Here's a good little post on the Jewdas website titled Keeping Antisemitism Simple. The intro does "what it says on the tin" and simply defines antisemitism as anti-Jewish racism:
It’s all getting very complicated. The definition of anti-semitism
has become an fine art, presided over by professors of antisemitism and
fought over across the internet.
It shouldn’t be like this. The more complex the debate becomes the
more people disengage from it, leaving antisemitism in the hands of
neo-Nazis (who celebrate it) and extreme supporters of the Israeli
government (who see antisemitism in all serious criticism of Israel).
Instead we should keep it simple. Antisemitism is racism. It’s just a
word for anti-jewish racism, hatred of Jews because they are Jews,
equivalent to hating people because the are black, asian, Irish or
whatever. (And don’t tell me Jews are a religion. There is a major
ethnic component to Jewishness, so that many people define as Jewish
purely because of their family background. So Jews can certainly be
victims of racism).
So, back to basics, how to you avoid being racist? It’s easy. You
treat people as individuals. If you meet a new person you don’t assume
you know anything about them from a group that they may be connected to.
When they do something, be it good or bad in your eyes, you don’t
connect those actions with any group – the actions are purely the
responsibility of the individual in question. You don’t generalise about
groups of people – you allow individuals to define themselves in their
own terms. Even if you’ve met more than one person from a ‘group’ that
have a certain trait – don’t assume that the next person you meet from
that group will be just the same.
Its usually the negative generalisation ones we tend to call racism:
when a group is generalised as being mean, stupid, corrupt, evil,
dominating, pathetic etc. But although people tend to worry less about
positive generalisations (‘Italians are great lovers’ ) these are no
less stupid and can easily hide a negative element inside a supposedly
positive one (c.f. ‘Black people have such wonderful rhythm’). The
surefire way to avoid racism is to cut out generalisations full stop.
And the fact that people sometimes make generalisations about their own
‘group’? That’s stupid too, but they have a right to do it as a member
of that group in a way that an outsider simply doesn’t. At this juncture
we should clarify that of course any act that goes beyond generalisations to actually stirring up hatred against, discriminating
against or committing violent acts against members of an ethnic group is
utterly racist.
As antisemitism is simply racism, you avoid antisemitism in just the
same way. If you hear about somebody Jewish who did something, good or
bad, you draw conclusions only about that individual – not about any
other Jewish people. That applies whether that person is a drunk guy on
the street, an executive at a bank or the Prime Minister of Israel.
People are only responsible for their own deeds. And if a person, group,
or state, claims to speak for all Jews, take that with a massive dose
of salt. Stick to your guns and don’t generalise. And obviously, do not,
in a million years, discriminate against people because they are Jews
or commit violence against them for the same reason. I hope that goes
without saying.
I first noticed the post being touted in a comment on the Israel advocacy site, Engage:
Eric Says: February 15, 2015 at 4:40 pm
Its odd and harmful that the definition of anti-semitism is
controversial. If anti-semitism requires a phd to recognise and reems of
“unpacked” examples then we might as well give up any hope of anyone
paying attention to these definitions. Listing examples of anti-semitism
is not the right way to go, just elaborate the general principles
involved. Over at Jewdas they have nailed it nicely. http://jewdas.org/keeping-antisemitism-simple/
Eric was a late comer to the post and so there was only one response and that was from a zionist retired (I think) academic called, Brian Goldfarb. He seems to have read the Jewdas piece but feels it falls down by not being sufficiently racist against Palestinian Arabs regarding their fault for their own victimisation and their apparently inherent murderousness:
the Palestinian “right of return” ignores the history of how the
Palestinian “diaspora” came about…and what of the greater number of Jews
from Arab lands even more obviously forcefully dispossessed and
expelled (and, yes, Eric, I will expand on this and the other points
below, if you so wish)? Calling for Israel/Palestine to become a single.
binational state glosses over all sorts of consequences, not the least
of which is the likely further diaspora of up to 6 million Jews, or
worse.
And here's the rub with the redefinition of antisemitism as opposition to Jewish supremacy. If we accept, as Goldfarb advocates, that the abolition of Jewish supremacy in Palestine is antisemitic then we are saying that antisemitism is not a form of racism. We are also saying that in order to avoid being antisemitic we have to be or at least to accept anti-Arab racism. It's remarkable how many academics fail or refuse to see this.
Listen to this song, Here's to the State of Mississipi, by the late Phil Ochs:
I was reminded of one its lines, "Here's to the people of Mississippi, who say the folks up north they just don't understand". What it was the "folks up north" didn't understand was segregation and the appalling violence that maintained it.
Well The Guardian ran an article by a leading Israeli segregationist politician, Yair Lapid, with a similar message just yesterday. It was Lapid's response, possibly the official State of Israel response, to the announcement in the letters page of The Guardian of a cultural boycott of Israel by hundreds of artists.
The headline of Lapid's article alone reminded me of the line from the Phil Ochs song and the article didn't disappoint being one long whinge about Israel's excuses for segregation, Jews only settlement, ethnic cleansing and relentless violence without mentioning any of those things. Lapid only mentioned security, which he claimed was Israel's "only..demand".
Still he did give me the excuse to dig up Phil Ochs's song and prise it away from the annoying advert you see on Youtube when you access it.
Here's a curious article from the front page of today's Jewish Chronicle. It's about the removal of Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet as a patron of an interfaith charity, Faith Matters.
According to the JC it was government intervention that led to Schochet's dismissal. Look:
According to a source close to the charity, the decision was taken after the Department for Communities and Local Government threatened to remove funding for other groups run by the charity’s head.
Officials at the department, led by Communities Minister Eric Pickles, are said to be unwilling to work with the Mill Hill United Synagogue minister who has made a series of controversial comments relating to Palestinians.
The Canadian-born rabbi has used his social media accounts to suggest all Palestinians were engaged in terrorist activity.
His appointment to the interfaith group at the end of January had led to complaints from Muslim groups.
It appears that demands for Schochet's dismissal originated from "Muslim groups" but why did it take the threat of withdrawal of government funding to get this Faith Matters group to dismiss him? And who could have lost funding if Faith Matters hadn't fallen into line?
DCLG officials were prepared to remove funding from Tell Mama if Faith Matters retained Rabbi Schochet.
Googling for more info about this case I came upon Middle East Monitor's report on the initial appointment of Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet by this self-styled "anti-extremist group". I was surprised at the amount of detail in the JC report but MEMO's piece is even more informative.
UPDATE: Tell Mama is tweeting that they don't receive government funds which means that the front page article in the Jewish Chronicle by Marcus Dysch is wrong though Tell Mama won't Tell Mark (ie me) that in so many words. Neither do they seem to want to Tell Marcus or the JC.
I didn't see the BBC's Question Time (#BBCQT or @BBCQT on Twitter) with George Galloway and Jonathan Freedland. I could have watched it on iPlayer or some such but I find GG and JF pretty cringe-worthy.
Jonathan Cook wrote an article about it slagging Jonathan Freedland's behaviour in the proceedings and calling him The Guardian's "resident antisemitism obsessive". Now I would have preferred "resident zionist" because "antisemitism obsessive" could imply that he is obsessed with genuine cases of racism against Jews and this of course would be wrong, Freedland has quite a lot of form for false allegations of antisemitism.
Well another resident zionist at The Guardian, Hadley Freeman, didn't like the "resident antisemitism obsessive" jibe either and got into a bit of a Twitter exchange with Glenn Greenwald about it.
@ggreenwald Yeah, he lost me at "resident anti-Semitism obsessive" and the Palin-esque "liberal media elite." As tho Galloway is not "elite"
— Hadley Freeman (@HadleyFreeman) February 10, 2015
Hadley Freeman also has form for false allegations of antisemitism over campaigning against Israel.
Now at some point George Galloway enters the Twitter fray. I should say I came to all this very late when someone drew my attention to it when the hubbub was dying down. I always find Twitter hard to follow beyond one tweet and a reply but here's the first tweet from GG that I noticed:
Wow! What tweet? Let's have a look at Hadley Freeman's tweets. Too late, look:
@georgegalloway Seriously? I'm sure our lawyers have better things to do... To save us both a day in court, I'm happy to delete it.
— Hadley Freeman (@HadleyFreeman) February 10, 2015
As far as I can tell Freeman hasn't risen to the challenge of finding Galloway saying and doing "plenty of things that cross the line from anti-Israel to antisemitic" and Galloway is insisting that he is taking legal action because her deletion was too late.
So what will come of this? It would be interesting blowback if Jonathan Freedland had to refrain from his negative hasbara because of the dishonesty of one of his zionist comrades and colleagues at The Guardian.
Netanyahu: I will go to Congress like I went to Paris – to speak for all Jews
Prime minister says he will go anyplace he is invited to convey Israel's position on Iran
Obviously claiming that one or some Jews speak for all Jews is antisemitic but there's another issue here. It seems like only yesterday that Bibi turned up in Paris for an electioneering junket in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack in spite of being asked by the French president not to go. Again here's Ha'aretz:
Hollande asked Netanyahu not to attend Paris memorial march
Absence sought as part of attempt to keep Israeli-Palestinian conflict out of European show of unity; After Netanyahu insisted on coming, French made it clear Abbas would be invited as well.
Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti Defamation League said that the political uproar ignited by Netanyahu’s invitation to speak to a joint meeting of Congress makes such a move unhelpful and therefore it should be scrapped.
“It’s a tragedy of unintended consequences,” Foxman told the Forward, describing how the idea of presenting Israel’s view on Iran spiraled out of control, reaching even the Jon Stewart show, a step, Foxman said, that “turned the whole thing into a circus.”
"One of our closest foreign allies is taking sides with Republicans against a Democratic president, which creates a major conundrum for Democrats," Stewart said. "I'm reminded of a similar situation, faced by an Israeli king renowned for his wisdom."
Stewart also laid into the Obama administration's excuse for not meeting with Netanyahu when he visits — that the president didn't want to be seen as "meddling" in Israeli politics (Israel's elections are two weeks after the March 3 speech).
"Yes, yes!" Stewart said. "America doesn't wanna meddle in a Middle Eastern nation's domestic politics. I mean, we don't do that!"
He then ran through a list of nearby countries America has, in fact, meddled with: Iran, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey.
"Unless, obviously, a country wanted to nationalize its own oil industry, or looked likely to ally with a rival superpower, or was fighting a proxy war against some other country we didn't like, or would let us put military bases in their country, or send prisoners to their country, or was next to a country we wanted to spy on, or fight with."
"But aside from these very rare instances," Stewart concluded, "we do not meddle with Middle Eastern nations."
I don't know what Foxman's beef is. Between Congress and the White House who'd notice another clown?
This is as egregious an example of playing the holocaust card that you will find. I first saw it on Harry's Place where their dullest blogger, Gene, says:
the BBC audience and Galloway were deprived of the chance to hear New York City Councilman David G. Greenfield’s reaction to “pro-Palestine” activists interrupting the council’s commemoration of 1.1 million people killed in Auschwitz.
Included in the post is this YouTube clip:
Now what's very strange about the clip, which even the average Harry's Placer must have noticed, is that it doesn't show the disruption itself nor, of course, what had prompted it.
In case for some reason you don't or can't watch the clip, here's a bit of what he had to say, from the algemeiner:
“While we were discussing a resolution regarding the murder of 1.1 million human beings – I will point out that 90 percent of them were Jewish, but the other 10 percent, they were political dissidents, they were Jehovah’s Witnesses, they were gays, those were the people who were being killed together at Auschwitz-Birkenau,” Greenfield declared, “while we were discussing that, they had the chutzpah, the nerve, the temerity, to unfurl a Palestinian flag and yell at us.”
Voice rising, Greenfield contrasted Israel’s open society with the repressive regimes across the Middle East, before asserting, “What you saw here today was naked, blind antisemitism.”
Greenfield said that the demonstrators had unfurled the Palestinian flag out of anger that “Hitler had not finished the job. He only wiped out half of my family.”
He concluded: “Shame on them for disrespecting the most diverse democratically elected body in the United States of America, and that’s why we go to Israel.”
But immediately after that bit was an explanation of what the disruption of council business was really all about:
The demonstrators immediate target was the trip to Israel which Councilman Greenfield referred to, planned for next year, and involving City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and 14 other Council members. Footage of the demonstrators showed them in a state of collective hysteria, showering abuse and hatred upon the council’s members. (See video below.)
Here's the clip:
and we're still none the wiser save for that little bit of honesty that seems to have slipped through the algemeiner's net. The honesty, and inadvertant exposé of Councilman Greenman's dishonesty, was shortlived. Read on:
Other councillors joined Greenfield in condemning the antisemitic disruption, which included the fringe group “Jewish Voice for Peace” among the participants.
Aha, now I have more that I can google to try to get to the bottom of this. I eventually find the Jewish Voice for Peace site and their statement on the disruption:
On January 22nd, members of Jewish Voice for Peace-NY participated in an act of civil disobedience organized by the Direct Action Front for Palestine inside of City Hall. Our goal was to call attention to fifteen City Council members' upcoming delegation to Israel, a trip designed to whitewash Israel's occupation of and discrimination against Palestinians. During the political action, the City Council introduced a resolution commemorating the seventieth anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. A banner supporting our cause was dropped just as this resolution came to a vote; this timing was completely unintentional. JVP-NY regrets disrupting this vote, as we respect without qualification the solemnity of the Holocaust and honor all victims of genocide.
We unequivocally stand by our opposition to an all-expenses-paid junket to Israel by a delegation of the NYC Council, sponsored by organizations that promote Islamophobic policies in the US and defend Israel's human rights abuses and violations of international law.
Above all, JVP-NY is committed to opposing all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism. It is with those values in mind that we remember the victims of Auschwitz-Birkenau, and remain steadfast in our opposition to Israel's human rights abuses.
So the council was using the holocaust as a smokescreen for a junket to and a promotion of Israel and tacking on holocaust remembrance as an afterthought. Nice people these official holocaust rememberers.
UPDATE: Within momemts of this post, Harry's Place has decided to come clean and play dirty over this Palestine solidarity protest. Here's the HP update:
Update: The activists chose the moment of the Auschwitz commemoration toprotest a planned visit to Israel by several council members.
I wonder why HP chose their moment to come clean about what they must have known when they originally posted the post. Of course,, they're still being as dishonest as you'd expect, There is no evidence to suggest that JVP chose their moment to coincide with the councillors' hypocritical resolution on the holocaust. Nor is there any reason to suppose it. HP has been caught in another lie to smear the critics of the racist war criminals of the State of Israel.
Whilst enduring the torture of reading Harry's Place I also check out the comments just to see if there is a spark of humanity there. There usually isn't but I did notice some guy appealing for a hat-tip over drawing this Gene chap's attention to the speech in the clip. Gene duly obliged, I wonder if he'll hat-tip whoever it was that drew his attention to the fact that his original post was utterly bogus.
Only one scenario is worse than the reelection on March 17 of Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister, and that’s the election of Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog (and his political partner Tzipi Livni). Another term for Netanyahu would be a disaster, but a victory for Zionist Camp could be a worse disaster.
Yes, it’s true there’s no comparison between Herzog and Netanyahu — or between their parties. Herzog is a moderate, modest, fair person who’s much more liked than Netanyahu; the same can be said for Livni.
And Zionist Camp’s Knesset slate is of much higher quality than Likud’s. Not only does Zionist Camp not have thugs like Likud, it doesn’t have people with nationalist and racist views inciting and agitating. The CVs of most Zionist Camp candidates are much more impressive.
Now let’s assume Zionist Camp wins. Jubilation; Netanyahu will be ousted and a new day will dawn in Israel with a Herzog-Livni government. Actually, the first and most dramatic change will come from abroad — a global sigh of relief.
Not a statesman around the world will be sorry to see Netanyahu go, other than maybe Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah and Khaled Meshal of Hamas. All will be pleased with the victory of the “moderates.” The world will applaud, Herzog will be invited to Washington and Livni to London — and vice versa.
And soon, as promised, the “diplomatic process,” not to say the “peace process,” will begin. Herzog will meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Livni with Palestinian leader Ahmed Qurei in a series of moving photo-ops. The cheering around the world will grow louder.
This change will be happening just as it appears the world has had its fill of Israeli policy, of Israel thumbing its nose at international law, the United States and the across-the-board opposition around the world to a continuation of the occupation.
And just when it appears that sanctions against Israel — the only nonviolent way to push the country to leave the territories — are about to be introduced — then of all times Israel will be applauded. There will be no prospect of action at The Hague or at the UN Security Council, no pressure and no punishment. Quiet, they’re talking — those sacred negotiations are in progress.
Those negotiations will, of course, go on endlessly unless this time Abbas refuses to lend a hand to the farce. Herzog has already announced that he will devote five (!) years to negotiations that could be wrapped up in five weeks. In other words, Herzog has no intention of reaching an agreement. Over those five years, the world won’t put on pressure; the two sides are talking.
The occupation will become even more entrenched. Herzog has said his government will continue to build in the “settlement blocs.” And the last chance for a two-state solution — if it still exists — will be squandered. Herzog and Livni will delude the world and perhaps the Palestinians too. Those two will never achieve a just agreement.
This scenario need not surprise anyone. Herzog is at the helm of Israel’s party of occupation. The Labor Party is the founding mother of the settlement enterprise; it never considered stopping it.
Its historical responsibility for the occupation is greater than Likud’s. The Labor troika of Golda Meir, Yisrael Galili and Moshe Dayan founded it, Shimon Peres continued it, and Herzog will go down the same path. The occupation is Labor’s cursed hereditary disease, deeply embedded in its genes. Labor might occupy softly while Likud and the religious-nationalist right use violence. So what’s worse?
To some extent, Zionist Camp would halt the anti-democratic legislation, the incitement against the Arabs and maybe also the disgraceful attitude toward African asylum seekers, all of which are matters of the highest importance. But on the most fateful issue, Zionist Camp would do more harm than good. This Israeli peace party would intoxicate the world, which in its despair would again be enticed. If Netanyahu is elected for another term, that won’t happen.
None of the articles about Maureen Lipman fleeing persecution in the UK consider whether she might be, you know, a bit funny in the head.
— Flying_Rodent (@flying_rodent) January 30, 2015
Now as far as it goes that seems to be correct. There were a lot of articles following Lipman's interview on LBC radio including at least two papers that should have known better: The Independent and The Guardian.
But I remembered whilst waiting in a hospital for a passenger I read the Daily Mail in the reception and I was pleasantly surprised to see Esther Rantzen taking her friend, Maureen Lipman, to task over her, well, nuttiness. Have a look at the headline:
As Maureen Lipman threatens to quit the UK because of anti-semitism, her friend ESTHER RANTZEN says... Sorry, Maureen, but you are being unfair - and ungrateful
Now googling "daily mail" "esther rantzen" "maureen lipman" yields 2,960 results. I think it is only the Daily Mail that criticises Lipman but then it's the only paper that takes the idea of Maureen Lipman leaving the UK as a threat!
I've only just seen Flying Rodent's post on the great But controversy. Titled But-head. Clever. It's a denunciation of the many articles post-Charlie Hebdo which:
screech, wave [their] arms around and call down the vengeance of Heaven upon
people who say that cartoonists deserve to be shot, while containing
absolutely no examples
But it mostly uses Howard Jacobson's recent Independent article titled, Try ‘and’ instead of ‘but’ and you’ll find that America and Israel are not to blame for all the world’s atrocities as a foil.
Check out the post itself and see Organic Cheeseboard in the comments. Both OC and FR conclude that Jacobon was being wilfully dishonest in at least two of his claims. Here's OC quoting both Jacobson and the Chomsky article that was the supposed source of Jacobson's criticism of the "But Brigade":
Jacobson says:
how about, “Gunning down the staff of Charlie
Hebdo was an atrocity, ‘but’ Israel kills journalists in Gaza.” Would
anyone say that? Unless I dreamt it, Noam Chomsky just has.
He
hasn't, though. What he's said is that when the USA and its allies
intentionally kill journalists simply because they are journalists, they
go as far as parading it as a PR triumph, and nobody makes nearly as
much fuss as they did over the Charlie Hebdo massacre where journalists
were murdered for the crime of being journalists. Chomsky is really
clear, in fact:
The more we can blame some crimes on enemies,
the greater the outrage; the greater our responsibility for crimes --
and hence the more we can do to end them -- the less the concern,
tending to oblivion or even denial.
Now what's particularly impressive about OC's comment is that the quote from Chomsky forms the bulk of a letter Chomsky wrote to The Independent drawing attention to Jacobson's misrepresentation of what Chomsky had originally written. Chomsky's letter was published after OC's comment:
I read with much interest Howard Jacobson’s denunciation of
the “But Brigade” (24 January) and my culpability in this crime. But
(apologies for using the correct word) I’m afraid that he was very
careful to miss the point, completely.
There was no “but”
in the article of mine that elicited his fury. Rather, the article
provided a series of illustrations of a highly significant general
principle that was stated quite explicitly: “The more we can blame some
crimes on enemies, the greater the outrage; the greater our
responsibility for crimes – and hence the more we can do to end them –
the less the concern, tending to oblivion or even denial.”
I
can easily comprehend why Mr Jacobson would insist that the
demonstration of the principle must be suppressed, but (apologies again)
I see no reason to accede to his demand.
Noam Chomsky
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts
But really the reason for this post is that I noticed Chomsky's bracketed apologies for his use of the word "but" which reminded me of my own bracketed comments following my use of the word "but" in my previous post. I don't always agree with Noam Chomsky but (oh never mind).
Here's a quirky article I just found via Twitter. It's an op-ed on the Ricochet website by a chap called Leigh Phillips who says that assertions that Charlie Hebdo is or was racist were simply wrong or as the article's title has it, "Lost in translation...." by "the unilingual left" that is.
Now I didn't much get into je suis Charlie stuff here or on Twitter though I didn't like what I saw as hypocritical outpourings for free speech by various politicos and journos who seemed to be writing a script and insisting we all read from it. It was a bit like that Life of Brian bit where Brian tells the adoring crowd that they are all individuals and they all, in unison, agree with him.
Anyway, I don't intend to get into whether or not Charlie Hebdo is racist or has carried racist cartoons but (sheesh, I was also uncomfortable with the war on the word "but") I did notice this Leigh Phillips chap hedging a tad on the output of the late Christopher Hitchens - the CH in my title, geddit!? See this:
For all of Hitchens’ support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I couldn’t at any point suggest he was a racist.
Q[uestioner]. Tariq Ali was the only one I think who mentioned that the United States is the sole global power that we have now and what we are seeing is the dawn of a new imperialism. So why is it that we are so – we, meaning the global community – why are we so content at letting America have its say regardless of what the rest of the world thinks of it. It has committed a whole host of crimes on a vast scale in international law. It is suspending civil rights as far as the al-Qaida prisoners are concerned. It is actually riding roughshod over all norms of international law and why – where is Russia, where is Japan, where are all these countries? ........ C[hristopher] H[itchens]. ....I will not reject the challenge from the comrade, who I would say was from the Subcontinent. I would ask him this. He wanted to know why a country that – I think I have you right, sir – was indifferent to the norms of international law, was not more opposed by Russia and China, was that how you had it? Where was Russia, you said, where is China, why do they lie down under this lawlessness? I think your question answers itself: I think you had a real nerve asking it actually, or shall I say Chechnya or Cambodia or North Korea or Tibet or Kurdistan? It wouldn’t make any difference to you – would it? – any more than if I asked you how many people are currently flooding to the borders and ports of your country to immigrate to it – or to Russia or to China. Ask yourself that. One of the greatest problems that the United States has at the present moment is that everyone wants to come and live there: they’re wondering now how generous they can be. We should all have such problems; you will never have a problem like that, and nor will your ideology
Now Mr Phillips may not have been aware of that particular outburst but I'm sure Hitchens's enthusiasm for the war on terror sometimes verged on the genocidal.
I said the article was quirky and that Hitchens bit was just one of many quirks. But (it's that word again) it is worth a read and the comments are worth more than a skim too.
UPDATE: I'm indebted to Gert in the comments for drawing my attention to this blog post by Richard Seymour at Leninology which I think is safe to call a take-down of the Leigh Phillips piece.
On the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, we honor Hajo Meyer’s life and his commitment to the liberation of all people suffering dehumanization.
On the occasion of this International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the day that marks the liberation of Auschwitz, we remember Dr. Hayo Meyer, proud member of IJAN and long time anti-Zionist activist who passed away at the age of 90 on August 22, 2014. The day after he died, a letter from Jewish Survivors of the Nazi genocide and their descendants was published as an ad in the NY Times. The ad reflected Hajo’s words “never again for anyone”: decrying Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza and Elie Wiesel’s attempt to use the genocide of Jewish people to justify the attacks on Gaza. Dr. Meyer was the first to sign on.
Hajo was unwavering in his conviction and passion that Never Again meant Never Again for Anyone and in his outrage that his experience in Auschwitz was misused by Israel and Zionism to justify the colonization and ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Dr. Meyer was born in 1924 in Bielefeld, Germany. When he was barred from attending school there after November 1938, he fled to the Netherlands, alone. In 1944, after a year in the underground, he was caught and subsequently survived 10 months at Auschwitz. During the last decade of his life, Dr. Meyer dedicated himself to countering the Zionist manipulation of the Nazi genocide to justify the colonization of Palestine. He played a leading role on the Never Again for Anyone tour of Europe in 2010, and of the United States and Canada in 2011. By trade, he was the Director of the Phillips (electronics) Physics Laboratory (NatLab). After his retirement he became a builder of custom new violins and violas. He also played and performed the violin. In the last decade of his life, he traveled the world with his wife and companion, Chris Tillanus, to bring the message of Never Again for Anyone.
While we will miss Hajo, his message continues and grows stronger in the world as he is joined by survivors of the Nazi genocide, the descendants of its victims and survivors, and all people committed to justice.
I am very sad indeed to hear of the passing of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah.
"I am very sad indeed to hear of the passing of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah.
“I
knew him well and admired him greatly. Despite the turmoil of events in
the region around him, he remained a stable and sound ally, was a
patient and skilful moderniser of his country leading it step by step
into the future. He was a staunch advocate of inter faith relations. He
founded KAUST, the science and technology university where women and men
are educated equally. And today there are more women in higher
education than men. He allowed thousands to be educated abroad people
who have experience of the world and will play a big part in the future
of the country. He appointed women Ministers. He invested in renewable
energy. And of course he launched the Arab Peace Initiative in 2002
which has stood the test of time as a potential basis for a solution to
the Israeli Palestine issue.
“He was loved by his people and will be deeply missed."
I knew him well and admired him greatly. Despite the turmoil of
events in the region around him, he remained a stable and sound ally,
was a patient and skilful moderniser of his country leading it step by
step into the future. He was a staunch advocate of inter faith
relations. He founded KAUST, the science and technology university where
women and men are educated equally. And today there are more women in
higher education than men. He allowed thousands to be educated abroad
people who have experience of the world and will play a big part in the
future of the country. He appointed women Ministers. He invested in
renewable energy. And of course he launched the Arab Peace Initiative in
2002 which has stood the test of time as a potential basis for a
solution to the Israeli Palestine issue.
He was loved by his people and will be deeply missed.
I'm indebted to my friend Georgina for drawing my attention to this section of the Pew Research Global Attitudes Project from May 2014:
Many people in the seven European Union nations surveyed express negative views about minority groups in their country. In particular, negative attitudes toward Roma (sometimes also known as Gypsies) are common, while many also give Muslims unfavorable ratings. Negative attitudes toward Jews are less pervasive, although substantial minorities express an unfavorable opinion about Jews as well, especially in Greece where nearly half the public hold this view. Negative sentiments about all three groups are consistently more common among people on the ideological right.
Of course that was nearly 8 months ago and much has happened since then like the attack on Gaza by Israel and the attack on Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish shop by islamists. And of course it doesn't survey Jewish opinions of Muslims or vice versa. On that latter point, I wonder what some Muslims make of Theresa May's recent speech against anti-Jewish racism delivered round about the same time as her ministerial colleague, Eric Pickles was sending a patronising missive to mosques throughout the UK. And on that latter take a look at Michael Rosen's compare and contrast piece.
Here's an interesting piece from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency archive, Jan 1960. Abba Eban opposed the idea of using antisemitism to encourage Jews to settle in occupied Palestine unlike, for example, Bibi Netanyahu:
Abba Eban, former Israel Ambassador to the United States, expressed
disagreement at the first world conference of the Association of Youth
Pioneers with a resolution which contended it was a “false idea” that
Jews could integrate into the general life of countries outside Israel.
Mr. Eban, now a Minister Without Portfolio, told the delegates that
anti-Semitism should not be a slogan for the encouragement of
immigration to Israel. He said the crisis confronting Jews outside of
Israel was spiritual and not economic or social, and warned that there
would be no security for Israel and the entire Jewish people if, for
example, the safety of American Jewry were in danger.
It is in the spiritual field that Israel’s call to Jews should come,
he said, stressing that emphasis should be put on the positive side of
building Israel in appeals to Jews to settle in Israel.
He also seemed to hint at support for the Jewish lobby thesis of American support for Israel but I can't be sure of that.
The Guardian ran an article by Peter Beaumont on Friday with the headline, Why are French Jews returning to Israel in such numbers? Someone emailed me about it wondering why The Guardian was promoting the idea that Jews settling in Palestine amounted to "returning".
I read the article and found that whilst Peter Beaumont referred to Jewish "immigration" he didn't once use the word "return" or "returning" so I tweeted this query to him:
Why are French Jews heading to Israel in such numbers?
Now scroll down the article and look for where they say they amended it. Don't spend too long on it because you won't find it. I thought it was standard practice at The Guardian to announce their amendments.
Anyway, I wonder what led to their correcting the headline. In fact I asked Peter Beaumont:
The Liberal Democrat MP, David Ward did a couple of tweets referencing the shameless appearance of Bibi Netanyahu at the Paris march after the attack on Charlie Hebdo. Here they are:
Fairly standard stuff. Many of us were disgusted at the sheer hypocrisy of this mass killer of civilians attending a march supposedly for the victims of a murderous attack on civilians. I think I might have tweeted about it. Let me see.
At least #Bibi#Netanyahu's presence in Paris will expose the "anti"-terrorism charade for the sheer hypocrisy that it is. #Gaza
— Jews Sans Frontieres (@jewssf) January 11, 2015
But of course it wasn't just Bibi's attendance at the march that caused such disgust. He took the opportunity to call on France's Jews to join him as colonial settlers in occupied Palestine. This had even some zionists running for cover.
Tweet sents from Mr Ward’s account read: “Netanyahu in Paris march – makes me feel sick. Je suis Palestinian”.
In a letter to deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, ambassador Daniel Taub wrote: “Mr Ward’s statement is a disgraceful attempt to politicise suffering.
“It also exhibits a callous disregard for the Jews of France, many of whom look to Israel as they are increasingly targeted merely because of their religion.
Does Zionising suffering not count as politicising?
Whilst looking for stuff about the FUCU costs case I noticed that in spite of being derided by three judges for a colossal logic fail, Ronnie Fraser was awarded just recently a Phd.
Here's one report in the Jewish Chronicle:
The director of the Academic Friends of Israel, Ronnie Fraser, can at last breathe a sigh of relief.
After his failed legal action against the University College Union
over its anti-Israel policy, the union launched a claim to recover
around £500,000 in costs from him and his lawyers Mishcon de Reya.
Nearly two years after the original case, the parties have agreed a
confidential out-of -court settlement and the UCU has withdrawn its
application.
In fact, on the day of the scheduled costs hearing, he was able to do
something far more pleasant than watch lawyers slugging it out again.
He was able to attend his own degree ceremony — Dr Fraser, as he has
now become, has just been awarded his PhD by Royal Holloway, University
of London, for a thesis on the links between British and Israeli trade
unions.
