| Not so happy Christmas for Israeli stooge Denis McShane!

Not so happy Christmas for Israeli stooge Denis McShane ~ Gilad Atzmon.

Shameless former Labour MP Denis MacShane, who infamously operated for more than a decade as the kosher police within the British parliament was thrown into jail today.

MacShane has been put behind bars for six months for expenses fraud after admitting to submitting 19 fake receipts amounting to £12,900.

Mr Justice Sweeney said at court today that MacShane had “deliberately created misleading and deceptive invoices” with the “considerable” dishonesty involved.

Denis MacShane

MacShane, 65, was a Labour MP for 18 years. Along that time he has managed to chair the inquiry panel of the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism.  In March 2009, he became chairman of a think-tank on anti-Semitism at theEuropean Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism.


MacShane went out of his way, chasing the enemies of Israel as well as Jewish power. The Zionist Jewish Chronicle (JC) titled the fraudulent MP an ‘Anti-hate campaigner’, attempting to conceal the fact that it was only anti Jewish hatred that the crook was interested in.

However the JC also revealed that  MacShane “used the money to fund trips to Europe connected with his work on antisemitism.”  So I guess that at least from a ‘Judaic perspective’ MacShane’s perjury was Kosher.  Maybe the moral for Jewish community leaders is plain and simple – in the future they better fund their Sabboth Goyim generously rather than expect their stooges to steal  taxpayers’ money.



| Racial Justice: Zionist fear-mongering is anti-semitic!

Racial Justice:  Dave Kersting: Zionist Fear-Mongering Is Anti-Semitic ~ Dave Kersting.

No one’s ethnic or religious “distinctiveness” or “identity” are infringed by living as equals with others.

Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism ? or 

Zionist Fear-Mongering Is Anti-Semitic? 

In “Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism” (The Guardian UK Saturday November 29, 2003) Emanuele Ottolenghi pinpoints a crucial lie in the Zionist effort to fool the Jewish people and frighten them into further “need” for Zionist “defenders.”

Mr. Ottolenghi says, “Anti-Zionists are prepared to treat Jews equally and fight anti-Semitic prejudice only if Jews give up their distinctiveness as a nation: Jews as a nation deserve no sympathy and no rights..”

In this, Mr. Ottolenghi skips past the fatal flaw of Zionism – that it demands official “Jewish” dominion in Palestine, despite the fact that such dominion requires perpetual ethnic crimes against the ethnically unsuited original population, which had to be ethnically-cleansed, in order to make lebensraum for the “Jewish” state.

What is so grossly false about Mr. Ottolenghi’s statement – a standard Zionist pretense – is it surreptitiously denies the crime in question: an undisputed and crucial fact of history, THE ENTIRE POINT of anti-Zionism, and what the fighting is all about in the first place. Zionism cannot win support, even among its own constituency, without lying to them or inducing them to share in the lie.

No progressive anti-Zionist doubts the legitimacy of “Jews as a nation.” It is simply absurd to pretend that such legitimacy requires or excuses terrible crimes against the ethnically unsuited families in a region expropriated for a “Jewish” state. In the Zionist lie, opposing racist crimes, in themselves, is falsely equated with declaring that Jews should “give up their distinctiveness as a nation” and that “Jews as a nation deserve no sympathy and no rights.”

No one’s ethnic or religious “distinctiveness” or “identity” are infringed by living as equals with others.

If we oppose armed robbery of grocery stores, we are not saying that the robbers have no right to eat. But that is exactly the error the robbers and the Zionists, like Mr. Ottolenghi, would like us to make. Civilized people simply require each other to find fair – and sustainable – ways of exercising their human rights.

Every anti-Zionist I have known in thirty years, including the Jewish anti-Zionists, has been way more than “prepared” – “to treat Jews equally and fight anti-Semitic prejudice..” It is silly to claim that this long-standing commitment awaits Jewish rejection of Zionist crimes. It is easy to oppose ethnic prejudice, without mimicking it and becoming preoccupied with the ethnicities of the racists.

Only a racist has difficulty with that point. No doubt, that is why Zionists are so commonly – and rather too obviously – fixated on the “Arab” ethnicity of their victims and regional adversaries. And the special Zionist definition of “self-determination,” as invoked by Mr. Ottolenghi – not a human right of geographic populations, but an ethnic right, which can override human rights and justify ethnic-cleansing – is as virulent a doctrine of aggressive racism as one can find.

As public attention is increasingly drawn to the realities of Zionism, the Zionists can defend themselves only with transparent efforts to muddle the key questions – efforts which require a degree of stupidity or fear effective for a rapidly shrinking portion of the population. Decking silly lies in academic claptrap is just another transparent facet of the trick.

Meanwhile, people of normal intelligence see such efforts among the proliferating red-flags of Zionist criminality.


Testimony by Dr. Ilan Pappe on Genocide in Palestine by Israel

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal Hearing on Palestine–Testimony by Dr. Ilan Pappe.

On November 22, 2013, the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (KLWCT) went into the third day of the hearing on genocide and war crimes charges against the State of Israel and Amos Yaron, a retired Israeli army general.

The tribunal heard the testimony of renowned historian and socialist activist, Prof Ilan Pappe, who informed the tribunal about the systematic ethnic cleansing via expulsion and killing of the Palestinians from their homeland since 1948. Three witnesses from West Bank also gave an account of their trials and tribulations under the Israelis.

The testimony of Dr. Pappe was an interesting and revealing account of the Israeli leadership strategy to rid the Palestinians from their homeland since the 1940s. He testified that the expulsions were not decided on an ad hoc basis, as other historians have argued, but constituted the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, in accordance with Plan Dalet drawn up in 1947 by Israel’s leaders then.

He testified that the expulsion of the Palestinians in 1948 constituted ethnic cleansing, as the Zionists movement was not concerned with the native people. He revealed that it was as early as in the 1940s when it began deliberating the fate of the indigenous people of Palestine and that they wanted to take over Palestine with as little Palestinians in it by having them leave voluntarily or be forced out.

He further revealed that from 1948 until 1949, the plan was enforced by Israeli forces to cleanse villages and towns of Palestinians by encircling the villages/towns from three flanks to intimidate the residents into leaving by leaving one flank open. Some 530 villages were wiped out physically. Under the partition plan, 56% of the land was to be handed to Israel wherein the 2/3 of the population was Palestinians. In the end, 93% of the land came under the control of Israel and 750,000 Palestinians were left out as refugees in neighbouring countries, in Gaza and West Bank. After the 1967 war, Gaza and West Bank were occupied.

He added that having taken over most of Palestine territories, the policy changed from expelling to destroying the Palestinians. Hence, the Sabra & Shatilla massacre was an attempt to destroy Palestinians in Lebanon.

He told the tribunal that the use of military action against Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank was considered genocidal against people who cannot defend themselves. Military operations such as Summer Rains, Autumn Clouds, and Cast Lead were just to kill the Palestinians and destroy the economy, culture and their spirit.

In cross-examination by Amicus Curiae Jason Kay, Prof Pappe agreed that his view of history is a minority view and that while he is grateful that the Zionist movement had saved his parents from the Nazi holocaust for which he is grateful; however, the moral way is to live together with the Palestinians, not expel and kill them.

| Racist ziolobby now claims colours are anti-Semitic!

Colors: the new-new anti-Semitism ~ Steven Salaita,  electronicIntifada.net.

It was a sad moment when sources at Israel’s foreign ministry pointed out a correlation that should have been obvious to any person of conscience. 

When the Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, long suspected of anti-Semitic loyalties based on the dubious word “solidarity” (to say nothing of the more onerous “Irish”), tagged Israeli products with yellow stickers urging consumers to boycott them, the ministry rightly observed, “It is not by chance that the BDS [boycott divestment and sanctions] organization chose to express its protest with a yellow sticker—which is reminiscent of dark days of racism and incitement.” 

First Lady Michelle Obama in the White House kitchen with a conspicuously yellow Big Bird.

 (Lawrence Jackson / White House Photo)


That so many of us failed to make the connection of a yellow sticker that has nothing to do with the Holocaust to the Holocaust illustrates the pervasiveness of anti-Semitism among local sticker-making shops, the IG Farben of the modern age. The Israeli government and its hate-fighting minions saved the day by once again affirming the importance of factual analysis.

Like an anachronistic settler colony, anti-Semitism flourishes in the least appropriate places. Now that an authority as credible as the Israeli government has exposed the color yellow as anti-Semitic, we must be on guard for rubber duckies, jaundice, corn, school buses, bumblebees, mustard (especially of the French variety), the sun, bananas, Big Bird, dandelions, number two pencils, lemonade, snowy fields where dogs roam, legal pads, butter, canaries, grapefruit, and even — as one Israeli diplomat suggested a few years ago — Asian people.

The new-new-new anti-Semitism

The discovery that yellow is anti-Semitic begs the question of which other colors conceal evil intentions. Let’s investigate if any can be considered kosher:

  • Black: Hitler’s wimpy little mustache was black. No black then.
  • Brown: most Palestinians are brown. Brown is out.
  • Pink: Eva Braun sometimes wore pink. All around the world, little girls proudly display their hatred of Israel with this infernal color.
  • Orange: the inventor of Fanta was a Nazi. Bye-bye, orange.
  • Green: the color of German uniforms during World War II. Green is a no-go.
  • Red: the background of the Nazi flag. We cannot compromise on red.
  • Gray: Nazi concentration camp prisoners wore gray. Away with gray!
  • Blue: the ideal eye color to Nazi eugenicists. Blue is therefore terribly offensive. (Unfortunately, we must immediately lobby Israel to change its flag from an anti-Semitic endorsement of eugenics to something more tasteful like a clean-pressed length of Saran Wrap).
  • White: Eichmann and Goebbels were white. Need I say more?
  • Purple: in Nazi concentration camps, Jehovah’s Witnesses, not Jews, were required to wear purple. Purple is okay then.

Clearly, we have a serious problem. The new anti-Semitism was once any support of the PLO. Not long after, it was the refusal to condemn that bearded rapscallion, Arafat. Then it became acceptance of peace with Egypt. After that, it manifested itself in the perfidious desire for a Palestinian state. Later it evolved into sympathy for Palestinian children murdered during the second Intifada. Finally, it gave way to that hideous hate fad known asBDS.

The new-new-new-new-new-new-new anti-Semitism, however, may be the most vicious of all: color. Only a people as cunning as the Palestinians and their brainwashed supporters could have invented something so dastardly, so devious, so detestable, that it conceals anti-Semitism in the spectral sensitivities of the human eye. We are up against an insidious adversary, indeed.

As much as it might pain us to outlaw color (except for purple), we must act in the best interest of humanity and extinguish anti-Semitism wherever it exists. The Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign proved that those opposed to Jewish supremacy in Palestine are motivated by the nefarious desire to exterminate the Jews. We must create a world that is, despite Israel’s alleged nuclear arsenal, safe for us to inhabit, one without hue or contrast, awash in semiotic paranoia, beholden to exaggeration, disseminating imaginary victimhood, and doggedly resistant to any form of justice.

After all, it would be a tragedy for the seriousness of anti-Semitism to be devalued.




| Strawman: Former UK foreign minister hits back at Israeli “anti-Semitism” smear!

Former UK foreign minister hits back at Israeli “anti-Semitism” smear ~

Asa Winstanley, electronicIntifada.net, BLOGS » LOBBY WATCH.

Former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said today there was “no justification whatever” for Israeli reports he had made anti-Semitic comments last week.

Several Israeli news sources reported the claims of former Knesset member Einat Wilf on her Facebook page that Straw had talked of “ ‘unlimited’ funds available to Jewish organizations and AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee] in the US.”

Her claim made it into Israeli paper Haaretzyesterday, spun with the headline: “Ex-UK FM: Jewish money biggest obstacle to Mideast peace.”

In a statement emailed to The Electronic Intifada by a spokesperson, Straw said:

“There have been reports that [Wilf] claimed I had embarked upon an “anti-Semitic rant,” I note that she did not use that term in her Facebook posting, although she is reported as saying that my remarks, “reflect prejudice of the worst kind.

In any event there is no justification whatever for such claims, arising from my remarks at this seminar, or on any other occasion.

I am not remotely anti-Semitic. Quite the reverse. I have all my life strongly supported the State of Israel, and its right to live in peace and security.”

Straw’s statement

In the statement, Straw said that at the meeting on Tuesday he had “pointed out that Prime Minister Netanyahu was a player in domestic US politics, on the Republican side, and that under US political funding rules (or their absence) huge sums were spent by AIPAC in support of some elected politicians (or candidates), and against others.”

Straw contrasted this with “the rules in the UK, where spending is tightly controlled” saying that he talked about AIPAC in his memoir, which “quoted from the critical study … by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.”

He also had condemned illegal Israeli settlements: “I said that this amounted to ‘theft’ of Palestinians’ land … the EU needed to take a tougher stand on this (and on the related issue of goods exported from the Occupied Territories by Israelis).”

Straw also addressed Germany’ position on settlements:

one of the difficulties in gaining EU agreement for this [tougher stand] has, in the past, been the attitude of Germany, who for understandable reasons have been reluctant to be out of line with the government of Israel. That said, I think I noted that the EU’s attitude had changed, and there are now restrictions imposed by the EU on goods from the settlements.

Straw’s statement concludes:

None of this is “anti-Semitic.” There are plenty of people in Israel who take a similar view to me – not least (as I do) because they believe that the current approach of the government of Israel will weaken the position of the state of Israel in the medium and long-term.

Einat Wilf

The comments in question were made in a meeting room in the British Parliament on 22 October, at a roundtable organized by the Global Diplomatic Forum which Straw and Wilf both addressed. The Palestinian Authority’s ambassador in London Manuel Hassassianalso shared the platform.

A spokesperson for the Forum told me today that Parliamentary rules meant that no video or audio recording of the event was taken. She said that the Froum would publish its usual report on the event by Wednesday (although it would not be a verbatim transcript).

Einat Wilf is a former member of parliament for Israel’s Labor party, and for its right-wing “Independence” faction (split from Labor by suspected war criminal Ehud Barak until it failed to contest the last elections).

She is also on the board of NGO Monitor, a propaganda group well-known for its anti-Palestinian advocacy.

Since leaving the Knesset (Israel’s parliament) Wilf has focused on Israeli propaganda efforts overseas. While she was still an MK she told The Jerusalem Post that she saw such efforts as a “battle”:

the arena is no longer the Sinai Desert or international terrorism, but has moved to international forums: courts and the new media … we have not gone sufficiently on the offense in terms of agenda … we don’t come up with our own initiatives.

Was this accusation Wilf’s idea of such a PR “initiative”?

She backed up her Facebook accusation against Straw on her website and in comments to Ynetnews.com yesterday. In the same article, she also made an anti-Palestinian comment:

We’re used to hearing groundless accusations from Palestinian envoys but I thought British diplomats, including former ones, were still capable of a measure of rational thought.

Out of the Haartez, Ynet, The Times of Israel and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (whoseinitial report some of the others drew on), none appear to have bothered to approach Straw for comment.

Jack Straw.


Weak EU

Straw’s fairly timid comments against Israeli settlements fits a growing pattern of European Union political figures making incredibly mild comments against limited aspects of Israel’s occupation policies and still being jumped on by Israeli propagandists like Wilf.

It is no surprise that Wilf does not like it when the the very real influence of AIPAC is raised in public fora. According to Haaretz, Wilf has worked very closely with AIPAC in the past, specifically as part of her campaign against the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA.

Jack Straw was the UK’s foreign secretary under former prime minister and suspected war criminal Tony Blair, including during the infamous illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. That claimed the lives of over a million people in the invasion and associated civil war.

The consequences of that war are still being felt by Iraqis on an almost daily basis. A new deadly wave of sectarian bombings killed 55 Iraqis this weekend.

After a long and successful career in the Labor party, Straw recently announced that he would step down as a member of Parliament at the next election.


SettlementC 1

pizza last slice1



Zio Mafia

| New Israeli plan calls for more “intelligence” gathering to disrupt BDS movement!

New Israeli plan calls for more “intelligence” gathering to disrupt BDS movement! ~ Ben White, electronicIntifada.net.

This week in Jerusalem, the Israeli foreign ministry hosted the fourth international conference of the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism.

As I previously blogged, this is “a gathering that has served as an important focus for efforts to fight Palestine solidarity activism and boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaigns.” The pre-conference agenda and working group mission statements made it clear that hasbara — propaganda — was once again going to be high on the agenda.

Reproduced below is the “Action Plan” presented to delegates by the working group tasked with examining “delegitimization” and BDS. This is transcribed from slides shown to the conference, and the video can be viewed above.

This document needs to be read, shared, and taken into account by activists when planning campaigns and strategies.

BDS and Delegitimization Task Force

Action Plan

Divide Responsibilities – Rather than everyone trying to do everything, identify the comparative advantage of each organization to maximize their effectiveness in proactively and reactively addressing delegitimization threats. The British approach could be a model. For example, encourage groups with ties to labor to focus on working with unions, those with expertise in international relations to devote their attention to members of UN agencies, those involved in media and PR to concentrate on journalists and messaging, those with legal expertise to explore legal avenues for fighting BDS and those active on campus with students, faculty and other stakeholders.

Enhance Intelligence Capabilities – We need to have more information about the organizations promoting delegitimization, including their membership, funding and planned activities.  Nations, foundations and other funders supporting BDS should be named and shamed. Map connections between BDS organizations and their supporters, such as the PA [Palestinian Authority]. Also investigate the BDS efforts toward multinational corporations.

Improve Rapid Response Capabilities – this is one area that has improved since the last Global Forum. By making better use f LAN, the Dream Team and other organized responders, we can provide advice, resources and anything else that local stakeholders may need or want to determine how to respond to BDS campaigns in communities and on campus.

Using Legal Measures – Identify laws that can be used in different countries or states to fight discriminatory practices such as BDS. French law is a model that should be strengthened and replicated where possible.

Lobbying – Political organizations should lobby elected officials to adopt and strengthen anti-discrimination laws. They should also educate officials about the connections between delegitimization and anti-Semitism. Attention should also be given to the positive aspects of Israel and, especially, illustrate how Israeli innovations in education, agriculture, science and other areas can benefit their constituents [see, for example, Israel and the States]. Officials should be brought to Israel and encouraged to sign formal agreements [e.g. States to State Agreements with Israel] to enhance cooperation at the local, state and federal level. Push back against hostile diplomats and recruit high-profile former officials who will speak out against delegitimization (e.g. Friends of Israel). Take pre-emptive action to encourage officials to make positive statements about Israel and denounce delegitimization (e.g. Canada’s statement on Iran).

Educating the Media – the media too often parrots whatever anti-Israel spokespeople and organizations tell them. The media must also be educated about the distinctions between the legitimate criticism of Israel and delegitimization and how certain types of attacks on Israel have become the anti-Semitism of this century. Create a code of conduct for Middle East journalists and encourage them to use it. Help friendly media to increase their visibility (e.g. GOI [Government of Israel] giving exclusives).

Include Anti-Discrimination Programs in Education – Students should be sensitized to the distinctions between criticism and bigotry and the historical implications of allowing discriminatory acts to go unchecked.

Establish Strategic Guidelines – Some individuals and groups believe in responding or trying to prevent any delegitimization activity, sometimes in direct opposition to the wishes of local stakeholders who must live with the consequence. We have learned that overreaction can exacerbate a situation and give the delegitimizers publicity and credibility that they would not otherwise receive if they were ignored or a more tactical approach adopted. Ideally, we will develop guidelines to evaluate a threat and determine the appropriate response (ignoring, quiet diplomacy, public campaigns, or all-out opposition).


Ethnic Cleansing for Dummies 2

BDS ziocolony

| The last of the Semites!

The last of the Semites ~ Al Jazeera.

It is Israel’s claims that it represents and speaks for all Jews that are the most anti-Semitic claims of all.

“The Jewish holocaust killed off the majority of Jews who fought and struggled against European anti-Semitism, including Zionism,” writes Joseph Massad [AFP]
Jewish opponents of Zionism understood the movement since its early age as one that shared the precepts of anti-Semitism in its diagnosis of what gentile Europeans called the “Jewish Question”. What galled anti-Zionist Jews the most, however, was that Zionism also shared the “solution” to the Jewish Question that anti-Semites had always advocated, namely the expulsion of Jews from Europe.

It was the Protestant Reformation with its revival of the Hebrew Bible that would link the modern Jews of Europe to the ancient Hebrews of Palestine, a link that the philologists of the 18th century would solidify through their discovery of the family of “Semitic” languages, including Hebrew and Arabic. Whereas Millenarian Protestants insisted that contemporary Jews, as descendants of the ancient Hebrews, must leave Europe to Palestine to expedite the second coming of Christ, philological discoveries led to the labelling of contemporary Jews as “Semites”. The leap that the biological sciences of race and heredity would make in the 19th century of considering contemporary European Jews racial descendants of the ancient Hebrews would, as a result, not be a giant one.

Basing themselves on the connections made by anti-Jewish Protestant Millenarians, secular European figures saw the political potential of “restoring” Jews to Palestine abounded in the 19th century. Less interested in expediting the second coming of Christ as were the Millenarians, these secular politicians, from Napoleon Bonaparte to British foreign secretary Lord Palmerston (1785-1865) to Ernest Laharanne, the private secretary of Napoleon III in the 1860s, sought to expel the Jews of Europe to Palestine in order to set them up as agents of European imperialism in Asia. Their call would be espoused by many “anti-Semites”, a new label chosen by European anti-Jewish racists after its invention in 1879 by a minor Viennese journalist by the name of Wilhelm Marr, who issued a political programme titled The Victory of Judaism over Germanism. Marr was careful to decouple anti-Semitism from the history of Christian hatred of Jews on the basis of religion, emphasising, in line with Semitic philology and racial theories of the 19th century, that the distinction to be made between Jews and Aryans was strictly racial.

Assimilating Jews into European culture

Scientific anti-Semitism insisted that the Jews were different from Christian Europeans. Indeed that the Jews were not European at all and that their very presence in Europe is what causes anti-Semitism. The reason why Jews caused so many problems for European Christians had to do with their alleged rootlessness, that they lacked a country, and hence country-based loyalty. In the Romantic age of European nationalisms, anti-Semites argued that Jews did not fit in the new national configurations, and disrupted national and racial purity essential to most European nationalisms. This is why if the Jews remained in Europe, the anti-Semites argued, they could only cause hostility among Christian Europeans. The only solution was for the Jews to exit from Europe and have their own country. Needless to say, religious and secular Jews opposed this horrific anti-Semitic line of thinking. Orthodox and Reform Jews, Socialist and Communist Jews, cosmopolitan and Yiddishkeit cultural Jews, all agreed that this was a dangerous ideology of hostility that sought the expulsion of Jews from their European homelands.


Gaza Crisis


The Jewish Haskalah, or Enlightenment, which emerged also in the 19th century, sought to assimilate Jews into European secular gentile culture and have them shed their Jewish culture. It was the Haskalah that sought to break the hegemony of Orthodox Jewish rabbis on the “Ostjuden” of the East European shtetl and to shed what it perceived as a “medieval” Jewish culture in favour of the modern secular culture of European Christians. Reform Judaism, as a Christian- and Protestant-like variant of Judaism, would emerge from the bosom of the Haskalah. This assimilationist programme, however, sought to integrate Jews in European modernity, not to expel them outside Europe’s geography.

When Zionism started a decade and a half after Marr’s anti-Semitic programme was published, it would espouse all these anti-Jewish ideas, including scientific anti-Semitism as valid. For Zionism, Jews were “Semites”, who were descendants of the ancient Hebrews. In his foundational pamphlet Der Judenstaat, Herzl explained that it was Jews, not their Christian enemies, who “cause” anti-Semitism and that “where it does not exist, [anti-Semitism] is carried by Jews in the course of their migrations”, indeed that “the unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America”; that Jews were a “nation” that should leave Europe to restore their “nationhood” in Palestine or Argentina; that Jews must emulate European Christians culturally and abandon their living languages and traditions in favour of modern European languages or a restored ancient national language. Herzl preferred that all Jews adopt German, while the East European Zionists wanted Hebrew. Zionists after Herzl even agreed and affirmed that Jews were separate racially from Aryans. As for Yiddish, the living language of most European Jews, all Zionists agreed that it should be abandoned.

The majority of Jews continued to resist Zionism and understood its precepts as those of anti-Semitism and as a continuation of the Haskalah quest to shed Jewish culture and assimilate Jews into European secular gentile culture, except that Zionism sought the latter not inside Europe but at a geographical remove following the expulsion of Jews from Europe. The Bund, or the General Jewish Labor Union in Lithuania, Poland, and Russia, which was founded in Vilna in early October 1897, a few weeks after the convening of the first Zionist Congress in Basel in late August 1897, would become Zionism’s fiercest enemy. The Bund joined the existing anti-Zionist Jewish coalition of Orthodox and Reform rabbis who had combined forces a few months earlier to prevent Herzl from convening the first Zionist Congress in Munich, which forced him to move it to Basel. Jewish anti-Zionism across Europe and in the United States had the support of the majority of Jews who continued to view Zionism as an anti-Jewish movement well into the 1940s.

Anti-Semitic chain of pro-Zionist enthusiasts

Realising that its plan for the future of European Jews was in line with those of anti-Semites, Herzl strategised early on an alliance with the latter. He declared in Der Judenstaat that:

“The Governments of all countries scourged by anti-Semitism will be keenly interested in assisting us to obtain [the] sovereignty we want.”

He added that “not only poor Jews” would contribute to an immigration fund for European Jews, “but also Christians who wanted to get rid of them”. Herzl unapologetically confided in his Diaries that:

“The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.”

Thus when Herzl began to meet in 1903 with infamous anti-Semites like the Russian minister of the interiorVyacheslav von Plehve, who oversaw anti-Jewish pogroms in Russia, it was an alliance that he sought by design. That it would be the anti-Semitic Lord Balfour, who as Prime Minister of Britain in 1905 oversaw his government’s Aliens Act, which prevented East European Jews fleeing Russian pogroms from entering Britain in order, as he put it, to save the country from the “undoubted evils” of “an immigration which was largely Jewish”, was hardy coincidental. Balfour’s infamous Declaration of 1917 to create in Palestine a “national home” for the “Jewish people”, was designed, among other things, to curb Jewish support for the Russian Revolution and to stem the tide of further unwanted Jewish immigrants into Britain.

The Nazis would not be an exception in this anti-Semitic chain of pro-Zionist enthusiasts. Indeed, the Zionists would strike a deal with the Nazis very early in their history. It was in 1933 that the infamous Transfer (Ha’avara) Agreement was signed between the Zionists and the Nazi government to facilitate the transfer of German Jews and their property to Palestine and which broke the international Jewish boycottof Nazi Germany started by American Jews. It was in this spirit that Zionist envoys were dispatched to Palestine to report on the successes of Jewish colonization of the country. Adolf Eichmann returned from his 1937 trip to Palestine full of fantastic stories about the achievements of the racially-separatist Ashkenazi Kibbutz, one of which he visited on Mount Carmel as a guest of the Zionists.

Despite the overwhelming opposition of most German Jews, it was the Zionist Federation of Germany that was the only Jewish group that supported the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, as they agreed with the Nazis that Jews and Aryans were separate and separable races. This was not a tactical support but one based on ideological similitude. The Nazis’ Final Solution initially meant the expulsion of Germany’s Jews to Madagascar. It is this shared goal of expelling Jews from Europe as a separate unassimilable race that created the affinity between Nazis and Zionists all along.

While the majority of Jews continued to resist the anti-Semitic basis of Zionism and its alliances with anti-Semites, the Nazi genocide not only killed 90 percent of European Jews, but in the process also killed the majority of Jewish enemies of Zionism who died precisely because they refused to heed the Zionist call of abandoning their countries and homes.

The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.

Theodor Herzl , Diaries


After the War, the horror at the Jewish holocaust did not stop European countries from supporting the anti-Semitic programme of Zionism. On the contrary, these countries shared with the Nazis a predilection for Zionism. They only opposed Nazism’s genocidal programme. European countries, along with the United States, refused to take in hundreds of thousands of Jewish survivors of the holocaust. In fact, these countries voted against a UN resolution introduced by the Arab states in 1947 calling on them to take in the Jewish survivors, yet these same countries would be the ones who would support the United Nations Partition Plan of November 1947 to create a Jewish State in Palestine to which these unwanted Jewish refugees could be expelled.


The pro-Zionist policies of the Nazis

The United States and European countries, including Germany, would continue the pro-Zionist policies of the Nazis. Post-War West German governments that presented themselves as opening a new page in their relationship with Jews in reality did no such thing. Since the establishment of the country after WWII, every West German government (and every German government since unification in1990) has continued the pro-Zionist Nazi policies unabated. There was never a break with Nazi pro-Zionism. The only break was with the genocidal and racial hatred of Jews that Nazism consecrated, but not with the desire to see Jews set up in a country in Asia, away from Europe. Indeed, the Germans would explain that much of the money they were sending to Israel was to help offset the costs of resettling European Jewish refugees in the country.

After World War II, a new consensus emerged in the United States and Europe that Jews had to be integrated posthumously into white Europeanness, and that the horror of the Jewish holocaust was essentially a horror at the murder of white Europeans. Since the 1960s, Hollywood films about the holocaust began to depict Jewish victims of Nazism as white Christian-looking, middle class, educated and talented people not unlike contemporary European and American Christians who should and would identify with them. Presumably if the films were to depict the poor religious Jews of Eastern Europe (and most East European Jews who were killed by the Nazis were poor and many were religious), contemporary white Christians would not find commonality with them. Hence, the post-holocaust European Christian horror at the genocide of European Jews was not based on the horror of slaughtering people in the millions who were different from European Christians, but rather a horror at the murder of millions of people who were the same as European Christians. This explains why in a country like the United States, which had nothing to do with the slaughter of European Jews, there exists upwards of 40 holocaust memorials and a major museum for the murdered Jews of Europe, but not one for the holocaust of Native Americans or African Americans for which the US is responsible.

Aimé Césaire understood this process very well. In his famous speech on colonialism, he affirmed that the retrospective view of European Christians about Nazism is that

it is barbarism, but the supreme barbarism, the crowning barbarism that sums up all the daily barbarisms; that it is Nazism, yes, but that before [Europeans] were its victims, they were its accomplices; and they tolerated that Nazism before it was inflicted on them, that they absolved it, shut their eyes to it, legitimised it, because, until then, it had been applied only to non-European peoples; that they have cultivated that Nazism, that they are responsible for it, and that before engulfing the whole of Western, Christian civilisation in its reddened waters, it oozes, seeps, and trickles from every crack.

That for Césaire the Nazi wars and holocaust were European colonialism turned inwards is true enough. But since the rehabilitation of Nazism’s victims as white people, Europe and its American accomplice would continue their Nazi policy of visiting horrors on non-white people around the world, on Korea, on Vietnam and Indochina, on Algeria, on Indonesia, on Central and South America, on Central and Southern Africa, on Palestine, on Iran, and on Iraq and Afghanistan.

The rehabilitation of European Jews after WWII was a crucial part of US Cold War propaganda. As American social scientists and ideologues developed the theory of “totalitarianism”, which posited Soviet Communism and Nazism as essentially the same type of regime, European Jews, as victims of one totalitarian regime, became part of the atrocity exhibition that American and West European propaganda claimed was like the atrocities that the Soviet regime was allegedly committing in the pre- and post-War periods. That Israel would jump on the bandwagon by accusing the Soviets of anti-Semitism for their refusal to allow Soviet Jewish citizens to self-expel and leave to Israel was part of the propaganda.

Commitment to white supremacy

It was thus that the European and US commitment to white supremacy was preserved, except that it now included Jews as part of “white” people, and what came to be called “Judeo-Christian” civilisation. European and American policies after World War II, which continued to be inspired and dictated by racism against Native Americans, Africans, Asians, Arabs and Muslims, and continued to support Zionism’s anti-Semitic programme of assimilating Jews into whiteness in a colonial settler state away from Europe, were a direct continuation of anti-Semitic policies prevalent before the War. It was just that much of the anti-Semitic racialist venom would now be directed at Arabs and Muslims (both, those who are immigrants and citizens in Europe and the United States and those who live in Asia and Africa) while the erstwhile anti-Semitic support for Zionism would continue unhindered.

Hungary’s 100,000 Jews alarmed at racism


West Germany’s alliance with Zionism and Israel after WWII, of supplying Israel with huge economic aid in the 1950s and of economic and military aid since the early 1960s, including tanks, which it used to kill Palestinians and other Arabs, is a continuation of the alliance that the Nazi government concluded with the Zionists in the 1930s. In the 1960s, West Germany even provided military training to Israeli soldiers and since the 1970s has provided Israel with nuclear-ready German-made submarines with which Israel hopes to kill more Arabs and Muslims. Israel has in recent years armed the most recent German-supplied submarines with nuclear tipped cruise missiles, a fact that is well known to the current German government. Israel’s Defence Minister Ehud Barak told Der SPIEGELin 2012 that Germans should be “proud” that they have secured the existence of the state of Israel “for many years”. Berlin financed one-third of the cost of the submarines, around 135 million euros ($168 million) per submarine, and has allowed Israel to defer its payment until 2015. That this makes Germany an accomplice in the dispossession of the Palestinians is of no more concern to current German governments than it was in the 1960s to West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer who affirmed that “the Federal Republic has neither the right nor the responsibility to take a position on the Palestinian refugees”.

This is to be added to the massive billions that Germany has paid to the Israeli government as compensation for the holocaust, as if Israel and Zionism were the victims of Nazism, when in reality it was anti-Zionist Jews who were killed by the Nazis. The current German government does not care about the fact that even those German Jews who fled the Nazis and ended up in Palestine hated Zionism and its project and were hated in turn by Zionist colonists in Palestine. As German refugees in 1930s and 1940s Palestine refused to learn Hebrew and published half a dozen German newspapers in the country, they were attacked by the Hebrew press, including by Haartez, which called for the closure of their newspapers in 1939 and again in 1941. Zionist colonists attacked a German-owned café in Tel Aviv because its Jewish owners refused to speak Hebrew, and the Tel Aviv municipality threatened in June 1944 some of its German Jewish residents for holding in their home on 21 Allenby street “parties and balls entirely in the German language, including programmes that are foreign to the spirit of our city” and that this would “not be tolerated in Tel Aviv”. German Jews, or Yekkes as they were known in the Yishuv, would even organise a celebration of the Kaiser’s birthday in 1941 (for these and more details about German Jewish refugees in Palestine, read Tom Segev’s book The Seventh Million).

Add to that Germany’s support for Israeli policies against Palestinians at the United Nations, and the picture becomes complete. Even the new holocaust memorial built in Berlin that opened in 2005 maintains Nazi racial apartheid, as this “Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe” is only for Jewish victims of the Nazis who must still today be set apart, as Hitler mandated, from the other millions of non-Jews who also fell victim to Nazism. That a subsidiary of the German company Degussa, which collaborated with the Nazis and which produced the Zyklon B gas that was used to kill people in the gas chambers, was contracted to build the memorial was anything but surprising, as it simply confirms that those who killed Jews in Germany in the late 1930s and in the 1940s now regret what they had done because they now understand Jews to be white Europeans who must be commemorated and who should not have been killed in the first place on account of their whiteness. The German policy of abetting the killing of Arabs by Israel, however, is hardly unrelated to this commitment to anti-Semitism, which continues through the predominant contemporary anti-Muslim German racism that targets Muslim immigrants.

Euro-American anti-Jewish tradition

The Jewish holocaust killed off the majority of Jews who fought and struggled against European anti-Semitism, including Zionism. With their death, the only remaining “Semites” who are fighting against Zionism and its anti-Semitism today are the Palestinian people. Whereas Israel insists that European Jews do not belong in Europe and must come to Palestine, the Palestinians have always insisted that the homelands of European Jews were their European countries and not Palestine, and that Zionist colonialism springs from its very anti-Semitism. Whereas Zionism insists that Jews are a race separate from European Christians, the Palestinians insist that European Jews are nothing if not European and have nothing to do with Palestine, its people, or its culture. What Israel and its American and European allies have sought to do in the last six and a half decades is to convince Palestinians that they too must become anti-Semites and believe as the Nazis, Israel, and its Western anti-Semitic allies do, that Jews are a race that is different from European races, that Palestine is their country, and that Israel speaks for all Jews. That the two largest American pro-Israel voting blocks today are Millenarian Protestants and secular imperialists continues the very same Euro-American anti-Jewish tradition that extends back to the Protestant Reformation and 19th century imperialism.  But the Palestinians have remained unconvinced and steadfast in their resistance to anti-Semitism.

European Jews were transformed into the instruments of aggression; they became the elements of settler colonialism intimately allied to racial discrimination…

Yasser Arafat, 1974 UN speech


Israel and its anti-Semitic allies affirm that Israel is “the Jewish people”, that its policies are “Jewish” policies, that its achievements are “Jewish” achievements, that its crimes are “Jewish” crimes, and that therefore anyone who dares to criticise Israel is criticising Jews and must be an anti-Semite. The Palestinian people have mounted a major struggle against this anti-Semitic incitement. They continue to affirm instead that the Israeli government does not speak for all Jews, that it does not represent all Jews, and that its colonial crimes against the Palestinian people are its own crimes and not the crimes of “the Jewish people”, and that therefore it must be criticised, condemned and prosecuted for its ongoing war crimes against the Palestinian people. This is not a new Palestinian position, but one that was adopted since the turn of the 20th century and continued throughout the pre-WWII Palestinian struggle against Zionism. Yasser Arafat’s speech at the United Nations in 1974 stressed all these points vehemently:

Just as colonialism heedlessly used the wretched, the poor, the exploited as mere inert matter with which to build and to carry out settler colonialism, so too were destitute, oppressed European Jews employed on behalf of world imperialism and of the Zionist leadership. European Jews were transformed into the instruments of aggression; they became the elements of settler colonialism intimately allied to racial discrimination…Zionist theology was utilised against our Palestinian people: the purpose was not only the establishment of Western-style settler colonialism but also the severing of Jews from their various homelands and subsequently their estrangement from their nations. Zionism… is united with anti-Semitism in its retrograde tenets and is, when all is said and done, another side of the same base coin. For when what is proposed is that adherents of the Jewish faith, regardless of their national residence, should neither owe allegiance to their national residence nor live on equal footing with its other, non-Jewish citizens -when that is proposed we hear anti-Semitism being proposed. When it is proposed that the only solution for the Jewish problem is that Jews must alienate themselves from communities or nations of which they have been a historical part, when it is proposed that Jews solve the Jewish problem by immigrating to and forcibly settling the land of another people – when this occurs, exactly the same position is being advocated as the one urged by anti-Semites against Jews.

Israel’s claim that its critics must be anti-Semites presupposes that its critics believe its claims that it represents “the Jewish people”. But it is Israel’s claims that it represents and speaks for all Jews that are the most anti-Semitic claims of all.

Today, Israel and the Western powers want to elevate anti-Semitism to an international principle around which they seek to establish full consensus. They insist that for there to be peace in the Middle East, Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims must become, like the West, anti-Semites by espousing Zionism and recognising Israel’s anti-Semitic claims. Except for dictatorial Arab regimes and the Palestinian Authority and its cronies, on this 65th anniversary of the anti-Semitic conquest of Palestine by the Zionists, known to Palestinians as the Nakba, the Palestinian people and the few surviving anti-Zionist Jews continue to refuse to heed this international call and incitement to anti-Semitism. They affirm that they are, as the last of the Semites, the heirs of the pre-WWII Jewish and Palestinian struggles against anti-Semitism and its Zionist colonial manifestation. It is their resistance that stands in the way of a complete victory for European anti-Semitism in the Middle East and the world at large.

Joseph Massad teaches Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University in New York. He is the author of The Persistence of the Palestinian Question: Essays on Zionism and the Palestinians. 




| The BBC: Impartial Reporting or Pro-Israel Bias?

The BBC: Impartial Reporting or Pro-Israel Bias?

Lesley Docksey, Global Research.

The British Broadcasting Corporation has often been accused of anti-Semitism, usually by representatives of the Israeli government, the Israeli Ambassador to the UK or the Chief Rabbi. 

Any passing mention of the plight of the Palestinians on the news used to result in either Ambassador Proser or Rabbi Jonathon Sachs elbowing their way into the Today programme studio the following morning to bleat about Israel’s actions being misrepresented.  The current Ambassador and Chief Rabbi are not quite so vocal but just as sensitive.  Palestinians do not have that ease of access.


But is the BBC anti-Semitic as Israel claims or, as many others claim, does the BBC have a pro-Israel bias in its reporting?

Back in January 2009, when Operation Cast Lead was in full swing with Gaza being reduced to rubble, and its inhabitants had nowhere to flee, the Disasters Emergency Committee issued an appeal on behalf of the Gazan people.  DEC is made up of 14 leading UK aid charities.  When some major humanitarian crisis occurs they combine their fundraising efforts.  The appeal is broadcast on all major TV and radio stations and large adverts appear in the press.  The response from the British public is usually swift and generous.  But, where the Israeli attack on Gaza was concerned, the BBC said ‘No’.  And because the great BBC was refusing to air the appeal, the other channels felt they had to follow suit.

The public outcry was massive.  The BBC instantly received over 11,000 complaints.  The Minister for the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Lord Malloch Brown, was similarly bombarded although protesters were forced to write to him as the FCO took down his email address.  Proser and Sachs applauded the BBC’s decision.  And the Director General of the BBC, Mark Thompson, was forced into making the following statement, justifying his decision:

“Inevitably, an appeal would use pictures which are the same or similar to those we would be using in our news programmes but would do so with the objective of encouraging public donations, …The danger … is that this could be interpreted as taking a political stance on an ongoing story. When we’ve turned down DEC appeals in the past on impartiality grounds, it has been because of this risk of giving … the impression that the BBC was taking sides in an ongoing conflict.”

Apart from the fact that the BBC were not showing any pictures from inside Gaza because Israel was preventing any reporters from entering, I was very puzzled by the statement that the BBC had turned down appeals in the past.  I couldn’t recall any occasion when they had done so.  Using the Freedom of Information Act, I wrote to Mark Thompson, quoting his statement and asking for the answers to the following questions:

  • On how many occasions has the BBC turned down an appeal by the DEC?
  • On what dates did the BBC turn down these appeals?
  • On behalf of which countries/people were the DEC appealing?

It took a month, but I received a very nice reply from the Information & Compliance Manager (the BBC is after all run on public money so they can’t afford to antagonise us too much) stating that the questions I asked were not covered by the FoI Act because…

“Your request falls outside the scope of the Act because the BBC and the other public service broadcasters are covered by the Act only in respect of information held for purposes “other than those of journalism, art or literature” (see Schedule I, Part VI of the Act). We are not therefore obliged to supply information held for the purposes of creating the BBC’s output or information that supports and is closely associated with these creative activities.”

Silly me. I thought that an appeal for aid came under “other than those of journalism, art or literature”, but BBC logic dictates otherwise.  They were certainly being ‘creative’ in their interpretation of the Act. However, the writer did volunteer this:

 “Since April 2006, the date when the BBC Executive took over the role of deciding on Emergency appeals from the BBC Governors, the BBC declined requests for appeals for the Middle East in August 2006 and for Gaza in January 2009.”

DEC has never issued an appeal for ‘the Middle East’ although, with the way things are developing there, they may yet have to.  Even worse, when I checked with the DCE website, their Appeals Archive page listed no appeals for anywhere at all in 2006.  Ooops!

It seems that under other circumstances, the BBC is not worried about appearing to be taking sides in an ongoing story, as they have just aired the DEC appeal for Syria.  So, whose side are they on?  Are they anti-Semitic in the real meaning of the term, or is it more accurate to say that they have a pro-Israel bias?

Quite a lot of people think the answer to that is ‘Yes’.   They are demanding that the BBC Trust holds a Public Inquiry into whether there is pro-Israeli bias at the BBC.  They reached their target of 10,000 signatures yesterday, but more would be welcome.  It is time this issue was settled once and for all, time for the BBC to be what it claims it is – fair and impartial in the reporting of news.



| BDS gaining traction against apartheid: Why boycotting Israel matters!

Why boycotting Israel matters ~ ANTONY LOEWENSTEIN, The Drum Opinion, ABC News.


An academic boycott of Israeli universities isn’t an attack on freedom of speech. The evidence tells us these institutions are key battlegrounds for breaches of international law towards the Palestinians, argues Antony Loewenstein.

New Zealand’s $20 billion national pension fund announced this month that it was divesting from three Israeli companies that were complicit in the building of colonies in the West Bank and the annexation wall that runs deep into Palestinian territory.

“Findings by the United Nations that the separation barrier and settlement activities were illegal under international law were central to the fund’s decision to exclude the companies,” the responsible fund manager for investment, Anne-Maree O’Connor, said in a statement.

The companies targeted were Africa Israel, Danya Cebus and Elbit Systems. The last firm has a deep relationship with the Australian Government and recently scored a large contract with the Australian Defence Force. Canberra has no hesitation in assisting the corporation despite its troubling legal and ethical record of working on occupied, Palestinian land.

New Zealand’s pension fund pursued a key element of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement that is increasingly utilised as a non-violent method of resisting illegal Israeli actions. Similar tactics were widely embraced during the decades-long struggle against apartheid South Africa.

The latest and public stand of BDS has occurred in Australia. Dr Jake Lynch, the head of Sydney University’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPACS), recently refused to assist an Israeli academic from Hebrew University, Dan Avnon. Lynch’s centre abides by an academic boycott against Israeli universities.

The key point was stressed by Desmond Tutu when he argued for academic BDS by saying, “while Palestinians are not able to access universities and schools, Israeli universities produce the research, technology, arguments and leaders for maintaining the occupation.”

The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) has the backing of Palestinian civil society and calls for actions in solidarity. It states:

It is important to stress that all Israeli academic institutions, unless proven otherwise, are complicit in maintaining the Israeli occupation and denial of basic Palestinian rights, whether through their silence, actual involvement in justifying, whitewashing or otherwise deliberately diverting attention from Israel’s violations of international law and human rights, or indeed through their direct collaboration with state agencies in the design and commission of these violations.

The CPACS story has run in Rupert Murdoch’s The Australian for 10 days, no other media organisation has touched it, and the agenda has been to smear Lynch and his supportersas anti-Semitic, irrational, anti-Israel and dangerous. Lynch’s ability to respond to these libellous allegations has been limited. The Liberal Party has called for restrictions on academic freedom (paywalled) in a warning that a Tony Abbott-led government may withhold funding from university centres that don’t fit a conservative political worldview.

The media coverage in Australia has seen a litany of politicians – the Liberal Party lined up to pat Israel on the head) – Zionist lobby heads and journalists – Australian reporter Christian Kerr accused Federal Minister for Tertiary Education Chris Evans on his Facebook page of “anti-Semitism” for not immediately saying Lynch should be ostracised from public view – condemning Lynch for bringing division to a conflict that supposedly needs “balance”.

Monash University‘s Associate Professor in the Department of Social Work, Philip Mendes, a self-described Left Zionist Jew who uses McCarthyist smears to monitor public criticisms of Israel, called Lynch a “nut job” on his Facebook page and accused the BDS movement as standing “not for human rights, but rather for the ethnic stereotyping and demonisation of all Israel Jews”. In other words, anti-Semitism.

The casualness with which the anti-Semitic slur is used indicates a paucity of intellectual heft and political desperation. The word has become so cheapened by its overuse and the Zionist community is largely to blame. It’s not for establishment Jews to dictate acceptable forms of debate over Israeli actions. When real anti-Semitism exists in the world, the Jewish community should not be shocked that its crying wolf syndrome makes action far more difficult. Thankfully, the anti-Semitism allegation is increasingly treated with the contempt it deserves by the non-Jewish community.

The paucity of the Australian debate is unsurprising when any deviation from a hardline, pro-occupation stance is condemned by the Zionist community and most mainstream politicians. Independent thought isn’t welcomed, assisted by constant Zionist lobbying of journalists and politicians and constant free Zionist lobby trips for reporters and politicians to ensure commitment to the appropriate talking points. Israel is a democracy. Israel craves peace. Israel loves Arabs. Palestinians are predisposed to terrorism (the clear implication of a recent opinion piece by the Labor backbencher Michael Danby.

Away from the parochial discussion in Australia, Israeli behaviour has never been more understood and condemned. BDS is thriving globally because Israeli actions are so blatantly extreme. Palestinian human rights offices are ransacked, plans for expanding illegalcolonies in the West Bank continues apace, Israel recently murdered countless Palestinian civilians in Gaza and former Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman says Europe is acting towards the Jewish state like it’s the 1930s. There’s been no condemnation of this Holocaust analogy by the Zionist lobby in Australia or elsewhere. There’s clearly selective outrage when it comes to using the Holocaust in making a political point.

Business as usual, a hope that much discussed “peace talks” will change the facts on the ground in Palestine, is a delusion that is only spoken by global officials and a Zionist leadership who don’t believe Israel should be pressured to do anything. BDS is a logical response to this impasse. Within Israel itself, activists pushing BDS may soon face legal sanction for doing so in the “Middle East’s only democracy”.

Ignored in the current faux controversy over Jake Lynch is the evidence that proves thecomplicity of Hebrew University in the maintenance of the occupation – not least the stealing of Palestinian land for its Mount Scopus campus – and the justified reason why CPACS takes the stand that it does. Moreoever, Sydney University itself has a relationship with Israel’s Technion Institute of Technology, an institution with deep connections to the Israeli military and occupation. Sydney University should feel public pressure to cut these ties.

Note that there has been virtually complete academic, journalistic and public silence in support of the position taken by Lynch. This is not, as Zionists would like the public to believe because there’s no support for the movement – the cause of Palestine is now far more popular in Australia and globally than Israel – but a culture of intimidation and bullying by the Israel lobby and its media and political friends makes it clear that a price will be paid for speaking out. Their silence is shameful.

Academic BDS is a more than justified position because the evidence for Israeli universities being key battlegrounds for the Zionist state’s breaches of international law towards the Palestinians is overwhelming.

It doesn’t matter, as claimed by the Hebrew University academic Dan Avnon and his supporters, that he’s doing fine work building bridges between Israel and the Palestinians. His institution stands proudly in support of the Jewish state and its complicity must come with a price.

Israeli academic Neve Gordon has expressed one of the most eloquent reasons the international community must back BDS to avoid his children continuing to live in an “apartheid regime”.

It’s ironic that the Israelis and their propagandists globally are such fans of pushing for boycotts themselves against any person or country that dares challenges its policies. Just recently Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu banned a professor with critical views from attend his meeting with German leader Angela Merkel.

Academic BDS isn’t an attack on freedom of speech. Should the freedom Israeli academics are keen to preserve, asks BDS founder members Omar Barghouti and Lisa Taraki, “which sound more like privileges to us, [continue] without any regard to what is going on outside the walls of the academy, to the role of their institutions in the perpetuation of colonial rule?”.

Israel is not a normal country and proudly practices apartheid against Palestinians. Jake Lynch has taken one small step in publicly stating his opposition to our complicity in these crimes. His decision is an example to how principled academia should behave.



apartheidIllustration1 mandela1