zaterdag 1 oktober 2016

UK Israel Lobby Excoriates Leading Jewish Corbyn Supporter for Pointing Out Jews Weren’t Only Victims of Holocaust

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor tikkun olam



UK Israel Lobby Excoriates Leading Jewish Corbyn Supporter for Pointing Out Jews Weren’t Only Victims of Holocaust

jackie walker
Momentum vice-chair, Jackie Walker
There is a major flaw in permitting non-Jews and the Israel Lobby to define key aspects of Jewish identity.  Especially when those controlling the process either are ignorant of Jewish history or exploit it for political advantage.  Take, for example, the Holocaust and anti-Semitism.  The Likudists in Israel and in the Diaspora have twisted the accepted definition of anti-Semitism so that it now includes virtually any criticism of Israel.  As for the Holocaust it is, in this view, the sole property of the Jewish people.  And our victimhood has assumed saintly status, which may neither be questioned or criticized.
For example, anyone who points out that the pre-State Yishuv leadership, including David Ben Gurion, adopted a severely compromised moral position regarding saving the Jews of Europe during the Holocaust.  And if you, God forbid, point out there were high-level Nazi leaders who, like Ben Gurion, saw for a time an answer to the Jewish Question inexpelling European Jews to Palestine–well, then the sky and the wrath of the Lobby will fall upon you.
Over the past few months, as Jeremy Corbyn has assumed leadership of the British Labour Party and triumphed in a second leadership battle last week, the UK Israel Lobby and disgruntled establishment figures in the Party have mounted a rearguard action seeking to undermine him by accusing him of being insufficiently deferential to the interests of Israel.  Indeed, they’ve gone further and accused him of supporting Islamist groups like Hezbollah or even being a closet anti-Semite.
These nigglers know that they can’t mount a direct assault on Corbyn, who has already won two decisive victories in leadership battles, so they pick and choose among various key Corbyn supporters who display the temerity to question the political line of the Lobby.  Such happened earlier today to a leader of the Momentum faction, which offers key support to Corbyn, Jackie Walker.  It’s rather shocking to discover, in light of the vicious attack against her, that she is, in fact, Jewish.  It’s not at all surprising that the media outlet which ginned up the latest anti-Corbyn outrage is none other than the Telegraph, otherwise known as Torygraph.
At a Party conference on anti-Semitism, she offered the following observations:
““I came in here … and I was looking for information and I still haven’t heard a definition of anti-Semitism that I can work with … [shouting from audience] and in terms of Holocaust day, wouldn’t it be wonderful if Holocaust day was open to all people who experienced Holocaust … [shouting from audience] in practice, it’s not actually circulated and advertised as such.”
I’m not at all surprised that Walker is dissatisfied with the definitions of anti-Semitism offered by Israel advocates since they are attempts to expand the traditional definition of the term which is confined to hatred of Jews or discrimination of Jews as a religion or ethnic group.  There is no reference at all to Israel in conventional definitions, unless someone derogates Israel referring to it solely in a disparaging Jewish context.
It’s worth quoting from the actual purpose of the UK Holocaust Memorial Day as stated in the official website:
Holocaust Memorial Day aims to:
  • recognise that the Holocaust was a tragically defining episode of the 20th Century, a crisis for European civilisation and a universal catastrophe for humanity
  • provide a national mark of respect for all victims of Nazi persecution and demonstrate understanding with all those who still suffer its consequences
  • raise awareness and understanding of the events of the Holocaust as a continuing issue of fundamental importance for all humanity
  • ensure that the horrendous crimes, racism and victimisation committed during the Holocaust are neither forgotten nor repeated, whether in Europe or elsewhere in the world
  • restate the continuing need for vigilance in light of the troubling repetition of human tragedies in the world today
  • reflect on more recent atrocities that raise similar issues
  • provide a national focus for educating subsequent generations about the Holocaust and the continued relevance of the lessons that are learnt from it
  • provide an opportunity to examine our nation’s past and learn for the future
  • promote a democratic and tolerant society, free of the evils of prejudice, racism and other forms of bigotry
  • support the view that all citizens – without distinction – should participate freely and fully in the economic, social and public life of the nation
  • highlight the values of a tolerant and diverse society based upon the notions of universal dignity and equal rights and responsibilities for all its citizens
  • assert a continuing commitment to oppose racism, antisemitism, victimisation and genocide
  • support our shared aspirations with both our European partners and the wider international community centred on the ideals of peace, justice and community for all
Note, that there isn’t a single reference to “Israel” nor even a reference to Jews or Judaism.  Clearly, those who authored this statement and conceived of transforming Holocaust Memorial Day into a UK national holiday saw the best way to do that as presenting the Holocaust as a crime not just against Jews, but all of humanity.  They wisely understood that presenting it solely as a symbol of Jewish victimhood would have less appeal to the British populace.
What’s interesting regarding this outburst is that all of a sudden, when it becomes useful, Holocaust Memorial Day relapses into a day owned by Jews.  What happened to the universality theme espoused above?  It was dropped quicker than a hot potato.
Here is some of the meretricious nonsense offered by Jeremy Newmark, chairman of the Board of Deputies in criticism of Walker:
“I am appalled that somebody who has already caused great hurt and pain to so many Jewish people by promoting an anti-Semitic myth would come to a training session designed to help party activists address anti-Semitism and use the occasion to challenge the legitimacy of the training itself,” he said.
“To denigrate security provision at Jewish schools, make false claims about the universality of National Holocaust Memorial Day and to challenge recognised definitions of anti-Semitism is provocative, offensive and a stark example of the problem facing the Labour Party today.
“As vice-chair of Momentum, Jackie Walker has consistently failed to demonstrate any sensitivity to the impact of her words and actions upon the Jewish community. She must now consider her position, show some sensitivity and contrition or resign.”
According to the media coverage of the event, Walker didn’t question the training itself.  She questioned the definition of anti-Semitism it offered.  And she certainly wasn’t questioning the “universality” of Holocaust Memorial Day.  In fact, just the opposite: she was asking why the Day had been shorn of its universality.
But what Newmark is really arguing is that the Day should be recognized universally as the property of Jews, not that non-Jewish victims (of whom there were many millions) should be recognized as victims.  What about the gays, Communists, disabled people, and Gypsies who were “offered” the Final Solution?  Have you forgotten them, Mr. Newmark?
Apparently, another major irritant for the Israel Lobby is that Walker has compared the slave trade to genocide by calling it an “African holocaust.”  In truth, given the millions of Africans who were enslaved or died on their path to the New World, and the role which European powers played in maintaining it, there is ample justification to label this genocide.  Just because slave traders didn’t set up crematoria and burn their chattel alive doesn’t mean the term doesn’t apply.
In truth, this mock horror at the supposed anti-Semitism of the new Labour Party is a sham.  It is a useful cudgel the Israel Lobby and a largely Tory-aligned UK Jewish community can wield against a Party which threatens to adopt a more even-handed approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict.  Corbyn’s critics are either Tories, or old Labour who hate the fact that their Party has turned from its Blairite path.
There are Jewish Labour Party supporters who have risen to defend Walker here.  For a more sympathetic account of Jackie Walker and her background including an interview with her, read this.  H/t to OffCentreNews.

donderdag 29 september 2016

The Countless Contradictions of the Late and Great Shimon Peres


Afbeeldingsresultaat voor haaretz

The Countless Contradictions of the Late and Great Shimon Peres

Israeli politicians and American Jewish leaders lauding him today,
undermined Shimon Peres when it could have made a difference.


Chemi Shalev Sep 28, 2016 12:57 PM




Friedrich Nietzsche provided the formula that was the essence of Shimon Peres’s long and remarkable life. “One is fruitful only at the cost of being rich in contradictions; one remains young only on condition that the soul does not relax, does not long for peace,” the German philosopher wrote, as if he was intimately acquainted with the intricacies of the future Israeli leader.

But Peres longed for peace, you might protest, but you’d be wrong. Peres longed for peace for Israel, but not for himself. He fought for peace every way he could, conventionally and unconventionally, with the armies at his disposal and with guerilla tactics, in direct confrontations as well as psychological warfare. If Peres had seen peace in his time he would have grown tired of it and moved on to something else, which he did in any case. His soul never relaxed, as Nietzsche noted, which is why he stayed forever young even as he grew old.

Peres was abundantly rich in contradictions. It made him fruitful and fascinating, complicated instead of straightforward, multilayered rather than direct. It was his greatest strength but also his biggest weakness. Throughout most of his life, the Israeli public shied away from Peres’ complexity. It was misinterpreted as a sign of deviousness and even corruption. It sparked fear and hostility, before these emotions evolved, in the twilight of his life, to appreciation and admiration.

Peres was Israel, from start to finish, but he was never fully accepted as an Israeli. In his life he was often seen as an outsider and in his death he is depicted as an apparition from the heavens above. Peres lived in Israel for 82 of his 93 years, but he never looked like an Israeli, never sounded like one, never behaved like one and never thought like one. He was a man of the world in a country that sees only itself, a connoisseur of nuance and finesse playing to bleachers of bluster and bombast, a rational actor on a stage where emotions reign supreme.

Peres was a founder of the country’s defense establishment but also a pioneer of its search for peace. He fathered Israeli settlements in the territories but crafted the instruments of their potential demise. He was the first Israeli leader to treat Palestinian leaders as human beings, going out of his way to show respect and sometimes affection, but he was a Johnny-come-lately in supporting Palestinian statehood. 
As prime minister he ordered Operation Grapes of Wrath, possibly for electoral reasons, and it was under his watch that the Israeli Army committed the Qana massacre in South Lebanon, in which over a hundred Palestinians were killed.

Peres was the architect and sub-contractor of Israel’s doomsday apparatus, but he was ridiculed as a wishy-washy trench-dodger, scorned for preferring suits to khakis, never accepted as one of the boys. He was a hawk who was mistaken for a dove, a local-patriot with cosmopolitan designs, a pragmatist portrayed as an idealist, a man of vision described by his enemies as suffering from hallucinations. 

Peres was insulted to the very core of his being when his arch rival Yitzhak Rabin branded him forever as a “tireless schemer” in his 1970’s autobiography Service Book, but he was all that and more: a tireless dreamer, a tireless thinker, a tireless planner, a tireless speaker, a tireless persuader, a tireless reader, a tireless writer and a tireless performer. Sometimes, he was a tireless gossip as well. 

Peres seemed like a fish out of water in rough and tumble Israeli politics, but he was also a slight from the lowliest of politicians and journalists, yet he absorbed more scorn and ridicule than any other Israeli politician and always came out stronger.

Peres didn’t suffer fools gladly and he surrounded himself with the best and the brightest. He was always flabbergasted when bettered by the simpler and more direct Rabin and Yitzhak Shamir and amazed when they seemed more popular too.

 Peres was often too clever by half, way too smart for his own good: perhaps this is the secret of his soft spot for Benjamin Netanyahu, a politician as well read and as self-conflicted as Peres himself.

Peres fulfilled every major role that Israel had to offer yet often sounded as if he’d been unjustly denied. He was lauded and feted and admired throughout the world, yet felt deprived and thirsted for more. He is being hailed now as the godfather of peace in the Middle East, yet it was Menachem Begin who signed a peace treaty with Egypt and Rabin who reached an accord with King Hussein of Jordan, while Peres’ offspring, the Oslo Accords, stalled and derailed. And while the 1993 agreement was a springboard for an unprecedented Israeli renaissance in the diplomatic, cultural and technological arenas, Peres was denied proper credit and singled out instead as the man who brought terror to Israel’s doorstep.

In his latter years, Peres was Israel’s fig leaf. The man who was always depicted as a foreign entity miraculously metamorphosed into a poster boy for the Zionist entity. He was the Israel that everyone wanted it to be, rather than the country that actually is. He epitomized an innovative, forward-looking, peace-seeking cosmopolitanism, an Israel that is a member in good standing in the international community, a beacon onto the nations rather than a recalcitrant occupier and subjugator of the Palestinians. He was unappreciated and undermined, by Israeli politicians as well as American Jewish leaders, when he needed help and was in a position to make history; he was embraced and placed on a pedestal only when it made no difference at all.

Peres was, the New Yorker once wrote of Winston Churchill, larger than life, a giant among pygmies, warts and all. Over the course of the past 30 years, it was my privilege and my pleasure to enjoy his company from time to time, on good days as well as awful. Like most politicians, Peres liked to talk, but unlike his peers, he sometimes chose to listen. He was concerned with himself, but interested in his interlocutor as well. He had a wicked sense of humor, though one reserved mainly for his enemies rather than himself.

I was never blind to Peres’ shortcomings, though I can’t say he appreciated it when I occasionally pointed them out. He was brilliant but sometimes obtuse, curious but always self-centered, broad minded but sometimes petty, generous but sometimes vindictive and mean. He was no Nietzschean superman by any measure but whenever I was with him there was never a doubt in my mind that I was in the company of greatness.
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.744735

dinsdag 27 september 2016

Watching Trump and Clinton debate Isis from my home in the Middle East was as predictable as it was absurd





Watching Trump and Clinton debate Isis from my home in the Middle East was as predictable as it was absurd

'We have to knock the hell out of Isis – and we have to do it fast,' Trump told the world. Well, sure, but haven’t we all been knocking the hell out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, even Lebanon, and achieving the constant rebirth of ever more vicious warriors, of which Isis may soon generate another, even worse progeny? 
  27-09-2016

clinton-trump-5.jpg
Watching them both yacking on about the Middle East as a pink dawn glowed from behind the Lebanese mountains above Beirut, I found the Trump-Clinton show a grimly instructive experience. In the few hundred miles east and south of Lebanon, hundreds are dying every week – in Syria, in Yemen, in Iraq – and yet there were the terrible twins playing “I can beat Isis better than you can beat Isis”. Was this what the Arab world really meant to the reality show participants at the unpronounceable university campus on Long Island?
What was it Trump said to Clinton? “You’ve been fighting Isis your entire adult life!” And what did Clinton say? “Well at least I have a plan to fight Isis!” After an hour, I was praying that the Lebanese slept on amid the mountains. Please God there would be electricity cuts in Aleppo and Baghdad and Sanaa – just for these 90 minutes, you understand – so that the people enduring the Middle East tragedy did not witness how the next US president was using their homelands as a movie back-lot.
“He has no plan to defeat Isis,” quoth Madame Clinton. But does anyone? It’s a pity, for example, that they didn’t outline “plans” for justice, freedom and dignity in the Middle East and an end to the policy of bombing, bombing, bombing and more bombing that now seems to equal political initiative in the Arab world. But of course they did not, for all this was slotted into the last bit of the CNN show, the climax which was – wearingly and predictably – entitled “American security”.
There was a very brief mention by Trump of “Bibi Netanyahu” that must have left many American viewers completely floored – save for those supporters of Israel to whom, of course, it was addressed – but that was all we heard about another small conflict in the Middle East. Cliché and banality rubbed up against each other. Clinton claimed that Obama had stopped those “centrifuges that were whirling away” in Iran – I’m not sure that centrifuges do “whirl”, though Clinton may have been talking about the “whirling dervishes” who also live in the region. And then Trump came up with his apple pie throwaway.
“The Middle East is a total mess,” and Iran would soon be a “major power” – as if Iran was not already a major power in the region, as it has been for around 3,000 years. But what particular “mess” was he talking about? The “mess” in the hospitals of eastern Aleppo? The “mess” of Egypt’s civil rights – though I do suspect that Brigadier-General-President al-Sissi’s version would rather appeal to Trump – or the “mess” left behind by the bombing of the Médecins Sans Frontières hospital in Afghanistan? Or perhaps the “mess” of Palestine – another word that mercifully was not dwelt upon by the duo who both plan to rule America? Didn’t “Bibi” mention that to Trump? Or the “mess” of Nato, whose killing of Serbs (and quite a few Kosovo Muslims) in 1999 was followed by the Alliance’s support for the Afghan war but which, according to Trump, “does not focus on terror”?
“We have to knock the hell out of Isis – and we have to do it fast,” the great man told the world. Well, sure, but haven’t we all been knocking the hell out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, even Lebanon (a few years ago), and achieving the constant rebirth of ever more vicious warriors, of which Isis – heaven spare us the thought – may soon generate another, even worse progeny? Trump apparently believed that Isis would not exist if Obama had left 10,000 US troops in Iraq – a strategy Isis would surely have applauded – while Clinton moaned on about how the Iraqi government “would not protect American troops”.
And there you have it, I suppose. It is the Arab world’s job, isn’t it, to “protect” America in its various military occupations, or – at the very least – the task (yes, this old chestnut was indeed produced) of “our friends in the Middle East”. And who were they, I wondered? Those fantastic Saudis who gave us 15 of the 9/11 hijackers? About the only nonsense left un-uttered by Trump and Clinton was that Isis was born outside the United States. There they would have been on safe ground. Or would they? For I suspect there may be a growing number of Arabs who believe that Isis is indeed a child born in America.