort with the horror of being at the oppressor’s mercy.

Yuval the trumpeter, whose attitudes are described as having been positively transformed by orchestra membership, opines that “Palestinians have to start feeling responsible for themselves…” instead of “always waiting for someone to recognise their pain.” A lecture from the Palestinian activist Ali Abunimah criticising the “two-state solution” provokes his sharp reaction that “…some people are saying we should make one nation, and it’s insane.”

The impression ultimately gleaned from Arabs and Israelis alike is that the real glue binding these young people together is ambition: the WEDO provides an exceptional opportunity to gain experience under Daniel Barenboim, a famous and influential conductor, and hence is a stepping-stone to professional advancement. In itself, of course, there is nothing reprehensible about this - but it is a far cry from stylising the orchestra as an exemplary space of reconciliation and understanding.

In a letter to the New York Review of Books last October the actor Vanessa Redgrave (once a stalwart advocate of Palestinian rights), the screenwriter Martin Sherman and the artist Julian Schnabel dissociated themselves from opposition to the Toronto Film Festival’s featuring of Tel Aviv in its “city to city” section. They closed their letter as follows:

“The year 2009 is the tenth anniversary of the founding of the Barenboim-Said West-Eastern Divan Orchestra. We hope that those who protest Israeli inclusion in film festivals will take note of this example of the power of art freely expressed and available to all, and reconsider their position.”[12]

This is a sad and timely demonstration of how the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra can be enlisted to demobilise meaningful solidarity with the oppressed Palestinians. While it would be crass to dismiss the WEDO as merely “a bad thing”, the reality is that it offers uncommitted Western liberals, for whom an uncompromising campaign of BDS is a step too far, a peg on which to hang their sentimental belief in an unpolitical reconciliation that costs nobody anything.

Raymond Deane is a composer and political activist

__________________________________________________________________________________

Photo Credits:

Photo 1: Daniel Barenboim talking to a member of the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra during rehersals

Photo 2: Palestinians run for cover from Israeli air strikes during the Israeli assult on Gaza. (Mohamed Al-Zanon/MaanImages - Photo courtesy of Electronic Intafada).

Photo 3: Daniel Barenboim conducting the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra. Photos courtesy of the West-Eastern Divan website.

Notes


[1] Edward W. Said: Musical Elaborations (Columbia University Press, NY, 1991); Reflections on Exile (London, Granta Books, 2001); Music at the Limits (Columbia University Press, NY, 2007).

[2] Edward W. Said: Culture and Imperialism (Chatto & Windus Ltd, 1993; Vintage, 1994).

[3] Rachel Beckles Willson: Whose Utopia? (Music and Politics, Volume III, Number 2. http://www.music.ucsb.edu/projects/musicandpolitics/archive/2009-2/beckles_willson.html, accessed 7/12/09)

[4] Edward W. Said: Humanism and Democratic Criticism (PALGRAVE MACMILLAN, Hampshire and NY, 2004).

[5] Amira Hass: Honorary Citizenship of the Moon (Ha’aretz, 26th January 2009)

[6] Daniel Barenboim: Music Quickens Time (Verso, London/NY 2008); Everything is Connected (Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London 2008).

[7] Joel Kovel: Overcoming Zionism (London, Pluto Press, 2007).

[8] Daniel Barenboim: The Illusion of Victory (The Guardian, 1st January 2009).

[9] Amira Hass: Palestinian anger with Barenboim forces him to cancel Ramallah visit (Ha’aretz, 17th July, 2009).

[10] Luke Harding: Conductor brings harmony to Arabs [sic] (The Guardian, 30th November, 2004).

[11] Elena Cheah: An Orchestra without Borders (Verson, London/NY, 2009).

[12] Redgrave, Schnabel, Sherman: Let Israeli Films be Shown (New York Review of Books, Volume 56, Number 16, 22nd October, 2009).

Israeli Coalition of Women for Peace to Livni: Cooperate with any international investigation against you

A Dec. 16 press release from the Israeli group Coalition of Women for Peace:



Coalition of Women for Peace to Tzipi Livni:

"Cooperate with any international investigation against you"

This morning (Wed. 16/12/09), the Women's Coalition for Peace sent a translation of the Goldstone Report to Knesset Member Tzipi Livni (head of the opposition and Foreign Minister during the "Cast Lead" offensive), who received notice of a warrant for her arrest in Britain this week. In a letter attached to the report, Coalition members wrote: "we are convinced that if you refer to the report you will understand why British citizens and organizations have turned to the courts with a request to issue a warrant for your arrest."

The report directly refers to remarks by senior political figures in Israel which encouraged indiscriminate attacks on civilians, in contradiction of international law. It is in this context that MK Tzipi Livni is quoted as saying, on 13 January 2009, that "we have proven to Hamas that the equation has been altered. Israel is a state that, when its citizens are shot at, will respond insanely. And that's a good thing."

Furthermore, runs the letter, "the Goldstone Report details a long list of indiscriminate attacks against civilian populations […] In addition, the report surveys the extent of the damage to industrial infrastructure, food production, water facilities, sewage infrastructure and residential buildings; the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields and the targeting of medical staff. The testimony of Israeli soldiers corroborates the allegations made in the Report that during Cast Lead heinous war crimes were committed.

"The attention of the Goldstone Commission was drawn to the way the military operations affected women particularly adversely. The responsibility of women towards their homes and children forced them to deal for a period of weeks with extraordinary difficulties caused by impossible conditions which denied them of the means of sustenance – including access to food, water, heating supplies and protection against the rain, shelter, intentional attacks on civilians, destruction of infrastructure and denial of medical attention. Women suffered most of all from the attack which you helped lead, and for which you served as the international spokesperson.

"As a feminist organization active in Israel, we consider that only a process of legal investigation and prosecution of war criminals by the international community has the power to bring a measure of justice to the women and men of Gaza. In our opinion the correct reaction on your part to the Goldstone Report would be a coming to terms with the wholesale murder with which you collaborated freely as a senior minister in the Israeli government as part of an election campaign. We call on you to cooperate with any international investigation that may be opened against you and to counsel your colleagues in the government and military to do the same.


Also be sure to have a look at this Dec. 16 comment piece in the Independent by Sir Geoffrey Bindman, "Livni has no right to claim immunity from prosecution." Bindman represented Amnesty International & others in the case against the ex-Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet was arrested while visiting the UK for human rights abuses committed during his rule, and lost his court challenge to prevent his extradition to Spain.

When is a war crime not a war crime?

When the war criminal is Israeli of course. At least that seems to be the position here in the UK. Here's Scottish Palestine Solidarity on the case:
Miliband moves to protect Israeli politicians from UK laws

Israel demands changes in UK law to protect war criminals
Miliband yet again promises action to remove universal jurisdiction

Israeli ex-Minister Livni called off her planned visit to London after a Westminster magistrate issued an warrant for her arrest for her involvement in the planning of war crimes in Gaza. Like the verdicts of British juries that the Israeli Army murdered Tom Hurndall and journalist James Miller, previous arrest warrants for war crimes against Doron Almog, and the hurried exit of other Israeli generals, the latest UK magistrate's decision to issue an arrest warrant for an Israeli Government official on war crimes charges adds to the long-term build up of pressure for the British Government to break with its support for Israel.

For the moment, however, UK Foreign Minister David Miliband chose to "act with expediency to change the insufferable situation" where war criminals can be charged with war crimes. Livni had been due to address a London conference of the racist Jewish National Fund, whose sponsors include Gordon Brown and David Cameron, and Lib Dem Leader Nic Clegg.

Now there's a thing I didn't know. I knew that Brown and Cameron were corrupt enough to be patrons of the racist Jewish National Fund but I didn't know that Nic Clegg was. So now the PM and two wannabe PMs are all patrons (or "sponsors" as SPSC says) of an organisation largely responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. And these are the people who will decide whether or not the UK should pursue war criminals.

Israeli Academics are up in arms...literally!!!

The AIC published a report on the deep ties between Israel's universities and the security forces, as well as other aspects of the involvement of academics and academic institutions in sustaining the occupation. As the AIC explains
This report aims to empower the debate on an academic boycott by giving information not on Israeli violence and violations of international law and human rights, but on the part played in the Israeli occupation by academic institutions.
So empower yourself! Read the report.

Did you know that scientists at the Technion developed a remote control D-9, the IDF's preferred tool for razing homes and neighborhoods? Or that you can "write a thesis" at an Israeli university guided by an executive at a weapons manufacturing firm? But why not let the groom present himself?
Technion President Yitzhak Apeloighe said: “This new program that we are launching and the yearly donation that Elbit Systems is going to give [...] are an example of the opulent cooperation between the Technion and the [arms] industry.”
Elbit is the company boycotted by the Norwegian Finance Ministry.

But do not think that this is a mere matter of lucre. Israeli universities are smitten with soldiers. The pain of having to spend a few years beating, harassing and killing Palestinians is perhaps somewhat dulled by a nice scholarship:

Israeli law itself stipulates that universities give special treatment to reservist students28 and none of the universities themselves have ever expressed even symbolic opposition to this political interference in the academic sphere; on the contrary, almost all of them have come up with their own original ways of supporting soldiers and the Israeli war-like agenda (way beyond what they are required to by law). The most common method for this is the granting of scholarships and academic benefits based, sometimes solely, on past, present or future military service.

If the thought of the coming anniversary for last year's slaughter of Gaza's Palestinians fills you with apprehension, you would appreciate knowing that those of the perpetrators who were registered students at Ben Gurion's University at the time got paid a special grant of about $50 for a day. The Peres Academic Center (whatever that is), offered special scholarships of over $3000 each to veterans of the slaughter. (There's more, a lot more, so read the report already!)

As the report notes, apart from the utter indecency of these backslap for barbarity programs, special assistance to soldiers constitute discrimination against those who do not serve in the army, and especially against Palestinians.

Some people have started to notice that Israel's allegedly liberal Supreme Court, despite the meagerness of its actual defense of Palestinian rights, is increasingly simply ignored by the army and the government. The Wall in Bil'in is an example. The Supreme Court ordered the path changed. So it did! But Haifa University is no better, also technically in contempt of court for discrimination against Palestinian students. The Hebrew University goes one better, requiring people who visit the campus while not being Jewish to present a police issued "character reference."

The College of Management has a program in "Security Studies." Apartheid 101? Since it is a graduate program, more appropriate would be 'Apartheid 501 '. Bar Ilan University takes care of the grunts, with a special, fast track B.A. for the personnel of the Shabak and similar agencies. Don't count on this book being assigned in any of their courses, nor this one.

Then there is the actual participation of universities in land theft and settlement construction. There are the cases of Arnon Sofer, a professor of Applied Racism, or as they call it in Israel, "demographics," and there is Pnina Sharvit Baruch, who teaches the Law of the Jungle at Tel Aviv school of Law. Both enjoy the warm embrace of their institutions, unlike say, a nebech like Neve Gordon, or the film instructor at Sapir college, Nizar Hassan, who dared ask a student not to come to class in uniform.

The report end with a discussion of arguments for and against boycotts, making a distinction between "ideological" boycotts, that target agents for specific actions, and "tactical" boycotts, that target the group that can exercise pressure on the agents. The report defends both types within the context of the history of BDS, but comes down for a nuanced preference for the "ideological" variant. Very useful.


December 15, 2009

Livni did the right thing - shock!

N-no! Don't go. I mean she was right to suspect herself of being a war criminal. See this Guardian report from Ian Black:
A British court issued an arrest warrant for Israel's former foreign minister over war crimes allegedly committed in Gaza this year – only to withdraw it when it was discovered that she was not in the UK, it emerged today.

Tzipi Livni, a member of the war cabinet during Operation Cast Lead, had been due to address a meeting in London on Sunday but cancelled her attendance in advance. The Guardian has established that Westminster magistrates' court issued the warrant at the request of lawyers acting for some of the Palestinian victims of the fighting but it was later dropped.

The warrant marks the first time an Israeli minister or former minister has faced arrest in the UK and is evidence of a growing effort to pursue war crimes allegations under "universal jurisidiction". Israel rejects these efforts as politically motivated, saying it acted in self-defence against Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza.

Livni, head of the opposition Kadima party, played a key role in decisions made before and during the three-week offensive. Palestinians claim 1,400 were killed, mostly civilians; Israel counted 1,166 dead, the majority of them combatants.

That last bit's curious. Israel's weapons tended to be indiscriminate so how did they count the dead? And what does Israel call a combatant given that it sees pregnant women as a demographic threat?

UPDATE: our comment software is being updated & we're still trying to figure out how the new system works. Thanks for your patience. -Nedster

December 14, 2009

Livni avoids UK because she suspects she is a war criminal

Tzipi Livni has cancelled a planned visit to the UK because she fears she would be arrested as a war criminal if she came here. Here's the Jewish Chronicle:

Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni cancelled a visit to Britain this weekend over fears pro-Palestinian lawyers would seek to have her arrested.

Ms Livni had been due to speak at Sunday’s JNF Vision 2010 conference in Hendon, north-west London. She had also been expected to meet Prime Minister Gordon Brown for private talks.

But she pulled out of the trip for fear of lawyers obtaining an arrest warrant.

She is the latest senior Israeli politician to avoid Britain. In October, Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon was advised by a special inter-departmental team working with ministers to pull out of a JNF dinner in London.

Experts on international law from the foreign and justice ministries, and the IDF Attorney-General’s department, have advised cabinet ministers with a security background and senior IDF officers not to visit Britain, Spain, Belgium or Norway, while lawyers in these countries are seeking to arrest Israelis on charges of alleged war crimes through “universal jurisdiction” laws.

Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor, speaking at the JNF conference, said Israel was fighting the laws “tooth and nail” and would “not be shut down”.

A group of around 100 anti-Israel protestors demonstrated outside the Hendon Hall Hotel venue as delegates arrived.

Israel is fighting against laws against war crimes in preference to stopping its war crimes. Typical!

Anyway here's a picture of the woman herself:



So if you see her at Heathrow or Gatwick or Fishguard or Holyhead call the police and they'll tip her off and she'll scarper but we can still enjoy her (and Israel's) discomfiture.

Abused academic turns to the Community Security Trust

There's something slightly disturbing about this story of threats of financial and physical abuse being made against a professor at Ben Gurion University of the Negev by a leading zionist in the UK. Here's Ned Temko in yesterday's Observer:
A battle involving money and politics, academic freedom and threatening emails has hit an Israeli university after one of its academics took part in a Channel 4 documentary which has been accused of encouraging antisemitism.

At the centre of the dispute is Michael Gross, a prominent member of Britain's Jewish community, a long-time donor to Ben-Gurion University (BGU) and a member of its international board of governors.

After seeing the Dispatches programme last month, Gross emailed Professor David Newman – a British-born lecturer who has emigrated to Israel – and wrote: "I saw your disgusting contribution to the Dispatches programme. I will use whatever influence I have at BGU to have you thrown out… I hope you perish." In a second message, he said: "The sooner you are removed from BGU and the face of the earth, the better."

Ok, a zionist turns nasty, nu? Here it gets weird:
Newman revealed that he had lodged an official complaint against Gross with the Community Security Trust (CST), the body that monitors threats against British Jews. "If someone had written to any member of the Anglo-Jewish community with words like that, it would immediately have been reported to the police, and they would have wanted to know why it wasn't being dealt with," he said.
An official complaint? What's official about the CST? Another question is, will the CST record this as an antisemitic incident?

Yo MacDonald! Finally an establishment figure turns on Blair

Blair apologists will say that the opinion of a former Director of Public Prosecutions doesn't amount to an exposé but the manner and medium (The Times) of the opinion together with its writer's former and current roles must be deeply damaging for Blair. I hope so anyway. Now read on....
The degree of deceit involved in our decision to go to war on Iraq becomes steadily clearer. This was a foreign policy disgrace of epic proportions and playing footsie on Sunday morning television does nothing to repair the damage. It is now very difficult to avoid the conclusion that Tony Blair engaged in an alarming subterfuge with his partner George Bush and went on to mislead and cajole the British people into a deadly war they had made perfectly clear they didn’t want, and on a basis that it’s increasingly hard to believe even he found truly credible. Who is any longer naive enough to accept that the then Prime Minister’s mind remained innocently open after his visit to Crawford, Texas?

Hindsight is a great temptress. But we needn’t trouble her on the way to a confident conclusion that Mr Blair’s fundamental flaw was his sycophancy towards power. Perhaps this seems odd in a man who drank so much of that mind-altering brew at home. But Washington turned his head and he couldn’t resist the stage or the glamour that it gave him. In this sense he was weak and, as we can see, he remains so. Since those sorry days we have frequently heard him repeating the self-regarding mantra that “hand on heart, I only did what I thought was right”. But this is a narcissist’s defence and self-belief is no answer to misjudgment: it is certainly no answer to death. “Yo, Blair”, perhaps, was his truest measure.

How effectively the Chilcot Inquiry, to which Mr Blair will give evidence in the new year, can expose any of this remains to be seen. Ominously for the former Prime Minister, his growing distance from power appears to be loosening some well-placed Whitehall tongues. It seems that the contempt felt by some mandarins for his fancier footwork around the weapons of mass destruction is finally showing in a belated settling of scores. Discretion is fading like toothache and the feast of revenge is as tempting as it is cold.

Yet the position of the inquiry panel is uncertain. So far, apart from some interventions by Sir Roderic Lyne, the former ambassador in Moscow, its questioning has been unchallenging. If this is born of a belief that it creates an atmosphere more conducive to truth, it seems naive. The truth doesn’t always glide out so compliantly; sometimes it struggles to be heard. Sometimes it takes cover in a shelter that is entirely self-serving.

Sir John Chilcot himself, a distinguished former Permanent Secretary at the Northern Ireland Office during the Troubles and finely tuned for years to the security services, will be key. Perhaps a great and brave struggle against instinct will be necessary. In British public life, loyalty and service to power can sometimes count for more to insiders than any tricky questions of wider reputation. It’s the regard you are held in by your peers that really counts, so that steadfastness in the face of attack and threatened exposure brings its own rich hierarchy of honour and reward. Disloyalty, on the other hand, means a terrible casting out, a rocky and barren Roman exile that few have the courage to endure. So which way will our heroes jump?

We must hope in the right direction — for it is precisely this privately arranged nature of British Establishment power, stubborn beyond sympathy for years in the face of the modern world, that has brought our politics so low. If Chilcot fails to reveal the truth without fear in this Middle Eastern story of violence and destruction, the inquiry will be held in deserved and withering contempt. This would be a serious blow to the integrity of the State. It would not restore trust.

For so many years this would not have mattered. Questions sufficiently critical and grand were decided at an elevated level, and in air more refined than most people would ever inhale. A besotted king could be skewered in the shadows and depart, or an illustrious commission twist and turn from any finding of government fault. And if the cost of the reasoning was ermine splashed in whitewash, the price would be willingly paid.

But it’s harder today and the tax on dishonesty is rising. Now our system has to prove itself again and again, it has to persuade people that it deserves their loyalty and support. Citizens believe deeply in a democratic right to know and they no longer acknowledge their unworthiness to enjoy its nourishment. Naturally, this is a less comfortable world for people in power, but it’s a much better world for everyone else. The real tragedy of Iraq, beyond all the danger and the terrible loss, is that it rendered any affair of the heart between government and people no more than a wisp, like a lie in the wind. It broke faith.

This is the gravity of Chilcot, and its broader meaning. A few months of their deliberations will tell us how well, through the solemn work of these illustrious individuals, each one of us, and therefore our country, measures up to a compromised past.

We have seen enormous acts of courage on the part of our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. The most heart-rending sacrifices have been made; many of them will become poetry and song in future years. But none of this sprinkles, as he might once have hoped it would, any starlight on Tony Blair. On the contrary, it is entirely the work of warriors thrust carelessly into death’s way by a Prime Minister lost in self-aggrandisement and a governing class too closed to speak truth to power.

Ken Macdonald QC practises at Matrix Chambers and is a visiting professor of law at the London School of Economics. He was Director of Public Prosecutions, 2003-2008

Ok, the language gets a bit pretentious towards the end but I don't remember enjoying an article in a Murdoch paper so much as this one. I wonder if the article would have appeared in The Times if Murdoch hadn't have decided to ditch Labour.

December 13, 2009

Will Blair lie to the Iraq inquiry publicly or privately?

I think that's the only remaining question. The Independent on Sunday has a front page "exclusive" headed Untouchable: Blair to give Iraq War evidence in secret:
Key parts of Tony Blair's evidence to the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War will be held in secret, sources close to the hearings revealed last night.

His conversations with President George Bush when he was prime minister, and crucial details of the decision-making process that led Britain into war, will fall under the scope of national security and the protection of Britain's relations with the US.

But there are also suggestions by well-placed sources that anything "interesting" will also be shrouded in secrecy, leaving his public appearance containing little more than is already known.

The revelation will dash hopes that Mr Blair will finally detail in public why he committed British troops to the disastrous military invasion on the basis of flimsy intelligence.

The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg last night condemned the move, saying if a significant proportion of Mr Blair's evidence were held in private then the public would "rightly conclude that the inquiry is simply too weak to give us the truth".

It followed Mr Blair's extraordinary admission to the TV presenter Fern Britton this weekend that he would have gone to war even if he had known Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.

He would have deployed "different arguments" to remove Saddam, Mr Blair said – undermining his long-held case that Saddam needed to be toppled because of the threat of WMD.

It will be seen as supremely ironic that Mr Blair made the confession in the cosy surroundings of a documentary about his religious beliefs, in Fern Britton Meets... to be broadcast on BBC1 today, yet the public will be denied the chance to see any difficult questioning of how he has changed his justification for war over the past seven years.

All of the evidence held behind closed doors is expected to be redacted from the Chilcot panel's final report on the war.

There are already concerns that Sir John Chilcot and his four fellow panellists have given the 27 witnesses who have so far appeared – mainly senior Foreign Office mandarins – an easy ride over their role in the war.

The former MI6 chief Sir John Scarlett, in evidence last week, distanced himself from the "overtly political" foreword to the September 2002 Downing Street dossier. Yet the panel failed to ask why it was that Mr Blair and Alastair Campbell were able to amend the document he was in charge of. Sir John will also give evidence in private.


It follows up with an extraordinary editorial, the writer of which can longer contain his or her annoyance at Blair getting away with yet more dishonesty and high-handedness:
What are we to make of Tony Blair's admission that he would have joined the invasion of Iraq even without evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and would, as he put it, have deployed another argument to justify the war to Parliament and the public?

He has, of course, inched before towards a confession that the war was really all about regime change, stupid. Never mind that this would have made it even less defensible on legal grounds. It was all long ago, and, as he says on BBC1 today, the world's a better place without that evil man with the bushy moustache and his two nasty boys.

Even by the standards of the former prime minister's chutzpah, this I'd-have-deployed-a-different-argument approach is extraordinary. What is worse than requiring us to view very differently the presentation of the "extensive, detailed and authoritative" WMD evidence – surely the most cynical con trick of modern times – is Mr Blair's sly reference to Islam, in which he moves on to another justification, fixing the decision to go to war in the context of a wider battle over religion: "I happen to think that there is a major struggle going on all over the world, really, which is about Islam and what is happening within Islam."

This is as fine an example of Mr Blair's intellectual dishonesty as it is possible to find. As a statement, it is, of course, uncontroversial. Applying it to Iraq, though, is scandalous. There is an arguable case, and one which Blair now seems publicly to endorse, that Saddam simply had to go. In which case, why did he tell the Commons in February 2003 that it was not too late for him? "I detest his regime. But even now he can save it by complying with the UN's demand." Sir John Chilcot might care to ask Mr Blair if that, like so many things he says, merely felt true at the time he said it.

And why did he speak, in the parliamentary debate on the eve of invasion three weeks later, of rogue regimes and terror groups? It was to invite the gullible to make the inference he wanted – that Saddam's regime was somehow implicated in 9/11.

Mr Blair's comments to Fern Britton in today's programme are designed to convey that same false idea. You might – might – argue that military action in both Afghanistan and Iraq is part of the same war, to stop WMD at some distant time falling into the hands of terrorists. But that overlooks Saddam's bitter hostility to Osama bin Laden, of which Blair must have been aware, and the creation of al-Qa'ida in Iraq since the invasion.

Oh yes, the headline of the editorial? A despicable means to a dead end.

But the Independent is the only paper I can find that is reporting on this "behind closed doors" business. Look at today's Yahoo news. It's headed Blair will give Iraq war evidence in public: inquiry.
The Iraq war inquiry said Sunday that former prime minister Tony Blair would be questioned "very much in public" amid fears that crucial evidence would only be heard in private.

Blair, who is to appear before the long-awaited official inquiry early next year, said in a BBC television interview to be screened Sunday that he would have backed the invasion of Iraq even if he had known that president Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

He said London would have used other ways to justify its support for the March 2003 US-led invasion to oust the Iraqi dictator.

The interview triggered concerns that when he testifies it would be heard behind closed doors.

Most evidence to the inquiry will be given in public, although closed hearings can take place for issues concerning national security or secret intelligence. Mindful of the risk, proceedings are broadcast with a one-minute delay.

The Independent on Sunday newspaper suggested that Blair's meetings with US president George W. Bush and details of the decision-making process that led to war would be dealt with in secret on grounds of national security and the need to protect London's relations with Washington.

However, a spokesman for the inquiry said: "Mr Blair will be appearing very much in public and will be questioned in detail on a wide range of issues surrounding Britain's involvement in Iraq.

"We have said right from the start that he will be a key figure in the inquiry. Mr Blair has said that he is ready and willing to give evidence in public."

Suppose he had have said that he wasn't ready or willing?

So,, we're now left wondering, will he be lying publicly or privately?

December 12, 2009

Dehumanising Jews at Harry's Place

They are so stupid it's breathtaking sometimes. Harry's Place has had a few articles by the anti-zionists' favourite zionist, Jonathan Hoffman, but this latest is priceless. It is assumed that it was Jewish settlers that torched a mosque in the West Bank village of Yasuf. Under the headline "Sub Humans Commit An Appalling Crime", Jonathan Hoffman tries on his new moderate mask. Reading the whole post which is mercifully short we see by the end of it just what leads Hoffman to so despise the perpetrators:
The culprits must be found, tried and punished according to the law. Whoever they are, their agenda is to wreck the coalition led by Prime Minister Netanyahu. If this appalling crime goes unpunished then they may well succeed.
So that's what's less than human: trying to to wreck a coalition of semi and overt fascists.

Funnier still is the fact that Lucy Lips (aka David T) has had to rush to Hoffman's defence by pointing out that HP likes to dehumanise Arabs for torching abandoned shuls - and a whole lot more besides but he doesn't go there.

The bit I don't get is how it seems to be lost on the HP faithful that using white phosphorous on children in schools is considerably worse than torching and graffitiing an empty mosque or shul. But then the assault on Gaza didn't seek to "wreck the coalition led by Prime Minister Netanyahu". Au contraire, it seems to have got it into power.

December 11, 2009

Look who picketed Carols for Gaza event

No surprise that the Zionist Federation mounted one of its ghoulish pickets in an attempt to intimidate supporters of the Palestinian cause but what was the Council of Christians and Jews doing on the picket?




Here's West End Extra:
THE rector of a West End church was warned he would “go to hell” in a series of hate emails sent in the build-up to a controversial carol singing concert.
The Reverend Simon Grigg said he had endured a “nasty week” but was pleased so many people had “braved the lobby” of Israeli demonstrators outside St Paul’s the Actors’ Church.
Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods (J-BIG) – an organisation of Jews opposing Israeli policy towards Palestine – staged its annual parody of a traditional Christmas carol service in the church on Tuesday night.

They sang carols with names such as “Away and in Danger” and the “Olive and the Army” reworded with provocative lines drawing attention to the conflict in Gaza.

More than 200 people – including Cherie Booth’s sister, journalist Lauren, political activist Bruce Kent, writer Ghada Karmi and Baroness Jenny Tonge – had entered the church to a hail of abuse and chanting from members of the Zionist Federation and Council for Christians and Jews.
Ok, let's give the last word to the Council of Christians and Jews. This is from the CCJ website:
CCJ is the UK's oldest national inter faith organisation. Our primary focus is Christian Jewish relations, but we seek to relate positively to all of Britain's faith communities.
Hmm...?

Boycott Israel update

Boycotting Israeli goods should become easier in the UK following an order that goods produced in Israeli settlements in the West Bank be labelled as such. Here's the Guardian:
Britain has acted to increase pressure on Israel over its West Bank settlements by advising UK supermarkets on how to distinguish between foods from the settlements and Palestinian-manufactured goods.

The government's move falls short of a legal requirement but is bound to increase the prospects of a consumer boycott of products from those territories. Israeli officials and settler leaders were tonight highly critical of the decision.

Until now, food has been simply labelled "Produce of the West Bank", but the new, voluntary guidance issued by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), says labels could give more precise information, like "Israeli settlement produce" or "Palestinian produce".

There see, you can boycott Israel and help the Palestinians.

The distinction doesn't have the force of law just yet but see this:
Separately, Defra said that traders would be committing an offence if they did declare produce from the occupied territories as "Produce of Israel".
And here's some comment:
The TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber, welcomed the public clarification that marking produce from illegal settlements on occupied territory as "produce of Israel" was illegal, but said the government should have gone further.

Barbara Stocking, Oxfam's chief executive, said: "Profiting from the goods produced in the illegal settlements is contrary to international law and they should be banned from sale in the European Union, as they are in Palestine. Trade in such goods undermines the viability of a sovereign Palestinian state and holds back the peace process.

"We support the right of consumers to know the origin of the products they purchase. Trade with Israeli settlements – which are illegal under international law – contributes to their economic viability and serves to legitimise them. It is also clear from our development work in West Bank communities that settlements have led to the denial of rights and create poverty for many Palestinians.".....

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign said it welcomed the new guidance but urged Defra to go further: "The government must seek prosecutions of companies which smuggle settlement goods in under false labels.

"We have received many calls from people who were distressed when they bought goods labelled 'Produce of the West Bank' because they thought they were aiding the Palestinian economy, then realised they were economically aiding Israel's illegal occupation.

"Particularly following Israel's massacre in Gaza, consumers have been shocked at Israel's war crimes and want to take action. They do not want to feel complicit in Israel's occupation by buying stolen goods."............

Toby Quantrill, head of public policy for the Fairtrade Foundation, said farmers in Palestine faced barriers to trade which jeopardised opportunities to trade internationally on equal terms with people making similar products.

And for the zios?
Dani Dayan, the Argentinian-born leader of the Yesha Council, which represents Israeli settlers, said the decision was the "latest hostile step" from Britain. "Products from our communities in Judea and Samaria should be treated as any other Israeli product," he said, using an Israeli term for the West Bank.

Israeli officials said they feared this was a slide towards a broader boycott of Israeli goods. Yigal Palmor, Israel's foreign ministry spokesman, said his country's produce was being unfairly singled out.

"It looks like it is catering to the demands of those whose ultimate goal is the boycott of Israeli products," he said. "The message here will very likely be used by pro-boycott campaigners. It is a matter of concern."

And then a little sop from the Guardian to the Obama fan club:
Israel came under intense US pressure early this year to halt construction in settlements, but has only adopted a temporary, partial freeze. Palestinian leaders say they will not restart peace negotiations until there is a full settlement freeze in line with the US road map of 2003.
Intense pressure? What intense pressure?

I've just re-read the whole article and there's no comment from the Board of Deputies of British Jews but then this is a political issue and, as we've seen, the "board was never intended to be a political organization".