As California prisoners' massive hunger strike against long-term solitary confinement, group punishment, and other cruel and inhuman policies of the CDCR (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) enters its second week, Governor Jerry Brown is on a two-week vacation to Germany and Ireland. To add insult to injury, it includes a visit to the Dachau concentration camp.
It is shocking for the Governor to have chosen this time to go on vacation while the CDCR refuses to meet the hunger strikers' five just demands that would end the torture of prisoners in the state he is supposed to be responsible for governing. The International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network is outraged that Brown dares to exploit the Nazi genocide to distract from his complicity in the repression and racism against prisoners, disproportionately people of color and low income people, women and transgender people, in order to make money for the lucrative prison industry in California.
The racism that allows Brown to be silent about a massive hunger strike is the same racism that allows for the massive and disproportionate incarceration of Black and Brown people in California and nationwide."No other country in the world imprisons so many of its racial or ethnic minorities. The United States imprisons a larger percentage of its Black population than South Africa did at the height of apartheid." To bring these statistics closer to home, "In Washington, D.C. ... it is estimated that three out of four young black men (and nearly all those in the poorest neighborhoods) can expect to serve time in prison."
The same page (5) has a brief summary of Blair's love affair with democracy in Egypt:
Who better to offer a hopeful sermon to strife-torn Egypt than roving Middle East vicar, Tony Blair?
"I am a strong supporter of democracy," the great peacemaker wrote in Sunday's Observer. "This struggle matters to us. The good news is that there are millions of modern and open-minded people out there. They need to know we are on their side, their allies, prepared to pay the price to be there with them."
The former PM knows Egypt well, of course. As we pointed out after the 2011 revolution that toppled president Hosni Mubarak, Blair was happy to take his Christmas hols in the country no fewer than five times between 2000 and 2005 when the Egyptian dictator's regime was at its zenith. At the first of those visits, Blair was "a guest of the Egyptian government at two private government villas at Sharm-el-Sheikh", according to his entry in the register of MPs' interests, while on at least one subsequent trip Mubarak paid for the flights. Can this be what the vicar means about showing pro-democracy Egyptians that "we are on their side" and, er, "prepared to pay the price to be there"?
Of course as neoconservatism's ambassador at large, indeed, the man who puts the Con in NeoCon, Blair can excuse anything that doesn't quite tally with his professed commitment to democracy. And here's a little nugget reported in The Observer (Guardian online) that the Eye missed out:
"I am a strong supporter of democracy. But democratic government doesn't on its own mean effective government. Today efficacy is the challenge."
Leaving it to The Observer to note:
Having taken this country to war in Iraq in 2003 despite huge public opposition, including a march by more than a million people through London, Blair now argues that shows of public unrest such as that in Egypt – fuelled and organised through social media – cannot be ignored.
I don't know, maybe there is a certain consistency there. Lots of people on the streets in Egypt, send in the army. Lots of people on the streets of the UK, send in the army...to Iraq.
PS: I was looking on google for a quote about Blair from former Tory MP, Matthew Parris. I couldn't find it but here's Parris on Blair from Wikipedia:
I believe Tony Blair is an out-and-out rascal, terminally untrustworthy and close to being unhinged. I said from the start that there was something wrong in his head, and each passing year convinces me more strongly that this man is a pathological confidence-trickster. To the extent that he ever believes what he says, he is delusional. To the extent that he does not, he is an actor whose first invention — himself — has been his only interesting role.
What I find interesting about this quote in the Matthew Parris Wikipedia entry is that the quote itself says nothing specific about Parris though it does sum up Blair. It would be more appropriate for Blair's own entry. It appears that hatred of Blair is so widespread some people will use any outlet to vent it.
It took a little time but Tony Blair has finally disagreed with UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, about something. Look at The Guardian:
Since his departure from No 10 just over six years ago, Tony Blair has gone out of his way to be polite about his successors.
But the former PM's patience finally snapped on Thursday when David Cameron sought to fend off questions about the business interests of the Tories' chief election strategist Lynton Crosby by drawing a comparison with Blair. Cameron said the former PM was a "good example" to compare to Crosby, saying "he does lobby me from time to time".
A spokesperson for Blair then hit back, saying nobody could "seriously compare" Blair's work as Middle East envoy with that of a business lobbyist. "Tony Blair does not 'lobby' David Cameron," the spokesperson said. "You cannot seriously compare Tony Blair's role as quartet representative, which requires him to talk to governments around the world about the Middle East peace process, to that of a lobbyist."
So there we have it. According to the British government Blair is no more than a sleazy Israel lobbyist. Of course, Blair denies it but who can believe anything Blair says?
I was at a post Fraser v UCU symposium on antisemitism last week. There was much debate whether antisemitism was best countered as a form of racism in line with UK legislation or, because the anti racism narrative has gone in a particular direction, it should best be treated as a sui generis type of predjudice and discrimination. That aside, a trade unionist well known here who campaigns for Israel and Jewish trade union links with Palestinians, opined that things were much worse these days as back in his day, it was considered shameful to be antisemitic but today it has lost its stigma and the accusee would shrug "so what".
There was a chorus of vigorous disagreement, including from me. We said the stigma was now so great that everyone would vehemently deny the accusation (Galloway would probably sue you) and it was this very denial, this lack of acknowledgement of its variegate manifestations, that was the problem.
So what to do? Do they falsely accuse Israel's opponents, critics and victims of the old antisemitism, ie racism against Jews or do they run with a new antisemitism as in simply being an opponent, critic or victim of the racist war criminals of the State of Israel?
A commentor to the Ramadan Kareem post broke the sad news to me of the passing of Ilan Halevi on Wednesday on 10/07/2013. Here's an obit from the Alternative Information Centre:
THURSDAY, 11 JULY 2013 06:38 MICHEL WARSCHAWSKI, ALTERNATIVE INFORMATION CENTER (AIC)
Our comrade Ilan Halevi has left us, and an important chapter in the Palestinian struggle for national liberation thus closes.
Ilan Halevi (Photo: Collectif Urgence Palestine)
Exactly a year ago, Ilan and I shared a platform at the University of France with the Palestine Solidarity Association (AFPS). If Ilan's body betrayed his fatigue and its many failures, his mind displayed the same clarity that I had known for more than four decades. A few months later it was in a hospital that I met him, further weakened and now with great difficulty in expressing himself clearly.
We do not inherit our identity but create it, on the basis of genetic and sociological data, and this identity is always multiple. Yet I have not known anyone with such a multiple identity as Ilan. Let Ilan speak for one last time: "I am 100% Jew, I am 100% Arab."
In deciding after the 1967 war to move to Israel, Ilan chose to be 100% Israeli. In 1968 he joined the anti-Zionist left group Matzpen, helping to strengthen the anti-colonial coherence of it programme and fighting for unconditional support to the Palestinian struggle for national liberation. After leaving Israel in 1974, he joined the ranks of the PLO and quickly became 100% Palestinian.
It is in the ranks of the PLO and Fatah in which Ilan became a leader. Here he could utilise his immense talents in writing but also in speaking and polemics in both the political sphere and diplomacy. Ilan's footprint in the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, as well as in his role as a Fatah representative in the Fourth Socialist International is indelible. His unmatched ability of persuasion could break many locks intended to isolate Palestine in the international arena. It is no exaggeration to say that Ilan Halevi has played a key role in the long process of recognition of Palestine by the international community.
Ilan devoted his entire life to the struggle, often at the expense of his family and always to the detriment of his health, which he allowed to deteriorate on the altar of his 100 percent commitment.
Palestine lost a son today, the PLO an officer, and his very many friends in Beirut, Paris, Tel Aviv, Bamako, Ramallah and San Francisco mourn a brother and a friend.
Not just personal, sexist of course, but there appears to be some personal spat going on between a zionist blogger and a man in the thread.
I don't remember a time when the Jewish Chronicle was anything other than a wretched rag. It's often racist, often dishonest but it seems to be plumbing new depths of late. In fairness it's in the "your blogs" section that I noticed it but how does the following pass any kind of editorial standard?
The thread isn't much better but eventually the chap whose wife is subjected to the misogynistic abuse of the headline appeals for some editorial intervention. That was three days ago and the blog is still in place.
UPDATE 13:19 pm 15/07/2013: The Jewish Chronicle appears to have removed the offending blog post but not the offending blogger.
In all the tumult I hadn't noticed that Mahmud Abbas had hailed the overthrow of the elected government of Egypt by the Egyptian army. I first noticed this tweet from the UK Israel lobby group, BICOM:
I read the article and checked elsewhere and sure enough, Abbas said:
“In the name of the Palestinian people and its leaders, I am honoured to congratulate you on assuming the leadership of the Arab Republic of Egypt in this transitory phase in its history.” Abbas went on to praise “the role played by the Egyptian armed forces… in preserving the security of Egypt and stopping it from sliding towards an unknown fate.”
It didn't surprise me that Abbas supported the coup but it did surprise me that he could so brazenly speak "In the name of the Palestinian people and its leaders".
The whole thing reminded me of an article in al Ahram by Joseph Massad titled, Pinochet in Palestine:
Before the United States government subcontracted the Chilean military to overthrow the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in 1973, it carried out a number of important missions in the country in preparation for the coup of 11 September. These included major strikes, especially by truck owners, which crippled the economy, massive demonstrations that included middle-class housewives and children carrying pots and pans demanding food, purging the Chilean military of officers who would oppose the suspension of democracy and the introduction of US-supported fascist rule, and a major media campaign against the regime with the CIA planting stories in newspapers like El Mercurio and others. This was in a context where also the Communist Party and the Leftist Revolutionary Movement (MIR) criticised and sometimes attacked the Allende regime from varying leftist positions.
I see two big fast food chains are taking a stand against racist war criminals hot on the heels of each other. First McDonalds refused to open a branch in the West Bank settlement of Ariel and now KFC is taking a stand against a modification of their trade mark from Colonel Sanders to Hitler for a fried chicken outlet in Bangkok.
Israeli financial daily Calcalistreported on Wednesday that global behemoth McDonald’s won’t be opening a franchise in a shopping mall currently under construction in Ariel, Israel’s largest West Bank settlement—that, in fact, owner and general manager Omri Padan “refuses” to do so.
Rainer Jensen/DPA/Landov
McDonald’s Israel has clarified, however, that it’s always been company policy not to operate beyond the Green Line, and as the Israeli franchise has been a growing concern for twenty years, it requires a special kind of effort to see the refusal as anything new, or as a response to any sort of pressure. Sure it’s a boycott, but it’s a boycott that’s already a generation old.
Ok, McDonalds steering clear of the West Bank is nothing new but this Huffington Post report, picked up from this tweet is new and in its own way similar to the McDonalds story:
Well nothing appears to be the answer to that if this shindig at the Wiener Library is anything to go by:
The UCU, Antisemitism and the boycotts campaigns against Israel
Thu 11 Jul 2013
Time: 4.00pm - 6.00pm
The University and College Union (UCU) has passed anti-Zionist resolutions since 2005 and Jewish members have complained about antisemitic tendencies within the union. In 2012 Ronnie Fraser brought a case against the UCU complaining of institutional antisemitism in violation of the Equality Act. However, the employment tribunal handling the case ruled that his complaints of harassment were unfounded. Despite the evidence that was brought forward the judges did not recognise antisemitism in the union and instead accused Fraser of disregarding pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression by trying to silence his political opponents. This workshop seeks to analyse this case as well as antisemitism in unions and on campus, including anti-Israeli boycott campaigns. It explores why there is a reluctance to recognise anti-Zionist forms of antisemitism in the frame of anti-racism and anti-discrimination.
This event is organised by The Wiener Library for the Study of the Holocaust & Genocide and the International Study Group for Education and Research on Antisemitism.
Roundtable speakers: Ronnie Fraser, Eric Lee, Doerte Letzmann, Eve Garrard
Discussant: Robert Fine
Chair: Gunther Jikeli / Hagai van der Horst
Admission: Free, but booking is essential as space is limited.
Here are some brief notes on the speakers I know of:
Ronnie Fraser was the fall guy in the Employment Tribunal disaster back in March this year.
Eric Lee is an anti-BDS activist in the Trade Union movement in the UK.
The "discussant", Robert Fine has lots of form for smearing anti-zionists and BDS campaigners. I wrote about him here. Let's just say he's not a man of the highest integrity.
I'd never heard of Gunther Jikeli before but a bit of googling turned up a useful piece by Antony Lerman:
I don't expect any balance to the views of the bogus bunch mentioned above so I am guessing the discussion will revolve around finding new ways of smearing Israel's critics as antisemitic and in so doing hindering or even outlawing international solidarity with the Palestinians.
By the way, I suppose it is needless to say that the Judeo-Nazis at Harry's Place are promoting this bit-of-a-do but two comments suggest that the zionists are still in disarray over the FUCU case:
It would have been helpful if this event had included as speakers people who are lawfare experts and anti-boycott experts from the Israeli community. As it is, the presenters seem, apart from Ronnie himself to be a selection of people from around the Harry's Place/Euston Manifesto/Engage consensus, which is exactly the group that was used so unsuccessfully act as witness fodder for what seems to have been a misguided legal action.Adding the group campaigning around a mysterious death of a lone Jewish man in Germany does not cut it.
[for what seems to have been a misguided legal action]
Agree with that.
I see whilst Ronnie Fraser is happy to put his head above the parapet there is still no sign of the man who ought to be a "lawfare expert", Anthony Julius, but who knows, all these zionists making utter fools, not to mention liars, of themselves in pursuit of this "epic folly" might smoke Julius out soon enough.
Wonderful exchange at Harry's Place which of course I have to capture here because they delete their comments after a week, which means that in the medium run, they win the argument on their own site only but anyway, here's the exchange:
Are you not the least bit ashamed of the turgid BTL exchanges you participated in ?
Do you come here to gain a sense of normality so as to distance yourself from those incoherent ramblings .
"Are you not the least bit ashamed of the turgid BTL exchanges you participated in ?"
A little bit here, but not there. Here it's mostly a curiosity about what madness they'll come up with next, there it's more serious and sober. It's like switching channels from Big Brother to Newsnight. The former is more entertaining and lighter on the brain. I suppose you could call the latter "turgid", but I prefer not to be a reverse snob.
I could worry about "turgid" but I'm sure he only meant Newsnight not Jews sans frontieres or me. Actually I had to look up both "execrable" and "turgid".
This is just a coincidence but an article I wrote many months ago to the New Left Project has been published. I re-post the beginning below with a link to the full article.
Norman Finkelstein’s recent book Knowing Too Much surveys the
trajectory of American Jews' infatuation with Israel in order to
show—this is Finkelstein's main point—that it has entered a stage of
disenchantment. But are the political implications of this
disenchantment the ones Finkelstein himself draws?
One chapter particularly worth reading in Finkelstein’s book is
dedicated to a thorough debunking of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's
"The Israeli Lobby made me do it"
explanation of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and especially
the Iraq War. In an essay and subsequent book, Walt and Mearsheimer famously argued
that U.S. support for Israeli policies harms rather than serves
American interests, and explained it, along with much of the U.S.'s
behaviour in the Middle East, in terms of the machinations of pro-Israel
lobby groups.
In his chapter, Finkelstein establishes a core communality of interests
between Washington and Tel Aviv. Both fear indigenous local
self-assertion that would limit their ability to project power in the
region. Yesterday the principle threat was Egypt's Nasser; today it is
primarily Iran. Israel is fundamentally 'a creature of the West' and
therefore the only U.S. ally in the region whose subservience to the
U.S. stems from deep cultural and popular roots. It therefore continues
to be useful to the U.S. Moreover Finkelstein argues, correctly I
believe, that the probable effect of the 'Arab Spring' in the short-term
will be to increase U.S. foreign policy reliance on Israel, as an
island of pro-western stability in an increasingly volatile region.
Debunking 'The Israel Lobby'
Finkelstein meticulously exposes the leaps of logic that underpin
Mearsheimer and Walt’s theories, such as their claim that the failure of
Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon shows that the Bush administration
was coerced into supporting it, and their insistence that the Iraq war
was contrary to U.S. interests because it failed. (But did the war
“fail”? Only if one accepts the ridiculous justifications and
pie-in-the-sky metrics offered to the public.)
Finkelstein debunks the theory that different U.S. administrations
differed on policy towards Israel because of domestic electoral
concerns. He traces the common thread, ignored by Lobby enthusiasts,
connecting President Truman's tepid support for Israel's creation with
President Eisenhower's purely tactical disagreement with Israel
regarding the best way to remove Nasser from office. Finkelstein argues
cogently that, their protestations notwithstanding, Mearsheimer and Walt
are in fact accusing the American Jewish establishment of disloyalty on
the basis of alleged 'Jewish interests', an accusation Finkelstein
exposes as both false and based on flimsy reasoning.
The bulk of the proof takes Finkelstein into a deconstruction of the
terminology that serves as the basis of the allegations. He takes apart
the term 'neo-conservative', revealing the ingrained opportunism of its
alleged disciples, their almost full alignment with the mainstream U.S.
political vision of the world, and the impossibility of dividing Jewish
from non-Jewish advocates for the same U.S. dominance. He runs
methodically through the record of the Iraq War to demonstrate that
Mearsheimer and Walt's contentions are unsubstantiated and incoherent.
The coup de grace is an approving cite of the demolition of
their thesis on the Iraq War by Norman Podhoretz, a neoconservative
himself. Mearsheimer and Walt's supreme achievement seems to be to have
made at least one neoconservative sound reasonable.
