US State Department: Palestinians need not recognise Israel as a state specially for Jews

This is interesting. Well I think so anyway. The US state department isn't insisting on the Palestinians recognising Israel as state specially for Jews and not for all of its people. This isn't the old chestnut about Hamas refusing to recognise Israel, this is a different thing. Here's Ha'aretz:

The demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people was raised for the first time about 18 months ago in talks between Israel and the United States ahead of the Annapolis Conference. Then-foreign minister Tzipi Livni demanded that the conference's closing statement mention a nation-state solution, a formulation meant to neutralize a Palestinian demand for refugees' right of return.

However, the Bush administration accepted the Palestinian objection that the issue should be subject to negotiation. The PLO leadership also told the United States that it supported unequivocally the Saudi peace initiative that includes a clause in favor of a just and agreed-on solution to the refugee problem in keeping with U.N. Resolution 194.

That resolution calls for the right of refugees to return at the earliest practicable date and compensation for those who choose not to return. The Arab League meeting last month appended a comment to its closing statement that its initiative does not include the right of return for refugees.

A few weeks before Yasser Arafat died in 2004, he told Haaretz that he understood that Israel is a Jewish state. However, he said on a number of occasions that official recognition by the PLO of this fact would hurt the status and feelings of the Palestinian minority in Israel. He said it was not the Palestinians' business to define the identity of another country.

I remember when Obama paid his obligatory respects to AIPAC whilst on the campaign trail he said that "Israel must remain Jewish". It's bizarre that the aspiring leader of the world's most powerful democratic secular state could make such a statement. It was sad to have a man whose ethnicity generated such excitement with his "hope and change" agenda, could announce that Israel has to remain segregated, sectarian and theocratic. But America isn't forcing the Palestinians to sign away their birthright just yet and that policy began under Bush. All very surprising, unless of course I've missed something, which happens....

Fresh doubt over Kuntar's monster status

Remember how Gabriel Ash cast doubt on the conviction of Samir Kuntar, a Lebanese Druze who joined the Palestinian resistance as a teenager and wound up spending 30 years in an Israeli jail, accused of being "monster who shot a hostage in the back and then smashed the skull of his 4 year old daughter". He was re-demonised when he was released in 2008 as part of the deal following Israel's defeat in Lebanon back in 2006. In fact Gabriel managed to elicit hatred towards good ol' JSF from the Jewish Chronicle over that:

WE HATED:

“Now, if [Samir] Kuntar did what he was accused of, then he is no doubt a monster. But did he? The facts leave ample room for doubts. Kuntar maintains he did not kill either of his two alleged victims... i’ll believe it either way when the evidence is stronger than the say-so of israel’s racist, corrupt and cavalier court system.”

“GABRIEL”, JEWS SANS FRONTIERES BLOG, JULY 17

Well now fresh doubt is cast on the conviction by former senior Israeli police officer who is now a consultant psychologist, Dr. Zvi Sela in Ha'aretz. You have to scroll way down the article to find this:

You also met with Samir Kuntar of the Palestine Liberation Front, who murdered members of the Haran family in Nahariya and was released as part of the deal with Hezbollah that brought back the bodies of the two abducted soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser.

"We turned Kuntar into God-knows-what - the murderer of Danny Haran and his daughter, Einat. The man who smashed in the girl's head. That's nonsense. A story. A fairy tale. He told me he didn't do it and I believe him. I investigated the event within the framework of the next book I am writing, about hostage-taking incidents. As far as I am concerned, it was no more than a newspaper report. I sat with him; he was very intelligent. He was a squad commander at 17. He told me that his motive for infiltrating Nahariya was to take hostages. He said [his organization] knew that would both humiliate Israel and get them media publicity.

"He told me: 'If I had wanted to kill Danny and his daughter, I would have shot them in the house. I took them to the boat because I wanted hostages. I had no interest in hurting them. After I got them into the boat, wild gunfire started and I went back to help my squad on the shore. Danny, the father, kept shouting, "Stop firing, you crazy people." He and his daughter were found shot in the boat. I was on a small rise, shooting at your forces, and the boat was 20 meters away in the water, with Danny and the girl.'"

So you say that Kuntar did not murder Haran and his daughter?

"That is what he says, and in my opinion there is support for the fact that they were killed by fire from the Israeli rescue forces. You can accuse him all you like, but it was obviously the rescue forces that opened fire. There were all kinds of legends about Kuntar. People also said that he would return to being a terrorist [after his release]. Nonsense. He told me then explicitly that he would not go back to terrorism, that he was too old to execute operations - and that's also clear. For the same reason, I see no problem in releasing terrorists with blood on their hands in return for [kidnapped soldier] Gilad Shalit. I get the feeling the country is waiting for his body.

"It is clear to me," Sela continues, "that there are some battles you have to back away from. There is no reason to kill that kid, to wait for his body. One way or the other, we will not come out the victors in the Shalit story. From my experience, most of the terrorists that we release do not return to terrorist activity. And the prisoners we are quarreling over in connection with Shalit's release do not constitute a strategic threat to Israel - only a blow to the ego of our leaders."

And a blow to the Jewish Chronicle apparently.

Pyschoanalysing Doctor Hirsh and then some

There are two letters in today's Jewish Chronicle in response to an article by Dr David Hirsh, the main, in some ways the only, man at the Engage website. Let's take a little chunk of his article first. It's headed Do not confine Jews to the couch and subtitled, Jewish intellectuals who criticise Israel in psychological terms are wrong-headed. So here goes:

Jacqueline Rose, a professor at London University, argues in her book, A Question of Zion, that Israel should be understood psychoanalytically. She says the trauma resulting from the Holocaust is the root cause of the difficulty Israelis seem to have in living peacefully with their neighbours. Recently, she inspired Caryl Churchill to write the play Seven Jewish Children, which portrays Jews bringing up their children in a neurotic, dishonest and dysfunctional way and which many have said is antisemitic. Rose herself briefed the actors at the theatre.

In The Independent last month, Antony Lerman, former director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, also used psychology to explain current events, offering his own version of what Israeli psychologist Daniel Bar Tal reports about Israeli Jews. Lerman cheekily extrapolates the results to apply to British Jews. The consciousness of Jews “is characterised by a sense of victimisation, a siege mentality, blind patriotism, belligerence, self-righteousness, dehumanisation of the Palestinians and insensitivity to their suffering”. Lerman believes it to be a scientific discovery that “the Jewish public does not want to be confused with the facts.”

Unfortunately the Jewish Chronicle's website doesn't run the letters which is a pity because they should, in principle, appear on the same forum as what it is they are responding to. But anyway, a big "thank you!" to Deborah Maccoby for typing them out for the Just Peace UK list and an even bigger one for not typing the two that supported Hirsh, though I'm sure Hirsh will get round to posting them at Engage.

Deborah describes them as "two letters demolishing David Hirsh's article" and of course I trust her implicitly but here they are so others can check:

Two excellent letters in this week's JC demolishing David Hirsh's article of last week. I've typed them out below. There are also two letters in support of Hirsh, but they're not worth the effort of typing out!

Deborah


LETTER FROM TONY LERMAN AND JACQUELINE ROSE

David Hirsh ("Do not confine Israel to the couch", April 10th) performs the
double feat of misrepresenting our views and showing his ignorance.

Jacqueline Rose neither inspired Caryl Churchill to write the play "Seven Jewish Children" - Churchill has not read her work - nor did she brief the actors. She was invited to talk to them about the history of the conflict.

Antony Lerman did not offer his own view of Professor Bar Tal's research in his
"Independent" article but quoted from the "Haaretz" summary of it; nor does he say or believe that it is a scientific discovery to assert that "the Jewish
public does not want to be concerned with the facts". Nowhere do we imply that
Jews indoctrinate their children to be indifferent to non-Jewish suffering or
that the Holocaust explains the attack on Gaza.

We do not transform political questions into psychological diagnoses. Nor are
we practising theray on anyone. Jacqueline Rose's writing is rather based on
the premise that there is a psychological dimension to all political conflicts
that merits the most serious attention. The idea that there is a disjunction
between psychology and politics (or between psychological and political
explanations of human behaviour) is so ludicrous that no one who thinks this can be taken seriously as a social scientist. Is Professor Bar Tal wrong to be
deeply concerned about the political implications of his research into the
psychology and "collective memory" of Israeli Jews? Perhaps Hirsh thinks that
the International Society of Political Psychology is based on a false premise.

Sadly, Hirsh is so incapable of engaging with our ideas that he invents some
which he then ascribes to us. He then resorts to the odious ploy of implying
that these fictitious views bear resemblance to those of David Irving and
President Ahmadinejad. Surely your readers deserve better than this shoddy
tactic from someone who purports to be an academic.

Antony Lerman, Jacqueline Rose


and here is Howard Cooper psychoanalysing Dr Hirsh!

LETTER FROM HOWARD COOPER

David Hirsh doesn't agree with bringing psychological insights to bear on
"political questions". So he ends up aligning Professor Jacqueline Rose's
nuanced, psychoanalytically informed critiques of Israeli intransigence, and
Antony Lerman's remarks on the phenomenon of Jewish belligerency and sense of
victimhood, with David Irving's "antisemitic" stereotyping. Perhaps Hirsh's
ugly distortion of their positions demands its own analysis.

He suggests that "we expect our therapist to be on our side", but the problem
for any therapist is: what if the patient is in denial? If the patient cannot
see his or her own aggressiveness, he or see will often experience the
therapist's comments as persecutory.

Further, the patient may twist the therapist's words into a perverse parody of
what has been said: thus Hirsh's egregious allegation that Rose and Lerman
"imply that Jews indoctrinate their children to be indifferent to non-Jewish
suffering".

These distortions occur when patients fear looking honestly at their own
failures and come up with thoughts like "It is not 'the Jews' but the occupation
which is oppressive" - a remark indicating a typical wish to shift
responsibility away from the personal to the impersonal "context".

Of course Hirsh is right that the issues of post-Holocaust Jewish attitudes
involve political questions. But to divorce politics from an examination of the
deep subjectivities that inform any political position is both naive and
intellectually flawed.

(Rabbi) Howard Cooper

I'll leave it with readers. I had started to count the number of what Rose and Lerman claim are misrepresentations by Hirsh, but I lost count.

Enjoy!

Comment is free is even less free than it used to be

Tony Greenstein had a post yesterday protesting the fact that the current editor of the Guardian's Comment is free, Matt Seaton, appears to be a zionist moderator. It begins with Antony Lerman's article about that cartoon by Pat Oliphant.

Tony left this comment:

The concern of Mr Foxman and all the other slavish apologists for Israel's actions about a cartoon, stand in marked contrast to their silence, indeed their exculpation of the murder of over 400 Palestinian children in Gaza.

Just imagine - 400 Jewish children slaughtered by an intensive air, land and sea bombardment in an attack against their ghetto (which is what Gaza is)? The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Oh we know the excuse. Hamas are hiding behind civilians - just like Haganah, the Zionist pre-state militia. Presumably the British would have been right to shell kibbutzim, synagogues (where weapons were definitely stored).

But at least the soldiers who committed the atrocities in Gaza were honest. The children will only grow up to be 'terrorists' hence why killing them too is legitimate. The tee shirts Israeli soldiers had made up to 'celebrate' their deeds - such as the picture of a pregnant Palestinian woman in the cross-hairs of a gun sight - 'one bullet 2 kills' is indeed an example of the Nazi mentality. As are slogans such as 'we have come to annihilate you'.

But of course this misses the point. For years Zionists and apologists for everything the Israeli state does to the Palestinians have done so in the name of fighting the Nazis. The settlers invoke the Nazis and ‘never again’ to justify their deeds, the attack on Beirut was likened by Begin to an attack on Hitler’s bunker.

And likewise the Israeli opponents of their State’s barbarism also resort, quite correctly, to analogies with the Nazis. ‘We must demand of the entire nation a sense of shame and humiliation. That soon we will be like Nazis and the perpetrators of pogroms," wrote Rabbi Benyamin’. This was written after the cold-blooded murder of 46 Palestinians at the Kfar Quassem village just prior to the Suez War. Likewise, after some of the events of the 1947-9 war Aharon Zisling, later to become Minister of Agriculture for the Zionist Mapam said at a cabinet meeting that ‘I have not always agreed when the term Nazi was applied to the British. I would not want to use that expression with regard to them, even though they committed Nazi acts. But Nazi acts have been committed by Jews as well, and I am deeply shocked.’ [Tom Segev, the 7th Million, pp. 300-1]

And yet I cannot recall Foxman or the Hoffmans of this world criticising the use of Nazi analogies to demonise the Palestinians because that is their view too. It is only when the victims use such analogies that they are verboten. Strange that.

But maybe the apologists for Israel’s latest slaughter in Gaza have forgotten that it was in 1933, when the Head of the Gestapo’s Jewish Department, Baron von Mildenstein visited the Yishuv, Jewish Palestine, for 6 months, that he not only wrote a series of laudatory articles in Der Angriff when he returned to Germany, having been the guest of Histadrut and the Kibbutzim, but he even had a coin minted – with the Swastika on one side and the Star of David on another. But this was when the World Zionist Organisation had decided that parleying with the Nazis was better than the anti-fascist boycott of them!

But I forget - boycotts too have been compared these days to Nazi ‘boycotts’. And who has made the comparison? Ah yes, the same people who object to such comparisons when the Palestinians make them!!!

Tony Greenstein

But it was deleted. So Tony wrote to Matt Seaton:

Dear Mr Seaton,

I refer to the article published by Antony Lerman in the Guardian’s Comment is Free blog last Thursday 2nd April.

The article argued that the cartoon by Pat Oliphant, showing a ‘headless Nazi-like, goose-stepping, jackbooted figure, with one arm raised and outstretched, holding a sword, and the other wheeling a head in the form of a Star of David’ may have been offensive but it was not anti-Semitic.

Lerman argued that ‘political cartoons are often very offensive, and offensive – even when it involves comparing Israelis with Nazi’ but that ‘does not automatically mean antisemitic.’
It is an argument which is, I would have thought self-evident. Especially when, as Lerman goes on to point out:

‘The effect of the complaints of antisemitism made by the American Jewish organisations is to attempt to protect Israel from legitimate, if deeply unpleasant, criticism…. All it seems to be doing is devaluing the currency. If the ADL and the Wiesenthal Centre don't like or agree with the comparison, why can't they just argue that it's wrong?.. This only makes it increasingly difficult to raise concern about genuine instances of antisemitism and to develop effective means to prevent them.’

This was a well argued article about the pernicious effects of labelling critics of Israel and Zionism as anti-Semitic. I therefore wrote in to support the main thrust of the article and to point out the hypocrisy of those who label others as anti-Semitic when they don’t hesitate themselves to make comparisons between their opponents and the Nazis. In particular I highlighted:

The fact that Israeli soldiers returning home from Gaza had tee-shirts printed legitimising the killing of children and in particular one which showed a pregnant woman in the cross-hairs of a rifle with the slogan ‘one bullet, two kills’. The Nazi mentality behind such thinking should be obvious to all.

The comparisons that have regularly been made between Palestinians and Arabs and the Nazis by Zionists and gave Begin’s comparison of Arafat in Beirut with Hitler in his bunker as but one example.
I recalled the fact that even internal critics of Israel, Zionists themselves, had drawn comparisons to earlier massacres such as that at Kfar Quassem, and the Nazis. I cited Aharon Zisling, later to become a Mapam Minister in the Israeli government who said of the above massacre that ‘Nazi acts have been committed by Jews as well, and I am deeply shocked.’

I noted that on no occasion have those, like Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League ever criticised Zionist comparisons between Palestinians and the Nazis as anti-Semitic.

I drew attention to the trip that Baron von Mildenstein, Head of the Gestapo’s Jewish desk, made a journey in 1933 to Jewish Palestine for 6 months at the invitation of the Labour Zionist movement. Now I wouldn’t expect you to know this, clearly you don’t, but it is documented in Jacob Boas’ ‘A Nazi Travels to Palestine’ which was printed in the January 1980 edition of History Today, a journal which isn’t usually considered on the wilder fringes of the political spectrum.

And finally I drew attention to the fact that those who deprecate comparisons between Zionism and the Nazis have no hesitation in making just such comparisons themselves eg. between BDS campaigns against Israel today and the Nazi ‘Boycott’ of Germany in the 1930’s. Indeed the very same people who objected to Oliphant’s cartoon make this comparison.

I cited as a source for the Zisling and other quotes, the book, 7th Million, by ex-Haaretz journalist, Tom Segev, about the survivors of the Holocaust who emigrated to Palestine/Israel after 1945.

I posted this comment at 1.09 pm last Saturday 4th April and, because of previous experiences of censorship at the Guardian’s Comment is Free site, took the precaution of saving it. Sure enough, when the same petty-minded censors of CIF ( ‘moderators’) got round to dealing with the inevitable Zionist complaint, my comment was removed.

Now I understand that moderators can fulfil a useful function of removing libellous, defamatory and generally ad hominem comments, whose only purpose is to disrupt debate. But my comment was a contribution to, not an attempt to disrupt, a debate. Clearly this is a difference you are having trouble with. Nor was it in any sense anti-Semitic, though its logic was certainly bound to offend our narrow minded opponents and your tiny-minded moderators.

There was a time when CIF, under Georgina Henry, had no hesitation in encouraging debate such as this. It would seem that you on the other hand were brought in as Editor of CIF precisely in order to clamp down on controversial debate, CIF having been subject to a concerted campaign by the Zionist Federation and their allies who were and are afraid of any debate they cannot control.

I look forward to an apology for the deletion of this comment and failing that I would hope that you are honest enough to rename CIF to something more appropriate such as ‘Comment is Free Except When We Censor It’ or ‘Comment is Free (in moderation)’. At the moment CIF is a tribute to Orwell’s Newspeak where censorship is called free debate.

Regards

Tony Greenstein

Comment is free was always loaded in favour of the zionists and whether it's Georgina Henry or Matt Seaton, the only question they ask when told to jump by the ZF or other zios is "how high?"

Scottish solidarity activists charged with "racially aggravated conduct"

Five Palestine supporters arrested last year for disrupting a concert by an Israeli group are due to appear at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on Friday.

The campaigners, all members of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (SPSC), stood up during the Aug 29th Edinburgh Festival performance of the Jerusalem Quartet and made statements including “End the Siege of Gaza—Boycott Israel!”

The campaigners were originally charged with Breach of the Peace, and had been due to be tried on March 9th. However, at an Intermediate Diet one week before the trial, the Procurator Fiscal made a motion to desert that case and bring forward new charges that their Israeli boycott protest was “racially motivated”.

Sofia MacLeod, SPSC Secretary, and one of the five accused said, “Given the absurd nature of a charge clearly designed to criminalise the growing campaign to boycott Apartheid Israel until it respects Palestinian human rights, rather than oppose the new charges, we welcomed the opportunity to highlight that to boycott Israel is the opposite of racist.”...(Scottish PSC)

Now that's prosecutorial intelligence! There is no way this isn't going to end with eggs on their face. The only question is, can we testify?

PS. The musicians of the Jerusalem Quartet, who volunteer to play for the IDF whenever in Israel, are exhibit A in the case for the moral bankruptcy of that thing euphemistically described as Western culture. Digest this:

Only once has politics interfered with the quartet's music, when Palestinian students succeeded in stopping a Jerusalem Quartet performance in Manchester, England. "For the most part, however, the kinds of people who enjoy what we have to offer are not interested in politics," said Pavlovsky. (Jewish independent)

Needless to say, a musician cannot make a statement a lot more offensive about his audience than that. It is twice offensive, first suggesting that the massacres committed by the IDF are "politics," who gets which office, that smart people don't pay much attention to, and then suggesting that his high minded audience couldn't care less about the fate of other people. That is reason enough to stay away from the Jerusalem Quartet. But you bet Pavlovsky is right. His audience probably don't just listen to music. They wear it.

Israel is the barrier to peace

There's a letter in yesterday's Independent by Arab Media Watch's, Sharif Nashishibi expressing puzzlement at Adrian Hamilton's suggestion that it is for the Arab states to agree a peace plan including recognition of Israel:

I am puzzled by Adrian Hamilton lamenting that "if only the Arab world could unite ... on its plan to proffer total Arab recognition of Israel in return for Jerusalem's agreement to return to the pre-1967 borders ... then there might be some hope of peace in the Middle East" (Comment, 9 April). The Arab world has reiterated its support for the plan time and again since it was launched seven years ago. The only thing likely to erode this common stance is Israel's continued refusal to adopt the plan.

Sharif Hikmat Nashashibi

Chairman, Arab Media Watch, London SW7

Well done for pointing that out Sharif but how do they make this mistakes in the first place?

Leading Zio-lobbyist changes tune on Tescos boycott hotline

This is bizarre. You remember that Tescos had set up a hotline for people inquiring about Israeli goods? The Jewish Chronicle picked up on the case explicitly with regard to the hotline thus:

Zionist Federation co-vice-chair Jonathan Hoffman said Israel had been made a scapegoat. “The risk is that supermarkets will say it’s too much of a problem to stock Israeli goods.”

Well then the Guardian reported on it drawing on the Jewish Chronicle thus:

Jonathan Hoffman, the Zionist Federation co-vice-chair, said Israel had been made a scapegoat, the Jewish Chronicle reported. "The risk is that supermarkets will say it's too much of a problem to stock Israeli goods," he told the newspaper.

But now Ha'aretz is on the case and Hoffman's a little more laid back about Tescos:

The supermarket chain Tesco shouldn't be blamed for introducing a special U.K. helpline for complaints about it stocking Israeli products, a leading member of Britain's Zionist lobby told Haaretz.

In yet another series of articles about this controversial topic, British media reported last week that pro-Israel groups attacked Tesco for the decision to set up the helpline, which coincided with government talks on labeling Israeli products.

"Blaming Tesco is ridiculous and unfair," said Jonathan Hoffman, co-vice chairman of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. He explained the chain store had set up the helpline in anticipation of a spate of calls by promoters of a boycott on Israeli goods responding to the government talks.

"Tesco acted as any business would act," he added. "The finger should be pointed at the British government for holding these discussions in the first place and thereby fueling efforts by seekers of a total boycott of all things Israeli."

So what happened then? The Guardian simply followed the Jewish Chronicle (plus sa change!). But how did the JC get it so wrong?

Well the answer, I'm guessing, is that they didn't get it wrong. The ZF got on Tescos case but it was indeed the UK government that responded to Palestine solidarity pressure by calling in all the big stores to get them up front about their collaboration with the Israeli occupation. It just took the ZF a little while to realise who was responsible for what was compliance with a government ruling.

Israel unveils the new EIDP bombs, first used in Gaza

In a high-ranking ceremony in Jerusalem on Sunday, Israeli officials revealed the existence of a new technology that was successfully deployed during the recent Israeli invasions of Gaza. The weapon was developed by Raphael, the famous high tech Israeli military company. EIDP stands for "Emotionally Intelligent Delivery Platform."

As Raphael's head of the R&D department, Mr. M. Pathy, explained, EIDP is a modification of existing bomb and missile technology. A small compartment containing a saline solution is added to the weapon, together with a miniaturized camera and computer. A sophisticated algorithm analyzes images up to two seconds before impact. The algorithm, developed by scientists at the Technion, can recognize faces of children and distinguish them from adults. When the software triggers a positive identification, a micro-charge projects the container a hundred feet into the air. The container's flight is precisely timed so that the peak of its trajectory coincides with the explosion. Then, a small parachute opens and an electronic nozzle is activated. The contraption then descends slowly over the scene of the explosion while "crying" saline water from on top.

"We did it", said Mr Pathy, "to prove to oursleves who we are. Thanks to EIDP, I don't feel like a monster when I see the explosions on the TV screen. We spent 10 million Shekel ($2.5 million) on development, and each deployment costs over NIS 300,000. But we did it because it is the right thing to do."

Acclaimed author David Grossman was emotional in the delivery of praise for the new weapon. "It reminds me of everything that my son died protecting, the goodness, the sensitivity, the compassion of Israel. All too often, we have allowed dark forces to take over and to steer our state away from these fundamental values. This is a moment of re-affirmation, and I am grateful for the President and for Rafael Industries for allowing me to share it with them."

President Shimon Peres ended the event by asking pointedly, "can you imagine Hamas adding such a device to a suicide belt? To a Qassam rocket? They would never do it. That is the fundamental difference between us. They do not value human life like we do. And as long as that is the case, we have no choice but to keep fighting, but with humane, emotionally intelligent weapons that show our morality and compassion." (Haaretz, April 12, 2009)

After all the bad publicity with Liberman and all, it's consoling to read some inspiring news!

Protest Canadian museum decision to display stolen Palestinian antiquities

The Coalition Against Insraeli Apartheid calls for a campaign against the display in Canada of Palestinian antiquities stolen by Israel.

The Dead Sea scrolls, confiscated from East Jerusalem during Israel’s 1967 military invasion and occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, are coming to Toronto. The move is part of Israel consul general Amir Gissin’s official “Brand Israel” campaign that attempts to ‘rebrand’ apartheid Israel beyond its systematic repression of the Palestinian people.

Since 1967, hundreds of thousands of precious artifacts have been illegally removed by the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA), Israeli soldiers, and illegally operating antiquities dealers from the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. These removals of the joint cultural heritage of the region are in direct contravention of at least four international conventions or protocols on the treatment of illegally obtained cultural goods.

Please stand up and let the ROM know that you do not accept the right of museums to display illegally obtained artifacts stolen from occupied territories. The history of such theft and dispossession is a sad legacy of colonial history that Canada and its museums have also been complicit in. It is time to begin reversing this legacy by canceling the current exhibit in accordance with the precepts of international law and refusing to allow the ROM to be politicized for the rebranding of an apartheid state.

For more information please contact the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid at: endapartheid@riseup.net (http://palsolidarity.org/2009/04/6120)

The good news is that this is a rare occasion that the PA government dares to issue demands that effectively call for boycott.

JERUSALEM–A planned Toronto exhibit of ancient Middle Eastern manuscripts is threatening to plunge Canada, along with the Royal Ontario Museum, into the thick of the long-running conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

Beginning in June, the ROM will host a six-month exhibit of the famed Dead Sea Scrolls, organized in co-operation with the Israel Antiquities Authority.

But top Palestinian officials this week declared the exhibit a violation of international law and called on Canada to cancel the show.

In letters to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and top executives at the ROM, senior Palestinian officials argue the scrolls – widely regarded as among the great archaeological discoveries of the 20th century – were acquired illegally by Israel when the Jewish state annexed East Jerusalem in 1967.

"The exhibition would entail exhibiting or displaying artifacts removed from the Palestinian territories," said Hamdan Taha, director-general of the archaeological department in the Palestinian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities.

"I think it is important that Canadian institutions would be responsible and act in accordance with Canada's obligations."

The Palestinians say the planned ROM exhibit violates at least four international conventions or protocols on the treatment of cultural goods that were illegally obtained.

Both Canada and Israel are signatories to all of the agreements, the Palestinians say.

The letter of protest sent this week to Harper was signed by Salam Fayyad, prime minister of the Palestinian Authority and its second-in-command. The letter to the ROM bore the signature of Khouloud Daibes, minister of tourism and antiquities. (The Star, April 9, 2009)

The Canadian authorities are the proverbial deer in the headlights. Listen to this lame reply.

"I'm just hearing about this issue," William Thorsell, CEO of the ROM, said yesterday. "I do understand the Palestinians are making an issue of the ownership. But I'm quite certain the scrolls fall within the parameters of the law."

Officials at Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs had no immediate response to the matter when contacted yesterday by the Star.

It is difficult to ignore the demand to observe international law in Canada, especially when it is being made by the darling PM appointed by the West, Salam Fayad. But don't expect therm not to try; to give in would be a win to the BDS arguments and strategies. We have yet to see whether the PA is going to act on this with the necessary persistence to win this very winnable battle. Let's hope so.

Click on the first link to see a suggested letter to the ROM. Send them your polite opinion. NOW!

Zionist academic boycott fells Finkelstein again

Zionists have had an address by Norman Finkelstein cancelled at Clark University in Massachusetts, USA according to Boston Globe:

Clark University canceled a campus talk scheduled for later this month by controversial Holocaust scholar Norman Finkelstein, saying his presence "would invite controversy and not dialogue or understanding," and would conflict with a similar event scheduled around the same time.

What could be similar? Are we sure that this isn't some kind of Israel lobby intervention?

The Clark University Students for Palestinian Rights, a student-run group on the Worcester campus, had arranged for Finkelstein to speak on April 21, said Tom MacMillan, the group's president. School administrators, however, contend the topic and the timing conflict with a similar university-sponsored event.

Well of course it wasn't the Israel lobby, what a thing to say. I mean it's obvious there just happened to be someone just like the most hated man in the Israel lobby's cross hairs attending the same uni to address the same topic at roughly the same time.

In a letter to the university's campus newspaper, Clark's president, John Bassett, wrote: "The university remains committed to inviting a wide range of speakers to encourage diversity of opinions on controversial topics. My decision was predicated on its untimely and unfortunate scheduling."

Well if the university president confirms the university's reasoning, who could argue?

But what's this:

Finkelstein's address would conflict with a similar conference hosted by the university's Strassler Family Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, scheduled for April 23-26, two days after Finkelstein's speech, Bassett said in his letter. That conference could draw Holocaust scholars who MacMillan said may disagree with Finkelstein.

Although Bassett wrote that he did not believe that students intended Finkelstein to be an affront to the conference, he said he believed it could be viewed that way.

"It is possible that our understanding of the Middle East conflicts would be enriched by conversations with Professor Finkelstein," Bassett said in the letter. "It is my judgement, however, that having Professor Finkelstein speak on the same evening as our planned conference would only invite controversy and not dialogue or understanding."

Ah so it wasn't the fear of duplication then. But we still shouldn't assume Israel lobby influence here, should we?

The dispute came to the attention of college administrators after Hillel, a Jewish campus group, objected to Finkelstein's scheduled appearance.

Bassett met with MacMillan, two other members of the group, and a handful of other campus administrators, including public safety personnel, on Monday to discuss Finkelstein's speech, MacMillan said.

At that meeting, the administration suggested that as many as six uniformed or plain-clothes security officers attend Finkelstein's speech, in case the forum became violent, MacMillan said.

Oh my goodness! What did these Hillel types say that made the campus authorities think that such security was required?

Still, it wasn't the Israel lobby and it's antisemitic to say it was. This was Hillel. This was the Jewish lobby, not the Israel lobby at all.

Dutch Labor Party politician on the brink of becoming a decent human being

The Netherlands must impose economic sanctions against Israel if the new government in Jerusalem thwarts the peace process with the Palestinians, the Dutch Labor party said last week.

Members of Labor, which is a member of government as the country's second largest party, said they intended to write a manifesto on the matter to the foreign minister, Maxime Verhagen, from the centrist ruling CDA party, who is largely seen as a staunch supporter of Israel.

In an interview for Radio 1, Labor's Martijn van Dam said his party insisted that Verhagen and the European Union take "concrete" action that demands Israel accept Hamas as a partner for dialog. Van Dam also lamented the Netherlands and the European Union's decision to blacklist Hamas.

Van Dam went on to call Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman "an extremist who is on the brink of racism," adding: "This is not a government with much prospect for peace." (Haaretz)

Martijn van Dam is on the brink of decency. Lieberman only "on the brink of racism"? And what about Tzipi Livni, Ehud Barak, Tzipi Livni, Shimon Peres? What about the judges who just decided that killling an Arab is not a big deal? What about the crowds that came to picnic in front of the slaughter on Gaza? How far are they from "the brink of racism"? When according to these European party clowns will they pass the "brink" and be actual racists? Only when they build gas chambers and ovens?

Still, it's nice to see a European pol on the brink of decency. Let's just hope enough of them cross over the brink before the genocide accelerates.

Google disappears Norman Finkelstein

Search for the website of Norman Finkelstein on google. Google says there are no results. Norman Finkelstein's site doesn't appear either if you search for Norman Fikelstein, at least not in the 100 first results.

Norman Finkelstein's site is also banned from searches on which he is the most likely source. Search for "Curtis Hoxter" "Israel Singer", no reference.

Now here's the cherry. Search for "Holocaust Industry". No http://www.normanfinkelstein.com in the first 100 hits.

What gives?

Is google taking a strong interest in keeping the public safe from certain opinions?

---

UPDATE

Google rediscovers Finkelstein's site!! check the links.

The Masters of the Internet work in mysterious ways, so obviously we have no clue what happened.

Remembering Deir Yassin

Here's Ha'aretz on a Deir Yassin commemoration at the site of Deir Yassin itself:

Dozens of Jews and Arabs yesterday marched around the fence surrounding Jerusalem's Kfar Shaul psychiatric hospital, the site of the Deir Yassin massacre, to commemorate its 55th anniversary.

On April 9, 1948, the Lehi and Etzel attacked the village of Deir Yassin as part of the Nahshon Operation, killing an unknown number of residents, including women and children. Yesterday's ceremony included the reading of 93 names of victims.

Residents of the nearby Jerusalem religious neighborhood of Har Nof watched the ceremony, cursing at participants.

Among those attending the ceremony was Abdel Aziz Barakat, 81, who lost 17 members of his family in the massacre and told participants about Arab and Israeli coexistence in Jerusalem until 1939.

Arabs and Israelis? In 1939? I don't think anyone was calling themselves Israeli at that time. But then I don't think the Arabs were calling themselves Palestinian either. It's got no significance for now of course. It just goes to show how identity evolves, that's all.

Palestinians need international solidarity

Here's Ben White in Comment is free on the free hand Jewish settlers are given by the Israeli government to identify pitches for new settlements and create new "facts on the ground" and how without international pressure they will get away with more colonisation of the West Bank. Here's Ben with the background to the case:

The flat top of the small hill is deserted, as we walk among the gutted concrete buildings. The graffiti on the wall declares that "the Jews will keep this land". This is Ush Ghrab, a small piece of land in Beit Sahour, south of Jerusalem, and a target for religious settlers seeking yet another colony in the Bethlehem region.

I was walking around the site with my friend Saleem and his colleague Jason, who both work for Paidia, an NGO focused on educational play. Their work has been, and continues to be, primarily social, yet they are now forced to join other locals in defending the site from attempts at colonisation.

For decades, this piece of land was used as a military base, first by the Jordanians and then by the Israelis. In 2006 the Israeli army closed down the base, and the land reverted back to the Beit Sahour municipality, which in co-operation with NGOs proceeded with plans for the development of the site.

In May 2008, on Israel's 60th anniversary, Jewish settlers turned up one morning, and announced their intention to create a new settlement on Ush Ghrab. Ever since, rightwing groups such as Women in Green, have been holding events on the hill as part of their open drive to get the land back to its "rightful owners" – the Jewish people.

Ok, that's the colonists, what about the natives?

In parallel to these efforts by settlers, there has also been a huge variety of events held on Ush Ghrab organised by an informal grouping of Palestinian activists in Beit Sahour and Bethlehem. These have included barbeques, bingo, kite flying, bird-watching, music, tree-planting, ecumenical religious services and leadership training activities.

In recent months, however, Ush Ghrab has been quieter. The winter slowed things down, and local activists also decided to give the municipality some time to pursue a more "official" track with the Israeli authorities. Apparently, the Beit Sahour municipality had expressed its displeasure with an intense level of events on the land, arguing that such activities merely provoke the settlers and attract unwelcome attention.

And a view from the ground:

Those like Mazim Qumsiyeh, a professor, author and Beit Sahour resident, disagree with this assessment because "in our humble opinion the settlers are driven by their own agenda and aren't driven by what Palestinians do or don't do". Qumsiyeh believes that "pressure works", and points to places such as Bil'in and Ni'lin where activism has "slowed down" Israeli colonisation and brought about some changes in the path of the wall: "There have been no Supreme Court interventions in other cases where villages didn't offer resistance, or weekly demonstrations."

Yet Qumsiyeh is also well aware of how the struggle in Beit Sahour is ultimately part of a bigger picture: "If the agreement between Nentanyahu and Lieberman is as stated in the newspapers, the Israeli government is going to focus on developing E1 [an area of the West Bank]. This is pure speculation, but maybe this buys us a couple of years here. The Israeli government won't want to receive the flak for too many things at the same time."

And the need for international solidarity?

The hard reality for the Palestinians of Beit Sahour is that, alone, they are unable to resist the theft of their land, should the Israeli government support the settlers' initiative. Khalilieh, whose job at ARIJ means he oversees the daily documentation of Israeli colonisation, says that while the Beit Sahour residents' protests "send a message", they are "probably useless" without international pressure.

It's a funny old thing that almost everybody was claiming until recently that they support a two state solution and yet the action that Ben White has written about here, clearly precludes the idea that a national state could be established on the West Bank. That's of course ignoring the fact that people who speak of Israel and Palestine existing "side by side" when the Palestine bit wouldn't even be side by side with each other.

So without pressure from those powerful states that have supported Israel through every crime from its establishment, through all of its wars, through its colonisation of occupied territory, its array of racist laws, its international crimes like kidnappings, shootings, even the bombing of synagogues, through the ghettoisation of Gaza, without pressure from the states that have supported, covered for, even funded and equipped Israel in these things, Israel will get away with yet another Jewish only colony, yet another microcosm of itself. So who pressures the pressurers?

"The obnoxious phenomenon that is zionism"

I like that. It's a completely fraudulent headline though because this post was intended to just be about Gerry Adams visiting Palestine. The basic story is that the President of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, went to Palestine but was forbidden from entering Gaza because Israel didn't want him to meet with any Hamas people, which would be a bit difficult if he was in Gaza since Israel clearly considers every Gaza man, woman and child to be Hamas. But anyway, what do you when this happens? Turn to serial fantasist, Tony Blair, who as Quartet envoy to the Arab-Israeli peace process has ever such a lot of time on his hands. So there we have it, in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Ha'aretz, the Jerusalem Post and lots of other papers too, Mr Adams goes to Gaza and meets Hamas leader thanks to Tony Blair.


So why the headline? It's a quote that one of the Jerusalem Post's (at the time of writing) three reports attributes to an unnamed Sinn Feiner in an article written, it seems, by an Irish chap, Sean Gannon, who appears to be guesting at the Post and who doesn't seem to have a whole lot of time for the Irish republican movement:

MAINSTREAM Republican support for the Palestinians has been purely political since the official end of the IRA's war in 2005. Although he presides over a Sinn Fein which remains bitterly hostile to what it once termed "the obnoxious phenomenon that is Zionism," Adams, as an international peacemaker manqué, personally adopts a relatively moderate tone, leaving it to his international affairs spokesman, Aengus O'Snodaigh, to articulate the party's official positions. For example, in June 2006, O'Snodaigh described Israel as "without doubt one of the most abhorrent and despicable regimes on the planet." Two months later he claimed that the Second Lebanon War was the result of "continued Israeli aggression, expansion and occupation in the region" and called for UNIFIL's deployment on the Israeli side of the Blue Line. During Operation Cast Lead he demanded the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador to Ireland and compared him to Josef Goebbels.

I've said before that I often don't read articles in full before posting on them and this is a typical one. The article is actually quite lengthy and gets into a whole load of stuff about historical IRA and Sinn Fein figures who were antisemitic or who were associates or members of antisemitic organisations. So let's just take a look at the first instance, though it is a longer article than I first realised. Following the paragraph I pasted above, Gannon details some of Sinn Fein's expressions of hostility to Israel:

Sinn Fein repeatedly calls for the suspension of the EU's preferential trading agreement with the Israeli "rogue state" on the grounds of its "horrific crimes against humanity" and, in February, Adams himself launched the Irish Congress of Trade Unions' "Israel/Palestine Report" in Northern Ireland's parliament buildings, which calls for an economic, political and cultural boycott/divestment/sanctions campaign against Israel.




Republicans are also prominently involved in non-party anti-Israel activism, particularly in the Belfast branch of the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign, where Sinn Fein cadres work alongside convicted IRA terrorists and members of dissident groups such as Eirigi.

I'd better point out here that Eirigi isn't dissident republican in the sense of supporting armed struggle. It opposes the Good Friday Agreement but supports cessation of violence, I think. Go check if you're interested.

Anyway, this is a lead in to what looks like a promising passage that suggests a difference between condemnation of Israel on the one hand and antisemitism on the other. But then look:

THE STRIDENCY of Irish Republicanism's anti-Israel campaign has, unsurprisingly, given rise to accusations of anti-Semitism.

I like that "unsurprisingly". It looks like "yawn yawn, yet another bogus allegation of antisemitism" but then:

Certainly, the movement is tainted with an anti-Semitic past. Arthur Griffith, who founded the original Sinn Fein movement in 1905, used the pages of his newspaper to rail against "Jew Swindledom" (9/10ths of all Jews were, he proclaimed, "usurers and parasites") and the Dreyfusards. While similar prejudices were commonplace in all the political parties which descended from his organization, only the eponymous rump which remained after the splits of 1921 and 1926 habitually preached Jew-hatred, culminating in a demand for an Irish-German alliance in 1939.

Now is he saying that there was just one party bearing the standard of antisemitism by the time Sinn Fein had split into broadly three components? I know that the original Sinn Fein split into what we now know as Fine Gael, Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein, but the antisemitic tendency in the party was the bit that eventually became Fine Gael, the party most favoured by the UK and sometimes described as west British as opposed, yes opposed to, Irish.

Anyway, enough of this. I just think there's a bit of mischief going on in the article in trying to pin an antisemitic motive on to the support an anti-imperialist party like Sinn Fein might be expected to show for a fellow resistance movement.

Boycott one get one free!

Tescos has set up a boycott helpline, according to the Jewish Chronicle:

Pro-Israel groups have attacked Tesco for setting up a customer helpline for those considering boycotting Israeli goods.

Tesco says it provided the service in expectation of calls questioning its stocking of products from Israel and the West Bank.

Callers selecting the general information option on its customer helpline hear the recorded message: “If you are ringing regarding Israeli goods, please press one.” They are then connected to specially-trained call centre staff.

A Tesco spokesman claimed the dedicated line — introduced for “functionality” reasons after increased inquiries during the Gaza conflict in January — was removed on Monday. But it was still available when the JC rang later on. Tesco does not offer a similar service regarding products from elsewhere.

Well perhaps they don't get as many queries about goods from elsewhere.

Zionist Federation co-vice-chair Jonathan Hoffman said Israel had been made a scapegoat. “The risk is that supermarkets will say it’s too much of a problem to stock Israeli goods.”

Israel's been made a scapegoat? What for?

Did you notice anything about the intro to the article? "Pro-Israel groups have attacked Tesco." Well? Pro-Israel groups. They always used to say "Jewish groups". Has the tide turned? Is the JC distancing Jews and Jewish groups from Israel? I doubt it. I read that in 1913 the JC was acquired by a consortium of zionist businessmen. It has changed legal ownership but I don't know if it has ever been owned by non-zionists.

Anyway, the article goes on to claim that Tescos were going to stop their boycott helpline but it must have been fun while it lasted and BDS is on a serious roll now.

Dierkes Petition goes online

In brief: Hermann Dierkes, decent left-wing German politician with long history of anti-racism. Calls for a boycott of Israel and all hell breaks loose with accusations of antisemitism from the right and the left. When it comes to Israel, Germany seems closer to the US than Europe - the same hysteria and attempts to scream down dissent.

There's more information about the case here , and an online petition with several hundred (mainly European) Jewish signatories, that folks can sign here.


go on go on go on go on go on.

Amateur video demolishes police story

Well it's over for the initial police version of events leading to the death of Ian Tomlinson. An American fund manager, in London on business and on the demo "out of curiosity, shot the footage and handed it to the Guardian because Tomlinson's "family weren't getting answers. This is from the Guardian website:



And this is from the Guardian article:

In an official statement on the night of Tomlinson's death, the Metropolitan police made no reference to any ­contact with officers and described attempts by police medics and an ambulance crew to save his life after he collapsed – efforts which they said were marred by ­protesters throwing missiles as first aid was ­administered .

The force said officers had created a ­cordon around Tomlinson to give him CPR.

"The officers took the decision to move him as during this time a number of ­missiles – believed to be bottles – were being thrown at them," it said.

Well they certainly moved him but where were all those bottles?

EU gives Israel the Waldheim treatment

or was it the Haider treatment? Anyway, apparently even Germany is getting sniffy about Israel's more overtly fascistic government and that is saying something. Here's Der Spiegel:

Germany and the European Union are unhappy with the approach so far by Benjamin Netanyahu's government to the Middle East peace process. EU diplomats are increasing pressure on Israel to voice its support for a two-state solution that would see the creation of a Palestinian state.

In a series of diplomatic barbs, the German government has expressed its displeasure at the new, right-leaning Israeli government. German Chancellor Angela Merkel of the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) has delayed a joint meeting of the cabinets of both countries, initially planned for June, for an undetermined amount of time.

This really shows the absurdity of differentiating among the zionist rulers of Palestine. Lieberman and Netanyahu might not talk to the Palestinians about something they can fly a flag over in the West Bank and Gaza so the EU postpones diplomatic junkets for a while. On the other if they slaughtered Palestinian men, women and children at the same time as claiming to want those dead people to have a state the EU would line for piccies like they did when Tzipi Livni embarked on her election campaign known as "cast lead".

Israel's national disgrace?

Honestly, with all that Israel is and all that Israel does there are still people suggesting that a few bad apples let the good side guys down. One such appears to be Neve Gordon in the Tehran Times. He sets out a load of nasty things about this Lieberman character that look to me like an epitome of the zionist project itself:

Imagine a country that appoints someone who has been found guilty of striking a 12-year-old boy to be its foreign minister. The person in question is also under investigation for money laundering, fraud and breach of trust; in addition, he was a bona fide member of an outlawed racist party and currently leads a political party that espouses fascist ideas. On top of all this, he does not even reside in the country he has been chosen to represent.

Even though such a portrayal may appear completely outlandish, Israel's new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, actually fits the above depiction to the letter.

In 2001, following his own confession, Lieberman was found guilty of beating a 12-year-old boy. As part of a plea bargain, Lieberman was fined 17,500 shekels and had to promise never to hit young children again.

In 2004, Lieberman's 21-year-old daughter Michal set up a consulting firm, which received 11m shekels from anonymous overseas sources. Lieberman, according to the police, received more than a 2.1m-shekel salary from the company for two years of employment. In addition, according to an investigation by Haaretz, he allegedly received additional severance pay – amounting to hundreds of thousands of shekels in 2006 and 2007, while he was minister of strategic affairs and deputy prime minister. According to Israeli law, this is illegal.

Lieberman is an ex-member of Meir Kahane's Party, Kach, which was outlawed due to its blatantly racist platform. Moreover, his views towards Arabs do not appear to have changed over the years.

In 2003, when reacting to a commitment made by prime minister Ariel Sharon to give amnesty to approximately 350 Palestinian prisoners, Lieberman declared that, as minister of transport, he would be more than happy to provide buses to take the prisoners to the sea and drown them there.

He's corrupt, children might not be safe around him and he supports ethnic cleansing. What have I missed here? The guy's a zionist.

Ok, he is more open about his politics but apparently Ehud Barak said in the election campaign that he wants to do exactly what Lieberman wants to do but that he thought it best not to be too open about these things. A reminded of Peres's dictum, Likud says, Labour does.

Anyway, Gordon does end on a relevant and important note:

In January 2006, Hamas won a landslide victory in elections that were no less democratic than the recent elections in Israel. While Hamas is, in many respects, a political party, its politicians are representatives of the Palestinian people and are seen as struggling for liberation and self-determination.

If Western leaders want to be conceived as credible, they must change their policy and meet with Hamas as well. Otherwise, their decision to meet Lieberman will be rightly perceived as hypocritical and duplicitous, and the pervasive perception in the region – that the United States and Europe are biased in Israel's favor – will only be strengthened.

Yes, if western states are going to justify meeting with the new Israeli foreign minister on the grounds that he was elected then meeting with Hamas would be consistent but let's not pretend that zionism was nice until Lieberman came along. Neve Gordon knows better than that.