Showing posts with label Brian Klug. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brian Klug. Show all posts

28 May 2023

Welding the Gates of Dachau or Jewish Exceptionalism? Rachel Mars, Vashti and The Politics of Cultural Banality

Roger Water’s Berlin Concert demonstrates how Political Culture can be subversive

Pickle is the weekly newsletter of alternative Jewish cultural group Vashti, which was founded in 2019 by Rivka Brown of Novara Media which supported the 'anti-Semitism' witchhunt. The group claims that it stands in opposition to the existing leadership of British Jews but does it?

Vashti  is one of a number of groups which have come about as a result of the Israel right or wrong, leadership of Britain’s Jews. Anything that weakens the Zionist consensus should be welcomed. However in their attempts to bridge the divide between anti-Zionism and Zionism there is a danger of Vashti reinforcing the very forces that caused them to form in the first place.

Jewish cultural politics can degenerate into self-indulgence and an identity politics which celebrates being Jewish for its own sake. It is but a short road to Zionism

A Jewish cultural politics that is not aware of this can end up reflecting rather than challenging the Zionist grip on British Jews. Any alternative Jewish political culture has to have as its focal point the Palestinians.

Identity politics carries with it the danger of counterposing the identity of the oppressor against the oppressed, given the Zionist context of Jewish politics today. Zionist feminism is a good example.

How Identity Politics Turned the Victims of Sabra & Chatilla into the Antisemitic Oppressors of Zionist Feminists - A Reply to Erica Burman,

Ahed Tamimi Exposes the Refusal of Western Feminism to Come to Terms with Zionism and Imperialism,

White Women as Slave Owners and the Myth of Sisterhood – Stephanie E. Jones and Why Zionist Feminism is an Oxymoron.

The Board of Deputies, the BBC and Tory establishment led the false ‘anti-Semitism’ attack on the Labour Left. Yet both Rivka Brown and Novara Media supported the witchhunt of Chris Williamson, Jackie Walker and Ken Livingstone. For some reason I was excluded from their attacks. Perhaps that was because I was White unlike Jackie.

When Rivka Brown was invited to a meeting billed as “A celebration of Jewish Radicalism” which was co-sponsored by Jewish Voices for Labour, I immediately wrote to JVL, pointing out Rivka’s poisonous attack on Chris Williamson as a ‘Jew Baiter’. I asked them to take their name off. To their credit they did so. See Solidarity is the Bread and Butter of Socialism. In the end Brown withdrew entirely.

Pickle & the Rachel Mars Interview

In the current Pickle Emma Jude Harris interviews Rachel Mars, a performance artist, starring in The Forge at the Barbican. The Forge consists of Mars welding together a replica of the gate at Dachau concentration camp. The original was stolen in 2014. It bore the slogan arbeit macht frei (work makes you free). 

Dachau was the first Nazi concentration camp and it opened on 22 March 1933, not for Jews but for communists and trade unionists.

Performance art is about challenging the conventions of visual art and using one’s body as the medium to convey hidden meanings. The mind boggles at what Mars was hoping to communicate by recreating a sign that symbolised Nazi terror. It is clear from her interview that she was not challenging conventional norms. I can’t imagine anything more boring than watching someone welding a gate on stage.

The first question Harris asked was What do you feel is your “inheritance” as a Jewish person?’ which in itself begs the question as to whether there is a common Jewish inheritance. Mars’ response that this came up in therapy this week – so the need to go to therapy is the first one.’ speaks to class not ethnicity. Do more Jews than non-Jews go to therapy or is it a particular type of person?

Rachel Mars

 ‘As a Jewish person, I have inherited many things … a love of language, and argument, and disagreement, and debate, a certain type of love for a certain sense of humour, the need for a particular kind of community, and also a helpful feeling of otherness in Britain. But also an unnamed grief or sadness… because of Holocaust inheritance. I've inherited a big hole where there should be a lot of other people and their histories….’

The apotheosis of otherness is diversity and the depoliticisation of racism. The result is Lammy, Sunak and Braverman and the celebration of betrayal and collaboration.

Does being ‘othered’ give you a ‘helpful feeling’? What is Jewish otherness? It sounds very much like the Zionist desire to keep Jews separate from non-Jews. Otherness was forced on Jews by anti-Semitism. The response was unity with non-Jews. And do you miss people you’ve never seen or known?

Jewish humour came about as a result of oppression. It was a way of mocking authority and turning the tables. In the words of Saul Bellow ‘Oppressed people tend to be witty.’ Today Jewish people are not oppressed. This reference to Jewish humour is nothing more than pastiche, the romanticisation of a past that has long disappeared.

The interview goes from the bizarre to the banal as Emma asks ‘So what is your least favourite Holocaust memorial? And why?’ to which Rachel responds Ooh. I've got quite a lot of favourite ones?’

Banal because there is no questioning of why the Jewish holocaust is memorialised when no other acts of genocide are treated in this way. Bizarre because it treats holocaust memorials as if she was a child choosing her favourite candies.

In 2013 the National Congress of American Indians petitioned for a National American Indian Holocaust Museum. It’s still waiting.

The Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian depends on donations from American Indians themselves for support and this is not a Museum dedicated to the American Indian Holocaust.

The American Indian Genocide Museum in Texas is a voluntary organisation dependent on public donations. It does not receive the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent on the US Holocaust Memorial Museum [USHMM] in Washington.

What about a US National Slavery Museum? In 2001 a non-profit organization was founded in Fredericksburg, Virginia, to raise funds and campaign to establish a national museum on slavery. In 2008 the project died due to its inability to raise sufficient funds to pay property taxes, let alone begin construction. It has been abandoned.

The Legacy Museum in Montgomery, Alabama was established in 2018 at an estimated cost of $20 million raised from private donations and charitable foundations. It was established by the Equal Justice Initiative, a non-profit organisation. It costs $5 to enter.

Contrast this with the USHMM. In October 1980, Congress authorised the establishment of the USHMM in Washington. It received lavish funding from corporate America via tax deductible donations for its construction. It opened in April 1993. In the current year it will receive $65 million in Federal money. Entrance is free.

The USHMM commemorates just one holocaust. That of Jews. As a result of lobbying by Turkey, Israel, and American Jewish/Zionist organizations, there is no mention of the Armenian genocide in the museum. As I document in Zionism During the Holocaust, Elie Wiesel, who was instrumental in founding the USHMM, attempted to destroy an international conference on genocide in Tel Aviv in 1982 because it included sessions on the Armenian holocaust. Israel’s Foreign Ministry made strenuous efforts to sabotage the conference.

In December 2003, 67% of the USHMM’s budget was provided by federal funds. Its operating budget depends largely on US government funding. The Federal Government also donated 1.9 acres of land in the centre of Washington for its construction.

So I have a question for Rachel Mars and Vashti. Why does the US Government spend hundreds of millions of dollars maintaining a national holocaust museum for a genocide that took place in Europe yet it isn’t prepared to build or subsidise a national museum to remember slavery or the extermination of the Indians?

According to the National Congress of American Indians, the American Indian population was approximately 10 million in 1500 and barely 237,000 in 1900. Nearly 98% of Native Americans were wiped out through colonisation – be it by disease or extermination. Yet there is no federally funded museum to commemorate this.

It’s not just in America that the Jewish holocaust is commemorated. Virtually every European state has its memorials and museums. As I pointed out in my open letter (see below) to Vashti, a Holocaust Memorial Bill is currently being proposed by the very same government which describes the boat refugees as an ‘invasion’.

So while Rachel Mars picks and chooses which are her favourite memorials, as if she was a child choosing her favourite toy, the victims of other holocausts go unremembered. Emma Harris observers how

Germany did an amazing job of memorialising everything, and that it’s so incredible that they've had all these interventions’

to which Mars agrees. Not once does it occur to these two sages to ask why this is so and the relationship to the virtual outlawing of solidarity with the Palestinians. Could it be that the German state is memorialising the holocaust as a way of cementing its military relationship with Israel, the West’s strategic ally in the Middle East?

If these two empty heads, sated with their vapid identity politics, had any knowledge of the history of German imperialism they would know that genocide did not begin with the Jews but with the Herero and Namaqua people in South-West Africa between 1904 and 1907 where Darwinian theories of race supremacy were applied.

Eugenic experiments were conducted by Eugene Fischer, who became the leading racial hygienist under the Nazis and Director of the Kaiser Wilhem Institute of Anthropology. Fischer defined the Herero Africans as an “inferior race.”

Fischer came to Shark Island and other concentration camps to conduct medical experiments on the Herero prisoners, who were subjected to sterilisation and injections of smallpox, typhus and tuberculosis. 310 Herero and mixed-race children of Herero women and German men were made test subjects of “lesser racial quality.”

Fischer’s medical experiments were a testing ground for later medical experiments on Jews and others during the Holocaust. Fischer’s The Principles of Human Heredity of Race Hygiene,” was read by Hitler in Landsberg prison in 1924. Fischer became Chancellor of the University of Berlin, where he taught medicine to Nazi physicians including Josef Mengele. What happened in SW Africa and Shark Island became ‘a template for the Holocaust.’

German memorials to the Rhineland Bastards, and the victims of the Herero and Namaqua genocides are conspicuous by their absence. When Harris and Mars congratulate the German state on having ‘memorialised everything’ they fail to ask why not anyone else.

Mars referred to how ‘impactful’ the Jewish Museum in Berlin is yet failed to mention how the Israeli and German states forced the resignation of its previous Director, Peter Schaffer, in June 2019. Mars’ interview is an example of the triumph of form over substance.

Schafer had previously been criticised for inviting a Palestinian scholar to give a lecture at the museum. But it was a post to the museum’s Twitter account that cited an open letter signed by 240 Jewish and Israeli scholars which sparked the Zionist backlash.

The post concerned a parliamentary motion declaring the BDS movement antisemitic. The scholars said that “Parliament’s decision doesn’t assist the fight against anti-Semitism. On the contrary, it undermines it.” The museum used the hashtag #mustread in its retweet and added a quote from the letter.

The Jewish Museum in Berlin had, for a long time, been in the firing line for its independent political stance. It had come under attack in 2013 for having invited British Jewish scholar Brian Klug to give its annual Kristallnacht lecture and before that Judith Butler.

At the end of the interview Harris asks why Mars feels that her work is an ‘important intervention for you to be making right now’? Mars refers to a ‘picture of a small boat trying to make it to Dover…. We really need to make this about now – this is not going away.”

Yet there is no obvious connection between welding a replica gate and present day racism against refugees. On the contrary in praising the variety of different holocaust memorials, without ever asking why, she contributes to the legitimation of the very states that demonise refugees today. Mars refers to how

‘Britain is constantly trying to position itself as [the] only saviour for the Jewish community in the Holocaust. And if the Jewish community accepts that narrative, that is a major problem’

without any reference to what actually happened. It’s not only the ‘Jewish community’ i.e. its Zionist leaders but Mars and Harris themselves who fawn over the Holocaust Memorial Industry.

The USHMM obscures the role of the United States and the State Department under Breckinridge Long, in turning away Jewish refugees. As Albert Einstein wrote in a letter to Eleanor Roosevelt, the policy of erecting bureaucratic hurdles ‘makes it all but impossible to give refuge to the victims of fascist cruelty in Europe.’ A report to Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau on the ‘Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews,’ concluded that ‘it takes months and months to grant the visa and then it usually applies to a corpse.’

You would look in vain in the interview for any mention of the policy of the State Department towards Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. Likewise in Britain, the Holocaust memorial industry consciously avoids all mention of the role of the British government and Home Secretary Herbert Morrison in turning away Jewish refugees from Vichy France who were desperate to get out in the autumn of 1942 before the Nazis overran the territory.

Given the fake ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign in the Labour Party it is worth bearing in mind that in October 1942 Morrison received a delegation of eminent churchmen and public figures such as Eleanor Rathbone and Lord Astor, asking him for visas for 2,000 Jewish children and the elderly in Vichy France. Morrison refused.

On 31 December 1942 after the Allies had declared that Germany was exterminating Europe’s Jews Morrison made it clear that ‘he could not agree that the door should be opened to the entry of uncategorised Jews.’ Morrison believed that if the Jews were allowed to remain in Britain after the war ‘they might be an explosive element in the country, especially if the economic situation deteriorated.’

Morrison believed that most Jews were communists and feared that they would be prominent in any industrial unrest. Morrison was said to doubt that there was a holocaust. Morrison was also a supporter of Zionism so you won’t find any mention of this by the Zionists.

What Mars’ interview shows is that a Jewish cultural politics that concerns itself with form not substance, which reflects instead of questions, ends up supporting the Zionist holocaust narrative and whitewashing the role of the West. To fail to ask why there are memorials to the Jewish but not Gypsy or Disabled holocaust, still less the Native Americans or Slavery, is to collude in a narrative that uses the holocaust dead to oil the wheels of the West’s war machine.

Roger Waters in Berlin Shows How Political Culture Can Challenge Racism & Fascism

If you want to understand how Political Culture can be subversive then you only have to look at the concert Roger Waters has just held in Berlin. Judging by the reactions of the same Berlin police who banned Nakba Day demonstrations, Waters has scored a bullseye.

The German police are the linear descendants of the Nazi Security Police which united with the SS in September 1939, except now they claim to be anti-Nazi and opposed to anti-Semitism.

Roger Waters has challenged the Nazi-style behaviour of the German state for its suppression of solidarity with the Palestinians. The hypocrisy of the German Police who are alleging that comparisons between Israel and the Nazis are criminal ‘incitement’ is breathtaking.

Moshe Yalon calls Israeli Ministers Ben Gvir  & Smotrich ‘Mein Kampf in reverse’

Such comparisons are legion in Israel. Ex Likud Defence Minister Moshe Yalon calls out Ben Gvir and Smotrich as Jewish Nazis ‘Mein Kampf in reverse’. Today’s headline in Ha’aretz is Netanyahu’s Cabinet Ministers in Race to See Who Is Most Fascist.

Roger donned an imitation fascist garb to draw a comparison between the suppression of anti-Zionism in Germany today and its suppression by Nazi Germany. This may be painful for those who pretend that they are now opposed to anti-Semitism but it is nonetheless true. The Times of Israel reported that Waters had ‘sparked outrage”

by projecting Anne Frank’s name at recent concerts to draw comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany. Such comparisons are considered antisemitic under the widely-used IHRA definition of antisemitism.

If comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is anti-Semitic according to the IHRA then that only demonstrates how flawed the definition is!

Anne Frank, although only a teenager, never expressed Zionist sentiments and she considered Zionists freaks and oddities, as did most of Europe’s Jews. Anne wrote in her Diary (11.4.44) that

‘My first wish after the war is that I may become Dutch! I love the Dutch, I love this country…’

Palestine was not on her horizons. Zionism has colonised her name. Waters enraged the Zionists even further by linking Anne Frank’s name to that of Shireen abu Akleh, who was assassinated by Israel.

Vashti’s Cowardly Cultural Politics

The bravery of Roger Waters and his demonstration of how political culture can challenge bourgeois ideology is in contrast to the insipid and anaemic cultural politics of Vashti, who prefer to venerate a rusted Nazi gate than challenge the way that the holocaust has been used to underpin and legitimise the Palestinian genocide.

Vashti doesn’t dare make such comparisons because of the ‘offence’ it might cause to the Zionist leadership in Britain.

The Board of Deputies complained that it was “very concerning” that Waters will be performing in the UK, calling his concerts “political rallies.” Perish the thought. A concert that is political! Clearly Board members didn’t attend the Free Mandela concerts a generation ago.

Joe Biden’s ‘anti-Semitism’ Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, a junk holocaust historian, was quick out of the stalls in condemning Roger Water’s as was her European counterpart Katharina von Schnurbein.

Death to the Arabs Demonstration in Jerusalem

We should take our hats off to Roger Waters. The comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany are many and varied, from according different rights to different ethnicities to marches chanting ‘death to the Arabs.’ If the Zionists don’t like the comparison it’s because it’s true.

Tony Greenstein

Open Letter to Vashti

Dear Eli Machover/Vashti,

It was with a growing incredulity that I read your interview with performance artist, Rachel Mars. The focus was on Holocaust memorialisation and the ways our inherited trauma shapes the art we create’.

What stands out most is the inability of Rachel or the interviewer, Emma Jude Harris, to place holocaust memorialisation in a political context. Simple questions such as why the focus and emphasis is on the Jewish holocaust and why the holocaust in the Belgian Congo and the Slave Trade attract so little attention were not even asked.

Not once does Rachel or Emma ask how and why the ruling elites in our society have co-opted the holocaust to imperialism, still less how Zionism has constructed an apartheid society using the holocaust as its justification. Such simple questions yet Emma did not feel the need to ask them and Rachel felt no need to mention them.

Questions such as why the German political establishment has taken on a particular interpretation of the holocaust as a justification for their integration into the NATO alliance and how their support for Israel and Zionism has cemented that integration.

To seek answers to such questions one would have to consult books such as Edith Zertal’s Israel’s Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood, or Yitzhak Laor’s The Myth of Liberal Zionism or my own newly released Zionism During the Holocaust – The Weaponisation of Memory in the Service of Nation and State.

Projected holocaust memorial in Victoria Gardens

Questions such as why a rabidly racist government in Britain, that demonises asylum seekers crossing the Channel as an ‘invasion’ is so keen on holocaust memorialisation that only three days ago it introduced a Holocaust Memorial Bill which will enable the erection of a holocaust memorial in Victoria Gardens next to Parliament despite strong local opposition.

Rachel mentions the abundance of holocaust memorials in Germany yet fails to mention the virtual outlawing of any manifestation of solidarity with the Palestinians in Berlin or other parts of Germany.

My young Israeli friend, Stav, is facing two weeks in a Berlin prison for taking part in Palestine solidarity action. She refuses to pay on principle the fine that was imposed by the German state for daring to express solidarity with the Palestinians and she also faces being gaoled in Britain for taking part in actions against Elbit. None of this was allowed to intrude on your arty-farty interview.

This is the real Jewish trauma that Rachel Mars ‘forgot’ to mention as opposed to the synthetic trauma that Israel and its diaspora Jewish offshoots have helped inflict on Jews as a way of generating support for the ‘Jewish’ state. Emma mentions ‘intergenerational trauma’ among Jews but Zionism has deliberately out to recreate and invent trauma as a means of solidifying support for its racist enterprise.

As I noted in Zionism During the Holocaust if the behaviour and attitude of non-Jews in Europe towards Jews had replicated that of Israeli Jews towards the Palestinians, then not 6 but 7 or even 8 million Jews would have died in the Holocaust.

This is the irony that escapes not only Emma and Rachel but Vashti too. The most pro-Zionist party today in Germany is Alternative for Germany which in the debate 3 years ago in the Bundestag wanted to make BDS illegal, is riddled with neo-Nazis and holocaust deniers.  

It was less than a month ago that two parliamentary representatives of AfD followed, in what has become a long tradition of neo-Nazis and the far-Right paying homage to the holocaust, when they paid a visit to Israel’s propaganda museum, Yad Vashem.

There is no mention of how, in attacking Jewish anti-Zionists, the German state today is repeating the actions of the Nazi state before 1939 against Jews who were not Zionists.

On 28 January 1935 Reinhard Heydrich issued a directive stating:

‘the activity of the Zionist-oriented youth organisations that are engaged in the occupational restructuring of the Jews … lies in the interest of the National Socialist state’s leadership…. (they are) not to be treated with that strictness that it is necessary to apply to the members of the so-called German-Jewish organisations (assimilationists).

In May 1935 Schwarze Korps, paper of the SS, wrote that:

the Zionists adhere to a strict racial position and by emigrating to Palestine they are helping to build their own Jewish state.... The assimilation-minded Jews deny their race and insist on their loyalty to Germany or claim to be Christians because they have been baptised in order to subvert National Socialist principles

None of this appears in your interview, even as background.  No mention of how it is the Palestinians who are now the real victims of the European Holocaust and how the 'intergenerational trauma' of Jews is relieved by supporting neo-Nazis in the Israeli government, as they cry 'death to the Arabs'.’ The interview with Mars referred to there being no state sponsored memorials to the victims of slavery or lynching in the USA, in comparison with a holocaust which didn't occur in America. Mars says:

There's a new-ish memorial to lynching [in Alabama]. And that was not state money. It was an individual pursuit, and it is incredible in terms of design and impact.

Mars and her interlocutor don’t ask why it is that a memorial to lynching is not sponsored by the state where it took place or indeed by the Federal Government. It’s simply taken as an act of god.

Not once do they ask why were hundreds of millions dollars spent on the US Holocaust Museum in Washington yet the American state does not see fit to memorialise the Holocaust of Native Indians and Africans that took place on its shores?

Nor did this interview venture to ask why it is that holocaust memorialisation conveniently omits Britain and America’s record in turning away Jewish refugees from the Nazi holocaust. There are some lessons from the holocaust that are best forgotten.

Mars witters on about the ‘sonic experience’ of the Jewish Museum in Berlin and how ‘impactful’ it is yet she fails to mention how the Israeli and German state took out the previous Director of the Museum, Peter Schaffer, in June 2019.

Schaffer’s ‘crime’ was having retweeted a report referring to a letter signed by 240 Israeli and Jewish scholars rejecting the parliamentary motion condemning BDS as anti-Semitic. The museum used the hashtag #mustread in its retweet and added a quote from the letter: “Parliament’s decision doesn’t assist the fight against anti-Semitism.”

The Jewish Museum in Berlin had, for a long time, been in the firing line of the Israeli and German states for its independent political stand on anti-Semitism. It had come under attack in 2013 for having invited British Jewish scholar Brian Klug to give its annual Kristallnacht lecture and before that Judith Butler.

The saccharine cultural politics that Vashti offers has not questioned how Israel and the Zionist movement, aided and abetted by the British and European states, has colonised diaspora Jewish institutions. Why is it that everything that Vashti touches has to be so superficial?

When I offered to write an article about the weaponisation of the memory of the Holocaust, the theme of my recent book, you didn't even acknowledge it. You must have taken fright at the very thought of debating the uses to which the Holocaust has been put.

As for 'intergenerational trauma' - I think there are other words for it like exploitation of past injustice in order to perpetrate present injustices.  But do tell me. Is this a psychological or a political ailment? Or just schmaltz dressed up as a pathology?

On a brighter note this will make for an excellent blog on how the Zionist narrative of the holocaust persists, even amongst those who claim not to be Zionist. Instead of creating a political culture which asks searching questions what you are doing is engaging in a cultural politics which simply reflects rather than questions existing culture and assumptions surrounding holocaust and how memory is manipulated to serve nation and state today.

I do not expect a reply to this letter since I doubt that you are capable of one. With that in mind I am blind copying it pending a blog.

Tony Greenstein

29 March 2021

Why We Should Critically Welcome The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism [JDA]

 Unlike the IHRA Misdefinition of Anti-Semitism the JDA Makes a Clear Distinction Between Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism

The Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism, although flawed in parts and open to criticism, not least because of its unfortunate title, should be welcomed by all those concerned about seeing the fight against anti-Semitism being part of the fight against racism rather than being counterposed to it. 

The JDA should also be welcomed by those who are sick and tired of seeing ‘anti-Semitism’ weaponised on behalf of a ‘Jewish’ state that has just seen 2 Jewish Nazis elected to the Knesset, one of whom is likely to be made a government minister.

Unlike the IHRA which labelled opposition to Zionism and Israeli racism as anti-Semitism, the JDA makes a clear distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. The JDA states that the following are not anti-Semitic:

Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants “between the river and the sea,” whether in two states, a binational state, uni-tary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form.13.Evidence-based criticism of Israel as a state.

The difference between the IHRA misdefinition of anti-Semitism and the JDA is the difference between night and day.

Of course the JDA should have been unnecessary. The idea that it is necessary to define anti-Semitism in order to oppose it would have been ludicrous but for the cynical attempt by racists and imperialists, anti-Semites included, to use the historic oppression of Jewish people in order to support not only the Israeli state but western imperialism and its wars in the Middle East.

It is no accident that some of the most virulent anti-Semites and White Supremacists, from Viktor Orban of Hungary, Mateusz Morawiecki of Poland and Donald Trump, have all supported the IHRA. Indeed no genuine anti-Semite could possibly take exception to the IHRA. What is there not to like about it if you are a racist?

Indeed one of the most vociferous campaigners in support of the IHRA, former Vice-Chair of the Zionist Federation Jonathan Hoffman, is a link person between the Zionist Right in Britain and fascist groups such as the EDL and Tommy Robinson's supporters. Hoffman is also one of the 'academics' who have signed the Zionist petition calling for the dismissal of Professor David Miller of Bristol University.

I remain of the same opinion as Justice Potter Stewart' in the 1964 case of Jacobellis v. Ohio that I don’t need a definition of anti-Semitism to recognise it when I see it. When my father and thousands of Jews like him took part in the Battle of Cable Street in order to prevent Moseley’s British Union of Fascists marching through the Jewish East End in October 1936, they did not need a definition of anti-Semitism in order to understand what they were fighting. However we are where we are and today the primary benefit of a genuine definition of anti-Semitism is that it can be used to replace the bogus and fraudulent IHRA definition.

Unlike the IHRA misdefinition of anti-Semitism, the JDA is concerned with anti-Semitism not tarnishing the struggle of the Palestinians and opponents of Zionism as ‘anti-Semitic’.

What is truly frightening about the IHRA is how many people of sound mind, people who consider themselves intelligent and in the normal world are intelligent, have nevertheless subscribed to a definition of anti-Semitism that was intellectually bankrupt, the academic version of the 3 card trick. The IHRA is embarrassingly incoherent, dishonest and internally contradictory. Indeed the IHRA is itself, by its own definition anti-Semitic when it says on the one hand that Israel is the collective representation of all Jews and then says that it is anti-Semitic to associate all Jews with Israel’s crimes.

The slogan on a large demonstration in Tel Aviv in support of Israeli soldier Elor Azaria, who shot a unconscious Palestinian in Hebron in the head, murdering him. 'Kill them all' means kill all Palestinians.  According to the IHRA to describe this as Nazi-like is itself antisemitic!

The IHRA’s vagueness and obfuscation was itself demonstrably dishonest. It was deliberately opaque. Indeed a 500+ word statement cannot, by anyone’s imagination, be called a definition and, as Stephen Sedley wrote, the IHRA cannot be a definition because it is indefinite.

The 38 word IHRA definition, leaving out its 11 Israeli centred examples, is nothing if not slippery and vague. The IHRA was an exercise in intellectual dishonesty and it was eagerly grasped by racists such as the British representative to the IHRA, Lord Pickles, as a way of smearing and demonising anti-racists. Anyone who genuinely believed it was a definition of anti-Semitism can only be classed as intellectually bankrupt. And the IHRA rested on the assumption that the State of Israel was a normal, democratic state. As such the IHRA took sides in the battle between Jewish supremacy and Zionism on the one hand and anti-Zionism on the other.

The 38 word core definition of anti-Semitism at the beginning of the IHRA states that:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Although we are told that anti-Semitism is ‘a certain perception of Jews’ we are never told what that perception is. We are told that anti-Semitism ‘may be expressed as hatred toward Jews’ without saying what else it might be expressed as. In raising the bar of anti-Semitism to the level of hatred the IHRA missed out all sorts of examples of anti-Semitism which are hurtful or discriminatory but which are not derived from hatred.

It is perfectly possible for someone to inflict violence on someone because they are Jewish, not because they hate them but because they despise them or fear them. According to the IHRA they are not anti-Semitic! Likewise someone who objects to their son or daughter marrying a Jew, not because they hate them but because they believe Jews are dishonest and untrustworthy, to say nothing of being mean and stingy, is not anti-Semitic according to the IHRA. The IHRA has but one function.  To protect the Israeli state and Zionism not Jews.

The first advantage of the JDA is that it formulates a clear and easily understood definition of anti-Semitism: ‘Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).’ The latter 5 words could have been omitted but based as it is on the Oxford English Dictionary definition ‘hostility to or prejudice against Jews’ it is infinitely preferable to the IHRA definition.

We now have a very clear and useful definition of anti-Semitism that clearly distinguishes between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. The JDA does not attempt to police political speech in the way that the IHRA did.  It does not for example suggest that if someone criticises Israel without at the same time criticising every other country that abuses human rights (‘double standards’) that they are anti-Semitic.

This slogan is daubed on the walls of Hebron's Shuhada Street by the Jewish settlers - the IHRA says it's 'anti-semitic' to mention this!

The JDA does not describe comparisons between the Israeli state and its policies and that of Nazi Germany as anti-Semitic. It is clear that there are many comparisons today between Israel and Nazi Germany as the walls of Shuhada Street in Hebron, which are daubed with settler slogans ‘Arabs to the gas chambers’ testify.

As Neve Gordon and Mark Levin point out, under the IHRA two of the greatest Jewish personalities of the 20th century, both of them refugees from Nazi Germany, Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt, have to be classified as anti-Semitic! In 1948 when Menachem Begin, the leader of Herut visited the United States they signed a letter with other Jewish personalities, to the New York Times claiming that Herut was:

“closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.”

Another piece of graffiti on the walls of Hebron - this betrays the mentality of the religious Zionist settlers in Israel

In particular Guidelines 10-15 are welcome. They are a clear statement that support for BDS has nothing to do with anti-Semitism and everything to do with a non-violent protest against Israel. The statement that evidence based criticism of Israel cannot be anti-Semitic is to be welcomed. Similarly that support for a unitary state of Palestine (and by implication opposition to a Jewish state) is not anti-Semitic.

However there are many criticisms that can also be made of the JDA. Firstly it lacks any Palestinian perspective or input.  Given that the JDA came about as a result of the attempts of the IHRA to silence free speech on Palestine it should have been a given that Palestinians might have an input into the JDA. Unfortunately the drafting of the JDA was an all-Jewish affair despite the fact that it has a whole section B ‘Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are antisemitic’.

Although it has been created in opposition to the IHRA the JDA focuses far too heavily on the Israeli narrative and concerns. Although, given the context, this is understandable, the authors fight shy of saying outright that the main threat from anti-Semitism comes from the far-Right and fascist groups, not from the Left. Perhaps this was too much for people like Professor Feldman of the Pears Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism. He and Brian Klug, another member of the drafting committee see themselves as above divisions of left and right, occupying as they do the ivory towers of Birkbeck College and Oxford University!  However we need to say it loud and clear that the main threat to Jews today comes from people like Donald Trump and his White Supremacist neo-Nazi supporters.  Historically the left has always fought anti-Semitism. In Nazi Germany the opposition to anti-Semitism and Nazism came almost exclusively from the left.

This is especially pertinent since the so-called Campaign Against Anti-Semitism  includes the statement that ‘In 2019, Campaign Against Antisemitism’s Antisemitism Barometer showed that antisemitism on the far-left of British politics had surpassed that of the far-right.’ This was based on fraudulent ‘research’ carried out by Dr Daniel Allington of King’s College and others.

The CAA’s 2019 Anti-Semitism Barometer introduced 6 absurd new questions about anti-Semitic attitudes which were based solely on one’s attitude to Israel and Zionism. This redefinition of what constitutes anti-Semitic statements had but one purpose – to brand opponents of Zionism and the Israeli state as anti-Semitic. From now on Israeli zealots could claim that the real enemy of Jews was not their neo-Nazi friends but those on the Left.

For example if you are not comfortable spending time with Zionists then that makes you an anti-Semite! I confess I didn’t find the company of supporters of Apartheid in South Africa  particularly congenial but I never considered that that made me a racist! Below are the 6 new ‘anti-Semitic’ statements that Allington, Hirsh and company devised:

1.      “Israel and its supporters are a bad influence on our democracy.

2.      “Israel can get away with anything because its supporters control the media.”

3.      “Israel treats the Palestinians like the Nazis treated theJews.

4.      I am comfortable spending time with people who openly support Israel.”

5.      “Israel makes a positive contribution to the world.”

6.      “Israel is right to defend itself against those who want to destroy it.

What are the problems with the JDA?

However the JDA is not unproblematic and should not be seen as the final word on what is and is not anti-Semitic. For example Guideline No. 5:

‘Denying or minimizing the Holocaust by claiming that the deliberate Nazi genocide of the Jews did not take place, or that there were no extermination camps or gas chambers, or that the number of victims was a fraction of the actual total, is antisemitic.’

is no longer true. When in 1974 the National Front pamphlet Did Six Million Really Die by Richard Verall came out then it was possible to say that holocaust denial was anti-Semitic in itself and inspired by neo-Nazis who wished to deny that which they desired to repeat.

However one of the achievements of Zionism and the State of Israel has been to harness the memory of the Jewish victims of the holocaust to the Zionist chariot. So much so that many people, especially in the underdeveloped world, think that if they deny the holocaust they will deny Israel’s legitimacy. They are of course wrong but their intention is not to repeat the holocaust like neo-Nazis but to undermine the Israeli state. That is stupidity not anti-Semitism.

More problematic are the examples under B ‘Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are antisemitic’

Guideline No. 6, ‘Applying the symbols, images and negative stereotypes of classical antisemitism to the State of Israel’ is closely allied to the IHRA’s 9th illustration : ‘Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.’

The logical fallacy here is to substitute ‘Israel or Israelis’ for Jews. Israel is not a Jew.

One of the traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews in medieval Europe was poisoning the wells of non-Jews. Another was the murder of non-Jewish children in order to bake Passover bread. These are undoubtedly anti-Semitic.

However these examples refer to Jews not Israel. It is a fact, confirmed by archival evidence, that Israel poisoned the water supply of Acre in the 1948 war of expulsion. It is also a fact that Israeli settlers have regularly poisoned the water and wells of Palestinians in the West Bank. This is what settlers do to the indigenous population, regardless of the religion of the settlers or their victims. It cannot be right to characterise factual assertions, based on evidence, as anti-Semitic. Nor can it be right to associate traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews with a racist state which treats Palestinians as the Untermenschen.

Israel has tested poisoned gas and chemical weapons on Palestinians. It is not anti-Semitic to state this. It is a fact that Israel has harvested stolen body parts of Palestinians. The Chinese government uses the body parts of those executed. Such an accusation is not racist.

Guideline No. 8 ‘Requiring people, because they are Jewish, publicly to condemn Israel or Zionism (for example, at a political meeting).’ is also not anti-Semitic. It is understandable, given that the Zionist movement makes the claim that they speak on behalf of all Jews (except us self-haters!) which reinforces peoples’ confusion between being Jewish and being a Zionist.

It cannot be anti-Semitic for non-Jewish people to fall for Zionist propaganda and further it is reasonable for a Palestinian to ask that Jewish people distance themselves from the Israeli/Zionist assertion that to be Jewish is to support the oppression of Palestinians. If there is any anti-Semitism it is on the part of the Zionists.

I also find Guideline 10 problematic:

‘Denying the right of Jews in the State of Israel to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews, in accordance with the principle of equality.’

I acknowledge the right of Israeli Jews to live in Palestine/Israel. However I do not acknowledge that they have any collective rights as settlers and oppressors. The settlers are not oppressed and therefore the rights we should recognise are individual rights. I would therefore strike out the words ‘collectively and individually’.

However, apart from Guideline No. 6 these are minor disagreements.  The JDA is an overwhelmingly positive contribution to detoxifying the debate over anti-Semitism and the dishonest attempts of Israel’s anti-Semitic supporters to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. It should therefore be welcomed as a wholly positive contribution to demystifying the question of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

We should therefore feel free to use this definition and to propose that trade unions, universities and labour parties be encouraged to ditch the IHRA in favour of the JDA. We should be open and explicit.  The IHRA is a definition that anti-Semites support. The JDA is a definition for opponents of anti-Semitism.

We should ask hypocrites like Caroline Lucas MP, who professes to support the Palestinians, to put her money where her mouth is. If Lucas supports the Palestinians then we need to keep asking her why she is supporting a definition of anti-Semitism which defines the Palestinian struggle as anti-Semitic. 

We know that racists like John Mann, Keir Starmer and Eric Pickles will cling to the IHRA as their main purpose is to sanctify western support for Israel and legitimise imperialism’s operations in the region. However we should demand that members of the Socialist Campaign Group adopt and endorse the JDA.  Likewise Momentum should abandon the IHRA and adopt the JDA. If these groups refuse to break with the racist and imperialist consensus over Zionism then they should be ostracised as enemies of the Palestine liberation struggle and as racists.

Tony Greenstein