Anthony Julius's FUCU demands being implemented on US campuses

Someone just sent me a link to Chris Hedges's article, Israel's War on American Universities in TruthDig.Com.  

See this:

The banning of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) at Northeastern University in Boston on March 7, along with a university threat of disciplinary measures against some of its members, replicates sanctions being imposed against numerous student Palestinian rights groups across the country. The attacks, and the disturbingly similar forms of punishment, appear to be part of a coordinated effort by the Israeli government and the Israel lobby to blacklist all student groups that challenge the official Israeli narrative.

Northeastern banned the SJP chapter after it posted on campus replicas of eviction notices that are routinely put up on Palestinian homes set for Israeli demolition. The university notice of suspension says that if the SJP petitions for reinstatement next year, “No current member of the Students for Justice in Palestine executive board may serve on the inaugural board of the new organization” and that representatives from the organization must attend university-sanctioned “trainings.”

In 2011 in California, 10 students who had disrupted a speech at UC Irvine by Michael Oren, then the Israeli ambassador to the United States, were found guilty, put on informal probation and sentenced to perform community service. Oren, an Israeli citizen who has since been hired by CNN as a contributor, has called on Congress to blacklist supporters of the campaign of boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel and to prosecute those who protest at appearances by Israeli officials. Some activists at Florida Atlantic University were stripped of student leadership positions after walking out of a talk by an Israeli army officer, and they were ordered by school administrators to attend re-education seminars designed by the Anti-Defamation League.

Now look at how the industrial tribunal in the FUCU case detailed Anthony Julius's "letter before action" against the University and College Union:

Complaint (10): The letter before action of 1 July 2011 and UCU's response

136 By the letter before action, Mr Julius charged the Respondents with harassing the Claimant. It was said that the union was not a place that was hospitable to Jews and that the union's treatment of the Claimant was not merely a violation of equality legislation but also a scandal. Reference was made to correspondence going back to 2008, the boycott motions, the management of the Activists List, the Bongani Masuku affair and other matters. It was said that the union was institutionally anti-Semitic and that the decision most recently taken to abandon the Working Definition was just the most recent of many "insults". That motion was characterised as a choice to legislate anti-Semitism out of existence. The letter continued in similar unbridled fashion and culminated in the demand for the abrogation of Motion 70 of 2011, an open an unqualified acknowledgment that the union had been guilty of institutional anti-Semitism coupled with a public apology, a commitment to abide by a code of conduct in respect of its Jewish members to be drawn up by a body comprising individuals approved by the Claimant and a further commitment to sponsor a programme (for a minimum of 10 years and conducted by that same body) educating academics about the dangers of anti-Semitism, "with special reference to the relationship between anti-Semitism and what now passes for 'anti-Zionism". 

I wrote about the case result here.  See the similarities between what Anthony Julius was demanding and what some US universities are forcing their Palestine solidarity activists to go through.

Of course what was so pleasing about the FUCU case and other court victories for the Palestine solidarity movement in the UK is that Israel/zionism rarely stands up to any forensic test.  But in the US, as Chris Hedges points out, Israel and its advocates are not having to stand up to a forensic test.  They can simply muscle universities into doing pretty much what Julius was demanding of the UCU.  It's particularly annoying because Julius managed to chalk up the biggest hasbara fail in the UK that anyone can remember.

Could Obama have Hagel killed in a drone strike on American soil?

I'm just wondering, that's all because it could calm a few Israel lobby nerves if Obama had Hagel killed.  And according to this Glenn Greenwald Guardian Comment is Free piece there appears to be no law preventing Obama from having anyone from anywhere killed anywhere:

The Justice Department "white paper" purporting to authorize Obama's power to extrajudicially execute US citizens was leaked three weeks ago. Since then, the administration - including the president himself and his nominee to lead the CIA, John Brennan - has been repeatedly asked whether this authority extends to US soil, i.e., whether the president has the right to execute US citizens on US soil without charges. In each instance, they have refused to answer.

Brennan has been asked the question several times as part of his confirmation process. Each time, he simply pretends that the question has not been asked, opting instead to address a completely different issue. Here's the latest example from the written exchange he had with Senators after his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee; after referencing the DOJ "white paper", the Committee raised the question with Brennan in the most straightforward way possible:

Obviously, that the US has not and does not intend to engage in such acts is entirely non-responsive to the question that was asked: whether they believe they have the authority to do so. To the extent any answer was provided, it came in Brennan's next answer. He was asked:

Could you describe the geographical limits on the Administration's conduct drone strikes?"

Brennan's answer was that, in essence, there are no geographic limits to this power: "we do not view our authority to use military force against al-Qa'ida and associated forces as being limited to 'hot' battlefields like Afghanistan." He then quoted Attorney General Eric Holder as saying: "neither Congress nor our federal courts has limited the geographic scope of our ability to use force to the current conflict in Afghanistan" (see Brennan's full answer here).

Revealingly, this same question was posed to Obama not by a journalist or a progressive but by a conservative activist, who asked if drone strikes could be used on US soil and "what will you do to create a legal framework to make American citizens within the United States believe know that drone strikes cannot be used against American citizens?" Obama replied that there "has never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil" - which, obviously, doesn't remotely answer the question of whether he believes he has the legal power to do so. He added that "the rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States", but these "rules" are simply political choices the administration has made which can be changed at any time, not legal constraints. The question - do you as president believe you have the legal authority to execute US citizens on US soil on the grounds of suspicions of Terrorism if you choose to do so? - was one that Obama, like Brennan, simply did not answer.

This is the kind of nonsense that has fans of Obama calling him a great communicator when he's transparently a complete tosser.  Woops, wrong word. Not transparently, obviously a complete tosser.

Another why oh whine from Jonathan Freedland

Here he is in today's (or yesterday's) Guardian:

I'm weary of those who get so much more exercised, so much more excited, by deaths in Gaza than they do by deaths in, say, Syria. An estimated 800 died under Assad during the same eight days of what Israel called Operation Pillar of Defence. But, for some reason, the loss of those lives failed to touch the activists who so rapidly organised the demos and student sit-ins against Israel. You might have heard me make this point before, and you might be weary of it. Well, so am I. I'm tired, too, of the argument that "We hold western nations like Israel to a higher standard", because I see only a fraction of the outrage that's directed at Israel turned on the US – a western nation – for its drone war in Pakistan which has cost an estimated 3,000 lives, nearly 900 of them civilians, since 2004.

Well it's easy to simply say, it's the ethnic cleansing stupid!  That is the ethnic cleansing, recent, current and on-going, without which Israel could not exist as a state for Jews that rubs a lot of people up the wrong way.  Those of us who remember apartheid in South Africa remember being told that there were more human rights abuses elsewhere in Africa but racist rule, enshrined in a state's basic laws was considered a no-no.

There is also the fact that Israel has apologists throughout the western media and enablers and supporters in all western governments.  This doesn't apply in the case of Syria.

The question about the USA could be more serious.  Remember that Jonathan is:

tired, too, of the argument that "We hold western nations like Israel to a higher standard", because I see only a fraction of the outrage that's directed at Israel turned on the US – a western nation – for itsdrone war in Pakistan which has cost an estimated 3,000 lives, nearly 900 of them civilians, since 2004.

Here the media cover for the US is about the same as it is for Israel but he might be wondering, why demonstrations against America's wars tend to be smaller than demonstrations against Israel. Unfortunately the basic premise is wrong. Demonstrations against America's wars tend to be between 10 and 20 times the size of Palestine Solidarity demos. Actually, I think there should still be more outrage against Israel because of its core lack of legitimacy than there is against America. After all, if America stopped the drone strikes the USA would still be the USA. If Israel stopped the colonial settlement, the ethnic cleansing and the segregation it  would no longer be Israel and then it's periodic culls would end and so, I'm guessing, would the outrage they cause.

Jonathan Freedland's problem with getting his head around the sheer repugnance of the State of Israel in the eyes of humanist opinion is that he, like the Israel he supports, is in a perpetual state of denial.

The lobby lobbies Israel

Here's Akiva Eldar in Ha'aretz on how America's Jewish (yes, Jewish) lobby successfully lobbied Israel over a racist advertising campaign by the State of Israel in the USA.

An uproar in the "holy city" of New York. An Israeli Absorption Ministry campaign - using the slogan "Before Hanukkah turns into Christmas, it's time to return to Israel" - has convulsed the offices of Jewish professionals in the city. How dare those Israeli beggars patronize us? Who has ever heard of such chutzpah: delegitimizing Jews in America?

Heads of Jewish federations have sent urgent letters to Israel's prime minister, warning that the campaign is liable to harm relations between Israel and the U.S. Jewish community. Really! Ambassador Michael Oren apologized, and Benjamin Netanyahu canned the slogan. Apologies were made, now everyone can prepare for Hanukkah parties. And the main thing? "Jewish leaders" are now free to become involved in a renewed struggle against the "delegitimization of Israel." Or, in other words, they will defend Israel's government, whose forte is promoting the delegitimization of the "other."

Actually it's the State of Israel that delegitimises the "other", not this or that government. Zionism is zionism after all but the Eldar isn't averse to promoting the oxymoron of Israel being "a democratic, Jewish state". Tony Greenstein covers the whole issue of what prompted Israel's racist advertising campaign in the first place.

War on Iran?

The question mark there means that this quick post is a guess regarding the current round of sabre-rattling against Iran.  I didn't think too much of Netanyahu's yabbering about a possible strike against Iran because he's always doing that. If he stubs his toe it's Iran's fault and the PA/PLO's recent successful UNESCO bid together with the US's failure to prevent it even by pulling the plug on UNESCO funding has given Netanyahu an urgent need for a distraction.  This has been all over Ha'aretz for a little while now.  But The Guardian is usually a tad more cautious and nuanced over middle east issues and it is reporting mostly a pro-US line on its front page and some inside pages today; including its editorial. In fairness the editorial is urging caution but it is not negating what it is promoting as legitimate Israeli and American concerns. It doesn't mention a UK interest in all this but it does say, uncritically, that the UK is making contingency plans to do whatever America decides.

Now what else has been happening apart from the Palestinian diplomatic efforts? Well, the Arab spring has been happening since, er, the spring.  The west has been mostly opposed to the Arab spring because it has challenged some of its favourite dictators. Even Gaddafi had come into business friendly favour in recent years and Assad has been a handy chap for those nasty "extraordinary" renditions.  But they lost that Tunisian chap and Israel's fave Mubarak had to go, though his mainstay, er, stays, er, mainly.

So what to do? Trump up an issue with Iran.  Distract attention from the Palestinians and try to halt the Arab spring, though smartly, by attacking or just winding everyone up over Iran, a non-Arab middle eastern state.

That's just my guess, that's all.  I've rushed this and I ought to have included more links and comments. If I have time later I'll do just that.

World laughs at Israel

Listen up for when Israel's casts its vote at the UNESCO conference:





UK abstains, Austria yes, Germany no, France yes, China yes, Russia yes.... voting 173 members , abstentions 52 , majority needed 81, votes in favor 107, votes opposed 14!