Manufacturing Anti-Semites?

Here's an old article by Uri Avnery on the "new" anti-semitism. Avnery's not my fave but he can hit the spot sometimes. I'm just selecting some choice quotes here.

All over the world, Jews live in safety, and only in one place on the planet are they threatened by annihilation: Israel. Here the national parks are prepared for mass-graves, here (pathetic) measures against biological and chemical weapons are prepared. Many people are already planning to escape to the communities in the Diaspora. End of a myth.

And this

the State of Israel is causing the resurrection of anti-Semitism all over the world, threatening Jews everywhere.

Or what about this:

Sharon's propaganda agents are pouring oil on the flames. Accusing all critics of his policy of being anti-Semites, they brand large communities with this mark. Many good people, who feel no hatred at all towards the Jews, but who detest the persecution of the Palestinians, are now called anti-Semites. Thus the sting is taken out of this word, giving it something approaching respectability.

But it gets better:

In Europe, Jews already feel the pressure. But in the United States, they still feel supremely self-confident. In Europe, Jews have learned over the centuries that it is not wise to be too conspicuous and to display their wealth and influence. But in America, the very opposite is happening: the Jewish establishment is practically straining to prove that it controls the country.

Every few years, the Jewish lobby "eliminates" an American politician who does not support the Israeli government unconditionally. This is not done secretly, behind the scenes, but as a public "execution". Just now this was done to the black Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, a young, active, intelligent and very sympathetic woman. She has dared to criticize the Sharon government, support Palestinians and (worst of all) Israeli and Jewish peace groups. The Jewish establishment found a counter-candidate, a practically unknown black woman, injected huge sums into the campaign and defeated Cynthia.

And better still:

Now this is repeated in a big way. The pro-Israel lobby - which consists of Jews and extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalists - is pushing the American administration to start a war. This, too, openly, in full view of the American public. Dozens of articles in the important newspapers point this out as a plain political fact.

Time for a warning:

What will happen if the war ends in failure? If it has unexpected negative results and many young Americans die? If the American public turns against it, as happened during the Vietnam War? One can easily imagine a whispering campaign starting: "The Jews have pushed us into this," "The Jews support Israel more than they support America," and, finally, "The Jews control our country."

And now for some analysis:

There are people in Israel people who secretly wish for the victory of anti-Semitism everywhere. That would confirm another Zionist myth on which we were brought up: that Jews will not be able to live anywhere but in Israel, because anti-Semitism is bound to triumph everywhere.

And some advice for Jews throughout the world:

break out of the vicious circle. Disarm the anti-Semites. Break the habit of automatic identification with everything our governments do. Let your conscience speak out. Return to the traditional Jewish values of "That which is altogether just shalt thou follow!" (Deuteronomy 16,20) and "Seek peace and pursue it!" (Psalms 34, 14). Identify yourselves with the Other Israel, which is struggling to uphold these values at home.

And the good news?

All over the world, new Jewish groups that follow this way are multiplying. They break yet another myth: the duty of Jews everywhere to subordinate themselves to the edicts of our government. to the edicts of our government.

Worth reading in full.

I hinted in my previous post that the zionists want anti-semitism which is why the publicise obscure examples. It's nice to know that someone with Avnery's prominence agrees with me on that one.

Zionism and anti-semitism - are they by any chance related?

It's bothering me the way some zionists seem to be intent on publicising, rather than confronting, anti-semitism. I noticed it on Nick Cohen's site a week or so ago. Two zionists in particular, Linda Grant and David Hirsh were promoting anti-semitism like it was going out of fashion. I rather feel that anti-semitism in the west has gone out of fashion and zionists like this terrible two (from the ENGAGE site) need to revive it, which I believe is why they promote it.

It's often said that zionism was a response (reaction is probably a better word) to anti-semitism, or gentile repulsion against Jews but zionism soon lost its defensive character and developed a distinctly chauvinistic character. Actually I'm only making an assumption here. From its inception to now it looks pretty chauvinistic to me. But let's assume it's as we've been told: a reaction to anti-semitism. Then came the challenge of gentile attraction. The idea that gentiles might actually like Jews and vice versa. This is Finkelstein stuff. I'm nothing if not unoriginal. Now how does the ruling establishment of a free standing community, the Jews, based on matrilinear descent within so-called "host" communities maintain its established position in a free society where the "hosts" are attracted to the Jews and vice versa? Well they might develop an idea to take those people away from the "hosts" so that the Jews can become the "hosts" themselves. But if the Jews are attracted to the hosts (I'm fed up with quotation marks but take it as read, I do not see gentile Brits as mein hosts) why would they want to run off to another place? particularly with a view to colonial conquest, ethnic cleansing and the establishment of a state with an array of racist laws to guarantee the supremacy of the Jews over the natives? I mean that was bound to cause conflict. You could even call zionism itself, a suicide attack on the Middle East.

Well surely not all Jews are going to be panicked by the fact that most gentiles in the west think we're rather nice. I read recently that 89% of French people believe French Jews to be as French as anyone else from France. The zionists will say, "aha! French Jews are as French as anyone else and yet 11% of French people think otherwise.!" Actually a typical zionist would say "see how anti-semitic the French are, they spend 89% of their time obsessing about the Jews." Really, the other 11% may well have been deferring to the zionist idea that Jews worldwide are a nation in themselves. Or they are anti-semitic. Or perhaps they are both. Perhaps they feel that Jews cannot be French but they can have Palestine, or most of it, all to themselves.

This zionist relationship with anti-semitism has always been mutually beneficial. Tnat is of benefit to the zionist cause and to the anti-semitic cause; not, of course to the Jews. The progroms in Eastern Europe and the rise of fascism in western Europe caused a flow of Jews into Palestine. Organisationally, the zionist movement got a boost from the Tsarist authorities' support for zionism to thwart Jewish involvement in revolutionary or reformist movements in Russia. The nomination of Zionists to represent the Jews of nazi Germany is well documented, but not, surprise surprise, well publicised. Israel Shahak alludes to Ben Gurion's beneficial dealings with France's anti-semitic generals who found common ground on the "Arab problem". The supply of arms to the Galtieri regime by Israel too is well known, being exposed by Jacobo Timerman, a prominent Jewish editor in Argentina who fled for Israel, denouncing, though a zionist himself, the Jewish zionist leadership in Argentina as a judenrat. for covering up the fact that a disproportionately high number of Jews were "disappearing" during the "dirty war" against the left. Said Timerman, after his escape:

I saw with my own eyes how Argentinian jailers tortured Jews in prison while the Israeli government requested the Jewish community there to remain silent.

When a few of people had gone to Nick Cohen's site to dispute his ridiculous assertion that "all anti-semites are anti-zionists", David Hirsh, unable to refute our own assertion of nazi-zionist collaboration, denounced our reliance on historical facts and sources thus:

Nick Cohen points out, quite rightly that all contemporary antisemites are anti-Zionist.Comment #86

So all that past collaboration of zionists with anti-semitism is just a footnote now because a zionist academic said so. But wait, there are contemporary anti-semites who support Israel and surely David Hirsh must have known it when he wrote what he did. For all his talk of what goes on in the contemporary world around us, the various anti-semitic neo-nazi and holocaust denier groups and individuals are looked on by most people as a bunch of flat-earthers and wackos. The fascist groups with parliamentary seats in Europe tend to be pro-Israel and anti-Muslim. But the main anti-semitic groupings with high levels of support and the collective ear of the world's most powerful forces are the Christian right in America. I mentioned this on the Cohen site in response to David Hirsh's "contemporary" comment. Needless to say he didn't get back to me on it.

So here we have two zionists, significantly claiming to be left zionists, one of whom, David Hirsh, explicitly states that anti-zionism is anti-semitism, the other, Linda Grant, comes close to it whilst denying actually saying it.

Once again, for the record, I have never stated that anti-Zionism is in and of itself anti-semitic. I have stated that one needs to examine the motives of the anti-Zionist in each instance, and consider carefully, the consequences of their arguments.

"In each instance" we have to consider the consequences of anti-zionist arguments. That would of course take for ever. And I suppose that's the point. But that's not all we have to do. We have to publicise "each instance" of anti-semitism that masquerades as anti-zionism no matter how obscure and unpopular and then we have to obscure every instance of Christian zionist anti-semitism no matter how prominent or powerful. After all, surely these Christian rightists hate Muslims more than they hate Jews. Let's just see (in some cases revisit) some statements from the most prominent of Israel's Christian friends in America.

First up the Reverend Bailey Smith, a good friend of Israel from the Bailey Smith Ministries:

I don't know why God chose the Jew. They have such funny noses.

or this

It's interesting at great political rallies how you have a Protestant to pray, a Catholic to pray, and then you have a Jew to pray. With all due respect to those dear people, my friends, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew. For how in the world can God hear the prayer of a man who says that Jesus Christ is not the true Messiah? That is blasphemy.

So where's his zionism? Try this from a New York Times article posted to the zionist Jewish Agency for Israel site.

Prime Minister Menachem Begin, having previously lost seven straight national elections, had few illusions about the efficacy of Jewish prayer. He did, however, have a keen appreciation for Christians like Smith, who believed that the Bible conferred title to the land of Israel on the Jews. Smith enjoyed being appreciated, and he returned home loudly proclaiming Genesis 12:3: God will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel.

How about Jerry Falwell? Stereotypes are us, well stereotypes are him anyway:

"A few of you don't like the Jews and I know why," said the Rev. Jerry Falwell. "He [sic] can make more money accidently than you can make on purpose."

And here's one of his cohorts from New York, The Rev. Dan C. Fore:

I love the Jewish people deeply. God has given them talents He has not given others. They are His chosen people. Jews have a God-given ability to make money...They control the media, they control this city.

And where is the Moral Majority on Israel? Check out CBS News:

"It is my belief that the Bible Belt in America is Israel’s only safety belt right now," says Rev. Jerry Falwell, one of the leaders of the Christian Right. That’s the bulk of Evangelical Christians; Falwell claims to speak for all of them.

"There are 70 million of us," he says. "And if there’s one thing that brings us together quickly it’s whenever we begin to detect our government becoming a little anti-Israel."

And Pat Robertson?

In the end times, Robertson believes, Jews will be brought in as "offerings to the Lord." He predicts mass conversions of Jews to Christianity, and toward this end, Robertson built a Christian radio station in Lebanon to beam the Gospel into the Jewish state, which Fundamentalists believe will eventually be inherited by Christians. For the present, Jews occupy the land as caretakers.

It's curious but these guardians of Jewish well-being, David Hirsh and Linda Grant, don't see the implied, indeed expressed, threat here. They say they see it in obscure shunned groups and in principled anti-racists, but not in prominent power-brokers like America's Christian right. Their anti-semitism is almost as famous as their zionism. In fact it is their zionism that causes zionists in the media to largely cover for their anti-semitism. But all Jews know of the statements of this triumverate of Smith, Falwell and Robertson and yet no zionists seem to be troubled by it. It's as if they see past collaborations with anti-semites, sorry but here they are again: the Tsar, the nazis, Galtieri, etc, cost many many Jewish lives but still they persist in the belief that the enemies of the Jews are the friends of zionism. And of course they are right. This is why they publicise obscure and isolated anti-semites as Linda Grant did on Nick Cohen's site. But in so doing they merely show that zionism is an enemy, not just of the Palestinians but of Jews as well. Equally they know that, in spite of their claim that there are anti-semites on every street corner, anti-semitism is actually quite unpopular which is why they smear anti-zionists as being anti-semitic or why, in Linda Grant's case, she has to check the political correctness of each and every anti-zionist and anti-zionist argument but she doesn't feel any such need to screen zionists for racism or anti-semitism.

The fact is that historically and currently anti-semitism is a vital weapon, the vital ideological weapon, in the armoury of zionism. It causes Jews to become cannon fodder and apologists for the racist war criminals of the State of Israel, it's useful as a stick with which to beat anti-zionists and it causes those who disparage and despise the Jewish people to support the idea of a colonial settler state with legislation to copperfasten a Jewish majority (80:20), until the "end-time" and that's when the plight of the Palestinians could become the plight of the whole world.

A light amid the hypocrisy

Dr Nur Masalha of the University of Surrey weighs into the discussion about the Iranian Presidents verbal aggression towards the zionist entity in today's Guardian.

The appalling comments on Israel made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Israel should be wiped off map, October 27) are both empty rhetoric and highly damaging to the Palestinian cause. I believe we (Palestinian Muslims and Christians) should always make a clear distinction between our political struggle against institutionalised racism and ethnic cleaning in Palestine-Israel and the fact that we and the Israelis would, ultimately, have to live together as equal citizens under some form of secular democracy - and not wipe each other out.

Muslim fundamentalists (Ahmadinejad included) have miserably failed to understand the reality in historic Palestine: in the process of brutal colonisation of the country, a Hebrew-speaking "nation" has emerged, with its own distinct language, culture and flourishing literature. There are 5-6 million Hebrew-speaking Israelis and no one has the right to talk about wiping them out. Acknowledging the current bi-national reality is something completely different from legitimising the colonial process by which this reality has come about. The fact that the Israelis are trying quietly, but systematically (although not always successfully), on the ground to do to Palestinians in the West Bank what Ahmadinejad seems to suggest should be done to Israel should only encourage us to seek an alternative vision, away from political Zionism and Islamic fundamentalism.
Dr Nur Masalha
University of Surrey

What I like about this is the fact that it is free of the absurd and manifest hypocrisy of most governmental statements and of the Guardian's own editorial on this non-issue.

True Jews hate Israel?

I think it ill-behoves anyone to say who is a "true Jew" but Jewish member of the Iranian parliament, Morris Motamed, as reported by the Iranian Islamic Republic News Agency, thinks he knows:

MP for Jewish community Morris Motamed said Friday that all the true Jews and followers of the divine religion as well as those believing in Moses (AS) hate usurper Israel due to the barbaric behavior of the Zionist regime.

The unequal war and clashes between Israelis, equipped with the most advanced weapons, and Palestinians, with stones in their hands, should be taken as the root cause of the public resentment, Motamed told IRNA on the sidelines of the World Quds (Jerusalem) Day rallies.

He reiterated, "The late Imam's slogan that Israel should be wiped off the world map" reflects the brave resistance of Imam as the founder of the Islamic Republic and said that all nations should do their utmost to materialize Imam's statement."
True Jews, along with Muslim people, follow the path for campaign against Zionists and the Israeli crimes, he noted.

The suppressed people of Palestine should feel that all the followers of divine religions support them, he added.

Thousands have reportedly taken part in the rallies on the World Quds Day, the last Friday of the holy fasting month of Ramadhan.

President Ahmadinejad, the EC Chairman Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and some senior officials took part in the rallies to express their support for Intifada of Palestine.

Incidentally, the same website carries a report of what the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, actually said regarding Israel being wiped from the map. One line stands out:

He added that a world without the US and Israel would be possible.

Why no outcry about the "threat" to America? Obviously, the threat is about as credible as the threat to Israel, ie, INcredible, but why is America (and it's European allies) more concerned for Israel than for America? I've used these profound words before regarding America and Iran: Funny old world.

Iran's wishful thinking or premature cartography?

There's almost worldwide apoplexy about a throwaway line by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that Israel should be "wiped off the map." Now I can't see anything terribly wrong here. There are many people who believe that Israel has no right to exist. Let's break it down, shall we? Israel exists on the basis of colonial settlement, ethnic cleansing and segregationist laws. The UN has ruled, in General Assembly Resolution 194, year on year since the zionist movement carried out its ethnic cleansing campaign against the Palestinians, that the Palestinians have the right to return to their homes and that Israel should allow this. Now if Israel was forced to comply with this humanitarian demand then there would be a non-Jewish majority. If that were the case, they might not want to call the state "Israel". They might prefer to call it Palestine. If that was to happen then cartographers will want to "wipe Israel from the map" and replace it with Palestine.

I heard on Channel 4 News that Ahmadinejad made a reference to the resistance of the Palestinians leading to this wiping Israel from the map but I have seen nothing to indicate that Iran intends to do anything to further what has been described as a mere "wish" of the President:

"Iran's policy toward Israel will remain unchanged. We do not want more confrontation with the West," a senior government official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks during the conference "The World without Zionism" in Tehran October 26, 2005. Ahmadinejad's call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" does not signal the start of a more aggressive stance toward Israel by Tehran, officials and analysts said on Thursday. (REUTERS/Isna)
"What Ahmadinejad said is his wish, but it does not mean Iran will take practical steps to destroy Israel."

This is highly significant. Consider the fact that Israel exists because it wiped most Palestinians from Palestine and it wiped Palestine from the map. Look for this context in any of our own media on this. And yet what a President of a Muslim country has said is held to carry more weight than what Israel has actually done. Look at the BBC's coverage. Check out the Russian foreign minister:

"Those who insist on transferring the Iranian nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council have received an additional argument for doing so," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said during a trip to Jordan.

"What I saw on television was unacceptable," added the minister, whose country has been supplying civilian nuclear know-how to Iran, and he promised Moscow would bring its concern to Iran's attention.

This from a minister from the former Soviet Union. Surely cartographers have wiped the Soviet Union from the map. Was it a big deal? The best part of all this was the BBC's report of the war criminal Shimon Peres's statement:

Israeli Vice-Prime Minister Shimon Peres said the remark contravened the UN's charter and was "tantamount to a crime against humanity".

And this from the butcher of Qana.

The blanket coverage of this and the mobilisation of governments to condemn Iran is worrying though. Iran is being threatened by the US and pressured by the EU. Ahmadinejad certainly picked his time to be mouthing off empty rhetoric. But given that he simply restated a long held Iranian government conviction, why has this one liner got so much coverage?

Anyone here called Rachel and dead?

The good news is that there is a cantata celebrating/commemorating the tragically short life of Rachel Corrie, the International Solidarity Movement activist murdered by an Israeli caterpillar driver.

The bad news is that the sickos at the Zionist Federation are seeing fit to hold a demonstration against the performance at the Hackney Empire.

Ok, first things first: here's the detail on the main event, but please hang in there for details of the most ghoulish demo imaginable.

The event itself is at the Hackney Empire on 1st November 2005. It is billed as follows:

A concert for justice and peace.
In memory of all the lives lost during the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.
Introduced by Harold Pinter.

World Premiere The Skies Are Weeping.
Cantata for soprano, chamber choir and percussion ensemble, Op 75 by Philip Munger, in memoriam Rachel Corrie, peace activist in Gaza. Original US premiere cancelled after threats were received by principals involved.

UK Premiere The Singer of Wind and Rain – Five songs on Palestinian poems set by Gregory Youtz.
Traditional Palestinian dance and music performed by the Dabka group Al-Hurriyya.

Peter Crockford Conductor
Deborah Fink Soprano
Dominic Saunders Piano
Coro Cervantes
The London Percussion Ensemble

(Surplus funds go to the Israeli Committee
Against House Demolitions and the Gaza
Community Mental Health Programme).

Ok now here's the event being organised by the Zionist Federation. First of all, have a look around their website for details of the fact that they are going to demonstrate against the commemoration of a peace activist who was murdered by the State of Israel. You will search in vain. They're sufficiently ashamed of their despicable behaviour to try to keep it out of the public domain but, as you will see, they've briefed the press and the police as to what they're up to. Here's the Zionist Federation email rallying their supporters to the "cause."

Dear all,

There is to be a lawful and peaceful protest outside the world premier of "The skies are weeping" a concert for Rachel Corrie, the American activist killed in Gaza. While we regret the senseless loss of life of the young idealist, her death has been manipulated as a symbol by anti-Israel protagonists.[This has the support of her family by the way - who are the zionists to complain? I object to their manipulation of the holocaust but I don't picket Holocaust Memorial Day; I boycott it]

The protest will be opposite the Hackney Empire on Tuesday 1st November. It is being done with the full co-operation of the Metropolitan Police. There will be a police presence on the night as well as stewards to assist. [assist with what?]

Our protest will highlight Israelis killed in suicide and terrorist attacks that should also be remembered; the focus is on the numerous Israeli "Rachels" killed in suicide attacks in Israel. [and the Palestinians who have been killed in far greater numbers? do they count?]

Please come, show your support and exercise your right to protest. The demonstration will be peaceful and level-headed. The concert does nothing to build bridges and encourage dialogue nor does it promote an understanding of the issues. [no, for that we need to ignore Israel's war crimes] We really need your support to make this work.

Banners, placards and flyers will be provided, don't bring any literature or banners that may be misconstrued as offensive, there will be press coverage and it is imperative we get it right.

We will meet at 5.45pm at Town Hall Square in Mare Street, next to the Hackney Empire; the play begins at 7.30pm.

Look forward to seeing you there.

Regards,

Jonny Paul

What breathtaking arrogance! They have a police and press escort for a demonstration against a woman who was killed by a state, whose right to exist is, at best, questionable, that they so uncritically support. And see how they command their supporters not to bring literature. What's all that about? Could it be they don't trust their supporters to be sufficiently tasteful about the way they spit on the grave of Rachel Corrie? If anyone needs more evidence of the sheer vindictiveness of the zionist movement, come to the cantata on 1/11/2005 and see for yourselves the uniquely despicable behaviour of the zionist movement. Of course, you don't have to go in, you can just watch the zionist ghouls being ghoulish.

UPDATE: A friend of mine has suggested that the reason for the Zionist Federation's threatened demo is to make the Hackney Empire feel threatened and cancel the production. This would mean that any hint of a counter-demo could actually play into the hands of the zionists. It is now being suggested that people should buy tickets in advance. They range in price from £10 to £17.50 and can be bought here.

Further UPDATE: the Brownshirts of Hitler's favourite zionist group,Betar, are now on the case.

Also posted to Lenin's Tomb

When God met George

The Guardian carries an article by Norma Percy the maker of Elusive Peace, the BBC documentary supposedly detailing the events of the last eight years in the fraught history of the Arab-Israeli peace process. This last episode contains the, now famous, when God met George moment.

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

Norma Percy is confident that this is a faithful report on what Bush said to the Palestinian leaders. Is it possible that Bush was simply trying to convince them that he was serious about a peace process whereby he has already declared his support for Sharon's, indeed, zionism's, Greater Israel? Remember these are the same Palestinians who placed all their faith in Oslo.

Judean National Front splits from Jewish National Front

According to The Jewish Chronicle (subscription only), Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael (KKL) has finally and completely split from its British founding partner the Jewish National Fund.

The JNF was established in April 1907 in England as an instrument of the World Zionist Organization (WZO) to acquire and colonize land. With the enactment of the Israeli JNF Law (1953), which states in clause 6 that it is permitted to set up an incorporated body in Israel for the continuation of the activities of the existing company that was founded and incorporated in Europe, JNF was registered as an Israeli company and the English company's assets were transferred to it. JNF is held by the state of Israel as a central tool of Judaization.

The spat has been going on for over five years, in the first instance because the UK based JNF feared that too close an association with the Israeli branch could jeopardise its charitable status.

A little known fact about the Jewish National Fund in the UK is that three of its honorary patrons are Tony Blair, Charles Kennedy and Michael Howard. I wonder how any of these could play the role of any kind of honest broker in the Middle East when they are card carrying associates of an organisation that has instigated and benefited from the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

Scottish Palestine Solidarity has some useful resources on the racist nature of the JNF, in both its UK and Israeli manisfestations.

New Year - New Jewdas

The Jewdas website has had an overhaul. In wishing its readers a happy new year it spread the word about this major event. I just didn't notice til just now.

Zionist anti-semitism at the Jerusalem Post...coming soon

I don't know if this has made it to the print edition of the Guardian but Chris McGreal has an interesting article about how the Jerusalem Post is going to produce a Christian section.

The relationship (between Israel and the Christian right)is not an easy one. Bush-backing evangelists are among Ariel Sharon's best friends in a hostile world. The politics mesh easily but underpinning them is a belief among the fundamentalists that the revival of the Israeli state is a precursor to the Second Coming. And with that goes a desire to get Jews to recognise the First Coming and save themselves from eternal damnation. Israel passed laws against that kind of evangelising decades ago, but these days the Jerusalem Post, like the government, is less concerned with the hereafter than the here and now.

Zionist anti-semitism is nothing new of course. It goes back to the inception of the zionist movement. The founder of the movement, Theodor Herzl, was very clear that the enemies of the Jews were the very people who had the most interest in supporting zionism. Zionist collusion with anti-semitism has had tragic consequences for Jews but it has usually yielded benefits for zionism. First there was the collaboration with von Plehve in Tsarist Russia. The commissioner of the Protocols forgery and the instigator of pogroms from the late 19th century to the early 20th was an enthusiastic believer in zionism, a convert no less. Later, Jabotinsky would collaborate with Simon Perliura while the latter's men would slaughter as many as 125,000 Jews. A labour zionist, Abraham Revusky, even became a minister in Petliura's government, the Minister for Jewish Affairs. Later still, many believe the zionists kept a precarious nazi government in power in Germany by breaking an economic boycott and rescuing the regime from bankruptcy. And on to Hungary where 400,000 Jews who could have hidden or resisted were called to transportation points by the local zionist leadership. This zionist collaboration led to their deaths. And also to the death of the main collaborator, Rudolp Kastner. In the 1950s Ben Gurion worked well with anti-semitic French generals, supporting France in Algeria. In the 1970s, former nazi internee and Prime Minister of apartheid South Africa, John Vorster was the esteemed guest of Menahem Begin at Yad Vashem of all places. And in the 1980s we had the unedifying spectacle of Israel supplying weaponry to the Galtieri regime in Argentina even after the junta's exposure as a regime that "disappeared" thousands of people, over 12% of whom were Jews in spite of Jews having been less than 0.1% of the Argentine population.

This latest collaboration with anti-semitism is carrying on a long standing tradition within zionism. Let's see some of Israel's current anti-semitic friends:

"It's interesting at great political rallies," preached the Rev. Bailey Smith, "how you have a Protestant to pray, a Catholic to pray, and then you have a Jew to pray. With all due respect to those dear people, my friends, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew. For how in the world can God hear the prayer of a man who says that Jesus Christ is not the true Messiah? That is blasphemy."

The Rev. Jerry Falwell sanctioned this viewpoint in his book, Listen, America! "The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief. They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of their Messiah and Savior. Yet they are God's people, and in the world today Bible-believing Christians are the best friends the nation Israel has."

Falwell correctly points out that he and other American fundamentalist Christians support the nation of Israel. It should be noted, however, that this support is for a piece of real estate, the land of Israel, and not necessarily for the Jewish people.

Pat Robertson, too, thinks of Jews as "spiritually deaf" and "spiritually blind." In the end times, Robertson believes, Jews will be brought in as "offerings to the Lord." He predicts mass conversions of Jews to Christianity, and toward this end, Robertson built a Christian radio station in Lebanon to beam the Gospel into the Jewish state, which Fundamentalists believe will eventually be inherited by Christians. For the present, Jews occupy the land as caretakers.

Well perhaps the zionists are right this time. Perhaps we will all be saved thanks to their collaborative efforts.

Lenin's Tomb informs comment

Juan Cole's highly respected and widely read Informed Comment blog has a link, together with a favourable comment, to a Lenin's Tomb post on opinion polls in Iraq.

The Lenin's Tomb Blog points out that recent opinion polling in Iraq shows that a majority of Iraqis reject the kind of loose federalism now enshrined in the Iraqi constitution! This is true of both Shiites and Sunnis.

Please G-d by me!

Sharon giveth, Sharon taketh (more) away

I should have posted this a few days ago. Everyone familiar with Israel knew that the Gaza withdrawal was mostly a sham. It's true that there are religious fanatics who believe that no land controlled by Jews should ever be given up but most people were aware that the Gaza withdrawal was, as Sharon told the mass circulation Yedioth Ahronoth, a "punishment, and not a reward, for the Palestinians." Similarly, Sharon's most trusted adviser, Dov Weisglass, is on record as saying that

the significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process,you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda.

This is old hat now of course. But as Chris McGreal in the Guardian points out, what we already knew would happen has started to happen. In fact it had already begun before the Gaza withdrawal.

As foreign leaders, including Tony Blair, praised Mr Sharon for his "courage" in pulling out of Gaza last month, Israel was accelerating construction of the West Bank barrier, expropriating more land in the West Bank than it was surrendering in Gaza, and building thousands of new homes in Jewish settlements.

No serious observer of Israel/Palestine can plausibly claim to be surprised at this development.

Israel's Law of Return based on Nuremberg Laws?

It is often said that Israel's Law of Return, allowing anyone with one Jewish grandparent automatic citizenship, is based on Nazi Germany's Nuremberg Laws segregating Jews from "aryans." This misses the point in a couple of crucial aspects. When the law was first passed in 1950 it was for any Jew. It wasn't until 1970 that the law was changed to allow for the one grandparent principle. I don't know the circumstances leading to the change but Israel seems to move the who-is-a-Jew goalposts every few years to satisfy its "demographic concerns." Now, let's have a look at what Wikipedia has to say on this:

The Law of Return does not actually assert citizenship based on Jewish identity, but rather attempts to provide sanctuary as a citizen in Israel to anyone who would be persecuted under the Nuremberg Laws. As the Nuremberg Laws did not use a halakhic definition in its definition of Who is a Jew, so too the Law of Return definition for citizenship eligibility is also non-halakhic. The Law of Return merely provides citizenship for anyone covered under the Nuremberg Laws, but does not cede Jewish status to those granted citizenship. Thus one can be Jewish and be excluded from Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return (e.g. Meyer Lansky or Brother Daniel) or not be Jewish and yet be granted citizenship (but not Jewish status).

This is both mealy mouthed and self-contradictory. See the case of Brother Daniel which is mentioned in the passage.

Oswald Rufeisen 1922-1998, also known as Brother Daniel was born to a Jewish family living in Poland, near Oświęcim. To escape Nazi persecution, he hid in a monastary for over a year; during this time he decided to convert to Catholicism. In 1945, after the war, Rufeisen returned to Poland, converted, studied for the priesthood, and became a Carmelite monk.

In the 1950s, Rufeisen applied for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return, which provides Jews (and other) with Israeli citizenship through a streamlined naturalisation process (e.g. without the requirement of several years residency).

The Israeli government denied his request, on the grounds that he had converted to Christianity. Rufeisen appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Israel, and in 1962 the Court upheld the government's decision: any Jew converting to another religion would lose their preferential access to Israeli citizeship. (Rufeisen v Minister of the Interior, (1962) 16 PD 2428)

The case of Meyer Lansky is a straightforward case of Israel refusing citizenship to someone because of the welfare of the state. In this instance America was pursuing Lansky for racketeering and threatened to withhold Phantom jets from Israel unless Israel denied Lansky the right to remain. The case of Brother Daniel, formerly known as Oswald Rufeisen, is not so straightforward. Regardless of his conversion to Christianity, Brother Daniel would clearly have fallen foul of the Nuremberg Laws. Far from being a bulwark against Nuremberg style laws, the Law of Return, taken together with the Absentee Property Law, replicates them to an extent, except of course, the Nuremberg Laws were based on the pseudo-science of "race" and the Law of Return, together with the Absentee Property Law combines religious background with ethnicity. It is no less racist for the absence of "biological determinism" from its intention and application.

Also posted at Lenin's Tomb

Laws of Return - compare and contrast?

Actually to speak of laws of return in the plural is a bit of a misnomer because I think Israel is the only country that actually has a law called the Law of Return. Also, Israel's Law of Return is a central theme for its citizenship rules whereas citizenship of most countries revolves around being born there or born to someone who was born there or born to someone who was born to someone who was born there. The classic case of a country having a citizenship law based on having one grandparent from that country is Ireland. This is not called the Law of Return, it is called the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act. It's been subjected to a potentially profound change since the beginning of this year. Now, children born in Ireland are not necessarily entitled to citizenship if they have no claim based on parentage or grandparentage. So, whereas previously if a tourist in Ireland gave birth while they were there, that child could become an Irish citizen automatically. Now that is not the case. This law, of course, is not aimed at tourists but at asylum seekers. It's a cruel law in that it could leave some children stateless and therefore in a legal limbo situation. If we take racism to be prejudice on the basis of colour, creed or origin - together with the power to enforce that prejudice, ie discriminate - then it is clearly a racist law.

Now let's look at Israel's citizenship law here, though the text of the law itself is here at the Jewish Virtual Library. The idea of the law is to allow all Jews to live in Israel. It has been through modifications and the way the law now stands is that anyone who has a Jewish grandparent can automatically become a citizen of the state of Israel. The more devious of zionist apologists use this grandparent aspect to compare Israel's Law of Return to Ireland's nationality law. They actually contrast, in fact they are diametric opposites. You see Israel has another law relating to citizenship: the Absentee Property Law (1950). This could keep the zionist apologist in sophistry for hours, even days, at a time. The effect of this law is to deny the Palestinians the right of return to their homes or indeed to their homeland. It refers to property only. The humanity of the Palestinians is secondary here. It was their land that the zionists wanted, not their labour or any other aspect of their basic humanity. I couldn't see anything in the law to say that it was directed against Arabs but then it doesn't need to do that. The law states that people must have lived in Israel, indeed in their homes, during the period 27/11/1947 - when the first planned round of ethnic cleansing began - to 19/5/1948 in order to be citizens of the state. Taking the Law of Return together with the Absentee Property Law, the people with an automatic right to Israeli citizenship are people who managed to remain in the state during the ethnic cleansing of the Arab population from 1947 to 1949 and Jews from anywhere, together with their descendants, yay even unto the third generation. Let's take it slowly, if you were in the state from shortly before its independence was declared to shortly after then you can have citizenship. The only other people automatically entitled to citizenship are people with one Jewish grandparent. It so happens that the majority of Palestinian Arabs were purged from Palestine during the crucial period. They are denied citizenship in Israel, as are their children and their children's children. This is the complete opposite of the legal position in Ireland.

A contributor to Nick Cohen's blog offered the following comment just recently:

Ireland has a Law of Return. Britain has a Law of Return. Germany has a Law of Return.

I expect other countries do, too.

This is lazy blogging by me I know. This oft repeated lie by zionists is probably all over the net but this was the last time I saw it. Frankly I don't know the UK or Germany's citizenship laws but I am fairly certain that Britain doesn't deny citizenship to natives who happened to be out of the country when Britain was engaged in ethnic cleansing. And if Germany tried that sort of thing again the outcry would be deafening. My children are Irish passport holders in spite of me not being Irish and none of the children were born in Ireland. But they have a mother from Ireland. This "from Ireland" bit is the decisive thing. This is because under international law everyone is entitled to a homeland. That is everyone is entitled to live in the country they are from or their country of origin. This is where the grandparent bit comes in. This is why Ireland's law against some children who have been born there is so despicable even without being tested in the courts. But look at Israel. To date most people who have a grandparent from Israel (ie Palestinians) are banned from Israel. All people who have a grandparent from Ireland are welcome in Ireland.

Now when the zionists realise that they can't get away with their lies about this they invoke the holocaust to say why they need a state with a Jewish majority that has to ethnically cleanse natives and enact laws to maintain a "demographic balance" of colonisers over natives. Again have a quick scroll down Nick Cohen's site to see this. For the holocaust wary zionist, the Law of Return is of paramount importance. This, for example, is Greville Janner's take on it:

During the Holocaust millions of Jews died because no country in the world was prepared to give them a refuge and a home (Ian Buruma, G2, March 19).

The right of return is a key foundation of the state of Israel. There could be no question of any Israeli government of any political persuasion reducing that commitment in any way - least of all by giving it up.
Lord Janner of Braunstone
House of Lords

Actually this letter is more hypocritical than I thought. He refers to the Law of Return as the "right of return." The "Law of Return" is simply the name of the law that froms the main pillar of Israel's segregationist structure. See more on this here. Ok here's a quick quote:

Non-Jewish citizens of Israel do not have the right to equality before the law. This discrimination is expressed in many Israeli laws in which, presumably in order to avoid embarrassment, the terms 'Jewish' and 'non-Jewish' are usually not explicitly stated, as they are in the crucial Law of Return. According to that law only persons officially recognised as 'Jewish' have an automatic right of entry to Israel and of settling in it. They automatically receive an 'immigration certificate' which provides them on arrival with 'citizenship by virtue of having returned to the Jewish homeland', and with the right to many financial benefits, which vary somewhat according to the country from which they emigrated. The Jews who emigrate from the states of the former UUSR receive 'an absorption grant' of more than $20,000 per family. All Jews immigrating to Israel according to this law immediately acquire the right to vote in elections and to be elected to the Knesset -- even if they do not speak a word of Hebrew.

So wrote Israel Shahak, describing the effect of the Law of Return on the gentile citizens of Israel. The "right of return" is a principle of international law, in the Palestinian case affirmed in UN General Assembly resolution 194 1948 and reaffirmed every year since. The right of return is the basic human right of all and the specific right of the Palestinians with regard to the land from which they were ethnically cleansed.

So, can anyone point to an equivalent law in Ireland, the UK or Germany? The fact is, Israel's Law of Return is the law that makes Israel unique, not for being a state with racists, though with official sanction Israeli racists can get away with far more racist speech and behaviour than is the norm in other western "democracies," but for being, by self-definition, a racist state.

Israel's Law of Return can be contrasted but not compared with the citizenship law of any other country in the world. No other country invites people from outside of its boundaries to come and live within those boundaries and enjoy more rights than the native population.

My next post will demonstrate the sheer hypocrisy of the zionists invoking the Nuremberg Laws to defend the Law of Return.

Also posted to Lenin's Tomb.

Knocking down the wall, but which wall?

According to Ha'aretz, Afghanistan is considering diplomatic relations with Israel. Israel's foreign minister, Sylvan Shalom used a wonderful turn of phrase to describe Israel's attempts at diplomacy among Arab and Muslim regimes.

The Afghani report coincides with Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom's efforts to knock down the "iron wall" between Israel and Arab and Muslim countries. "Muslim countries understand this is the right time to initiate contact with Israel because anyone who wants to be involved in the peace process must have contact also with Israel and not only with the Palestinians," the Israeli sources said.

Whose wall is it anyway?

Israel kills Jewish stone throwers at the Western Wall

Just kidding! Of course Israel wouldn't kill Jewish stone throwers no matter how big the stones, no matter how big the throwers, no matter how big (or small) the target. Israel has been killing Palestinian stone throwing children for years now, even luring and provoking them into their stone throwing action before killing them, but never does Israel kill Jewish stone throwers. Clearly some stone throwers are more equal than others in the only democracy in the Middle East. Anyway, what's all this stone throwing about? According to Chris McGreal at the Guardian,

Scores of worshippers at Judaism's holiest site stoned a senior Israeli army officer as he arrived to pray, because of his leading role in removing settlers from the Gaza strip. A crowd surrounded Major General Elazar Stern, the head of the army's personnel division, as he approached the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem's old city with his young son on Friday.

When police officers moved to protect the general, worshippers began throwing stones, bags of water, and other objects at him; he emerged unharmed.

As did the stone throwers. If only Israel would treat all stone throwers that way.

Guardian ran anti-semitic debate, shock!

This is Nick Cohen's contention in an article I have now read and alluded to more times than is good for a person. Here's what he actually wrote:

The moment when bewilderment settled into a steady scorn, however, was when the Guardian ran a web debate entitled: "David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen are enough to make a good man anti-Semitic".

Here's the Guardian's take on this:

In last week's New Statesman Nick Cohen wrote an article that stopped me and several of my colleagues in our tracks. In a piece about the rise of anti-semitism on the left he cited the unpleasant experience of "when the Guardian ran a web debate entitled: 'David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen are enough to make a good man anti-semitic'".

Of course the impression one would get from this is that we orchestrated or commissioned such an offensive exchange. The fact is that it was a thread started not by us but by a user, which has now been deleted and which would have been deleted as soon as we had seen it, as it clearly breaches talk policy. In that sense it had nothing to do with GU or the Guardian, yet it had appeared on our website talkboards. This raises the difficult question of whether allowing users to do what they wish is damaging to our editorial brand and whether that is a strong enough reason to impose more draconian rules on our users.

In this case the writer, Emily Bell, has chosen to be far more kind to Nick Cohen, a colleague at the Guardian's sister paper, the Observer, than he chose to be to his colleagues at the Guardian.

In this case it was a simple misunderstanding and an issue of terminology.

Yeah right.

Nick Cohen on the net

Just when you thought it was safe to surf, Nick Cohen has a website. Ok, it's not exactly earth shattering news but it is styled as a blog complete with comments. The comments, at first, read like Little Green Footballs which is mostly an anti-Muslim anti-left hate site. Old Nick is pretty chuffed about those. But, thanks to Stephen Marks, I have alerted a few people who have taken issue with his ridiculous claim that "all anti-semites are anti-zionists."

Israeli army appeals for human shields

The Israeli Supreme court recently ruled against the Israeli army's use of Palestinian civilians as human shields. The army is now, according to al-Jazeera, appealing against this ruling.

The Israeli High Court issued a ruling earlier this week barring the army from using Palestinian civilians as human shields, a practice used heavily in the West Bank, particularly since the outbreak of the Palestinian intifada or uprising in 2000.

On Tuesday, Israeli military sources said the army would press the High Court to reconsider the ruling on the ground that it would complicate "army activities" in the West Bank.

Apparently the human shield policy is for the Palestinians' own good.

The army has sought to downplay the gravity of the "human shield practice", describing it as a "generally innocuous early warning procedure"....

The occupation army has further argued that the practice actually saves (Jewish) lives and that banning it entirely would inflict more casualties on the Palestinians themselves as the army would be forced to bombard and destroy entire buildings where "wanted persons" are barricaded.

See how al-Jazeera has had to insert the "Jewish" in brackets before the "lives." To the Israeli army, lives are a Jewish thing. The saving of Palestinian "lives" comes in as an afterthought and a bogus one at that.

No case for Israel, just fiction passing as fact

Here's a curious article on Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah in zmag.org. Written by Neve Gordon, it wreaks as much havock on Alan Dershowitz's already savaged reputation as Finkelstein does.

Academically, the section discussing Israel's human rights record raises serious questions about intellectual honesty and the ideological bias of our cultural institutions, since it reveals how a prominent professor [Alan Dershowitz] holding an endowed chair at a leading university can publish a book whose major claims are false. The significant point is not simply that the claims cannot be corroborated by the facts on the ground -- anyone can make mistakes -- but that any first-year student who takes the time to read the human rights reports would quickly realize that though The Case for Israel has rhetorical style and structure, it is, for the most part, fiction passing as fact.

I do have some issues with the piece though. Take this:

While Finkelstein's basic claims are on the mark, he makes a couple of serious mistakes. First, the Israeli case in no way constitutes an unprecedented assault on international law. Not only has the Iraq war, which Finkelstein mentions, led to more egregious violations, particularly if one counts civilian deaths, but one could easily come up with a series of other recent assaults on international law that have produced much more horrific results. One only has to think of Chechnya, Rwanda, and Darfur.

There are many problems with this argument. First up, it is precisely over Iraq, not just Irael, not even Israel, that Finkelstein says that the bogus allegation of anti-semitism has been used against leftists. Regarding Chechnya, Rwanda and Darfur the comparison with anti-semitism may well be legitimate so why mention it in a book that argues that the allegations of, and comparisons with, anti-semitism are misapplied?

The other is this:

Finkelstein convincingly maintains that a connection has been drawn between Israel's illegal actions in the Occupied Territories and the new Anti-Semitism. This link has a dual character. On the one hand, the literature discussing the new anti-Semitism is used to fend off all criticism of Israel, while, on the other hand, Israel's violation of the occupied Palestinians' basic rights has generated anti-Semitism. I follow Finkelstein thus far, but he then proceeds to an odd and troubling conclusion: the Jews, Finkelstein implies, are also to blame for the rise of anti-Semitism.

This is unfair. He doesn't say that. Here's the crux of what he says:

In some quarters anger at Israel's brutal occupation has undoubtedly spilled over into an animus toward Jews generally. But however lamentable, it's hardly cause for wonder.

This quote is preceded by some stuff about Sarte's peculiar philo-semitic pamphlet "Anti-Semite and Jew" that Gordon alludes to but there is still not enough there to accuse Finkelstein of accusing Jews generally of responsibility for anti-semitism.

Anyway, the digs at Dershowitz make the article well worth a read but I can't help feeling that Neve Gordon misrepresents Finkestein and in so doing, possibly indverently appeases an "offical" Jewish establishment that must take some responsiblity for the anti-semitism that is evident today, marginal though it is.