The Jewish Chronicle on "blistering rejection" of zionist lawfare case

Here's the JC with a basically factual report:

A blistering rejection of pro-Israel activist Ronnie Fraser's case against the academic union, UCU, was published on Seder night by a London employment tribunal.

In a 49-page ruling, the Employment Judge, AM Snelson, sitting with Mr A Grant and Lady Sedley, rejected Mr Fraser's claims of unlawful harassment by the UCU, and dismissed the entire proceedings.

The reserved judgment was issued in respect of nearly three weeks of hearings which took place in October and November last year. In a stern rebuke in the conclusion of the judgment, Judge Snelson wrote: "Lessons should be learned from this sorry saga. We greatly regret that the case was ever brought. At heart, it represents an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means...What makes this litigation doubly regrettable is its gargantuan scale."

The judge rebuked the litigants, saying "the Employment Tribunals are a hard-pressed public service and it is not right that their limited resources should be squandered as they have been."

Although the tribunal said that Mr Fraser had impressed them "as a sincere witness" with "nothing synthetic about his displays of emotion", there were harsh words for several others who gave evidence during the hearing, particularly the chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, Jeremy Newmark, whose testimony was rejected as untrue.

Two MPs - one has since resigned from Parliament - were also criticised for giving "glib evidence, appearing supremely confident of the rightness of their positions... Both parliamentarians clearly enjoyed making speeches. Neither seemed at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking."

Ok, very low on detail but factual as far as it goes.

Here's more detail on Ronnie Fraser directly from the report:

55. .......The Claimant does much of his campaigning through the 'Academic Friends of Israel' ('AFI'), an impressively-presented organisation with a PO Box address, a mission statement and a letterhead showing its patron as the Chief Rabbi and its advisory board as comprising a list of dignitaries including the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Despite appearances, as the Claimant engagingly told us, AFI consists of him, his wife and a computer. Like any experienced political activist, he is alive to the PR benefits of disseminating his own views in such a way as to seem to be speaking for a significant number of others.

147. The Claimant impressed us as a sincere witness. He was overcome when taking the oath and at a later point in his evidence. There was nothing synthetic about his displays of emotion. He believes passionately in the campaign which he has waged for so long, and appears to regard this litigation as an important engagement within it. Although his sincerity is not in question, his political experience showed at a number of points. He veered away from awkward questions. We were also struck by the contrast between his simple, down-to-earth style and the magnificent prose in which his written case was couched. We do not believe that it would ever occur to him to think that as a member of the Respondents he inhabits an environment of "thickening toxicity".

So Ronnie Fraser appears to have been spared some of the open contempt for many of the zionist witnesses expressed in the Tribunal report but I can't help sensing the Tribunal seemed to feel sorry for a useful idiot.

Also the lawyer who brought the case for the zionist movement was Anthony Julius.  He didn't get mentioned at all in the JC report.  It's worth noting here, as is noted in the Tribunal's own report, that Anthony Julius is the Chairman of the Jewish Chronicle.

Anthony Julius considers remedies for slick Jewish lawyer libel

Trouble is of course that, unless slick is rhyming slang for prick, no one is calling Anthony Julius slick.

H/T Asa Winstanley at Electronic Intifada
H/T New Left Project

Tribunal finds zionists guilty - Round up the usual suspects!

So, the Tribunal has finally spoken in the case of Ronnie Fraser versus the Universities and Colleges Union (UCU).

The case has involved various high profile zionists and was handled for the zionists by Anthony Julius who has form for smearing Israel's critics.

The opening shot of this "lawfare" campaign was a letter from Julius to the General Secretary of the UCU, Sally Hunt.  Here's Dr David Hirsh on Engage:

Anthony Julius, says that UCU has breached ss. 26 and 57 (3) of the Equality Act 2010:

That is to say, the UCU has “harassed” him by “engaging in unwanted conduct” relating to his Jewish identity (a “relevant protected characteristic”), the “purpose and/or effect” of which has been, and continues to be, to “violate his dignity” and/or create “an intimidating, hostile, degrading humiliating” and/or “offensive environment” for him.

The letter alleges a course of action by the union which amounts to institutional antisemitism and it gives examples: annual boycott resolutions against only Israel; the conduct of these debates; the moderating of the activist list and the penalising of anti-boycott activists; the failure to engage with people who raised concerns; the failure to address resignations; the refusal to meet the OSCE’s special represenative on antisemitism; the hosting of Bongani Masuku; the repudiation of the EUMC working definition of antisemitism.

The quote above is from a post titled, Tipping Point for UCU, which gives some indication of how important this case has been for zionists in the UK.  In fairness Hirsh can be a bit of a loose cannon but he wasn't the only supporter of Fraser in this case.

With hindsight it's surprising how confident Hirsh was in a zionist victory. Again from the same post:

What will UCU do?  There are two factions inside the decision making structures of the union.  There are the hard core antizionists and then there are the grownups.

The antizionists will storm with anger that UCU is being sued.....

The grownups in the union, including the trustees, and including the lawyers who will advise the leadership, will want to settle this court action and to make it go away.  They will be worried about the immense cost to the union of defending its antisemtic record in front of a tribunal, both in terms of money and also in terms of humiliating publicity.....

But what are Ronnie’s terms?  The reinstatement of the EUMC definition; an apology from the union for its record of institutional antisemitism; a new code of conduct concerning Jewish members; an ongoing campaign of education within the union about the relationship between antisemitism and antizionism.

It would appear that Ronnie is ready to go to a tribunal.  He must know that it will be difficult for the leadership of the union to agree to these terms.   Evidently he wants his day in court and he wants to prove his case.

The antizionists will also believe they can win in court.  And they will believe that they can blame the Zionists for the huge cost of defending their antisemitic record....They will think that it is enough to parade a couple of dozen Jewish antizionist academics before the tribunal who will say that the union has an unblemished record on the question of antisemitism.

The grownups will not believe that they can successfully defend UCU’s record on antisemitism before a tribunal and they will know that there is a good chance that UCU will be found by an antiracist tribunal to have breached our own hard-won equality legislation.......

The leadership of the union is now between a rock and a hard place.

But of course it wasn't the "anti-zionists" who paraded lots of witnesses before the court. Au contraire, it was the zionists.  Here's The Times of Israel:

Over 30 witnesses for the claimant include the Booker Prize winning novelist Howard Jacobson — who has submitted a witness statement but will not be cross-examined [I'm not surprised] — as well as Jewish community officials and numerous academics, both Jewish and non-Jewish. The seven witnesses for the respondent are all UCU officials.

One of the non-Jewish academics for the zionist plaintiff was Harry's Place's (cache: Harry's Place is down) Sarah Annes Brown.  Her role was to talk up the EUMC working definition of antisemitism:

The rejection of the EUMC working definition of antisemitism was another appalling episode, and the whole topic of the UCU’s failure to take the issue seriously emerged strongly in the cross-examination of John Mann:

On Monday, John Mann MP told the tribunal that the union had refused to accept the report of the 2006 All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism. Cross-examined by the UCU’s lawyer Antony White QC, Mr Mann said he had been “gobsmacked” when union representatives, including Ms Hunt, had refused to discuss antisemitism during a meeting in Parliament in 2006.

My own cross-examination was fairly brief, but nerve-wracking nonetheless. I was questioned about the potential conflict between free speech and the EUMC working definition of antisemitism, and about whether or not the UCU’s recent leaflet on antisemitism was adequate.  (I thought not.)

She trailed her HP post at another zionist blog, Bob from Brockley. Not a witness himself but he did complain of:

the long-harassment of one Ronnie Fraser in UCU, a trade union.

 And served notice that:

I intend to write about this, but only after the Tribunal concludes, but here in the meantime is some commentary: from Ben Cohen in Commentary, from Marcus Dysch, from the Times of Israel.

Bob from Brockley claims to be Jewish and is a member of the UCU.  In his own name he has written about why people shouldn't leave the UCU over its Palestine solidarity stance. The thing I don't understand is how come he claims the UCU is harassing Ronnie Fraser and not himself?  The same could be said of course for David Hirsh.  It's almost as if the zionists were chancing it from the beginning using poor old Ronnie Fraser as a stalking horse.

So, any other suspects involved in this?  Ah yes, the MPs.  Sarah Annes Brown already mentioned the MP, John Mann, and his ludicrous All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism.  The other one was then MP now ex MP, Denis MacShane.  Here's what the UCU's own report had to say:

John Mann MP and former MP Denis MacShane were collectively described as giving 'glib evidence, while testimony of another key witness for the claimant was described as 'extraordinarily arrogant but also disturbing'.

 So much for the MPs and their All-Party Committee.  I hope other MPs take note that false allegations of antisemitism don't fare so well in a forensic environment.

Any more?  Oh of course, there's the man himself, Ronnie Fraser, the main man behind Academic Friends of Israel.  Well he certainly had his day in court.  Here's the Jewish Chronicle:

A Jewish academic repeatedly broke down in tears as he told an employment tribunal that he had suffered a decade of harassment while opposing a boycott of Israel.

Maths lecturer Ronnie Fraser, whose parents escaped Nazi Germany, said he felt a special responsibility to challenge the University and College Union after it rejected a widely-accepted definition of antisemitism.

The grandfather-of-nine wept as he took the oath at London’s Central Employment Tribunal on Wednesday. He said he had felt threatened by the union’s anti-Israel policies and a catalogue of events that had left him “hurt, upset and insulted”.

“This case is not about Israel-Palestine. It’s not about me. It’s about fellow Jews. We have been forced out. We have been humiliated. It has been horrendous and relentless against us,” he said.

Later the tribunal was briefly halted when Mr Fraser again wept while explaining how he believed his grandparents had been killed at Auschwitz.

“They died as a result of antisemitism and this is my way of saying ‘never again’. I don’t want my four children and grandchildren having to suffer what they did,” he said.

Curiously, Academic Friends of Israel has yet to report on what has been a disaster for the zionist movement in the UK.

Now I'm sure there's no shortage of prominent zionists willing to make themselves look ridiculous in the cause of fighting against Palestine solidarity and free speech on Palestine but there aren't many online admissions to what has been a miserable defeat for zionism in the UK.  At the time of writing there's nothing on Engage and Harry's Place is down, the Jewish Chronicle has nothing at the mo' but Dr Hirsh has very helpfully expressed his feelings on Facebook:

Judgment in the Fraser case is one long judicial rehearsal of the Livingstone Formulation:

"178 ... We greatly regret that the case was ever brought. At heart, it represents an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means... "

"179 We are also troubled by the implications of the claim. Underlying it we sense a worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance an freedom of expression..."

So the tribunal says that the witnesses who gave evidence of antisemitism were really and falsely concerned only with a political end - this was "impermissible" - they were really trying to de-legitimize criticism of Israel - those who raised antisemitism were sacrificing pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression by attempting to mobilize a bad faith allegation of antisemitism with which to silence legitimate criticism of Israel.

The tribunal has employed the Livingstone Formulation.

The "Livingstone Formulation" is what some hasbaristas claim when someone accuses them of alleging antisemitism in bad faith.

The judgement can be found here but it is an epic PDF and takes forever to load. I'll be able to update this when I've read the whole thing.

Now this landmark victory is important in principle and of course it is funny to see so many zionists having their noses rubbed in it but there is a serious side to this lawfare by zionists.  Here's Asa Winstanley in Electronic Intifada quoting Sue Blackwell:

The suit is part of a “lawfare” strategy that anti-Palestinian groups are resorting to, having effectively lost the debate around Israel boycott measures in the unions several years ago.

Sue Blackwell, a University and College Union activist and former national executive member who has been vocal in the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign, said Fraser would lose because “there is not a shred of evidence” to support his claims. Even so, “he will have caused UCU a huge headache in terms of money and resources,” she said.

Let's make sure the zionists can't make these hopeless cases into a win win situation. But to attempt a recovery the dark side may want to ditch some of the usual suspects before they try anything like this again.

Zionists berated as "harassment" claim against UCU is thrown out by tribunal

Richard Kuper has just delivered some very good news from the Universities and Colleges Union to the Just Peace UK list.

I'll highlight my favourite bits in bold:

UCU cleared of harassment in landmark tribunal

25 March 2013

An Employment Tribunal has found in favour of UCU on all ten complaints of harassment brought by a UCU member who opposed the union's policy on Palestine.

The claimant had been supported in his claim by leading lawyer Anthony Julius. In giving their reasoning the Tribunal stated that 'the proceedings are dismissed in their totality' and 'we greatly regret that the case was ever brought.  At heart it represents an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.'

The Tribunal also described themselves as troubled by the implications of the claim, stating that 'underlying it we sense a worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression, principles which the courts and tribunals are, and must be, vigilant to protect'.

While witnesses for UCU were described in the tribunal's decision as 'careful and accurate', some witnesses for the claimant were described as appearing to 'misunderstand the nature of the proceedings and more disposed to score points or play to the gallery rather than providing straightforward answers to the clear questions put to them'. 

John Mann MP and former MP Denis MacShane were collectively described as giving 'glib evidence, while testimony of another key witness for the claimant was described as 'extraordinarily arrogant but also disturbing'. [Who was that then?]

UCU general secretary Sally Hunt said: "I am delighted that the Tribunal has made such a clear and overwhelming judgement in UCU's favour. There are many different views within UCU and wider society about Israel and Palestine and this decision upholds our and others' right to freedom of expression and to continue to properly debate these and other difficult questions.

"This has been an extremely difficult period for the UCU staff and members involved in defending the union's position and I am especially pleased therefore that the Tribunal found our witnesses to be careful and accurate.

"The claimant, while unsuccessful, of course had the right to challenge the union in the courts and will be treated with respect within the union as will his views on this question.  Now that a decision has been made I hope in turn that he, and others who share his views, will play an active part in the union and its debates rather than seek recourse to the law. 

"For our part, UCU will look at our own processes to see if improvements can be made in line with the advice given to us within the decision. We remain opposed to discrimination of any kind including anti-Semitism and we will work with energy and determination with all who will work with us to oppose it in the workplace and society at large."

I have to admit that since the case was brought I was worried about it. I assumed if a tribunal regretted a case being brought it could throw it out without hearing it so the fact that they heard it suggested to me that the tribunal was on the side of these glib, misunderstanding, arrogant zionists.  Obviously I was wrong.

Obama thank you for supporting our apartheid state

A wonderful tweet from @Dalal:

#Obama thank you for supporting our Apartheid state: #Israel#ObamaInIsraelyoutu.be/nfIcql9DJPI
— Dalal (@DalalAlrmuny) March 23, 2013

See? Great stuff.

Obama visits

Barack Obama, Chief Marketing Officer of US Arms Inc., the greatest arms and war conglomerate history has ever known, visited the offices of the company's important subsidiary, Israel. The US spends over 50% of its discretionary public budget, about 5% of its GDP, on war and armed repression. With 41% of global "defense" expenditures (actually, money spent primarily on repression), and five time more than its nearest competitor, the US dominates the market of death. In global arms transfers to developing countries the US ranked first with $56.3 billions in 2011, over thirteen times more than its nearest competitor, Russia. All actual military conflicts take place in "developing" countries, which therefore account for nearly 80% of all weapon transfer agreements, and the US holds nearly 80% of that lucrative market. The biggest client is in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia was the recipient of $33.4 billions in arms transfers in 2011, mostly for good coin. Historically, the Middle East accounts for about 50% of all weapon transfers to developing countries. In both relative and absolute terms it is the most important "defense" market. And we didn't even mention oil. Oil money (namely primarily the money consumers and businesses in the rest of the world pay for energy), over and above the profits of the oil industry itself, is the source of income that funds practically all arms that get bought in the Middle East, and concomitantly the use and threat of use of these weapons helps keep the price of oil high and the profits flowing.

The President of the US is the man in charge of coordinating maintaining the health of American economy, of which a key component is the safety of these profits. So he came to the Middle East, which is the pivot area of these profits, and talked about peace. What did you expect that he talks about? Do you expect the chief officers of Big Tobacco to talk about cancer when they make public addresses? Do the expect the CEO of Apple to extol the virtues of working employees to the point of suicide? Naturally, the President spoke about peace. Peace is lovely.

If one likens the US to a company, Israel is reporting to the marketing department. Some big business make money in Israel, but in the larger scheme of things it is peanuts. Israel is less a profit center than a freebie that drives up sales in other departments. Iran is a case in point. Few if any policy makers in their right minds want to invade Iran. Plus, the Iranian rulers have no substantial disagreements with the US and have repeatedly sent feelers with offers to join the US dominated world. Their conditions, essentially, staying in power and having some security guarantees, are not significantly different than what every pro-US junta in the world expects. But it is obvious from the consistent blocking of every possibility of dialogue that the US prefers Iran to remain in a belligerent relation. In the words of Michael Axworthy, 'the US and other western countries are not yet willing to take yes for an answer.' All those arms the Saudi state buys must have a reason. And reason number one is the Iranian threat. Iran, however, builds its influence in the region, in particular its ability to threaten the cohesion of pro-American regimes, by hyping up its enmity with Israel and  supporting Hizbulla. Peace in Palestine might be the start of a chain reaction that ends, God forbid, with Saudi Arabia no longer needing so many weapons, and, just as worse, not having the oil revenues to pay for them. But I hope you won't lose sleep over such a nightmare scenario. Let me just point out how good US foreign policy has been at keeping the pot of war simmering on low heat with the occasional boil-over and spill. Just trust Obama. He obviously knows how to handle this.

It feels different to those in the simmering pot.

Obama came to Israel to manage the conflict, that is, to keep it simmering, while preventing it from boiling over. Netanyahu represents a tendency in Israeli society that is insensitive to the American preference for slow cooking. His key constituencies make both money and symbolic capital directly from the process of colonization. That has led to some stormy relations. But the US arms industry needs Netanyahu, because it is ultimately the heat that his policies generate that keeps the pot simmering. The problem is having the right "thermostat," control mechanisms to hold Netanyahu and the settlers behind him in check. That is where Israel's famous "peace camp" comes in. Israel's "peace camp" has no deep interest in peace. It represents the segment of Israeli society, affluent, Ashkenazi, that isn't invested directly in the on-going colonization and is most aligned with and attuned to American interests. Its own fortunes depends on the US, and even more so, on access to the Western world. A sour face by a US President can send Israel's "peace camp" into weeks of morbid self-doubt.

The White House was undoubtedly pleased that Netanyahu had been weakened by the last elections. It could have been better, but it could also have been worse. Obama did not come to Israel to advance peace, but to give a boost, a 'hang in there,' to the Israeli "peace camp." Every word he said, especially the tepid, allegedly "pro-Palestinian," parts of his speech, was, no doubts intentionally,  music to the ears of Israel's "peace camp," to assure them of their importance and to maintain and bolster their ability to serve as as brakes when the US needs to lower the heat. The message was not directed at Palestinians, except those few Palestinians who are the junior business partners in the peace industry, those who would be tasked with repressing any third intifadah, and are therefore as keen as their Israeli partners on acting as a thermostat for the US weapons industry.

There was however a message also for Palestinians and their supporters in the US and the world. Richard Silverstein called it "Drop dead," evoking New-York City Ford era debt crisis. This is inaccurate. To those that expected him to help them, namely, the PA and such, his message was the very opposite, to keep going on the same path that leads nowhere. The US cannot afford them quitting. But to those who have given up on the US or who understand what the US is really about, the message was different. It was not "drop dead," since, unlike the former, they had no expectations of help. It was more like 'don't even think about it.' Obama practically read aloud from Israel's declaration of independence, mentioning every item on the checklist of Zionist talking points, from the Biblical land rights of Jews, through the holocaust, and to the "villa in the jungle", that democratic oasis of techno-prowess in the blooming desert that Israel fancies itself. That Obama felt it necessary to spell out at length so much that is supposed to be taken for granted was a backhanded compliment to a decade of Palestinian activism that has succeeded in calling these talking points increasingly in question. Obama's 100% Zionism performance was a step into the breach, expressing a complete rejection of that radical critique of Israeli settler-colonialism. It was calibrated to demoralize.

In that, Obama continues the role he played from his very election, both domestically and internationally, as the hegemonic fixer following Bush's decade of naked power, coming to offer a soothing yet firm no to any thought of escaping the American juggernaut  To those who had their eyes opened by Bush's blunt indifference Obama offers a blue pill, extending an invitation to recreate the fantasy of a kinder US, with its "values" and its "principles" and its "vision," but with lowered expectations and no meaningful change. To those who refuse, there will be nothing but cold steel.

Rabeea Eid, the Palestinian student who bravely heckled Obama and confronted him with the truth of his policy, challenged that demoralizing performance:

"Did you really come here for peace or to give Israel more weapons to kill and destroy the Palestinian people? Did you happen to see the apartheid wall on your way here? There are Palestinians sitting in this hall. This state should be for all of its citizens, not a Jewish state only. Who killed Rachel Corrie? Rachel Corrie was killed by your money and weapons!” (EI)

As Eid said later, "the most important part is for this visit not to go on in a normal manner." This empire is not in the mood for compromise. Why would it, when repression not only defends profits but is profitable in itself?

For those fawning over Obama's empathy and vision while complaining of "the lack of substance," seriously, expecting the Chief Marketing Officer of US Arms Inc. to bring peace to the Middle East is like expecting Silvio Berlusconi to usher in a new age of gender equality. Get real!

__________
Ah, and then there is that circus elephant in the room, the famous Jewish lobby, which plays an important role, just like Obama, the Saudi Royals, Iran.  Everybody plays a role. Money doesn't flow naturally. It takes work. And that work isn't done by magical elves. it is done through various institutions that support and reflect each other and by people who actually intervene through them at various points to avert whatever risks bringing the system to a halt. It just doesn't play the kind of role that those invested in the fantasy of a pure, innocent America, subverted by foreigners, imagine it plays.

Socialist Workers Party (UK), 1950-2013 R.I.P.

Unlike some great SWP leaders, I don't pretend that I am not "petit-bourgeois." Maybe that is why I get to also occasionally talk to people who don't breath radical activism, but who, if a left turnaround is to happen, will have to be won over to an agenda which goes beyond wagging a bashful pinky in the general direction of bankers.

Few of them today are sold on the greatness of capitalism. The ideological glue that holds their obedience, and their repeated rallying behind mild, ineffective centrist parties, is primarily the ideological construct known as TINA: There Is No Alternative.

TINA is complex ideological constellation, constructed over decades, that includes attitudes, emotions, knolwedge (economics, history, anthropology, etc.), "common sense" and more. But a key aspect of it is a certain negative caricature of "the left." That caricature is so common that I've even been "complimented" more than once that I "didn't sound like a radical leftist" by people who realized suddenly where I really stand. Like all caricatures, it is not completely false. It includes not only the magnification of every wart in the history of the left, but also true aspects that have been successfully constructed as negative--primarily passion and commitment, which in our historical moment represent an obstacle to the chief post-modern corporate virtue, flexibility, or more accurately, bendability, "going along and getting along."

But it also includes a lot of fairy tales constructed primarily on the basis of the manufactured history of "actually existing socialism." The far-left is, supposedly, authoritarian, anti-democratic, group-thinking, violent, anti-intellectual, yada-yada, and, most importantly, as corrupted in principle, (egoistic, power-hungry,) as the current crop of mainstream politicians. A key object of this caricature is to reinforce the message of the old, "non-ideological" joke that "In capitalism man exploits man and in socialism it is the other way around." If all political rallying cries are just facades of libidinal quests for domination, (and every political meeting a hunting ground for sex predators) it is better, most people think, to stick with the devil one knows.

But even fantasy ideological constructs still need anchors in reality. And so reaction must sing hosannas at the regularity with which a different bunch of leftists assume the role of confirming the worst caricature of themselves. If J. Edgar Hoover wanted to write a Hollywood script about self-deluding radicals, he couldn't have improved on the show that the SWP leadership has been putting on recently. Not wanting to rehearse what has been chewed to death by every newspaper, (see especially here, and here) I pass the right of summation to Richard Seymour:

One is simply astounded by how inadequate, corrupt, stupid, narrow-mindedly bureaucratic and delusional the leadership of the SWP has proven to be. It is not just that having covered up serious sexual allegations, and so disastrously failed at least two female comrades, they can admit no fault. It is not just the absurd, scholastic, apolitical explanations they give for doing so, or the tragic retreat into bunkered dogma that has accompanied this. It is not just that they lie with impunity. It is not just that they ducked a real debate, with their absurd rules limiting faction speakers at aggregates, and their gerrymandering of conference. It is not just that even now many of them are desperate to get the accused back into the leadership as soon as can conveniently be arranged. It is not just that their response to the most recent allegations by a female ex-member was to effectively dismiss her as a liar, without investigating further. It is that, having done a Jonestown, they think they've just triumphed. (http://www.leninology.com/2013/03/on-resigning-from-swp.html) 

In other words, these caricature statuettes of socialist-realism acted out, like clowns enthused by the jeers of the audience, precisely the role they were assigned in advance by the right-wing media, to serve as a cautionary tale against the terrible things that could befall you, dear reader, if you allow yourself to be seduced by the siren song of socialism.

Nobody who cares about the future of radical politics should cheer such a sad end to over 60 years of left-wing organizing. The SWP has indeed "punched above its weight," and its demise is likely to be experienced for an unknown duration as an even weaker left. But when "punching above one's weight" comes at the price of shooting oneself (and, more importantly, one's commrades) in the foot, one may as well call it reverse-movementism.

Few missed the irony that the college of cardinals, which elected a man probably more worthy of the title Vicar of Judas to be the new Vicar of Christ, has some uncanny similiarities to the SWP CC, both with impermeable, self-important leaderships that practice self-preserving ex-communication against dissidents, both brought low by the cover-up of sexual predation, and both believing their own infallibility. But apart from the Catholic Church having a better democratic process, there is one key difference in which the Vatican at least appears to have the better doctrine. Whereas the cadres of the SWP imagine they are at the vanguard of the revolution, the Pope calls himself servus servorum dei, the servant of the servants of God. If I may humbly suggest, there is a lesson there about successful long-term organizing. And I won't be the only one to point out that this has far less to do with a critique of Bolshevism or Leninism than with the peculiarly self-aggrandizing orthodoxy developed by the SWP.

In solidarity, I reprint below the letter of resignation of the 71 who left the SWP a few days ago. From the murmur of the internet, there was already, and it will grow, a certain criticism of those now speaking up for their long silence. After all, the SWP's problems are not from today. Where have all these brave voices been for so long? Why have they enabled this leadership for so long? There is a lot that is facile about this criticism. Let those who have never experienced the "sunk costs fallacy" throw the first stone - especially since whether the costs are really "sunk" is often a question of complex and uncertain evaluation.  It is often only with failure, with 20/20 hindsight, that one can declare that there was no hope.

As Seymour cautions, one shouldn't assume even "that every member who doesn't leave is tainted, agrees with everything that has happened, and so on," and doubly so for those who left after holding on for so long. But those who left and are no longer bound by the principles of omerta owe themselves and the broad left a thorough critique of the SWP's long arc, not just the latest descent. Not that I think they need any encouragement, or perhaps only encouragement to be totally ruthless and selfless in their critique.

As one who, out of habitus and the historical moment that sent me leftwards, never had any personal experience with broad parties, I prefer to wait for the analysis from within and just make here a single additional point. I hear the gloating of anarchists, horizontalists, and recovering sectarians in the background; gloatings I do not share.  Those who have given up on party organizing have not yet come up with an alternative model that works - if by working one means concrete material advances in the degree of freedom of the whole society.

Just because the party model has had recurrent collapses into the most cultish and dumb sectarianism does not automatically prove the superiority of other models of organizing. The unintentionally funniest interjection in this vein came from Louis Proyect, who suggested that internet blogs and Counterpunch are the true heirs of Bolshevism's democratic spirit. That is true only if one includes in the political discussion of the left the rants of Nazi fellow-travellers promoting their personal contribution to rape culture, as Counterpunch did. And Counterpunch, which regularly publishes far-right filth, is among the best of a "radical internet" that is white, male, upper-middle class, and absolutely oblivious to these facts. The internet lowers the cost of communication and it that way does provide a potential force for democratization. But that alone does not make it democratic. While everyone can write on a blog (as I do now), producing a widely read and succesful venture still requires not only something worthy saying, but also various forms of capital, connections, a habitus of self-expression, and a willingness to pander to at least some widely-shared reactionary nostrums.

Interestingly, while the SWP got into a fatal scandal over its internal sexism, none of the brilliant regular contributors to Counterpunch resigned or protested publicly over the publication of red-baiting, anti-immigrant, sexist, or even bizarrely sexist and Czarist material, not to mention just tedious New York Times style mockery of activists, in Counterpunch. Whereas the CC of the SWP had to pretend to be democratic, the editors of Counterpunch don't. Counterpunch, like almost every other radical internet publication, is governed by the rules of private enterprise, in which the commonly accepted model of political authority is monarchical - the owners can do anything they please. To suggest that the internet has replaced Iskra is to confuse democratization with privatization. When an old leftist says that, Margaret Thatcher can die in peace.
The opposite is in fact closer to the truth. as the SWP shed its activists, it remains a skeleton of some private property, a bunch of mostly paper members and the committee of owners of said property. Thus is the SWP now becoming more like Counterpunch. The privatization of the party, which was latent in its organizational structure, has thanks to the scandal, been laid bare. If this tendency is allowed to fully develop, the SWP will become a brilliant, radical newsletter.

Resigning from the Socialist Workers Party

FAO the Central Committee of the Socialist Workers Party
We, the undersigned, are writing to you to inform you that we can no longer remain in the Socialist Workers Party. The organisation’s tradition of fighting women’s oppression has been seriously undermined by the handling of a number of rape and sexual harassment allegations by the Disputes Committee and the Central Committee and the crisis of democracy and accountability in the party this has laid bare.

The SWP leadership has done everything it can to silence members’ genuine concerns on the matter including:
·         Expelling four comrades for discussing concerns about how the rape allegation was handled
·         Gerrymandering and abusing bureaucratic measures in conference, aggregates and district meetings;
·        Sitting back whilst the Central Committee supporters have bullied the complainants, their supporters, and any member of the opposition.

We are not prepared to accept or abide by the decisions of the special conference. The conference is a bureaucratic victory which will only lead to the demise of the SWP. The reputation of the SWP in the movement is irreparably damaged as a result of the handling of these complaints by the Disputes Committee and the leadership’s determination to protect one member rather than to develop a clear perspective on rape and consent. 

The SWP leadership have utterly failed to uphold the organisation's core principles of women’s liberation. This is corrosive to the party and thus it is not in spite but because of our commitment to the struggle that we feel forced to leave in order that we can remain committed socialists who can build militant activity in our workplaces and communities. We will not put the party before the class, or the organisation before our principles.

We stand in solidarity and comradeship with those who remain in the party and attempt to save it, but we can no longer do so.                        

In solidarity,

Adam F, Brixton
Adam T, Portsmouth
Aidan B, Sheffield North
Alaina B, Sussex & Brighton
Alan R, Edinburgh
Alex A, Oxford
Alex W,  Leeds Central
Alice B, Edinburgh
Alice S, Leeds Central
Alistair H, Sheffield North
Amy N, Cardiff
Amy A, Oxford
Amy W, Portsmouth
Andrew B, Camden/Hackney
Andrew B, York
Andy B, Kent
Andy G, Leicester
Andy L, Hackney East
Ashleigh F, Bristol North
Ayan C, Bristol North
Becca D, Leicester
Becky J, Liverpool
Ben S, Kent
Brian C, Bradford
Bryan S, Camden
China M, Brent and Harrow
Chris B, Sussex & Brighton
Christina R, Portsmouth
Christopher R, Hoddeson
Ciara S, Tower Hamlets
Ciaran O, Lewisham
Damon S, Middlesborough
Danny J, Manchester City Centre
Darren H, Bradfor/Leeds Met UCU
David C, Southend
Dave M, Brixton
David P, Liverpool
Emma R, Norwich
Emma W, Oxford
Frances P, Portsmouth
Gill T, Walthamstow
Gina E, Doncaster
Glenn D, Newcastle
Gonzalo P, Euston
Hannah E, Sussex & Brighton
Hester D, Leeds Central
Holly S, Walthamstow
Ian S, Hastings
Jacob L, Leicester
Jackson B, Sheffield
Jake D, Tottenham
Jake P, Euston
Jamie A, Euston
Jamie, P Tottenham
Jen I, LSE
Jenny M, Hackney East
Jenny R, Leicester
Jessamie F, Sussex & Brighton
Jessica R, Wandsworth & Merton
Jim K, Hull
Joe R, Portsmouth
Joe W, Portsmouth
John B, Euston
John C, Glasgow South
John G, Euston
John R, Portsmouth
Joseph B, Kent
Jules A, Liverpool
Kaity S, Portsmouth
Kat B, Cardiff
Kathryn G, Bristol South
Keith W, Canterbury
Kieran C, Camden
Kris S, Wandsworth and Merton
Kristina I, Sussex and Brighton
Lewis P, Sussex and Brighton
Liam H, Gravesham/Medway Branch
Linda R, Edinburgh
Mariya P, Leicester
Mark H, Hornsey & Wood Green
Martyn C, Sussex & Brighton
Martin P, Sheffield
Matt H, Sheffield South
Matt H, Bristol North
Max B, Sheffield South
Michele S, Norwich
Mike R, Brighton
Miriam J, Manchester
Naomi J, Canterbury
Nathan A, Oxford
Nick F, Liverpool
Nick W , Brighton
Nicole L, Brixton Branch
Paul L, Leicester
Penny S, Oxford
Peter A, Preston
Pippa G, Liverpool
Raoul L, Coventry
Raymond W, Edinburgh Branch
Rebecca D, Bristol North
Richard S, Hornsey & Wood Green
Richard T, Bristol East
Roisin B, Sheffield North
Rosalie K, Hull
Rowan L, Brixton
Ryan H, Liverpool
Ryan P, Brighton
Sam B, Bristol North
Samuel G, Islington
Sarah W, Portsmouth
Sophie S, York
Stacey M, Nottingham/Glasgow
Stephen B, York
Steven S, Liverpool
Tom J, Liverpool
Tom M, Leicester
Toni M, Bristol South
Wendy W, Edinburgh
Will R, Canterbury
Will T, Lancaster
Zoe W, Euston

We realise others have left already since January Conference and many more will leave in the coming days and months. All are welcome to add their names to this statement, please email swpresignation@gmail.com  

Just Vision - Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinians as seen by a local boy

This is the documentary film, My Neighbourhood, made by Just Vision from The Guardian website:

Barbra Streisand on Israel stage: Israel on Barbra Streisand stage

There's a bit of a flutter in the Twittersphere over Barbra Streisand's proposed appearance there to honour the war criminal, Shimon Peres.

Cop this one:

A pretty fantastic #BDSFail: Barbra Streisand to perform in #Israel for the first time to honor @presidentperes - bit.ly/12JHqjZ :)
— Avi Mayer (@avimayer) March 12, 2013

I'm not sure if a zionist doing what zionists are supposed to do represents a BDSFail.  Barbra Streisand to appear on the Israel stage.  Has this Avi Mayer chap really forgotten when Israel appeared on the Barbra Streisand stage?  You have to watch this most sickly example of hasbara on YouTube:

And let's face it, there's been some stiff competition over the years.

Kick Israel out of UEFA

Some important announcements from the Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods website:

RED CARD ISRAELI RACISM CAMPAIGN TARGETS UEFA CONGRESS

Posted on 16 March 2013 by jews4big | Leave a comment

PROTEST at UEFA’s Annual Congress in London on May 24

SUPPORT Mahmoud Sarsak’s UK tour in May-June 2013

PARTICIPATE in the Goals for Peace tournament on May 19

BUILD the campaign to Red Card Israeli Racism

The Red Card Israeli Racism campaign is escalating its activities as the June 5-18 dates for UEFA’s under-21 men’s football final in Israel draw near.

The London-based campaign is now part of a European coalition of groups working to expose the folly of staging a major competition in a state which shows contempt for the rights of Palestinian football players and supporters.  Beyond June, Red Card has the potential to develop into a long-term challenge to Israel ’s membership of UEFA – the overarching body for European football.

The June tournament will probably still go ahead, but the case against it has gained prominence over recent months.  Frederic Kanoute and 51 other leading professional players issued a statement deploring Israel ’s attacks on Gaza in November, saying they called into question holding the games in Israel . In January, a well publicised action at the UEFA offices in Nyon , Switzerland , forced UEFA president Michel Platini to give pro-Palestinian protesters a hearing after two years of turning a deaf ear to the campaign.

In March, the congress of the French trade union CGT-INRA passed a resolution contesting UEFA’s decision to stage the competition in Israel and a former French minister of sport, Marie-George Buffet, wrote to Platini calling on him to hold it elsewhere.

In the UK , football media are opening up space for discussion of the issues, such as this piece on the FootyMatters website, written by members of the student group Football Beyond Borders. It prompted a reaction from the Jewish Chronicle, insisting that UEFA would “stand firm” against our campaign.

FBB has held two well-attended public meetings in London to mobilise support for the campaign.

The Red Card petition now has 6,500 signatures, and rising.

The UK will become the focus of intense campaigning action as UEFA holds its annual congress in London on Friday May 24. A major demonstration is planned for the occasion.

The men’s and women’s Champions League finals will be taking place around the same time and Friends of al-Aqsa are organising a 16-plus anti-racist tournament in east London – Goals for Peace – for up to 20 six-a-side teams.

Mahmoud Sarsak, the national Palestinian team player whose release from unlawful detention we campaigned for last Spring, plans to be in England at that time as part of an extended European tour. He aims to visit Norway , Spain , France , Italy , the UK and Ireland between April and June, meeting players, officials, fans, politicians, journalists and activists.

The intended dates for the English leg of his tour are May 16-26, visiting Scotland until June 8 and moving on to Ireland before returning to his home in Gaza later in the month.

The campaign is working to build support for the tour through mainstream organisations such as FARE (Footballers Against Racism in Europe), Kick It Out and Show Racism the Red Card, trade unions and faith groups, as well as pro-Palestinian and human rights bodies.

Red Card Israeli Racism was established in London in 2011 by members of PSC, Friends of al-Aqsa and Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods. It currently (March 2013) has a steering group representing those organisations but is inviting much wider participation to build a sporting boycott campaign alongside other BDS groups around Europe .

Contact: info@rcir.org.uk

Got all that? Good.  But just in case you didn't get all that, here's the Red Card Petition link again and here's a link to the Red Card Israeli Racism website.

What liberal zionists miss

Ok, Jerry Haber at The Magnes Zionist, actually says what many liberal zionists miss.  Look he says it here:

I am afraid that this is what many liberal Zionists miss. The real dispute is not between the one-staters and the two-staters, but between those who hold that the collective right of a settler people to self-determination trumps the human and civil rights of the indigenous natives, and those who do not. According to the former, the only hope for Palestinian self-determination is to accept Israel’s generous offer of a “state”, and to rely for its security on strangers (s.v. the Geneva Initiative’s multi-national force) and the kindness of the Israelis who have treated them, to put it mildly, rather shabbily over the last 65 years.

That's very well put.  Let's have the best bit again:

The real dispute is not between the one-staters and the two-staters, but between those who hold that the collective right of a settler people to self-determination trumps the human and civil rights of the indigenous natives, and those who do not.

The whole thing is well worth a read.

Correcting a Hasbarista

I got an email from Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi this morning via the Just Peace UK list:

Did anyone else read the feature in Guardian Weekend about the angst experienced
by a female IDF conscript after nearly but not being shot by a fellow soldier? I
feel the need to respond in some way, though I'm not sure how, other than to
make the unsubtle point that many Palestinians actually do get shot.

I've failed to find the piece online, though there is this in Corrections and
Clarifications:

The first-person piece in today's Weekend magazine in which the author recalls her days as a teenage recruit conscripted into the Israeli army is by Shani Boianjiu, not Shani Bouijani as a subheading says (Young gun, 9 March, page 49, Weekend).

Here's the link to Corrections and Clarifications.  Like Naomi, I couldn't find the original article either but Frank Fisher helpfully pointed out that Mondoweiss covered Shani Boianjiu's hasbara efforts some time last year.  Here's Mondoweiss's Adam Horowitz:

Boianjiu’s story begins:

Lea, the officer, had stopped feeling her own body. She lay on top of an anti-sniper barricade, holding up a page from a newspaper, blocking the stars. She had to stretch out her arms to hold the wide page above her head.

“Oh,” she said.

“The Army didn’t do it,” Tomer said. He flicked his cigarette butt down onto the asphalt of Route 799. He was talking about Huda, the little Palestinian girl on the beach. The picture in the newspaper showed her screaming on red sand, amid the body parts of the seven people who had been her family.

“I know,” she said. “This is a manipulation.”

The world said that the Israeli Army had done it with artillery fire, but the Israeli Army knew that the family had been killed by a dormant shell that Palestinian militants had left by the sea.

“The little Palestinian girl on the beach” is a real person. Huda Ghaliya was in sixth grade when her family was killed on the beach in Gaza, and her photo was broadcast around the world. The New York Times reported at the time:

Eleven-year-old Huda unwittingly became a symbol of Palestinian pain and loss during an afternoon picnic with her family on a hot day when a cameraman captured her shrieking “Father, Father, Father!” as she hovered over the bloody bodies of 13 dead or wounded members of her family, hit by what was apparently an errant Israeli artillery shell.

Exhaustive investigative work by Human Rights Watch established beyond doubt that the family were indeed killed by an Israeli shell but Israel exonerated itself.  Horowitz again:

Finally, from “Gaza Beach Investigation Ignores Evidence” (6/20/06):

The Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) investigation of the Gaza beach explosion that killed eight Palestinian civilians and wounded dozens is incomplete because it excludes important evidence, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch researchers met yesterday with Israeli Major-General Meir Kalifi, who led the internal IDF investigation, to discuss its findings. After the meeting, Human Rights Watch reiterated its call for an independent investigation into the deaths.

The meeting revealed that the IDF’s conclusion that it was not responsible for the deaths on the beach was based exclusively on information gathered by the IDF and excluded all evidence gathered by other sources.

Boianjiu uses this discredited Israeli investigation to ground her story where Palestinians cynically attempt to garner sympathy through staged encounters with the Israeli military. Boianjiu’s story is fiction, but the context is pure hasbara.

He concludes the Mondoweiss piece with this twitter exchange:

Ironically, Boianjiu responded to our earlier post over Twitter, chiding us that we didn’t understand the difference between fiction and non-fiction:

@mondoweiss 3 of them do in my *fiction! They also come wearing mattresses and lab goggles. Do you believe Harry Potter is really a wizard?
— Shani Boianjiu (@ShaniBoianjiu) June 19, 2012

Boianjiu’s narration of the deaths in Gaza is about as truthful as Harry Potter, but unlike that bespectacled wizard, her fictions are in the service of obfuscating a very real tragedy and an ongoing oppression.

So unless Shani Boianjiu has reformed in the last 8 or 9 months I think it's safe to assume that whatever appeared in last weekend's Guardian Weekend section was just another hasbara effort.

Not so "brave" Ed Miliband didn't actually use the Z word

Apparently Ed Miliband's office has claimed that his words, reported, incidentally in reported speech, to the effect that he is a "zionist" were misinterpreted.

Here's some zionist in the Daily Telegraph, Dan Hodges:

As I suspected, Ed Miliband is no longer a Zionist. According to the Labour leader’s office, his comments at last night’s Board of Deputies event were misinterpreted. Asked at the event whether he was a Zionist Miliband reportedly responded, “Yes, I am a supporter of Israel”. But I’m told he wasn’t using the word Zionist to describe himself, but merely reaffirming his strong support for the state of Israel, and warning that we should – in the words of a Labour source – be “intolerant of those who questions [sic] Israel’s right to exist”.

This will no doubt disappoint some members of the Jewish community. But the significance of the general thrust of Miliband’s comments shouldn’t be overlooked.

Obviously since the Jewish community in the UK consists of hundreds of thousands of individuals there is nothing anyone can say about anything that won't "disappoint some members of the Jewish community".  So that was a rather stupid thing to say but I did say that this Dan Hodges chap is a zionist, unlike Ed's mother, Marion Kozak, who may well be disappointed in her son whatever he calls his support for Israel.

In fact if you follow the link at the start of the blockquote, ok, here it is again, you will see that this Dan Hodges chap claims that it is "brave and welcome" for Ed to claim to be a "zionist" but that he would probably retreat from that within 24 hours.  Now, according to his office, he was simply saying that Israel has a right to exist.  Now if you look at what he actually said, it is true, that he didn't say "I am a zionist" but he still appears to have said "yes" when asked "are you a zionist?"  Clearly the Jewish Chronicle was being slippery by claiming that he said that he was a zionist. Here's The JC:

He said that he considered himself a Zionist 

Looking at the site today there's no correction or clarification so far.

But now perhaps this Dan Hodges is being equally slippery in not actually quoting the question Ed was asked.

Asked at the event whether he was a Zionist Miliband reportedly responded, “Yes, I am a supporter of Israel”

But then of course we have the slipperiness of Ed himself in allowing himself to be a zionist in zionist company and a non-zionist in non-zionist company.

So the remaining question is how does being a zionist differ from supporting Israel's "right to exist"?  I suspect it is down to the fact that zionism is the idea that there should be a state specifically for Jews whereas the idea that Israel has a "right to exist" could simply mean that it's ok for a state to be called "Israel".  But then why does Miliband say that he is "“intolerant of those who questions [sic] Israel’s right to exist”?  Oh, he didn't say it.  A "Labour source" said he said it.

And this Dan Hodges chap finds, or found, Ed Miliband's support for Israel "brave and welcome".  Obviously it takes more bravery for a careerist politician to oppose Israel and zionism than it does to support it so the idea that he was or is brave on the question of Israel is just plain stupid.  And his stance, as mealy mouthed as it now is, is clearly only welcome to zionists.

Ed Miliband supports Jewish supremacy in occupied Palestine

No surprise there but it's a pity it's not considered controversial for the leader of the UK's Labour Party to be so open about support for colonial settlement, ethnic cleansing and segregationist laws.

Here's the Jewish Chronicle.  I'm sifting through an article for the bits that are about Israel or where antisemitism is conflated with anything regarding opposition to Israel:

Speaking at a Board of Deputies event the Labour leader said he was opposed to boycotts of Israel and warned of the need to be “ever-vigilant”against antisemitism.

I don't see what being "opposed to boycotts of Israel" and being ""ever-vigilant" against antisemitism" have to do with each other. In fact suggesting that boycotting Israel amounts to antisemitism suggests that Israel represents all Jews and vice versa.  The suggestion itself is antisemitic.

He added: “I take antisemitism very seriously. Any kind of delegitimisation of Israel is something we should call out for what it is and not tolerate it.

Again, the one, antisemitism, has nothing to do with the other, delegitimisation of Israel.

I think the boycotts of Israel are totally wrong. We should have no tolerance for boycotts. I would say that to any trade union leaders.”

But Mr Miliband warned the audience that while he was opposed to anti-Israel activities in this country, people must “understand the anger and dismay about settlements”.

He said that he considered himself a Zionist but was critical of some Israeli government policies. Asked about Labour’s support for the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations, Mr Miliband said he wanted to “encourage moderate” Palestinians and work in an “even-handed” way.

Ah that's nice. He wants to be even-handed between Jewish supremacists and the victims of Jewish supremacy.  He is a zionist, he doesn't want equality for Jews and Arabs but a pretense of equality behind apparent even-handedness.

The politician made repeated reference to his support for a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict and said he hoped Britain could be an “honest broker” in the peace process.

And at the same time he made it clear that Britain will be no more an honest broker with Ed Miliband as Prime Minister than it has been under any other Prime Minister.