Google+ Followers

Wednesday, 18 October 2017

The time has come to Organise to Stop the Witch-hunt - Meeting Saturday October 21st 12.00-3.00 p.m - Calthorpe Arms, Gray's Inn Rd, London

We should turn the witch hunt onto Labour's real racists - the Right and the Zionists




After their defeat and demoralisation at Labour Party Conference, it is clear that the Jewish Labour Movement, the Blairite right-wing together with Labour’s civil service under Iain McNicol and his familiar, Sam Matthews, are determined to once again use the stick of ‘anti-Semitism’ as a means of attacking the Left in the Party.

Labour’s Conference was not a happy affair for the JLM and their Chair Jeremy Newmark, as it was clear that the sympathies of most conference delegates weren’t with Israel’s military police state and the apartheid regime.  The wearing of Palestinian lanyards by so many delegates must have seemed like rubbing salt into their wounds.  If you believe that Palestinians (or Arabs) are inherently anti-Semitic then you cannot but interpret this as anti-Semitism.
Freedland has led the Guardian's repetitive campaign about Labour Party 'anti-semitism'
However the Right are also stupid.  Their targeting of Moshe Machover, who is both a distinguished academic as well as a well-known Israeli Marxist and dissident was stupid and has backfired.  It has made it very clear to people that it is anti-Zionism that is under attack, not anti-Semitism.  Yet again one of the main targets of the anti-Semitism witch hunt is Jewish!

Moshe has submitted a most excellent defence against the charges against him, which you can see here

Even the most stupid right-winger (Luke Akehurst) should understand that an ‘anti-Semitism’ that sees Jewish anti-racists as the main enemy isn’t anti-Semitism.  It is using the label of ‘anti-Semitism’ for opportunistic purposes.  It is anti-Zionism in disguise.
The article which led to Moshe's expulsion
We now have a situation where left-wing groups like Labour Party Marxists and Socialist Appeal are effectively being proscribed  whereas Progress and Labour First are untouched.  That is why demands have to be made on Jeremy Corbyn and McDonnell.  Both in previous years opposed the witch hunt of Militant and other left groups.  It is incumbent upon both of them to come out against McNicol’s McCarthyist regime.

If Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell fail to oppose the witch hunt of the Left in the Labour Party today they will buckle at the first hint of pressure from the City tomorrow.  That is why it is long overdue for Corbyn, McDonnell and Dianne Abbot to condemn what is happening in no uncertain terms.

No one except the most lunatic Zionist pretends that Moshe Machover is anti-Semitic.  Nothing he has said evinces hatred or hostility towards Jews.  What he has been accused of by McNicol’s pet poodle, Sam Matthews, is of having written an ‘apparently anti-Semitic article.’ And what was the offence?  Quoting Reinhard Heydrich, the Deputy Chief of the SS, as saying how much he supported the German Zionist movement.  This is a fact.  The full quote can be found in the book Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany by Francis Nicosia, the Raul Hilberg Professor of Holocaust Studies at Vermont University and himself a Zionist.
Zionism has never had any problems when it came to working with anti-Semites 
Telling the truth is anti-Semitic!  The Zionists say that we should not quote a Nazi.  In that case virtually every historian of the Nazi period is guilty!  So is the Israeli state which quoted Adolf Eichmann against himself at the 1961 trial.  The real question is why Heydrich and not just Heydrich is on record as praising Zionism in the period 1933-1939.  The answer is an uncomfortable one for the Zionists.

The Labour Right is being aided in its attacks by the Press, the Guardian in particular.  Jonathan Freedland, who I have already criticised in an Open Letter wrote, even by his abysmal standards, a poisonously dishonest article Labour’s denial of antisemitism in its ranks leaves the party in a dark place
Ken Loach was refused a right of reply when the Guardian's Jonathan Freedland suggested he was supportive of holocaust denial
It is time for us to fight back.  The Alliance for Workers Liberty have set up a Stop the Purge group, but this is a group which studiously avoids the small matter of those suspended or expelled because of the anti-Semitism witch hunt.  Indeed the AWL actually support the expulsion of Ken Livingstone and they were responsible for removing Jackie Walker from her position as Vice Chair of Momentum.  This is not surprising since the AWL subscribes to the nonsense notion of ‘left anti-Semitism’.

The proposal is to set up Labour Against the Witchhunt and there is an event page here.
Hope to see you on Saturday.

Tony Greenstein

Monday, 16 October 2017

How the Guardian became the flagship for the false ‘anti-Semitism’ Smear Campaign of Labour’s Zionist Right

Jonathan Freedland’s contemptible attack on Ken Loach and his refusal of a right of reply 
Corbyn criticises the 'subliminally nasty' Jonathan Freedland
Dear Jonathan,

For over 2 years, the Guardian has run a campaign whose aim has been to paint the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn as anti-Semitic. You have personally insinuated that Corbyn worked with a holocaust denier, as have other contributors.
Some of us would say that Labour has a Zionist problem
The Guardian’s hostility to Corbyn has surpassed even that of the tabloids. It is little wonder that in the past 8 years the Guardian’s sales have declined from over 400,000 to just over 150,000 today. It is no longer seen as a paper of the Left.

The Guardian used to be the only British paper to have an informed coverage of the Middle East. Correspondents such as Michael Adams and David Hirst were renowned the world over. Today their role has been filled by Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn at The Independent.

Ken Loach and Jeremy Corbyn - Even when Corbyn tries to appease the Zionists he has the problem of all those people on the Left that he worked with for forty years.
When Comment is Free was established 10 years ago under the late Georgina Henry, I was one of a number of contributors.  My first article for CIF was The seamy side of solidarity, a coruscating attack on the anti-Semitic Jazzman Gilad Atzmon.  It was a call for the Palestine solidarity movement to dissociate themselves from Atzmon and his supporters. 

My article began with the observation: ‘Like the boy who cried wolf, the charge of "anti-semitism" has been made so often against critics of Zionism and the Israeli state that people now have difficulty recognising the genuine article.’  That observation is particularly relevant since you have repeatedly made false allegations of anti-Semitism against people like Ken Loach. 

The Zionist lobby was not happy with Jewish anti-Zionists writing under the banner of The Guardian.  They therefore formed ‘CIF Watch’ In January 2002 in ‘A new anti-Semitism?’ the Guardian quoted Lord Greville Janner, a leading Zionist and a notorious child abuser, as saying that the Guardian was ‘viciously and notoriously anti-Israel’.

The Guardian succumbed to the pressure and I and others were banned from contributing. CIF Watch even changed its name to UK Media Watch because, as they boasted, their work was complete.

As a senior editor at the Guardian you led the anti-Corbyn campaign with your article Labour and the left have an antisemitism problem.  The strap line was:  Under Jeremy Corbyn the party has attracted many activists with views hostile to Jews.’  You provided not an iota of evidence to substantiate this. 
Alex Chalmers, Chair of Oxford University Labour Club, resigned because of the Club's support of Israel Apartheid Week.  It had nothing to do with 'anti-Semitism'
You cited Vicki Kirby’s quote that Jews have ‘big noses’ but failed to correct this when David Baddiel, the Jewish author of Infidels, pointed out that this was a direct quote from his play.  
You also cited the bogus allegations of anti-Semitism at Oxford University Labour Club by its Chair Alex Chalmers who resigned when the Labour Club decided to give its backing to Oxford’s Israel Apartheid Week.  It was later revealed that Chalmers had been a paid intern at Bicom, an Israeli propaganda organisation.

There have been numerous articles in The Guardian’s Comment or Opinion sections, on the false anti-Semitism theme.  Nothing contradicting this narrative has appeared.  Submissions from Professor Avi Shlaim, myself and others were rejected. Far from Comment being Free, when it comes to Zionism it has been tied down and silenced as surely as Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver.
The furore around Vicky Kirby's reference to Jews' 'big noses' was in fact based on a quote from a play by a Jewish author, David Baddiel
As you are well aware it is Zionism and anti-Semitism which go hand in hand. Have you forgotten the time when David Miliband attacked the Tories for their alliance with anti-Semites such as Michal Kaminski and Robert Zile in the European Parliament?  You even wrote an article Once no self-respecting politician would have gone near people such as Kaminski.  This of course was before the election of Jeremy Corbyn.

Kaminski fronted the Committee to Defend the Good Name of Jedwabne, a village in Poland that burnt alive up to 1,600 of its Jewish inhabitants in 1941.  Robert Zile distinguished himself by marching every March with veterans of Latvia’s Waffen SS in Riga.  

Prominent Zionists were ‘incandescent’ when the Board's Vivian Wineman raised the issue with David Cameron.  Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle wrote about how Poland's Kaminski is not an antisemite: he's a friend to Jews.
Trump's former anti-Semitic adviser, Steve Bannon, is invited as the guest of honour to Zionist Organisation of America's gala dinner  - he might be an anti-Semite but 'He's so pro-Israel!'

The alliance of Zionists with the anti-Semitic Right is a world wide phenomenon, with the Israeli government supporting the anti-Semitic attacks of Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban on George Soros. Soros’s offence being to help fund Israeli human rights groups. And there is the little matter of the invitation by the Zionist Organisation of America to Steve Bannon of Breitbart and the Alt-Right to speak to its annual gala dinner.

Despite this your most recent article Labour’s Denial of Antisemitism in its Ranks Leaves The Party in a Dark Place repeats the lie that there were ‘loud calls for the expulsion of Jewish groups at Labour Party Conference.  What there were was calls for the disaffiliation of the Jewish Labour Movement, a Zionist not Jewish group.  The JLM is the ‘sister party’ of the Israeli Labour Party, a party of segregation and ethnic cleansing.
Freedland's attack on Ken Loach - a right of reply was refused.
Your suggestion that Ken Loach was ‘echoing ... the language of Holocaust denial’ is contemptible.  Unlike you, Loach has spent a lifetime confronting and opposing racism and supporting the poor and dispossessed.  You have spent your career defending Apartheid when it comes in Jewish clothes.

You argued that Ken Loach, Len McCluskey and Ken Livingstone, not being Jewish, are unqualified to comment on anti-Semitism.  Racism is not subjective.  Non-Jews are perfectly capable of expressing an opinion. Many Jews in the Labour Party also deny your claims so it depends on which Jews you speak to or for.  You also compared Jews to Black, Women's and other oppressed groups.  Jews in Britain are not oppressed as Jews. 

Ironically it is anti-Zionist Jews who are the primary victims of the fake anti-Semitism witch hunt. Moshe Machover, Jackie Walker and myself have been suspended or expelled.  It is as if the Labour Party during the era of South African Apartheid had ostracised White South Africans opposed to Apartheid at the behest of Labour Friends of South Africa!

Jews have been the loudest critics of the attempt to equate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. To pretend that all Jews have one opinion, that they are homogenous, is not only fundamentally dishonest but also anti-Semitic.  I expect better of you Jonathan.  

People like Archbishop Desmond Tutu have described Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians as similar to what happened in South Africa.  Ha’aretz quotes him as saying that:

‘"I have witnessed the systemic humiliation of Palestinian men, women and children by members of the Israeli security forces... Their humiliation is familiar to all black South Africans who were corralled and harassed and insulted and assaulted by the security forces of the apartheid government."

You seem to find it difficult to accept that a Jewish settler colonial state is inherently racist.  You have made turning a blind eye to Israel’s crimes into an art form. How can a state which demolished in January a Bedouin village, Umm al-Hiran, in Israel’s Negev, in order to make way for an exclusively Jewish town be considered a normal democratic state?  Or why is it that a plurality, 48% of Israeli Jews want to see the expulsion of Israeli Arabs?

Your suggestion that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism is based on your argument that 93% of British Jews identify with Israel.  In fact just 59% identify as Zionists.  But even were you correct so what?  If a majority of Hindus supported Suttee would it be racist to oppose it?  Jews who support Israel are identifying with the world’s only apartheid state.  That is wrong whoever they are.
Ken Loach is forced to reply to Freedland on the site of Jewish Voice for Labour as Freedland and the Guardian refuse a right of reply
What I really find remarkable is that having launched an abusive and dishonest attack on Ken Loach you didn’t even have the courage to print his reply, Comment is Free - Guardian’s One-Eyed View of Labour Politics Ignores the Palestinians.  That really is cowardly. 

Ken Loach is a living legend.  His films have borne eloquent testimony to the evils of racism and imperialism, as well as being a devastating indictment of the way the poor and dispossessed are treated – from Cathy Come Home to I Daniel Blake.  What will you leave to the world other than a few instantly forgettable tirades against anti-Zionists plus a few thrillers?

You are living proof Jonathan that even the most ‘liberal’ of Zionists ends up in Netanyahu’s choir singing the same songs of ‘anti-Semitism’.  As Israeli society moves further and further to the racist Right you find it impossible to change the tune.


Of one thing I am certain. If Jews in Britain experienced even a tenth of what Palestinians in Israel had to put up with then your references to anti-Semitism would carry some weight.

There is only one thing I don't understand.  When Jeremy Corbyn accused you of “utterly disgusting subliminal nastiness” why he thought it was subliminal?  It seems all too clear.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Greenstein

Ken Loach’s Reply to Jonathan Freedland that the Guardian refused to print
Ken Loach, 5 October 2017

On 27th September 2017 the Guardian published an article by Jonathan Freedland called Labour’s denial of antisemitism in its ranks leaves the party in a dark place. Ken Loach wrote a response for Comment is Free beginning “The taint of antisemitism is toxic. Yet, with hints and innuendos, your columnist, Jonathan Freedland, tries to link me, Len McCluskey and Ken Livingstone to Labour’s ‘dark place’, for which it seems we are in part responsible. This is cynical journalism.”

The Guardian has refused to carry Loach’s article. We are pleased to do so here.

The taint of antisemitism is toxic. Yet, with hints and innuendos, your columnist, Jonathan Freedland, tries to link me, Len McCluskey and Ken Livingstone to Labour’s ‘dark place’, for which it seems we are in part responsible. This is cynical journalism.

What is his evidence? Len and I were welcomed at the packed first meeting of ‘Jewish Voice for Labour’. Strangely, Freedland ignored this progressive new group, which has published its own response to his attacks on us. The founding document says: ‘we stand for rights and justice for Jewish people everywhere and against wrongs and injustices to Palestinians and other oppressed people anywhere’. We support that.

But Freedland disputes our right to contribute. We are ‘not Jewish – a fact that might limit their authority to speak on the matter’. The matter in question is antisemitism in the Labour Party.
Many Jewish comrades say that they know the Labour Party to be a welcoming environment and have not experienced hostility as Jews. This chimes with my fifty years of involvement with the labour movement. But, for Freedland, this is a discussion to which only one group – Jews who share his political perspective – can contribute. It is exclusive – no place for solidarity or collective support. This goes against all traditions of the left where we stand alongside each other to oppose injustice.
People join left organisations to fight racism and fascism, intolerance and colonial oppression. Throughout history, it is the left that has led this fight. Racism including antisemitism is real enough and will emerge in all political parties. The Jewish Socialists’ Group (JSG) acknowledges this in relation to allegations about the Labour Party: ‘a very small number of cases seem to be real instances of antisemitism’. I trust their judgement.

This present campaign about antisemitism surfaced when Jeremy Corbyn became leader and drew on a number of cases that pre-dated his leadership. It has been led by his political opponents inside and outside the Labour Party, seeming in part to be aimed at undermining Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters and therefore his leadership. JSG wrote ‘accusations of antisemitism are being weaponised to attack the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party’.

Corbyn has always opposed racism and defended human rights wherever they have been attacked, which includes the plight of the Palestinians. This will alarm apologists for Israeli occupation and expansion. Further, he stands on a socialist programme which has disturbed the right of the party.
There is a further, more serious allegation, that I gave ‘spurious legitimacy’ to Holocaust denial. In a BBC interview I was asked about a speech I had not heard and of which I knew nothing. My reply has been twisted to suggest that I think it is acceptable to question the reality of the Holocaust. I do not. The Holocaust is as real a historical event as the World War itself and not to be challenged. In Primo Levi’s words: ‘Those who deny Auschwitz would be ready to remake it.’ The first terrible pictures I saw as a nine-year old are ingrained on my memory as they are for all my generation.
Like readers of this paper, I know the history of Holocaust denial, its place in far right politics and the role of people like David Irving. To imply that I would have anything in common with them is contemptible. The consequences of such a smear are obvious to all: let the poison escape and it will be picked up on social media and reputations may be tarnished for ever. A brief phone call would have clarified my position.

One thing Freedland has got right – the ages of Len McCluskey, Ken Livingstone and me (he wittily makes a rhyme of our names). Freedland is happy to embrace one prejudice – ageism.

Exaggerated or false claims of antisemitism can create a climate of fear in which legitimate discussion about the state of Israel and its actions are stifled. Antisemitism and debate about Israel should be separate issues. Once again it is the Palestinians who are marginalised or ignored. Freedland writes frequently about Israel, yet his concern for the Palestinians takes second place. So while we are clarifying our position, could he make clear whether, for example, he accepts:
  • that land stolen from the Palestinians should be returned to them and all illegal settlements removed, as UN Resolutions demand.
  • that Israel is breaking the Fourth Geneva Convention by transporting Palestinian children to Israeli prisons without access to lawyers or their families.
  • and that the deliberate destruction of civilian life, hospitals and medical facilities in Gaza during Operation Protective Edge were war crimes.
And will he endorse the distinguished Israeli historian Ilan Pappe when he writes about the founding of Israel: ‘The ethnic cleansing of Palestine (is) a crime against humanity that Israel has wanted to deny and cause the world to forget’?

So many questions, so many injustices. Labour has much to do in developing an ethical foreign policy and social and economic justice at home. It now has principled leaders and a growing, enthusiastic membership. Let the party not throw away this great opportunity. We have a world to win.

Saturday, 14 October 2017

Burma - Once Again Israel Extends the Hand of Friendship to a Genocidal Regime

Israel's lessons from the Holocaust - Never miss an opportunity to sell arms - the nastier the regime the more profitable it is!



Once again Israel is up to its neck in supplying weaponry to a state engaged in genocide.  One might have thought that Israel, since it claims its legitimacy from the Holocaust might conclude that it is wrong to supply a barbaric and genocidal regime with weaponry.  However that would be to have illusions in the ‘Jewish’ state.  The only lesson Israel draws from the Holocaust is that Jews too should have the right to engage in genocide.

If Israel could trade arms with the Argentinian Junta from 1976-1983, which was busily murdering and torturing Argentinian Jews, then it is unlikely that the murder of the Rohinga people, who are after all Muslims, is going to weight on Netanyahu’s conscience.
Israeli President Reuven Rivlin greets the Head of Burma's genocidal junta
Activists in Israel took the issue of Israel's arm sales to the High Court.  Not only did the court rule in favour of Israel's right to sell arms to any Nazi-like regime it wanted to but it tried to keep its verdict secret by issuing what is called a 'gag order'.  Israel, despite being  the 'only democracy in the Middle East' has comprehensive censorship.

Below is an article from Haaretz.

Tony Greenstein


Sending weapons to a government that’s guilty of genocide is very similar to sending weapons to Germany during the Holocaust

Yair Auron Oct 02, 2017 11:10 AM


Israeli President Reuven Rivlin and Myanmar's Commander-in-Chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing meeting in Jerusalem, September 10, 2017. Senior General Min Aung Hlaing's Facebook
This is the independent Israeli High Court in action

 The State of Israel is sending weapons to a country that’s carrying out ethnic cleansing. Once one couldn’t even imagine such a thing, but then it turned out that during the 1990s the Rabin-Peres-Meretz government was selling weapons to the genocidal governments of Rwanda and Serbia.

To send weapons to a government that’s guilty of genocide is very similar to (excuse the comparison) sending weapons to Nazi Germany during the Holocaust. Our leaders nevertheless did this knowingly and desecrated the memory of the Holocaust in the process. It’s important to stress that they turned both you and me into criminals, into accessories to a crime and to abettors of genocide.

In Myanmar there is now a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing” going on, as per the United Nations. Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman can equivocate and lie, but the bitter reality is sad. Israel is the only democratic country, at least according to press reports, that is still sending weapons to Myanmar. European and North American countries have stopped doing so, even though there is no official embargo.

Eitay Mack, who has for years been leading the struggle against the criminal weapons exports by Israel – not private weapons merchants, but the State of Israel – to dubious regimes, petitioned the High Court of Justice to stop the defense exports to Myanmar. His petition was rejected and in an unprecedented move there was a gag order imposed on the full ruling, even though the case was handled in open court.

I had the privilege of submitting petitions with Mack against the sales of weapons by Israel to the murderous regime in Serbia, which conducted ethnic cleansing campaigns in the early 1990s, and at least one massacre in Srebrenica in Bosnia, and another petition against the weapons deliveries to the Hutu government in Rwanda, which conducted the fastest genocide in human history.

There’s a connection between the rejection of our petitions back then and the current reality. The petitions then were submitted after the fact, regarding crimes that had already been committed. The current petition and struggle is about the present. Today there are children and elderly people being murdered and women raped in Myanmar. There will almost certainly be more tomorrow.

We told the “leftist” High Court that exposing documents under the Freedom of Information Law could signal to the Israeli government that there are limits and restrictions on the sale of weapons to murderous regimes. The petition was rejected on grounds that it would undermine state security and the state’s security exports. But the success of the current struggle can save lives.

I’ve learned one thing from dealing with the Holocaust and genocide, and that’s the sacred value of human life and the equal value of human life, because we are all human beings created in God’s image. When we remember this basic fact, a lot of things become simple.

Prof. Auron is a genocide researcher who works to get the genocides of other peoples recognized.

Yair Auron


How Manchester University Prostitutes Itself in the Service of Imperial War Criminal Arthur James Balfour

Manchester University censored Holocaust survivor Marika Sherwood but allows the celebration of ethnic cleansing


Manchester University censored the title of the talk by Holocaust survivor Marika Sherwood and limited access to students only
I’ve just written to Nancy Rothwell, the Vice-Chancellor and President of Manchester University to complain of an Israeli government and Zionist event being hosted to commemorate the Balfour Declaration.  Arthur James Balfour, on November 2nd 1917 wrote a letter to Lord Walter Rothschild, promising his best endeavours in setting up a Zionist settler colony in Palestine as a precursor to the Apartheid state that exists there today.

Of course Balfour didn’t quite word it like that.  He spoke of a ‘Jewish national home’ and not prejudicing the ‘civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.’  Which was a curious way to describe over 90% of the population of Palestine.  The Declaration also tried to allay the fears of Jews by promising that it wouldn’t prejudice the rights and political status of Jews in other countries.  Note that it didn’t promise not to prejudice the political rights of the Palestinians.
The Balfour Declaration promised the land of the Palestinians to the Zionists
We can see what Balfour really intended from a letter to his successor as Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon in 1919.
‘in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country…. Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land………. In short, so far as Palestine is concerned, the Powers have made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy which, at least in the letter, they have not always intended to violate.

Not for nothing was Britain known as Perfidious Albion.
Manchester University distinguished itself earlier in the year, during Israeli Apartheid week by censoring the title of a talk given by Marika Sherwood, a survivor of the Budapest Ghetto set up in November 1944 during the reign of the pro-Nazi Nyilas/Iron Cross.  Housing some 60,000 Jews its inhabitants were lucky not to have been massacred by the fascists before being rescued by the Soviet invasion of Hungary.

Because the University of Manchester was forced, against its will, by the Information Commissioner to disclose the correspondence it had, we now know that this craven act was carried out at the behest of the Israeli Embassy.  The same Israeli Embassy that is now hosting this event.  What is it about academic institutions that they can’t, when approached by the representatives of Israel’s Apartheid regime, simply say ‘fuck off’ to them.  It is as if Nancy Rothwell and her colleagues lack anything so much resembling a backbone.  The Corporate University of today is nothing more than the transmitter of the dictates of the government of the day. 

Manchester University explains why it is commemorating a war criminal - we're only in it for the money

The title of Marika Sherwood’s talk was forbidden because it infringed the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism.  This definition, which is not legally binding but is the policy of Theresa May’s Tory government, has one aim only – to conflate criticism of Israel and Zionism with anti-Semitism.  It has no other purpose.  Anti-Semitism is extremely easy to define.  It is hostility to or hatred of Jews.  It doesn’t need the 420+ words of the IHRA definition. 

Below is my open letter to Ms Rothwell.

Tony Greenstein
Marika Sherwood - survivor of the Budapest Ghetto

Letter to Vice-Chancellor of Manchester University


PO Box 173
Brighton
BN51 9EZ
Friday 13th October 2017 

Nancy Rothwell,
University of Manchester

Dear Ms Rothwell,

I understand that Manchester University is proposing to host an event on October 31st celebrating the Balfour Declaration of 2nd November 1917.  This event is organised by the Israeli Embassy and the Zionist Federation.  In response to other complainants you wrote:

‘As you may be aware, the University allows some of its premises to be hired by third parties for external events, provided that the events in question comply with the University’s Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech.’

This is disingenuous.  You are responsible for events held on your premises.  What you are celebrating is the decision, by the British Empire to donate the land of the Palestinians to a third party, the Zionist settler colonial movement.  The British Empire has committed enough crimes without you being host to those who glory in them for the sake of petty profit.

You recently censored a talk by Marika Sherwood, a Holocaust survivor.  You refused to allow the meeting to go ahead until the title of the meeting: ‘You’re doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to me’ was changed.  You also insisted that attendance was limited to university students and staff only.  Your decision to change the title of this talk, especially since the speaker was a Holocaust survivor, was outrageous by any measure.

This was only revealed when you were forced to disclose what you did by the Information Commissioner. As the Guardian reported, the Israeli Embassy pressured Manchester University into taking these steps. Your assertion of free speech when it comes to an event celebrating a 100 years of ethnic cleansing is therefore both hypocritical and untrue.  It would seem that Manchester University has a sweet heart relationship with the Israeli Embassy.

If a German university were to celebrate the anniversary of Kristallnacht or an Australian university were to celebrate the extermination of the Aboriginal peoples it would be no different morally to what you are doing.  If you allow this event to go ahead you will be seen to be identified with the Apartheid regime in Tel Aviv and a century of Zionist crimes.

Far from allowing a celebration of the Balfour Declaration Manchester University should be hanging its head in shame.  It was at your institution that Chaim Weizmann, the real author of the Balfour Declaration and President of the Zionist Organisation, taught.  What you and similar academic institutions should be examining is your complicity in the crimes of British imperialism from the slave trade to the free market induced famines in Bengal.

Arthur James Balfour, as Chief Secretary to Ireland, was known as Bloody Balfour on account of the Police murder in 1882 of three demonstrators in the Mitchelstown Massacre in Ireland.  Your refusal to cancel this event, because you will make money from the hire of a hall, demonstrates the lack of any ethics behind the academic ethos of Manchester University. 

Two years after the Declaration, Balfour wrote to Lord Curzon, his successor explaining that:
‘in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country…. Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land………. In short, so far as Palestine is concerned, the Powers have made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy which, at least in the letter, they have not always intended to violate.

It is noteworthy that the only member of the Lloyd George Cabinet who opposed the Balfour Declaration was its only Jewish member, Sir Edwin Montagu, who wrote a paper criticising his fellow Cabinet members for anti-Semitism.

As Prime Minister Balfour also introduced the 1905 Aliens Act aimed at preventing the immigration of Jewish refugees fleeing from the pogroms in Czarist Russia.  He was not only a reactionary Tory politician but like many anti-Semites, he disliked Jews but loved Zionism. 

As someone who is Jewish I would urge you, even at this late hour, to put principle before profit and cancel this glorification of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

Yours sincerely,


Tony Greenstein 

Friday, 13 October 2017

A Glimpse at the Banality of Israelis Everyday Genocidal Racism

A Random Group of Israelis Talk Openly to Abby Martin About Their Racism
Pew Research Centre survey of the attitude of Israel's Jews to Israel's Arabs



This is a fascinating video of an interview by Abby Martin of a random group of Israelis in Jerusalem’s Zion Square.  ‘Who is the enemy’ she asks them, what do they think of the situation.  Sometimes they hide behind euphemisms.  

It gives the lie to the idea that Israel is just another western democracy stuck onto Asia minor.  The level of racism demonstrated in this random sample of young Israelis would not have been out of place in Nazi Germany.  It is clear that Israel is a deeply sick and racist society and those in Britain and the USA who try to pretend otherwise are parties to Israel's war crimes.

One American girl says it’s not any specific nation but people who are interested in being ‘politically correct.’  An Israeli who follows her is more precise:  ‘Islam is a very bad disease’   He says ‘We have to kick them away, it will be much better’ though not for those who are kicked away!  He clarifies ‘not to kill them, just to go back to Arab countries.’  Which was in fact the programme of the Nazi party – expulsion not extermination.


I think we have the right to hate them

Islam is a very bad disease
Another boy from the fascist Lehava group says that ‘Jews must not marry Arabs’ because Jews are a ‘special nation’.  Now where have we heard that before?  Umm circa 1935?  A certain central European country?

An Orthodox young Jew doesn’t beat around the bush:  ‘May their name and memory be obliterated’ a traditional curse which means, let’s kill them all like the Amalekites.  Two girls laugh and giggle about killing Arabs and a more serious, intellectual type talks about Jews having ‘the right to hate them.  I wouldn’t trust any of them.’ 

Jews shouldn't marry Arabs
It might be worth casting our minds back to a Report brought out last year by the Pew Research Centre entitled Israel’s Religiously Divided Society.  In this Report we learnt that a plurality of Israelis, some 48% supported the physical expulsion of Israel’s own Arab citizens as compared to 46% who were opposed.  We aren’t even talking of Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza but the supposedly equal citizens of Israel that the Labour Right and Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian lie about.
struggling to find the right word for expelling the Arabs

It was said by Daniel Goldhagen, a junk Zionist historian, that the Germans were an 'eliminationist' people - what would he want to say about ordinary Israeli Jews?

what is so shocking about these 2 girls is how normal they actually are - just ordinary teenagers who find the idea of 'killing Arabs' something that is funny and amusing
One religious gentleman summed up the Zionist lesson – god punished the Jews by first sending the Nazis and now he sends the Palestinians.  In other words the Palestinians are simply the new Nazis.   Another girl who is convinced that history provides the title deeds to the land to the Jews is convinced that the land was barren before the Jews came here, despite eye witness testimony at the time to the contrary.  We see here how history is written backwards, from present day racist assumptions.  Another boy tells us that it wasn’t the Romans or Persians who kicked the Jews out, in fact they were Hebrew tribes not Jews, but the Arabs.  Which sits uneasily with the fact that the Arab invasion of Palestine was in the 7th century whereas the expulsion of Jews was supposed to be 2000 years ago (which it wasn’t!).
there's no answer but 2 carpet bomb them
This is the real Israel, not the pretend Israel that Israel’s apologists would have people believe.  The racism you see here is a product of a Jewish settler colonial society.

Tony Greenstein