woensdag 18 juli 2018

Deir Yassin: The Massacre that Sparked the Nakba



APRIL 12, 2018


Deir Yassin: The Massacre that Sparked the Nakba 


 acebookTwitterGoogle+
April 9 marked the 70th anniversary of the Deir Yassin massacre, in which Jewish militias murdered over 100 Palestinian men, women and children as part of a self-described “cleansing” campaign to expel indigenous Arabs to make way for the nascent Jewish state of Israel. 
One of the key ideological elements of Zionism — the movement for the re-establishment of a Jewish nation in Palestine — is the premise of what literary theorist Edward Said called “the excluded presence” of the indigenous population of Palestine. From its earliest days, Zionism, which is at its core a settler colonial movement of white, mostly European people usurping Arabs they often viewed as inferior or backwards, propagated the myth of “a land without a people for a people without a land.” Theodore Herzl, the father of modern political Zionism, argued that a Jewish state in Palestine would “form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism.” 
Such supremacist notions, brimming with messianic self-righteousness and bolstered by European fealty to the Westphalian state system which presumed non-European territories were ripe for colonization, allowed Zionists to justify horrific crimes against the Palestinian people. This, just a few years after Jews had suffered one of the worst episodes of genocide in human history, and even more recently, after the international community had condemned Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg for many of the same atrocities Jews were now committing in pursuit of their own lebensraum in Palestine.
The trouble with Zionism is that is presumes universal belief in, or at least acceptance of, the deity and prophecy of the Old Testament, which according to the sacred mythology, promised the Jews, “God’s Chosen People,” all of Palestine. The Arabs of Palestine, who comprised 90 percent or more of the population there for centuries preceding Zionist colonization, certainly did not believe nor accept this. 
Nor did the British, who ruled Palestine from 1923 until Jewish terrorism drove them out in 1947 and who had, after originally authorizing in the Balfour Declaration a homeland for the Jewish people within Palestine, limited Jewish immigration in 1939 after having found the colonists had violated the declaration’s provision that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” There is no way to avoid prejudicing civil and religious rights under settler-colonialism, especially the Jewish supremacist settler-colonialism that is Zionism. 
Thus there were two major obstacles to achieving the Zionist endgame of an independent Jewish state of Israel encompassing all of Palestine: the British and, of course, the Palestinians themselves. The British were dispatched via a prolonged wave of assassinationsterror bombings and other attacks, often planned and carried out by men who would later become prime ministers and other leaders of Israel. The Palestinians — a people who, as Israeli founding father David Ben-Gurion presciently warned would “not tire easily” in the face of “usurpation of its land” — proved much tougher to erase. 
There was, however, much erasing to do. As Yosef Weitz, director of the Jewish National Land Fund, had declared
“It must be clear that there is no room for both peoples in this country… There is no way besides transferring the Arabs from here to neighboring countries, to transfer them all… we must not leave a single village, a single tribe.” 
To that end, Ben-Gurion and his inner circle devised Plan Dalet, the “principle objective” of which was, according to a directive to Jewish militia troops, “the destruction of Arab villages… and the eviction of the villagers.” 
On April 8, 1948, the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin was prosperous, expanding and, despite rapidly deteriorating relations between Palestine’s Arabs and Jews as all-out war neared, at peace with its Jewish neighbors. Limestone mining was the main source of employment for Deir Yassin’s 600 or so residents, who traded widely with Jews and supplied markets in Jerusalem, five kilometers (3.1 miles) to the east. The Jewish village of Givat Shaul stood between Deir Yassin and the main road to Jerusalem. As hostilities grew in the wake of the United Nations plan to partition Palestine between Jews and Arabs, Deir Yassin and Givat Shaul signed a peace pact, which was approved by Haganah, the main Jewish paramilitary force that would later form the core of the Israel Defense Forces. 
Peace treaty or not, Haganah, as well as the terrorist groups Irgun and Lehi, which were respectively commanded by future prime ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, were determined to attack Deir Yassin. The first phase of Israel’s war of independence focused heavily on controlling Palestine’s roads, the lifelines linking Jewish communities through territory that was still populated overwhelmingly by Arabs. Irgun and Lehi viewed Deir Yassin as a threat to controlling the main road to Jerusalem as well to nearby Jewish communities and had few if any qualms about breaking the peace pact. 
A plan was devised to attack Deir Yassin before dawn on April 9, expel all of its residents and kill those who refused to leave in order to seize the village and terrorize Arabs throughout Palestine into flight. In language horrifically reminiscent of the recent Nazi liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto, Irgun officer Ben-Zion Cohen recounted how Lehi members proposed “liquidating” the entire village. Fortunately, the proposal was rejected, although Deir Yassin was indeed ultimately “liquidated,” like more than 400 other destroyed Arab villages in 1948-49.
Women and children were meant to be spared, and residents were meant to be warned by loudspeaker to encourage their escape. However, the armored vehicle carrying the loudspeaker crashed early during the attack and the 120 attackers encountered fierce resistance, including sniper fire, from the village guards and other residents, many of whom were armed. The inexperienced Jewish fighters resorted to going from house to house, tossing grenades indiscriminately into each one before storming inside and spraying survivors with submachine guns and other weapons. Fahimeh Ali Mustafa Zeidan, who was 11 years old, later recalled how the attackers…
… blew the door down, entered and started searching the place; they got to the store room, and took us out one by one. They shot the son-in-law, and when one of his daughters screamed, they shot her too. They then called my brother Mahmoud and shot him in our presence, and when my mother screamed and bent over my brother, carrying my little sister Khadra, who was still being breast fed, they shot my mother too. We all started screaming and crying, but were told that if we did not stop, they would shoot us all. They then lined us up, shot at us, and left.
Meir Pa’il, an intelligence officer in Palmach, the Haganah strike force, later described his fellow Jewish fighters as “full of lust for murder” during and after the attack. Israeli historian Benny Morris claims there were cases of mutilation and rape. One resident described how the attackers shot a pregnant woman before bashing in her belly; such atrocities were confirmed by Jewish participants. Pa’il wrote that Irgun and Lehi fighters… 
…were going about the village robbing and stealing everything: chickens, radio sets, sugar, money, gold and more… Each [one] walked about the village dirty with blood and proud of the number of persons he had killed. 
“I have seen a great deal of war, but I never saw a sight like Deir Yassin,” confessed Haganah officer Eliahu Arbel, who “saw bodies of women and children who were murdered in their houses in cold blood.” 
“To me, it looked a bit like a pogrom,” said Haganah intelligence officer Mordechai Gichon, referring to the organized slaughter of Jews in Russia and Eastern Europe that drove so many of them to flee to Palestine. “When the Cossacks burst into Jewish neighborhoods, then that should have looked something like this.” 
Pa’il wrote of finding a house in the center of the village where 200 terrified women and children had been rounded up, and of a “commander [who] explained that they intended to kill all of them.” Fortunately, help arrived shortly thereafter in the form of ultra-Orthodox Jews from Givat Shaul, who rushed to Deir Yassin in time to shame the attackers into sparing the prisoners. 
Some survivors, including women and children, were forced onto trucks and paraded through the streets of West Jerusalem, where residents spit, stoned and taunted them. Some of the prisoners were then executed. Haganah intelligence officer Yitzhak Levy wrote of a mother and her child, as well as seven old men and women, who were executed in a quarry. 
When it was all over, over 100 men, women and children of Deir Yassin lay dead, while the village’s defenders managed to kill four of the attacking Jews. Word of the massacre spread like wildfire and succeeded in the stated Zionist goal of terrorizing Arabs in other towns and villages throughout Palestine into permanently fleeing their homes and their homeland. Haganah psychological warfare operators approaching Arab villages often broadcast over loudspeakers recordings of shrieking Arab women accompanied by exhortations to leave immediately or face a similar fate as Deir Yassin. The massacre was a major motivator of Arab flight from Palestine, the beginning of what Palestinians call the Nakbaor “catastrophe;” the ethnic cleansing of some 750,000 Arabs from Palestine during Israel’s war for independence.
The international community was horrified and outraged when news of Deir Yassin got out. In the United States, a group of prominent Jews including Albert Einstein wrote a letter to the editors of the New York Times blasting the “terrorist bands [who] attacked a peaceful village.” Others compared the Deir Yassin attackers to Nazis. However, then, as now, the Zionists committing horrific crimes cared little for what the world thought. For all its horror, leading Zionists touted Deir Yassin as a smashing success. “We created terror among the Arabs,” Menachem Begin boasted at the time. “In one blow, we changed the strategic situation.” 
In the heroic myth-making endemic to all settler-colonial states, atrocities are unceremoniously buried like so many victims’ bloating corpses. Many Israelis today, including some leading historians, deny any massacre occurred at Deir Yassin, despite the overwhelming evidence presented by village residents, Jewish perpetrators and international observers. To these revisionists, any negative portrayal of Israel or even Zionism is rooted in antisemitism, or if the accuser is Jewish, in self-loathing, a “trick we always use” to deflect legitimate criticism, according to the late Israeli government minister Shulamit Aloni. 
And so although the Jewish Agency for Israel — the head of Jewish affairs in Palestine — and the Haganah condemned and apologized for Deir Yassin, and although an IDF intelligence officer’s report states“there can be no doubt at all that large numbers of civilians were killed unjustifiably” there, there is a strain of denialism among Israelis akin to those other supremacists who deny the undeniable events of the Holocaust. Seventy years after the horrors of Deir Yassin, it is more necessary than ever to ensure that, like the Nazi genocide of Jews, we “never forget” the brutal massacre of that peaceful village or the wider catastrophe it sparked. 

maandag 16 juli 2018

The Enabling Of Steve Bannon




Zelo Street

SUNDAY, 15 JULY 2018


The Enabling Of Steve Bannon

What helped fuel political parties like UKIP, especially in the run-up to the EU referendum, was the access given to them by broadcasters. Newspaper columns and other print coverage were fine, but to inject the virus directly, you need to be on air. And that is what drove the message of Nigel “Thirsty” Farage and his pals. Now, post-referendum, UKIP is old hat, and the access has been given to the far-right instead.
Steve Bannon - given a platform

How that has come about is for those giving the access to explain, but the result these last few days has been the appearance of Steve Bannon, a white supremacist who supports the likes of the French Front Nationale and Geert Wilders’ party in the Netherlands. He supports the Identiarian movement, which is, let us not drive this one round the houses for too long, a bunch of actual Nazis, some of whom are now on trial in Austria.
He didn't know it was going on, honest

Yet Bannon was invited on to ITV’s Good Morning Britain last Friday, where former Screws and Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan, to his shame, was craven in his questioning, his co-host Susanna Reid left to put The Great Man on the spot. This contrasted with Morgan’s aggressive and dishonest attack on Ash Sarkar of Novara Media.
Susanna Reid - got the same insult as Theo Usherwood

And then came Bannon’s appearance with Farage on his Sunday morning LBC show. What might have been expected to be a softball session got an unexpected hard edge when the station’s political editor Theo Usherwood called Bannon out for his support of Stephen Yaxley Lennon, who styles himself Tommy Robinson.
Usherwood noted the reaction. “Bannon to me off-air: ‘Fuck you. Don't you fucking say you're calling me out. You fucking liberal elite. Tommy Robinson is the backbone of this country.’” Remember the “Liberal elite” part of that.
Bannon’s grovelling Mini-Me Raheem “call me Ray” Kassam was unhappy. “LBC’s @theousherwood introduced himself to Bannon before the interview as the ‘neutral’ political editor of the station. He then proceeded to attack him both on and off air, and then tweet a private conversation. @Ofcom”. Tough. Run along, Ray. Grown-up talk.
In any case, Usherwood put Kassam straight. “For the record, nothing was agreed beforehand … If he wanted the conversation to be off-the-record, he should have said”. Meanwhile, Owen Jones, who had taken an interest in Morgan’s inexcusable shouting down of Ash Sarkar, observed “Two leading British broadcasters - ITV and LBC - have given an uncritical platform to this fascist little thug Steve Bannon, in both cases interviews by personal friends of Donald Trump (Piers Morgan and Nigel Farage)”.
And then came an intervention from Ms Reid. “My approach to Steve Bannon on @gmb was entirely critical to the point where he accused me of insulting questioning and being part of the liberal elite”. Hey, it’s that “Liberal elite” rant again! Stock response to proper questioning. But Bannon being that Good Ol’ Gen-tle-man, he held the swearing.
That revelation was one thing; Morgan’s weaselling out of Owen Jones’ questioning was quite another. “Hi @piersmorgan. Can you please explain clearly why you conducted a hectoring, aggressive interview against a left-wing Muslim woman, but a respectful, unchallenging interview with the Mussolini-admiring far right extremist Steve Bannon?” he asked The Donald’s bestest buddy and softball interviewer.
Morgan’s answer was deflection at its less than finest. “Sure, Bannon answered every question we put to him - and we (very sexist of you to pretend @susannareid100 wasn't involved...) challenged him repeatedly. Your communist friend didn't so I had to keep repeating the questions. The fact she's a woman or a Muslim was irrelevant”. That Jones did not mention Ms Reid is irrelevant, but if that’s how he wanted it, fine.
Jones duly mentioned his co-host. “You aggressively shouted down Ash Sarkar and made up her opinions. Susanna didn't. When the Mussolini-admiring white nationalist Steve Bannon was on, you treated him as a respected guest. Susanna challenged him. You're the problem, you're the disgrace, not Susanna”. Ouch!
And, in case we had forgotten, the Tweeter known as Briefcase Mike let everyone know what Bannon had been defending before Usherwood called him out. “Steve Bannon says it's a disgrace that Tommy Robinson is in prison and calls for his release saying he broke the law ‘only in a technical sense’. In UK you've either broken the law or you haven't. And in any case Robinson pleaded guilty. #LBC”.
Steve Bannon called someone with a string of criminal convictions “the backbone of this country”. He tried to reinvent the law. His sole response to being held to account is to whine about the “Liberal elite”. He supports actual Nazis.
Evening all

Small wonder that when Piers Morgan once again invented attributes for someone he was trying to shout down - this time Owen Jones and inventing a connection to the Trump “baby balloon” - Jones dismissed the Trump toady with “I have nothing to do with the Trump balloon, but at least it will go down in history for something other than being a disgraced newspaper editor who sucked up to a grotesque Nazi praising sexual predator”.

The enabling of Steve Bannon needs some explaining. And my Occam’s Razor tells me that the one who needs to do the most of that explaining is Piers Morgan. Giving the far-right a legitimacy they do not merit is worrying. And it’s bang out of order.

woensdag 11 juli 2018

Nick Cohen – a critique




Afbeeldingsresultaat voor logo jewish voice for labour



10 Jul 2018

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor nick cohen the guardian

Nick Cohen – a critique



JVL Introduction
On Sunday 8th July 2018 the Observer published an article by Nick Cohen entitled Why has Labour run the risk of alienating progressive Jews?
In this opinion piece, David Pavett dissects Cohen’s argument and shows it lacking in substance. It makes you wonder what the Observer/Guardian thought it was doing in publishing the piece…


Nick Cohen’s tour de force on Labour antisemitism

David Pavett writes:
On Sunday 8th July 2018 the Observer published an article by Nick Cohen entitled Why has Labour run the risk of alienating progressive Jews? The piece is a culmination of three years of constant repetition in the mainstream media of accusations of antisemitism against Corbyn supporters, the Labour Party and the left in general. This repetition has included the use of a tiny number of cases of alleged antisemitism some of which are factually incorrect. Once this type of evidence-lite commentary was established as a media norm some journalists felt emboldened to increase the scope of their exaggerations and the force of their vitriol against the Labour leadership. So it is with this article by Nick Cohen.
David Pavett’s critique of Nick Cohen [see text below] can be downloaded as a PDF which will be easier to read.
Since Cohen’s article purports to be a critique of the new NEC code of conduct on antisemitism, you might also like to consult that document here.


David Pavett is a retired teacher having taught mathematics, physics, philosophy and computing science in Further Education and to secondary school sixth formers. He is an active member of the Brentford and Isleworth Constituency Labour Party. He has a particular interest in how Labour Party policy. Last year he organised a widely circulated collection of reviews of the policy statements produced by the National Policy Forum. He is currently doing the same for the current policy review drafts.

zaterdag 7 juli 2018

Would the Labour Party expel Einstein for antisemitism



Afbeeldingsresultaat voor jewish voice for labour

29 Jan 2018

Would the Labour Party expel Einstein for antisemitism


Welcome to the Witch Hunt

Leon Rosselson, 
The Medium
6th October 2017

My local Labour controlled council has just voted, like other councils, as well as universities and the UK government, to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. This consists of a rather loose basic definition, followed by a rambling discourse around the subject that twice mentions Israel and then 11 examples, 7 of which refer to the state of Israel. Anyone with a functioning brain might suspect that this definition has less to do with protecting Jews from antisemitism than with shielding Israel from criticism.
When the European Parliament were due to vote on whether to adopt this definition, I wrote to my MEPs urging them to reject it. Two replied in identical terms, pointing out that the definition makes it clear that ‘criticism of Israel cannot be regarded as antisemitic’. Except that it doesn’t. They lied. Why would they do that? What it actually says is that ‘criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic’.
The italicised phrase changes everything. Why is it there? Obviously to muddy the waters. Who is to decide whether criticism of Israel goes beyond that levelled against any other country? In any case, Israel is not like any other country. It is a settler colonial state, founded on massacres and ethnic cleansing. It is, by any definition, a criminal state. Transferring Israeli settlers into the occupied territory is illegal, as is transferring Palestinian prisoners into Israeli jails. The Wall, built largely on Palestinian land was judged illegal by the International Court of Justice in 2004. The collective punishment inflicted on the people of Gaza is a war crime under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel itself is a racist state where ‘Arabs’ are viewed as a demographic threat. Unlike other countries (Myanmar is an exception), it is not a state for all its citizens but for all the Jews in the world, who are given the ‘Right of Return’, a right denied to the indigenous people.
But according to the IHRA definition we are not allowed to say this. What makes Israel worthy of special protection?
The IHRA definition gives as an example of antisemitism: Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of Israel is a racist endeavour.
This is tantamount to saying that antisemitism is the same as anti-Zionism since only Zionists (and antisemites) believe that Jews are ‘a people’ and that their self-determination means a Jewish state. Jews are not, in any ethnic sense, ‘a people’ or ‘a race’. All that Jews share is a religion — and whatever ethical values may be derived from that — and a history of persecution. The mass of Yiddish speaking Jews in Poland, Lithuania and Russia were against the Zionist project. True the socialist Bund wanted Jewish autonomy based on a language and a culture, for which they were labelled ‘Zionists with sea-sickness‘ by someone (probably Lenin), but they were totally opposed to a Jewish state in Palestine. So were the religious authorities of the time since it is written in the Torah and the Talmud that Jews are forbidden to return to the Holy Land until the Messiah comes. Nowadays most, but not all, Jewish religious groupings have accommodated themselves to the reality of the Jewish state even though it would seem to be a sin against God.
Many prominent Jews opposed the 1917 Balfour Declaration, notably Edwin Montagu, the only Jewish member of the cabinet. He considered Zionism a form of antisemitism. He was not alone. Members of the mainstream Board of Deputies of British Jews, like Lucien Wolf and Alexander Montefiore, argued fervently against the idea of a Jewish state since inherent in the Zionist project is the belief that Jews do not belong in the countries where they have lived over the centuries, that they are ‘strangers in their native lands’.
Judah Magnes, the first president of the Hebrew University, who lobbied the U.S. President Harry Truman not to recognise the state of Israel, Martin Buber, the biblical scholar, Hannah Arendt, philosopher and political theorist, both refugees from Nazi Germany, and Albert Einstein were all sympathetic to the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine but firmly opposed to a Jewish state because they understood that it would necessarily displace the Arab population of Palestine. They favoured a bi-national state with equal rights for all. In Einstein’s evidence to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, which was examining the Palestine issue in 1946, Einstein argued against the creation of a Jewish state.
The state idea is not according to my heart. I cannot understand why it is needed. It is connected with many difficulties and narrow-mindedness.I believe it is bad…. I am against it.
After Israel’s creation, he wrote: My awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest.
checkpoint
Now, according to the IHRA definition, all these and countless more, including many Israelis such as the academics Shlomo Sand, Ilan Pappe and Moshe Machover, are guilty of antisemitism. Isn’t it absurd? And yet councillors all over the country as well as university authorities have been mindlessly voting to adopt this pernicious definition.
Another example of antisemitism given in the definition is: Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. In what way is that antisemitic? And if there is evidence for such comparisons, why are we not allowed to say so?
Hannah Arendt, in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem, notes the parallels between the Nazi Nuremberg Laws of 1935, which prohibit intermarriage between Jews and Germans, and Israel’s own marriage laws, where, because rabbinical law rules, ‘no Jew can marry a non-Jew’. So now she’s guilty of antisemitism twice over.
In 2014, with Israel’s onslaught on Gaza at its height, I wrote a song, The Ballad of Rivka and Mohammed which drew parallels between the experience of a Jewish girl in the Vilna Ghetto and a Palestinian boy in Gaza. That would undoubtedly have fallen foul of this clause in the definition and got me suspended from the Labour Party, had I been a member.
In March 2017, a Jewish Holocaust survivor, Marika Sherwood, was due to give an open talk at Manchester University, with the title, ‘A Holocaust survivor’s story and the Balfour Declaration: You’re doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to me’.
I don’t know what exactly she had in mind when choosing that title. She did say in explanation: “I was just speaking of my experience of what the Nazis were doing to me as a Jewish child. I had to move away from where I was living because Jews couldn’t live there….. I can’t say I’m a Palestinian, but my experiences as a child are not dissimilar to what Palestinian children are experiencing now.”
Perhaps she was thinking of how Israeli soldiers routinely invade Palestinian homes in the middle of the night, drag out young boys, handcuff and blindfold them, beat them, humiliate and abuse them, deny them access to family or a lawyer and then hold them in physically abusive conditions, tied to a chair, for example, until they sign confessions — stone-throwing is a typical accusation — in a language they don’t understand. The maximum sentence for throwing stones is 20 years.
Israel has the dubious distinction of being the only country in the world that systematically prosecutes between 500 and 700 children each year in military courts lacking fundamental fair trial rights. Children within the Israeli military system commonly report physical and verbal abuse from the moment of their arrest, and coercion and threats during interrogations. (Defense for Children International — Palestine)
“Palestinian children arrested by (Israeli) military and police are systematically subject to degrading treatment, and often to acts of torture, are interrogated in Hebrew, a language they did not understand, and sign confessions in Hebrew in order to be released,”UN Committee on the Rights of the Child said in a report.
Of course, there was no antisemitic intent in her choice of title. But after pressure from the Israeli Embassy (Mark Regev, the Israeli Ambassador to the UK was formerly Israel’s Minister of Propaganda — they call it ‘hasbara’ in Hebrew — and was often referred to as Israel’s Goebbels), the University insisted the subtitle be removed, that academics chosen to chair the meeting should be replaced by university appointees and attendance limited to university students and staff.
The embassy argued that ‘comparing Israel to the Nazi regime could reasonably be considered antisemitic, given the context, according to IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism ….’
And this, of course, is what it’s all about. Silencing, censoring, stifling legitimate free speech. Nothing to do with combatting real antisemitism, everything to do with false accusations of antisemitism to protect Israel from criticism. The IHRA definition has been used as an excuse to suspend or expel too many Labour Party members, to close down too many meetings supporting Palestinian rights, to smear with spurious accusations of antisemitism too many speakers and writers speaking out for justice for Palestinians. Professor Moshe Machover is just the latest example, expelled from the Labour Party for writing an article in the Labour Party Marxists’ newsletter which documents the collaboration between the Nazi regime and the Zionist movement.The accuracy of his article has, unsurprisingly, not been challenged since it is all a matter of historical record. But the expulsion letter maintains that his article ‘appears to meet the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism which has been adopted by the Labour Party’. In fact, the Labour Party has wisely not adopted the whole definition, only the basic working definition without the examples, and it is difficult to understand how anything in Machover’s article could be construed as antisemitic on that basis. But any excuse…
The letter also mentions, as an affront to the etiquette of the Labour Party, language that could be perceived as offensive. That is a common charge made by the Zionist Jewish Labour Movement. They are offended if you call Israel a criminal state, they are offended if you label Israel’s policies as racist, they are offended if you mention apartheid when referring to the occupation, they are sensitive souls and are easily offended and since they are offended and they are Jews, you must be antisemitic.
Well, tough. There is not, as far as I know, a human right not to be offended. I am offended by the machinations of the Zionist lobby. I am offended by the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Times and the Telegraph. I am offended by Boris Johnson and the toff with 6 offspring who loves food banks. I am offended by Israel claiming to speak for me. I am offended every time Netanyahu opens his mouth. I am particularly offended by being accused of antisemitism because I believe a Jewish state is a terrible idea. Or because in a previous blog I said that the first loyalty of the Jewish Labour Movement ‘is not to their party but to a foreign country: Israel.’ Which offends against example 6 in the IHRA definition. But owing prime loyalty to the Jewish state is built into Zionist ideology. That is why Jews like Edwin Montagu feared Zionism and opposed the Balfour Declaration.
So, yes, I live in a permanent state of being offended. But I’m not trying to silence anyone.
The QC Hugh Tomlinson examined the IHRA definition and found it ‘unclear and confusing and should be used with caution’. He points out:
Any public authority which does adopt the IHRA Definition must interpret it in a way which is consistent with its own statutory obligations, particularly its obligation not to act in a matter inconsistent with the Article 10 (of the European Convention on Human Rights) right to freedom of expression. Article 10 does not permit the prohibition or sanctioning of speech unless it can be seen as a direct or indirect call for or justification of violence, hatred or intolerance. The fact that speech is offensive to a particular group is not, of itself, a proper ground for prohibition or sanction. The IHRA Definition should not be adopted without careful additional guidance on these issues.
Public authorities are under a positive obligation to protect freedom of speech. In the case of universities and colleges this is an express statutory obligation but Article 10 requires other public authorities to take steps to ensure that everyone is permitted to participate in public debates, even if their opinions and ideas are offensive or irritating to the public or a section of it.
And the former High Court Judge, Sir Stephen Sedley, states that: No policy can be adopted or used in defiance of the law. The Convention right of free expression, now part of our domestic law by virtue of the Human Rights Act, places both negative and positive obligations on the state which may be put at risk if the IHRA definition is unthinkingly followed.
Unfortunately, that didn’t stop my council voting unthinkingly to adopt it. But, here’s a turn-up for the books, along with the right of Jews to self-determination, they passed an amendment which gave Palestinians rights of self-determination. How do they reconcile those two rights since one negates the other? Who knows? I doubt that they gave it a moment’s thought.
I also doubt that Palestinian self-determination would be satisfied with a fragmented mini-state on the 22% of Palestine left after Israel’s expansionary War of Independence. So a reasonable interpretation of the amendment would be that the Brent councillors voted for a Palestinian state in the whole of pre-Israel Palestine and the return of 5 million Palestinian refugees.
Let’s put it another way: a single secular state with equal rights for all regardless of religion or ethnic origin.
Perhaps Einstein would have voted for that.