The Video the Board of Deputies, Momentum's Jon Lansman & Politics Home tried to ban

Sheesh, I thought this video was lost and gone forever.   I first heard about it via this piece in Politics Home.  Here look:

A controversial video criticised as a “slap in the face” by Jewish campaign group is still posted on Jeremy Corbyn’s official Facebook page, PoliticsHome can reveal.

The film, made by Mr Corbyn’s campaign team, features his supporters responding to a number of accusations often levelled at the Labour leader’s backers.

One of the questions is ‘Do you promote anti-Semitism?’ – in reference to a string of suspensions and expulsions over the last year.

One of the participants in the video throws away a piece of paper with the question written on it and says “so that’s gone as well”.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews spoke to veteran left-winger Jon Lansman, Mr Corbyn's campaign director, who apparently agreed to withdraw the video.

It has since been taken down from YouTube and the main page of Mr Corbyn’s Facebook account, but it is still available to view on the ‘videos’ section of his page.

“The dismissive video was a ‘slap in the face’ for the Jewish community,” said Board of Deputies chief executive Gillian Merron in a statement released last night.

“Having spoken directly to campaign director Jon Lansman, the Jeremy for Labour campaign now recognises the inappropriate message conveyed and has committed to remove the video and apologise. This is the right result.

Now, after a couple more paragraphs Politics Home hosted the video that the Board of Deputies had complained about and Jon Lansman had apologised for but now look:

I think we can guess that under the capitulationist advice of Jon Lansman, Jeremy Corbyn's Facebook probably zapped the video too.  I asked one of the participants if they retained a copy but they hadn't. I was getting frantic.  Even when Politics Home hosted the video it couldn't be downloaded.   But when you see the video you will see that there was nothing in it to complain about or to apologise for which I am guessing is why Politics Home removed it.  And now thanks to Jamie Stern-Weiner who found it on YouTube here it is:

So just like the whole of the antisemitism smear campaign against leftists and Palestine solidarity supporters this is yet another case of "nothing to see here", which in the case of Politics Home and probably Corbyn's Facebook page is now literally true.

PS: I've just seen that Harry's Place has missed the point of the removal of the video and hosted it on their racist site.  It was actually HP's David Toube (he calls himself Habibi) who uploaded it to YouTube but rather smartly disabled the comments.

The non-story of the refusal to insure a Belgian Jewish Kindergarten

A week ago a Ha'aretz tweet linking a story about an insurance company's refusal to insure a Belgian Jewish kindergarten got 39 retweets and was independently tweeted many times over April 1 & 2.

Firm cancels Belgian Jewish kindergarten’s insurance due to 'high risk' of anti-Semitic… http://t.co/NCPhIEjr8u pic.twitter.com/V2CGobXQxW
— Haaretz.com (@haaretzcom) April 1, 2015

Here's the headline and subtitle:

               Firm cancels Belgian Jewish kindergarten’s insurance due to 'high risk' of anti-Semitic attack

'It's an absolute disgrace that the situation has come to this,' says Rabbi Menachem Margolin, director of the European Jewish Association and of the Rabbinical Center of Europe. 

The article mostly centres on statements from the above-mentioned Rabbi Menachem Margolin such as:

First, not enough is being done to secure Jewish institutions in Europe despite the repeated requests and numerous warnings – and consequently insurance companies are using the situation to avoid the risk of insuring Jewish kindergartens. What a surreal and cynical reality.

Well now, Ha'aretz has done a follow up tweet:

No proof Belgian insurer discriminated against Jewish school, watchdog says http://t.co/GyHvTwnb02 pic.twitter.com/OcEpt6lsSr
— Haaretz.com (@haaretzcom) April 7, 2015

Now see the headline and subtitle:

               No proof Belgian insurer discriminated against Jewish school, watchdog says

Statement by Belgian League Against Anti-Semitism follows reports that an unnamed firm declined to insure a Jewish kindergarten citing an elevated risk of attacks. 

Now let's have a taste of the article:

There is no proof that a Belgian insurance company refused to insure a Jewish kindergarten because it was deemed too risky, a Brussels-based watchdog on anti-Semitism said.

The statement by the Belgian League Against Anti-Semitism, or LBCA, follows reports last week that an unnamed firm declined to insure a Jewish kindergarten in Brussels, citing an elevated risk factor due to previous attacks on Jewish targets in Belgium and Western Europe.

Joel Rubinfeld, a co-founder of the national watchdog, told the La Capitale daily that after looking into the matter, “There was no proof confirming a discriminatory character with regards to a refusal.”

The news about the alleged refusal came from the European Jewish Association, a lobby group that operates the kindergarten in question. The association and the Israel-based Tal Rabina public relations office alerted media to the matter without naming the insurance company in question.

The association’s director, Menachem Margolin, and Tal Rabina’s office did not reply to JTA queries asking them to identify the insurance company to obtain their reaction.

I see.  The insurance company was unnamed and the whistle-blowers were a "lobby group" and an "Israel-based PR office who "did not reply to ...queries".

To paraphrase the Rabbi Menachem Margolin there might be a surreal and cynical reality at play here.

Oh by the way.  Ha'aretz's tweet that the first story might be bogus only got 9 retweets.

Zionists Demonstrate against the No Antisemitism

I just read a write up in Jewish News of the Zionist demo today at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand in central London.  I did a word search to see if I could see anyone using the expression "New Antisemitism" and the word "New" didn't appear anywhere.  But let's take a look at the piece:

An estimated 4,500 people rallied outside the Royal Courts of Justice this afternoon to demand zero tolerance to anti-Semitism, writes Justin Cohen.

Now let's have a look at the picture accompanying the piece:

Now does that look like 4,500 to you?  I don't know but I reckon there are no more than 100 in the picture plus, the Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, so let's say 101 to be kind.

A friend of mine emailed to say that the BBC had said they numbered in the hundreds but that's still not the claimed 4,500.

Oh look, I found another pic:

I might have to up my estimate to 150.  Remember these people weren't marching, they were rallying in front of this building here:

And what's all this about the No Antisemitism?  See what Douglas Murray - yes that Douglas Murray - had to say:

“Don’t wait weeks and weeks and then for people to have to take the initiative with things like this,” he said. “Expect more, demand more from the people who say they speak in your name.”

Murray also urged community members to write to MPs and “help stop the lies”. If people don’t speak out when Israel is accused of genocide or of committing war crimes, he warned, “you help to feed the lies”.

 Accusing Israel of genocide or of committing war crimes is stating facts, how can that be antisemitism, old or new?  That's it, there was a demonstration today by Zionists against the No Antisemitism and let's face it, if they do ever find such a thing, on past performance they'll ignore it or collude with it.  They won't try leading a merry dance outside courts on a day when they're closed.

Will Obama surrender Israeli spy? Maybe. Will Obama surrender to Israeli PM? Definitely

I'm really running out of words for the ludicrous nature of this so-called peace process supposedly between Israel and the Palestinians.  From the get-go Israel was allowed to hand pick it's negotiating partners and they opted to talk peace with people who they are not even at war with.  It's like Hitler talking peace with the Vichy regime.  Now they're negotiating as if they want peace with the USA and the USA is responding in kind.

You will have read that the release of this Israeli spy, or rather American spy for Israel, is now hovering above the table.  Apparently America might release this guy in return for Israel not making Obama look the complete ass it usually makes him look like in these situations.  Check out Daily Beast on it but I think the deal is if Obama releases Pollard Israel won't announce its new settlements so loudly.  Something like that.

But really, if the talks were between two opponents in a war then the concessions should be made by the parties to that war or the party that has anything to concede.  From Lavon through Liberty to Pollard, Israel often acts like it's at war with its biggest benefactor but what does America really get for this humiliating concession to Israel? if, of course, the concession is made...

Caption Competition

See if you can put a face to this hostage to fortune of a caption:

“Removing privilege is not the same as discrimination.”

To which should have been added, retaining privilege is the same as discrimination.

If you know who said it you'll know why they didn't add the bit I added but give it a go.  Or even give it a google.

Will Self on what should never happen to an Englishman

Here's a bizarre piece by Will Self in yesterday's Daily Mail.  It's about being stopped by the police in the UK countryside because he had been reported as a suspected paedophile whilst on a walk with his 11 year old son.

The bizarre thing is the way he writes the piece and the things he chooses to emphasise.  Having said that, any emphases are added by me.  In the Daily Mail everything is said so emphatically they never need to add emphases.

See this:

No 11-year-old child should have to see his parent treated like a criminal for no reason whatsoever. And no Englishman enjoying a ramble with his son should face examination by police at the roadside on suspicion of being a sexual predator.

No Englishman?  What about non-Englishmen?  Or what about any women? Of course Will Self wouldn't think any of those would be ok but why then did he mention the Englishman thing at all?  I'm guessing it was for his Daily Mail readership.

Any more?

From the quintessence of a blamelessly British pursuit to an invitation to step inside a squad car, complete with WPC specially selected in case my boy had to be taken into protective custody, all following a ‘tip-off’ from a high-vis jacketed private security guard; can there be a more disturbing parable of the Britain we have become?

Has whatever it is that happened to him really been made worse by the fact that what he was actually doing was quintessentially British?

And when was the last time you heard a police officer who happened to be a woman referred to as a WPC (ie Woman Police Constable)?  I just did a google search for WPC.  I eventually found it on Wikipedia tucked away on an alphabetically ordered list.  Following the link I found that:

The prefix "Woman" in front of female officers' ranks has been obsolete since 1999.

As it happens what happened to Will Self wasn't very nice.  He was effectively accused of being a paedophile in front of his son and there was a woman police officer there to take the child into custody.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the fact that Self has used the Daily Mail for what was a personal beef with the officious high-vis clad official who got the police onto him but even if he did have a point -

You may, quite reasonably, think I’m getting too hot and bothered about this – but I don’t think so. In two full weeks of walking through the beautiful English countryside, experiencing the joy of its nature and the goodwill of its inhabitants, this episode remains an ugly blot.

The time was that you could live your whole life in Britain having no more contact with the government than buying a stamp at the local post office.

did he really have to lapse into full blown Daily Mail mode to vent it:?  Or was it edited in Daily Mail mode?  I'd like to think it's the latter because I like a good Will Self piece.

Hirsh on Hitler

I noticed a bizarre post on Engage recently which was a write up of a speech Engage's Dr David Hirsh gave to 6th formers at the Jews' Free School.  The talk was titled The Left and Israel and the stand out bit was this:

The Nazis are usually thought of as right wing.  But in some ways, they were also similar to the left.  They were radical, they wanted profound change.  They didn't like nationalism, they had a global programme for changing the whole world.  They were hostile to British and American imperialism and democracy.  They put their big political ambitions before the ‘pursuit of happiness’.  Hitler claimed to be the universalist and he said it was the Jews who wrecked society for everybody by following only  their own selfish interests.

I missed a trick here and thought this simply compared to Hirsh's likening of Joseph Massad to David Duke but Discredited Andrew in the Hasbara Four-Step post noticed something worse:

This is nuttier and more disturbing though, he's actually partially rehabilitating Nazism in order to make the comparison. There should be a special reward for going that bit further and saying something unnecessarily mad. Bad hasbara awards 2013?

I suppose to try to determine what Hirsh actually means by "nationalism", as in "The Nazis.....didn't like nationalism", would be an exercise in futility.  He claims himself to not be a zionist but I'm not aware of his ever offering a definition of zionism beyond "Israeli nationalism".

The Return of Moose Hall - Low on Politics, High on Life or er something

He's too modest is Mooser.   He had a blog some years ago which he abandoned for reasons known only to himself and his lawyer.  Well he's straightened out his legal issues, mostly, and he's back.  For a frequenter of and commenter at various political blogs there's not much politics going on at Moose Hall but he's been a good comrade and friend to Jews sans frontieres over the years and he gave us a nice little plug in his the first post on the resurrected Moose Hall:

Moosehall is Open!!!!

As anyone can plainly see, I am in the throes of another episode of scribenzi furiouso and have decided to re-open Moosehall.
It's probably the worst decision I have the capacity make at this time, which should be at least some reassurance to anybody who knows me.
Allow me to introduce myself (That voice! Where have I heard that voice?): I am Derbig Mooser.  And I might, nay, I will, add: none bigger around here!

Now, let us review the story of the first reincarnation  ("rein" is a light pink) of Moosehall, which took place as George Bush was about to invade Iraq:  Moosehall was bravely opened, and flew its freak flag high. I said many profound, insightful, intelligent and humorous things. Than I lost the password, than Blogger became part of Google. So I did the only sensible thing, and forgot all about it.  But that was 2003, and now it's 2013! What does that tell you?  That a kiss, is still a kiss? A sigh, still a sigh?  Well, podner, around here we think moonlight and love songs are never out of date!
And so Moosehall is officially open.  Let's upload.
Oh, wait, it's a blog, there's comment, I need a comment policy.  Ho-kay!  I can't do any better than adopt the one which has served  Mark Elf so well at his blog, the august and indispensable Jewes sans Frontieres  at which I am a barely-tolerated commenter:

No liars, time-wasters, or bigots!  Works for me. All right, start the presses!

That's a straight copy and paste so the eccentric spelling, typos and spelling mistakes are all Mooser's own.

Now, why did I say "He's too modest"?  That first post of the second incarnation was back in April and he's only just got round to telling us here.

Well, a belated welcome back, Mooser, but the belatedness is all your fault.

Four Step Hasbara - Fifth Anniversary

Well apologies to readers, especially those who said there should be a celebration on the fifth anniversary of the publication of Evildoer, Gabriel Ash's guide to the permanently vexed, How to make the case for Israel and win.  The publication date itself was 18th July 2008 - how time flies - so I missed the anniversary by a week.  Apologies again but here it is, again:

July 18, 2008

How to make the case for Israel and win

To the benefit of the many not-very-bright zionist wannabe apologists who read this blog assiduously, I decided to offer a clear and simple method of arguing the case for Israel. This clear and simple method has been distilled from a life spent listening to and reading Zionist propaganda. It is easy to follow and results are guaranteed or your money back.

So don't hesitate! Take advantage NOW of this revolutionary rhetorical system that will make YOU a great apologist for Israel in less time than it takes to shoot a Palestinian toddler in the eye.

Ready? 1..2..3..GO!

You need to understand just one principle:

The case for Israel is made of four propositions that should always be presented in the correct escalating order.

1. We rock
2. They suck
3. You suck
4. Everything sucks

That's it. Now you know everything that it took me a lifetime to learn. The rest is details; filling in the dotted lines.

You begin by saying how great Israel is. Israel want peace; Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East; the desert blooms; kibutz; Israelis invented antibiotics, the wheel, the E minor scale; thanks to the occupation Palestinians no longer live in caves; Israel liberates Arab women; Israel has the most moral army in the world, etc.

This will win over 50% of your listeners immediately. Don't worry about the factual content. This is about brand identity, not writing a PhD. Do you really think BP is 'beyond petroleum'?

Then you go into the second point: They suck. Here you talk about the legal system of Saudi Arabia, gay rights in Iran, slave trade in the Sudan, Mohammad Atta, the burqa, Palestinians dancing after 9/11, Arafat's facial hair, etc.

There is only one additional principle you need to understand here. It will separate you from the amateurs. You need to know your audience. If you've got a crowd already disposed to racist logic, go for it with everything you have. But if you get a liberal crowd, you need to sugar coat the racism a bit. Focus on women rights, human rights, religious tolerance, "clash of civilizations", terrorism, they teach their children to hate, etc. Deep down your audience WANTS to enjoy racism and feel superior. They just need the proper encouragement so they can keep their sophisticated self-image. Give them what they crave and they'll adore you! But be careful not to 'mix n match,' because it will cost you credibility.

When you're done, there will always be dead-enders insisting that abuse of gays in Iran does not justify ethnic cleansing in Palestine. Take a deep breath, and pull the doomsday weapon: You suck!

You're a Jew-hater, Arab-lover, anti-Semite, you're a pinko, a commie, a dreamer, a naive, a self-hater, you have issues, your mother worked for the Nazis, Prince Bandar buys you cookies, you forgot you were responsible for the holocaust, etc. The more the merrier. By the time you end this barrage, only a handful would be left standing. For mopping them up, you use the ultimate postmodern wisdom: Everything sucks.

War, genocide, racism, oppression are everywhere. From the Roma in Italy to the Native-Americans in the U.S., the weak are victimized. Why pick on Israel? It's the way of the world. Look! Right is only in question between equals in power; the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. Ethics, schmethics. Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Eat, drink! Carpe diem! The Palestinians would throw us into the sea if they could. Ha ha!

Trust me, that's as far as words can go. If you followed this method faithfully, you've done your work. You should leave the few who are still unconvinced to the forces of order.

Congratulations!
You are now ready to 
apologize for Israel like a pro.

Note that there was no update necessary for the hasbarules haven't changed a bit.

Bread and Roses

OECD collaborates with the occupation but don't tell anyone

I think that's the position. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is holding a tourism conference in Jerusalem which is bang out of order when you think about it because the international consensus is that Israel is illegally occupying Jerusalem and the OECD is an official international body. Well typically the Israelis have started bragging that the situating of the conference in occupied territory means the conferment of legitimacy which of course seems to be a correct interpretation. Well this has caused some embarrassment to the General Secretary of the OECD. Here's Ha'aretz:

Angel Gurria, Secretary-General of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), sent a harsh letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warning that due to comments made by Tourism Minister Stas Misezhnikov (Yisrael Beitenu), the decision to hold a tourism conference in Jerusalem could be hindered.

Misezhnikov said in an interview with Haaretz on Monday that although some countries have cancelled their participation in the OECD conference to be held in Jerusalem later this month, the fact that most countries have not cancelled their participation is a show of support for Israel's territorial claims in Jerusalem.

It's interesting that the OECD is so put out by this because by holding their conference in Jerusalem they are clearly poking even minimalist Palestinian aspirations in the eye but the OECD still wants to play ball with Israel:

Gurria wrote in the letter that he demanded clarifications regarding Misezhnikov's comments and claimed that the OECD had made it known to Israel that their decision to hold the conference in Jerusalem was not meant to have political implications.

The Secretary-General protested the fact that Misezhnikov had linked the conference to political issues and said that the incident could hinder the planning of future conferences in Israel.

Now I don't know how often these conferences take place but with 30 members why do they have to be considering now whether or not to hold future conferences in Jerusalem? It would appear that the spectre of not holding future conferences in Jerusalem is a gambit to go ahead and support Israel's claim on Jerusalem whilst appearing to take action against it. Unless Israel digs in and embarrasses the OECD still further, the scheduled conference will take place in Jerusalem and the location of future conferences will be largely forgotten.

I hope I'm wrong of course and, according to the Ha'aretz article, the UK and Spain are actually boycotting the conference this time around specifically because it is being held in Jerusalem.

Whose violence begets violence?

According to this article in Ha'aretz, it is Israel's violence that begets Palestinian violence:

Famously, the Arabs don't need excuses to kill Jews. As everyone knows, only self-hating Jews believe there's a connection between the Israeli side's behavior in the occupied territories and violent acts by the Palestinian side. Right?

Not according to a recent article in the important Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a journal that comes out in Washington. Contrary to the received version that "Israel only reacts" to Palestinian violence, the article scientifically shows that the cycle of violence spins in both directions. The three researchers - Prof. Nancy Kanwisher from the United States, Dr. Johannes Haushofer from Switzerland and Prof. Anat Biletzki from Israel - question previous articles claiming the Palestinian do not need provocations from the Israeli side, and that the terror attacks and rockets do not come in response to assassinations and attacks on Israel's part.

The article sums up a statistical analysis of the data on fatalities and Qassam launchings from 2000-2008, published by the Israel Defense Forces Spokesman and B'Tselem - The Israel Information Center for Human Rights in the Territories. The analysis was done using a method called vector autoregression, which enables isolation and analysis of how a single incidence of violence by one side influences the other.

Haushofer, an economist and neurobiologist at the University of Zurich, says the study shows that every time one side attacks the other, it can know with near certainty the other side will respond with violence. In this way, in effect, violence directly causes more Palestinian casualties or another rocket attack on Israel.

For example, according to the article's model, when Israel kills five Palestinians, the chances an Israeli will be killed by Palestinians the following day increase by 50 percent. Haushofer explains that he and his colleagues conducted the inquiry to "clear out" the rhetoric, the stereotypes and the ideological claims and to focus the discussion on the facts and their scientific and sane analysis.

Kanwisher, who heads the "Kanwisher Lab" for brain research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, points to a cognitive bias on both sides, which do not see their own reactivity and responsibility for the conflict. "Thus, for example, even though the Israelis are the occupying side, they see themselves as victims of the other side," she says.

Without any direct connection to the article's research findings, Kanwisher says the Israelis do not understand their role in creating the violence of the other side. She suggests the policy makers in the United States direct their attention to the fact that acts like stealing Palestinian lands and violations of basic human rights are perpetuating the continuation of the conflict. And, in the nature of things, a conflict leads to one or another level of violence.

The third partner in the article, a Tel Aviv University professor of philosophy, Anat Biletzki, says the article knocks the scientific basis out from under the claim that the conflict is unilateral, and that the Palestinians attack Israel while Israel "only reacts."

"We are hoping the article will contribute facts and numbers to the public discussion of the conflict," says Biletzki, who for many years headed B'Tselem.

Biletzki contributes a political diagnosis of her own: "I don't need scientific research to determine that all the behavior of the Palestinians is a reaction to the Israeli occupation. For this, common sense is enough."

Quite!

The return of Israel's Mengele squad

I remember reading about this in a magazine called Return back in the 1990's and it was referring to the 80s but here's an article in Ha'aretz wondering how the perennial victims of the Israeli army can refer to themselves as nazis. The article starts quite well, marvelling at the fact that when it came to light, for example, that a unit of the Israeli army was describing itself as the "Mengele Squad", the instinct of state officials wasn't to concern themselves with their victims but to send the boys to Yad Vashem!

In 1989, a few years after Leibowitz spoke of Judeo-Nazis and about a year after the start of the first intifada, the country was shaken by a report by Avi Benayahu (the current IDF spokesman ) in the now-defunct left-wing newspaper Al Hamishmar. According to the article, a group of Israeli soldiers stationed in Ramallah had styled themselves the "Mengele squad." Again the IDF and the Nazis were intertwined, this time not by a philosopher and well-known provocateur but by the soldiers themselves.

In a turbulent Knesset debate on the issue, MKs expressed dismay at the chutzpah of a few "wild weeds" who, according to their commanding officer, had not displayed excessive brutality toward the local Arab inhabitants. All in all, it was just an armored infantry unit, which in wartime accompanied tanks into battle, but in periods of calm and during the intifada was helping fight the Palestinian uprising without undue enthusiasm (according to the company commander ).

The army reacted with fury. Because the identity of the one who leaked the story to the press was not discovered (and has not been discovered to this day ), the whole unit was subjected to an educational seminar and pedagogic punishment in the form of a tour and lecture at Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem.

Nothing was done about the rumors of beatings and lootings of Arabs and the everyday abuse of the local population; but telling the press about it was considered unconscionable. One soldier in the unit, who now works in marketing, says without sarcasm, "All that happened was that a few soldiers decided to call themselves the 'Mengele squad,' to set themselves apart from the others - a kind of branding."

Ok, so much for the Mengele squad. See this:

"The battalion knew we were a company of 'killers,'" the officer - the son of Holocaust survivors - related. "We were for an aggressive solution. We tried to shoot using all means, we injected gas into schools from which stones were thrown at us. In the battalion we were known as the 'Auschwitz company' or the 'Demjanjuks' because we made such extensive use of gas."

Now the back-peddling begins:

Two years later, Ari Shavit published impressions from a 12-day stint of reserve duty at the Ansar detention facility on the Gaza shore. The column's thesis was ahead of its time. Ansar, he noted, is "the best and most enlightened facility among the detention camps that were established since the eruption of the intifada. Ketziot and Fara are far worse; only Megiddo prison is said to compete with it in terms of humanism."

But Shavit went on to boldly reveal the explicit associations that struck him during his service in the humane camp that housed more than a thousand inmates: "The facility has 12 watchtowers. Some of the soldiers are shocked at the resemblance between these towers and other towers, which they learned about in their childhood. In fact, the shock is purely emotional and lacks any factual basis. After all, the watchtowers that appeared in Europe in the 1930s, for example, were mostly made of heavy European wood, whereas the towers of the Gaza shore facility are made of light Israeli metal, manufactured by a factory in Tiberias."

Wow! Now there's a significant difference between Israel and nazi-Germany. They make their watchtowers out of different stuff!

But still the zio-nazi comparisons come:

"When R. sees a column of prisoners approaching, led by the barrels of the M-16s of his buddies in the unit," Shavit wrote, "he says in a totally quiet, businesslike tone, 'Now the Aktion is starting.'

And there's more:

N., a forceful, unsentimental Likudnik, complains to anyone who is ready to listen about what makes this place look like a concentration camp."

Indeed, there were grounds for complaint. Among those brought to the camp were children of 15 or 16 who were bruised and battered, and the doctor at the clinic didn't just treat the reservists' eye infections: "On some occasions he was asked to repair what an enthusiastic interrogator had done to the limbs of a suspect."

Remember this is at the prison, sorry, "facility" where, "only Megiddo prison is said to compete with it in terms of humanism."

Ok, that's the shooting, or limb smashing, or gassing, what about the crying?

On the day the Muqata, Yasser Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah, was captured, Chayut was an officer in the Nahal paramilitary brigade. He and his soldiers were ordered to maintain quiet and order at the site. He saw a group of Palestinian children and smiled at them, but even though he was a simpatico fellow and handsome, too, the children broke into a run, apart from one girl, who froze in her tracks. Her terrified look was the basis for the disillusionment that led him to write the book.

"As for what that girl took from me," he writes, "that is something I understood long afterward. She took from me the belief that absolute evil exists in this world, and the belief that I was avenging it and fighting against it. For that girl, I embodied absolute evil. True, I was not as cruel as the evil I imbibed, was raised on and matured with. I did not have to reach the level of its sophistication and intensification in order to grasp my role in her life [...] Since then I have been left without my Holocaust, and since then everything in my life has assumed a new meaning: belongingness is blurred, pride is lacking, belief is faltering, contrition is heightening, forgiveness is being born."

Forgiveness? Of whom? For what?

Stay, it gets worse:

It's hard to be both victim and victimizer at the same time. The evacuation of a large number of civilians, more than 4,000, including women and children, before a bombing run by the IDF, with the aim of preventing casualties, was dubbed "Schindler's list."

"Of course you know that it's clearly not the same thing, because you are not a Nazi and you do not kill them," says a soldier who took part in Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. He adds, "You also don't do it from hatred or anything. You even do it for their benefit, so they won't be hurt by the bombing. But it's impossible not to compare, there's no way not to think about it."

And worse again:

According to Rosenthal, it is not the occupation that is responsible for Holocaust references in the army, but the experience of loss in the first phase of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which brought back to the Israelis the sense of Jewish helplessness. The desperate shouts of the trapped soldiers that were heard over the army's radio network suddenly sounded like the screams that might have been uttered in the gas chambers.

Can anyone really believe that the reason for holocaust terminology being used so casually in struggles of 1987 and 2000 are down to something that happened in 1973 recalling a time a when Jews really were victims?

Still, when we consider that the zionists in Europe are trying to have comparisons of Israel to the nazis made illegal, it's useful to point out that the comparisons, as unsound as they might be, are being made in Israel by Israelis themselves.

Tony Greenstein reports on a report

I just don't get the time to read reports these days but fortunately Tony Greenstein has read the UN's report on Israel's flotilla raid:

The Report of the UN Fact Finding Mission, established on 2nd June by the UN Human Rights Council into the attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, is a devastating critique of Israel’s attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla and its aftermath, in particular regarding the Mavi Marmara. That Israel has dismissed its findings as 'biased' etc. is no surprise. Any independent fact finding report, such as the Goldstone Report which they have since quietly admitted is true, is always rubbished by Israel.

At 56 pages, the Report is at once both devastating in its factual conclusions and in its concise legal summary of the implications of those facts. It should be used by activists to nail the Israeli lies and the BBC’s continued peddling of those lies, in particular the Panorama programme, Death on the Med which was broadcast from the viewpoint of the killers.

It is extremely interesting that the BBC was given, according to its own boast, ‘unique access’ to the killers whilst it has refused to supply any evidence to the UN Inquiry. One wonders why it is that the Israeli state thought it could trust the BBC so much. Possibly because it knows that these days the BBC, and its wretched Director General, Mark Thompson, can always be trusted to put out a propaganda line on their behalf.

The Report begins (all numbers in square brackets are paragraph numbers [16] by expressing ‘its profound regret’ at Israel’s ‘non-recognition of and non-cooperation with the Mission.’

Unlike the BBC, the Committee made what was an obviously sensible decision regarding Israeli video footage. [20]

In light of seizure of cameras, CCTV footage and digital media storage devices and of the suppression of that material with the disclosure only of a selected and minute quantity of it, the Mission was obliged to treat with extreme caution the versions released by the Israeli authorities where those versions did not coincide with the evidence of eyewitnesses who appeared before us.’

Israel is now refusing to have its soldiers/sailors give evidence even to the UN inquiry rigged in its favour. No surprise there.

Jews against Zionism?

London Conference 1100-1730 Saturday 4^th September 2010

Jews and Palestine:

Our role in the solidarity movement

The global campaign to support the Palestinian call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) is gathering pace, forming the focus for a broad-based solidarity movement.

Many Jews are actively involved but we lack a clear sense of our specific contribution to Palestinian liberation.

Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods (J-BIG) invites all Jews who share this concern to join us from 11.00 to 17.30 on Saturday September 4 at

The Magdalen Centre, St Mary's Church

Eversholt Street, London NW1 1BN (close to Euston station)

Panel discussion with:

Haim Bresheeth, filmmaker, Chair of Media and Cultural Studies at the University of East London, member of the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP)

Antony Lerman, former director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research

Moshe Machover, founding member of the Israeli socialist organization MATZPEN, mathematician and professor emeritus, Kings College London

Mike Marqusee, activist and writer. Latest book:
If I Am Not For Myself: Journey of an Anti-Zionist Jew

Workshop sessions and plenary on themes including:

- Making Jewish solidarity with Palestine more prominent, more effective, more coordinated

- Clarifying the strategic objectives of BDS and the broader movement

- Considering our role in shifting opinion within the UK Jewish community

- Understanding and combating the Israel lobby

- Dealing with attempts to define BDS/Palestine solidarity as anti-Semitic

- Defining how our understanding of Zionism influences solidarity strategies

- Reviewing current organisations, Jewish and otherwise

- Planning effective structures for the future

Booking essential. To reserve your place email your name and details tojews4big@gmail.com

Contribution payable on the day: £3 minimum per person (Refreshments provided)

Location map: http://tinyurl.com/37qby82

Blair and his stupid* book

There were reports the other day that Tony Blair is donating all of the proceeds of his book, The Journey, to the British Legion, which is a charity for retired British soldiers. There has been all sorts of speculation as to what his motive in making the donation was, most of which zoom in on his ego. Here are a little crop of letters from yesterday's Independent:

Despite suggestions to the contrary, it is rather doubtful that Tony Blair has decided to donate the earnings from his book to appease his "guilty conscience". As we saw recently at the Chilcot inquiry, he has expressed no regret for joining Bush and Cheney in invading Iraq, and equally he has given no indication that he feels any remorse for the uncounted death-toll and wanton destruction of Iraq as a direct result of his participation in "removing Saddam Hussein".

Within his own pious, self-righteous world it is far more likely that he sees it as simply his duty as a "good Christian" to donate this bonus income to a charity which caters for those who have been injured in the line of duty, in particular during his watch as Prime Minister: no blame, no remorse and no regrets.

And as for those who may see his donation as a cynical way of generating book sales, the answer is quite simple. Rather than buy the book and stroke the smug ego, simply donate an equivalent amount to the Royal British Legion and bypass the middle man.

Peter Coghlan

Broadstone, Dorset

There is a precedent for Mr Blair's charitable decision.

After the Second World War, Barnes Wallis, designer of the Dam Busters' "bouncing bomb", initially declined to apply for a monetary award from the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors. According to his biographer he subsequently changed his mind after hearing a sermon based on II Samuel 23, verses 14-17:

"And David was then in an hold, and the garrison of the Philistines was then in Bethlehem.

"And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well at Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David; nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord.

"And he said, be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives?"

Following this, Wallis applied for, and was eventually awarded, an amount which he then used to establish a charitable foundation for the education of children of RAF personnel.

Same principle, different circumstance, different motivation?

Philip Bell

Mayfield, east sussex

On hearing of Blair's generous donation to the British Legion I was reminded of the line from Bob Dylan's "Masters of War": "All the money you've made will never buy back your soul."

Pat Sheerin

London SW18

I have never supported the British involvement in the war in Iraq, but I think that Mr Blair has by his personal donation succeeded in drawing attention to the duty we now owe to the armed forces that have paid so high a price for this war. Certainly the Royal British Legion needs the £4m that Mr Blair has donated from the royalties to be expected from his forthcoming book.

As a former prime minister he will be aware of the magnitude of our duty of care to those who will be physically and mentally impaired for the rest of their days. We shall need a great deal more than £4m to fulfil this duty. Perhaps we can all follow Mr Blair's initiative. And the House of Commons itself, having sanctioned the war, ought to be the first to do so. After all, it tamely and uncritically followed him to war.

Gerald Morgan

Lydbrook, Gloucestershire

Cynics, honestly!

*In case anyone asks, I haven't actually read the book but I like to use the word "stupid" as a substitute for the f-word which I don't like to use in blog posts - family blog and all that....

Ben Gurion saves the remnant but which remnant?

Why are both Israel and Germany withholding papers relating to the Eichmann case from public view? I don't know. But Shraga Elam thinks he knows and maybe he does.

That Israeli flotilla inquiry in full

Mark Steel has a very funny comment piece in The Independent today. It's about these inquiries that get held into the circumstances surrounding wars and attacks on civilians and deals mostly with Israel's ridiculous inquiry into its attack on the Gaza flotilla but also mentions Israel's stated intention to co-operate with the UN inquiry on the same thing. I'll just post the last paragraph here but the whole thing is well worth a read:

bit by bit Israel is finding it has to answer for itself publicly, and the old excuses are not so easily accepted. From now on they'll have to put a bit more thought into their bollocks, which has got to be for the good.

I don't know. I presume that if Israel is truly co-operating with a UN inquiry then it has been rigged in their favour much like its own inquiry.

MKs in the UK

Zionists are often fond of pointing out that there are Arab members of the Israeli parliament and that this somehow proves that Israel is not a racist state, indeed that it is a normal functioning democracy. Well these two "Israeli"-Arab visitors to the UK parliament have other ideas. See this from the UK's Jewish Chronicle:

Israeli Arab Knesset members have launched a blistering attack on the Jewish state and its Parliament, declaring Israel "racist, fascist and worse than apartheid South Africa".

Speaking to supporters of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign at the House of Commons on Wednesday, MK Haneen Zoubi said: "Israel is much worse than the apartheid regime in South Africa. There were no ethnic cleansing policies there, but there are those policies in Israel."

Demand for entrance to the event was so great that supporters filled two committee rooms.

One campaigner said the current Palestinian mood lent itself to a third intifada, an "intifada for democracy".

In May Ms Zoubi, 41, was on the lead boat in the Gaza flotilla and addressed the Knesset by phone while on board. She was interrupted with shouts of "Go to Gaza, traitor" by Jewish MKs.

Speaking at the PSC event she said: "Everyone in Europe who supports Israel, financially and politically, must know they also support its racism, oppression, occupation and siege.

"The racism and discrimination against Palestinians in Israel is systematic. It's not a policy, it's an ideology. No-one can support the siege and call themselves a human being."

Ms Zoubi attacked Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's proposal to require all new Israeli citizens to swear an oath of allegiance recognising the country as a Jewish state.

She said she would campaign for democracy for "Palestinians, Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews" alike.

Jamal Zahalka, an MK since 2003, said the Knesset had passed "racist laws" that discriminated against Israeli Arabs.

"There is democracy, and then there is Israeli democracy," he said. "I say, give me my land and keep your 'democracy'. We should focus on the end of the occupation, the end of the siege and the end of the settlements. A two-state solution is losing time and becoming impractical."

Gratifying to know that it was such a well attended meeting.

Friend of Israel befriends Turkey and Gaza

David Cameron is (or was) in Turkey yesterday and he must have pleased his Turkish hosts with all he had to say. For example, The Independent reports that he made a "ferocious attack on Israel":

In comments that will play well in Turkey, Mr Cameron frankly addressed the situation in Gaza. Speaking to business leaders in Ankara, Mr Cameron condemned Israel's land and sea blockade of Gaza, aimed at weakening the Islamist group Hamas, which seized control of the strip in 2007.

"Let me be clear that the situation in Gaza has to change," said Mr Cameron, reiterating comments that he made earlier to the House of Commons. "Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp."

Turkey's Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, applauded Mr Cameron's words, and repeated his condemnation of the flotilla assault in international waters, comparing it to Somali piracy.

Israel's relations with Turkey, already strained after the 2008-2009 Gaza conflict, further deteriorated when Israeli commandos boarded the lead ship of a flotilla aimed at breaching the Gaza blockade. Israeli troops killed nine activists, mostly Turks, prompting an international outcry.

Mr Cameron yesterday reiterated earlier comments that the attack was "unacceptable" and called for a "swift, transparent and rigorous" investigation of the raid.

Interesting stuff. Remember that documentary some months ago where Peter Oborne bemoaned the power of the lobby, you know which lobby, over the Tory party? Former Jewish Chronicle journo now with the Daily Telegraph, Julian Kossoff remembers it:

Last year a Channel 4 documentary sought to prove that the “wealthy Jewish lobby” (yawn) were Conservative Party paymasters. If that was the case they should now ask for a refund. David Cameron has blindsided the Conservative friends of Israel and the Israeli government by calling Gaza a “prison camp” and saying the Gaza flotilla raid was “completely unacceptable”. Hopes that he would be an uncritical friend have now rapidly dissolved.

The Prime Minister has revealed that his policy towards Israel will be carrot-and-stick. Last week there was jubilation over the lifting of thethreat of war crimes prosecutions of Israeli politicians and military leaders. Now this very public dressing down will leave Jerusalem fuming; the Israelis may even detect the hand of President Obama.

But the fact is not even Israel’s greatest allies can stomach the more brutal aspects of Israel’s conflict with Hamas. Israel’s leaders may not be able to distinguish between terrorists and innocent civilians but the rest of the world thinks it can – and it won’t countenance the continued, pointless suffering, any longer.

That doesn’t mean the likes of Cameron and Obama are “anti-Israel” (or even more ridiculous, anti-Semitic) or that they want to jeopardise its security. Both men’s commitment to the future of the Jewish state is unquestionable, they just want Israel to show a little more compassion. And so do I.

The question here is just how imperative is Israel's lack of compassion to the zionist project? Violence has always served Israel very well. But Cameron's speech and Kossoff's article in the most pro-Israel of the broadsheets on-line both go to show how far Israel's star has fallen in the eyes of its western supporters in recent years. Long may it continue, but not too long I hope.