The Curious Case Of Rupert And Gilad.

I have been waiting for Dr Rupert Read to comment on his blog without success, and I am not sure quite what to make of Dr Read’s recent conduct. I could, of course, be very critical, it is hard to see how anyone could read the racism embedded in Gilad Atzmon’s work and not be alarmed.

But Dr Read did apologise, he said sorry, which should be an end to it, and it would be, if he hadn’t compounded the problem by making some quite curious and absurd claims afterwards :

Dr. Read: “I think that the influence of ‘the Israel lobby’ in this country as in many others is nefarious.” [My emphasis.]

Nefarious, readers will remember is defined in Webster’s 1913 edition as:

”Wicked in the extreme; abominable; iniquitous; atrociously, villainous; execrable; detestably vile. ”

Further, Dr. Read went on to praise the recent Dispatches programme which has received questionable reviews, still more disappointing is Dr. Read’s inability to explain himself in a lucid and considered fashion.

Normally, we should try to be charitable to those caught up in these mistakes and if they make amends quickly then that should be it. However, from his comments Dr Read doesn’t appear to have learnt anything in the process, anything meaningful. He might well have learnt to be more careful or hide his opinion’s concerning “Israelis”, he might have learnt how to give out a quick apology. Yet it all comes over as rather unsatisfactory.

Unsatisfactory coming from a professional academic, who is one step away from a professorship, someone who in normal circumstances would be considered a critical thinker, an intellectual, someone who could balance in his head numerous arguments and counter arguments in a trice, except that is not what comes over in his statements on this topic.

This is the difficulty, imagine you know someone highly intelligent, articulate and otherwise well balanced yet they hold a strong negative opinion against a particular group of people, and are incapable of articulating why they hold such an opinion in a rational fashion.

In such circumstances the natural conclusion to draw, is not that their views are based on reason, but some bias or prejudice. Let me make it clear I am not accusing Dr. Read of being an antisemite or anywhere close, but his inability to look at these issues rationally and objectively is somewhat mystifying and rather inadequate.

I know the simple answer would be to assume prejudice on Dr. Read’s part, but I am not entirely convinced as I have run across many politicos and a few academics, who were loath to ever admit they were wrong, could not rethink their positions and often showed a striking lack of self-awareness, the recent British MPs’ expenses scandals showed that.

The same could be true for Dr Read’s attitude, that it is more of a character flaw than an active prejudice? I am not really sure. Either way it is rather peculiar that a professional philosopher cannot defend his own views, strongly held views, by clear-cut and comprehensive argumentation.

Green Rupert And The Anti-Jewish Racist.

Thanks to Greens Engage, we now find out that Rupert Read is pushing that well-known anti-Jewish racist, Gilad Atzmon.

Dr. Read was a perspective Parliamentary candidate for the Greens in Norwich North, and a rather shrewd individual, well-educated, articulate and even has a column on the Eastern Daily Press. To top it all he’s an author and academic.

Dr. Read on his Twitter account pushes a link to Atzmon’s site with the title “Britain must de-Zionise Itself Immediately” [I'll upload a screen dump of it later on, just in case it vanishes]

Astute readers will remember the SWP’s honeymoon with Atzmon and their weak defence of him, that was some time ago and nowadays few, if any, deny Atzmon’s racism.

One example of Atzmon’s racism is how he argues that Jews fund war and revolutions, and anyone competent enough to read Far Right and neo-Nazi web sites will remember that old racist chestnut.

More recently Atzmon was portraying Israelis and Jews as ghouls and traders in body parts.

None of this should come as a surprise to Dr Read, a simple search across the Internet would reveal the racist nature of Atzmon’s views. Even Wikipedia, which apparently tries to strike a neutral balance, acknowledges there is criticism of Atzmon’s views.

Merely substituting “Zionist” for “Jew” should not fool a sophisticate such as Dr. Read, I am sure he is familiar with the usage of euphemisms in racism, he’ll find a lot of that in Atzmon’s work.

I think Dr. Read’s support for Atzmon illustrates a long standing problem, that those who spend an inordinate amount of time swimming around in the currents of “anti-Zionism” often become desensitised towards anti-Jewish racism, and when it is staring them in the face, as with Atzmon’s filth, they can’t recognise it.

I do hope that Dr. Read will admit his mistake and take a training course on basic racism: how to recognise it.

Update 1: As promised the screen dump from Dr. Read’s twitter:

Update 2: Dr. Read after making an apology on Engage and Greens Engage compounded the problem by stating “I think that the influence of ‘the Israel lobby’ in this country as in many others is nefarious. “ [My emphasis].

Sadly, I don’t think Dr. Read has fully understood the anti-Jewish racism embedded in the sentiment that he articulated.

Update 3: Dr. Read has updated his blog, but without a mention or a moment’s regret on this issue. I will assume that he pre-wrote that last entry on Friday and hope that he’ll deal with this issue and his notion of “nefarious” in a post shortly.

Update 4: Mira Vogel made this excellent contribution. it helps explain Dr. Read’s and others misconceptions:

“Rupert, it has already been pointed out to you several times that Atzmon conflates Jews and Zionists. So when he calls for de-Zionisation, the clear implication is de-Jewification.

“he is of course Jewish which makes it hard for him to be anti-Jewish anyway”.

He calls himself an ex-Jew, Rupert. He hates Jews.
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1559

Of course you can be Jewish and antisemitic. You can be gay and homophobic. You can call it the internalisation of oppression – you can call it what you like – it is not unusual. Example from a recent episode of Andrew Marr’s ‘The Making of Modern Britain’ – the way some British women joined in with attacks on the British women campaigning for the franchise.

Please do the right thing and write a further self-appraisal in which you reflect upon how antipathy against Zionism (as opposed to lucid criticism) can prejudice anti-Zionists and corner them with antisemitic thinkers. We will make sure it is the last thing people see on this post. It will of course be subject to criticism (analysis, I mean), but if it’s good it will draw a line under this episode.”

[My emphasis]

Update 5: Dr. Read has replied at Engage and Greens Engage, neither of which seems fully satisfactory to me:

“Rupert Read Says:

November 21, 2009 at 8:04 pm

Look, we obviously disagree about quite a few things. E.g. Several of you seem to think that Oborne’s documentary was wrong or biassed or dangerous. I disagree; I think it was brilliant.
Parts of the Atzmon post just rehash in a provocative way the Oborne documentary. I found that interesting. The post was forwarded me by a friend who is usually a reliable source. I read it swiftly – TOO swiftly! I _wish_ I had read it more slowly, because then I would have no doubt noticed (for instance) the dodgy way he was sliding between ‘Jewish’ and ‘Zionist’, and then I wouldn’t have retweeted it, and then we would all have been saved a lot of trouble…
I obviously regret the offence and any embarrassment caused. I’ve said sorry, and I’ve learned from this.
So, while I don’t appreciate the slagging-off and name-calling that I have suffered during this unfortunate incident, which I think has been unwarranted and does not help us to mutually ‘engage’, I _do_ appreciate having been shown just how dodgy this man and much of his writing are, and having been reminded about the need for pro-active vigilance and care against genuine anti-semitism.
So, in that regard, thank you to those who have written here.”

and

Rupert Read November 21, 2009 at 7:50 pm

“To be clear: I NEVER endorsed Atzmon’s article. I read it [too quickly - I regret that!], found some of it interesting, agreeing with some of the remarks he made [which were mostly a rehash of the excellent Oborne DISPATCHERS programme exposing the extremely-worrying influence of the Zionist lobby in politics in this country], and tweeted it. THAT’S ALL. I did _not_ endorse it as a whole.
The Atzmon post was forwarded me by a friend who is usually a reliable source. I read it swiftly; I _wish_ I had read it more slowly, because then I would have no doubt noticed the dodgy way he was sliding between ‘Jewish’ and ‘Zionist’,
and then I wouldn’t have retweeted it, and then we would all have been saved a lot of trouble…
I obviously regret the offence and any embarrassment caused. …I also distinctly regret the unpleasant personal attacks on me and false descriptions of me in a couple of comments above. Please bear in mind, colleagues, that if you really do want to ENGAGE with people, you need to try not to slag them off and make potentially damaging false allegations against them…
I welcome the chance of clarifying things, and hope that we can start to draw a line under this, now… {See also my comment on Mira’s next post.)”

and

Rupert Read November 21, 2009 at 7:39 pm

“Thanks, Mira; this is useful.
Cohen is an impressive writer, and much of what he says in Chapter 3 of the book you cite is bang on the mark. I agree 100% with the particular quotation from Cohen that you have given above. Those of us who are anti-Zionists need to ensure that we are 100% serious and active in our anti-anti-semitism. Anti-semitism fuels the ‘rebound’ (among those oppressed by that anti-semitism) into Zionism. Unless we can extirpate or at least combat/reduce anti-semitism, it is fairly certain that Zionism will continue to have wide appeal. So there is a strong onus on all of us who are not Zionists to be committed anti-anti-semites.”

Update 6: Whilst Dr. Read has managed to post on the ‘Scandal’ over hacked climate-science emails at UEA: Don’t believe the hype, he hasn’t addressed in any significant way those questions put to him at Engage/Greens Engage. I don’t think Dr. Read understand the severity of this issue, and why he must quickly deal with it.

Update 7: A few days in, and still Dr. Read hasn’t commented on his blog, or comprehensively addressed many of the points raised over at Engage. All in all rather unsatisfactory. Still a couple of other Greens quickly came out, saw the issue and acknowledge the racism, which is hopeful, shame that a Green parliamentary candidate can’t go that far. I’ll try to return to this issue shortly.

Khazars, The Far Right And Dubious History.

I didn’t want to post for a while, but after reading a truly appalling post at Socialist Unity blog by Ger Francis, I felt I had to comment.

The body of the Francis’ article is about a meeting held by George Galloway in Birmingham, but as I am not terribly interested in him or his views I wasn’t too concerned with that. Rather I was interested in the references within the post and in the comments box to the new book by Shlomo Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People.

Part of Sand’s work retreads a well-trodden path from Arthur Koestler, to any number of dubious Far Right web sites, that push the notion that “Jews aren’t really Jews, they are Khazars”.

Why Sand, as a historian of French history, decided to venture into the complex and contested area of Jewish history I can’t say, perhaps it was for the fame? The money or even notoriety? Whatever reason, it is unimportant and I shall leave it to academics in that field to critique his work.

Anita Shapira has reviewed his book [PDF download] for the Journal of Israeli History and Israel Bartal is highly critical. Simon Schama reviewed it in the FT.

I am more concerned with this very nasty line of reasoning, from an antifascist point of view and where it leads, to the delegitimization of Jews.

I think anyone remotely familiar with the limited range of thoughts and debates found on neo-Nazi and Far Right web sites will recognise that particular “Khazar” argument and understand why it is pushed. I won’t provide any links to those neo-fascist web sites, but readers can find them on Google by using the keywords: Khazars Jews white power or David Duke khazers.

The Far Right is populated by Jew haters and such like, they need, for the sake of their own beliefs, to delegitimize Jews, to denigrate them, to eradicate their very existence, politically, historically, socially, and physically. That is why Holocaust denial is so important to them, it is a form of racial incitement against Jews, and in their on-line web activities that means the Far Right manufacture, use fake quotations and dubious historical sources, and above all push the myth of the Khazars.

All of this is not coincidental, the Far Right view Jews as the ultimate enemy and any opportunity to disparage them is used, so conscious anti-racists and antifascists should be aware of the Far Right’s tactics, and certainly avoid emulating them.

However, as the post at Socialist Unity blog showed a wider problem is evident, which is that many modern political activists in the West seem to erroneously assume that they have to be anti-Israeli or anti-Jew to be pro-Palestinian.

Nothing could be further from the truth, saddling the cause of the Palestinians with the Far Right’s argumentation and method is the quickest way to discredit it.

Moreover, feeble attempts to try and delegitimize Jews, as a people, as a group with a deep sense of history, a bitter history, does not achieve anything. Quite the contrary and it is rather insulting and degrading.

Not only that, but it shows an almost complete ignorance of the Far Right’s methodology and activities, combined with a monumental lack of sensitivity which in the end only fosters anti-Jewish racism.

Copying the Far Right’s arguments is not something that socialists or antiracists should do, or seek to imitate.

I would hope that authors on Socialist Unity blog would take the time to read, and reread, Andy Newman’s guide to David Duke’s racism, and hopefully they would see their own mistakes in this area and avoid them.

Update 1: The CST blog covers many issues on Sand’s work.

Update 2: Thanks to a pointer at Engage I’ve noticed a good comment at the bottom of that thread. I’ll reproduce it here, just in case it gets deleted as Dave Rich’s comment was:

“47. For those involved in Palestinian solidarity in Birmingham, its university has long felt like some weird Zionist outpost”

I did my MPhil at Birmingham University two years ago and have to disagree with this comment. The UoB has a huge Muslim presence and most activism you see on campus is usually anti-Zionist. There’s a Jewish Society and Jewish students, most of whom (not all) are all very supportive of Israel, but that’s democracy for you. The idea that there’s a sort of Jewish conspiracy stifling debate on Israel is too widespread among many on the left, but it doesn’t stand scrutiny. Most progressive media is vocally anti-Israel, and the I/P conflict receives far more attention than any other in the world. If there’s one debate that hasn’t been stifled is precisely this one.

“the feebleness of the Zionist opposition to [the meeting], is further evidence of the growing hegemony of Palestinian solidarity in all corners of the city”

You’ve just shown me that I’m not that wrong, but then, it’s Birmingham, the British city with one of the largest Muslim communities. If the Palestinian cause didn’t gather support there, where else? The problem the Palestinians face is not their lack of support in the west, but among their Arab brethren. They can’t become citizens of most Arab countries, where they live as third class non-citizens, mostly in refugee camps. Black September Massacre perpetrated by the Jordan Army makes the Operation Cast Lead pale in comparison. So does the constant raids Palestinians suffer under in the refugee camps of Lebanon. The list is huge. Until the Arab leaders stop using the Palestinian people as a pawns in their power games, the Palestinians have a serious problem.

“To those who believed that the Israeli state was the natural and just creation for a Jewish people exiled from their homeland”

Personally, I think that’s irrelevant. I see Israel as the result of a nationalist struggle for self-determination of a people who, tired of being persecuted in Europe, decided that they’d be safer somewhere else. European Jews first started buying land in Palestine and establishing the kibbutzim as socialist experiences. But they were not the only Jews living there. Jerusalem or Hebron have a long history of Jewish population. The territory was under the jurisdiction of the Sultan of Turkey and later Britain. When decolonization took place you already had an important Jewish population in Palestine. Could things have been solved otherwise? Yes they could, but all the parties involved refused to do so: all, Jews, British AND Arabs.

“He reminded the audience that instead of the Zionists following some historic mission to Palestine, they considered Uganda, Scheyelles, and Patagonia as possible locations for a Jewish state”

Yes, that was Theodor Herzl looking for alternatives to emigrate. But people who point this out do it as if sending all the Jews to Uganda would have not created any injustice. Those places were populated too. The problem is that Jews were tired of being pogromed in Europe, and as the Pilgrims of the Mayflower, they decided it was better to try to go somewhere else. The Sultan of Turkey had welcomed them in 1492 after they were expelled from Spain. It’s normal that they thought about a territory that was then under Turkish jurisdiction and which has strong connections to Jewish history (yes, I think that the Bible is all bollocks, but so is Al-Quran, so if you’re going to deny the Jews their claims to Palestine, you should do so with Muslims. There’s no trace of Muhammad ever being outside the Arabian Peninsula, unless you believed that horses fly).

“Israel ‘is just another European settle state, similar to apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia’”

This is dishonest. Israel has 20% of non-Jewish citizens and their rights are in general respected. There’s discrimination, but there’re also Arabs in the Knesset, the Supreme Court, the Army, the diplomatic service, etc. Within the borders of Israel, you can’t define it as an apartheid state. The WB is something different, but I don’t regard the WB as Israel. Officially, Israel doesn’t either, and they apply Jordanian law over there. The example George was looking for is Texas, which got its independence 100 years before Israel. A lot of US citizens migrated to Texas, then under Mexican jurisdiction, and then decided to split from Mexico. They were independent for a year and after a war, they decided to join the US. A bloody episode, but all Texans are US citizens, even those of Mexican descent who are born there or naturalise themselves as US citizens.

Besides, what’s wrong with settlers states? My country of birth (Argentina) is a settler state. The US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, are settler states. Algeria is an Arab settler state in most of its territory (and the Ber Ber are not very happy about it). Morocco is a similar case to the south of Marrakesh. Settlers are the Arabs and Turks who live in Kurdistan and the Chinese Han who live beyond the two rivers. The problem is whether those settler states grant equal rights to their citizens (none of the examples I gave do). In my view Israel does within their borders, but not in the occupied territories, which is the reason why I think they should abandon them or declare the Palestinian citizens of Israel.

“Is it any wonder, George asked the audience, that more suicide bombers come from the living hell that is Jenin refugee camp”

No, it’s no wonder, but it’s sickening that anyone would rationalize suicide bombing. As I wrote somewhere else, suicide bombing is not the natural result of oppression, but a tactic chosen by psychopaths who have nothing by contempt for their ranks and files and who wouldn’t do it themselves. The Kurds are much more oppressed than the Palestinians. So are the Sharawis. Repression in El Salvador would make the Gaza look like a picnic (OK, OK, I’m trying to make a point here, not to denigrate Palestinian suffering, but rationalizing suicide bombing is a step too far) … None of those people ever did suicide bombing. Their leaders are socialists and secular, and unlike other men in robes, they care for their people.

http://juampylewis.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/suicide-bombing/

“Oslo had been a disaster for the Palestinians”

Really? Before Oslo the Palestinians didn’t have any representation or authorities of their own. The IDF occupied the whole of the territory and the Likud party believed strongly in Greater Israel. Things are more nuanced today, and the IDF has abandoned most of Palestinian cities and great parts of B areas (not all unfortunately). There’s a lot of work to be done and I wish they retreated to the Green Line, but to say that after Oslo the Palestinians have not achieved anything can only be justified from a maximalist point of view. Fair enough, and I’ve no problems with people who define themselves as maximalists, but they should say so. Because most of the times, maximalism is lethal… and people know it.

“The only solution was now a single state”

A pity most Israelis and most Palestinians don’t agree with George.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/22/most-israelis-palestinian_n_189596.html

“George Galloway is simply the most eloquent advocate of the Palestinian cause in the English speaking world”

If that’s the best the English speaking left can do… I’m disappointed.

Sorry for the long post. I hope it stirs some debate at least. For the record. I’m Argentinean. I’m a socialist and I’ve been a member of the Left since I’m 14 (more than twenty years now). I’m not a Zionist troll and post this with respect and critical spirit, in the belief that you can only strengthen your position if you allow opposite views to be discussed. My experience since I moved to Europe six years ago is that discussing the I/P conflict in the left is very difficult without people resorting to name calling. I find that self-defeating, and that’s not what I want for the left.

Comment by Juan — 15 November, 2009 @ 12:08 am”

Debating Anti-Jewism Racism.

As anti-Jewish racism seeps into the public discourse via the British liberal establishment, it is apparent why those with a fixation or animosity towards Israelis or Jews are largely impervious to reason as a poster at Engage relates her experiences:

“Israelinurse Says: October 25, 2009 at 9:20 am

Yesterday’s event at the Bolton Octagon was, of course, predictably depressing. The actual format of the event did not and could not promote real debate because of its structure whereby the Director called upon people to speak and most simply recited pre-prepared statements slamming Israel. We endured all the usual slogans (ethnic cleansing, massacre etc.) and were treated to quite a few downright lies including the bizarre claim from Richard Kuper (JFJFP) that no rockets were fired into Israel in the months prior to Cast Lead.

I found it particularly revealing that Dr Brian Iddon MP (Bolton SE, Lab) repeatedly tripped himself up by saying ‘Jews’ instead of ‘Israelis’.

As one lady said to me during the interval, the Miller play which should have been staged at this event is ‘The Crucible’; not ‘All My Sons’.

A particularly significant moment for me personally was when, in the interval just after I had ‘outed’ myself as an Israeli, I suddenly found that the stairs and corridors leading to the lobby emptied magically before me as various audience members pressed themselves against the walls as though they were afraid of any type of contact. Far from being curious at the chance to meet a real Israeli, these people seemed terrified that something, anything, might upset their world view.

In short, this was an entirely self-indulgent event on the part of the assorted PSC supporters, ‘AsAJews’, anarchists and Quakers present. Nobody had come to listen, nobody had come to bridge gaps. Their aim was twofold; firstly to outdo each other as regards which shocking ‘fact’ about Israel they could publicly reveal, and secondly to obtain reassurance for their world view and the comfort of being part of a group which they perceive as being righteous.

I cannot say that I was surprised; most of my dealings with the PSC have been of this nature. The event did, however, strengthen my growing belief that Britain is becoming increasingly irrelevant as a place for open and democratic debate. What a pity that this particular section of the theatrical community is co-operating with the attempts of organisations such as the PSC to stifle any views which do not conform to their monotone perceptions. In a place such as Bolton, this would seem to me to be particularly unproductive.

The event also strengthened my view that Britain no longer deserves its Jewish community and that the only real answer to this despicable phenomenon is aliyah. “

[My emphasis]

Readers will remember The Crucible, Miller’s tale of a witch hunt.

Will They Boycott Antibiotics?

The onward march of science must be an eternal frustration to the anti-Israeli, pro-boycotter crowd.

No sooner have they tried to demonize or attack some Israelis, than one of those smart Israelis produces a major scientific development.

So it is with Ada Yonath of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. She has just won the Nobel prize for chemistry, shared with two other academics who have made a breakthrough in the study of DNA and ribosome.

As the Times puts it:

“The research is also helping the design of antibiotics to treat people who are infected with a bacterium that has developed antibiotic resistance, for example, some of the strains of bacteria that cause tuberculosis.”

I wonder if anti-Israeli types will be boycotting the medical treatments that come out of Professor Yonath’s work? I seriously doubt it.

In other news, that anti-Israeli fanatic,Vanessa Redgrave, shows just how lazy bigots like her truly are? She argues ‘ “Tel Aviv is built on destroyed Palestinian villages.” True. ‘, little realizing how false that statement is. Tel Aviv was build in 1909 on sand dunes.

It takes a certain mentality to be so ill informed on the Middle East and in particular Tel Aviv, founded under Ottoman rule, long before 1948, but then again anti-Israeli types are often not too concerned with facts, science or basic history.

Eric Handles The TUC.

Over at the Guardian, Eric Lee and Benny Weinthal have a typically combative article on the recent boycott gesture at the TUC.

Boycott The Planets.

Not known for their love of all things Israeli, some pro-boycotters might want to ignore, forget or even destroy their pet telescopes as Israelis have discovered a new planet.

After which pro-boycotters might want to stop using Google (oh, yes, they use an Israeli developed algorithm), Intel based PCs, Windows XP, etc and a whole lot of useful medical technologies.

But then again that’s not going to happen, many pro-boycotters are happy to perform token gestures but much less likely to let the boycotting of Israelis have a detrimental effect on their own lives, and so it is with the proposed TUC motion.

It is another piece of gesture politics, doesn’t help anyone in the Middle East but it makes Westerners feel good about themselves. How typically indulgent and how quintessentially Western?

Update 1: Jeffrey Goldberg nails Walt, Bin Laden and Mearsheimer.

Update 2: Some of my newer readers are having a bit of difficulty understanding my arguments, above

I thought it was self-evident, but it seems I will have to belabour the point. Pity.

I’m not arguing that we don’t know where Israeli products come from.

My point is that most pro-boycotters will happily “boycott” the odd bagel or even some Dead Sea soap, but they won’t inconvenience themselves terribly.

Most pro-boycotters won’t put themselves out, genuinely, because if they were to do that, then they have to stop using so much technology and maybe even the Internet (as a lot of the routers were designed by Israelis).

There is no difficulty finding out what Israeli products are on the market, in fact there are no end of extremist web sites which publish this information.

Instead my point is that Westerners, nice cushy Westerners, should think that every day they make use of the product of Israeli labour, in terms of Google, Microsoft software, Intel chips and other numerous improvements to humanity.

I think pro-boycotters should stop being hypocrites.

But the pro-boycotters will rarely boycott those lovely items, because it would be far too inconvenient, which brings me to my second point that this boycott is largely a gesture, as it doesn’t achieve anything positive.

However, it certainly achieves something negative, which is to stir up hatred towards Israelis and onward towards Jews, but it doesn’t do anything positive for peace in the Middle East.

Thus, if it doesn’t do anything, apart from make people feel very smug then it is a gesture, a very poor gesture, but that’s what it is.

I do wish that Westerners would stop being so hypocritical in this matter, it would be far better to encourage links between Palestinian trade unionists and Israeli ones and build up solidarity between them, not the opposite.

(H/T: The Debate Link)

Far Right And Placards.

Over at Demotix there is a peculiar placard being held by someone who I can only suppose is from the Far Right, as he seems to believe in the Offal Libel, that Israelis harvest the organs from dead Palestinians. Unbelievable.

Far Right crank and demented placard.

(HT: HP)

Bigotry In The Press.

The New Statesman was, at one point in time, considered almost obligatory reading for anyone interested in politics or current affairs in Britain, but has suffered more recently from some internal turmoil and staffing changes.

A rather predictable article has just been published called, “Does Israel “cause” anti-Semitism?”

The author makes it very clear that he thinks antisemitism is wrong, bravo, but then proceeds with a time honoured, or time worn argument, that antisemitism is actually related to the behaviour of Israelis:

“But I do find it both tragic and ironic that the state of Israel – created ostensibly to protect Jews from across the world from hatred, prejudice and violence – through its actions today, and through its self-proclaimed role as the leader and home of world Jewry, provokes such awful anti-Semitic attacks against diaspora Jews who have nothing to do with the actions of the IDF or the policies of Netanyahu, Olmert and Sharon. “

Astute readers will remember this argument being trotted out by every bigot under the sun in various guises, for example, “Jews wouldn’t get attacked if they didn’t act as they did”, etc.

It is not a very pretty or coherent argument for what would be Britain’s premier weekly political journal.

From the comments Dave Rich of CST rightly argues:

“Let me explain some of the basic dynamics of hate crime. The people who are primarily responsible for racist hate crimes are the racists who perpetrate them; the “cause” is their bigotry and hatred for a chosen ‘other’.

Different racists respond to different stimuli: so, for instance, when Prince Harry wore a Nazi uniform a few years ago, or when Ken Livingstone was censured for his “concentration camp” comments, those events also acted as triggers for short-term surges in antisemitic incidents, but the incidents they triggered were of a different nature, and seemingly from different types of perpetrators, than the incidents triggered by the Israel/Hamas war in Gaza in January of this year.

In all cases, though, there is a very big difference between the stimulus, or trigger, and the “cause”. You would not write an article lamenting that fact that Muslim immigration “caused” the recent arson attack on the Luton Islamic Centre, or any of the other Islamophobic attacks that have been in the news recently, and rightly so. Don’t make excuses for racists, and don’t use racism as an excuse to score political points. It’s demeaning and not something the NS, of all journals, should be doing.

Most people who watched events in Gaza, even most of those who got angry about what Israel did, did not then go out and attack or abuse Jews. There is no direct cause and effect between the two. That is why CST’s reports talk of the response to events in Gaza being the trigger for incidents, rather than simply the events in Gaza themselves. “

It is a shame that a periodical, such as the New Statesman, is reduced to regurgitating bigotry, and I finally remember why I ceased buying it.

CST Reminds “Anti-Zionists” Of What’s What.

The CST has a follow up to their recent report, which states something worth repeating, several times over, just so “anti-Zionists” get the message:

“Let’s be clear about something else, too, before anyone makes the familiar accusation: this is not a call for anti-Israel campaigners to stop their activities, despite what some may claim. It would be wrong to tarnish all with a single brush. People are perfectly entitled to campaign against Israel and criticise its actions or policies, just as they are entitled to do so against the actions or policies of any other state. But that does not mean that they can disregard or contextualise any associated antisemitism in a manner that they would not dream of doing were it any other form of racism.

Read on.

Political Answers.

Jfjfp have updated their material on Ben White’s faulty new book and I was struck by this passage:

“that questions White’s accuracy in the use of supporting material and to a response by Ben White that seeks to rebut Hoffman’s claims. As before, publication on the JfJfP website does not imply support for arguments made; they are published as a contribution to debate.”

“the JfJfP website does not imply support for arguments made;…”

It is hard to tell if they are apologizing for including in a critique of White’s work, or that they wish to, partly, distance themselves from White’s book, just in case, it blows up in their face.

Which seems to me to be a political answer.

By that I mean, it is the type of answer that you would get from a professional politician, a form of words which don’t really address the issue, but are often thrown out as a way of placating criticism and hedging one’s bets just in case it all goes wrong.

Astute readers will see that JfJfP leave out Jonathan Hoffman’s final reply to White’s rejoiner, which is posted at the top of Z blog.

Not very impressive either way, as they don’t deal with White’s use of doctored quotes, nor the substance of the criticism which has been leveled at White’s methodology.

White And The Big Lie Technique.

Jonathan Hoffman has replied to Ben White’s rejoiner.

There is quite a lot to take in, but one thing is clear White does employ, as Hoffman argues, the Big Lie technique.

White seemingly buttresses his position using doctored quotes and plenty of dog whistles.

What is all the more surprising is that White claims to be a journalist and one of the key attributes of quality journalism is fact checking.

It should have been elementary to check and check again these quotes.

White should have known that the Internet and other places is littered with false quotes which are attributed to Jews, and/or Israeli leaders. Still worse was the role of War on Want and Pluto Press, who should have independently proof read and verified this contentious material.

White has no excuse for his perverse behaviour, but then again neither do those organisations which push his lies.

The Guardian, War on Want and Pluto Press are equally to blame for the dissemination of this pernicious material.

White Replies.

Unlike many “anti-Zionists” who appear very touchy concerning criticism of their views, I won’t delete a comment unless it is from a neo-Nazi, white power freak or one of their mates, so I was more than happy to allow Ben White’s comment through moderation.

Ben White posted a link in a comment box below as a rejoiner to Jonathan Hoffman’s criticism of White’s new book.

I haven’t read White’s book, but am sure that when it deservedly finds its way into the bin-ends of a cheap bookshop that I will pay it the attention it merits.

Books demonising Israel are two a penny, attacking Israelis is a pet hobby of many ex-public school boys and the British intelligentsia. It is a very contemptible practice but as many historians have argued the middle classes are more susceptible to Judenhass.

Sadly, the 21st century is turning out to be so similar to the 20th.

Update: White argues ” He [Hoffman] had been banned by the charity from attending due to his past disruptive behaviour.” which seems a bit surprising as TotallyJewish.com relates “He told the Jewish News that he was contacted again this week and informed he would not be allowed to attend as an observer of the discussion, which War on Want claims is open to the public.”

I would have thought that the Charity Commission might want to know that War on Want organises a public meeting then selectively bans members of the public that it does not like.

German Unions On The Anti-Israeli Boycott.

Eric Lee pointed me to this JP article:

“It is “absurd” that trade unions are seeking to boycott Israel because the Histadrut is “building a bridge to Palestinian workers,” said Eini. He cited a 2008 agreement between the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU) and the Histadrut in which the Israeli labor union transferred outstanding fee payments to the PFGTU.

Guy Ryder, the head of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), of which both the Histadrut and PGFTU are members, praised the agreement last August. He said, “It means that the PGFTU will be able to ensure much more effective representation for Palestinian workers, while those working for Israeli employers will also benefit.”

Eini cited a recent agreement to include 30 Palestinian workers in a construction apprenticeship program which would entail permanent jobs following completion of the training course.

The close working relationship – and friendship – between Eini and Sommer is an outgrowth of their period as public service employee union leaders. Sommer ran the postal worker’s union which was absorbed by the service employees union Verdi in 2001. He took over the reins of the 6.5 million member DGB in 2002 and ushered in a sophisticated era of modern trade unionism. Eini, who succeeded ex-Defense Minister and former Histadrut president Amir Peretz in 2006 as the head of the union, is determined to organize low-wage workers and expand the Histadrut’s membership base. “