Plus ça change

Here's an article in the Socialist Worker. It's well worth reading the whole thing but this chunk really stands out:

Moshe Machover and Akiva Orr, two Israeli anti-Zionists, wrote The Class Character of Israel in 1972. In this pioneering Marxist analysis they wrote, "The permanent conflict between the settlers’ society and the indigenous, displaced Palestinian Arabs has never stopped and it has shaped the very structure of Israeli sociology, politics and economics."

Plus ça change? What change?

Let's see Howard Jacobson for what he really is

Poor old Howard Jacobson. He must have thought he'd closed down all possibility of counter-argument and still they come. Two more letters in today's Indie taking exception to his smear-merchant brand of hasbara.

Howard Jacobson's hysterical piece (Opinion, 18 February) that seeks to equate all criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, made me very angry. He objects to the use of the words "massacre" and "slaughter" in reference to the killing of 400 Palestinian children by Israeli tanks, missiles, bombs and bullets, with his opinion that "it is in the nature of modern war". As a former professional soldier with four years on active service, I can categorically inform him, it is not. The British Army, the US Army, or any other army, do not, to my knowledge, deliberately kill children on the pretext of "self-defence".

I, and many, many other British Jews, have given repeated, and documented, warnings to the London Jewish Chronicle and elsewhere, of the dangers of the Board of Deputies of British Jews allying itself so closely and unwisely with Israel's brutal treatment as an occupying force in the Palestinian territories. That overt alliance, together with the millions of pounds sent every year to Israel by Jewish charities, virtually ensures the inevitability of anti-Israeli feelings being extended to those in Britain who so clearly, and sometimes, it must be said, arrogantly support the Israeli government agenda.

There was nothing in Howard Jacobson's article that indicated one shred of remorse that 400 Palestinian children should be killed as a reprisal for the rockets of Hamas. Nothing. That, tragically, is the attitude that contributes to the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Britain and thereby also endangers those of us, within British Jewry, to whom political Zionism is anathema. Zionism is not, and never was, a synonym for Judaism.

Michael Halpern

Westbourne, Dorset

"Zionism is not, and never was, a synonym for Judaism" or Jewishness we might add but imagine with all that we know about zionism that such things still need to be said.

Sadly Mr Halpern's letter was followed by the obligatory balancer which I'll skip.

Now this next one really sticks the boot in:

By trying to confuse genuine moral outrage with secret anti-Semitism and by drawing the cloak of Jewish victimhood over Israeli atrocities in Gaza, Howard Jacobson reveals the full intellectual bankruptcy of his tired old arguments.

If people deliberately do hateful things, particularly if hundreds of innocent women and children are maimed and killed as a result, other more civilised people will have every reason and every right to loathe and despise the aggressors. This expression of outrage is one of the basic ways in which standards of civilised behaviour are maintained.

In the 21st century, political attempts to maintain ethnic purity and claim exclusive rights to territory on the basis of history, race and religion can no longer be regarded as acceptable. We know where that road leads. As for the Churchill play, it sounds like blatant agitprop, but just look at the Old Testament and you will read how the ancient historical Jewish occupation of this territory was carried out in a welter of racism, ethnic cleansing, slaughter and genocide: all supposedly sanctioned by their own private God and on the understanding that the Jews were the chosen race, this was their promised land and the others didn't matter.

Jacobson should be ashamed of himself for allowing his partisanship to subdue his moral sense. He should be grateful that "cosy old lazy old easy-come-easy-go England" has a history of quite violent "criticism" of political fascism in all its forms.

Rob Brownell

Colchester, Essex

Not sure about all that religious stuff but I do like the open and close.

Let's just turn to Engage, for whom Howard Jacobson appears to be the greatest living Englishman. Engage seems to have given up on defending Jacobson today. Still with all that antisemitism all around us they might have too much work on. But yesterday, all the antisemitism all around us wasn't too bad for them to get a couple of smears in for the great cause of Jewish health and safety.

I posted yesterday on the letters responding to Jacobson's astonishing hasbara for Israel's operation "cast lead". Well so did Hirsh. Remember this?

His [Jacobson's] "argument" is predicated on his tedious belief that he is, by definition, cleverer, more intellectually discerning and more morally subtle than anyone who disagrees with him.

There you go, a little dig at smugness, Howard Jacobson's smugness. But Howard Jacobson is a Jew. So according to Engage, smugness is such a Jewish trait, an attack on Jacobson must be because he's "the too-clever-by-half-Jew".

Oh and what's this? Here's one I missed yesterday but let Hirsh point it out for us:

Graham Griffiths cries "Israel!" in response to Jacobson’s piece about antisemtism in Britain and conflates antisemitic demonization with “criticism”:

“…is Mr Jacobson really surprised that people will protest”

He cried "Israel" when all poor Jacobson was writing about was antisemitism in Britain? Damn it! I've had to go check the article again. See this:

And Israel? Well, speaking on BBC television at the height of the fighting, Richard Kemp, former commander of British Troops in Afghanistan and a senior military adviser to the British government, said the following: "I don’t think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare where any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of civilians than the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) is doing today in Gaza."

Yeah, that was all about antisemitism in Britain. Just to remind Hirsh, since it was only the day before that he posted the article on Engage, the article was about "criticism of Israel" in Britain which Jacobson claims is motivated by antisemitism. Elsewhere in the article he insists that what took place in Gaza for 22 days from 27 December 2008, when over 1,300 hundred Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed, should be described as "fighting". Elsewhere in a previous article he said that Israel was doing what it had to do. But no, like Engage, all Jacobson is doing is having a little natter about "antisemitism in Britain". As it happens, Jacobson was and has been saying that Israel's actions in Gaza are necessary and right, therefore criticism of Israel must be antisemitic. That is not, by any reckoning, simply about antisemitism in Britain.

The Independent got a lot of letters expressing disgust at Jacobson's latest effort for Israel. I know this from the buzz of emails. Hopefully the editor will have got the message that readers are wise to this hasbara nonsense now. It isn't helping Israel. The game's up. The Indie is the lowest circulation broadsheet in the UK. Save your money and find that hole in the market that could be filled by telling the truth about Israel rather than smearing its critics. You'll feel much better for it and the shareholders might even be happier too.

US congressmen make career decisions in Gaza

I just got this article emailed to me.

Two American congressmen have expressed their "shock" over conditions in Gaza. See this from AFP:

US Democratic representatives Brian Baird and Keith Ellison expressed shock at the plight of the war-shattered Gaza Strip during a rare visit to the Hamas-run Palestinian enclave on Thursday.

"The amount of physical destruction and the depth of human suffering here is staggering" Baird said in a statement issued jointly with Ellison during their visit which coincided with a similar trip by US Senator John Kerry.

The visits were the first by US lawmakers since Hamas, an Islamist movement Washington blacklists as a terrorist organisation, seized control of the overcrowded territory in June 2007.

Ellison, a representative from Minnesota, harshly criticised restrictions on the delivery of desperately needed goods into the coastal strip that has been under a crippling Israeli blockade imposed after the Hamas takeover.

"People, innocent children, women and non-combatants, are going without water, food and sanitation, while the things they so desperately need are sitting in trucks at the border, being denied permission to go in," he said.

"The stories about the children affected me the most," said Ellison. "No parent, or anyone who cares for kids, can remain unmoved by what Brian and I saw here."

Baird, from Washington state, said the situation he saw was "shocking and troubling beyond words."

Can't you just see the AIPAC millions pouring into their opponents coffers already?

Look in the mirror Israel

Here's a Cif piece by Daphna Baram posted to the Just Peace UK list by Frank Fisher, who said of it:

A perceptive exposition by Daphna Baram in 'Comment  is Free' of how it is the
LEFT Zionists who are the true progenitors of Lieberman's racist agenda.

Here it is:

It's time to rethink Zionism

The desire for ethnic purity that drove out Palestinians and bars the way to democracy in Israel is the rotten fruit of an old debate

Comments (343)

• 
• • Daphna Baram
  • guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 February 2009 10.00 GMT
  • Article history

The results of last week's parliamentary elections in Israel brought to the surface some of the most rotten fruits of a debate that has been going on throughout the state's existence: the idea that a mono-ethnic Jewish state is feasible, legitimate and desirable. In other words, it enhanced the predicament of the moral and practical consequences of the Zionist state ideology.

In 1948, during its war of coming-to-be, Israel had driven out of its territory 750,000 Palestinians; another 250,000 were pushed out during the 1967 war. Ever since then, the Israeli left-right division has been marked by the desire for territorial expansion, promoted by the right, and the aspiration for ethnic purity, propagated, curiously, by the Zionist "left". It has always been the "left" that pushed for "division" of the land and "separation" between Jews and Arabs in order to secure a big Jewish majority inside Israel. The right, historically, seemed unconcerned by and large with the consequences of having a large number of Palestinians living under Israel's occupation, as long as they do not get to enjoy citizens' (or other, civil) rights. The Labour party always had a leg in both camps. It had agreed to partition in 1947, seeing it as a chance to get as much Arab-free land as possible, and recognising the opportunity to ethnically clear it off most remaining Arabs during the following war. It was the same Labour party, however, that was responsible for Israel's great victory in the 1967 war, which led to vast territorial expansion and at the same time to the inclusion of millions of Palestinians in the territories under Israel's rule.

An annexation of these territories, known as Gaza Strip and the West Bank, has always been unthinkable for the Labour party and its satellites on the left, as it would involve granting citizenship to the Palestinians who live in them, hence compromising the majority of Jewish citizens in Israel. The right had toyed with the idea of annexation, but was deterred by the same dilemma. The temporary solution had been to keep building settlements in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, while hoping that somehow, miraculously, the Palestinians would disappear, or that a huge influx of Jewish citizens would somehow flood the country and tip the balance in a conclusive way.

In the fringes of the left there were always voices calling for either a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel. To its left, there was an even smaller group calling for what nowadays can be described as the South African solution: one state, with equal rights to both Jews and Palestinians living in it.

The latter idea had never become popular among Jewish Israelis, but over the last 10 years it had turned into a threat that haunts the dreams of all Zionists. The phrase "the demographic danger" became a legitimate part of the discourse calling for a two-state solution. What started as a lefty support for Palestinian national self-determination had turned in this century into a tool for propagating apartheid. From that point, it was easy for anybody on the right, from Ariel Sharon to Tzipi Livni and Binyamin Netanyahu, to adopt it, and for George Bush's administration to embrace it. Accordingly, that obscure entity the "Palestinian State" was to be of crippled borders that would compromise its already questionable viability. It was to be a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantustan Bantustan.

The Arab citizens of Israel, traditionally ignored by left and right Zionists as a "barely tolerable" minority, embody the impossibility and futility of the attempt to achieve ethnic purity by means of division. A few years of rising racism inside Israel turned its Arab citizens into a "ticking bomb" of the "demographic danger", and unleashed unprecedented attacks against them by the right wing, with little to no response from the Zionist left. Avigdor Lieberman gained his startling achievement in Tuesday's elections by riding this wave to its natural conclusion. His revolutionary idea – giving up not only territories in the West Bank and Gaza but even territories of Israel proper, in order to get rid of as many Arabs as possible – confused and embarrassed the Zionist left. It had also exposed the absurdity and moral unacceptability of the whole Zionist idea by taking it to its only rational conclusion. If having a Jewish state is the most desirable goal, than getting rid of the non-Jewish citizens is the only rational way to go about it. And hey, it is all to take place in a very benign way: no more talks of "transfer", but an adoption of the "lefty" slogans of division. And all this under the new sinister banner "No loyalty – No citizenship".

The fact that Lieberman can easily claim to be a genuine successor of Israel's founder, Labourite David Ben Gurion, should be an alarm bell in the ears of any Israeli liberal. It is time for any Israeli with an enlightened self-image to look at the mirror and see Avigdor Lieberman staring back. It is time to stop the procrastination over the question whether Israel can be both Jewish and democratic. Lieberman provided the answer loud and clear: it cannot. At this late hour, when the shadow of proto-fascism is hovering over the land, it is time to join forces with Palestinian citizens in the battle against ethnic purity, and for a true democracy. It is time to stop fidgeting, and to admit that mono-ethnicism cannot be a framework for liberal values. It is time to apologise to MK Azmi Bshara, who was dabbed "an Arab nationalist" by Israeli liberals because of his call for "a state of all its citizens". It is time to rethink Zionism.

See that? At the time of posting there are 343 comments. Go see the zios panicking and trying to be more Israeli than the Israeli that wrote the piece.

Hasbara-niks wiped out in the liberal dailies

David Toube and Howard Jacobson have taken quite a beating yesterday and today over their ridiculous hasbara efforts at Comment is free and the Independent respectively. Both pieces won fulsome praise at Engage (hasbara central) which should be enough to signify their stupidness and dishonesty but just to hammer it home let's have a look at one comment from Toube's Cif piece and the letters burying Jacobson in his own nonsense.

This one's from Calvin Tucker:

CalvinTucker

19 Feb 09, 2:22am (about 5 hours ago)

This piece isn't really about *the Jews*, they are just the cover for Harry's Place increasingly shrill personal attacks against anyone on the left, and particularly Muslims. In the worst traditions of McCarthyism, individuals are identified, singled out, and then publicly denounced by the Witchhunter-in-Chief, David Toube. After the dog whistle is blown, a lynch mob of frothing-at-the-mouth Zionist fanatics is then unleashed on the unfortunate victim in the comments that follow.

In one particularly disgusting episode, Mr Toube, who is a middle aged corporate lawyer by trade, vented his bile on a 17 year old girl who had been appointed by Hazel Blears and Ed Balls to a Young Muslims Advisory Group. A press release from the Communities and Local Government department contained the biographies of the 22 young appointees:

Sabiha Iqbal, 17 from Heaton, Bradford.
Currently studying at Leeds University she is from Heaton in Bradford. A member of the Bradford Youth Service she set up her own not for profit organisation how to drum and perform poetry. She is a member of the Bradford Socialist Workers Party and of the organisation Love Music Hate Racism. She also volunteers part time at the Barnados Charity shop and writes on a freelance basis for a number of magazines.

If my daughter (or any of her friends) had got engaged with the local community, did anti-racist work and helped out at a charity shop, I would be extremely proud of her, as I am sure were her parents.

But not David Toube.

He spotted that this young lady also happened to a member of the SWP, and saw red. She was then publicly denounced by Toube on his hate-site and equated her to a member of the BNP. Toube went on to demand her dismissal from the youth advisory group.

David Toube's *exclusive* was then picked up by the tabloids, and the following morning the Daily Mail, a vile rag which openly backed the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s, ran with the story.

This is but one of hundreds of similar unprovoked vendettas organised by David Toube against anti-racist and anti-war activists, with no thought for the personal distress caused to his victims, or worse, to their jobs and careers.

This is the track record of this fraud who has the audacity to come here and pose as an anti-racist campaigner.

The BNP, which offered full support to Israel's war on Gaza, already run a website called Redwatch, where *reds* are outed, their photos and personal details posted online. Why doesn't David Toube stop the pretence and join forces?

Readers who have the stomach for it, can click below to see this nasty puffed up little bully at work:

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/10/07/swp-activist-appointed-government-advisor/

[To pre-empt the inevitable smears, I should point out that I am Jewish and not a supporter of the SWP.]

Must be a bit of a newbie if he thinks he can pre-empt smears by zionists.

So, to continue. There's quite a crop of letters in today's Independent and I don't recognise any of the names so we're on the move now, like an idea whose time has come:

Shoddy defence of Israel’s policies

Once again Howard Jacobson parades his repetitive and intellectually lazy fare. His “argument” is predicated on his tedious belief that he is, by definition, cleverer, more intellectually discerning and more morally subtle than anyone who disagrees with him.

In the past few weeks alone, he has used a variety of adolescent tactics. Street protesters against Israel were dismissed as those who “wear their consciences on their sleeves because they do not know where else to wear them”, signatories of a letter to The Guardian were derided as media studies lecturers (beneath contempt presumably) and “professionally asham-ed Jews” who do not understand that signing a letter does not make (them) humanitarian.

In his latest piece, “they” are damned by association; “”they” sing “anti-Zionist carols with Ken Livingstone and George Galloway”. And, of course, underpinning all this is the cheapest trick in his wide repertoire, his assertion that criticism of Israel equals anti-Semitism.

The truth is that no criticism of Israel could be decorous or sophisticated enough for Mr Jacobson. He hides behind his veil of sophistry, apparently unable to acknowledge the legitimate, widespread and entirely sincere revulsion generated by the viciously indiscriminate Israeli campaign in, and blockade of, Gaza.

He really should grow up or else leave the floor to more reasoned commentators, such as Bruce Anderson who, so far as I know, does not align himself George Galloway or Hamas, but whose article about Israel in your Monday paper was bracing and balanced, such a welcome change from Mr Jacobson’s single perspective, sneering self-indulgence.

Gillian Bargery

St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex

If there is a renewed outbreak of anti-Semitism it is due to the confusion between the Zionist state of Israel and Jewry. Zionism is a political movement within Judaism and does not represent the interests of those who categorise themselves as Jews. It has been one of the triumphs of Zionist propaganda that it has successfully convinced the world that Zionism and the state of Israel is the same thing as Jews everywhere.

In 1948, as an idealist young man, I told my Jewish fiancée, who had survived the German occupation of France, (unlike most of her family), that I wanted to join Haganah. She told me in no uncertain terms that if I wanted to join the reactionary Zionists then I could say goodbye to her. I got my first lesson in the politics of Judaism.

Israel, governed by political Zionism, is a reactionary state in spite of its propaganda. It is exclusive and expansionist. I cannot think of any other country where to become a citizen it is necessary to demonstrate purity in the form of descent through the mother or to convert to one specified religion. It is the success of Zionist propaganda which accounts for the renewal of anti-Semitism.

Kim James

Wollaston, Northamptonshire

Then there's one from Israel commending Jacobson's effort. Good old British balance. The zionists dominate the mainstream media but in the interests of balance, any complaints have to be balanced by commendations. The letters get a bit wishy washy after that until we get to this punchy little one:

I think what riles Jacobson is that the Holocaust, “anti-Semitism”, and “vilification of Israel” are not the trump cards they once were. Even Jewish critics are fed up with this tired chant every time the Israeli army decides to indulge in a massacre.

The fighting in Gaza, which Jacobson argues is a more just description, presumes that both sides are more or less equal in terms of strength. Anyone with a scant understanding of the conflict will see that a gross imbalance of power exists in Israeli-Palestinian relations. If Israeli refuseniks can see this, why can’t anyone else?

Nu’man El-Bakri

Exeter

Don't be fooled Nu'man, anyone else can see this imbalance of power. The zionists are taking a few last gasps I'm sure. So any more for any more? Well there is one and it does expose Jacobson's technique and motive but.,...well. I know, I'll just show you the bits that suit me.

Howard Jacobson’s article is symptomatic of the blinkered attitude that prevents this debate from progressing. He extrapolates from a few carefully chosen examples to disgrace all opposition to Israel’s actions in Palestine, and by labelling all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism he shuts down the debate

Hang on. This is tricky this. I have to weed out another bit:

he fills a double-page spread with an assault on the actions of certain protesters and news outlets (as well as one ignorant playwright) without paying one iota of attention to the numerous ways in which wholly un-anti-Semitic campaigners legitimately criticise Israel.

I should have dotted out the playwright bit. That would be the Seven Jewish Children thing, A play for Gaza, and it sounded quite good to me. In fact it's on tonight and tomorrow night but may never be seen again after that.

Anyway, what's holding us back now? Time and time again we see that the game is up for the hasbara parrots. You might say it's all over bar the shooting...and crying.

Joel Kovel fired from Bard College for anti-Zionism

STATEMENT OF JOEL KOVEL REGARDING HIS TERMINATION BY BARD COLLEGE

Introduction

In January, 1988, I was appointed to the Alger Hiss Chair of Social Studies at Bard College. As this was a Presidential appointment outside the tenure system, I have served under a series of contracts. The last of these was half-time (one semester on, one off, with half salary and full benefits year-round), effective from July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2009. On February 7 I received a letter from Michèle Dominy, Dean of the College, informing me that my contract would not be renewed this July 1 and that I would be moved to emeritus status as of that day. She wrote that this decision was made by President Botstein, Executive Vice-President Papadimitriou and herself, in consultation with members of the Faculty Senate.

This document argues that this termination of service is prejudicial and motivated neither by intellectual nor pedagogic considerations, but by political values, principally stemming from differences between myself and the Bard administration on the issue of Zionism. There is of course much more to my years at Bard than this, including another controversial subject, my work on ecosocialism (The Enemy of Nature). However, the evidence shows a pattern of conflict over Zionism only too reminiscent of innumerable instances in this country in which critics of Israel have been made to pay, often with their careers, for speaking out. In this instance the process culminated in a deeply flawed evaluation process which was used to justify my termination from the faculty.

A brief chronology

• 2002. This was the first year I spoke out nationally about Zionism. In October, my article, "Zionism's Bad Conscience," appeared in Tikkun. Three or four weeks later, I was called into President Leon Botstein's office, to be told my Hiss Chair was being taken away. Botstein said that he had nothing to do with the decision, then gratuitously added that it had not been made because of what I had just published about Zionism, and hastened to tell me that his views were diametrically opposed to mine.

• 2003. In January I published a second article in Tikkun, "'Left-Anti-Semitism' and the Special Status of Israel," which argued for a One-State solution to the dilemmas posed by Zionism. A few weeks later, I received a phone call at home from Dean Dominy, who suggested, on behalf of Executive Vice-President Dimitri Papadimitriou, that perhaps it was time for me to retire from Bard. I declined. The result of this was an evaluation of my work and the inception, in 2004, of the current half-time contract as "Distinguished Professor."

• 2006. I finished a draft of Overcoming Zionism. In January, while I was on a Fellowship in South Africa, President Botstein conducted a concert on campus of the Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra, which he has directed since 2003. In a stunning departure from traditional concert practice, this began with the playing of the national anthems of the United States and Israel, after each of which the audience rose. Except for a handful of protestors, the event went unnoticed. I regarded it, however, as paradigmatic of the "special relationship" between the United States and Israel, one that has conduced to war in Iraq and massive human rights violations in Israel/Palestine. In December, I organized a public lecture at Bard (with Mazin Qumsiyeh) to call attention to this problem. Only one faculty person attended; the rest were students and community people; and the issue was never taken up on campus.

• 2007. Overcoming Zionism was now on the market, arguing for a One-State solution (and sharply criticizing, among others, Martin Peretz for a scurrilous op-ed piece against Rachel Corrie in the Los Angeles Times. Peretz is an official in AIPAC's foreign policy think-tank, and at the time a Bard Trustee—though this latter fact was not pointed out in the book). In August, Overcoming Zionism was attacked by a watchdog Zionist group, StandWithUs/Michigan, which succeeded in pressuring the book's United States distributor, the University of Michigan Press, to remove it from circulation. An extraordinary outpouring of support (650 letters to U of M) succeeded in reversing this frank episode of book-burning. I was disturbed, however, by the fact that, with the exception of two non-tenure track faculty, there was no support from Bard in response to this egregious violation of the speech rights of a professor. When I asked President Botstein in an email why this was so, he replied that he felt I was doing quite well at taking care of myself. This was irrelevant to the obligation of a college to protect its faculty from violation of their rights of free expression—all the more so, a college such as Bard with a carefully honed reputation as a bastion of academic freedom, and which indeed defines such freedom in its Faculty Handbook as a "right . . . to search for truth and understanding without interference and to disseminate his [sic] findings without intimidation."

• 2008. Despite some reservations by the faculty, I was able to teach a course on Zionism. In my view, and that of most of the students, it was carried off successfully. Concurrently with this, another evaluation of my work at Bard was underway. Unlike previous evaluations, in 1996 and 2003, this was unenthusiastic. It was cited by Dean Dominy as instrumental in the decision to let me go.

Irregularities in the Evaluation Process

The evaluation committee included Professor Bruce Chilton, along with Professors Mark Lambert and Kyle Gann. Professor Chilton is a member of the Social Studies division, a distinguished theologian, and the campus' Protestant chaplain. He is also active in Zionist circles, as chair of the Episcopal–Jewish Relations Committee in the Episcopal Diocese of New York, and a member of the Executive Committee of Christians for Fair Witness on the Middle East. In this capacity he campaigns vigorously against Protestant efforts to promote divestment and sanctions against the State of Israel. Professor Chilton is particularly antagonistic to the Palestinian liberation theology movement, Sabeel, and its leader, Rev. Naim Ateek, also an Episcopal. This places him on the other side of the divide from myself, who attended a Sabeel Conference in Birmingham, MI, in October, 2008, as an invited speaker, where I met Rev. Ateek, and expressed admiration for his position. It should also be observed that Professor Chilton was active this past January in supporting Israeli aggression in Gaza. He may be heard on a national radio program on WABC, "Religion on the Line," (January 11, 2009) arguing from the Doctrine of Just War and claiming that it is anti-Semitic to criticize Israel for human rights violations—this despite the fact that large numbers of Jews have been in the forefront of protesting Israeli crimes in Gaza.

Of course, Professor Chilton has the right to his opinion as an academic and a citizen. Nonetheless, the presence of such a voice on the committee whose conclusion was instrumental in the decision to remove me from the Bard faculty is highly dubious. Most definitely, Professor Chilton should have recused himself from this position. His failure to do so, combined with the fact that the decision as a whole was made in context of adversity between myself and the Bard administration, renders the process of my termination invalid as an instance of what the College's Faculty Handbook calls a procedure "designed to evaluate each faculty member fairly and in good faith."

I still strove to make my future at Bard the subject of reasonable negotiation. However, my efforts in this direction were rudely denied by Dean Dominy's curt and dismissive letter (at the urging, according to her, of Vice-President Papadimitriou), which plainly asserted that there was nothing to talk over and that I was being handed a fait accompli. In view of this I considered myself left with no other option than the release of this document.

On the responsibility of intellectuals

Bard has effectively crafted for itself an image as a bastion of progressive thought. Its efforts were crowned with being anointed in 2005 by the Princeton Review as the second-most progressive college in the United States, the journal adding that Bard "puts the 'liberal' in 'liberal arts.'" But "liberal" thought evidently has its limits; and my work against Zionism has encountered these.

A fundamental principle of mine is that the educator must criticize the injustices of the world, whether or not this involves him or her in conflict with the powers that be. The systematic failure of the academy to do so plays no small role in the perpetuation of injustice and state violence. In no sphere of political action does this principle apply more vigorously than with the question of Zionism; and in no country is this issue more strategically important than in the United States, given the fact that United States support is necessary for Israel's behavior. The worse this behavior, the more strenuous must be the suppression of criticism. I take the view, then, that Israeli human rights abuses are deeply engrained in a culture of impunity granted chiefly, though not exclusively, in the United States—which culture arises from suppression of debate and open inquiry within those institutions, such as colleges, whose social role it is to enlighten the public. Therefore, if the world stands outraged at Israeli aggression in Gaza, it should also be outraged at institutions in the United States that grant Israel impunity. In my view, Bard College is one such institution. It has suppressed critical engagement with Israel and Zionism, and therefore has enabled abuses such as have occurred and are occurring in Gaza. This notion is of course, not just descriptive of a place like Bard. It is also the context within which the critic of such a place and the Zionist ideology it enables becomes marginalized, and then removed.

For further information: www.codz.org; Joel Kovel, "Overcoming Impunity," The Link Jan-March 2009 (www.ameu.org).

To write the Bard administration:

President Leon Botstein president@bard.edu
Executive Vice-President Dimitri Papadimitriou dpapadimitrou@bard.edu

More on antisemitism or antisemitism for morons

It's a bumper day for hasbara by smear. David Toube, special adviser on antisemitism to Comment is free editor, Matt Seaton, has an article on Comment is free calling on his fellow rightists to "reclaim antiracism " from the far left. One of his co-bloggers at the zionist cesspit known as Harry's Place has written a post there directing their readers to the Cif piece and supposedly helpfully closing the comments so that the HP faithful can hurry on over to spew their bile in support of Toube on the Cif page. Very clever. Except Toube is getting wiped out by people who are actually wise to the fact that hasbara parrots use "antisemitism" as a smear to silence the critics of Israel.

Toube obviously has more success silencing critics of Israel by writing to Matt Seaton than writing for him.

Dracula in charge of blood bank rumours

Here's a curious letter in today's Guardian:

There can be no greater affront to civilisation than the involvement of doctors in torture (Whitehall devised torture policy for terror detainees, 17 February). Yet there is an appalling history of just such unethical behaviour, not least in Nazi concentration camps. There are suspicions that doctors are involved in torture at Guantánamo and indeed the BMA has debated this and called for action from the World Medical Association. Now we hear that our own government is incriminated and tainted by torture. President Obama has set out to improve his nation's standing by closing Guantánamo. We urge the new president of the World Medical Association, Dr Blachar, from the Israel Medical

Association, to condemn such activity and demand the UK government guarantee no doctors are involved in this grisly, inhuman practice.
Ian Banks, Helena McKeown, David Wrigley, Frank Wells, Anna Athow, Steve Hajioff, Kailash Chand
BMA council members

Oh great! A member of the Israel Medical Association is the president of the World Medical Association. I remember hearing stuff about this Blachar character and here's a piece of a letter that doctors were being urged to sign:

Amnesty International concluded as long ago as 1996 that Israeli doctors working with the security services “formed part of a system in which detainees are tortured, ill treated and humiliated in ways that place prison medical practice in conflict with medical ethics”. (3) Dr Blachar, already IMA President, took no action. Amnesty’s briefing to the UN Committee against Torture in September 2008 “focuses on Amnesty International’s (continuing) concerns about Israel’s failure to implement the Convention against Torture in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the intensification of measures amounting to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment”.(4)

Here are the notes:

3 Amnesty International. “Under constant medical supervision”, torture, ill-treatment and the health professions in Israel and the Occupied Territories. London. Amnesty International. MDE 15/37/96. 1996.
4 Amnesty International. Israel/OPT. Briefing to the Committee Against Torture. MDE 15/040/2008. 2008.

And there's more on the good doctor:

Dr Blachar went as far as to justify the use in Israel of “moderate physical pressure” (condemned as torture by the UN Committee Against Torture) in the fourth paragraph of a letter published in the international medical journal The Lancet in 1997 (7) This surely unprecedented action by the president of a national medical association has not been disowned, and renders him unfit for the office of WMA President. In the age of evidence-based medicine his rejection of the documentary record has been unprofessional and frequently contemptuous, as when on the British Medical Journal website he labelled as “the lies and filth he spews” and “anti-semitic” a BMJ publication which cited Amnesty, Johns Hopkins University, the International Court of Justice, a UN Rapporteur and Physicians for Human Rights Israel. (8) IMA membership of WMA appears to have been a figleaf: The IMA website pays lip service to medical ethics but Dr Blachar has overseen a studied failure to take the actions mandated by the Declaration of Tokyo.

And here are the notes to that piece:

7 Blachar Y. The truth about Israeli medical ethics. Lancet 1997;350: 1247.
8 Blachar Y. Response from the Israeli Medical Association. Rapid Responses, bmj.com, 15 December 2004

Now what on earth does the World Medical Association exist for?

Howard Jacobson retires?

The increasingly insufferable Howard Jacobson has a piece in today's Independent. It's yet another hasbara piece where he defends Israel over Gaza and accuses Israel's critics of antisemitism. Now this is very strange for Howard Jacobson. Usually he does that on a Saturday in the Independent.

The headline makes the article barely worth reading: Let’s see the ‘criticism’ of Israel for what it really is. But let's try at least. Here's the editor's blurb:

Emotions have run high over recent events in Gaza. And in this impassioned and searching essay, our writer argues that just below the surface runs a vicious strain of ancient prejudice

Oh and what might that prejudice be? We might have to read at least some of the article.

I was once in Melbourne when bush fires were raging 20 or 30 miles north of the city. Even from that distance you could smell the burning. Fine fragments of ash, like slivers of charcoal confetti, covered the pavements. The very air was charred. It has been the same here these past couple of months with the fighting in Gaza. Only the air has been charred not with devastation but with hatred. And I don’t mean the hatred of the warring parties for each other. I mean the hatred of Israel expressed in our streets, on our campuses, in our newspapers, on our radios and televisions, and now in our theatres.

Very clever that. There have been bush fires raging in Australia so it's topical. People can picture what they have seen in the reports on the fires that have now claimed 200 lives. I wonder what imaginative leaps will have to be made for people to liken protests against Israel in which no one has even been hurt to fires which have killed 200 people - and rising. If a zionist had have tried to liken Israel's recent war crimes in Gaza to forest fires I would have been disgusted but topicality is topicality. But this was ludicrous even by the appalling standards of hasbara.

Now what's all this about Jacobson retiring? See this after he describes the condemnation of Israel:

But I am not allowed to ascribe any of this to anti-Semitism.

And then, after some more stuff on protests against Israel:

But I am not allowed to ascribe any of this to anti-Semitism

Then after complaining that there can only motive for those who compare the blockaded, overpopulated, besieged and starved area of Gaza to the Warsaw ghetto:

Anti-Semitism? Absolutely not.

And then after complaining about a play on at the Royal Court about hasbara, titled Seven Jewish Children, A play for Gaza here we go again:

Anti-Semitic? No, no.

So no more false allegations of antisemitism from Howard Jacobson then. If only.

By the way, surprise surprise, you can also read Howard Jacobson's drivel on Engage where it is claimed that Jacobson "says it all about contemporary antisemitism". You can't argue with that, but then, that's the whole point of these stupid exercises.

Al-Jazeera on Leviev campaign & the growth of BDS in the US — but not Dubai...

The report, by former US Marine Josh Rushing, contains an interview with a Palestinian-American member of Adalah-NY, and with an activist from Adalah-NY coalition member Jews Against the Occupation (JATO-NYC). It also interviews Palestinian-American campaigner Fadi Kiblawi, veteran anti-apartheid campaigner Bill Fletcher, & the Israeli Consul General in New York, Assaf Shariv; who helpfully points out the Nazis boycotted Jewish stores. As Rushing's reportage makes clear, the campaign against Leviev is over his construction of Israeli settlements built in violation of international law and convention in occupied Palestinian territory, partly funded by diamonds mined in abusive conditions in Africa. A cultural boycott of the Batsheva Dance company from Israel is mentioned, as is the growing calls in the US for an academic boycott, & tho not by name, the Hampshire divestment campaign.

Rushing mentions Adalah-NY has introduced a wider consumer boycott campaign based on companies with a New York hook. Yet Aussie activists in Sydney have been able to make use of the research in campaigning against Israeli chocolatier Max Brenner, whose co-owners the Strauss Group gives money to the IDF's feared Golani Brigade.

Al-Jazeera didn't mention that Leviev is causing controversy halfway around the world in Dubai. Nadia Awad summed it up well in a Nov. 24 piece she wrote for the Palestinian organisation MIFTAH:

Earlier this year, controversy erupted when Dubai announced it had allowed the diamond magnate, Lev Leviev, to open two retail stores in the Gulf emirate, including one just opened in the Atlantis. What it did not announce was that Lev Leviev is an Israeli billionaire and a major funder of illegal settlement construction in the Palestinian Territories, including infamous settlements such as Har Homa and Maale Adumim. Two of his companies, Africa-Israel and Leader Management & Development, as well as several other subsidiaries such as Danya Cebus, have been primary forces in the displacement of Palestinian villagers from their lands in the West Bank. Leviev is also a major donor to the Israeli Land Redemption Fund, which is known to use illicit means to obtain Palestinian land for Israeli settlements. Granted, the Dubai authorities initially displayed an unwillingness to award the Israeli billionaire a license to do business in Dubai; but apparently those feelings of reluctance were dispelled when Leviev used American and European connections to persuade Dubai officials otherwise.

To donate millions of dollars in assistance to the Palestinians and then to profit from business dealings with a primary funder of Palestinian land theft is hypocrisy at its best. The lavish hotel opening last week was just another example of Dubai's lack of tact and sensitivity. The Atlantis itself is owned by Solomon Kerzner, a South African billionaire, but the cost of the party was split between him and the Dubai government-owned Nakheel PJSC, also a developer of the hotel. Perhaps business is merely that, business. But in the heart of the Middle East, it would have behooved Dubai to express a little solidarity with the suffering of its fellow Arabs, the Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip, perhaps by donating some of the firework display funds to purchase fuel for Gaza's power plant, or by having a moment of silence. Or perhaps by kicking Leviev out of the emirate, or at least, putting pressure on him to refrain from illegal settlement building. Big business is not the only goal in life.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband infuriated the Israeli government when he informed them of his intention to press for EU tariffs to be imposed on produce and products coming from Israeli settlements. Londoners demonstrated outside a large supermarket to bring attention to the fact that produce coming from the illegal settlements is being sold in Britain under the misleading 'West Bank' label. On the other hand, Dubai, who has more in common with us historically, geographically, culturally and religiously, is helping to bankroll a major Israeli settlement builder, indirectly causing untold misery for Palestinians. Dubai is not the first Arab state to have business dealings with Israelis, nor is it likely to be the last; but to have dealings with such a man as Leviev helps to undermine efforts to stop illegal settlement construction. As one Palestinian official in Gaza said, "We never imagined that a day would come when we would have to appeal to an Arab country to refrain from harming us and undermining our cause."

To say Palestinians feel a bit betrayed is an understatement. We definitely need humanitarian aid, but more importantly, we also need Arab and other international nations to stand by us morally and politically, shoulder to shoulder, in the face of an ever-worsening Israeli occupation. And as always, actions speak louder than words.

As of today, Dubai still hasn't taken any steps to stop Leviev from peddling his gems there. However, it stood firm in its decision not to allow Israeli tennis star Shahar Pe'er to play in this year's Dubai open. One might wager that Israelis playing tennis in Dubai has rather less impact on Palestinians than if the emirate allows a settlement builder to line his pockets there. Dubai needs to act, lest it be forever known as the emirate that supports settlements, & the ongoing dispossession of Palestinians.

Turkey and Israel mud wrestle

Following up on the surprisingly tough performance of Turkish PM Erdogan at Davos, Zionist apologists finally hit argument no 4, everybody suck.

Maj. Gen. Avi Mizrahi is a veteran professional officer, graduate of the Reali military academy, the Golani reconnaissance unit and the Shin Bet security service, who returned to the career army and moved up the ranks of the Armored Corps to command the 36th Division in the Golan Heights. On election day, Mizrahi gave a talk at the Tactical Command College, at the Glilot base, where he blasted a new adversary: Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's prime minister.

Mizrahi - who formerly served as the Army Headquarters' (the IDF ground forces) representative to the U.S. armed forces and frequently met with other army commanders who had been involved in the fighting in Kosovo and Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan - chose the platform of the international conference to deliver a sharp message. He attacked Erdogan for what the Turkish leader imputed to President Shimon Peres at another international conference, the World Economic Forum in Davos. He did not leave it at a clear allusion to the massacre of the Armenians and the suppression of the Kurds, but mentioned the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus as well. In response to Erdogan's call for Israel to be expelled from the United Nations, Mizrahi suggested that Turkey should be paired with Israel on such an occasion. ( Haaretz ).

Not a bad idea at all!

Mizrahi, however, is not the sharpest pencil in the box. Up until now, the row between Turkey and Israel was symbolic. Both Turkey and Israel are countries with an oversize military, and a generals' junta that considers civilian rule (and civilians in general), an annoyance. The ties between the Israeli military and the Turkish military are much more important to both sides than the barbs exchanged between politicians.

Mizrahi's tirade was noted immediately by the Turkish generals, who warned that this wasn't Davos. This time it was serious:

The Turkish military also denounced Mizrahi's remarks, saying they "distort the realities and are excessive, unfortunate and unacceptable."

Such comments "can harm national interests in relations between the two countries," the statement said.

"We expect the Israeli general staff, which we believe places importance on relations with the Turkish armed forces, to clarify the issue," it added. (AFP)

Israel and its apologists cannot win this. They can either not respond to the harsh (and fully justified) criticism of the popular and moderately Islamic Turkish government, thus allowing Turkey to take the lead in representing regional public opinion and applying pressure on Israel. Or they can follow Mizrahi and shove in Turkey's face the (fully justified) accusations about the thuggish history of the Turkish military, destroying the military ties between the countries.

The best Israel can do is contain the damage, muzzle Mizrahi, apologize, and hope that the Turkish generals will put pressure on Erdogan to reciprocate with moderation. The IDF already distanced itself from Mizrahi's remarks.

The best we can hope is that the pressure on Erdogan to continue to speak bluntly will have the upper hand.

---

The deteriorating relations are already having an economic impact.

Industry insiders have admitted that the main export lines to Turkey – agriculture and chemicals – have already begun suffering the consequences, as the Turkish government body which subsidizes their contracts declared an embargo on Israeli-made equipment.

Another field of commerce bracing for a blow is that of defense exports. Turkey has one of the largest armies in the world and Israel's Elbit Systems Ltd. and Aerospace Industries (IAI) signed a $141 million deal with its air force just days before the diplomatic crisis erupted.

"They wouldn’t have won the bid today," said a source in the defense establishment. "Elbit and IAI are lucky to have signed it prior to the war in Gaza. Still, it may take Turkey longer to materialize it." (Ynet)

I bet the Turkish army is not happy about the boycott pressure. But it cannot say it.

What's happening at Goldsmiths?

I heard that there was a motion to the Goldsmiths branch of the Universities and Colleges Union (UCU) proposing the twinning of the student bodies of Al Quds University and Goldsmiths College in London. Also, that there was a call for the management to support the student's occupation of an admin building and that Dr Hirsh, the big cheese at Engage, the anti-boycott website, had opposed the motion. This was all on Thursday just gone.

Well a little bit of googling told me what I thought already and that is that Al Quds and Goldsmiths have been twinned for some years now but there is some kind of occupation going on at Goldsmiths:

Students of Goldsmiths University have, as of this afternoon, occupied a campus building. At noon today students stormed Deptford town hall, which is known amongst students as the administration hub of the college.

In accordance with the recent wave of student occupations, the Goldsmiths students are acting in solidarity with the people of Palestine, following the atrocities that have taken place in Gaza.

The Goldsmiths students have just one specific aim: Two MA Scholarships Programs for students of the Palestinian Al Quds Open University, the Palestinian University which the college is linked.

So Al Quds and Goldsmiths are twinned and there are students trying to get scholarships for two students from Gaza. So what's to oppose here if you support academic freedom?

I'm so confused about this whole thing about the UCU resolution any clarification, even from Engage would be welcome.

UPDATE - this is isn't really an update because I haven't even posted the post yet but it seems that the students won their demands according to this insider blog.

But re the resolution on Thursday, what was it exactly and what was it that Dr Hirsh opposed?

Yiddishers against zionism?

Many thanks to J.Otto Pohl for picking up on a significant fact about the Hampshire College divestment from the Israeli economy. Here's his post:

Hampshire College in Amherst has now become the first US institution of higher education to divest from Israel. The school is famous for a couple of reasons, but one of them is that it hosts the National Yiddish Book Center. The conflict between certain elements of the Jewish Diaspora and Zionism is not new. But, the presence of such a symbolic institution of the cultural history of the Jewish Diaspora at Hampshire certainly highlights this conflict. In the larger scheme of things it looks like the movement for Palestinian human rights is finally starting to get some support in the US.

It certainly does....

Free Mohammad Abu Humus

AIC staff member Mohammad Abu Humus was taken from his home at 3am today by masked members of the Israeli security forces, who stormed and searched his home with drawn weapons. Abu Humus was subsequently brought before a judge, who acquiesced to the police request and extended his detention for 11 days. All of the material and evidence concerning Abu Humus is classified. Abu Humus is accused of involvement in unruly protests against Israeli military actions in Gaza, which he categorically denies, and the classified nature of the evidence for such a minor accusation calls into question the true motives of the Israeli authorities in the detention and interrogation of Abu Humus.

Abu Humus, 43 years old and a resident of the East Jerusalem village of Issawiya, is a long-time political and social activist in East Jerusalem. He is married to Wafa and has four small children, two daughters: Irfat (11) and Shahd (10) and two sons: Anas (8) and Majd (3). He has worked with the AIC since 2006

Attending the court hearing today were Abu Humus’ wife Wafa, members of the Alternative Information Center and additional residents of Issawiya, who came in support and solidarity with Abu Humus.

Wafa noted that “our children were terrified by the masked men with drawn weapons. I asked them how they expect us to live with them in love and respect, when they act like this? They don’t leave us any room for love,” added Wafa sadly.

The detention of Abu Humus is part of Israel’s wider campaign to repress the legitimate right of Palestinian residents and citizens of Israel to protest Israeli actions in Gaza and exercise their right to freedom of expression. Since the beginning of Israel’s military attacks on Gaza, more than 300 Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem have been detained, arrested and taken for interrogation by the Israeli security services. For the past several days, Israeli forces have entered Issawiya every night, detaining prominent political activists.

The Alternative Information Center requests that you:

1, Contact the Israeli Attorney General, Mani Mazuz, in addition to the nearest Israeli embassy or consulate, and demand that the right of all citizens and residents of Israel to express their opinions and opposition to Israeli policy be respected, including that of Mohammad Abu Humus, in accordance with international human rights law. Attorney General Mazuz: Fax: +972 (0)2 646 7001; find your nearest Israeli embassy or consulate: http://www.science.co.il/Embassy.asp.

2. Send a message of solidarity to Mohammad Abu Humus: freeabuhumus@gmail.com

"Ugly racism" in Israel

That would be as opposed to the beautiful racism without which the State of Israel wouldn't exist. Cop this from Ynet:

Ugly racism in Ashkelon: R., a real estate agent from Ashkelon, arrived at a building in one of the southern city's neighborhoods recently with a couple of new immigrants, and was shocked to discover that the place has a policy of not selling apartments to Ethiopians.

A thorough investigation revealed that this policy is shared by all of the building's tenants, and perhaps the residents of additional buildings in the area as well – most of them of Russian descent. In a conversation the real estate agent had with A., the owner of one of the building's apartments, A. asked about the potential buyers. When he heard that they were Ethiopian immigrants, he replied, "Out of the question… This is unacceptable in my apartment.

"Excuse me, but there are no Ethiopians in this area at all, and there won't be any. This is our policy. I have no problem with them living somewhere else… Anyone can come, but not Ethiopians. This is how it is in the entire building, at least I hope it is, in order to preserve the apartment's value and the building's value."

In another conversation, A. repeated his stance, adding, "We’ve kept this rule of not selling to Ethiopians for 16 years. I can't speak for the entire house, but this is how I feel… It immediately drops the apartment's value… Although I'll be leaving the building, their apartments drop 30% in value… I'm no expert in the details, but the price goes down if Ethiopians come.

"I don’t care who lives here, I'm not racist. But when I leave the building where I have lived for the past 16 years, the rest of the tenants will look at me as a traitor because I sold to Ethiopians. I don’t want to ruin my relations with my friends."

A. went on to explain, "It just happened that there are no Ethiopians in the houses around us. A quarter of the apartments have been sold in our building. There are no Ethiopians at all, and almost everyone is Russian.... It's not a written rule, but there is such a decision that it drops the apartment's value.

"This isn't a racist issue, this is reality, which proves that it drops the apartments' prices. Why? That question should be directed to those who don’t want to pay. It's not my call, it's the fact on the ground. People call me at the apartment and they almost always ask, 'Do you have Ethiopians in the building?' It matters to some people, that's all."

It reminds me of a joke I was told about Rehavam Ze'evi. He was the founder of Moledet, the party that had "transfer" ie the expulsion of all of the Palestinians, as its main policy. Well the joke says that when he died the education department issued a directive to Jewish school teachers to teach the children the "legacy of Ze'evi" in a positive way. So one day a teacher told her children how there was this great Israeli politician, they nicknamed him Gandhi, who had this idea of getting rid of all of the Arabs from "Israel". Well, this kid, he says, "Miss, that's great! Getting rid of all the Arabs. That's great. When can we do that to the Ethiopians?" The teacher said "don't be so racist in my class!"

BDS in Hampshire, USA

Yup, that's USA, not UK. From the International Middle East Media Centre:

Hampshire College in Amherst, MA, has become the first of any college or university in the U.S. to divest from companies on the grounds of their involvement in the Israeli occupation of Palestine. This landmark move is a direct result of a two-year intensive campaign by the campus group, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). The group pressured Hampshire College's Board of Trustees to divest from six specific companies due to human rights concerns in occupied Palestine. Over 800 students, professors, and alumni have signed SJP's "institutional statement" calling for the divestment.

Hampshire College Campus (Photo: www.hampshire.edu)

The proposal put forth by SJP was approved on Saturday, 7 Feb 2009 by the Board. By divesting from these companies, SJP believes that Hampshire has distanced itself from complicity in the illegal occupation and war crimes of Israel. Meeting minutes from a committee of Hampshire's Board of Trustees confirm that "President Hexter acknowledged that it was the good work of SJP that brought this issue to the attention of the committee." This groundbreaking decision follows in Hampshire's history of being the first college in the country to divest from apartheid South Africa thirty-two years ago, a decision based on similar human rights concerns. This divestment was also a direct result of student pressure.

Apparently plagiarist, fraud and zionist bully boy, Alan Dershowitz, is on the case already. This is from the Students for Justice in Palestine.

Allen Dershowitz has just called SJP [Students for Justice in Palestine] members and has threatened to start an international campaign to divest from Hampshire College.

Don't go away. I'll update you as to the fund-raising efforts.

Hip Hop Hasbara

Many thanks to Utpal in the comments for drawing my attention to what I hope is a wonderful piece of satire:




From youtube

The Israeli Left: the illusion of an illusion

The preliminary results of the elections in Israel are in. A few surprises in a generally familiar landscape.

Israel Beiteinu, the ultra racist Russian party, won an important victory. It is now the third largest party in Israel, after Kadima and Likud. The victory is however not as large as the original polls suggested.

The routing of the "Left" was impressive. Meretz, augmented with the new celebrity list (Amos Oz, Avraham Burg, etc.) got trounced to 3 seats, barely qualifying. Labor was not helped by the massacres in Gaza. It also fell to its nadir so far, 13 seats.

Kadima rose steadily in the polls and ended as the largest party in Israel, one seat ahead of Likud. The rise of Kadima was mostly at the expense of the "left." It come out way ahead in the "left" strongholds, polling 34% in Tel Aviv, and reaching parity with Labor in the kibutzim.

As usual in such cases, there are contingent explanation. Voters voted for Livni because of her personality and as a way to block Netanyahu. That was Livni's campaign's line in the last days, urging people to vote Kadima to defend the country from Bibi and Lieberman.

The more structural argument is that Kadima is fast becoming the party that best expresses the interests and politics of secular Israelis. Kadima is unabashedly neo-liberal. It officially supports legalized apartheid (a.k.a. the two states solution), mostly because it is sensitive to the importance of Western support and has leaders that can "sell" Israel to the West. But Kadima has no inhibitions about mass murder and will not give Palestinians one cent, not to mention one inch, more than international pressure will demand.

Labor and especially Meretz are addressing a secular Israeli sector that is ever more an illusion. They appeal to people who want apartheid but are embarrassed by it and therefore enjoy waxing poetic about "peace". They appeal to voters who believe caring about "human rights" is the right thing to do, and yet are vaguely aware, and aware of the importance of not being aware, that too much "human rights" can harm their material interests as the prime beneficiaries of the current order. And finally, they appeal to people who enjoy economic success but feel uneasy about it, people for whom poverty still seems like a failure of society. Meretz and to a lesser extent Labor are parties for white Israelis with a guilty conscience, on the lookout for disadvantage groups that can reflect back to them their sense of goodness, Palestinians who would say thank you for their "peace advocacy" and poor Jews who would appreciate their enlightened social concerns. Their actual policies are muddled and patronizing. Having helped dismantling the welfare state, they now inveigh about the money that goes to the settlements "instead of" welfare. They demand more "social" expenditures, but lined up behind the neo-liberal mayor of Tel-Aviv when he was challenged, and almost defeated, by a joint Palestinian-Jewish list under Hadash. They are against war in principle, but always ready to defend the necessity of every war that Israel launches. They believe in principle in Palestinian rights (as long as Palestinians don't ask too much), but would have nothing to do with Palestinians struggling for their rights. These are the parties for Israelis who are "shooting and crying."

But most secular Israelis are no longer shooting and crying. They are making money and laughing. They are not shooting, because others are increasingly shooting for them. And they are not crying either. A full generation of living under neo-liberalism made the life of the not-rich-and-not-famous disappear from their laptop screens, and a generation of separation and vicious but effective propaganda made Gaza almost as real to them as little green men from Mars. The fact that Kadima is lead by a woman is for many social progress enough. She smashed Gaza and the Glass Ceiling in one single stroke.

And that is why they voted Kadima. It might seem surreal to outsiders, but Israeli media is beginning to describe Kadima as the Israeli "Left." Within the confines of Israel's corrupt language, this is sort of accurate. Kadima, led by mostly former Likud members, is now the political home of most secular Israelis.

The other outcome of the elections is that the success of Lieberman is stressing the Right. The Right is only united by hatred towards Palestinian and resentment often bordering on hatred towards secular Israelis. Internally, it is made of three or four parts, Mizrahis and religious settlers, Russians and Ultra Orthodox. This kind of unity depends on a sense of embattlement. Victory stresses it. The Russians, being secular, are at odd with the other groups about the political role of religion. That makes them potentially co-optable by Kadima. Even if, as is most likely, Lieberman stays with Likud, it might have a rocky relationship with the religious parties.

In the Palestinian sector, a few surprises as well. Contrary to expectations, the participation level dropped by only 2-3%. The number of Palestinians voting for Zionist parties dropped however from 28% to 18%, leading to a 10% (1 seat) increase in the non-Zionist representation in the Knesset.

Bibi is most likely to be Israel's next Prime Minister. The question is whether Kadima is part of the coalition. Despite the obvious difficulties, I bet on it. Kadima is ultra light on the vision thing. Its politicians are not fit for life outside of the corridors of power. Labor and Meretz are almost certainly going to stay in opposition. That is too bad. They ought to disestablish themselves. They used to represent the illusion of peace and the illusion of socialism. Now they represent the illusion that these illusions still have buyers.

Now Edinburgh is occupied

Edinburgh has fallen to the occupation forces of the student Palestine solidarity movement.

On the morning of Wednesday 11th February Edinburgh University students occupied the George Square Lecture Theatre.

We have acted against the university because of its financial and commercial links to the apartheid state of Israel, in addition to its unacceptable silence in response to the Gaza conflict, described by the UN President of the General Assemby, Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, as “genocide”. We will sit-in until the heads of the university agree to the following demands…

Broadly, we demand that our university demonstrate what should be its inherent opposition, as an educational institution, to Israel’s illegal and shameful behaviours.

Specifically, to ensure the university publicly manifests its position, we demand…

1. BOYCOTT – That the university immediately suspend all contracts and relations with companies enabling the conflict and/or occupation, including Eden Springs. This demand is contingent on access to information to establish which other companies are implicated.
   

2. DIVESTMENT – That the university divest from and cut all links – specifically on-campus recruitment – with BAE Systems, QinetiQ and all other “arms and defence” manufacturers whose products are proven to be in use by the Israeli military.
   

3. SCHOLARSHIPS – That the university make full scholarships available to at least 5 students in Gaza, allowing them to attend Edinburgh University. This is a response to the destruction of their universities by the Israeli military, and to other barriers, physical and psychological, which restrict their right to education.
   

4. AID – That the university collect and make available non-monetary donations to war-damaged Gazan schools and hospitals, including but not limited to text-books, chairs, computers.
   

5. EDUCATION – That logistical and financial support are provided for a series of informative lectures and debates at Edinburgh, involving university staff and guest speakers, on the Palestine/Israel question during the academic year 2009/10.
   

6. STUDENT SIT-IN – Lastly, we demand that no legal, financial or academic measures be taken against those participating in, or supporting, a peaceful sit-in to ensure our calls are answered.
   

There will be rallies and other activities throughout the sit-in, both inside and outside the building. We will endeavour to hold talks and debates, show documentaries and create solidarity artwork. We aim to create an open space, allowing for the constructive and creative spread of awareness on the Gaza conflict and continued oppression of Palestinians throughout the Occupied Territories. Come and see for yourselves!

In solidarity,

The occupying students of Edinburgh University

Here's their blog.

Azmi Bishara

I've seen a terrible thing in the Guardian. Azmi Bishara was a Palestinian member of the Israeli parliament but had to flee because of trumped up charges that he had aided Hizbullah. Well among the many zionist pieces in the Guardian's Comment is free there was one making out that Azmi Bishara fled because he was guilty of something rather than that he was being framed and threatened with life imprisonment or even death. The piece is by Jonathan Spyer:

The Lieberman phenomenon is far more complex. He has managed to tap into a considerable anger among many Israeli Jews at the growth of Islamism and nationalist radicalism among Israel's 20% Arab majority. This process is best exemplified by the flight from the country of Balad party leader Azmi Bishara, under suspicion that he aided Hezbollah in the 2006 war. Lieberman spotted that this issue was regarded as too controversial by the mainstream parties, and focused on it.

The controversy seems to be over the fact that the details of any charge against Bishara range from secret to ludicrous. Or they might now not be secret, just ludicrous.

Here's Bishara's own take on the whole business in the LA Times.

During my years in the Knesset, the attorney general indicted me for voicing my political opinions (the charges were dropped), lobbied to have my parliamentary immunity revoked and sought unsuccessfully to disqualify my political party from participating in elections — all because I believe Israel should be a state for all its citizens and because I have spoken out against Israeli military occupation. Last year, Cabinet member Avigdor Lieberman — an immigrant from Moldova — declared that Palestinian citizens of Israel "have no place here," that we should "take our bundles and get lost." After I met with a leader of the Palestinian Authority from Hamas, Lieberman called for my execution.

The Israeli authorities are trying to intimidate not just me but all Palestinian citizens of Israel. But we will not be intimidated. We will not bow to permanent servitude in the land of our ancestors or to being severed from our natural connections to the Arab world. Our community leaders joined together recently to issue a blueprint for a state free of ethnic and religious discrimination in all spheres. If we turn back from our path to freedom now, we will consign future generations to the discrimination we have faced for six decades.

I wrote to the Cif editor to point out that whilst the Guardian has always been happy to post articles by the justifiers of Israel's ethnic cleansing in the past, I think this must be the first time they've hosted an apologetic for ethnic cleansing in the future.