Glen Beck exposed as a pinko lefty

I always thought there was something a bit smoked salmon socialist about that Glen Beck character, and it seems that Israeli lawmakers agree. It appears that he was given a hard time by some Knesset members on his 'hallelujah Israel' visit of the Holy Land. For instance MK Eldad objected to Beck's characterisation of Palestinians, pointing out with words that cannot be parodied: 'You say we're all people – I have a problem with this'.

Seriously though, where else in the world would Glen Back be attacked by members of parliament for being too left-wing?

Another desperate defence of the working definition

Now it's the turn of the Jewish Chronicle's Geoffrey Alderman to defend the EUMC working definition of antisemitism. His point is as ludicrous as any and his involvement is further evidence of the motive of the working definition's promoters: to protect the State of Israel from criticism.  Let's have a look at what he says:

No one would describe the EUMC working definition as a state-of-the-art exposition of the characteristics of anti-Jewish prejudice in all its forms. 

Well Dr David Hirsh of the Israel advocacy site, Engage, does not actually stoop to calling the working definition "a state-of-the-art exposition of the characteristics of anti-Jewish prejudice", he just says it's the definition of antisemitism as in,

Instead of addressing the antisemitic culture, the leadership of the union now proposes to alter the definition of antisemitism

And there has been quite a mobilisation of Jewish leaders and zionist activists to condemn the UCU as if the working definition was the only thing standing between the world's Jews and the nazis. But let's see some more of Alderman's piece:

it does put down some markers. Antisemitism, it proclaims, is "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews."

It adds that "such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity". It explains that denying "the Jewish people" the right to self-determination - for example, by proclaiming that Israel is "a racist endeavour"- could be regarded as antisemitism, as could holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the state of Israel.

But it also says that "criticism of Israel similar to that levelled at any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic". And we might also note that, within the working definition's more general list of actions and activities that could be regarded as antisemitic are: calling for the killing of Jews in the name of an "extremist" religion; making "mendacious" claims about Jews - such as the myth of a Jewish world conspiracy; and accusing Jews "as a people" of "inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust".

Such, in outline, are the broad characteristics of the working definition. At its recent conference, the UCU resolved that it would henceforth make "no use" of the definition - which must and can only mean no use whatever. And that, "in any public discussion on the matter", it would "dissociate itself" from the definition - which can only and must mean that it would and will publicly repudiate the content of that definition: the content, the whole content and nothing but the content.

For the wording of the UCU's resolution contains no reservation. The brothers and sisters of the UCU - or rather, to be fair, of the UCU conference delegations - rejected the definition in its entirety.

Now let's take another little look at the UCU resolution:

Congress believes that the EUMC definition confuses criticism of Israeli government policy and actions with genuine antisemitism, and is being used to silence debate about Israel and Palestine on campus.

What has happened here is that, typically, Israel advocates have listed out some things which are truly antisemitic, some things which are not and some things which "taking into account overall context, could be" antisemitic. Among the things that are not of themselves antisemitic are comparing Israel to the nazis and "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination". Some Israel advocates say that this could be antisemitic in certain contexts like say walking into a synagogue and shouting "you have no right to self-determination" at the congregation but since that could apply equally to throwing a bunch of daffodils into a synagogue congregation it shouldn't really be included in a working definition of antisemitism lest some idiots come away with the idea that it is antisemitic to to say that the ethnic cleansing and colonial settlement policies required to implement self-determination for the Jewish people is not very nice.

Anyway, what Geoffrey Alderman is failing to recognise is that the working definition is a curate's egg. What's a curate's egg? A curate's egg is an egg that is rotten but, according to the curate, is good in parts. The thing is you can't eat the good bits of a rotten egg and you can't accept a working definition of antisemitism that is so rotten in so many parts that the good parts could be confused with the good parts. Let's the resolution again,

Congress believes that the EUMC definition confuses criticism of Israeli government policy and actions with genuine antisemitism,

Clearly, contrary to what Alderman is saying, the UCU recognises that there is such a thing as antisemitism. They just reject the confusion of criticism of the State of Israel with the real thing. If they didn't recognise the real thing as existing then why did they mention it in their resolution? Maybe more to the point, why didn't Geoffrey Alderman mention that they mentioned it in their resolution?

What the UCU is doing is what should always be done with a curate's egg and that is rejecting the whole shebang whilst recognising that it may well be good in parts but the rotten parts render the whole thing rotten.

Israel's anti-boycott law

Israel has passed an anti-boycott law. It's yet another example of Israel jettisoning its democratic facade but apparently it's to protect the economy of the settlements.  Here's Avirama Golan in Ha'aretz:

the Boycott Law is only ostensibly about boycotts of goods produced in the settlements, just as the Admissions Committee Law is only ostensibly about community life in small towns and the Nakba Law is only ostensibly about commemorating the Palestinians' "catastrophe," and so on and so forth ad infinitum.

All of these new laws, all the new conditions stating that "anyone who doesn't recognize the Jewish and democratic state" will not receive state funds or will lose his citizenship or will not be allowed to sleep in the afternoons, have one purpose only: to completely eradicate open political debate and to comprehensively delegitimize everyone who doesn't think like MKs Zeev Elkin, David Rotem, Michael Ben-Ari and their friends.

The question that most preoccupied Meridor yesterday related to how Israel would be perceived by the international Quartet. He was genuinely worried that the law to punish those who boycott the settlements would not paint Israel's parliament in a terribly flattering light.

But Israel's image is a truly trivial issue compared to the process of change being wrought in Israeli society by the cabal of Yisrael Beiteinu, extremist rabbis and Kahanists. This process is crudely erasing entire entries from the democratic dictionary, and in their place - via a series of focused laws with intentionally vague wording - it is putting blatantly totalitarian values.

The Boycott Law is just one step in this process. Anyone who attempts to relate substantively of any of these separatist laws - all of which are meant to "defend" Israel from a long list of imaginary monstrous enemies - or who chooses to ignore their overall anti-democratic context is guilty of naivete at best, and perhaps even of dangerously feigning innocence.

Magnes Zionist has an interesting take on the new law here. He thinks it's unworkable. I don't know if it is or it isn't. I do find it remarkable though that so many people in the west who claim to support Israel because it's "the only democracy in the middle east" don't say a word when the trappings of democracy are being steadily undermined by the Israeli government.

Overcome BBC censorship of Palestine for 69p

Many will have read of how the BBC somehow beeped out the word "Palestine" from a rap and they don't seem to be too keen to play the song, Freedom for Palestine by OneWorld.  Well apparently if you buy this song on line today it could well make it into the Top 40 in which case even the Beeb will be forced to play it or openly ban it.  So go ahead and buy it for a mere 69p depending on the source.



Thanks

Don't let Murdoch off the hook

The closure of the News of the World when most of its advertisers have said they won't advertise with it any more hardly amounts to penance for the sick behaviours of its journalists, subs and editors.  It is clearly a case of a damage limitation exercise, cutting adrift something that was holed below the waterline anyway.

From the noise coming from the government and Ofcom, the powers that be desperately want Murdoch to continue and enhance his role as the UK's offshore Berlusconi.

Well help is at hand. The 38 Degrees website has a petition and an email campaign to "help break Murdoch's grip" on media and politics in the UK.

What does Dominique Strauss-Kahn think of first thing in the morning?

Well I'm not a mind reader but according to this Ha'aretz report, every  morning when he wakes up, Dominique Strauss-Kahn's thoughts turn to Israel, specifically what can he do for Israel?

Although his alleged sexual exploits are making waves, it is Israel, not women that is in former IMF Chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn's heart.

In an interview with the newspaper "Liberation" back in April, just over a month before he made headlines for rape charges (that are looking increasingly shaky), DSK told the French daily that only three things could prevent him from becoming the next president of France - his money, his women and his Judaism.

The fallen-from-grace financier recounted an interview he gave some years back with the "Tribune Juive"(The Jewish Tribune), in which he said "I wake up every morning and think about how I can help Israel."

It's a strange thing for an aspiring President of one country to wake up each morning thinking of what he can do to help another one.

Bob Marley prayed for Zion, Ziggy Marley plays for Zionism

I just read a comment saying that Ziggy Marley is to be playing two dates in Israel.  I remembered that years ago Marley jnr had played in Israel and it was considered such a coup for the entity that Shimon Peres came backstage to greet and thank him. According to the report I read at the time, (I can't find it now but I'm sure it was in The Guardian, maybe pre-internet days) young Ziggy was angry at having been used.  Googling for what I clearly remember I found that Ziggy is happy to make himself useful to the last of the colonial settler states. He even played Israel during the war on Lebanon in 2006. So I suppose there is no point in trying to appeal to the conscience of someone who clearly has no conscience. By the way, he sang No Woman No Cry for his Israeli audience in 2006.

Unlike those artists who don't announce their appearances in Israel on their gig lists, Ziggy is more than happy to announce his forthcoming concerts:

July 19, 2011: Tel Aviv, Israel

• place: Barby Club
• address:
• city/country: Tel Aviv, Israel
• time:
• notes:

• type: Headliner
• Information: Venue Info
• Buy Tickets: Buy Tickets
• On Sale date:
• Sale Time date:

July 21, 2011: Jerusalem, Israel

• place: Sacker Gardens
• address:
• city/country: Jerusalem, Israel
• time:
• notes:

• type: Headliner
• Information: Venue Info
• Buy Tickets: Buy Tickets
• On Sale date:
• Sale Time date:

There is a facebook page trying to appeal to whatever conscience Ziggy might have but since he has no conscience it's probably a waste of cyber space

New antisemitism card starts to fold

First Deborah Lipstadt expressed partial support for the scrapping of YIISA by Yale on account of YIISA's clear agenda of Israel advocacy, now Irwin Cotler has said that it is not, that is not, antisemitic to label Israel an apartheid state. Antony Lerman points to the fact that Cotler has clearly changed his mind on this.

Professor Irwin Cotler, the former Canadian Minister of Justice and Chairman of the Inter-Parliamentary Commission for Combatting Antisemitism, recently told Ha’aretz journalist David Sheen:

‘You can criticize an Israeli policy or action as having been not only a violation of human rights and humanitarian law but also, you could even say it was a war crime,’ the former Canadian justice minister said. ‘It may be, as I say, distasteful to see that, or witness that, but I don’t regard that as being anti-Semitic content. I think that that’s part of what is called rigorous criticism and discourse.’

‘Where you say that Israel is an apartheid state, even then – that to me is, it’s distasteful, but it’s still within the boundaries of argument’.

Cotler’s remarks seem to have been received in relative silence by the blogosphere and others who comment regularly on antisemitism. This is curious to say the least given that Cotler is probably the most significant and influential international figure in the propagation of the concept of the ‘new antisemitism’, a key example of which is calling Israel an ‘apartheid state’. That what Cotler now says is a fundamental change in his position is clear from his past articles and speeches. In an ‘Alert Paper’, New Anti-Jewishness, written for the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute and published in November 2002, Cotler gave examples of ‘new antisemitism’ under 13 headings. Under the third, ‘Ideological antisemitism’, he wrote:

This finds expression not only in the ‘Zionism is Racism’ indictment – and the singling out of Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people and Israel’s ideological raison d’être, for discriminatory treatment – but the further criminal indictment of Israel as ‘an apartheid state,’ and the calling for the dismantling of this ‘apartheid state’ – a euphemism for Israel’s destruction.

Although he has never said that all critiques of Zionism are antisemitic, Cotler has avoided foregrounding this view. But in the Ha’aretz interview he is clearly keen to redress the balance. He says:

I think we’ve got to set up certain boundaries of where it does cross the line, because I’m one of those who believes strongly, not only in free speech, but also in rigorous debate, and discussion, and dialectic, and the like. If you say too easily that everything is anti-Semitic, then nothing is anti-Semitic, and we no longer can make distinctions . . .

I think it’s too simplistic to say that anti-Zionism, per se, is anti-Semitic. It may cross the line into being anti-Semitic where it ends up by saying, ‘Israel has no right to exist’, or ‘the Jewish people have no right to self determination’, or, that the Jewish people are not even a people.

I can imagine that many who have rightly seen the Canadian MP and law professor as the standard bearer for exposing the ‘new antisemitism’, and have lauded him for coining the phrase ‘Israel is the Jew among the nations’, will be bitterly disappointed by this change of mind. And at the moment they are keeping quiet about it.

In a separate but related development, an Israel advocate activist within the UK's Universities and Colleges Union, Ronnie Fraser, has enlisted the support of Anthony Julius to try to threaten the UCU into retreating from various of its positions on Israel including the recent decision to dismiss, ignore, avoid or denounce the former EUMC's bogus "working definition" of antisemitism.

Antony Lerman points up the difficulty in making Ronnie Fraser's charges stick given that a professor from Ben Gurion University, Professor David Newman, charged with opposing the boycott in the UK has said that he doesn't believe the boycott movement or idea to be antisemitic and that the charges become even more obviously tenuous now that Cotler, a far more staunch Israel advocate than Newman has concurred with Newman. Just an aside here, note the not so staunch Israel advocate actually lives in Israel unlike Cotler. But here's Lerman again:

Julius’s letter to General Secretary Sally Hunt setting out UCU member Ronnie Fraser’s case against the UCU is written in the strongest terms. It accuses the union of breaches of the Equality Act 2010, threatens that unless a series of demands by Fraser are met – including the abrogation of the resolution rejecting the EUMC ‘working definition’ and a ‘commitment to sponsor a programme (for a minimum of ten years . . . ) educating academics concerning the dangers of anti-Semitism, with special reference to the relationship between anti-Semitism and what now passes for “anti-Zionism” ‘ – Fraser will make an Equality Act claim to the Employment Tribunal.

The letter is full of bombast and ridiculous hyperbole, and in places is just factually incorrect, but my concern here is not to analyse or critique the entire text. Rather, I simply want to draw attention to the fact that in two paragraphs listing the causes for Fraser’s complaint – i.e. the evidence of institutional antisemitism – the first item in each is the constant ‘anti-Israel boycott resolutions’, and it’s clear that the issue of boycott is a central bone of contention.

Whatever position you hold on boycotting Israel as a means of bringing pressure to bear on it to fulfil its international legal obligations, end the occupation and so on – and I have always opposed boycotting as a means of achieving this – it’s difficult to regard boycotting Israel as a priori antisemitic. Professor David Newman of Ben Gurion University, who spent two years in the UK as the Israeli universities’ official coordinator of the campaign against the academic boycott, was adamant in remarks he made before finishing this assignment that it was both wrong and counterproductive to fight the boycott proposals on the grounds that they are antisemitic. If it reaches the point where the UCU had to defend itself against charges of institutional antisemitism at a tribunal, citing Professor Newman alone would be a strong defence.

Now that Professor Cotler has so publicly concurred with David Newman, UCU have an even stronger voice to use in their defence. It wouldn’t surprise me if Julius tried to use Professor Newman’s often strong criticisms of the Israeli government and his very dovish position on Israel-Palestine peace as a way of discrediting his view on boycott, notwithstanding the incontrovertible fact that Newman is a Zionist, heart and soul. But such a tactic would be impossible to use against Professor Cotler whose record as a defender of the Israeli status quo is impeccable and whose efforts to embed the concept of the ‘delegitimization’ of Israel in the international consciousness have been long-standing and sustained.

This folding of the antisemitism card by Cotler recalls a debate between Israel advocate, David Hirsh and anti-boycott academic Martin Shaw where the latter argues against calling the campaign to boycott Israel antisemitic.  You can see Dr Hirsh opening argument here and the debate which ensued here.

And in another development, the South African Advertising Standards Authority has issued a ruling that it is ok to brand Israel an apartheid state following a complaint from the South African Jewish Board of Deputies. Here's PACBI:

This afternoon, in a bold ruling defending the right to freedom of expression and political speech, the South African media watchdog, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), unequivocally dismissed all complaints relating to a radio advert on 5fm that called for the boycott of Israel and compared Israel to Apartheid South Africa.

In February this year, during the South African tour of the international dance band, Faithless, a radio message featuring Dave Randall (lead guitarist of Faithless) was broadcast on the popular SABC radio station, 5fm. The advert was in support of a local group, the South African Artists Against Apartheid collective. In the advert Randall says:

“Hi, I’m Dave Randall from Faithless. Twenty years ago I would not have played in apartheid South Africa; today I refuse to play in Israel. Be on the right side of history. Don’t entertain apartheid. Join the international boycott of Israel. I support  southafricanartistsagainstapartheid.com.”

In an official complaint to the ASA, the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) attacked the radio advert and alleged that the view expressed that Israel is an Apartheid State is “untrue, not supported by any evidence… and contains a lie which amounts to false propaganda”.

The SAJBD sought an order requesting the SABC to apologise for broadcasting the radio advert.

Today the ASA dismissed each and every complaint made by the SAJBD against the advert and instead ruled in favor of the submissions made by SA Artists Against Apartheid, who were represented by Webber Wentzel Attorneys.

The ASA also refused to provide any sanctions in favor of the SAJBD. Reggae DJ, “The Admiral”, and member of the SA Artists Against Apartheid collective, welcomed today’s decision:

“The ASA decision is significant due to our own history of Apartheid. The decision sends a clear message to the Zionist lobby that the time has come for an end to the baseless accusations of “discrimination” and “hate speech” whenever criticism of Israel is voiced. Calling Israel an Apartheid state is legitimate because Israel practices Apartheid. The boycott of such an oppressive regime should be supported as it was in our own Anti-Apartheid freedom struggle.”

South African Palestine solidarity groups have celebrated the ASA ruling claiming it as a “legal victory” for the boycott of Israel movement. Fatima Vally from the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Working Group said in a press release:

“This is the second major boycott of Israel decision coming from South Africa in less than six months. The first being the historic decision by the University of Johannesburg to sever its Israeli ties. The boycott of Israel campaign is the new Anti-Apartheid Movement, and its growing rapidly.”

The SA Artists Against Apartheid collective welcomes this positive decision, an adverse ruling could have had detrimental consequences for freedom of expression in general, and Palestine solidarity in particular.

The full ruling is attached this email. The original advert flighted on 5fm is available for viewing here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpE5AjsBiqw

So the false charge of antisemitism appears to be on the ropes and it is a particularly good time to be exposing Israel as an apartheid state but don't forget to mention the ethnic cleansing and the fact that the State of Israel simply has no right to exist.  Thanks!

Decommissioner dies

This is very sad. A 36 year old Palestine solidarity activists from Brighton has died.  Here's the news and an obituary from Brighton alternative news website, Schnews.com:

SIMON LEVIN RIP

Long-term Brightonian activist for social justice, Simon Levin, passed away on Friday 24th June, at the age of thirty-six. He spent much of his life fighting against injustice . Attending pickets during the miners’ strike when he was a young boy, Simon was then an active supporter of the Irish struggle against imperialism and, during the last decade, involved in action for Palestine and against the Iraq war.

Simon was from a Jewish background; his great grandparents were murdered at Auschwitz. This was one of the reasons that he joined the Palestinian struggle against Israeli apartheid. In 2004 Simon travelled to Palestine and spent months as an international volunteer in Balata refugee camp. During Israeli army incursions Simon provided an international presence designed to make people in the camp safer and support Palestinian resistance. In 2008 he led a delegation to the Jordan Valley and worked with Palestinians to establish Fasayil School (see SchNEWS 608), despite Israeli military orders that building was prohibited.

Involved in the Smash EDO campaign from the beginning, he was part of the first blockade of EDO in 2004 and fought against EDO’s planned injunction against protesters.  Simon helped the decommissioners break into the EDO factory in 2009 - and was with the others found not guilty of conspiracy to cause criminal damage on the basis that he had acted to prevent war crimes SchNEWS 729) . His own experiences in Palestine were used as evidence. On hearing the verdict he said, “Considering that the whole point of this is that we have broken no law, hopefully it will set a precedent for the people of this country to realise that in a liberal democracy we are the checks and balances.”

Despite personal battles, Simon never gave up on the struggle for justice and the well-being of those lucky enough to count him as a friend.

One such friend said, “Simon was not only a dedicated activist in the name of liberty, against oppression in all its forms, but a sublimely passionate human being, whose eccentricities, eloquence and wild imagination will never be forgotten.”

For those who wish to celebrate Simon’s life there will be a wake at the Cowley Club, Brighton Thursday 7th July at 4pm.

A quick google search leads to the Brighton section of the Jewish Chronicle where Simon Levin got several "honourable" mentions, particularly over the EDO affair and acquittal.

Flotilla questions

These are just initial unformed views on the flotilla. It may be a bit soon to do a post-mortem like this, because the flotilla might yet sail. Also, I wasn’t involved with the flotilla organising, so I don't talk about the more immediate issues the flotilla is dealing with. The piece is in the forms of questions I don’t know the answer to, but I think they’re the right questions at this time.


1. What are the successes of the flotilla?
Now the flotilla looks like failing to get to Gaza, now all the Mediterranean states have been united against the flotilla in various ways (Cyprus, Greece, Egypt, Turkey) it looks like a huge waste of effort. It’s important to tot up the successes too.

Firstly, the flotilla keeps the issue of the siege of Gaza alive. What would happen if there wasn’t a flotilla? Here’s what. Israel’s narrative of the people of Gaza ‘doing fine (if it weren’t for them evil Islamists taking their freedoms away)’ would have become gospel rather than the contested narrative it is now. The siege would become forgotten news – worthy newspapers would tut over it in some obscure article once a year, and Israel would have achieved its main aim – normalisation. The flotilla has helped prevent that.

Secondly, the flotilla isn’t just an expenditure of effort – it was also a means of mobilising. In Ireland, which managed to organise a boat by itself – one can look at the costs of this – which is 100-150,000 euro. Or one can look at the way that people who hadn’t been involved before in Palestinian activism were drawn in, attracted by the heroic nature of the venture, of the obviousness and immediacy of what the flotilla was trying to achieve. We can look at the favourable media coverage, the people educated on the issue. And we can realise that these are people who may be kept in solidarity activism.


2. Was the flotilla a tactical mistake?
We can accept that the flotilla mobilised people and kept the issue alive while at the same time recognising failures.

There are two ways we might consider it to be a mistake. We didn’t realise the extent to which states would unite in defence of the Israeli state and we should have. Not just the Mediterranean states, but the world over, states were declaring that they would let Israel attack the flotilla and merely asking them to be ‘nice’ about it – not leave too many embarrassing corpses. Israel, far from being more isolated, has displayed how it is integrated into the EU system. Now we could say we exposed the hypocrisies of the system, but so what. The flotilla wasn’t needed for that.

The other problem with the flotilla was the extent to which it became a story about the activists rather than Palestinian resistance. I’ve dealt with this earlier, but even though the flotilla folks (at least in Ireland) linked in with what Palestinians were doing, talking about their mission as a political one, it was still treated as a humanitarian aid to passive victims – this despite the participants’ best efforts. I think this should be accounted at least a partial failure


3. What lessons are to be learnt?
We need to acknowledge failure and learn from it, rather than say the flotilla was an unmitigated success. For many, especially those new to the issue, the disappointment will dissuade them from future activism. Thus the first thing is to try to get them involved in small-scale local actions that can lead to success and that can keep them involved and interested in the issue. For those drained by their flotilla experience, this will be really difficult; but it’s necessary.

Part of the unavoidable problem with the flotilla was the huge amount of time it gave to Israel to organise and mobilise other states against the flotilla. The flotilla was a big, easily attackable target, which Israel had over a year to deal with. We don’t have the power that states do – and so we need to trim our tactics accordingly. While it’s important to think big, perhaps the flotilla was premature. Giving a guerrilla war analogy, solidarity activists shouldn’t engage in pitched battles with our far stronger enemies, presenting ourselves as targets, but choose hit-and-run tactics, harrying the enemy. Eventually we might talk of liberating areas and having part of the world not bowing to Israel’s demands, but we are a way from that yet. Our successes have all been in places where Israel wasn’t expecting, in building civil society support for boycott, and in supporting civil society movements in Palestine resisting occupation. We need to expand these areas.


This is not a criticism of the flotilla people or the tactic – as a tactic it had to be tried. After last year’s massacre, solidarity activists couldn’t NOT organise another flotilla. That would have been a disaster. The question is where too now. How can we use the anger we now feel?

Stewart Lee, Joe Pasquale and Johann Hari

I keep reading stuff about Johann Hari being accused of plagiarism and churnalism.  It appears he took quotes from the work of people he had interviewed and inserted them into the interviews as if the interviewees had said those same things to him.  My friend Damo says that he invented whole situations but I haven't read that anywhere.  Here's Hari on Hari.  Here's David Osler on Hari:

We all tidy up what interviewees say to us, at least to some extent. Most obviously this occurs in cases of clear grammatical solecism or where English is a second language for the speaker. Nobody appreciates being made to look foolish in print, so that’s only fair.

Initially, at least, Hari sought to argue that this was in effect what he was doing. If somebody had earlier made a point more eloquently elsewhere, why not use the more elegant form of words?

That doesn’t really stand up, either. While I don’t do that many set piece interviews these days, I am aware that a key skill of the genre is to tickle out attention-grabbing quotes from your subject. That’s what separates star interviewers from us humble penny-a-liners who dabble in the form from time to time.

Hari is today getting widely pilloried everywhere from Twitter to the Daily Telegraph, and in fairness to him, he isn’t doing anything that some of his accusers do not indulge in as well.

I usually enjoy Hari’s copy, and I am not going to join those calling for his head to roll. But he deserves to be made to eat a huge slice of humble pie, and to cease and desist from being a low-grade rip-off merchant.

Because as Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein told me when I had a beer with them in Washington last night: “We really look up to Johann as a journalist, and it is hard to believe he would sink as low as that.”

Now what has that got to do with Stewart Lee and Joe Pasquale?



See?

More attempts at defending the working definition

Engage has reported a resignation and a threat to resign from Universities and Colleges Union on account of UCU's rejection of the EUMC working definition of antisemitism. Harry's Place was pretty angry about the UCU position placing the acronym, FUCU, on its masthead for a few days following the UCU vote. Now one its regular posters, Sarah Annes Brown, has posted a defence of the working definition on her own blog.

Many defenders or promoters of the working definition rely heavily on the fact that in the section designed to curb criticism of the State of Israel the preamble refers to the "overall context" of what is said and it says certain things "could" be construed as antisemitic rather than stating simply and directly that they are antisemitic. Sarah is no exception.

Sometimes it is difficult to be sure whether words or actions are discriminatory or not. A lot depends on the overall context.....

For those wishing to recognize and avoid anti-Semitism, the Working Definition produced by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) is a useful tool. It includes manifestations of anti-Semitism which hardly need to be pointed out, for example ‘calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion’. But it also includes more subtle forms of anti-Semitism, many of these linked to anti-zionism, such as ‘drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis’. It should surely be possible, for example, to criticise Israel’s policy towards Gaza in the strongest terms without needing to invoke the Warsaw Ghetto.

So hold the thought that Sarah has focused on comparing Israel to the nazis while we return to context:

The working definition notes that, with all these possible diagnostic criteria, the overall context must be taken into account when making a judgement. One probably isn’t going to fret too much about the ‘overall context’ of a call to genocide. But it is true that some of the criteria are calculated to help identify rather less threatening cases, including the accidental use of an antisemitic trope, which – just like a single chance use of the epithet ‘narcissistic’ to describe a homosexual – should probably be overlooked. But where there is a whole cluster of subtle innuendos in a single article the Working Definition can help pinpoint a real problem. For in order to be truly useful any guidelines for helping identify prejudice must go beyond the obvious. For example, burning a mosque is pretty clearly Islamophobic, but what about criticising Halal slaughter? Here, as with antisemitic tropes, there would be a need to look at the overall context. The issue of Halal food is certainly often manipulated by anti-Muslim bigots – but that fact shouldn’t be used to close down debate about animal welfare.

That's sound reasoning. She continues:

There is a similar tension, potentially, between antisemitic discourse and criticism of Israel. Given the inevitable intersection between hostility towards Israel and antisemitism it is of course going to be hard to police the boundary between fair criticism and racism. These debates notoriously attract those with extreme views – ranging from those who think antisemitism and anti-Israel feeling are pretty much synonymous, to those who believe they don’t overlap at all. The Working Definition may well help resolve such differences, but it isn’t like a piece of litmus paper which will automatically tell you whether a person or a statement is or is not antisemitic.

Which makes you wonder why zionists are going so ape to defend the stupid thing but hang in there.

Given its value as a tool for combatting discrimination, it might seem rather odd that the University and College Union should have decided to repudiate the Working Definition

At what point in Sarah's post or anywhere else did the working definition's "value as a tool for combatting discrimination" become a "given"?

After a little swipe at the principle of international solidarity:

It seems quite bizarre for the union to proscribe any consideration of the Working Definition, to dismiss the whole document, and to resolve to disassociate itself from the definition in any relevant public discussion. And is this really a priority for members when Higher and Further Education are being faced with unprecedented cuts and a radical overhaul of fees?

Sarah returns to the context caveat:

It is interesting to look at, to use the Working Definition’s phrase, the ‘overall context’ of this motion. The UCU has a longstanding preoccupation with the academic boycott of Israel, even though it has received legal advice that such a boycott might well be discriminatory and illegal.

Many members have resigned over this matter, and others have expressed great disquiet. The UCU has refused to deal with members’ concerns, and in 2009 voted down a motion to investigate these resignations. Last year it invited a speaker, Bongani Masuku, to speak at a seminar to discuss a boycott of Israel, even though the South African Human Rights Commission had deemed that his statements amounted to hate speech against South Africa’s Jewish community. Clearly the union has not itself been inhibited to any worrying degree by the Working Definition. Given this overall context, it is not surprising that more members are being driven to resign.

Oh I see, so the context of the UCU's campaigning against Israel makes it antisemitic. But which section of the working definition is the UCU falling foul of and which context would allow for solidarity with the Palestinians by a trade union?

The parts of the EUMC working definition of antisemitism that appear to be designed to forbid criticism of Israel are within this section:

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, for example by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.

• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (for example claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterise Israel or Israelis.

• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Much is made by supporters of the definition of the "taking into account overall context could include" caveat. There is a problem here. There is no context by which it could not be construed as antisemitic to invoke the idea that Jews killed Jesus or the blood libel.  It could only be antisemitic in any context.  The same goes for "holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel".

That leaves "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, for example by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour", "applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation" and "drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis".

Do the promoters of the working definition accept that there are many contexts in which it is by no means antisemitic to say that Jews are not an appropriate case for self-determination? Do they accept any context for the assertion that the establishment and continued existence of the State of Israel is indeed a racist endeavour? Do they accept specialist campaigning against the occupation or against zionist rule throughout Palestine? Do they accept any comparisons of Israel to the nazis?

Sarah has managed to avoid all mention of these things save to say that we can criticise Israel without invoking the Warsaw Ghetto.  But she does link to the resignation letter to the UCU by one Professor David-Hillel Rubens, presumably, given the context, with approval.

His letter asserts the following:

One part of that working definition rejected by the union stands out: it is anti-Semitic to ‘deny the right of the Jewish people to self-determination’, within some borders, unspecified as what they might be. It is hard for me to comprehend how anyone could consider this relatively anodyne claim as unacceptable, let alone reject it as a current form of anti-Semitism, which it most certainly is.

No "could", no "context". "It is antisemitic to ‘deny the right of the Jewish people to self-determination’, within some borders, unspecified as what they might be."

So according to Rubens, Jews have a right to self-determination irrespective of borders and with no mention of the right to self-determination of the people who live within any eventually specified borders. Not only that, "it most certainly is" antisemitic to suggest otherwise according to this professor of philosophy.

Not only that, back in 2009 there was an attempt to have comparisons of Israel's behaviour to the nazis made illegal. The proposal was contained in this report from the European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism, chaired by Denis MacShane. The report drew heavily on the EUMC working definition and contained the following:

Four different variants of playing the Nazi card have been discussed in this report. The one fundamental common denominator between them that has been stressed - apart from the invocation of painful collective memories of Nazi atrocities - is that they all result in harmful consequences. The most contentious of the three variants involves the playing of the Nazi card against Israel and its founding movement, Zionism. Drawing attention to the consequent harms in such a case should not be intended, or taken, in any way as an attempt to suppress criticism of Israel and its military practices. Instead, it is a call not to use particular words, even in the most trenchant criticism, because some words wound. Most people would surely agree that this is a very reasonable plea once those hurts are articulated.

It very kindly allows for some criticism of Israel but it seeks outlaw the use of "particular words" with no reference to context. I believe this was the first attempt at having the working definition adopted as law and it met with short shrift from Antony Lerman at the time.

Anyway I think we can conclude that this reference to context is as bogus and disingenuous as the working definition itself.  I am guessing that supporters of the working definition will allow for no context whereby it is permissible to call Israel an essentially racist state that should be abolished in favour of a democratic secular state. The EISCA allows for no context in seeking to forbid comparisons of Israel to the nazis. The use of antisemitic symbolism (blood libel, deicide) are clearly antisemitic regardless of context and holding all Jews responsible for anything is also clearly antisemitic regardless of context. That leaves the old chestnut of "double standards" which essentially rules out any specialised campaigning against Israel since I am guessing in any context such campaigning would be held to be antisemitic by the supporters of the working definition.

So when the supporters of the working definition start playing their games over context, ask them, when is it ok to say that the State of Israel simply has no right to exist?

Pourquoi boycotter les institutions culturelles israéliennes ?

Below is an article I wrote for a Swiss publication, SolidaritéS.

Deux constats préalables s’imposent :

1 Envers les Palestinien·ne·s, Israël mène une politique de répression aiguë en privilégiant les colons juifs et leurs descendant·e·s au détriment des indigènes. La Déclaration de Bilbao (1) qualifie cette domination de mélange « d’apartheid, de colonialisme et  d’occupation belliqueuse 

2 Israël est un pays allié de l’impérialisme étatsunien et européen. Ses structures répressives dépendent du soutien diplomatique, moral et économique de l’Occident, un soutien qui est partie intégrante de la domination capitaliste du Sud.

    Militant·e·s de gauche dans des pays du Nord, nous avons tant une obligation morale qu’un impératif politique à soutenir la lutte de libération palestinienne.

Que faire ?

Afin d’éviter les paternalismes impérialistes, notre réponse part de l’écoute des militant·e·s palestiniens. En 2005, 170 organisations de la société civile palestinienne (syndicats, partis politiques, ONG, etc.) lancent un appel pour une campagne internationale de Boycott, Désinvestissement et Sanctions (BDS). Cet appel en suit un autre, lancé en 2004, celui du boycott académique et culturel, signé par des syndicats ouvriers et enseignants, des artistes et des intellectuel·le·s palestiniens. Cette campagne de boycott, que la plupart des Palestinien·ne·s soutiennent, y compris les réfugié·e·s et les Palestiniens de 1948, procède de l’analyse politique des éléments les plus progressistes de la société palestinienne. C’est sur la base de cet appel et des analyses qui le soutiennent que BDS-CH appelle au boycott culturel. Néanmoins, l’existence de l’appel Palestinien ne remplace pas une évaluation critique des nos stratégies. Nous proposons une réflexion sur quelques difficultés que le boycott culturel met, ou paraît mettre, en évidence.

Que boycotter ?

Le boycott culturel vise « toutes institutions académiques et culturelles israéliennes ». Il ne vise pas les individus. Ne sont donc pas boycottés, ni les professeurs et les travailleurs culturels, ni les œuvres académiques ou culturelles tels que livres, articles, spectacles, etc. produits par des juifs israéliens en tant que tels. De plus, quand il s’agit d’un projet ou d’un événement, c’est le cadre institutionnel qui donne lieu au boycott. Le seul fait de recevoir un financement d’Etat n’y suffit pas.

    Il suffit de saisir cette distinction entre institutions et individus pour démentir l’accusation que le boycott serait une forme de ségrégation culturelle et de censure académique. Toutefois, précisons que cette distinction n’a pas pour but d’absoudre les individus juifs israéliens de toute responsabilité. Ces derniers étant membres d’une société qui pratique une discrimination brutale en leur faveur, nous attendons d’eux le soutien à la résistance palestinienne (comme le font d’ailleurs un certain nombre, petit mais significatif). Néanmoins, pour des raisons politiques et stratégiques, y compris la reconnaissance du statut spécial du travail culturel et académique comme moyen de réflexion et communication, le boycott culturel ne vise que les institutions.

Les universités et les milieux culturels-progressistes ?

On entend souvent que ce boycott toucherait en premier lieu les juifs israéliens les plus progressistes. Cet argument part d’un faux raisonnement. Ce n’est pas parce que les attaques terroristes les plus spectaculaires des dernières décennies ont été commises par des musulmans que l’on peut imputer à ces derniers une tendance à la violence. De même, ce n’est pas parce que les personnalités juives israéliennes les plus visibles dans le mouvement de solidarité appartiennent aux milieux culturels et artistiques que ce milieu serait particulièrement disposé à soutenir la lutte palestinienne. En effet, une fois qu’on fait l’analyse matérielle de la société, c’est l’inverse qui se révèle vrai.

    Les universités israéliennes sont étroitement liées à la répression des peuples indigènes de Palestine. Les universités décernent des diplômes spéciaux aux membres des forces de sécurité. Elles participent activement au développement des armements. Elles octroient des privilèges aux soldats engagés dans la répression. Elles pratiquent une politique de discrimination envers les étudiant·e·s arabes. Elles forment les futurs cadres de l’administration coloniale des indigènes. Jamais leurs dirigeants et plateformes professionnels n’ont pris une position publique solidaire, pas même contre les violations du droit à l’éducation ou à la liberté d’expression et de l’enseignement. Au contraire ! Un exemple parlant : après l’offensive criminelle sur Gaza de janvier 2009, au cours de laquelle les écoles et universités de Gaza ont été durement bombardées, le directeur juridique de l’armée, responsable d’en avoir donné le feu vert, est nommé enseignant de droit international à la faculté de droit de l’Université de Tel Aviv.

    Dans l’analyse, il faut tenir compte des structures sociales : classes, origines, ethnies, genre. L’université israélienne est un espace privilégié. Aussi bien parmi les étudiant·e·s que parmi les enseignant·e·s, les Palestinien·ne·s, les juifs d’origine maghrébine et orientale, les femmes, ainsi que les habitant·e·s des villes périphériques, sont sous-représentés. Au plus haut niveau professionnel, on trouve que 90 % sont des Juifs d’origine européenne (73 % d’homme), 9 % sont des juifs venant des pays arabes (7 % d’homme), et 1 % seulement sont des Palestiniens. De même, pour les milieux culturels en général. Par exemple, à l’Ecole de Cinéma de Jérusalem, récemment la cible d’un boycott du réalisateur anglais Mike Leigh, aucun Palestinien parmi les enseignants, sans même parler des cadres. La Compagnie de danse Batsheva, qui devrait se produire en Suisse en automne, et qui s’autoproclame « ambassadeur culturel d’Israël » ne compte aucun Palestinien dans ses rangs. Pas de surprise ! La culture et l’art se pratiquent en fonction des préférences idéologiques, des goûts et des carrières des classes puissantes, ce qui veut dire, de ces qui sont principalement juifs, mâles, aisés, d’origine européenne, et habitant la partie centrale de la côte méditerranéenne.

    Ce qui est donc prégnant dans le boycott culturel, en opposition à ce qu’on nous reproche, est qu’il vise les couches puissantes et les membres les plus aisés et influents de la société, qui bénéficient le plus de la domination et qui on le plus à perdre face à tout changement.

Le boycott pousserait-illes Israéliens plus à droite ?

Liée à l’argument précédent est la question de l’efficacité. On reproche au boycott de ne pouvoir qu’aliéner les Israéliens en les poussant plus à droite. Passons sous silence l’idée qu’une couche dominante renonce à ses privilèges de classe sans affrontement. Nous soutenons au contraire que le boycott culturel est la stratégie la plus efficace dont on dispose. Pourquoi ? En tant que culture d’un pays établi par un colonialisme de peuplement, la culture d’Israël a une relation complexe et ambivalente avec l’Europe, qui est de par sa « filiation » sa métropole. L’élite israélienne se perçoit, et comme l’avant garde de la civilisation occidentale en Orient « barbare », et comme la victime de ce même Occident. La production culturelle israélienne dite « haute »: littérature, musique classique, danse contemporaine et cinéma d’auteur, dont la consommation est un indice d’appartenance à la couche dominante, révèle cet amour blessé. C’est principalement cette culture qui est propagée en Europe de manière à revendiquer l’image d’un pays moderne, créatif, et surtout européen et « avancé ». Le message sous-jacent est toujours: « Vous nous avez trahis alors même qu’on partage votre culture. Vous avez une dette envers nous. » En fêtant cette « haute » culture israélienne, l’Europe renforce au sein de la société Israélienne l’hégémonie des tendances politiques qui revendiquent le colonialisme de peuplement. De plus, cette image d’un Israël « européen », bâti sur la valorisation de la culture coloniale, contribue à renforcer en Europe une identité colonisatrice, raciste et d’extrême droite.

    Selon l’Archevêque Desmond Tutu, le boycott sportif a joué un rôle immense dans la lutte contre l’Apartheid en Afrique du Sud pour des raisons similaires. Un boycott culturel européen battra en brèche l’image que l’Apartheid israélien se donne de soi, comme l’avant-garde et le gardien de la civilisation occidentale. Du même coup, un tel boycott nous aidera dans la lutte contre le racisme et les attaque contre les immigré·e·s dans nos propres sociétés.

Boycott contre dialogue ?

Enfin, examinons le reproche que le boycott exclut le dialogue. Deux hypothèses fausses sous-tendent ce reproche. D’abord que le conflit entre Palestiniens et Israéliens serait principalement une méconnaissance. Bien qu’il y ait méconnaissance, le cœur du conflit est l’accaparement des ressources, au premier rang la terre, et le maintien du contrôle sur celles-ci. Il n’est pas question de dénigrer la reconnaissance. Mais celle ci doit être le résultat d‘une confrontation réussie. Elle ne peut pas en être le substitut.

    Mais plus encore ce reproche est une mystification quasi religieuse de la culture comme rencontre pure, hors de toute idéologie et pouvoir. L’art n’est jamais extérieur au pouvoir. Qui a les moyens de le consommer et qui peut le produire ? Qui décide des fonds, et en fonction de quoi ? Qui choisit les thèmes et à quelle fin ? Qui bénéficie de l’éducation, de temps libre, voire même de l’espérance de vie nécessaire à produire ? Qui jouit du soutien institutionnel et social nécessaires pour réussir comme artiste ? En posant ces questions au sujet de la culture produite au sein de l’Apartheid, notre but n’est ni de couper le lien entre l’œuvre et ses spectateur·trice·s, ni d’exclure les artistes israéliens. On reconnaît que, comme nous le montrent les fresques de Michel-Ange sur les plafonds de Chapelle Sixtine, une œuvre d’art peut être à la fois une réflexion sublime et une forme efficace de propagande. Nous exigeons des producteurs comme des consommateurs une prise de conscience du rôle politique joué par les institutions culturelles dans la reproduction d’un système de domination affreux.

    En appelant à boycotter une compagnie de danse qui sert de bon gré le projet « Brand Israël » (label Israël) – instrumentalisant son art pour adoucir l’image de l’état répressif –nous ne bloquons pas le dialogue. Nous l’engageons en interrogeant l’éthique de l’artiste. Nous demandons réflexion, prise de conscience et engagement libérateur, voire fidélité à la liberté intrinsèque de l’art. Nous incitons les représentants des institutions qui invitent les artistes à réfléchir à comment la fenêtre qu’ils offrent à la culture israélienne est encadrée ; au profit de qui, à quelle fin. Nous exigeons qu’ils entament un dialogue avec les artistes israéliens sur l’éthique de l’artiste travaillant sous conditions d’apartheid. De même pour le grand public, nous l’engageons à se responsabiliser quant à la relation entre culture et politique.

    Le boycott culturel est la forme de solidarité internationale non-violente la plus conséquente qu’on ait. Il s’inscrit dans la réflexion pratique de stratégie et d’impact, dans l’exigence politique de justice et d’égalité et dans la vision d’une culture qui se libère du racisme et du colonialisme. Nous appelons toutes et tous, intellectuel·le·s, artistes, commissaires, spectateur·trice·s, etc. en Europe et en Israël, à se joindre à cette lutte !

UK bans Israeli!

Actually it's not a first for the UK to ban an Israeli. Likud leadership candidate, Moishe Feiglin, was barred from these shores back in 2008. But this Israeli is also a Palestinian, Sheikh Raed Salah.

Here's The Guardian editorial in full:

Sheikh Raed Salah, an Israeli citizen who leads the Islamic Movement in Israel, is currently in the immigration removal centre at Heathrow airport. He was three days into a visit during which he addressed public meetings in London and Leicester and the House of Commons when he was arrested and informed that he was the subject of a deportation noticeissued on the grounds that his presence in the country was not "conducive to the public good".

What has made our government so agitated by his presence? Is it the fact that the sheikh was accused in some British newspapers and one website of making antisemitic statements, which he says were fabricated, and for which he has started libel proceedings? If so, the home secretary is applying a higher threshold for the public good in Britain than Israel itself applies to a man it has not been shy of prosecuting on other issues. Repeated attempts to outlaw the Islamic Movement for incitement have failed in Israel's high court. Mr Salah has not been convicted of antisemitism, and spoke recently on a platform in Tel Aviv University.

This point was not lost on the far-right Israel Beiteinu party, which, on hearing of Mr Salah's arrest in London, proposed a bill that could prohibit anyone convicted of aiding terrorist organisations from entering government-funded educational institutions. In apparently arresting Mr Salah for remarks he denies he made and which it has yet to be proved in a court of law that he did make, a British home secretary is being even more intolerant to the representatives of Israel's Arab minority, 20% of the population, than the state of Israel itself.

Another Palestinian, Dr Ahmad Nofal, a professor of Islamic law at Jordan University who acquired a visa to visit Britain, was told at Amman airport that he would not be permitted entry. If the home secretary is unwise enough to start applying her "prevent" policy to all Palestinian activists Israel has a problem with, Britain will face a backlash in the Arab world. The prime minister Salam Fayyad – no Islamist himself – said Mr Salah's arrest would harm the Palestinian Authority. Both banned men are close to the Muslim Brotherhood, one of whose leaders, Rached Ghannouchi, lived peacefully in Britain for 22 years.

Both Mr Salah and Mr Nofal were due to speak at an annual Palestinian festival in London. In a separate celebration, Jerusalem Day, rightwing Israeli activists marched into the Arab Old City shouting slogans such as "Muhammad is dead", "May your village burn", and "Butcher the Arabs". This is racist incitement for which no action is being taken. Should Britain be taking lessons from Israel on incitement?

The parade mentioned in that last paragraph can be seen on this youtube clip.




The grotesque parade appears to unfold from midnight to 4 am on the day in question and speaks pretty much for itself.

Jello cancels

Many thanks to David Hillman in the comments for breaking the news, to me anyway, that Jello Biafra has cancelled his band's gig in Tel Aviv.  

The facebook posting about the decision is a tad garbled:

Dear Friends,

Jello Biafra and the Guantanamo School of Medicine are not going through with the July 2 date in Tel Aviv. This does not mean I or anyone else in the band are endorsing or joining lockstep with the boycott of all things Israel.

I am going to Israel and Palestine to check things out myself and may yet conclude that playing for people in the belly of the beast was the right thing to do in the first place.

The toll and stress on the band members and myself has been huge, both logistically and as a matter of conscience. I can't drag anyone any further into rough waters without being better prepared than some of us thought we were. A responsible leader does not go, 'Hey, check out the storm at the top of Mount Everest. Let's go up anyway just in case we don't die.' Some members are angry with me for this decision, let alone how long it took me. I don't blame them.

It would have been so easy to quietly pass on the gig out of fear someone might get upset, and no one would have been the wiser. We could have flown under the radar, left the date off our tour postings and not bothered with a statement, but how honest is that?

Our intention in going was that we thought we could do some good , speaking truth to power, fans and impressionable young minds in a way that most bands don't. What about the people on the same side of the human rights fence we are who now don't get to see us play? Should they be boycotted too? What about the even larger atrocities of the Bush regime and by extension Obama? Should we turn off our mouths of anger and boycott our own country too?

Ok, he doesn't quite understand the nature of the beast in whose belly he might still be playing but it is, as far as it goes, another success for BDS.

Hello, Jello

If you haven't already, do sign the Punks Against Apartheid petition telling Mr. Biafra not to play in Israel. Over a thousand signatures & growing.