Thursday, 20 June 2019

Jonathan Hoffman and Damon Lenzner Convicted of Thuggery and Physical Intimidation of Sandra Watfa

Ex-Zionist Federation Vice-Chair and Board of Deputies Officer Hoffman forgot to Accuse the Police and CPS of ‘Institutional Anti-Semitism
The solicitor for Daman Lenzner just happened to be Tommy Robinson's lawyer Daniel Berke
It is my sad duty to inform people that my old friend, Jonathan Hoffman was today, with another Zionist thug, Damon Lenzner, convicted of harassment and threatening behaviour.
I had intended to attend court tomorrow as two days had been set aside for the hearing but it would seem the pair decided that cowardice was the better part of valour as they agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charges in exchange for the CPS dropping the assault charges. Or maybe they had advance warning that I would be making an appearance!
Jeremy Newmark, ex-Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement and subject to corruption allegations came out in support of fascist Hoffman
Hoffman had originally faced an arrest warrant for not turning up in court
They were both fined, sentenced to community and restraining orders. Lenzner was subject to a curfew and an electronic tag. They were also barred from approaching Sandra Watfa, the woman they harassed or Mr Haverty-Stacke, whom Lenzner punched. Reports can be found in Electronic Intifada, the Jewish Chronicle and Jewish News.
Hoffman in the middle of Roberta Cooper and Robert de Jonge of the Jewish neo-Nazi Jewish Defence League
Hoffman with the EDL's Kevin Carroll
Judge Nigel Dean, said the pair’s actions amounted to “aggressive, bullying behavior.” Clearly he is a man who believes in understatement. It is a sad comedown for Hoffman who used to be Vice-Chair of the Zionist Federation and a senior member of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and its Defence Committee. 
Zionist capitalist Micky Davies didn't take kindly to Hoffman and forced him to make a grovelling apology or face the libel courts
However Hoffman made the mistake of falling out with just about everyone and in particular criticising Mick Davies, Chair of the Jewish Leadership Council, a rich capitalist and now Treasure of the Tory Party. Everyone who made, even the mildest criticism of Israel was an anti-Semite, including most of the Board of Deputies!
(left to right) Paul Besser of Britain 1st, Ambrosine Shitrit, Gormless Gemma Sheridan (Jewish Nazi JDL), KKK Klaff of South Africa and Hoffman
Hoffman in his element with fellow fascists - EDL in paramilitary fatigues
Hoffman with Neil Horan (green) who is a Hitler supporter
Asa Winstanley writes that ‘One supporter was absent though: former Jewish Labour Movement chair Jeremy Newmark. Writing sympathetically on a thread on Hoffman’s Facebook page in March, Newmark called the case “appalling.” 
Hoffman article defending Jeremy Newmark
You might find this surprising since Hoffman is someone who has worked openly with the far-Right – Tommy Robinson supporters and Britain First’s Paul Besser as well as Pegida supporters Ambrosine Shitrit and Sharon KKKKlaff and Kahanist David Collier.  Newmark is a Labour Zionist.
Hoffman with David Collier - well known Jewish fascist
Hoffman and Lenzner attacked the Inminds picket of the Puma Store in Carnaby Street
However this is not so surprising. The differences between Labour and fascist Zionists have always been tactical.  Hoffman went out on a limb to defend Newmark when the Jewish Chronicle accused him of corruption and trousering thousands of pounds from a Zionist ‘charity’, the Jewish Leadership Council.
Suffice to say I have enormous sympathy for Newmark because the money would otherwise have gone into anti-BDS activity so it’s probably best that it went on champagne, taxi bills (unpaid) and good meals (kosher one hopes).
Hoffman (left) going incognito to court!
A glum looking Hoffman in a not unusual pose
Hoffman on his blog today was unrepentant. He claimed that he and Lenzner had been acquitted of the assault charges.  This is a lie. The CPS had agreed to drop the charges in exchange for them pleading guilty to lesser charges.   However what is one small lie amongst many? Hoffman ranted that:
appallingly, the policeman on the case insisted that the case be tried as a racial and religious hatred case (Section 145, Criminal Justice Act).  In other words according to him we were there not because we found the antisemitic discourse of InMinds repugnant, but because we are Islamophobes.  What a disgrace:  the Court ignored it.

The message from this verdict is that neither pro-Israel advocates nor campaigners against antisemitism can trust the police or the CPS.

Hoffman finds it difficult to believe that his behaviour is Islamaphobic and probably believes that his fascist friends are also lovers of Muslims.
Hoffman placed this on his blog before taking it down on legal advice
When he was first informed that he was going to be prosecuted Hoffman accused the Crown Prosecution Service and the Police of ‘institutional anti-Semitism’ (in fact he called the CPS ‘institutionally anti-Israel but since all opposition to Israel in Hoffman’s book is ‘anti-Semitism’ then that is what he really meant).
One thing that seems to have escaped all other reporting of the case is that Daman Lenzner’s representative is Daniel Berke. By one of these coincidences that plague those of us in public life, Berke is also the solicitor to Tommy Robinson.  I guess it’s a question of Berke by name and Berk by nature!
Kevin Myers was the Sunday Times columnist who accused Jews of 'never knowingly underselling themselves' however Myers was a Zionist and Hoffman was happy to turn a blind eye to his antisemitism

Wednesday, 19 June 2019

We Are Witnessing the Slow Death of the Corbyn Project

Another Corbyn Own Goal

Labour Should Have Rejected the EHRC Investigation as Politically Motivated 

I sometimes feel that it would be both cheaper and more efficient if Jeremy Corbyn replaced his advisors, Seamus Milne and Andrew Murray, with a tape recorder with a few pre-recorded messages, ‘I surrender’ ‘I apologise’. ‘I promise to do better’.
The Equalities and Human Rights Commission announced on the 28th May that it was going to hold an investigation into the Labour Party under s.20 of the Equality Act. Its terms of reference are here.

It is a catastrophic mistake to have welcomed this ‘investigation’.  It is a politically motivated establishment attack under the guise of racism. The internal affairs of the Labour Party are none of the EHRC’s business. The allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’ have nothing to do with anti-Semitism, i.e. hatred or hostility to Jews and everything to do with Israel.
One of the major themes of the CAA, who made the complaint against Labour, is that most Muslims are antisemitic
That is why the main demand of the Board of Deputies and the two organisations who made the complaints that led to this inquiry – the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism and the Jewish Labour Movement – was for Labour to introduce the IHRA definition of  ‘anti-Semitism’.
This is the racist stereotype that the Campaign Against Antisemitism featured
Instead of welcoming the investigation the Labour Party should have challenged it as politically motivated, biased and tendentious. Labour should have asked why there was no equivalent investigation into Tory party Islamaphobia or into the Tory party’s anti-Semitic partners in the European Conservative Reform Group, in the European parliament.
Nothing Corbyn says will ever convince his opponents - which is why he should stop appeasing them
At the very least the investigation should have been challenged legally. The pathetic gutlessness of Corbyn’s response may yet come back to haunt him.  However given that he has conceded all along to the bogus ‘anti-Semitism’ taunts it was all but inevitable that he would lie down and accept with grateful thanks the latest humiliation.
The CAA has run over 300 anti-Corbyn articles on its website
The only photo the CAA could find for their report on Muslim 'antisemitism' was of a dark person (Muslim?) holding a Hitler was right poster
There are numerous reasons why this ‘investigation’ should have been rejected.
i.                   The two organisations whose complaints led to the investigation are part of the Zionist/Israel lobby.
ii.                The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism in particular, a so-called charity, has waged a virulent and abusive campaign against Corbyn.  It has hundreds of articles on its web site attacking Corbyn.
iii.             The CAA is a deeply racist Islamaphobic organisation. One only needs to look at their racist profile of a male Muslim to see where their politics are coming from.
The Jewish Labour Movement Boasts that the Israeli Labor Party is their 'sister party' - we should believe them 
iv.             The Jewish Labour Movement which is the other organisation responsible for making the complaint is the British branch of the Israeli Labour Party.  A party of ethnic cleansing and colonisation.  It is a party that has supported the deportation of Black African refugees from Israel because they are not Jewish.
Of course the real problem is that Corbyn should fought back against the fake ‘anti-Semitism’ allegations, which were begun by the Daily Mail in 2015, when they started. Corbyn had enough experience in the Palestine solidarity movement to know that the standard accusation against all Palestine activists is that they are anti-Semitic. It is inexplicable that Corbyn is still incapable of understanding this simple point. 
That Corbyn did not question the motives behind this 'investigation' is inexplicable
Today denying that the Labour Party faces an ‘anti-Semitism’ problem is in itself proof of being an ‘anti-Semite.’ Yet the Zionists repeatedly allege that Corbyn is anti-Semitic and a racist. It should be abundantly clear even to the simplest mind that the ‘anti-Semitism’ allegations are motivated by the Zionist lobby yet Corbyn is incapable of speaking this simple truth.
Instead he and John McDonnell have behaved throughout the affair as if the Board of Deputies of British Jews were some benign organisation that was genuinely concerned about anti-Semitism, even to the extent of organising an ‘anti-racist’ demonstration outside parliament in March 2018.  This is the  organisation which has a history of telling Jews, from the Battle of Cable Street to the National Front, not to confront fascists and to keep their heads down and stay indoors.
Boris Johnson merits a slap on the wrist from this tame Tory body
Corbyn should have gone onto the offensive. The Tories are about to elect someone who believes that Black people are ‘picanninies’ with ‘water melon smiles’ and who refers to Muslim women wearing the burka as ‘letter boxes’.  This is the party of the ‘hostile environment policy’ and Windrush.  Yet it too has  condemned Corbyn as ‘anti-Semitic’.  Yet Corbyn is too spineless and feeble to rebut any of these attacks.
The real question is why, at no stage, has the EHRC not opened an investigation into the Windrush scandal and Theresa May’s ‘hostile environment policy’ If its concern is racism then how is it that hundreds of Black British citizens have been deported and this useless establishment body hasn’t stirred itself?  Or is it incapable of investigating the government that funds it?
The real reason is that the EHRC is not and never has been an anti-racist body. It is a body whose main purpose is to see that discrimination does not affect the workings of the market.  It is about incorporating the anti-racist struggle.  It is staffed by the great and good from the corporate world. There isn’t one trade union commissioner. In its current investigation it is using fake allegations of anti-Semitism in order to do the Establishment’s dirty work of attacking Corbyn.  And Corbyn is stupid enough to have given them a stamp of approval.
If you search the EHRC’s site under Windrush you come up with just one result which is one more than if you search under ‘hostile environment policy’.  So despite the major racist scandals of the past 5 years being none of the business of this so-called anti-racist organisation Corbyn and his supporters are incapable of calling this useless corporate ‘diversity’ organisation out.
Who are the great and good who make up the EHRC and its Commissioners?
Below are their profiles taken from the EHRC web pages:
David Isaac CBE (Chair)
David is a partner at law firm Pinsent Masons and was previously Chair of Stonewall from 2003 to 2012.
Caroline Waters (Deputy Chair)
Currently Vice President of Carers UK and Founder and CEO of CW Consulting Box, Caroline Waters was also Director of People and Policy at BT She chaired, for example, Employers for Carers from 2001 to 2013, was founder and inaugural Chair of the Employers' Forum on Belief, and Chair of the Lone Parents working group.
She is a Director of Roffey Park and a member of the Whole Education Board.
Suzanne is an experienced board member, finance professional and Chair. 
Suzanne has extensive FTSE 250 board experience gained in executive and non-executive roles and is currently a non-executive director of WHSmith plc, where she is also Chair of the Audit Committee. She was formerly Group Finance Director of Mitie Group plc, and her earlier career was spent at Serco and in the accountancy profession with PwC and Deloitte, where she specialised in corporate finance and assurance. 
Her other roles have included Chair of BITC in the South West and Chair of the Business Services Association. 
Suzanne is Fellow of the ICAEW and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.
Pavita Cooper has over 25 years’ experience as an executive talent leader across a range of multi-sector global blue-chip organisations, including Shell, Barclays and Lloyds Banking Group.
Pavita is a passionate advocate of greater diversity; she campaigns tirelessly to change the face of British business.
Alasdair Henderson is a barrister at 1 Crown Office Row, specialising in public law, human rights, employment law and equality law.
Rebecca Hilsenrath (Chief Executive)
Rebecca Hilsenrath joined the Equality and Human Rights Commission as Legal Officer in March 2014 and was appointed as Chief Executive in 2016.
Prior to that, she was CEO of LawWorks (the Solicitors Pro Bono Group), a national charity facilitating free legal advice to community groups and individuals in need.
After graduating from Cambridge, Rebecca trained and practiced at Linklaters, and then moved to the Government Legal Service, where she held roles in the then Department for Education and Skills and in the Attorney General’s Office.
Susan Johnson was, until her retirement in July 2015, Chief Executive at County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Service, where she was the first woman and non-uniformed chief executive to lead a Fire and Rescue Service in the United Kingdom.
Helen is chair of the Renewables Infrastructure Group Limited and deputy chair and senior independent director of Primary Health Properties plc, both of which are companies listed on the main market on the London Stock Exchange.
She is also a non-executive director of SSE plc and Bonheur ASA, the latter being listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange. She was, until she retired in 2013, Group Company Secretary and General Counsel of National Grid plc for 10 years. At National Grid she was also executive sponsor of inclusion and diversity, about which she is passionate.
Helen has also been on the boards of Aga Rangemaster Group plc, Stagecoach Group plc and SVG Capital plc.
Mark McLane is the Head of Global Diversity and Inclusion for Barclays PLC.
Prior to Barclays, Mark was the Director of Diversity and Inclusion for Booz Allen Hamilton, a professional services firm in Washington DC. 
He also held the position of Chief Diversity Officer for Whirlpool Corporation.
Dr Lesley Sawers (Scotland Commissioner)
Lesley is currently Executive Chair of GenAnalytics Ltd, a specialist analytical and market insights consultancy focused on business performance improvement linked to equality and diversity in the workplace.
Previously Lesley was Vice Principal and Pro Vice Chancellor for Business, Enterprise and Innovation at Glasgow Caledonian University and Chief Executive of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. She has also held senior leadership positions at Scottish Power, Royal Mail, CACI, Glasgow Chamber of Commerce and VisitScotland.
Professor Swaran Singh is Head of Division, Mental Health and Wellbeing, at the University of Warwick.
In short there isn’t a radical or grassroots antiracist amongst them.  They are all in favour of ‘diversity’ and incorporating struggles against the iniquities of capitalism but you won’t find them on a picket line or demonstration.  Most of them have a corporate background and that is the main purpose of the EHRC, to advise corporations on equality and diversity.
The EHRC is completely unfit to step into the middle of what is a political battle in the Labour Party between left and right under the guise of ‘anti-Semitism’.  All those alleging ‘anti-Semitism’ are also those who pushed the fake IHRA definition of ‘anti-Semitism’.
However the result of accepting without question the EHRC investigation will be that if they come out, as is highly likely, with an adverse report then it is going to be one more potent weapon in the armoury of the Right. 
It is an own goal to have accepted or welcomed the Inquiry.  They should have been challenged legally and there should have been fierce resistance to this attempt to neutralise the left leadership of the Labour Party via bogus complaints of anti-Semitism.
As for the Jewish Labour Movement, they should be thrown out on their ear for having done their best to undermine and destroy the Labour Party at the very moment when the Tories are facing a political crisis.
But instead, when they engaged in some grandstanding and threatened to leave the Labour Party Corbyn begged them to stay!  They rewarded his idiocy with a motion of no confidence in him.
Tony Greenstein 

Sunday, 16 June 2019

In calling BDS ‘anti-Semitic’ the Bundestag has projected German guilt over the Holocaust onto the Palestinians

From the Greens to the neo-Nazis (AfD), from the Social Democrats to the Christian Democrats there was unanimity – a Boycott of Israeli Apartheid is 'anti-Semitic'

Two months ago I attended a War on Want meeting where Ronnie Kassrills, the Jewish founder of the ANC’s military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe, described how Vienna’s Council had unanimously decided to prevent him speaking on Council property.
From the Green Party to the neo-Nazi Freedom Party there was unanimity that a Jewish anti-Zionist and a veteran of the Anti-Apartheid Struggle in South Africa should not be allowed to speak. Even neo-Nazis are signed up to the Zionist definition of ‘anti-Semitism’! So we have the obscene spectacle, in the city where Hitler spent his most formative period, that a party created by and which harbour open neo-Nazis, can nonetheless ban a Jewish founder of the Anti-Apartheid struggle for ‘anti-Semitism’?
In May 19th in the German Bundestag the same obscene spectacle was repeated. Alternatives for Germany, which contains many neo-Nazis, voted alongside the Green and Social Democratic parties, to condemn BDS although it would appear that some members of Die Grunen had a conscience and abstained.
This is an acceptable price to pay for German political and commercial relations with Israel
The fake ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign is not just a British Labour Party but a growing European phenomenon.  Everywhere from the United States to France and Hungary, anti-Semites are trying to outlaw solidarity with the Palestinians in the name of ‘anti-Semitism’. We have the absurdity of the most racist and anti-Semitic President of the United States in living memory condemning Ilhan Omar and Rashid Tlaib for supporting BDS!
Truly we live in the world of Lewis Carroll’s Alice :
People may recall the exchange in Through the Looking Glass:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Yitzhak Laor, Israel’s greatest poet wrote in his book The Myths of Liberal Zionism:
 Why now. Why the contemporary concern with the Jewish genocide… compared to its treatment in the period immediately after the Second World War?’
His answer was that this was about
‘consolidating a new ideology of exclusion. Now it is the Jews who are the insiders… the genocide and the Jews served in the construction of a European identity…’
Not only are Jews the insiders but the memory of the Holocaust has been twisted and distorted as a justification for Western support for Israel and imperialism in the Middle East. In short the most barbaric act of German imperialism is now used to justify the barbarism of western imperialism.
Israel is seen by the European far-Right as the last defence against Islam. In the words of Dutch fascist Geert Wilders ‘If Jerusalem falls into the hands of the Muslims, Athens and Rome will be next.’ For Germany coming to terms with the Holocaust has been seen in terms of uncritical support of Israel as a ‘Jewish’ state.
The irony is that Israel from its formation modelled its settler-colonial model on Prussian militarism and colonisation. Instead of drawing the lesson from the Nazi era that racism and racial supremacy should be opposed, the German state has given carte blanche to an Israeli state which is the embodiment of Prussian militarism. 
Indeed the Israeli state, with its segregation between Jew and non-Jew, is the embodiment of Nazi values. If one looks at the period from 1933-39 then the parallels between Israel and Nazi Germany are uncanny not least in the Nuremburg Laws of 1935 which the Zionists alone in the Jewish community welcomed.
Eugenics played a key role in Nazi Germany. The Holocaust began in 1939 with the extermination of the disabled. Six killing centres were set up and gas trucks, which were later used in the first concentration camp Chelmno, began their operations. In Israel conscious attempts to ‘improve’ the Jewish ‘race’ were undertaken by Arthur Ruppin through selective Jewish immigration.
In the 1950’s thousands of babies of Yemenite parents were simply stolen and transferred to Ashkenazi parents in the belief that the latter would improve the children. It is a scandal which has been smouldering for over half a century. See for example The Disappeared Children of Israel.
Far from the German Bundestag rejecting the values of Hitlerism, by their actions they have endorsed the perpetuation of those values in the hands of the Israeli state.  If Israel, the Jewish state, can act like Germans once did, then the logical conclusion is that perhaps the Nazi period wasn’t so bad after all.  That is a message that the AfD and Austria’s Freedom Party understand too well.
When the Chief Rabbi of Safed, Shmuel Eliyahu issues an edict banning the renting of apartments to Arabs and when criticised his actions are endorsed by dozens of other rabbis, or when Jewish mobs chant ‘death to the Arabs’ it is clear that the values of German ethno-nationalism have been transformed into Jewish ethno-nationalism.
It is a sign of the abject cowardice of the Greens and SPD that they have nothing to say about the virulent racism of the Israeli state. What part of the house demolitions, the ethnic cleansing or the shooting of unarmed demonstrators do they not understand?
It is Israelis themselves who recognise that Israel’s ethno-nationalism are symbolic of the era of fascism.
Zeev Sternhell, a former Professor at the Hebrew University and a world authority on fascism, as well as being a child survivor of the Holocaust, In Israel, Growing Fascism and a Racism Akin to Early Nazism spoke of a
toxic ultra-nationalism that has evolved here, the kind whose European strain almost wiped out a majority of the Jewish people.’
He is not alone. Other Israelis including Daniel Blatman, a Holocaust researcher and chief historian at the new Warsaw Ghetto museum and Ofer Casif, a Hebrew University lecturer and newly elected MK for Hadash, argued that Israel today is similar to early Nazi Germany.
Even in Latvia, over 90% of whose Jewish population were murdered, the Boycott of Nazi Germany was effective
Members of the German Bundestag are probably unaware that when the Nazis took power in 1933, they were met with a worldwide Jewish boycott of Nazi Germany. Just like now, the ruling classes railed at this interference with free trade and the Nazi state initiated legal proceedings in countries like Latvia. The Zionists did their best to undermine the boycott agreeing reaching their own trade agreement Ha'avara, with the Nazis.
Boycott is a peaceful tactic which has been used in countless struggles against oppression – from the boycott of slave grown sugar in the West Indies to the struggle of tenant farmers in Ireland to the boycott of Apartheid in South Africa – The decision of the German state today to attack BDS is an attack on the oppressed. 
The German establishment, from the Greens to the AfD, may pretend that they are opposing anti-Semitism but in reality they are supporting a Jewish supremacist state which owes much to the Nazi period. 
As the organisation Palästina Spricht - Palestine Speaks put it, We call on the German government to fight racism and apartheid – not those who oppose them and went on to ask
‘What message does Germany send when it protects a violent military power that in the past year alone had indiscriminately killed over 450 Palestinians, while at the same time condemning a non-violent movement that merely demands that Israel abides by its obligations under international law?’
The decision of the Bundestag and its conflation of Zionism and Judaism disregards the long history of Jewish opposition to Zionism, as well as ignoring the numerous Jewish individuals and organizations who either support BDS or defend its legitimacy.
The implicit suggestion that Israel represents the values of the Jews of the pre-Holocaust era is an insult to those who died.  As Yoav Rinon wrote Neither Israel's nor Germany's Slide Into Fascism Was Accidental.
It may be painful for German legislators to understand, but a state that demolishes Palestinian homes in order erect Jewish homes in their place owes more to the Nazis than those who suffered under them.
Rion wrote that
few would deny that modern German identity has had a central role in the formulation of Jewish-Israeli identity, especially in light of the Holocaust and its key impact on the past of the two peoples.
Using a psychological analogy he described how A battered child often turns into a battering parent, and what applies on the personal level is also valid on the national one.’
Professor  Sara  Roy wrote an Open Letter, On equating BDS and anti-Semitism: a letter to the German government:
If your history has imposed a burden and an obligation upon you, it is to defend justice not Israel. This is what Judaism, not Zionism, demands. Your obligation does not lie in making Israel or the Jewish people special or selectively excusing injustice because Jews happen to be committing it; it lies in holding Israel and Jews to the same ethical and moral standards that you would demand of any people, including yourselves.
Your sense of guilt, if that is the correct word, should not derive from criticizing Israel. It should reside in remaining silent in the face of injustice as so many of your forebears did before, during and after the Holocaust.
I lost a large extended family to fascism and racism. By endorsing the motion that alleges that BDS is anti-Semitic—regardless of one’s position on BDS—you are criminalizing the right to free speech and dissent and those who choose to exercise it, which is exactly how fascism takes root. You also trivialize and dishonor the real meaning of anti-Semitism. Sincerely,
Zionist campaign against Brian Klug in 2013
The Bundestag vote has been felt in a renewed Zionist attack on Berlin’s Jewish Museum. This is an institution that the Zionists have long detested as it isn’t under their control. Zionism has not only colonised Palestine but Jewish communities and their institutions in the diaspora.  The Jewish museum of  Berlin is an exception.
In 2013, the non-Zionist British lecturer Brian Klug delivered a thoughtful lecture What Do We Mean When We Say ‘Antisemitsm’? Echoes of shattering glass on the 75th anniversary of Kristallnacht. There was an immediate Zionist response. A group calling themselves ‘International scholars and authors under the auspices of The Berlin International Center for the Study of Antisemitism (BICSA) compiled a Dossier on Brian Klug.  And what a collection of scholars it was.  It was headed by Gerald Steinberg of the McCarthyite NGO Monitor, which spends its time attacking Israeli human rights organisations, junk historian Ephraim Karsh, [I recommend Benny Morris’s review of Karsh’s book Fabricating Israeli Histor: The New ‘Historians’ in Journal of Palestine Studies Vol. 27 No. 2 Winter 1998] Sam Westrup, ‘Senior Fellow’ of the virulently Islamaphobic Gatestone Institute whose Wikipedia entry describes it in these terms: Gatestone is anti-Muslim. The organization has attracted attention for publishing false articles and being a source of viral falsehoods.’ Another ‘scholar’ was Lt. Col. (res.) Dr. Mordechai Kedar, whose main claim to fame is advocating the rape of Palestinian women in war as a deterrent to ‘terrorists’.  These ‘scholars’ even extended to our own hoodlums, Jonathan Hoffman and Richard Millet!
Their leader Clemens Heni wrote in The Times of Israel that ‘Brian Klug is among the worst choices for a keynote speaker’ because ‘he denies that there is a new antisemitism.’ There is a good riposte to this in Mondoweiss Klug targeted by McCarthyite ‘dossier’– because he will speak on anti-Semitism in Berlin on Kristallnacht anniversary.’
In other words Brian Klug should have been banned because he was not prepared to say that anti-Zionism was anti-Semitism. Such is the value that Zionism accords to freedom of speech
Now the cudgels have been taken up again because of a pro-BDS tweet that apparently emanated from someone at the Jewish Museum. See 'Anti-Jewish' Museum in Berlin under fire for supporting BDS
Other sins include that fact that in 2012 ‘the Jewish Museum hosted a podium discussion with US academic Judith Butler, who renewed her calls to boycott Israel.’ Clearly this is a call for the neo-Nazis and Greens in the Bundestag to take the kind of action Hitler would have approved and close down a cultural and academic institution which Gerald Steinberg has described as the “anti-Jewish Museum”.
Gideon Levy in Ha’aretz wrote In Germany, a Non-violent Struggle Against War Crimes Could Be Declared Illegal that if the German government adopted the Bundestag resolution to outlaw the BDS movement, then there would be nothing to equal it in any democracy.
‘Branding BDS as anti-Semitic... Fighting anti-Semitism solves any problems associated with explaining Israel’s actions. Just say “anti-Semitism” and the world is paralyzed. One can kill children in Gaza, then say “anti-Semitism!” and squelch any criticism. Europe is still vulnerable on this. Exploit it to the hilt.
It’s hard to believe that the hundreds of Bundestag members who voted for this resolution, which defines a completely legitimate struggle as anti-Semitic, actually agreed with it. One may assume that deep inside, many harbor doubts if not opposition to a move that was imposed on them. It’s not only in Germany. In most European countries it’s difficult to criticize Israel without being accused of anti-Semitism.
Rather than slaying the dragon of racism and fascism the Green, Social Democratic and Die Linke (who put forward their own motion) have given a boost to the forces of racism and fascism. One hopes that these hypocrites and ignoramuses take on board the fact that Netanyahu has no greater friend than Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orban for whom the pro-Nazi leader of war-time Hungary, Admiral Horthy was an ‘exceptional statesman’
One thing is for sure, German politicians today and the cowards who inhabit the Bundestag are anything but exceptional statesmen. They are much the same cowards who in 1933 voted for the Enabling Act thus ushering in the personal dictatorship of Hitler.
Below is a message from Prof. Amos Goldberg of the Dep of js History at the Hebrew University and Yaara Benger Alaluf of Berlin’s Max Planck Institute.
If any of you would be willing to send a short message of support to the Jewish Museum, this would be highly appreciated. Their e-mail address is:
Please direct it to Peter Schäfer, the director of the museum. The museum’s website is
You may also want to support the museum by retweeting or posting on Facebook JMB’s tweet referring to our call:
Furthermore, please consider contributing to the several discussions on twitter, of which you find links below.
These are simple steps but might be highly influential.
Thank you for your continued support, which is highly appreciated!
Kind regards,
Prof. Amos Goldberg                          Yaara Benger Alaluf
Department of Jewish History             Center for the History of Emotions,
and Contemporary Jewry                    Max Planck Institute for Human
Hebrew University, Jerusalem,            Development, Berlin

In an article Berlin Jewish Museum Director Resigns After Tweet Supporting BDS Freedom of Speech Haaretz reported that the Jewish Museum’s Director, Peter Schafter, had resigned. ‘days after it was criticized for endorsing a petition against a parliamentary motion defining anti-Israel boycotts as anti-Semitic and banning the boycott movement from using public buildings.’ ‘ Schafter’s resignation came ‘after Israeli Ambassador to Germany Jeremy Issacharoff called the museum’s sharing of the petition “shameful.” 

The petition, asserting that "boycotts are a legitimate and nonviolent tool of resistance," was signed by 240 Jewish intellectuals including Avraham Burg and Eva Illouz, who called on the German government not to adopt the motion, to protect freedom of speech.
Ha’aretz reported that ‘Last year, it was reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanded from Chancellor Angela Merkel that Germany stop funding the museum because it had held an exhibition about Jerusalem, “that presents a Muslim-Palestinian perspective.” Merkel was asked to halt funding to other organizations as well, on grounds that they were anti-Israel, among them the Berlin International Film Festival, pro-Palestinian Christian organizations, and the Israeli news website +972, which receives funding from the Heinrich Böll Foundation.
Netanyahu did not deny the report and his bureau confirmed that he had raised “with various leaders the issue of funding Palestinian and Israeli groups and nonprofit organizations that depict the Israel Defense Forces as war criminals, support Palestinian terrorism and call for boycotting the State of Israel.”
The Bundestag’s motion last month marked the first time a European parliament had officially defined the BDS movement as anti-Semitic. The motion, which is a call to the government and isn’t legally binding, won broad multiparty support from Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, the Social Democrats and the Free Democratic Party. Some members of the Greens Party also supported the motion, though others abstained at the last minute. The motion stated that the BDS movement’s “Don’t Buy” stickers on Israeli products evoke the Nazi slogan “Don’t buy from Jews.”
One wonders at the gutlessness of a German government that wasn’t capable of telling Netanyahu to take a running jump, preferably into a stretch of deep water.
 The Bundestag motion, passed with broad multiparty support last month, has drawn wide opposition, including from Jewish intellectuals
 Haaretz, 11 June 2019, Noa Landau
 The German government is examining whether to adopt a motion by its parliament that defines the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement as anti-Semitic and bans it from use of public buildings – and how such a decision would affect German funding to groups that support the movement.
 Haaretz has learned that Israel and various public diplomacy groups are pressuring Germany to adopt the motion, stirring strong disagreements among government ministries. Chancellor Angela Merkel’s bureau has yet to decide on an official position.
 German sources told Haaretz that the country’s Interior Ministry, led by the commissioner for battling anti-Semitism Felix Klein, generally supports the motion, while the Foreign Ministry opposes it. Foreign Ministry officials recently told journalists that they oppose a boycott of Israel, but that the BDS movement includes a broad spectrum of positions and each instance and organization must be examined individually to determine if it’s anti-Semitic.
 The Bundestag’s motion last month marked the first time a European parliament had officially defined the BDS movement as anti-Semitic. The motion, which is a call to the government and isn’t legally binding, won broad multiparty support from Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, the Social Democrats and the Free Democratic Party. Some members of the Greens Party also supported the motion, though others abstained at the last minute. The motion stated that the BDS movement’s “Don’t Buy” stickers on Israeli products evoke the Nazi slogan “Don’t buy from Jews.”
 Last week, 240 Jewish intellectuals published a petition against the Bundestag’s motion, saying “boycotts are a legitimate and nonviolent tool of resistance.” The signatories, among them Avraham Burg and Eva Illouz, called on the German government not to adopt the motion, to protect freedom of speech and continue funding of Israeli and Palestinian organizations “that peacefully challenge the Israeli occupation, expose severe violations of international law and strengthen civil society. These organizations defend the principles and values at the heart of liberal democracy and rule of law, in Germany and elsewhere. More than ever, they need financial support and political backing.”
The Jewish Museum in Berlin shared the petition on Twitter, generating an online backlash. Israeli Ambassador to Germany Jeremy Issacharoff called the museum’s sharing of the petition “shameful.”
 Last year, it was reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanded from Merkel that Germany stop funding the museum because it had held an exhibition about Jerusalem, “that presents a Muslim-Palestinian perspective.” Merkel was asked to halt funding to other organizations as well, on grounds that they were anti-Israel, among them the Berlin International Film Festival, pro-Palestinian Christian organizations, and the Israeli news website +972, which receives funding from the Heinrich Böll Foundation.
 Netanyahu did not deny the report and his bureau confirmed that he had raised “with various leaders the issue of funding Palestinian and Israeli groups and nonprofit organizations that depict the Israel Defense Forces as war criminals, support Palestinian terrorism and call for boycotting the State of Israel.”