Arab-Jewish perspective on Zionist Antisemitism

Here's David Shasha in the Huffington Post with an article titled What Israel Means to Me.  In the piece he alludes to Israeli scholar Oz Almog and quotes the following chunk from his book, The Sabra:The Creation of the New Jew:

The Zionists greatly admired the physical beauty of the native, the "Jewish Gentile" who had been anointed king of the new Israel, and they contrasted him with the ostensible ugliness of the Diaspora Jew [...]. Writers of this era [...] described the native as a robust youth with "gentile" characteristics, a kind of Jewish muzhik, or Russian peasant -- strapping, self-confident, and strong-spirited, as opposed to the stereotypical Diaspora Jew, who was pale, servile, and cowardly.

Especially prominent in descriptions of the native are his masculine vitality and health and his alienation from Judaism. The criteria are European-Christian ones, which have their source in ancient Greece and Rome [...].

This "normalisation" of Jews presupposes of course that Jews are not normal and that the European Christian man or woman of action is the norm. This tells us a lot, as David in his article explains, about zionist racism generally but it also shines a light on an under-reported issue of antisemitism (as in anti-Jewish racism) intrinsic to zionist ideology and the zionist project.

---

Here's what it says on HuffPo about David Shasha:

David Shasha is the director of the Center for Sephardic Heritage in Brooklyn, New York. The Center publishes the weekly e-mail newsletter Sephardic Heritage Update as well as promoting lectures and cultural events. His articles have been published inTikkun magazine, The American Muslim, the Christian Progressive and other publications. To sign up for the newsletter visit the Sephardic Heritage Google Group at http://groups.google.com/group/Davidshasha

The newsletter is always a good read.

Venezuela: When the Counter-Revolution was Televised

The reported refusal (al Jazeera) of Venezuela's opposition leader, Henrique Capriles, to accept the presidential electoral victory of Nicolás Maduro reminds me of the documentary The Revolution will not be Televised, by Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain. The whole thing is about an hour and a quarter long, but I found this section on Youtube which shows the counter-revolution in frighteningly close-up detail.


  

The coup was memorably described at the time by The Guardian's Duncan Campbell as Bush's Bay of Piglets and it was, of course, a miserable failure.

Viva democracia!

Protest outside G4S headquarters on Palestinian prisoners day

Wednesday 17 April 2013 (4.30pm - 7pm)

Outside G4S UK & Ireland head office at 105 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QT

War on Want calls on G4S to end its complicity in Israel’s prison system.

On 17 April, Palestinian Prisoners Day, War on Want joins a number of Palestine solidarity and human rights organisations in a protest outside G4S headquarters in London.

In 2007, G4S signed a contract with the Israeli Prison Authority to provide security systems and other services for major Israeli prisons. G4S provides systems for the Ketziot and Megiddo prisons, which hold Palestinian political prisoners from occupied Palestinian territory inside Israel. Article 76 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the transfer of prisoners from occupied territory into the territory of the occupier.

G4S also provides equipment for Ofer prison, located in the occupied West Bank, and for Kishon and Moskobiyyeh detention facilities, at which human rights organisations have documented systematic torture and ill treatment of Palestinian prisoners, including child prisoners.

Beyond Israel's prison system, G4S also provides equipment and services to Israeli checkpoints in the West Bank that form part of the route of Israel’s illegal Wall and to the terminals isolating the occupied and besieged territory of Gaza. G4S signed contracts for equipment and services for the West Bank Israeli Police headquarters and to private businesses based in illegal Israeli settlements.

Join us on 17 April outside G4S UK & Ireland head office to send a message to G4S that complicity in Israel’s prison system and illegal occupation is unacceptable.

Protest called by Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Supported by: Action for Palestinian Children, Amos Trust, Fire Brigades Union, Friends of Al-Aqsa UK, ICAHD UK, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Lib-Dems Friends of Palestine, Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), Stop G4S Campaign, UNISON, UNITE the Union, and War on Want

http://www.waronwant.org/news/events/17853-protest-outside-g4s-headquarters-on-palestinian-prisoners-day

Tribunal's FUCU cheers JC reader

The Jewish Chronicle letters page had a couple of interesting responses to the Employment Tribunal's FUCU judgment.  This is my fave which also happens to be the shortest, JC letters not being available on line:

Three cheers for Judge Snelson for the severe criticism of the people who brought the case to industrial tribunal.  I for one have very little time for the so-called leaders of British Jewry who make an industry out of antisemitism in order to puff themselves up.

The "upper echelons of British Jewry leadership" have manufactured their own world of self-righteous mutual back-scratching, totally divorced from the everyday lives of ordinary Jews.
Michael Grayeff
Ilmington Road, HA3

The other one I might have liked were it not from a zionist noted that the judgment was a "total obliteration of Fraser's case" and wondered if it was the end of the line for Jeremy Newmark's Jewish Leadership Council.

One, from a zionist in the Julius/Fraser mold, praised David Hirsh for providing "a commendably focused summary of the UCU trial," before getting to the best bit:

Sad to say, Hirsh's description evokes the disconcerting whiff of a Nazi courtroom 

Now I can't disagree there. I think it is indeed very sad that in distorting the judgment, Hirsh has indeed evoked the "whiff of a Nazi courtroom".   But it is sad in the traditional meaning of the word that anyone might believe Hirsh's ludicrous depiction of the Employment Tribunal judgment.

Might Zionists appeal against FUCU judgment?

Ronnie Fraser, the complainant in the FUCU case, might be considering an appeal according to the Jewish Chronicle.   Links and emphasis added by me:

The Jewish academic whose claim of harassment against the University College Union was rejected by an employment tribunal was this week considering whether to appeal against the judgment.

Ronnie Fraser, director of Academic Friends of Israel, is still coming to terms with the tribunal’s dismissal of his claim that the anti-Israel stance adopted by union members amounted to harassment.

He is due to meet his lawyers to discuss the next steps available to him.  It is thought he is reluctant to have the case re-heard at an employment appeal tribunal.

The Jewish Leadership Council is also understood to be considering what, if any, action it can take following the criticisms made of its chief executive by the tribunal.

Leading employment barrister Clive Sheldon QC, the co-chair of Masorti Judaism and a JLC member, has provided the organisation with advice “as part of its ongoing process of studying the judgment”.

The JLC is believed to be upset by the scathing nature of the tribunal’s judgment.

Harassment?  It was actually about racial harassment and found to be neither racial nor harassment.

He's going to meet his lawyers?  So Anthony Julius is coming out of hiding. I'd love to be a fly on the wall.

Criticisms of JLC CEO, Jeremy Newmark?  A little understated that.  He and his evidence were described as "arrogant", "preposterous", "disturbing" and "untrue".  Now what action might be open to the JLC?  They could support an appeal I suppose but the untruth of Newmark's evidence was exposed by "truthful witnesses" in the FUCU case so an appeal won't help.  Maybe it's time to think the unthinkable and ask or tell Newmark to stand down.

And what about this Clive Sheldon QC, associating a whole growing branch of Judaism with a bunch of "exaggerators, manipulators and arrogant liars."?  What has he been doing whilst studying this judgment, laughing or crying?

Now that would recall the old adage, laugh and the world laughs with you. Never mind the rest of the saying but my guess is he doesn't have the world with him on this disgraceful bogus court action.

Leon Rosselson live in Islington

See this:

Leon Rosselson will be at the Islington Folk Club, The Horseshoe, 24 Clerkenwell Close, London EC1R 0AG on Thursday 18th April with a sprinkling of Rosselsongs from 1960s to 2013.  Or from All You Need Is a Sunflower Seed  to 60 Quid a Week. 

Be there or be...well actually given the range of years you can probably be square and be there.

The UCU and the All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism

Once more to the FUCU case.  This time it's about the All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism, which, hopefully, will have been discredited by the FUCU Tribunal judgment.

Here's what a key player on the F side of the case, Dr David Hirsh of Engage, had to say following the judgment:

The Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism reported that the boycott debates were likely to cause difficulties for Jewish academics and students, to exclude Jews from academic life and to have a detrimental effect on Jewish Studies.  UCU responded that these allegations were made to stop people from criticizing Israel.  76 members of the UCU published acritique of the union’s response, but the union took no notice.  John Mann MP told the Tribunal that UCU had been unique among those criticized by the inquiry in its refusal to listen.

This has been cross-posted to the Shiraz Socialist blog where critical comments have been allowed.
Here's what the judgment says about the complaint about how the University and College Union handled dealings with the inquiry:

Complaint (2): The Respondents’ response to the report of the All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism

77 The Inquiry was commissioned by Mr John Mann MP, Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism, and a witness before us. A cross-party committee of MPs (‘the Committee’) chaired by the Rt Hon Dr Denis MacShane, also a witness before us, was appointed and began work in 2005. It
reported in September 2006.

78 The report runs to over 50 pages plus appendices. We ... note certain features.  ....the Committee found that anti-Semitism was on the rise. The new trend appeared to be largely associated with the politics of .... the Arab/Israeli conflict. The report concluded that the correlation between conflict in the Middle East and attacks on members of the Jewish community in the United Kingdom must be better understood and that academic research in that area would be welcomed (para 110). The Committee appeared to accept that criticism of Israel or Zionism was not “necessarily” anti-Semitic but added that the converse was also true: “… it is never acceptable to mask hurtful racial generalisations by claiming the right to legitimate political discourse.

79 Dealing with....anti-Semitism in the academic sphere, the Committee found: ...that Jewish students feel... threatened in British universities as a result of anti-Semitic activities which vary from campus to campus. Attacks on Jewish students and their halls of residence, and a lack of respect shown for observant Jewish students and their calendar requirements amount to a form of campus anti-Semitism which Vice-Chancellors should tackle vigorously. While criticism of Israel – often hard-hitting in the rough and tumble of student politics – is legitimate, the language of some speakers crosses the line into generalised attacks on Jews.

80 At paras 206-213, the Committee addressed the question of academic boycotts....The Committee perceived, and criticised, the “singling out” of Israel for boycotting purposes. Evidence given by Dr Jon Pike (also a witness for the Claimant before us) was quoted with apparent approval. Dr Pike was a leading member of ‘Engage’ an anti-boycott organisation. This section of the report ended as follows (para 213): We conclude that calls to boycott contact with academics working in Israel are an assault on academic freedom and intellectual exchange. We recommend that lecturers in the New University and College Lecturers Union (sic) are given every support to combat such collective boycotts that are anti-Jewish in practice. We would urge the new union’s executive and leadership to oppose the boycott. 

81 The Committee heard oral evidence over four days in February and March 2006.......

82 NATFHE supplied written evidence to the Inquiry. AUT did not....

83 The Respondents had come into existence by the date of publication of the Committee’s findings. They decided to respond to the report. Before doing so, they requested a meeting with the parliamentarians and as a result an appointment was fixed for 13 December 2006. Those present were Mr Mann, Dr MacShane, Ms Hunt and Mr Mackney, formerly General Secretary of NATFHE and by then joint General Secretary of the Respondents (a position which he continued to share with Ms Hunt until May 2007).

84 The meeting was not particularly a productive one. Ms Hunt and Mr Mackney referred to parts of the report which had described Jewish students feeling threatened on campus and explained that they wished for further information because that matter called for investigation. The parliamentarians did not provide any detail and did not genuinely respond to that inquiry at all. Mr Mann led for them and the more conciliatory tone of Dr MacShane gave way to a somewhat hostile display in which Mr Mann made no bones about his view that the union was operating in an anti-Semitic way and that those at its head must address the problem. He did not explain what the anti-Semitic behaviour was supposed to have consisted of besides referring to the boycott debate and characterising any boycott of Israel or Israeli institutions as itself anti-Semitic.

85 Following the meeting Mr Mackney drafted the Respondents’ written answer to the Committee’s report. He affirmed the Respondents’ opposition to anti-Semitism. He was critical of what he characterised as a lack of balance in the report and questioned whether it was appropriate to take anti-Semitism as a topic in isolation, pointing out that Islamaphobia was also on the increase and suggesting that the two problems would benefit from a balanced joint approach. He referred to the evidence which had been submitted by NATFHE and observed that it would have been courteous and helpful to invite the Respondents to give oral evidence. Mr Mackney acknowledged that some groups might make criticism of Israel an excuse for anti-Semitic activity but contended that criticism of the Israeli government was not in itself anti-Semitic and argued that defenders of Israel had used the charge of anti-Semitism as a tactic to smother democratic debate and legitimate censure, citing research by Israeli journalists published in the Guardian in June 2006 to that effect. Mr Mackney reserved his most direct strictures for the recommendation concerning the boycott issue remarking: We find this recommendation highly improper, constituting an interference in the democratic processes of our union. The UCU and its predecessors are and were democratic organisations … the report itself struggles and fails to satisfactorily resolve the issue of whether a policy which is critical of the actions of the Israeli government is anti-Jewish in practice and this is likely to remain a highly subjective issue.

86 In January 2007 the Times Higher Education Supplement published a letter from 76 members of the Respondents, including the Claimant, attacking Mr Mackney’s response to the Parliamentary Inquiry report as “evasive, disingenuous and complacent”.

Notice how it doesn't quite tally with Dr Hirsh's account.

Now see what the judges decided about this:

157 Complaint (2) is ... devoid of any merit. The Respondents defended themselves courteously but robustly against treatment by the Parliamentary Committee the fairness of which was, to put it at its very lowest, open to question. Their response was sincere and had substance. On any view, it was open to them to do as they did. Their action cannot properly be seen as ‘unwanted’: it was perfectly proper and unobjectionable. No legal claim can arise from it. Our reasoning on the meaning of ‘unwanted’ under complaint (1) is repeated.

Now I'm not sure if they are saying that the fairness of the Parliamentary Committee was open to question or the fairness of the way they treated the UCU.  Does it matter?  Whatever they did, they are utterly discredited now.

Baghdad still burning ten years later

This is a straight copy and paste from the blog of a woman who recorded her thoughts about the invasion of Iraq in the blog, Baghdad Burning, from August 2003 to January 2007.  Then she seemed to simply disappear after relocating to Syria.  The cliché, out of the frying pan into the fire sprang to mind.  I remember googling, whatever happened to Riverbend? and coming upon the Graduate Grumblings blog with a growing list of comments asking the same question.  Well, Riverbend popped back into the blogosphere just the other day with what she says is probably her last post.

Here it is but the whole blog is worth a look at:

Tuesday, April 09, 2013

Ten Years On...

April 9, 2013 marks ten years since the fall of Baghdad. Ten years since the invasion. Since the lives of millions of Iraqis changed forever. It’s difficult to believe. It feels like only yesterday I was sharing day to day activities with the world. I feel obliged today to put my thoughts down on the blog once again, probably for the last time.

In 2003, we were counting our lives in days and weeks. Would we make it to next month? Would we make it through the summer? Some of us did and many of us didn't. 

Back in 2003, one year seemed like a lifetime ahead. The idiots said, “Things will improve immediately.” The optimists were giving our occupiers a year, or two… The realists said, “Things won’t improve for at least five years.” And the pessimists? The pessimists said, “It will take ten years. It will take a decade.”

Looking back at the last ten years, what have our occupiers and their Iraqi governments given us in ten years? What have our puppets achieved in this last decade? What have we learned?

We learned a lot.

We learned that while life is not fair, death is even less fair- it takes the good people. Even in death you can be unlucky. Lucky ones die a ‘normal’ death… A familiar death of cancer, or a heart-attack, or stroke. Unlucky ones have to be collected in bits and pieces. Their families trying to bury what can be salvaged and scraped off of streets that have seen so much blood, it is a wonder they are not red. 

We learned that you can be floating on a sea of oil, but your people can be destitute. Your city can be an open sewer; your women and children can be eating out of trash dumps and begging for money in foreign lands. 

We learned that justice does not prevail in this day and age. Innocent people are persecuted and executed daily. Some of them in courts, some of them in streets, and some of them in the private torture chambers.

We are learning that corruption is the way to go. You want a passport issued? Pay someone. You want a document ratified? Pay someone. You want someone dead? Pay someone. 

We learned that it’s not that difficult to make billions disappear. 

We are learning that those amenities we took for granted before 2003, you know- the luxuries – electricity, clean water from faucets, walkable streets, safe schools – those are for deserving populations. Those are for people who don’t allow occupiers into their country. 

We’re learning that the biggest fans of the occupation (you know who you are, you traitors) eventually leave abroad. And where do they go? The USA, most likely, with the UK a close second. If I were an American, I’d be outraged. After spending so much money and so many lives, I’d expect the minor Chalabis and Malikis and Hashimis of Iraq to, well, stay in Iraq. Invest in their country. I’d stand in passport control and ask them, “Weren’t you happy when we invaded your country? Weren’t you happy we liberated you? Go back. Go back to the country you’re so happy with because now, you’re free!” 

We’re learning that militias aren’t particular about who they kill. The easiest thing in the world would be to say that Shia militias kill Sunnis and Sunni militias kill Shia, but that’s not the way it works. That’s too simple. 

We’re learning that the leaders don’t make history. Populations don’t make history. Historians don’t write history. News networks do. The Foxes, and CNNs, and BBCs, and Jazeeras of the world make history. They twist and turn things to fit their own private agendas. 

We’re learning that the masks are off. No one is ashamed of the hypocrisy anymore. You can be against one country (like Iran), but empowering them somewhere else (like in Iraq). You can claim to be against religious extremism (like in Afghanistan), but promoting religious extremism somewhere else (like in Iraq and Egypt and Syria). 

Those who didn’t know it in 2003 are learning (much too late) that an occupation is not the portal to freedom and democracy. The occupiers do not have your best interests at heart. 

We are learning that ignorance is the death of civilized societies and that everyone thinks their particular form of fanaticism is acceptable. 

We are learning how easy it is to manipulate populations with their own prejudices and that politics and religion never mix, even if a super-power says they should mix. 

But it wasn’t all a bad education… 

We learned that you sometimes receive kindness  when you least expect it. We learned that people often step outside of the stereotypes we build for them and surprise us. We learned and continue to learn that there is strength in numbers and that Iraqis are not easy to oppress. It is a matter of time… 

And then there are things we'd like to learn...

Ahmed Chalabi, Iyad Allawi, Ibrahim Jaafari, Tarek Al Hashemi and the rest of the vultures, where are they now? Have they crawled back under their rocks in countries like the USA, the UK, etc.? Where will Maliki be in a year or two? Will he return to Iran or take the millions he made off of killing Iraqis and then seek asylum in some European country? Far away from the angry Iraqi masses… 

What about George Bush, Condi, Wolfowitz, and Powell? Will they ever be held accountable for the devastation and the death they wrought in Iraq? Saddam was held accountable for 300,000 Iraqis... Surely someone should be held accountable for the million or so?

Finally, after all is said and done, we shouldn't forget what this was about - making America safer... And are you safer Americans? If you are, why is it that we hear more and more about attacks on your embassies and diplomats? Why is it that you are constantly warned to not go to this country or that one? Is it better now, ten years down the line? Do you feel safer, with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis out of the way (granted half of them were women and children, but children grow up, right?)?

And what happened to Riverbend and my family? I eventually moved from Syria. I moved before the heavy fighting, before it got ugly. That’s how fortunate I was. I moved to another country nearby, stayed almost a year, and then made another move to a third Arab country with the hope that, this time, it’ll stick until… Until when? Even the pessimists aren’t sure anymore. When will things improve? When will be able to live normally? How long will it take?  

For those of you who are disappointed reality has reared its ugly head again, go to Fox News, I'm sure they have a reportage that will soothe your conscience. 

For those of you who have been asking about me and wondering how I have been doing, I thank you. "Lo khuliyet, qulibet..." Which means "If the world were empty of good people, it would end." I only need to check my emails to know it won't be ending any time soon. 

The first posts are here.

UK Zionism at the crossroads?

Metaphorical crossroads are funny old things. They usually amount to a fork in the metaphorical road rather than a four way crossroads that you'd intuitively visualise. The crossroads at which UK zionists are at, thanks to the FUCU case, is the one you'd visualise.

There appear to be four possible ways zionists can go.  Only two have manifested themselves so far but one, the usual one, intellectual dishonesty and bullying opens up a new one of accusing the judiciary of antisemitism and even antisemitic conspiring or conspiracy theorising.  And the other, admitting the game is up for the lie that anti-zionism is itself racist opens up another one, that of abandoning zionism altogether or going over to a benevolent form of zionism which doesn't involve Jewish statehood at all.

The denial road consists of denying that in bringing the FUCU case, the zionists did nothing wrong.  It can consist of pretending that what the Employment Tribunal (ET) decried as hopelessly factually flawed, was simply technical or that sound facts were badly expressed.  A kind of better luck next time approach.  Zionists have been very badly stung by this and there aren't many introspective pieces on this.

The Jewish Chronicle ran a front page last Friday, which contained the seeds of three out of four possibilities:

Here's the denial approach:

communal organisations which had supported the lawsuit closed ranks. A spokesman for Fair Play, the anti-boycott campaign founded by the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council, said: “Years of campaigning inside UCU had convinced us and many union members that the union was incapable of fairly tackling complaints of antisemitism by itself. Supporting Ronnie was the right thing to do.”

Here's another try by Paul Usiskin on The Daily Beast's Open Zion:

Ronnie lost his case. Reading the 50-page Tribunal Finding is a multi-faceted emotional experience. The Employment Tribunal is just that, and it is clear that its members felt their context was being overwhelmed, if not abused, for a matter so vast. But when law is confronted with matters as passionately contested as these, it produces conclusions that are constrained by law and law alone.

Completely false, of course. Words like "untrue", "without merit", "preposterous", "arrogant", "unmeritorious", "disturbing" are not legalese.  They are English and they relate to the facts of the case.

This first course involves redefining Jews as people who either practice or are the descendants of people who practiced Judaism together with a commitment to the zionist project or the State of Israel.  This was touched on in the JC front page article:

Eric Moonman, co-president of the Zionist Federation, said that this was a “wrong and worrying interpretation. It presents a very real issue for a different campaign to make sure there is an accepted definition of Jewishness which highlights the integral nature of Israel to Jews.”

The idea here of course is that if they can have Jews redefined as zionists, anti-zionism will then become antisemitism.

Actually the ET already dealt with this fight against reality:

150 It seems to us that a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel or any similar sentiment cannot amount to a protected characteristic. It is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness and, even if it was, it could not be substituted for the pleaded characteristics, which are race and religion or belief.

So even if they redefine Jews, it shouldn't help them falsely accuse people of antisemitism.  It won't stop them trying.

A more extreme form of denial is that of Dr David Hirsh of Engage.  He had two opinion pieces in the same edition of the JC, here and here.  They are basically a restatement of his "preliminary response", the funniest version (going by the comments) of which appears at Jim Denham's Shiraz Socialist blog.

Let's just take one allegation from Fraser's complaint (h/t Philip Roth) as related by Hirsh:

Gert Weisskirchen, responsible for combating antisemitism for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) asked the union leadership for a meeting to discuss antisemitism relating to the boycott.  The union did not meet with him.  When 39 union members protested publicly, the union ignored them.

Remember, this was after the FUCU ET judgment had been published and read by Hirsh.  Let's look at how the judgment deals with the Weisskirchen affair (which is actually worth a dedicated post of its own.):

161 Complaint (4) is palpably groundless. On our primary findings, Professor Weisskirchen was not ‘rebuffed’. Mr Bennett reasonably challenged the arguably intemperate accusation of anti-Semitism levelled at the Respondents. The evidence does not substantiate the allegation that the Respondents refused to
meet Professor Weisskirchen. No ‘unwanted’ objectionable conduct capable of supporting a complaint alleging a statutory tort is made out. 

Hirsh is close here to alleging, not just antisemitism on the part of the ET. but a conspiracy involving the ET and the UCU to make out that a failure to meet with this Weisskirchen chap amounted to a "rebuff" by the UCU and not the other way round.

So there is denial and denial plus counter-allegation.  Hirsh represents the latter.

Then there is a the far more honest approach taken by Adam Wagner in Cartoon Kippah:  As the ET judgment oozes contempt, so Wagner's case oozes dismay.  He sees the crossroads ahead:

I imagine some will even accuse the Judge of anti-Semitism. But assuming for a moment that he was right, we should, as a community, be embarrassed by this ruling. It involved not just the looney fringe but central figures in the community, who have been branded exaggerators, manipulators and arrogant liars. More importantly, the ‘anti-Zionism equals racism’ argument is plainly bankrupt and has no purchase in wider society. We should move on to something which might actually work. 

Now often I say there is no such thing as an honest zionist. This guy seems to prove me wrong.  And I'm glad to be wrong.

These are three of the roads.  The one of denial means ignoring the ruling as simply bad news, the road that could lead to, if Hirsh et al are followed means widening the net for those falsely accused of antisemitism.  It's not just trades unionists and activists but also judges, the state itself, in our case, the UK.  It seems a risky strategy to me.

The third road means an abandonment of the lie that anti-zionism is racist.  But if the critics, opponents and victims or Israel are making fair comments, might they also be true comments?  And if that is the case, might this untried road of zionist honesty find itself on the fourth road, which is the fact that there is no case for Israel?

Fair Play for £50 k?

This is a curious aspect of the FUCU tribunal case.  It's about whether or not there was funding from the Board of Deputies of British Jews' Fair Play Campaign Group to the academic Israel advocacy site/group, Engage.

Here's a media release by BRICUP (British Committee for the Universities of Palestine).  Here's the same piece on the Jews for Justice for Palestinians website:

Fraser is the founder and director of the pressure group Academic Friends of Israel and a member of the Board of Deputies (BoD) of British Jews. The hearing revealed the extent to which pro-Israel lobby groups had attempted to interfere with UCU’s policies and decision-making. In his evidence Fraser admitted that “the Friends of the various Israeli University groups” had donated £70,000 tothe Fair Play Campaign Group, set up by the BoD andthe Jewish Leadership Council to coordinate activity against boycotts of Israel. Fraser further alleged that the Fair Play Campaign Group in turn had given £50,000 to Engage, an organisation campaigning against academic boycott.

At the end of the media release there was a note:

“Fraser further alleged that the Fair Play Campaign Group in turn had given £50,000 to Engage” – it should be noted that some of Fraser’s witnesses contradicted him on this point. 

I was curious about it and so tweeted the following:

What happened to the Board of Deputies £50,000 for fighting #BDS? UCU jfjfp.com/?p=41306
— Jews Sans Frontieres (@jewssf) April 7, 2013

This led, ultimately, to the following exchange response from the Chief Exec of the Board of Deputies:

@jewssf @richardarmbach @engageonline Denied, because it didn't happen!
— Jon Benjamin (@JonBenja) April 8, 2013

Now that could have been that but for a comment by a Jim Denham on his Shiraz Socialist cross-post of David Hirsh's denunciation of the Employment Tribunal for being antisemitic. Jim's comment is a rant against a post on the FUCU case by Scottish Palestine Solidarity. Go read the SPSC take for yourself but Jim Denham's comment includes this curious statement:

That the Fair Play Campaign Group funds Engage is now established fact. But not for the purpose stated by the SPSC.

Now I have two queries outstanding.  One to Jim Denham as follows:

could you point to the evidence “That the Fair Play Campaign Group funds Engage is now established fact”?

And the other to Jon Benjamin of the Board of Deputies:

@jonbenja Do you mean it was a different amount or @engageonline received no funding from the BoD Fair Play fund at all? @richardarmbach
— Jews Sans Frontieres (@jewssf) April 9, 2013

Let's see if anyone gets back to me.

Thatcher and Thatcherism

Well it had to happen sometime and the sycophancy in the mainstream media has been as predictable as the celebratory tone of bloggers and twitterers.

Here's A Very Public Sociologist on the passing of Margaret Thatcher:

Let's be blunt. I hated Thatcher. I hate her politics. I hate her legacy. So no, I'm not about to mourn her passing or say nice diplomatic things. You knew where you stood with the Iron Lady, so it's only proper you know where you stand with me. Though, let's be truthful too, the Thatcher I grew up under, the Thatcher who left behind a record of no discernible merit whatsoever, died many years ago. Thatcher had long sinces slipped into senility, becoming a frail old woman with little of the person she once was. But as Thatcher declined, as the fog of confusion descended over her faculties she would have felt comforted that hers was a job well done. Regrettably, she did not live to see her "achievements" come crashing down, and she died at the moment the politics that indelibly bears her name is as strong as it ever was. Almost 30 years after her 1983 election triumph, the Coalition government's reheated Thatcherism is battering the poor as it forcibly redistributes resource from those at the bottom to them at the top. Not everything changes. The past isn't always a foreign country.

Well worth reading the whole thing.

On the death of a Prime Minister

From Private Eye magazine, obviously.

A Statement from Ronnie Fraser of Academic Friends of Israel

I thought I'd posted this already but it appears I hadn't.  It's Ronnie Fraser's statement on losing "his" action against the University and College Union at the recent Employment Tribunal and it appears on The Academic Friends of Israel (aka Mr and Mrs Fraser) website:

The Academic Friends of Israel

28 March 2013

     A personal statement by Ronnie Fraser, Director of the Academic Friends of Israel.

I am naturally disappointed by the decision of the Employment Tribunal to dismiss my claim of harassment against the University and College Union (UCU).  I am however very grateful that the hearing provided us with the opportunity to raise and discuss in great detail the issues of discrimination and antisemitism which are so important to Anglo Jewry. I believe that the many witnesses we called were able to provide evidence to the tribunal of an intolerable atmosphere over a number of years and that the UCU did nothing to stop these institutionally anti-Semitic acts taking place

Having read the judgment there are two points which greatly concern me. The first is "a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel cannot amount to a protected  characteristic. It is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness..." (para 150). For the court to say that as Jews we do not have an attachment to Israel is disappointing considering we have been yearning for Israel for 2000 years and it has been in our prayers all that time. The second point highlighted the need for Anglo-Jewry to urgently adopt and publicise its own definition of antisemitsm. 

 As a member of the Board of Deputies I intend to campaign for us as a community to accept a definition of Jewishness which includes a connection with Israel and the adoption of a definition of anti-Semitism. 

I would like to thank my wife, my family, my witnesses, and all those who supported my action both from within the Jewish community and elsewhere for their incredible support and understanding over the last two years.

I would also like to thank my solicitor Anthony Julius and all the staff of Mishcon De Reya for all their magnificent work and support.

---------------------- Ends ----------------------

Note:  The Employment Tribunal  judgment can be found here;http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2013/fraser-uni-college-union

It would appear that poor Ron does not accept the idea that antisemitism means racism against Jews so he wants it defined to mean opposition to Jewish racism as in the existence, policies and behaviour of the State of Israel.  I am hoping that his "epic folly" will now make this more difficult.

The view from Israel on the FUCU Tribunal

Ha'aretz has a quirky piece on the FUCU Tribunal.  I can't help but think, given the straightforward language of the FUCU report itself that if anyone gets things wrong from it they must be doing it deliberately.

Let's have a look at few little bits:

The case against UCU was complex

No it wasn't.

The case assembled by Fraser and Julius was impressive. It challenged, among other things, the way supporters of Israel were treated at union conferences, the way anti-Israel and anti-Semitic remarks on the UCU members’ private Internet forum were moderated, the union’s rejection of the European Union Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia’s working definition of anti-Semitism ‏(which includes disproportionate criticism of Israel‏), and an invitation extended to a known anti-Jewish trade unionist from South Africa to speak at a union conference.

 Substantially true but that hardly amounts to "impressive".

the well-built and detailed case was shattered by the tribunal’s ruling. The panel, headed by Judge A.M. Snelson, accepted UCU’s version of all the events in question, and found that most of the claims were no longer valid in any case, due to a change in the laws.

Utter tosh. The change in law moved the case in favour of Fraser not against. I'll dig up the relevant passage later.

UCU, meanwhile, received only very mild admonishments from the tribunal for inviting a known anti-Semite to a conference

Stretches it a bit. The "admonishment" was solely over the UCU referring a complain to someone involved with the invitation, ie conflict of interest.  All zionists bar that guy I posted about earlier are making the most of that crumb.

Anything else?

A more damning indictment of Fraser and his supporters’ motives could not have been written

Correct! Give the man a prize!

Ten Plagues and a blast from the past

Here's an article from a zionist which is quite a gem in that it's the first honest zionist opinion piece I have seen on the FUCU case.  It's in Cartoon Kippah and by an Adam Wagner.  Here's a taste:

The full judgment can be read here (PDF). If you have any interest in Jewish communal politics and in particular how the Israel-Palestine debate is handled, I highly recommend you read it. Perhaps set aside half an hour over a well-earned post-Passover sandwich – it’s worth it, I promise.

I won’t try to summarise Employment Judge Snelson’s findings here, but I would like to draw out a few points. The main one is that the Claimant, represented by solicitor Anthony Julius, lost in a big way. This was a total, unqualified demolition job. As an outcome, it really was ten plagues bad.

It's well worth reading the whole thing in particular for what the guy is saying about the current crop of Jewish communal leaders in the UK and for his plea to them which roughly reads, "enough with the antisemitism card already!" It should also be noted that this Adam Wagner chap is the only zionist I have seen actually encouraging people to read the report. It's clear that a lot of zionist commentary is assuming and hoping that people won't read the report.

The article links to an old Jewish Chronicle leader which is a real hoot now.  Here's how Wagner introduces it:

In a prediction of Michael Fish quality, the JC originally said of the case that unless UCU repented its “clear antisemitic behaviour”:  

we could be set for this decade’s version of the Irving trial – a specific case which acts to crystallise broader themes and issues

And here's the whole leader:

One of the most dispiriting aspects of the drip, drip, drip of anti-Israel poison into the ether is that it seems endless. Admirable work is done by groups such as BICOM, Just Journalism, the various Friends of Israel and myriad other such organisations. But it often feels like a David and Goliath fight. We are always on the back foot.

So it is with some sense of expectation that we report the letter sent on behalf of Ronnie Fraser, a UCU member and director of Academic Friends of Israel, and his readiness to take on the union in the courts if need be. Given the UCU's clear antisemitic behaviour so far, it seems unlikely that its leadership will have an overnight change of attitude and sudden return to decency. In which case, we could be set for this decade's version of the Irving trial - a specific case which acts to crystallise broader themes and issues. Legal action is usually something to be avoided at all costs. But sometimes it is unavoidable. This may now be one of those times, and one of those issues. If reason will not affect the UCU, let the law do its job.

And the law did just that.  It's judgment was delivered in

"words you never want to hear in litigation: “untrue”, “false”, “preposterous”, “extraordinarily arrogant”, “disturbing”.

And that was just about one of the players, a lead player, Jeremy Newmark.

Israel refuses to define boundaries

Here's a small throwaway article in the Jewish Press about Israel's refusal to set any kind of boundary as a basis for negotiations with the so-called Palestinian Authority:

The PA is now demanding that Israel hand over maps of their vision of a final arrangement, to use them as a starting point for negotiations....

In response, Israeli government officials said they would not be delivering any maps or a list of other concessions...

 There are really two boundaries which are problematic for Israel's self-definition as a state for the world's Jews.  The titular nations for most states are defined by the territory they come from.  This of course doesn't define Jews.  Jews are not the citizens of the Jewish state.  So where are the boundaries?

There's also another problem.  Israel defines a Jew as a person with a Jewish mother and someone who is Jewish enough for an automatic right to citizenship as someone with a Jewish grandparent.  It doesn't take much analysis to realise that this is circular. I mean, if a Jew is someone with a Jewish mother, how do we define a Jewish mother?  So what are the boundaries of the Jews and what are the boundaries of Jewishness.

Now the way I see it there are two reasons why a state that is specially for the world's Jews cannot define its boundaries.  Jews are not an identity defined by boundaries.  That is, Jews are not a nation unless we use nation to mean any identity group, in which case we would have to say Jews are a non-territorial nation, like Roma, Sinti and others.  And then there's the problem of defining Jews.  No matter how you view it, the Jews are not the people of Israel.  The children of Israel, yes, but not people of Israel.

When I started this blog, Jews sans frontieres, was just a play on Jeux sans frontieres.  It turns out it's actually a truism.  No wonder Israel can't define its boundaries.  We are all Jews sans frontieres!

Hirshohito!?

David Hirsh has been touting his ludicrous "prelimary response" to the Employment Tribunal decision in the case of Fraser v University and College Union (FUCU) to anyone who will host it and Shiraz Socialist didn't disappoint.  The comments are a hoot but let's first look at Hirsh's argument which is presented in his usual way,which is to state the facts but in a way that invites disbelief.  Hang on. Let me explain that.  He says things like "they say we falsely allege antisemitism to silence them".  See?  Well that's a factual statement. We do say that about zionists in general and Hirsh in particular.  But he isn't saying that that bit is factual.  Ah, you know what I mean.  Here's that opening para:

A co-ordinated campaign by Ronnie Fraser, his lawyers and his witnesses to try to intimidate critics of Israel with an invented accusation of antisemitism would indeed be vile and disgraceful.  This is what the Tribunal thought was happening,  and this explains the unusually intemperate and emotional language employed in its dismissal of Fraser’s case.

Actually, "co-ordinated campaign" can't be quite "what the Tribunal thought was happening".  Just a quick example.  The Tribunal said that evidence given by Jeremy Newmark and Jane Ashworth was "untrue" but that there were "truthful witnesses" on the complainant side.  Look:

We regret to say that we have rejected as untrue the evidence of Ms Ashworth and Mr Newmark concerning the incident at the 2008 Congress (see our findings under complaint (8) above). Evidence given to us about booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers at Congress debates was also false, as truthful witnesses on the Claimant’s side accepted.

You see, there were truthful witnesses on the claimant side and there what untruthful witnesses on the same side. Hirsh's side.  No co-ordination suggested.  Basically, what Hirsh is saying is that the Tribunal found against Ronnie Fraser because the Tribunal was antisemitic.

Now, the comments.  You can probably guess what Hirsh said in the post already but if you can't you will be able to from the comments:

charliethechulo said,

April 4, 2013 at 11:16 pm

Rodent: you make no sense. Hirsh can speak for himself but my position is quite simple: the bourgeois courts (in this case, tribunal) are not the place to decide what is, or isn’t racism.

I give no credence to their ruling in this or any other case.

For the record, I always thought Fraser and Engage were ill-advised to pursue their case at ET, given the fact that well over 90% of all ET claims fail and the respondent only has to defend their position on ‘balance of probabilities.’

It is, however, worth noting that the ET has *not* given a judgement upon whether or not the UCU is antisemitic, but merely upon the applicability of the legal terms ‘harassment’ and ‘secondary liability.’ The UCU so-called “left” are, of course, cock-a-hoop at this decision, but in fact it does *not* vindicate them with regard to the main charge against them: antisemitism.

flyingrodent said,

April 5, 2013 at 7:19 am

For the record, I always thought Fraser and Engage were ill-advised to pursue their case at ET, given the fact that well over 90% of all ET claims fail and the respondent only has to defend their position on ‘balance of probabilities.’

I was led to believe that the claim was thrown out in its entirety not on the balance of probabilities, but because it was almost entirely composed of unprovable assertions based on highly dubious reasoning.

But I can see why fans of unprovable assertions based on highly dubious reasoning might not be fans of the legal process.

Nonetheless, let’s note that a major chunk of Britain’s Woe-Is-Us Israel fans threw their whole weight behind this case, and have driven their cause into a ludicrous disaster. They should have the balls to at least admit this, I think.

After all, when Hirohito declared that the war situation had developed “not necessarily to Japan’s advantage”, he was at least conceding defeat, rather than standing on the rubble and shouting that modern warfare is inherently racist.

I think CharlieTheChulo, is the Shiraz blog host, Jim Denham.  By the way, he's wrong about the Tribunal merely ruling on "legal terms 'harassment' and 'secondary liability' as the "untrue" stuff above proves. And also, Denham is too stupid to realise that he has flatly contradicted Hirsh's argument which was that the Tribunal was antisemitic because it accused the complainant(s) of a cock and bull story.

Hirsh has also had this nonsense posted up at Harry's Place where comments have been barred, only on that post.  I'm guessing that's because HP can usually rely on their own trolls to overwhelm any critical comment but not always.  Some slip through the net and make the hosts look very silly indeed.  Hirsh can and does control the comments at his own Engage website and, again I'm guessing he trusted Jim Denham to control things at Shiraz.  But he forgot that Jim likes a drink and can be even sillier than Hirsh sometimes, hence he (and Hirsh) got dealt a few body blows that had the host contradicting the guest.

ps I'm sure others have noticed what I only noticed a few hours ago, that a handy acronym for the Fraser v University and College Union is FUCU.  Coincidentally, it was what Harry's Place had on their masthead when the UCU rejected the ludicrous working definition.  Ah well, what goes round comes round!

Rare photo of Jews sans frontieres blogger

Hey quick!  Look at the home page of the Jewish Chronicle site.  It's a pic of my friend and co-blogger, David Landy, of the Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Teachers' Union of Ireland:

I was in Ireland at the beginning of March and I saw David so I can confirm the picture is genuine.

On a more serious note.  The picture accompany's a JC report on the Teachers' Union of Ireland's recent vote for an academic boycott of Israel.  Here's the report:

The Teachers Union of Ireland has voted to boycott all academic collaboration with Israel, including research programmes and exchange of scientists.

It is thought to be the first full academic boycott enforced by a European teaching union.

A motion, calling for all members of the union to end work with Israeli counterparts, was passed unanimously at the TUI annual conference in Galway on Thursday.

The union called on the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to increase its campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions against “the apartheid state of Israel until it lifts its illegal siege of Gaza and its illegal occupation of the West Bank”.

The passed motion requests TUI members to “cease all cultural and academic collaboration with Israel, including the exchange of scientists, students and academic personalities, as well as all cooperation in research programmes”.

Dublin sociology lecturer and anti-Israel activist David Landy said the move “set an historic precedent”.

“We congratulate the TUI and call on all Irish, British and European academic unions to move similar motions. Undoubtedly apologists for Israeli apartheid will complain that such motions stifle academic freedom, but this is nonsense,” he said.

The TUI represents teachers and lecturers working in all levels of education across the country and has more than 14,500 members.

I already blogged on this a couple of posts ago.

Is JC editor, Stephen Pollard, on leave?  That's three fairly accurate reports I've seen in the JC in as many weeks.

Now CST's Mark Gardner loses it over Tribunal result

Many thanks to Ben White for monitoring the wackier fringes of Facebook so we don't have to.

Mark Gardner of @cst_uk asks if UCU Employment Tribunal was "harbinger of hate", calls the judges "sneering bastards" on.fb.me/12r6yYt
— Ben White (@benabyad) April 5, 2013

I've written about the Community Security Trust's Mark Gardner being a bit too spontaneous before but here he is loosing off again, this time against the Employment Tribunal in the case of Fraser v University and College Union (FUCU geddit?)



David Hirsh

10 hours ago · 

• http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/104578/does-ucu-harbour-hate-you-decide

  
  

  
  

  Does the UCU harbour hate? You decide | The Jewish Chronicle

  www.thejc.com
  

  In 2006, Ronnie Fraser stood as a delegate to NATFHE conference (a predecessor to UCU). It was said at the regional meeting that Mr Fraser could not be a delegate because he was a Zionist and therefore a racist. NATFHE held an investigation and found

  Share

  • 6 people like this.
  • 

    Mark Gardner 'is the UCU tribunal a harbinger of hate?' might have been more appropriate. sneering bastards.

    9 hours ago · 1
  • 

    Michael Cohen ‘if you want to understand the Jews, read Mein Kampf'..Sally Hunt thinks that it would not necessarily be antisemitic to think that ..Planet and which one is she on springs to mind.

    8 hours ago
  • 

    Dave Rich They could at least have spelt your name right.

    5 hours ago · 1
  • 

    Jonathan Hoffman yes. next question?

    5 hours ago

Oh, if you saw my "epic folly" post earlier today, I was right about it being on the front page of the JC's print edition.  I mention that now because I hope more in the Jewish community will see what a bunch it is that pass for our communal leaders and defenders.