Google+ Followers

Monday, 20 February 2017

Anti-Semitism and the Alt-Right - Why Zionists have nothing to say about Trump’s Anti-Semitism

Suzanne Schneider is wrong to say that only right-wing Zionists allied with anti-Semites –Labour Zionism was equally guilty
Steve Bannon - Trump's anti-Semitic advisor
It is a strange thing.  Zionists are usually brilliant at spotting ‘anti-Semitism’ even when it doesn’t exist.  They have been calling Jackie Walker an anti-Semite for months on the basis of omitting one word ‘among’ in a private conversation, i.e. ‘Jews were among the chief financiers of slavery’.  None is better at this than the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism which can even spot anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial in the words of Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion, (when wrongly attributing them to Jackie Walker).

But when it comes to the open anti-Semitism and White supremacism of Trump and his alt-Right supporters, then there isn’t a peep.  Not a squeak.  Like the 3 wise monkeys, they have become blind, deaf and dumb.  When it came to Trump’s Holocaust Memorial Day statement on the Holocaust, which managed to omit Jews altogether, [White House Blocked Holocaust Statement that Explicitly Mentioned Jews ] which in the words of alt-Right leader Richard Spencer ‘deJudified the Holocaust’ the Zionists were silent.  [White Nationalist Leader Praises Trump For 'De-Judification' Of The Holocaust

These are difficult days for America’s Jews, historically the most liberal section of America’s White population.  Despite their support for Israel they don’t want to live there.  Why swap a highly comfortable life in America for the hot house atmosphere of Israel, with a political atmosphere of endemic racism and war? 

Many of America’s Jews aren’t even properly Jewish in Israel.  Those who have been converted according to the Conservative or Reform branches of Judaism in America won’t even have those conversions recognised in Israel.  They are Gentiles.  Non-Jews.
Bannon's Breitbart makes defence of the Confederate flag of the southern slave states the symbol of its fight against 'cultural genocide'
Despite the Zionist belief that anti-Semitism everywhere was eternal and could not be fought, America has, like most of Europe, proven that anti-Semitism was not inherent amongst non-Jews. 
Donald Trump has been elected with the support of the White Supremacist Right.  He has put into the White House as his closest political advisor, Steve Bannon, former CEO of Breitbart News.  

Breitbart, combines being ardently pro-Zionist with anti-Semitism.  Bannon is a White Nationalist.    [Here's Why It's Fair—and Necessary—to Call Trump's Chief Strategist a White Nationalist Champion]  White Nationalism is just a nice way of saying White Supremacism.  Breitbart openly support the call for the display of the Confederate flag of the old slave states of the American south.  Hoist it high and proud:  the Confederate flag proclaims a glorious heritage and opposition to the ‘glorious heritage’ of slavery and lynching is nothing less than  cultural genocide.
Milo Yiannopoulos -  the gay anti-Semite who is a senior editor at Breitbart
Breitbart is the home of the Alt-Right whose luminaries include Richard Spencer, whose main claim to fame was the ‘Heil Trump’ gathering.  Its senior editor Milo Yiannopoulos, is openly anti-Semitic.  He has no problem saying that Jews control the media and own all the banks.  The Alt-Right is based on the idea of racial and ethnic nationalism.  That is why they support Zionism – which they see, not wrongly, as Jewish ethnic nationalism.

The Zionist movement and Israel has welcomed the ascent of Trump.  Not only Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli’s government, but the Israeli Labour Party and its leader Isaac Herzog have also welcomed Trump to power. [see Israeli Labour Party Leader Isaac Herzog Extends a Warm Welcome to Donald Trump].  It is noteworthy that the Jewish Labour Movement, which is always eager to accuse anti-racists like Jackie Walker of ‘anti-Semitism’ was remarkably shy in condemning the leader of its ‘sister’ party for welcoming Trump.
part of the feminist opposition to 
In the United States itself, the Zionist Organisation of America invited Bannon to its annual Gala dinner in New York.  Owing to a large left-wing Jewish demonstration outside, a demonstration led by Jewish anti-Zionists, Bannon decided not to risk accepting the invitation.  The ZOA’s President Mort Klein was quoted as saying that ‘“I think Bannon was grateful that I defended him against this ludicrous charge of anti-Semitism,”  and not suprisingly because Klein's argument, a favourite of Zionism, is in his own words Bannon and Breitbart: Friends of Israel, not anti-Semites

Of course if your definition of anti-Semitism is support for Israel then Klein is right.  If anti-Semitism includes a belief in racial separation, that Jews belong with their own kind in their own state then Klein is wrong and Bannon and Breitbart are anti-Semitic.   But Adolf Eichmann too described himself as ardently pro-Zionist.  Indeed nearly all anti-Semites were known for their support for Zionism because it was through a Jewish state that the 'Jewish Question' could be solved.

Where the article below goes wrong is in its suggestion that it was only right-wing Zionists who allied with or supported anti-Semites.  On the contrary these alliances were equally the product of labour Zionism.
Richard Spencer of  the alt-Right's 'heil Trump' speech
It was Labour Zionism which entered into an economic alliance with Nazi Germany, Ha'avara in August 1933, thus breaking the Jewish boycott of Nazi Germany.  It was the Revisionist Zionists under Jabotinsky who opposed them.  It was the Labour Zionist/Haganah agent Feivel Polkes who offered to spy for the Gestapo in return for arms shipments.

It was the Labour Zionist Rudolph Kasztner who reached an agreement, helping to round up Hungarian Jews for the deportation trains in Hungary in exchange for a train out of Hungary with the Zionist elite on board.

The World Zionist Congresses between 1933 and 1939 which failed to unequivocally condemn either Hitler or the Nazis were controlled by the Labour Zionists.  The Revisionists abandoned the WZO after 1933. 

Both wings of Zionism accepted that anti-Semitism was inherent in non-Jewish society.  That the only answer to it was to flee and build a society based on the same principles of race they had escaped from. Their reasoning was that Jews had indeed adopted the anti-social qualities that the non-Jews ascribed to them  They based this reasoning on the fact that they had become estranged from their ‘homeland’ Palestine and that it was only by reuniting Jews with their roots that they could become normalised.  In Zionist jargon this was the ‘Negation of the Diaspora’.

Pinhas Rosenbluth, who later became a Minister of Justice in the first Israeli Labor Government , observed, Palestine was "an institute for the fumigation of Jewish vermin.". [Journal of Israeli History, 8]  The journal of Hashomer Hatzair, the ‘left-wing’ of the Zionist movement, which later formed Mapam in Israel, observed that ‘The Jew is a caricature of a normal, natural human being, both physically and spiritually. As an individual in society he revolts and throws off the harness of social obligation, knows no order nor discipline.’ [Our Shomer, ‘Welstanschaung’ Hashomer Hatzair, December 1936, p.12] cited in Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, pp 22/23].

What American and other Jews are learning is that Zionist groups like the Jewish Labour Movement and Labour Friends of Israel are only interested in ‘anti-Semitism’ if it means opposition to the State of Israel.  Anti-Semitism which is merely about Jew hatred is not their concern.  After all without the push of anti-Semitism there would have been no anti-Semitism.  Or as Herzl remarked ‘‘Anti-Semitism, too, probably contains the Divine will to Good, because it forces us to close ranks, unites us through pressure, and through our unity will make us free. [Diaries p.231]

 Tony Greenstein

Between the congressional hearing for David Friedman, the visit of Benjamin Netanyahu, and President Trump’s refusal to address the rising tide of anti-Semitism, it’s been a tense time within the American Jewish community. For those on the right, Trump’s abandonment of the two-state solution, much like Friedman’s nomination, comes as an assurance that the new administration will firmly commit itself to an expansionist form of Zionism. And along with the presence of Jared Kushner within the President’s inner circle, keeping Friedman and Bibi in the wings is taken by many as a signal that Trump is not really an anti-Semite, despite surrounding himself with figures of questionable persuasion. According to this logic, the strong commitment by Trump and Steve Bannon to Israel undermines any suggestion that they harbor antipathy toward Jews. Yet, for many centrists and liberals, the idea of Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon working together causes endless confusion: How could the descendent of Holocaust survivors find common cause with the ideological leader of the alt-right?

The answer may lie in the history of the Zionist movement, a history which demonstrates that there is no inherent contradiction between Zionism and anti-Semitism. The two ideologies have in fact often worked in concert to achieve their shared goal: concentrating Jews in one place (so as to better avoid them in others). Even before the modern Zionist movement arose in the late 19th century, Christian philosophers and statesmen debated what to do with the “oriental” mass of Jewry in their midst. As the scholar Jonathan Hess of the University of North Carolina has noted, one “solution” popular among Enlightenment figures who harbored anti-Semitic feelings was to deport Jews to a colonial setting where they could be reformed. Johann Gottlieb Fichte, among the founders of German Idealism, noted in 1793 that the most effective protection Europeans could mount against the Jewish menace was to “conquer the holy land for them and send them all there.”

Indeed, Zionism crystallized as a political movement among European Jews explicitly to solve the problem of political anti-Semitism. For Zionist pioneers like Leo Pinsker and Theodor Herzl, anti-Semitism was an inevitable phenomenon that would occur at any time and place where Jews were a sizable minority. Normal relations with other nations could only be established by moving Jews to a place where they were a majority. Thus rather than pushing contemporary states and societies to devise new ways of accommodating difference, Zionist thinkers of Herzl’s generation ascribed to the logic that the Jewish “problem” could only be settled by removing Jews from European states.
The idea that Jews belong not in their actual place of residence and origin, but in the Holy Land, was of course not a position that all Zionists ascribed to, either then or now. Yet it is not hard to see the very problematic logic that links such assertions to the sort of blood-and-soil nationalism that led to the destruction of European Jewish life. Nazism of course grew out of this context and insisted that Jews could never really be German. The Nazis, however, took this conclusion to a radically new place: it was ultimately extermination, rather than resettlement, that drove the Nazi position.

Though the scope of destruction was not yet known in the 1930’s and early 1940’s, many nevertheless find it astounding that there were attempts by right-wing Zionists during these years to establish ties with Nazi Germany. Numerous scholars have noted the fascist sympathies of certain members of the Revisionist Zionist camp, who bitterly feuded with mainstream Zionists and denounced them as Bolsheviks. The antipathy was apparently mutual, as David Ben-Gurion in 1933 published a work that described Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the founder of the Revisionist movement, as treading in the footsteps of Hitler. The Zionist Right’s flirtation with fascism reached its tragic peak in 1941 when Lehi, Avraham Stern’s paramilitary splinter group, approached Otto Von Hentig, a German diplomat, to propose cooperation between the nationally rooted Hebraic movement in Palestine and the German state. Nazi Germany declined his generous offer, having stumbled across quite a different “solution” to the question of Jewish existence.

It has been with this history in mind that I approach contemporary debates about Donald Trump’s presidency and the alliance it fosters between members of the white nationalist “alt-right” on one hand, and a certain segment of American Jews, on the other. The argument that the latter should work with the former because they all share a commitment to “Greater Israel” belies the fact that not all allies, or alliances, are created equal. When Richard Spencer voices his admiration of Zionism (because, in his understanding, the movement stands first and foremost for racial homogeneity), we should realize that this is not incidental to his suggestion that America might be better off with a peaceful ethnic cleansing of those population segments that are not of white, European descent. Do American Jews really believe that they will pass muster within such a state? And are the swastikas and other acts of intimidation that have been so abundant since Trump’s victory really just peaceful incentives to realize that our true home is in a land far, far away?

The answer must be a resounding “no.”

Jewish life flourishes in pluralistic societies within which difference is not a “problem” to be resolved, but a fact to be celebrated. The alliance of right-wing Zionists and the alt-right should not be viewed as an abnormality, but the meeting of quite compatible outlooks that assert — each in their own way—that the world will only be secure once we all retreat to our various plots of ancestral land. Nationalist thinking of this sort wrought more than its fair share of damage during the twentieth century. Let’s not enact a repeat performance in the twenty-first.

Suzanne Schneider is a historian of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Zionist movement, and a director and core faculty member at the Brooklyn Institute for Social Research.

Sunday, 19 February 2017

Netanyahu's Corruption is the other side of Israel's racism and brutality

Fraud and Corruption - A Tradition Amongst Israel's Leadership

Arnon Milchan, left, and Benjamin Netanyahu on March 28, 2005. (Flash90)
It would seem that Netanyahu is on record as having agreed favours to a business in return for political support.  He has also admitted receiving hundreds of thousands of shekels in cigars and other luxuries.  His wife Sarah drank the finest champagnes courtesy of 'friends'.  Why is this of no surprise.  Israel’s previous Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is currently in prison for bribery and corruption and ex-President Moshe Katsav has just come out of prison, not for corruption but rape and sexual assault. The Present Interior Minister Aryeh Deri of Shas served three years in prison for corruption when he was previously a Minister.  

The extreme corruption of Israel’s political layers is just the other side of the coin from their racism and brutality.

However, despite the Police investigations it is possible that with the help of his friend Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, that he will yet avoid prosecution.

Tony Greenstein

Taking gifts from ‘sugar daddy’ is corruption, ex-Labor leader says of Netanyahu

Opposition politicians criticize PM’s conduct as police probe his receipt of costly cigars, other alleged favors, from Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan

By Times of Israel staff January 7, 2017,

Zionist Union MK Shelly Yachimovich criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Saturday for taking gifts from a “sugar daddy,” after police questioned the Israeli leader for allegedly accepting expensive cigars for years from Hollywood producer and businessman Arnon Milchan, as well as more goods from a second businessman.

“The prime minister had a sugar daddy for expensive products; that is the definition of corruption,” 

Yachimovich, a former leader of the Labor party, said at an event in Tel Aviv, according to Israel Radio.
At a different event Saturday in Modi’in, fellow Zionist Union MK Tzipi Livni lashed out at Netanyahu as well, saying bitterly that an Israeli prime minister must decide “whether he wants to be a prime minister or an oligarch.”

Instead of concentrating on what he can give to the public, Netanyahu evidently focuses on what the public can give to him, she charged. Netanyahu “has lost the moral right to be prime minister,” Livni said.

Meretz head MK Zehava Galon joined in, asserting that the initial details of the investigation should cause serious concern for Israelis.
Hatnua’s Tzipi Livni shakes hands with Labor Party leader Shelly Yachimovich in November 2012 (photo credit: Yossi Zeliger/Flash90)
“Getting a monthly allowance amounting to hundreds of thousands of shekels over the years from Arnon Milchan is not a gift among friends, it’s a disturbing package deal,” Galon said.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his wife Sara (C) and their son Yair seen with actress Kate Hudson at an event held at the home of producer Arnon Milchan (right), March 6, 2014. (Avi Ohayon/GPO/Flash90)
Netanyahu was questioned by police under caution on Thursday evening for five hours — the second such session in four days — as the corruption investigation against him gathered pace. Among the issues reportedly discussed was his alleged acceptance of cigars worth hundreds of thousands of shekels from Milchan, and his wife Sara’s acceptance of pink champagne worth hundreds of shekels a bottle.

Police were also investigating a second case involving Netanyahu, though details surrounding the probe have not yet been released to the public. A source told Channel 2 news that this case, reportedly known as Case 2,000, would cause “a public storm” and “public anger” but would not necessarily lead to an indictment. It involved an Israeli businessman, the source said, who had sought to provide benefits to the Israeli leader in return for receiving certain perks.

Attorney Yaakov Weinroth on Channel 2’s “Meet the Press,” November 26, 2016. (screen capture)
Channel 10 reported a similar sentiment from investigative officials, with the broadcaster’s reporters being told the case was “juicy” and publicly harmful, but was complex and not straightforward as far as the law was concerned.

Channel 10 said the businessman was a “central” Israeli figure who wanted Netanyahu to “take a certain decision,” and would reward him in turn, and that it was not clear whether Netanyahu had taken the decision.

TV reports Friday night said that more witnesses will be questioned in the next few days, and then a decision will be made on whether to question Netanyahu a third time.

Netanyahu’s lawyer on Friday dismissed the seriousness of the Milchan probe. Yaakov Weinroth rejected the notion that there was anything criminal in the prime minister’s actions and said he had nothing to fear from the second case either. Weinroth, who consulted with his client at the end of Thursday’s questioning, said “there is nothing to the allegations” as regards Milchan’s gifts. “Any reasonable person knows that there is nothing remotely criminal involved when a close friend gives his friend a gift of cigars.”

As for the second case, Weinroth said that he has heard Netanyahu’s answers and “I was and I remain calm… We’re not talking about money, we’re not talking about loans, we’re not talking about anything that constitutes a crime.” It will become clear to all, he added, that there is “no suspicion, no trace, of a criminal offense in all of this.”

Police have said a second, unnamed suspect has also been interrogated in recent days. Some reports indicated this second individual was Milchan.

Police said they could not provide further details on the second corruption case due to concerns about possible obstructions of justice. They did not elaborate. Haaretz said police investigators warned Netanyahu on Thursday not to discuss the case with other suspects, because this could constitute obstruction of justice.

Netanyahu’s office made no official comment on Thursday night, but the prime minister has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. In a three-hour interview with police on Monday, Netanyahu acknowledged that he had received gifts from businessmen, but insisted they were entirely legal, 
Weinroth said Tuesday.

Channel 2 news reported that Netanyahu received the cigars from Milchan over the last 7-8 years. Sara received bottles of Dom Perignon pink champagne worth hundreds of shekels apiece during that period, the TV report said. It specified that the cigars included Cohiba Sigla V, Trinidad and Montecristo, and said each such cigar cost some 250 shekels (about $65).

Netanyahu is known as a connoisseur of fine cigars, and Channel 2 asserted the prime minister smokes 15,000-20,000 shekels’ worth of them each month.

Some 50 people are said to have testified to date in the probe.
Sources close to Netanyahu have pointed out that Milchan — whose films include “Fight Club” and 
“Pretty Woman” — sits on the board of Channel 10, which the prime minister has previously tried to shutter.

Channel 10 is also partially owned by US billionaire and World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder, who has also been questioned by police in connection with the case. Lauder, whose family founded the Estee Lauder cosmetics giant, has long been seen as an ally of Netanyahu.

Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, who is overseeing the investigation against Netanyahu, has said the prime minister is suspected of “receiving improper benefits from businessmen.” He has provided few other details.

Netanyahu has also acknowledged receiving money from French tycoon Arnaud Mimran, who was sentenced to eight years in prison in France over a scam involving the trade of carbon emissions permits and taxes on them.

The Prime Minister’s Office said Netanyahu received $40,000 in contributions from Mimran in 2001, when he was not in office, as part of a fund for public activities, including appearances abroad to promote Israel.

A Jewish State will always Trump the Jewish Diaspora

White House Blocked Holocaust Statement that Explicitly Mentioned Jews 


Chemi Shalev of Ha’aretz has made a powerful video about the exclusion of Jews from Donald Trump’s Holocaust Memorial Day statement.  I don’t agree with all of it, in particular his statement that the Holocaust is first and foremost about Jews.  No it’s first and foremost about Nazism i.e. German fascism.  Jews were its primary but by no means its only victims.  The Holocaust began with the Disabled, then the Polish intelligentsia and then the Jews and the Gypsies/Sinta and the Russian prisoners of war and so on.  But it is still a powerful film and it highlights the Zionist hypocrisy that they profess concern about the Holocaust but then stay silent about the anti-Semitism of Trump's Breitbart followers and Trump himself.

When Jackie Walker said that it would be nice if Holocaust  Memorial Day included other Holocausts such as what happened to the Africans in Belgium Congo and the Slave Trade it was if the heavens fell in.  Huffington Post led with Fury At Anti-Semitism Event As Momentum Vice Chair Jackie Walker Criticises Holocaust Memorial Day.  It was as if Haman and Eichmann had joined hands.  No adjective was biting enough to describe the horror felt by the Zionist movement at this criticism of what is really a politico religious icon. 
One of the chief motivators of the  false anti-Semitism campaign, Jonathan Arkush of the Board of Deputies just loves Trump
Jackie Walker however is however a minor personality on the Labour Left, important primarily for the way the British Zionist movement has singled her out as a suitable demonic figure.  Donald Trump however is the President of the United States.  You would imagine therefore that when he issued a statement on Holocaust Memorial Day, after having signed his Executive Order banning Muslims and refugees from the USA, which omitted to even mention the Jews, that the Zionists would be up in arms.  ‘Anti-Semite’ would have been the least of their descriptions.  You can imagine the hell that would have broken out if  Barak HUSSEIN Obama (the middle name was always important to Zionist Islamaphobes) had committed a similar crime.

But what is astounding is that apart from a little tut tutting, mainly in liberal Jewish papers like The Forward, there has been nothing.  Absolute silence.  Israel is still in love with the Chump and the settlers adore him.
Alan Dershowitz, lawyer to American neo-Nazis and the Jewish Defence League is happy to back Trump and Bannon
Now I've always opposed the Zionist idea that the Holocaust is only about Jews.  That to bring in any other group minimises the Holocaust.  According to Zionists such as historian Lucy Dawidowicz, 'Subsuming Jewish losses under a universal or ecumenical classification is to effectively justify anti-Semitism.' [Lucy Dawidowicz, The Holocaust and the Historian, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1981, p.17.] and according to Elie Wiesel, the Auschwitz survivor who turned his back on all other victims of genocide, to compare the sufferings of others with Jews was a “betrayal of Jewish history”.[Norman Finkelstein, p.45, Wiesel, Against Silence, v. iii, 146.]

However no one in their right mind would suggest that Jews have no place in the Holocaust.  Only the Stalinist rulers of the Soviet Union, who wished to play down the extent of collaboration in Russia and claim that all were equal victims, did that.   Clearly the Final Solution was aimed at removing Jewish people from the planet starting with a Jew free Europe.  Equally the Holocaust wasn’t only aimed at the Jews and Nazism aimed to exterminate not only the Communists and Socialists but the Disabled, Gays and the Slav peoples of Eastern Europe and Russia.
A question many liberal Jews are asking
The problem is that the Holocaust has been propagandised by the Zionist movement and depoliticised.  Stripped of its roots and causes.  It was caused by Jew hatred, pure and simple.  And why did people hate Jews?  Because they have always done so.  Simply by living in other peoples’ countries the Jews brought anti-Semitism on themselves.

The Holocaust has become a weapon in the war against the Palestinians not something to be commemorated for its own sake.   Jews in the holocaust are portrayed as two dimensional figures, with a walk-on part.  The Holocaust has become an essential part of West European post-war discourse, a prop in the cold war and a justification for imperialism in the Middle East.  Israel is at the centre of the West's intervention in the Middle East and the Holocaust is its ideological rationale - its crown of thorns.

Along comes Trump, Steve Bannon and his alt-Right, who don't particularly like 'whining Jews' and who are uncomfortable about the place of Jews in the Holocaust!  They like the Holocaust as a Jew-free ideological abstraction. 
Liberal Jews as represented by the Jewish Forward are at a loss to understand how Zionists who proclaimed their opposition to 'anti-Semitism' love Trump and Bannon 
According to Richard Spencer, who is the real ideologue of the alt-right, the “activist Jewish community” was only complaining about Trump's Holocaust Memorial Day statement because “It is all about their meta-narrative of suffering, and it shall undergird their peculiar position in American society, and theirs alone.” He deplored the fact that Hitler and the Holocaust has become the “negative moral center of the liberal universe.”

In the Forward  Sam Kestenbaum quotes Spencer as speaking about the “de-Judification” of the Holocaust.  The Holocaust had become 'a sort of moral bludgeon — used against white nationalists like himself.
Breitbart welcomes the support of Dershowitz and Zionist Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
Spencer gives some examples of the problems this ‘moral bludgeon’ is causing.  People were drawing all sorts of uncomfortable conclusions from the Holocaust such as giving shelter to refugees fleeing persecution.  Spencer described the very real problems that this is causing:

“We can’t limit immigration, because Hitler. We can’t be proud of ourselves as a Europeans, because Holocaust. White people can be Christian, but not too Christian, because Auschwitz,” he wrote.
Spencer went on: “Effectively, any policy, idea, or belief that is markedly right-wing and traditional — that evokes identity, power, hierarchy, and dominance — must be regulated by the possibility that it could potentially lead back to the German F├╝hrer.” 
You can see the problems that the Holocaust is causing people like Spencer and this is why the White  House ‘deJudaified’ the Holocaust [White House Blocked Holocaust Statement That Explicitly Mentioned Jews].  It would appear that the failure to mention the Jews was no ‘oversight’.  Steve Bannon, the alt-Right ‘strategic advisor’ of Trump, who is behind this, described U.S. Jews as 'Enablers' of Jihad’.

However it is important for people to get this into perspective.  Trump is the most pro-Zionist President the United States has ever had.  He is itching for an attack on Iran.  He is full square  behind Netanyahu in not liking Muslims.  He unreservedly supports the settlements and would like to move America’s Embassy to Jerusalem (though this is proving more problematic than first thought). Hence Trump is a very popular US President – if not in America then certainly in Israel.  In the elections which were held among American citizens in Israel, the exit polls showed that Trump won by a margin of 65 points.

Of course diaspora Jewry, what the Zionists call ‘galut’ i.e. those with an ‘exile’ mentality, who think that their interests come before those of Israel are not so supportive of Trump because they know what he represents, White Supremacy, hasn’t been too kind to Jews historically.  Diaspora Jews often don't realise that the needs of the Jewish state come before the Jews. 
The Zionist Organisation of America is adept at turning a blind eye to anti-Semitism when it comes in pro-Israeli garb
This dilemma came to a head in the case of Argentina, the only post-war state to have had a neo-Nazi regime between 1976-83.  Up to 3,000 Jews were tortured to death under the military Junta, up to 12% of those who ‘disappeared’ were Jewish.  Israel however had a problem.  Argentina at that time was a part of Reagan’s anti-communist Condor alliance in South America.  The main priority was fighting the communists.  Israel naturally was a close ally in all of this.  Israel was the main arms supplier of the Argentinian Junta and equipped it in its war with Britain in 1982.

The question therefore arose for Israel as to whether or not to make the plight of the Argentinian Jewish community or its relations with the Junta its priority.  All this came to a head with the case of the Jewish newspaper editor of La Opinion, Jacobo Timerman.  Although a left-Zionist he was savagely tortured by the Junta and it was only his fame which saved him from death.  Israel was forced to intercede to help him but they also wanted to silence his criticism of the Junta and not to make a noise.  Timerman was asked by Israeli Ambassador Ram Nirgad, on his release, to sign a document saying he had been treated well.  Timerman refused and the whole affair can be read in Timmerman’s book Prisoner Without A Name, Cell Without A Number, Weidenfeld, 1980.

An important essay on the dilemmas that the Zionists faced when choosing between the Jews and the Jewish state is Yitzhak Mualem’s essay in the Jewish Political Studies Review Spring 2004) ‘Between a Jewish and an Israeli Foreign Policy: Israel-Argentina Relations and the Issue of Jewish Disappeared Persons and Detainees under the Military Junta, 1976-1983’ Mualem wrote:

While the Jewish factor has an effect on Israeli foreign policy, it is not a decisive one. It is not the only consideration, nor the main one taken into account in the policy calculations of the Israeli government. The heritage of David Ben-Gurion determined that "in our relations (with foreign countries) we should be guided by one criteria and that is whether it is good for the Jews." The Jewish consideration was quite significant in the weighing of foreign policy in the economic area. According to Ben-Gurion's national approach, the state constitutes the highest goal of Zionism and the Jewish people. He did not ignore the problems of the Jews in the diaspora, but nevertheless saw the goals of the diaspora as secondary to the goals of the state, whose mere existence serves the needs of the diaspora.

Israel's role as a Jewish state was to strengthen the Jewish nation's status and power in the domestic and international arena by mobilizing the diaspora on behalf of this cause. In the particular case under discussion, the mobilization of the diaspora was achieved on two levels: bringing Jews to Israel and the adoption of a cooperative-passive policy by the Jewish community regarding the policy of the State of Israel. MKs Yair Tsaban and Yossi Sarid [of the left-Zionist Meretz] claimed that this policy and cooperation were implemented in flagrant ignorance of the Jews of Argentina. As Yossi Sarid put it: "In Argentina, Israel sold even the Jews for the price of its immediate interests."

Of course for the Zionists this is no dilemma.  Trump is pro-Zionist even if he doesn’t particularly like Jews who he sees as effete liberals.  Which is why Mort Klein of the Zionist Organisation of America was happy to invite Bannon to the ZOA’s annual gala dinner whilst denouncing Obama as a ‘Jew hating anti-Semite’!   Unfortunately the presence of a Jewish demonstration outside the dinner consisting of unsavoury Jewish types such as Jewish Voices for Peace made him think twice about attending.  Nonetheless the Zionists are clear where their priorities lie – the Jewish State will always Trump the Diaspora Jews

Tony Greenstein 

Saturday, 18 February 2017

Why Does Hove Jewish Centre, Ralli Hall Allow an Advocate of Rape to Speak but ban an Anti-Racist Critic of Israel

Ralli Hall Cancelled Hove Labour Party meeting because of criticism of Israel yet allowed Mordechai Kedar, an Advocate of Rape to Speak

Argus 17th February from 8 members of Brighton & Hove PSC 
Last week I wrote about allegations made against Hove Labour Party and PSC member Becky Matthews by the far right Zionist propaganda group, the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism whose charity status is now being questioned.
Simon Cobbs of Sussex Friends of Israel organised the 'meet a rape supporter'
In the course of this post I wrote that:

‘Hove AGM was cancelled because the Jewish communal centre, Ralli Hall, where the meeting was supposed to take place, unilaterally terminated the booking.  This is the same Ralli Hall which staged a meeting 18 months ago featuring Professor Mordechai Kedar of Israel’s religious University Bar Ilan.  Kedar is a retired colonel in the Israeli army.  See The Zionist Federation and Sussex Friends of Israel Invite an Advocate of Rape to Speak
As Israel's Ha'aretz Reported Kedar's statement
I wrote that:
‘Kedar is famous for his advocacy of rape against Palestinian women as a weapon of war.  Israel’s Ha'aretz newspaper in an article Israeli Professor's 'Rape as Terror Deterrent' Statement Draws Ire quoted him as saying that:  ‘'The only thing that deters a suicide bomber is the knowledge that if he pulls the trigger or blows himself up, his sister will be raped'. (22.7.14.). 
Brighton and Hove Palestine Solidarity Campaign held a demonstration outside the meeting.  Many Jewish venues, including schools and synagogues, such as Finchley, cancelled their meetings when Kedar’s comments became known.  Even the Board of Deputies of British Jews dissociated themselves from Kedar but not Ralli Hall, which was quite happy for the rally to go ahead. 
Kedar was the guest of the Sussex Jewish Representative Council, the Zionist Federation and our old friends Sussex Friends of Israel
I have therefore written to their Manager, Maxine Gordon as to why they prefer advocates of rape to critics of Israel.  A letter from 8 members of PSC, including myself, appeared in today’s Argus newspaper.  Ralli Hall has a lot of questions to ask.

I have also written a second letter to those in control of  Ralli Hall.  I won’t be holding my breath waiting for a reply.
Ralli Hall prefers supporters or rape to critics of Israel
Dear Ralli Hall,

You appear to have ignored the message that I sent you conerning your double standards when it comes to false allegations of anti-Semitism and allowing, Mordechai Kedar, an advocate of rape in war, to speak at Ralli Hall. 
According to the Argus your Manager Maxine Gordon said that she 'no choice' but to cancel a meeting of Hove Labour Party because of 'contentious statements made by Rebecca Massey on social media about Israel and Judaism.'
Clearly Ms Gordon hasn't heard of free speech.  Calling out Israel's racism is a matter of fact and is only 'contentious' in the eyes of those who prefer to turn a blind eye to Israeli atrocities, i.e. apologists for Israeli war crimes. I won't bother to enumerate such minor matters as the making of an Israeli hero out of the cold-blooded murderer Elor Azaria or the recent demolition of a Bedouin village Umm al-Hiran in the Negev to make way for the Jewish town of Hiran.

In The Times in the 1930's under Editor Geoffrey Dawson The Times forbade any mention of German anti-semitism during the pre-war years when the Nazi Party ruled Germany.  Criticism of the Nazis was also 'contentious' so Ms Gordon is in good company.
Even the Zionist Federation was forced to pull the meetings at schools
You said that because Becky Massey was attending a meeting at Ralli Hall on Sunday, February 3, you didn't feel it would be 'appropriate for the meeting to continue.”
Perhaps you can tell me why it was 'appropriate' for Kedar who said that '“The only thing that can deter terrorists, like those who kidnapped the children and killed them, is the knowledge that their sister or their mother will be raped.”  to speak at Ralli Hall?
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that you find support for rape in war less objectionable than criticism of Israel's war cimes.  I hope you found our letter concerning this to your liking in yesterday's Argus!  I attach a copy.