A wee dram of Ernie or Le Retour de Nom de Guerre

The dram has been too wee this past couple of years but now Ernie Halfdram (nom de guerre of Harry Feldman) is back to blogging with a vengeance at his Bureau of Counterpropaganda.  See his penultimate post from earlier today:

Holding my breath

When Israel entered into the 'Agreement of Understanding For a Ceasefire in the Gaza Strip' at 2100 local time on 21 November, just about 30 hours ago, it undertook 'Opening the crossings and facilitating the movements of people and transfer of goods and refraining from restricting residents' free movements and targeting residents in border areas and procedures of implementation shall be dealt with after 24 hours from the start of the ceasefire'. [see Ernie blog for the terms]

Searching high and low has revealed no mention in the media of any progress towards this objective so far. Maybe the media are just a bit sluggish. Maybe they're waiting for some announcement to report. Maybe the parties have decided to wait until morning, their time, to commence 'dealing with' implementing these crucial undertakings.

What's certain is that there can be no peace while Israel persists in caging Gaza's 1 644 293 people in their 365 sq km concentration camp and enforcing thesiege. We can only hope that in the coming hours and days, we will see free movement of Gaza Strip residents to the West Bank and the rest of the world; unrestrained passage of imports and exports; the end of the naval blockade that prevents access to Gaza's Mediterranean gas reserves and fisheries; dismantling of the remote-controlled, watchtower-mounted machine guns; free access to the agricultural and other land in Israel's 'buffer zone', which extends up to 1500 metres into the narrow enclave, 12km across at its widest point; and opening of Gaza's airport and sea port.

I'm not holding my breath.

See those links? Packed with information. And questioning Israel's commitment to a ceasefire?  Perfect timing.

Is this a record? Israel kills Palestinian within two days of signing ceasefire

According to the BBC:

A Palestinian man has been shot dead by Israeli soldiers close to the Gaza border, say Palestinian officials.

It is the first reported killing since the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel came into force on Wednesday evening.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said it fired warning shots at a group walking towards the border fence, then fired at their legs when they did not respond.

Towards the end of the BBC report we have this:

The BBC's Jon Donnison [he's the chap who ignored tweeted questions about the killing of his colleague's 11 month old baby] in Gaza says shootings near the border happen fairly often and do not always lead to an escalation of violence.

So what? Israel's always killing Palestinians so it doesn't really mean they've broken a ceasefire but see this:

Israel has unilaterally declared a 300m-wide exclusion zone around the fence which it says is needed for security

Ah, so the "withdrawal from Gaza" is even less of a withdrawal than we're usually told it was. And how does Israel secure the "secure" bit?

Anyway, I asked "is this a record". Israel has killed a Palestinian within two days of signing a ceasefire which most people must have thought meant they would stop killing people in Gaza. They have now killed a Gazan who strayed from Gaza into, er, Gaza. They managed to go more than a day without breaking their word and without killing a Palestinian. That, indeed, might be a record.

So where was the Reverend Tony Blair?

Tony Blair, former UK Prime Minister and Israel's envoy to the so-called Peace Quartet, at first came out in favour of Israel's operation against Gaza.  See this from The Daily Telegraph a few days ago:

The former prime minister and current Middle East Peace Envoy says that Hamas militants in Gaza must stop firing rockets, to put an end to Israel's retaliation and prevent the conflict from escalating.

Note the assumption that Israel, not Hamas, is retaliating.

See some more, this is from 15 November 2012, by the way

Tony Blair told ITV News: "If rockets are fired out of Gaza by Hamas or other militants in Gaza and aimed at Israeli towns and villages with the express purpose of killing Israeli civilians, the government of Israel is going to retaliate and the Israeli people will expect them to do so.

"So the most important thing is we stop the rockets from coming out, the retaliation can then stop, we get some ceasefire or calm into the situation and then work out a better way forward,

Now let's look at the Reverend's website on 19 November 2012:

Commenting on the conflict in the Middle East, on his 92nd visit to the region, Quartet Representative Tony Blair said:

"The suffering of innocent civilians, Palestinian and Israeli, makes a complete cessation the urgent objective. Israeli families need to be free from fear of rocket attacks and Gazan families relieved of the pain of the air strikes, so a ceasefire should be brought into being as soon as possible. We can then work on an agenda that ensures long-term the security of Israel and the return to normal life for Gaza, which has been absent for too long.

“We also continue to work on a credible political horizon for the two state solution that is, and remains, the only viable solution."

Note four days after openly siding with the racist war criminals of the State of Israel he now makes a pretence of even-handedness.

Now that Hamas appears to have won this latest round of Israel's Palestinian cull let's see The Guardian report on the cessation:

Announcing the ceasefire in Cairo, Clinton commended Egypt's mediation. "This is a critical moment for the region. Egypt's new government is assuming the responsibility and leadership that has long made this country a cornerstone for regional stability and peace."

She also thanked Egypt's Islamist president, Mohamed Morsi, for his mediation efforts and pledged to work with partners in the region "to consolidate this progress, improve conditions for the people of Gaza, and provide security for the people of Israel".

Despite securing support from western governments for its initial military operation against Hamas, Israel had failed to win US and European backing for a ground invasion as a series of key US allies in the region, led by Egypt and Turkey, strongly protested against the Israeli assault.

The agreed truce, mediated by Morsi and his spy chief, Mohamed Shehata, came after days of talks and frantic shuttle diplomacy involving regional leaders, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, and Clinton.

So where was the Reverend Tony Blair? Let's go back to His website:

Commenting on today's announcement, Quartet Representative Tony Blair said:

"I very much welcome this ceasefire, and highly commend the central role that Egypt’s government has played in bringing it about – with the helpful efforts of Secretary Clinton and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

“We must now act quickly to ensure long-term progress in the region so that the security of Israelis is ensured, and that life returns to normal for Gazans through continual improvements in their infrastructure and economy.

“We firmly believe that a two state solution is the way forward.”

Actually, unless this is the calm before an even bigger Israeli storm then what appears to have happened here is that resistance from Gaza together with support for the Palestinians from Egypt and Turkey has had the US ordering Israel not to persist in its Palestinian cull for the time being. There are many lessons which can be drawn from this, I'm sure, but Blair seems to have played no role in this whatever, except to side with Israel, pretend not to side with anyone and then report a ceasefire deal on his blog as if all the main players were working for him. So that's where he was.  Same as me, he was at home updating his blog.  So former UK PM, Israel's envoy to the Peace Quartet, Very (excruciatingly) Reverend, Tony Blair, can now tack on to the end of his CV (resumé for Americans), blogger. Yes, it's Blogger Blair!

Israel's attack on Gaza causes zionist antisemitism

It's been said by me and others many times before that zionism is ultimately antisemitic but examples aren't always easy to find.  Helpfully, the Jewish Chronicle made it easier just recently.  Here's Electronic Intifada's Asa Winstanley:

A pro-Israel newspaper promoted anti-Semitic slander on their website Friday. The story’s headline claimed “Unanimous UK Jewish community support for Israel” for its current attack on Gaza.

The Jewish Chronicle staff have since edited the headline to clarify the “unanimous” support is actually from “UK Jewish communal organisations” (though even that is not accurate).

But this screen capture from a Google search of the original headline clearly proves The Jewish Chronicle published the headline. A version of the headline also survives on an index page of their website, as of this writing: “Unanimous UK [Jewish] community support for Israel over Gaza fighting.”

The story contains a list of signatories on a letter to the Israel’s UK ambassador supporting Israel’s war crimes in Gaza as an “entirely understandable response.”

The list of signatories are in fact mostly representatives or members of some of the most fanatically pro-Israel lobby groups and propaganda organizations, including the Jewish Leadership Council, BICOM, the Labour Friends of Israel and the Conservative Friends of Israel.

No one elected these people to speak in the “unanimous” name of Britain’s Jews.

The disgusting sentiment proves once again that Zionists are willing to give anti-Semitism a free pass: but only in the service of fanatical support for Israel.

The original headline he is referring to still appears in the google search but the JC was too quick off the mark for the cached headline to tally with it so here's what you still see in the google search:

Unanimous UK Jewish community support for Israel over Gaza fighting

www.thejc.com/.../uk.../unanimous-uk-jewish-community-support-isr...

5 days ago – Representatives of the Anglo-Jewish community of all political persuasions have joined together to express solidarity with Israel.

Cor, and it seems like only yesterday that someone in a letter to The Guardian was slagging Jews for criticising Israel "as Jews".  Oh, it was only yesterday:

Miriam Margolyes (et al) and Professor Brent (Letters, 19 November) conjure up another tired old canard by introducing themselves as Jews. Does their Jewishness add weight to their views?

Hopefully now the chap who wrote that will understand why some of us think it is important to identify ourselves as Jews when we condemn Israel. If we don't speak for ourselves the zionists will take it upon themselves to speak for us and surely we have a right to oppose their antisemitism together with their more obvious form of racism, zionism itself.

As it happens, whilst googling for the headline "Unanimous UK Jewish community support for Israel over Gaza fighting" I found more evidence that the JC did indeed change its original headline. See this from I4U:

Unanimous UK Jewish community support for Israel over Gaza fighting

10 Updates

Representatives of the Anglo-Jewish community of all political persuasions have joined together to express solidarity with Israel. In a letter to Israeli ambassador to the UK Daniel Taub, officials from g ...

5 days ago, 6:03am CST

Full article at: The Jewish Chronicle

Well well well, bang to rights I'd say.  Oi JC, you speak for yourselves!

Letters: From Guernica to Gaza

An interesting crop of letters in today's Guardian some good, some bad.  Here are some good ones:

The two large and very similar photos of women, one a grieving Palestinian, the other an Israeli in shock (Report, 17 October), trade in a grotesque deception: that Israel and Gaza are suffering in equal measure. If it is no surprise that Netanyahu seeks re-election by pulverising Gaza and claims that Israel is the victim of Palestinian aggression, it is however reprehensible for the Guardian to plug the shop-worn fable of equivalence. The fourth most powerful (and US-backed) army in the world is once again bludgeoning one of the most oppressed, impoverished and overcrowded places on the planet. No matter that Israel struck first or that Hamas fired rockets, this absurd horror has been going on for years. There is no equivalence between occupied and occupier, prisoner and jailer. What we are watching again is the shooting of fish in a barrel.
Bruce McLeod
Skipton, North Yorkshire

As Jewish supporters of Palestinian rights, we have once again watched in horror as Israel escalates its lethal bombardment of the civilian population of Gaza. Numerous people, including children, are being killed or wounded. Israeli casualties came only after Israel, having started the slaughter by killing a 13-year-old boy in Gaza on 8 November, shattered a truce by assassinating the military leader who had negotiated it. So who is the terrorist and who wants peace?

Israel's political-military leaders cynically escalate the conflict, trying to justify their blockade of Gaza and acting tough in the runup to government elections. Having turned Gaza into an open-air prison, they again punish the Palestinians for electing leaders who attempt to resist the illegal occupation.

Too many of our media collude with the official Israeli version: that the attacks are "targeted" retaliation for rockets launched from Gaza. Despite hand-wringing by some western governments, they encourage Israeli belligerence by labelling Hamas a terrorist organisation, supporting the Gaza siege and denying Palestinian rights, both within and outside Israel. We support the peaceful campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) designed to help achieve those rights.
Miriam Margolyes
Alexei Sayle
Mike Marqusee
Seymour Alexander 
Jo Bird
Haim Bresheeth
Elizabeth Carola
Ruth Conlock
Mike Cushman
Nancy Elan
Susan Elan
Pia G Feig
Deborah Fink
Sonya Fraser
Claire Glasman
Tony Greenstein
Ruth Hall
Abe Hayeem
Rosamine Hayeem
Selma James
Michael Kalmanovitz
Berry Kreel
Leah Levane
Rachel Lever
Les Levidow
Moshe Machover
Martine Miel
Simon Natas 
Diana Neslen
Juliet Peston
Renate Prince
Frances Rifkin
Larry Sanders
Vanessa Stilwell
Sam Weinstein
Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi

Devra Wiseman

Jonathan Freedland really should take off his blinkers (A battle that solves nothing, 16 November). The conflict between Palestinians and Israelis is not just about who started firing the most recent lot of missiles. It's about a decades-long refusal by the Israelis to acknowledge the background – their occupation, annexation and frequent destruction of Palestinian olive groves, homes and wells; their refusal to be bound by international law over their settlements; the "Berlin Wall" they have erected through farms; the checkpoints that prevent critically ill people from getting to hospital – that has provoked Hamas intransigence and bitterness. If Jonathan Freedland – let alone the Israelis – cannot take this on board, can there be any hope for reconciliation?
Fr Julian Dunn
Great Haseley, Oxfordshire

And finally, for the good ones:

As a Jew who escaped the Holocaust in a Kindertransport 74 years ago and who voluntarily joined the British army to help fight the evil of Nazism, I utterly condemn the disproportionate response of the Israeli government to the Hamas rocket attacks. I am dismayed that both the British and American governments have given Israel carte blanche for these acts of barbarity in Gaza. Has the world learned nothing sinceGuernica?
Emeritus professor Leslie Baruch Brent 
London

Typically, in the interests of balance, there are some appalling ones too including one from a "Professor Marc Saperstein" of Cambridge, who Tony Greenstein claims is a fake of some sort. Don't tell me there's a hasbarista shortage.

Still relevant especially today - four steps to hasbara

Over four years ago Gabriel Ash, the evildoer himself, posted this guide to being a hasbarista.  Even though the whole of the mainstream media is with Israel there is always a danger that given Israel's fire power and its propensity for killing civilians, the facts might start to speak for themselves.  So here it is again, four and a half years after it was first published, How to make the case for Israel and win....

For the benefit of the many not-very-bright zionist wannabe apologists who read this blog assiduously, I decided to offer a clear and simple method of arguing the case for Israel. This clear and simple method has been distilled from a life spent listening to and reading Zionist propaganda. It is easy to follow and results are guaranteed or your money back.

So don't hesitate! Take advantage NOW of this revolutionary rhetorical system that will make YOU a great apologist for Israel in less time than it takes to shoot a Palestinian toddler in the eye.

Ready? 1..2..3..GO!

You need to understand just one principle:

The case for Israel is made of four propositions that should always be presented in the correct escalating order.

1. We rock
2. They suck
3. You suck
4. Everything sucks

That's it. Now you know everything that it took me a lifetime to learn. The rest is details; filling in the dotted lines.

You begin by saying how great Israel is. Israel want peace; Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East; the desert blooms; kibutz; Israelis invented antibiotics, the wheel, the E minor scale; thanks to the occupation Palestinians no longer live in caves; Israel liberates Arab women; Israel has the most moral army in the world, etc.

This will win over 50% of your listeners immediately. Don't worry about the factual content. This is about brand identity, not writing a PhD. Do you really think BP is 'beyond petroleum'?

Then you go into the second point: They suck. Here you talk about the legal system of Saudi Arabia, gay rights in Iran, slave trade in the Sudan, Mohammad Atta, the burqa, Palestinians dancing after 9/11, Arafat's facial hair, etc.

There is only one additional principle you need to understand here. It will separate you from the amateurs. You need to know your audience. If you've got a crowd already disposed to racist logic, go for it with everything you have. But if you get a liberal crowd, you need to sugar coat the racism a bit. Focus on women rights, human rights, religious tolerance, "clash of civilizations", terrorism, they teach their children to hate, etc. Deep down your audience WANTS to enjoy racism and feel superior. They just need the proper encouragement so they can keep their sophisticated self-image. Give them what they crave and they'll adore you! But be careful not to 'mix n match,' because it will cost you credibility.

When you're done, there will always be dead-enders insisting that abuse of gays in Iran does not justify ethnic cleansing in Palestine. Take a deep breath, and pull the doomsday weapon: You suck!

You're a Jew-hater, Arab-lover, anti-Semite, you're a pinko, a commie, a dreamer, a naive, a self-hater, you have issues, your mother worked for the Nazis, Prince Bandar buys you cookies, you forgot you were responsible for the holocaust, etc. The more the merrier. By the time you end this barrage, only a handful would be left standing. For mopping them up, you use the ultimate postmodern wisdom: Everything sucks.

War, genocide, racism, oppression are everywhere. From the Roma in Italy to the Native-Americans in the U.S., the weak are victimized. Why pick on Israel? It's the way of the world. Look! Right is only in question between equals in power; the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. Ethics, schmethics. Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Eat, drink! Carpe diem! The Palestinians would throw us into the sea if they could. Ha ha!

Trust me, that's as far as words can go. If you followed this method faithfully, you've done your work. You should leave the few who are still unconvinced to the forces of order.

Congratulations!
You are now ready to 
apologize for Israel like a pro.

Born again Christian Zionist Rupert Murdoch berates "Jewish owned press"

This is great.  I just got it from the Daily Beast.  I wonder how the various white supremacist websites who insist that Murdoch is Jewish will respond to today's tweet from the great man:

Why Is Jewish owned press so consistently anti- Israel in every crisis?
— Rupert Murdoch(@rupertmurdoch) November 18, 2012

It might also have an impact on those who believe that rich powerful people must be sane and sensible. Which anti-Israel major newspaper is there which is also owned by Jews? Tell me and I'll go out and buy it.

UPDATE:  He's sorry now:

",Jewish owned press" have been sternly criticised, suggesting link to Jewish reporters.Don't see this, but apologise unreservedly.
— Rupert Murdoch(@rupertmurdoch) November 18, 2012

Remember the Dalou family from Gaza

Up to 14 members of a single family, al-dalou, in Gaza city were murdered by Israeli bombs,
(but with the Obama administrations's approval, and the acquiesence of the whole world) .



http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=538794

 I look forward to the day I can post photos of the dead bodies of the generals and politicians responsible for this massacre.

Never forgive. Never forget.


UPDATE: The original post carried a "wrong" picture apparently from Syria's children murdered by the Assad regime. Quotation narks because there is a brotherhood of mass murderers. Replaced above with photos more "authentic".























Also, the person who sponsored these images regularly gets himself photo-oped with children, so please you too should note the difference between children who deserve to die and children who deserve to live

New low for the beeb

Ok, it's not really a new low, it's the same old low.  See this article on the New Left Project site:

Yesterday, we documented that BBC News repeatedly invited Jonathan Sacerdoti, former director of public affairs at the Zionist Federation, to offer unchallenged analysis of Israel's continuing attacks on Gaza ('Operation Pillar of Cloud'). Moreover BBC News presented Sacerdoti as a neutral Middle East expert, rather than a professional partisan for Israel. 

Following the publication of that article, Sacerdoti has attempted to scrub the evidence on which it was based from the internet. 

Having previously appeared on the BBC as a Zionist Federation spokesperson, Sacerdoti (now director of a ‘think tank’ with an innocuous name but questionable legitimacy—the ‘Institute for Middle Eastern Democracy’) appeared four times on BBC News between 14-15 November defending Israel’s actions in Gaza, without viewers ever being informed of his history of pro-Israeli activism. 

The BBC appears to have been satisfied that this constituted fair and balanced journalism, even though previous appearances by Sacerdoti were counterbalanced by guests with opposing views, such as Sarah Colborne of the Palestine Solidary Campaign. Perhaps the producers were under the impression that Sacerdoti was a ‘neutral’ Middle East expert?  

Apparently keen to maintain this façade, Sacerdoti began removing videos, photos and written evidence of his former role with the pro-Israel group hours after our article questioning his BBC appearances appeared. (His cat Herzl, named after the founder of Zionism, appears to be less concerned). 

First to disappear was his LinkedIn profile (which we made a screengrab of here). It contained details of his consultancy firm Sacerdoti Creative Consultancy and work at InstMed but no reference to the Zionist Federation or the Board of Deputies of British Jews, another influential pro-Israel group to which Sacerdoti was recently elected.

Next to go was a picture of Sacerdoti meeting Israeli President Shimon Peres (preserved here) which Sacerdoti had uploaded to Flickr and captioned ‘Jonathan Sacerdoti, of Her Majesty’s Secret Service’, 

Sacerdoti scrambled to hide the video evidence of his previous appearances for the Zionist Federation in the media—such as his defence of Israel's May 2010 attack on a Gaza aid flotilla the day after it happened on Sky News and Al Jazeera—by changing the settings of the incriminating videos on his YouTube channel, MrJonSac, to private. He also removed a video he produced with Gili Brenner of Israel advocacy group StandWithUs, promoting a pro-Israel campaign. 

Fortunately, Powerbase / Spinwatch researchers had already made copies of all these videos. Moreover still publically accessible is this video of Sacerdoti on the BBC's 'The Big Questions', in which he is clearly identified as representing the Zionist Federation. 

Sacerdoti’s friend, the pro-Israel blogger Chas Newkey-Burden, today removed a post from hiswebsite called ‘Talk for Israel report’ (5 May 2010), which was linked to in our original article. This screengrab shows why it was of interest: it details Sacerdoti’s talk, at a Zionist Federation event, on how to use social media to 'advocate for Israel'. At the time of writing Newkey-Burden’s website was littered with numerous other references to Sacerdoti’s involvement in pro-Israel activism. Here, for instance, Sacerdoti writes fondly about his week at a 'Diplomatic Seminar for Young Jewish Leaders' run by Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 

Another blogger, Richard Millett, seems to have been contacted, or has taken it upon himself, to remove a video of Sacerdoti at a pro-Israel rally in Trafalgar Square on 28 August last year. Several photos attest to Sacerdoti’s presence however, including one of him draped in the Israeli flag. 

Since the publication of our original article, it has emerged that Sacerdoti worked for the BBC through his firm Sacerdoti Creative Consultancy. The BBC logo is displayed in his list of clients along with ITV, Channel 4 News, ITN News, Channel 5 and others. He claims to have worked ‘as a consultant development producer and writer for TV production companies, developing factual, entertainment, and reality TV formats.’ It could be that this TV background gave him the contacts to get on prime time news presented as an objective expert on the Middle East, despite being no such thing. 

The absence of significant details from Sacerdoti’s LinkedIn profile and his subsequent attempts to wipe the proof of his pro-Israel partisanship from the internet beg the question of whether he misrepresented his position to the BBC. 

Even if this is the case, it does not excuse the BBC, which should have known or found out that he was not an impartial commentator. It suggests either that they have a worryingly short institutional memory, a lack of producers able to perform basic research on guests or a poor grasp of what journalistic ‘balance’ and ‘fairness’ really mean. Sacerdoti's misleading appearances, moreover, ought to be considered in the context of other failures in recent BBC coverage of Gaza, all of which appear to err in the same direction, as well as a longer BBC history of systematic bias in favour of Israel.

Hilary Aked is a freelance researcher and writer, an NCTJ-qualified journalist and a doctoral candidate at the University of Bath.

Complaints to the BBC can be made on this form.

Why bark when you have two dogs?

This is a Steve Bell cartoon from The Guardian. The picture appears to be saying that William Hague and Tony Blair are saying exactly what Netanyahu is saying even though Israel's latest assault on Gaza seems to be a typical Israeli election stunt.  But for Telegraph hasbara blogger, Brendan O'Neill, it is saying that "Jews [are] still running the world".

Elsewhere in the Telegraph there's a report on how the BBC apologised to Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, for catching him on the back foot with a question about Gaza.

Lord Sacks sighed, before replying: “I think it has got to do with Iran, actually.” Mr Davis’s co-presenter, Sarah Montague, was clearly concerned that Lord Sacks did not seem to know his remarks were still being broadcast and could be heard to whisper: “We, we’re live.”

Lord Sacks then swiftly adopted a more formal broadcasting manner and suggested the crisis demanded “a continued prayer for peace, not only in Gaza but for the whole region”.

“No-one gains from violence. Not the Palestinians, not the Israelis. This is an issue here where we must all pray for peace and work for it,” he said.

Mr Davis thanked his guest and announced that the programme would “move on” to the next item.

In a statement the BBC apologised for catching the Chief Rabbi off-guard.

A spokesman said: “The Chief Rabbi hadn’t realised he was still on-air and as soon as this became apparent, we interjected. Evan likes to be spontaneous with guests but he accepts that in this case it was inappropriate and he has apologised to Lord Sacks. The BBC would reiterate that apology.”

Hard to see what there was to apologise for here except that, when he thought he was off air, the Chief Rabbi responded like a politician and when he knew he was on air he returned to religion mode. Anyway, perhaps I should change the headline above to "why bark when you have three dogs?"

UPDATE at 5:20 am 9/12/2012: I just had an interesting chat with a chap called Dave Zeglen on the Fat Man on a Keyboard blog where he (Dave Zeglen) says why he thinks the Steve Bell cartoon is antisemitic:

Levi9909,

I don't think criticism of Israel is a priori anti-Semitic, and I also accept that there are certainly some people who respond to legitimate criticism of Israel with the charge that the accuser is being anti-Semitic. However, in this particular case of Steve Bell's cartoon, it is an anti-Semitic cartoon because it invokes an anti-Semitic stereotype for a man who is Jewish. Even if Steve Bell did not intend the cartoon to be racist, the symbolism is clearly racist given how the trope of the Jewish puppet master has been historically used to marginalize Jewish people. Netanyahu should rightly be criticized, but this was not the way to do it. Bell defended his cartoon with the same argument you put forward, that because it depicts a specific individual at a specific moment, it isn't anti-Semitic, but how can you ignore the fact that the person depicted is also a Jew? It's not the same when you invoke a puppeteer trope for a leader who isn't Jewish because there may not be that historical association with a non-Jewish leader. As a corollary, it might be acceptable to draw George W. Bush as a monkey to mock his incompetence, but it would surely be racist to do the same with Obama because of the historical use of such imagery regarding black people, right?

I did respond but I don't want to be ungracious by giving myself the last word here. If you want to see my response, go there. Ta.

Gaza protest and the BBC

There is a protest over Israel's attack on Gaza outside the Israeli embassy tomorrow afternoon, Saturday 16 November 2012 from 1400-1600 at 2 Palace Green, London W8 4QB but given that you can't get anywhere near the embassy itself, protests against the BBC might be more appropriate.

See this post to Electronic Intifada:

In a new low for the BBC’s objectively pro-Israel coverage, the British state broadcaster seems to be doing its best to downplay the murder by Israel of family members of one of its own cameramen.

The 11-month-old son of BBC Arabic’s picture editor Jihad Misharawi was killed in Israeli tank shelling last night, along with his sister-in-law, according to BBC journalists on Twitter, and one report online (which didn’t even name him).

EI notes that there was a mention of the killing on Radio 4 by Jon Donnison but this may have been the result of EI's Asa Winstanley questioning him on Twitter:

@jondonnison Jon, on News at 10, why did you not mention your colleague's baby son killed by Israel last night? WP put on front page
— Asa Winstanley (@AsaWinstanley) November 15, 2012

Asa reports:

Donnison did not reply (he is currently reporting from the highly dangerous situation in Gaza), but (to his credit) he did mention Misharawi’s loss during a live dispatch to today’s BBC News at One, speaking of civilian casualties “on both sides.”

We, of course, have been here before with the BBC in the case of Jeremy Bowen's driver who was killed by Israel in Lebanon when it looks like the Israelis were actually trying to kill Jeremy Bowen. This is from an old Independent:

The pivotal moment in his career - "in my life", he corrects - was the Israeli tank attack on the Mercedes car in which he and two colleagues were travelling through southern Lebanon in 2000. At the moment of the attack, Bowen and his cameramen Malek Kanaan were a short distance away doing a piece to camera. Their fixer and driver Abed Takkoush had remained in the vehicle to make a phone call to his son.

With the car in flames, the tank's machine gun prevented Bowen from going to his friend's aid. "I felt like a coward," he writes. "I decided I could not save him and that I had to save myself. The ending was not happy. Life is not a film."

Try searching for Malek Kanaan on the BBC news website. Just one report. Plus ça change. Change? What change?

Occupation Diaries by Raja Shehadeh

This is a straight lift from the OR Books website:

Occupation Diaries

RAJA SHEHADEH

"Few Palestinians have opened their minds and their hearts with such frankness." —The New York Times

"At once gentle and angry, resolute and realistic." —The Nation

"Towards any proper understanding of history there are many small paths. I strongly suggest you walk with him." —John Berger on Palestinian Walks

ABOUT THE BOOK

It is often the smallest details of daily life that tell us the most. And so it is under occupation in Palestine. What most of us take for granted has to be carefully thought about and planned for: When will the post be allowed to get through? Will there be enough water for the bath tonight? How shall I get rid of the rubbish collecting outside? How much time should I allow for the journey to visit my cousin, going through checkpoints? And big questions too: Is working with left-wing Israelis collaborating or not? What effect will the Arab Spring have on the future of Palestine? What can anyone do to bring about change? Are any of life's pleasures untouched by politics?

Zionism is sick so call a doctor

That's precisely what the Jewish Chronicle has done in the case of Antony Lerman's recent book titled, The Making and Un-making of a Zionist.  It took a little time but the Jewish Chronicle has finally got round to commissioning a review of the book by a medical oncologist, Daniel Hochhauser.

From the title of the book it is clear that Tony Lerman overcame his difficulty squaring a liberal conscience with supporting the zionist project/ideology.  His response was to eventually ditch zionism and suggest a few reforms which might lead to peace between Israel and its natives and neighbours and maybe even peace within and between diverse Jewish communities.

All too much for the zionist establishment as Hochhauser's insulting "review" demonstrates.

Tony Greenstein goes into far more detail here.

Funder and fundee give their "evidence" at UCU antisemitism tribunal

The zionists' case against the Universities and Colleges Union is still rumbling on at the employment tribunal. The aim of the case is to portray the UCU as antisemitic and to have it punished accordingly.  I don't really understand why the case is being heard at all given that it has nothing to do with employment and the case hasn't been brought by an employee against an employer.  But anyway, here's a chunk from a report on the hearing from the Jewish Chronicle:

The University and College Union travelled a “dangerously slippery slope” from criticism of Israel to “plain old antisemitism”, an employment tribunal has heard.

Jeremy Newmark, Jewish Leadership Council chief executive, said the UCU’s proposed academic boycott of Israel had been “hugely concerning” for the Jewish community.

Mr Newmark gave evidence at the employment tribunal brought by maths lecturer Ronnie Fraser, who is challenging the UCU after its rejection of a widely-accepted definition of antisemitism last year.

That rejection had marked a “tipping point”, Mr Newmark told London’s Central Employment Tribunal on Tuesday.

“That was the moment we began to talk of institutional antisemitism.”

During two-and-a-half hours of cross-examination, Mr Newmark regularly clashed with the UCU’s defence lawyer, Antony White QC.

Mr White accused Mr Newmark of making “a series of false accusations” in his submitted witness statement.

Mr Newmark said that at the union’s congress in 2008 he had been “targeted” by UCU officials who saw he was wearing a kippah and stopped him entering the conference hall.

Mr White said: “What, in fact, happened was you were trying to push your way in, despite having the wrong badge.”

Mr Newmark responded: “It’s very easy to use the stereotype of a pushy Jew. That’s not what happened. Nobody else was stopped from going in. They knew me.”

Readers may recall that it was Jeremy Newmark who "had brilliant idea of funding soft Trotskyists Engage to lead the campaign against the higher ed boycott".

Now I hope whoever is hearing this ludicrous case has some idea of how casually zionists invoke the charge of antisemitism from Newmark's translation of "you were trying to push your way in" to "It’s very easy to use the stereotype of a pushy Jew".

Not content with putting an antisemitic spin on just about anything, Newmark also tried to redefine the Jewish identity:

Mr White argued that some Jewish members of the union had backed the boycott. The tribunal heard how activists from Jews for Justice for Palestinians had been supportive of the policy.

Mr Newmark rejected those Jewish views as having been “grossly, disproportionately magnified” by UCU. The Jews backing the boycott were “a tiny group of people who only identify as Jews to take political positions in debates on Israel. These people are not engaged in Jewish life in any way,” he said.

Those Jews supporting the UCU stance “could not be more irrelevant in Jewish life in this country. Most British Jews are deeply disturbed by what they have seen in British academia”.

Of course if zionists succeed in redefining Jews as zionists then anti-zionism and antisemitism become the same thing but then they might also succeed in legitimising antisemitism. That wouldn't bother them but it would bother me and many others.

Woah! I nearly forgot the point of the headline. Jeremy Newmark was the funder but who is the fundee?  I'll give you a clue. He was a member of parliament in the UK until very recently.  He too likes to redefine antisemitism so as to stifle criticism of the State of Israel.  Ok, one last clue.  He got done (but not well done yet) for fiddling expenses, paricularly over his work on "antisemitism".  Aha! you got it that time.  It's Denis the menace MacShane.  Here's the JC again:

Former MP Denis MacShane gave evidence on Wednesday. He chaired the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism and said that the EUMC definition had been “very helpful” and “invaluable” to those combating hatred.

After the union rejected the definition, Dr MacShane “felt horrified for all the Jewish lecturers who felt obliged to resign”.

Dr MacShane likened the boycott calls to the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany, and said he felt the union had “gone down an antisemitic road”.

Cor, that's powerful. I wonder what he thinks about colonial settlement. ethnic cleansing and segregationist laws. Oh yes, he supports those things and accuses the opponents of being nazis.

Boycott Batsheva II - the Director's Cut

A bit of a coup over at the Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods site.  Naomi Winborne-Idrissi received a letter from some performing arts teacher or other calling on JBIG not to disrupt a Batsheva show because she (the teacher) wanted to take her students to it.

Here's Naomi's response to the letter whose content you can probably guess but it is posted in full bar the name below the post on the JBIG site:

Thank you for contacting us regarding your concerns about planned protests focusing on Israel’s Batsheva Ensemble.

I am responding as the Boycott Israel Network’s cultural working group coordinator and national secretary of Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods, as well as someone who loves and regularly attends dance performances.

I do not know what your sources are for your reading about our campaign, but we are not, as you suggest, people “who could not care less about dance”. On the contrary, we care very much about dance being used cynically to cast a veil over the actions of a government which is anything but artistic in its discriminatory violence against Palestinians. Israel runs a well-funded campaign called Brand Israel which is specifically designed to exploit culture as a distraction from its crimes. The intended message is “Look at our beautiful dancers, ignore our bombs and tanks.”

It’s good to know that you agree with the “basic human right of being able to protest and voice an opinion.” I applaud the fact that you have looked into the appalling situation of the Palestinian people and that you appreciate that they are victims of many atrocities. In that case you must surely know that Palestinian artists and performers suffer from these atrocities at least as much as other members of their community.

Their ability to express themselves through art and culture is severely curtailed – indeed it is deliberately suppressed by the Israeli authorities who use every measure from administrative regulation to extreme violence to prevent Palestinian self-expression. I attach some references pertaining to this (*).

You may also wish to look at the website of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) which explains their call for people of conscience around the world to mount solidarity campaigns such as ours.

Let me assure you we have no wish to deprive GCSE students of the chance to “see a piece of excellent dance so that they can write about it for their GCSE exam”. There are, fortunately for us, untold opportunities in the UK for dance-lovers to have such experiences. This is not the case for Palestinian young people, although Israeli youngsters do not lack for such opportunities.

If you are worried about the trauma your students might suffer by being exposed to someone unfurling a banner or calling out a slogan at a Batsheva performance, may I suggest you give them access to the ample materials explaining why the people of Palestine have called for such actions – not least the daily trauma experienced by Palestinian children such as the students of Hebron attacked by stone-throwing fundamentalist Jewish settlers acting under the protection of Israeli troops, or the children of Bedouin families in the Negev whose homes are constantly being demolished, or the children of Gaza, under siege since 2006 and at the mercy of Israeli bombing raids.

You ask why we do not protest at a Russian ballet performance. I might ask you the same question, but to respond seriously – if an oppressed people comparable with the Palestinians, with no other non-violent means of drawing attention to 60 years of dispossession and injustice, were calling on us to adopt this form of protest on their behalf against cultural institutions linked to the Russian state, we would have no hesitation in doing so. Maybe you are not aware that supporters of Israel adopted just such tactics against the Bolshoi Ballet and other Soviet cultural institutions as part of their campaign to persuade Moscow to let dissident Jews emigrate to Israel in the 1970s and ’80s.

We are thoroughly well acquainted with the personal views of Ohad Naharin, the artistic director of Batsheva, but these do not prevent the most right-wing government Israel has ever had embracing Batsheva as “our best global ambassador”. You can see an analysis of Batsheva’s position here.

If you wish to explore these issues further, and give your students an unprecedented opportunity to consider the many complex ways in which art and politics interact, I would be happy to introduce you to well-informed human rights campaigners in your area who they could meet for a discussion.

 As I said, Naomi has appended the original letter to her post,  But more interesting than the post itself is the fact that Batsheva director has commented on the post thus:

ohad naharin | 7 November 2012 at 2:36 am | Reply

since we probably agree about the much needed solution for the palestinians, about the wrong doing of the israeli army and government in the way they treat the palestinians, we probably also agree about the topic of boycott… i guess what left is the topic of boycotting batsheva… i recently wrote this sentence: “…the discussion about the right to call for a boycott of an artistic organization is a legitimate one… it should only take place when the art organization itself take part, collaborating in promoting the situation that is being protested against….”. which you might think is what batsheva dose… we can argue about that or about if is it ok to protest against our shows inside the theater… not so exiting…
i am interested in facts, especially the learning of new ones… i have learn more and more to less care about being right,instead i try to be more right about being informed.. i also realize that there are grey areas. it becomes grey when i know something i can not prove and therefore i don’t need to convince (i cant) yet i know… (there is life elsewhere then our planet; for example).
it is sad that so many times having the wrong facts manufactures so much suffering, injustice, innocent victims and what even more sad is when people distort facts on purpose to serve their agenda. for example; the constant use of “brand israel” while there is not such a thing any more… (there was, and even then i was not part of it) i constantly strive to narrow the gap between what i think reality is and what reality really is. i think i am slowly succeeding…it is a life long task. i find it very challenging and many times impossible to talk to people which have a big to huge gap between what they think reality is and what it really is.

ohad naharin

The guy seems to be in a bit of turmoil so perhaps JSF readers could pop over to the JBIG site, give the guy (and the site) a bit of moral support at the same time as offering some constructuve criticism of Batsheva's position.