Criticism of Criticism of Criticism of Criticism

Ok, so Dimi Reider issued a ridiculous call for all leftists to prove their "credibility" by condemning the killing in Itamar. Even though I am of course appalled by the slaughter of babies, I am not going to condemn anything here, and I am certainly not going to shed a tear for the death of Mr. and Mrs. Fogel. Not because I, pace Reider, doubt or ignore their humanity, but because they have dedicated their very human lives to destroying others who have done them no harm. My world has lost little with their passing.(*)

Nor should I have anything to prove to Reider. As he accuses, I plead guilty: I do have a double standard for which I won't apologize. I have one standard for the systemic, meditated, clinical and profitable violence of the oppressor, and a different one for outbursts of anger and hatred coming from those who have been systematically stepped upon, let alone the very different matter of organized armed liberation, which I justify and support. For more in that vein, Max Ajl wrote a beautiful and eloquent rebuttal of Reider that ought to be required reading in schools.

Then another writer from that same 972 magazine wrote a rebuttal. Yossi Gurvitz, with whom I sparred before, among other good points, correctly argued that Reider has internalized right-wing rhetoric. He also had an unpleasant slip of the pen, describing the settlers' rapid instrumentlization of the deaths at Itamar as "going native." He was justly taken to task by Ahmed Moor on Mondoweiss, and this is where it is getting doubly annoying, because Moor's criticism fast developed into little more than a gratuitous swipe at Gurvitz' alleged Jewish worldview.

Here is Gurvitz's offending line:

I never even considered the idea of grabbing the nearest Palestinian, burning his property, or beating him up. And most Israelis were just like me. We took the attacks on the chin, gritted our teeth, and kept ourselves from whining. The settlers, on the other hands, have gone native. It used to be Palestinians who brandished bloodied Israeli bodies; now it’s the settlers who do so.

There should be no doubt that associating behavior the author considers repulsive with "the natives" is a racist commonplace of European colonial discourse. There is doubt however about the level of the conscious thought behind the offense, as Moor graciously concedes being "confident he [Gurvitz] didn’t intend to employ the language he did in the way that he did." That is a charitable, and I would say a fair reading. But it is downhill from here on. Here is how Moor interprets the meaning of Gurvitz's slip:

Here, Gurvitz reveals a deeply embedded Jewish-centrism that many of our friends on the left share. The drive to end the occupation and Israeli apartheid stems not from universal human values, but from the drive for the Tikkun Olamization of the Jewish people. Everything else is secondary.

This is simply made up. Nowhere in this passage does Gurvitz even mention anything Jewish, or indeed provide any rational at all for "ending the occupation," Jewish or otherwise. Nowhere does he mention Tikkun Olam or even raise any of the issues Moor mentions. Gurvitz contrasts an Israeli attitude that one could describe perhaps as a "stiff upper lip" (if there is any allusion here, one that comes to mind perhaps is the popular representation of British calm under the Blitz) with a kind of histrionic politics that is allegedly shared by Palestinians and settlers alike. Is this racist? You bet. But the contrast between the rational, self-disciplined European and the emotional, childish, impulsive native is a commonplace of Western colonialism. One can find it in representations of native Americans, or Africans, of black slaves in the US, and of course, of Arabs in the Middle East. The racism of Gurvitz's language, at least to the extent that a textual reading can reveal, does not come from a "Jewish-centric" worldview, a worldview Moor ascribes to Gurvitz based on the mere fact that Gurvitz is in fact Jewish. It comes from Gurvitz's western cultural references.

Furthermore, the expression "going native," which Gurvitz uses, is a familiar English idiom that doesn't even have an easy counterpart in Hebrew (Although the ideas are certainly familiar in Israeli culture). Here is the definition of the idiom from "Post Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts:"

The term [going native] indicates the colonizers’ fear of contamination by absorption into native life and customs. The construction of native cultures as either primitive or degenerate in a binary discourse of colonizer/ colonized led, especially at the turn of the century, to a widespread fear of ‘going native’ amongst the colonizers in many colonial societies.

What does that have to do with "Tikkun Olam" or Jewish exceptionalism? Nothing. Gurvitz uses an English idiom to articulate an idea that is familiar to English speakers precisely because of the colonial history of the term which allows him to put Israeli Jews inside a larger implied context of whiteness. If there is an argument about Jews in there, it precisely the opposite of what Moor thinks, it is that the Jews are the same as other (Europeans).

Additionally, it is worth noting how much Moor's distinction between "universal values" and whatever he imagines as Jewish values is itself a deep internalization of the same colonial discourse about the natives that traverses Gurvitz's text. It is primarily in the name of "universal values" that Europeans argued that slavery was "civilizing" Africans, that killing native-Americans was an effective way to save their souls, and recently that Iraq ought to be "liberated" so that it is made to conform to the "universal" political norms of US-European kleptocracies. Here is George Bush on universal values:

The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom—and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise. In the twenty-first century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity. People everywhere want to be able to speak freely; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children—male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society—and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. (The National Security Strategy of the United States of America)

And here is, taken from the same post-colonial dictionary, the entry on "universalism:" a bit simplistic, but given how well it fits the previous paragraph, good enough for my purpose here.

The assumption that there are irreducible features of human life and experience that exist beyond the constitutive effects of local cultural conditions. Universalism offers a hegemonic view of existence by which the experiences, values and expectations of a dominant culture are held to be true for all humanity. For this reason, it is a crucial feature of imperial hegemony, because its assumption (or assertion) of a common humanity – its failure to acknowledge or value cultural difference – underlies the promulgation of imperial discourse for the ‘advancement’ or ‘improvement’ of the colonized, goals that thus mask the extensive and multifaceted exploitation of the colony. (my emphasis)

So yes. The drive to end the occupation and apartheid does not stem from any universal value, because no values exist outside of concrete traditions of thinking about values. It does stem, for some, from certain values that some of us would like to be universally shared. I, for once, would like to impose on everyone my commitment to equality, because I believe that inequality is harmful. When we put it like that, however, that is, when we own the power relations we play when we talk about values, rather than naturalize the superiority of our perceptions under the false claim of universality, we become accountable for what we seek to impose on others. Imposing some ideas, especially about what is ethically acceptable or not, on others, is unavoidable in any context of shared existence. Being disingenuous about it is not. If Moor doesn't like the way some Jews articulate their reasons to opposing Israeli apartheid, he has every right to his feelings. But if he wants to impose on them his notion of the "correct" reason to oppose apartheid he needs at least to provide a justification other than pretending that his own preferences are "universal" whereas theirs are merely "Jewish."

More importantly, before getting into what Jewish values offend Moor and why, there is also the issue of the value of reading accurately, and criticising authors for what they wrote, rather than for what can be assumed about their state of mind on the basis of their religion or nationality. I don't know if this is a Jewish value or not, but I would certainly recommend it to Moor, along with spending less time learning about "Jewish-centrism" from the "native informants" at Mondoweiss.

Here is, for reference, a definition of the "native informant":

A native informant is someone from a particular race or place who is seen as an expert on it simply by virtue of belonging to it. (Abagond)

* As an aside, this elaborate discussion is taking place as if it is already known that the perpetrators were Palestinians. Let me note that we do not in fact now that. Therefore, I think it is inappropriate to "defend" the alleged perpatrators as much as it is inappropriate to condemn them, but with that in mind, it is fair to address the general questions raised.

Support Israel Apartheid Week in Canada against McCarthyism

Canada loves Israel the way only white settlers can love. The Harper administration, eager to secure for Canada a front row at the upcoming 'clash of civilizations', has made determined support for Israel the cornerstone of its international posture (not to mention lucrative trade in arms). In 2009, for example, Canada was the only country on the UN Human Rights Council who voted against condemning Israel's punitive expedition in Gaza. Repressive domestic measure are everywhere the inevitable companion of such a wretched foreign policy, and Canada didn't disappoint. George Galloway was banned from entering Canada because of his alleged "support for Hamas," among many other sins. KAIROS, a Canadian faith based Christian organization, was defunded by the Canadian government for the crime of sharing a name with the pro-BDS document, Kairos, issued by Palestinian Christians.

Opposing antisemitism being the last refuge of the latter day scoundrel, the Canadian ruling class fully invested itself in the task of defending imaginary Jews from imaginary racism. Last year, the Ontario regional parliament took time from less pressing issues to condemn "Israel Apartheid Week," a series of events organized by students on a budget that wouldn't buy Canada a minute of repression in Afghanistan. In March 2009, the Canadian parliament created a Coalition to Combat antisemitism, a barely veiled attempt to rehabilitate Senator McCarthy's tactics and update them for the needs of the day. As its activities make clear, the CPCCA has one and only goal, to suppress public criticism of Israel in Canada.

Canadian universities have become prime targets of the new Canadian Mcchartyism. Student groups involved in BDS have been regularly harassed, banned, fined, their posters censored and their activists disciplined by university administrators, whereas local and national politicians sought to undo students elections, all for Israel. Israel's shills didn't stop with students, but also sought to derail conferences and attack professors and graduate students.

This year, the attack on Israel Apartheid Week reached the national parties. Michael Ignatieff, leader of the Liberal Party, issued a statement condemning the IAW as antisemitic, intolerant and ignorant.

(BTW. You have to visit the website of that Liberal party. These days, the more one has the blood of brown people on one's hands, the more brown faces you can expect to see in their "image". If Goebbles had been as savvy as these people are he would have always appeared in public wrapped in a Jewish prayer shawl.)

One effect of this campaign of intimidation is that it works. Very few untenured professors dare speak critically about Israel. Another effect however is that it backfires. (Yeah, yeah, I know... some people would call this "dialectical." Deal with it!) Even academics who are unconnected to the issue of Palestinian rights care about politicians interfering in their classrooms. By attacking academic freedom, the McCarthyites are making it hard not to see how dependent Canadian foreign policy is on silence, ignorance and disiformation, and what price will all Canadian institutions, including universities, pay, unless they are defeated.

So the Rector of Queen's University, Nick Day, responded publicly to Ignatieff, explaining why including IAW on Canadian campuses was a matter of free speech. He was hang out to dry by the University administration and a referendum for his dismissal has been launched by the usual forces.

Please read and sign this petition defending the Rector and IAW on the campus of Queen's University: http://www.petitiononline.com/querect/petition.html

Europeans getting wise to Israel

Here's an interesting article by Daud Abdullah in The Guardian.  It appears the more people know about Palestine, the more they support the Palestinians or at least, the less they support Israel:

according to a new poll by ICM for the Middle East Monitor, Europeans' perception of Israel has changed decisively, and their understanding of the Israel-Palestine conflict, while still giving some cause for concern, has improved significantly. The survey of 7,000 people in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and Britain reveals only a small minority (10%) now believe their countries should support Israel rather than the Palestinians, while many more, 39%, think they should not.

This shift in European public opinion may owe something to an improved understanding of the conflict; 49% of respondents were now able to identify Israel as the occupying power. However, 22% still didn't know. This persistence of ignorance about issues that have been long established in international law may reflect media bias, or inadequate coverage of the conflict. It could also be a result of campaigns undertaken by the Israeli public relations machinery in Europe. 

Perhaps this explains why zionists seem to be redoubling their efforts to have this rotten definition of antisemitism adopted.

The Egyptian Revolution and Palestine

SOAS Palestine Society Presents:

The Egyptian Revolution and Palestine:

 A Panel of Youth Organisers from Tahrir Square

With  

Nariman Youssef, Mostafa Henawy

5.30pm Monday 14^th  March 2011

SOAS Main Building, Junior Common Room (JCR), Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square
London, WC1H 0XG

 Nariman Youssef is active in the Egyptian protests and was in Tahrir Square on a regular basis from January 25th until a few days ago. She is a translator and researcher, currently studying for a PhD at the Centre for the Advanced Study of the Arab World, University of Manchester.

Mostafa Henaway is an Egyptian-Canadian youth organiser and independent journalist. He travelled to Occupied Palestine at the height of the Second Intifada, becoming active with the International Solidarity Movement in Jenin. He is a member of Tadamon, the Montreal-based solidarity group with Palestine. 

BDS: A call to the Coens

Dear Joel and Ethan Coen

We understand that you’re among this year’s winners of a $1mn Dan David prize, awarded jointly by the Dan David Foundation and Tel Aviv University.   We read that you’re likely to attend the award ceremony in Israel on May 15, in the company of Israeli president Shimon Peres.

All this may seem unexceptional to you.  But we think you’re too smart not to understand that nothing in this situation is simple. The Dan David judges apparently like your ability ‘to tell a simple story in a complex manner’.  Allow us to complicate your reported acceptance of this prize.

Your much-celebrated presence will adorn a colonial settler state still vigorously engaged in the business of dispossessing and driving out the indigenous inhabitants, who are the Palestinians.   Of course the United States itself is built on the bones and demolished civilizations of its own indigenous inhabitants, but for the Palestinians the struggle is real and present – an every day battle to hang on to land, houses, livelihoods, hopes and ambitions.

Your appearance in Israel will unfortunately help camouflage the brutal realities of a powerful and illegal military occupation.   However much you believe you can go there simply as artists, your presence will be spun to reassure the Israeli public that their ruthless colonial society is ‘normal’, and to promote Brand Israel
abroad.   You will be saying, to Israelis and to the world, that Israel’s violently racist treatment of the Palestinians is acceptable.   Do you really want to do this?

Palestinian civil society organisations, grouped together as PACBI, are asking international artists not to go to Israel while it flouts international law and denies Palestinian rights.   In the last few weeks, musicians Roger Waters and Pete Seeger have announced their support for this boycott call; they join film directors Mike
Leigh and Ken Loach, writers John Berger and Arundhati Roy, musicians Massive Attack, Elvis Costello, Gil Scott-Heron, The Pixies, and many others.


You may reject the idea of ‘taking a stand’ like this; you may feel it’s antithetical to the whole spirit and ethos of your writing and filmmaking.   But by accepting the prize and going to Israel, you are already taking a stand.

Boycott is a non-violent form of direct action.   It gives citizens the power to act in favour of justice when our governments fail to do so.   Is it conceivable that during the long struggle against apartheid South Africa, you would have travelled there to receive a award from an apartheid institution?   If it isn’t, you’re already
willing to boycott an unjust system.  

Right now a group of Israelis organising as Boycott! Supporting the Palestinian BDS Call from Within are threatened with legal sanctions by an anti-boycott bill that has just passed its first reading in the Israeli parliament.   You could maybe stand with them.   Or with these Palestinian children, woken from sleep by an
Israeli army unit and photographed because, apparently, they represent a threat to the state.   Or with 11 year old Kareem Tamimi, arrested in January in the chilling circumstances of this video.

But if you go to Tel Aviv and accept the prize, you’ll be standing with Shimon Peres, capo dei capi of the security forces whose activities one gets a glimpse of in these clips.   Won’t it make you queasy to do so?   We think it ought to.  Please don’t go.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Haim Bresheeth
Mike Cushman
Professor Jonathan Rosenhead
London, 10 March 2011

Another brick off the wall? Roger Waters calls for BDS

Roger Waters, formerly of Pink Floyd, has a Guardian Comment is free article supporting boycott, divestment and sanctions.  That's nice but it's easy enough to duck out of gigs and award ceremonies by citing other commitments or diary pressures.  Not only that an artist can always whinge a little about the occupation or the violence or even the "nihilism" of "both sides".  Roger Waters is made of better stuff:

the Israeli government has made no attempt to implement legislation that would grant rights to Israeli Arabs equal to those enjoyed by Israeli Jews, and the wall has grown, inexorably, illegally annexing more and more of the West Bank.

For the people of Gaza, locked in a virtual prison behind the wall of Israel's illegal blockade, it means another set of injustices. It means that children go to sleep hungry, many chronically malnourished. It means that fathers and mothers, unable to work in a decimated economy, have no means to support their families. It means that university students with scholarships to study abroad must watch the opportunity of a lifetime slip away because they are not allowed to travel.

In my view, the abhorrent and draconian control that Israel wields over the besieged Palestinians in Gaza and the Palestinians in the occupied West Bank (including East Jerusalem), coupled with its denial of the rights of refugees to return to their homes in Israel, demands that fair-minded people around the world support the Palestinians in their civil, nonviolent resistance.

Where governments refuse to act people must, with whatever peaceful means are at their disposal. For me this means declaring an intention to stand in solidarity, not only with the people of Palestine but also with the many thousands of Israelis who disagree with their government's policies, by joining the campaign of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions against Israel.

Did you see that?  It is clear statement against the whole shebang of zionist rule in occupied Palestine; the blockade of Gaza, the wall through the West Bank, draconian controls over the lives of occupied Palestinians, including in Jerusalem and the denial of the right of return.

How Hamas took "power" in Gaza, and why

Here's a letter from Deborah Macoby published in The Spectator just recently:

Sir: John R. Bradley writes, in support of his argument that free elections in Arab countries are likely to bring Islamists to power (‘Arabian nightmare’, 26 February): ‘Democracy came to Gaza and the Islamist group Hamas took power.’ He fails to consider the background to Hamas’s victory in the Palestinian general
election of 2006 and subsequent takeover of Gaza.

In 1996, the Palestinians’ first general election was won overwhelmingly by Fatah. It is true that Hamas refused to participate, but the high turnout and vote for Fatah indicate that Hamas would have done poorly, at a time when Palestinians believed they were going to gain their own state. Ten years later,
when hope for that state had been eroded, the Palestinian vote for Hamas was the result of despair and defiance — against Fatah for its corruption and the failure of its negotiating strategy, against the US for being a dishonest broker, against the EU for being craven, and most of all against Israel for
being unwilling to lift the yoke of occupation and settlement.

Hamas subsequently took power — in so far as being under siege and occupation constitutes power — in Gaza after a civil war, in order to pre-empt an undemocratic coup that was about to be mounted by Fatah, backed by the United States.

Deborah Maccoby
Executive, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, London E5

There's no link to the letters page for non-subscribers so this is from Just Peace UK.

Who exaggerates antisemitism and why?

Antony Lerman has a very good article on Open Democracy.  I've seen a fair bit of this exaggerating and misdefining of antisemitism lately, in fact there's been quite a game on here and here.  But I hadn't realised just how much hasbara on this has been pumped out by mainstreamers lately.  See this:

when a cluster of such attention-grabbing incidents occur, commentators are instantly prompted to tell us what they think these events say about the state of antisemitism today. The instinct to ask the question is reasonable enough, but the tendency to jump so quickly to conclusions might not be. From the following short quotes, there seems to be considerable support for the view that the recent incidents have shown antisemitism to be continuous, enduring, pervasive, newly threatening: they ‘reinforced reports of an alarming increase in antisemitism’ (Andrew McCorkell, Independent), provided evidence that antisemitism is ‘the hatred that refuses to go away’ (Jonathan Freedland, Guardian), indicated that ‘our liberal, creative elite [has] rediscovered an ancient prejudice’ (Julian Kossoff, Daily Telegraph), demonstrated that it was ‘the week that antisemitism became really, properly zeitgeisty again’ (David Baddiel, Daily Telegraph) and confirmed ‘the increasing acceptability of antisemitic abuse so long [as] it is couched within an Israel-Palestine context’ (Norman Lebrecht, Arts Journal blog).

There's just a little touch of usual suspects to the list and remember that Anthony Julius has already had a bite of the cherry but what's it all about?

while it’s possible to understand why these commentators reach such conclusions, a tad more circumspection might have been wise. A brief critique of the quotes shows that there are fundamental flaws in the pieces from which they are taken. Claims of an alarming increase in antisemitism don’t square with information announced in January by the Israeli government’s Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism that antisemitic incidents were down in 2010 from a high in 2009. The statement that antisemitism is ‘the hatred that refuses to go away’ implies that other hatreds have disappeared, but there is no evidence of this. To say that Galliano, Sheen and Assange are representative of ‘our liberal, creative elite’ is absurdly far-fetched. Antisemitism ‘zeitgeisty’?—how can it be the spirit of the time when there was such condemnation of the incidents? And finally, in the three cases under consideration, the abuse was ‘couched’ entirely outside an ‘Israel-Palestine context’.

But the bit that had me laughing out loud (as they say) was this:

It’s perhaps not surprising that these writers display such weaknesses. None of them are experts in the subject. Not that experts have all the answers or that they would all agree. But it’s surely not unreasonable to expect that editors seeking informed comment should search for scholars and researchers who, while able to communicate their views effectively and succinctly, have at least got serious credentials. Isn’t there something absurd, even paradoxical, about seeking the wisdom of celebrity writers commenting on the verbal inanities of celebrities?

I suspect he is being a little too kind. There has been a game on over trying to use the antisemitism smear or genuine fear of antisemitism to the the advantage of zionism, that is what the usual suspects have in common, not their celebrity, but Lerman is nothing if not diplomatic. He even praises Linda Grant but he manages to mention and critique another suspect before recommending some seriousness:

Adopting a differentiated approach effectively means rejecting a theory of antisemitism, most fully realised in the work of Professor Robert Wistrich, that feeds much current comment: that antisemitism is a unique, continuous phenomenon, stretching back two millennia, that defies parallels and comparisons. Other leading historians of antisemitism, such as Professor David Feldman, who heads the new Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism  at Birkbeck University of London,Professor Tony Kushner  at Southampton and Dr Adam Sutcliffe  at Kings College London, have developed a body of work that sets antisemitism within a wider context of Jewish-non-Jewish relations and does not see attitudes to Jews exclusively through the prism of prejudice.

And there's still more to come including holding up antisemitism with other forms of racism.

The old Anthony Julius libel

'Ere we go.  Jonathan Freedland had an article in The Guardian manipulatively implying that it is antisemitic to say that the charge of antisemitism is used to smear and silence Israel. He said other stuff besides like:

What most Jews object to is not, in fact, criticism of Israel itself, but when that criticism comes wrapped in the language or imagery of Jew-hatred. In Trials of the Diaspora, his forensic study of English antisemitism, the critic and lawyer Anthony Julius provides example after example. He cites Tom Paulin's polemical poem Killed in Crossfire, published in the Observer at the height of the second intifada, or Caryl Churchill's 2009 play Seven Jewish Children, suggesting they are the latest in a long line of English literary works that tap into the "blood libel" – the medieval accusation that Jews hanker after the blood of gentile children, a defamation that led to massacres of Jews in England and far beyond.

I don't know how he knows what most Jews like or don't like but by the next paragraph he knows what all Jews find "unnerving":

Jews are unnerved when they read learned essays by foreign policy experts alleging the domination of US affairs by the "Zionist lobby" 

He lists out various examples of what he claims is evidence of "the longest hatred" mostly without any consideration of arguments had at the time. For example,

They [Jews] feel similarly alarmed by claims that the hidden hand behind all world events is really Israel – that it was Israel that pushed George W Bush to invade Iraq (when, in fact, Israeli policymakers were warning that Iran posed the greater threat, or that Israel is the reason why Britain has long backed despots in the Arab world, when Britain has plenty of self-interested reasons of its own for its policy in the region.

The Israel lobby went into overdrive for the war on Iraq and it only emerged after the war that Israel itself, specifically Ariel Sharon, was against the war. I don't entirely accept the Israel lobby thesis but as per Mearsheimer and Walt, the Israel lobby works, it supposes for Israel but is not Israeli, therefore they say it is no good for Israel nor America. I mention this because it is yet another example of Jonathan Freedland's dishonesty when it comes to Israel's critics. Of course, I am none too concerned whether the lobby is good or bad for Israel but I think Mearsheimer and Walt are stretching their point on Israel and failing to define what is in America's "national interest".

But still, after a lengthy intro, all I really wanted to do was draw attention to Caryl Churchill's letter complaining of Freedland's and Julius's dishonesty:

Jonathan Freedland (G2, March 3) denies that criticism of Israel is often wrongly called antisemitism. His point isn't helped by quoting Anthony Julius's allegation that my play Seven Jewish Children "tap[s] into the 'blood libel'". The line he is referring to is "tell her there's dead babies, did she see babies?" It refers to babies killed in the attack on Gaza in 2009 and shown on TV. When people hear of babies killed in a war, they don't usually think of medieval accusations of Jews consuming Christian children's blood, but of babies killed in a war. If readers want to judge the play for themselves it is on the Guardian website and the text can be obtained on the internet and performed without charge to raise money for Medical Aid for Palestinians.

Caryl Churchill

London

It's a pity no one dealt with other aspects of what he wrote but then Freedland is the main (but by no means the only) resident zionist at The Guardian.

But, far be it from Anthony Julius to let someone undermine one of his false allegations:

In Trials of the Diaspora, I argue that Caryl Churchill's play Seven Jewish Children is antisemitic. Churchill (Letters, 4 March) denies this characterisation, writing that I rely on the line "tell her there's dead babies, did she see babies?".

I had in mind the following lines, among others. "Tell her we killed the babies by mistake / Don't tell her anything about the army." "Tell her I look at one of their children covered in blood and what do I feel? Tell her all I feel is happy it's not her." "Tell her I wouldn't care if we wiped them out." "Tell her I don't care if the world hates us, tell her we're better haters, tell her we're chosen people."

In this play, Jews confess to lying to their own children and killing Palestinian children. They also confess to something close to a project of genocide. And they freely acknowledge the source of their misanthropy to be Judaism itself.

None of this seems to bother Churchill – nor, indeed, the Guardian. As she correctly notes, the play is available on your website.

Anthony Julius

London

I suppose one can always hope that Guardian readers will have sophisticated enough bogus allegation detectors to be wise to Julius but happily enough, The Guardian allowed Caryl Churchill another bite of the cherry.  Well antisemitism did used to be a serious allegation.  Here it is:

Antony Julius (Letters, March 7) quotes more lines from my play Seven Jewish Children to bolster his claim that it is antisemitic. What he doesn't seem to realise is that these lines are not spoken as he suggests by "Jews" in general but by individual Israelis, desperate to protect their own child, during an attack of disproportionate violence on Gaza. I don't think the play is a disproportionate response to that attack. It should be possible to pillory the defensive self-righteousness and racism of some – not all – Israelis without being called antisemitic.

Caryl Churchill

London

Not if some zionists get their way, it won't.

Righteous among the nazis?

When are nazis righteous?  When they support Israel of course.  This is from Newsweek:

To the casual observer, the visiting Europeans at Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust memorial in the hills above Jerusalem, looked like any other foreign delegation. In the Garden of the Righteous Among Nations, where Gentiles who protected Jews are honored, they laid a wreath and posed for a photo before signing the visitors’ book with the solemn promise: “We will want to make sure that ‘never again’ really means never again.”

But these were no ordinary travelers with Zionist sympathies. Rather, on this trip to Israel were a Belgian politician known for his contacts with SS veterans, an Austrian with neo-Nazi ties, and a Swede whose political party has deep roots in Swedish fascism—unlikely visitors to pay their respects at Yad Vashem, perhaps, unless one considers the political currents in Israel and Europe, and the adage that one’s enemy’s enemy is one’s friend.

Seems like only yesterday there were people arguing that it's antisemitic to compare Israel to the nazis.

Fighting BDS ain't cheap

Many thanks to Yael Kahn for posting this Totally Jewish article out.  Apparently there has been quite a ruckus at the top of some Jewish/zionist organisations on account of someone from the Jewish Leadership Council suggesting that some of Israel's actions might not be very nice. The Jewish National Fund (UK) has actually resigned from the JLC over it:

The Israel charity's resignation was confirmed in a statement, which claimed that the Jewish Leadership Council's focus had shifted from its original remit for internal community affairs towards "foreign affairs and particularly in relation to matters of Israeli government policy".


Among "numerous concerns", JNF UK's chairman, Samuel Hayek, also charged that the actions of JLC figures would give ammunition to those pursuing a campaign of delegi-timisation against Israel.

But the JLC thinks it's about money:

But the JLC this week claimed that the reasons given by JNF for quitting were a "smokescreen for failure to pay its way" and that the organisation was informed only after making clear to JNF its policy to suspend or expel those who default on JLC membership fees.

In a strongly worded letter to Hayek, Vivian Wineman, chairman of the JLC's council of membership, wrote on Tuesday that a final demand had been issued early in February for more than 10,000 pounds owed for last year's membership. Although not covered by the final demand, Wineman also writes that the annual subscription of 5,000 pounds to the Fair Play Campaign to tackle attempts to boycott Israel had not been paid by JNF UK for the past three years.

Wow! £5k per annum to fight BDS. That's just from one group. I just looked at the JLC website and they list 19 groups as having membership. That's £95k. And check out the groups. The Union of Jewish Students is there. Is the UJS telling its members it pays £5k to fight BDS? Sad if it is, sad if it isn't.

Anyway, im these hard times it's interesting to know that students have got £5k pa to try and make sure that Israel's crimes go unpunished.

Al Akhbar: Son of Qaddafi visits Israel, asks for money and others

This is an English translation of a French account of an article in Al-Akhbar:

Nizar Abboud, the serious and reliable correspondent with the UN of Lebanese daily Al Akhbar, reports that a son of Kadaffi has visited occupied Palestine two days ago to sollicit for help. During his visit Saif el Islam has asked high placed zionist officials for military asistence in terms of ammunition,night surveillance and satellite suveillance, trying to develop political and economic relations between the two countries. (?)

He also asked the zionists to use their credit with the USA to protect the funds invested by his family, offering part of the profits. Saif el Islam maintains- for a long time already- narrow relations with the zionist entity, and we have not forgotten how he used, since the beginning of the lybian revolation, services from a famous zionist 'security' firm. This firm has furnished mercenaries from Tchad and elsewhere, making huge profits( Kadaffi has been willing to pay salaries of 1000 to 2000 dollars a day)

http://www.al-akhbar.com/node/5713

Israeli apartheid week

I have to try to redeem myself here because I missed Israeli Apartheid Week in London. Well, I missed the beginning anyway. It's not good to post mid-event but thankfully David Hillman in a comment to a post on an IAW past has given me a jog over the events in Oxford starting today:

Oxford

University of Oxford, Friday March 4- Wednesday March 9, 2011

*Friday March 4 “The Road to Justice: Boycotting Apartheid”

Speakers: Dr Karma Nabulsi and Omar Bargouti
Chair: Dr Marc Stears
Time: 8pm
Location: Nissan Lecture Theatre, St Antony’s College

Karma Nabulsi is Fellow in Politics at St Edmund Hall and University
Lecturer in International Relations. Her publications include
Traditions of War: Occupation, Resistance and the Law (OUP, 2005)

Omar Barghouti is an independent Palestinian researcher, commentator
and human rights activist and a steering committee member of the
Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.
He is the author of Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: the Global
Struggle for Palestinian Rights (Haymarket, 2011)

Marc Stears is Fellow in Politics at University College and University
Lecturer in Political Theory. He is the author of Demanding Democracy:
American Radicals in Search of a New Politics (Princeton, 2010)

*Monday March 7 “Report Back from the Gaza Flotilla”

Speaker: Sarah Colborne
Time: 7:30pm
Location: Oxford Union, Gladstone Room

Sarah Colborne is the Executive Director of the Palestine Solidarity
Campaign. She was on board Mavi Marmara boat that was attacked as part
of the Gaza Flotilla convoy in 2010 and is a leading campaigner
against the siege of Gaza.

*Wednesday March 9 “The Egyptian Revolution and Palestine”

Speaker: Hussam Hamalawy
Chair: Dr. Abdel Razzaq Takriti
Time: 7:30pm
Location: Oxford Union, Gladstone Room

Hussam Hamalawy is a journalist and activist and a leading Egyptian
revolutionary voice. He publishes the popular blog www.arabawy.org
.

Abdel Razzaq Takriti is S.G. Younis Junior Research Fellow in
Political History at St Edmund Hall. His research focuses on Arab
revolutionary movements.

On zionist dishonesty

Here's a letter in today's Guardian from Arthur Goodman, Chair of Jews for Justice for Palestinians, complaining of the sheer dishonesty of zionists making false allegations of antisemitism:

Your letter (The space where anti-Zionism becomes antisemitism, 24 February) quotes a few extreme cases of criticising Israel, as if they were the generality, in order to smear Universities UK with alleged antisemitism for daring to support universities in hosting speakers who criticise Israel. The authors' main complaint is that a recent speaker referred to the "Jewish lobby" instead of the "Zionist lobby". Supposedly, that proves the speaker and, by implication, many others, was engaging in the Jewish conspiracy theory, supported or at least tolerated by the universities. 

What nonsense. Most critics of Israel and its apologists refer correctly to an Israel lobby, or possibly a Zionist lobby, because they know the lobby comprises non-Jewish as well as Jewish organisations. They also know that many Jews, and a growing number of Jewish groups, such as JFJFP of which I am chair, are deeply critical of Israeli policy.

However, a chorus of some establishment Jewish organisations muddies the water by constantly telling the world that all Jews always support what Israel does. (The authors of the letter of 24 February represent three of them.) So it isn't surprising if a few people fall into the trap of referring to a "Jewish lobby". It doesn't mean they are antisemitic, and it doesn't mean the universities which host them tolerate antisemitism.

There is a deep dishonesty in the chorus. Not only does it deliberately fail to acknowledge the wide range of attitudes within the Jewish community towards Israeli policy, it also tries to have it both ways. Having told the world how all Jews support Israeli policy, it cries foul when some people take them at their word.

Arthur Goodman

Jews for Justice for Palestinians

Can't disagree with anything there.

By the way, the three people referred to in the letter are:

Jonathan Arkush Board of Deputies of British Jews, Mark GardnerCommunity Security Trust, Carly McKenzie Union of Jewish Students

What a bunch!

Pete Seeger now supports BDS

I only just noticed this on Quick JSF.  Great news to hear that Pete Seeger has now signed up for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against the racist war criminals of the State of Israel.  Here's Ha'aretz:

American folk music legend Pete Seeger on Monday officially joined the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign - an international movement to pressure and sanction Israel through economic means.

Seeger, 92, one of the fathers of American folk music, is a veteran political and peace activist. In the 1950s he was interrogated by the McCarthyist House Unamerican Activities Committee and two years ago performed for U.S. President Barack Obama's inauguration concert.

So what happened?

On Monday, Seeger withdrew his support of a project associated with the Jewish National Fund's American branch, after Israeli and Palestinian activists told him of the JNF's role in driving the Bedouins out of their Negev areas. 

After a meeting with ICAHD coordinator Jeff Halper, Seeger reportedly said his participation in the JNF project had been misunderstood and announced his support for BDS.

Hmm, misunderstood? Ah, now I think I see. If you check out the Jerusalem Post article it looks like he underestimated the role of the Jewish National Fund in an event he participated in and the extent of its role in ethnic cleansing in Palestine.

The lobbyist and the lobby

Here's a funny old thing. It's a Jewish Telegraphic Agency article on how a judge has thrown out a defamation case brought by former AIPAC exec, Steve Rosen, against AIPAC.

Judge Erik Christian of the Washington Superior Court ruled Wednesday that a statement by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that Rosen was fired because his behavior  "did not comport with standards that AIPAC expects of its employees" was not defamatory.

Instead, Christian said, the statement, made by AIPAC spokesman Patrick Dorton to The New York Times, "is the characterization of an employer that does not rest on any objectively verifiable facts." He went on to say that the statement was "neither precise nor verifiable."

Rosen filed the lawsuit against AIPAC and Dorton in April 2009 just before a federal court threw out classified information charges against him and Keith Weissman, an former AIPAC Iran analyst, for lack of evidence. AIPAC fired Rosen and Weissman in March 2005. Evidence emerged since then that the federal government pressured the organization to fire the men as a means of isolating them, although AIPAC has steadfastly denied this. AIPAC initially was supportive of Rosen and Weissman after the FBI investigation came to light in August 2004.

"The court's decision, that the statements made by AIPAC and its spokesman were not defamatory, support AIPAC's continued assertion that this lawsuit was frivolous and had no basis in fact," Dorton said in a statement.

Rosen told the Washington Post he would likely appeal.

Revisit the bit I italicised:

Evidence emerged since then that the federal government pressured the organization to fire the men as a means of isolating them, although AIPAC has steadfastly denied this. AIPAC initially was supportive of Rosen and Weissman after the FBI investigation came to light in August 2004.

Now, to be honest, I have found it hard sometimes to argue against the Israel lobby thesis but this article suggests that it is the state that rules the lobby, not the other way around.