March 11, 2006

The power of protest or the power of zionism?

The leader comment in yesterday's Jewish Chronicle was a celebration of three recent zionist victories. The first, how a deliberate falsehood by the Chief Rabbi in the JC itself led to the Church of England pledging to continue to invest in Israeli war crimes. That is, they are continuing to invest in Caterpillar, the manufacturer of militarised bulldozers used to destroy Palestinian homes. The Chief Rabbi had accused the C of E of being asked by the Synod to "heed a call to divest from companies associated with Israel." It was actually one company associated with one of the more heinous aspects of the occupation. And the victory, based as it was on sheer dishonesty and very public too, is no cause for celebration by people of integrity. The C of E has a long standing policy of non-investment in military equipment so its continued investment in Caterpillar is in breach of its own policy, not on zionism or war criminality, but on militarism. Great victory Chief!

The second victory was to have Lord Rogers prostrate himself before the zionists of New York so that he could retain the commission to redesign a building named after a leading zionist. To watch this dog jump through hoops to appease the zionists has been as unedifying a spectacle as you could imagine. He has gone from facilitating the inauguration of Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine to denouncing their main aim of opposing the wall built (or being built) through occupied territory. And now Rogers can keep his buck (ouch!).

The third victory, though even the JC is smart enough to realised that this is a tainted one, is the suspension of Ken Livingstone from office. Far too much was made of a throwaway drunken insult by the Mayor for London in the first place. By the time Livingstone was suspended even Eric Moonman was balking at what the zionists had done. A commentor here said that there were 25 complaints to the Standards Board on this and that one had come from the Commission for Racial Equality. I asked for more info on this but none came. I am not sure that Oliver Finegold, Ken's victim actually complained and I haven't met one Jew who said they were offended by what Ken said even though most Jews I know don't particualrly like him. It does seem that it was Ken's long-running spats with zionism and zionists that did for him, insofaras it has done for him in this instance. After all, many commentators think that he will be returned to power the next time the electorate gets a chance.

So what does it all mean? The Chief Rabbi demonstrably lied about the C of E and won his "case". The Archbishop of Canterbury could have exposed him but opted not to. Now the C of E is breaching its own rules for the sake of zionism. And the zionists at the JC are proud of this.

Rogers keeps the big buck by shredding his integrity in public under pressure from zionists in New York and a big hurrah echoes from the JC. Whilst crying "uncle!" he managed to blurt out that Israel is a democracy and the Palestinian Authority is a trrorist state which doesn't quite tally with the fact that Israel and its friends are refusing to accept the result of democratic elections to the PA. He also praised the wall as having thwarted terrorist attacks on Israel whilst ignoring the role of the Israeli army and ignoring Hamas's ceasefire. So Rogers joins the long list of high profile liars for Israel. And the JC calls it a victory for protest.

And Ken, who expressed regret for any offence caused to the Jewish community and/or holocaust survivors is suspended on the say so of a Jewish communtiy organisation for refusing to apologise to an individual.

Here's the whole editorial:
The British Jewish community has traditionally favoured the don’t-make-waves approach when faced with a stern challenge, preferring a word in the ear of someone in authority to a full-scale demonstration on the streets of London. Three recent incidents have proved, however, the efficacy of a more determined stance. In this newspaper last month, the Chief Rabbi, Sir Jonathan Sacks, fiercely condemned the Church of England’s general synod’s resolution to re-open the issue of whether the Church should withdraw its investment in the Caterpillar company. Rabbi Sacks, in unusually strong language, warned of the resolution’s “most adverse repercussions” on Jewish-Christian relations. This week’s welcome decision by the Church of England’s Ethical Investment Advisory Group (EIAG) not to recommend divesting from Caterpillar shows that the Chief Rabbi was right to confront the issue head-on rather than rely on polite conversation over tea at Lambeth Palace. In announcing its decision, the EIAG recognised the contentiousness of the topic, something the synod had studiously ignored. The original vote was itself part of a disturbing trend to boycott either Israel directly, or firms that do business with it. While the Church’s clerics were discussing divestment, a group of British architects, under the Architects and Planners for Justice in Pal-estine banner, called for sanctions against architects and construction companies working in the territories. This group’s inaugural meeting was hosted by the eminent architect Lord Rogers, who has since learned that sanctions can be a double-edged sword. Lord Rogers is bidding for a prestigious New York project to redesign a convention centre in memory of Jacob Jav-its, a firm supporter of Israel and, for many years, the only Jewish Senator in Washington. Jewish groups in America are questioning Lord Rogers’s suitability to head the project. Lord Rogers has now felt the need to dissociate himself from the Ar-chitects and Planners for Justice in Palestine and issue a statement in support of Israel’s security fence. Again, a direct protest has achieved a positive result. The third example — that concerning the mayor of London — is less clear-cut, in view of the punishment handed out to him. Nevertheless, the initial offence was not allowed to pass and the Board of Deputies, in reporting the mayor to the Standards Board, showed that British Jews’ feelings cannot be ridden over roughshod.
So help war criminals where you can and don't insult journalists who happen to be Jewish, lest you offend a whole community and wind up feeling the "power of protest."

0 comments:

Post a Comment