Blair speaks up for Ehud Olmert, the "former Labor leader"

I'm worried about this.  The Jerusalem Post has reported that Tony Blair has written to the court dealing with Ehud Olmert's sentencing for corruption.  According to the Post' report Blair,

pleaded for the former Labor leader not to serve any jail time.

I'm not aware Olmert was a Labour leader of any kind.  Have I misread?  Did they mean that Blair pleaded for himself not to serve any jail time? Or maybe they mean Kadima.  Or maybe they mean that Israel's Laborites have been led by Likud for some decades now.  Or maybe when he led Kadima he was technically Labour's leader.  But then if it's all down to technicality, does Israel even have a party called Labour or Labor?

UPDATE: Round about 11:50 am  I noticed the reference to "the former Labor leader" had been removed.  I searched for a cache version but they seem to have been faffing around with the article so much google cache couldn't keep up.  Anyway now they've overhauled the article completely.  The curious thing is that the page seems to have gone through at least three changes since I first posted at 9:40 and yet there is no mention of any update and the date and time say 5/5/2015 10:07.  Funny people.

WaPo toon upsets loons

Here's the Washington Post cartoon:

And here are the unhappy loons as reported by Jerusalem Post

UCU Tribunal: Zionists try three approaches - All bogus

Well I'm sure that there'll be more zionist takes on the Fraser v UCU Employment Tribunal disaster that befell them but three approaches seem to have emerged since publication of the damning report.

First out of the traps, I believe, was David Hirsh on Facebook, claiming that the Tribunal itself was antisemitic.  Looking at the comments on that page and on his more recent Engage piece, that argument does have some traction among zionists.  Lesley Klaff, apparently a leading "lawfare" advocate, also claims the Tribunal was antisemitic.

I have already posted on Sarah Annes Brown's attempt to pass the disaster off as some kind of technical issue.  She's also recently tried to make out that the Tribunal "judged [Palestine solidarity activists]  unfit to recognise racism".  I'm not sure if she was joking or lying but it is always hard to tell with her.

Paul Usiskin of some zionist "left" group in the UK posted another "we wuz robbed" piece in The Daily Beast's Open Zion slot.  Some wag on twitter calls Open Zion, Openly Zionist.  If you read Paul Usiskin's piece you'll see why.

But now there has been another entrant into the contest.  David Newman, writing in the Jerusalem Post, didn't even mention the technicalities involved.  I've seen his stuff before and he does seem to value his integrity more highly than your average zionist.  He does flirt with the idea of the UCU being antisemitic:

But equally, not every case of anti-Israel sentiment can be attributed to anti-semitism, and we have to be very careful not to throw the anti-semitism argument back in the face of every organization and every individual who are critical of Israeli government policy. When we do so, we cheapen anti-semitism and make it all the more difficult to garner support for the fight against real, hard core, anti-semitism when it occurs – and occur it does, all too often – even at universities.

The forthcoming 4th International Conference of the Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism, to be held in Jerusalem at the end of May and jointly organized by the Ministries for Public Diplomacy and for Diaspora Affairs, along with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has a chance to seriously examine this topic. However, based on past conferences and looking at the all too familiar line up of professional anti-semitism fighters, this conference will not offer any significant new insights. The conference will be used, yet again, as an excuse for crying on each others' shoulder, and bashing the entire world for being anti-semitic. There will be no attempt to differentiate between legitimate criticism of Israel (even amongst its friends) and anti-semitism, and it will provide little in the way of any serious introspection as to how the world should be dealing with the issue of anti-semitism, beyond the context of criticism of Israel.

So what was wrong with the Tribunal?

There is one sentence in the ruling which raises serious questions concerning the intelligence or understanding of the tribunal members. They write: "a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel cannot amount to a protected characteristic. It is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness..." (para 150). The use of the term "Zionist project" is highly prejudiced from the outset. It is a term which is used by those who are highly critical of Zionism as an ideology of national liberation. It is a value loaded term which would indicate the political positions of those who use it. Equally, the idea that some form of Zionist attachment – be it of the far left pro-peace camp, or the right wing pro-settlement proponents, be it a secular Zionism or one deeply rooted in religion - is not an intrinsic part of Jewish identity and behavior for well over 95 percent of the global Jewish population, would indicate a prior prejudice, or simple ignorance, on their part.

So there's the third tack.  Failing to take into account that, according to the writer, most Jews support a state based on colonial settlement, ethnic cleansing and segregationist laws and that therefore, zionism should be considered an intrinsic aspect of the Jewish identity, indeed, under UK and other law, a "protected characteristic".  So we end where we began.  If zionism is taken to be intrinsic to the Jewish identity, then opposition to zionism could be judged to be precisely the same thing as antisemitism.

It's this third approach that is the most insidious and dangerous. It ties in with the so-called EUMC working definition of antisemitism and I suspect it is the reason that no one has so far mentioned this case in the mainstream media.  And none of the zionist big guns have said anything about it.  Even Anthony Julius has gone to ground.  I suspect that gradually hasbara journalists will mention, as if in passing, the failure of British justice in this case, maybe whilst dealing with a genuine case of harassment or of antisemitism or of some other form of racism.  But if zionists are going to mis-define antisemitism they will have to mis-define Jews.  That would be damaging for a time to both Jews and to Palestinians and their supporters.

This time we went too far

Who went too far? The Jerusalem Post. that's who. I reported on their disgusting editorial effectively blaming multiculturalism for the Norway killings and how a postscript to the piece tried to disclaim what the editorial was actually saying. Well apparently the disclaimer wasn't enough and now the Jerusalem Post has an editorial entirely devoted to apologising for the earlier editorial together with a couple of opinion pieces by two of their dodgy journos:

We hope that the Norwegian government and people will accept the 'Post’s apology and forgive us for any offense or hurt caused at this sensitive time.

Of course they only meant to offend foreigners living in Norway, not Norway's liberal establishment.

What do Breivik, CounterPunch, David Duke, Stormfront and the Jerusalem Post have in common?

Damn, no Atzmon on the list.  I saw Duke and read Atzmon.  Silly me or am I?  It seems like only yesterday that  neo-nazi David Duke was distributing his Letter to the Courageous Former Israeli Gilad Atzmon.

I ought to say that it is seriously not nice to try to make political capital over the slaughter that took place in Norway just recently though if there are political lessons to be learned then they should be and there are many outpourings on the web and in the mainstream media that are trying to glean lessons from the Norway killings that go beyond mere security issues.  There are also anecdotes arising out of the commentary and I suppose this post just draws on and adds to those.

So, I got the title for this post from a comment under the Louis Proyect blog, The Unrepentant Marxist post headed, "What do Alexander Cockburn and the Norwegian mass murderer have in common?" For openers:

The short answer to that is an affinity for the writings of paleoconservative William S. Lind. If you do a search on “by William S. Lind” on the Counterpunch website, you will come up with 16,500 hits. It should be understood that many of these hits refer to the same article, but clearly we are dealing with someone who was at one point as much of a presence there as fellow paleoconservative Counterpuncher Paul Craig Roberts is today.

Last October Alexander Cockburn defended this orientation to the right in an article that referred to me as an “old Trotskyist lag” in light of my unaccountable inability to appreciate the Tea Party:

Contrary to a thousand contemptuous diatribes by the left, the Tea Party is a genuine political movement, channeling the fury and frustration of a huge slab of white Americans running small businesses – what used to be called the petit-bourgeoisie…

It could be Hilary Clinton campaigning against Obama.

As the thread develops through Cockburn's (and therefore Counterpunch's) flirtations and affairs, the Jerusalem Post's availing of the opportunity provided by the Norway killings to denounce multiculturalism to David Duke's similarities with the Jerusalem Post, a commentator put the following point:

So, it’s kinda boiling down to “what do Breivik, CounterPunch, David Duke, Stormfront and the Jerusalem Post have in common?”

So what's all that got to do with Atzmon. Well nothing really but very few have put a marker down on David Duke's letter to the courageous chap and I thought somebody ought to. Atzmon on line does a curious mix of bragging, hoaxing, sock-puppetry and smears and, of course, he is always welcome at Counterpunch. And now, Duke isn't just running articles by Atzmon, he is heaping praise on the man whilst setting out a racist position that he fears Atzmon may not have fully considered. Now given that Atzmon loves a bit of praise, I am surprised that he hasn't mentioned or responded to Duke's letter, not publicly anyway.

PS: Actually I think this shoah.org site is an Atzmon effort and it is happy to run Duke's letter so I'm guessing the great man is at least fairly pleased with it though even he has enough decency to be embarrassed by it. He shouldn't be embarrassed of course. He has no responsibility for who supports him and the shoah site links to Jews sans frontieres! Naturally I wish it wouldn't do that but it's not my responsibility. It might be my responsibility if I shared a worldview with the site owner or administrator but I don't.

Zionists and the Norway massacre

The first emails I got on the mass killings in Norway on the weekend were to do with how the first reports assumed an islamist attack. Next up came the reports on blogs (Liberal Conspiracy, Tony Greenstein's blog) that the killer, Anders Behring Breivik, claimed inspiration for his worldview from, among others, the likes of the UK's Melanie Phillips and Jeremy Clarkson. And now there's a Jerusalem Post editorial which comes so close to suggesting that the killings should be used to highlight "the abject failure of multiculturalism", the Editor-in-chief appears to have been panicked into issuing the following disclaimer:

 As a newspaper, The Jerusalem Post strongly denounces all acts of violence against innocent civilians. This editorial is not aimed at deflecting attention from the horrific massacre perpetuated in Norway, nor the need to take greater precautions against extremists from all sides.

So what was it saying?

In the Forward, JJ Goldberg has a very thoughtful piece on the schadenfreude being expressed in both Hebrew and English on the Israeli internet:

The Norway massacre has touched off a nasty war of words on the Israeli Internet over the meaning of the event and its implications for Israel. And I do mean nasty: Judging by the comments sections on the main Hebrew websites, the main questions under debate seem to be whether Norwegians deserve any sympathy from Israelis given the country’s pro-Palestinian policies, whether the killer deserves any sympathy given his self-declared intention of fighting Islamic extremism and, perhaps ironically, whether calling attention to this debate is in itself an anti-Israel or anti-Semitic act.

The comments largely prove the point being made in the article.