Why I Support George
Galloway as the best placed Left Candidate to Defeat Starmer Labour on July 1st
This
is what Starmer Supports When He Says
he is a Zionist ‘Without Qualification’
Today the Labour Campaign for Free Speech Steering Committee
unanimously issued the following statement:
The
statement from a ‘senior Labour source’ during the Batley & Spen
by-election that Labour was “haemorrhaging” Muslims voters, because of “what
Keir has been doing on antisemitism” implies that Muslims are antisemitic –
when in fact many voters oppose Starmer’s Labour, because he is bowing to the
Israeli government and refuses to support the Palestinian struggle. That is not
antisemitism, it is anti-Zionism.
That this statement was issued has not been
denied by Angela Rayner and the suspicion must be that it emanates from
Starmer’s office if not Starmer himself. In the forthcoming Batley & Spen
by-election, we refuse to support the Labour candidate, an incredible
apolitical and nondescript candidate who was chosen by Keir Starmer directly.
There
is no doubt that Starmer and his apparatchiks have been suspending and
expelling people for supporting the Boycott of Israel and anything that is seen
as critical of Israel. Calling Israel a racist state is guaranteed to get you
expelled even though it’s true.
In
the Daily Mail of 19th June, Dan Hodges quoted
a ‘senior Labour source’ as saying that:
'We're haemorrhaging votes among Muslim voters, and the reason for that
is what Keir has been doing on antisemitism. Nobody really wants to talk about
it, but that's the main factor. He challenged Corbyn on it, and there's been a
backlash among certain sections of the community.'
The implication is clear. Muslims are anti-Semites who
resent Starmer’s promise to ‘root out anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party.
Except of course that Starmer has done no such thing. There is no anti-Semitism
to root out. He has been ‘rooting out’
supporters of Palestine and anti-Zionists and he has been doing so at the
behest of the Israeli state and its local pawns, the Board of Deputies.
If Starmer was seriously concerned about ‘anti-Semitism’
in the Labour Party he wouldn’t have suspended and expelled dozens of Jewish members
of the Party or in my case welcomed
my expulsion (which was the first time that this apology for a mannequin came
to my attention!). In an interview
with the Times of Israel Starmer gave
away his real motives, namely that he is a ‘Zionist
without qualification’. In other
words a racist without qualification.
The reasons are clear as to why Labour is going to
lose another Red Wall seat. To all intents and purposes, the Labour Right acts like
it is on a suicide mission. They lost working class Scottish voters under Ed
Miliband, they forfeited much of the support of the Northern working class at
the last election and now Starmer is determined to say goodbye to the votes of Britain’s
3.3 million Muslims.
At first glance it might seem as if Starmer is more
concerned with the 300,000 Jews in Britain than a Muslim population over 10
times as big. However that would be a misreading. The Labour Right’s concern is
not with the Jewish vote, not least because for 60 years (with the temporary exception
of 1997 and 2001) the Jewish community has voted heavily for the Tories.
The real reason is that New Labour is wedded to
slavishly following US foreign policy which is to support Israel as imperialism’s
armed watchdog in the Middle East. Batley & Spen is the price they are
going to pay for Starmer’s craven submission to imperialism.
police beat man
In addition, at the very beginning of his
misleadership, Starmer tore
up Labour’s policy to support Kashmiri independence. He preferred to cuddle
up to Hindu racists who, like the Zionists, wish to colonise Kashmir and who
have put it
under martial law for the past two years. Starmer was more interested in supporting
the communalist government of Narendra Modi of the BJP than supporting self-determination
for the Kashmiris.
In
the forthcoming Batley & Spen by-election, we are taking a leaf out of the Jewish
Labour Movement’s book. The JLM refused to support Labour candidates who were
seen to be pro-Jeremy Corbyn. They were supported in that by the Labour Right
so they can’t complain now the boot is on the other foot.
Angela
Rayner did not deny that the statement emanaged from the Labour Party. Indeed
she all but admitted
that the comments were genuine when she said that
“I will be
ensuring that the party investigates this reported comment in line with our
party’s rules and processes. Anybody who has made these comments should and
will be dealt with in line with our independent disciplinary procedures, which
I have no role in as deputy leader.””
However
there is no need for an investigation. Dan Hodges is on good terms with Starmer
and the Labour leadership. A ‘senior
Labour source’ is code for either Keir Starmer himself or his advisers.
Perhaps the hapless Rayner could have a quiet word with Sir Keir?
As
the Guardian reported
Labour’s candidate Kim Leadbeater,
received
a hostile reception from voters who are unhappy with the party’s stance on
foreign policy issues such as Palestine and Kashmir, amid a perception that the
party takes some forms of racism more seriously than others.
The accusation “you’ve taken our
votes for granted” was repeatedly levelled at Leadbeater and Lisa Nandy,
the shadow foreign secretary and Wigan MP, who joined her on the campaign
trail.
Perhaps the final straw was Starmer pulling out of a
virtual Iftar event on the last night of Ramadan. The Jewish Chronicle had
engaged in its usual Islamaphobic witchhunting. It reported
that the CEO of the Muslim group which had organised the event, Omar Salha,
supported the prisoner support group CAGE. Even worse, he had supported a boycott
of Israeli dates!
In Starmer and the Board of Deputies view, boycotting Israeli
Apartheid is anti-Semitic. Presumably boycotting the produce of South African
Apartheid was also racist?He might be a
QC but Starmer is an intellectual lightweight.
Starmer and the Labour Right simply expected Muslims
to take these insults on the chin and still
support the Labour Party at the ballot box. They are in for a rude shock.
When a couple of idiots shouted anti-Semitic slogans,
allegedly, in North London, Starmer rushed
to condemn it in a joint statement with Boris Johnson and yet he had
nothing to say about the hundreds of Palestinians killed by Israel in Gaza,
including 67 children, the pogroms against Palestinians in Israel itself and
the massive
Israeli Police violence in Jerusalem against worshippers.To say nothing of the ethnic cleansing of
Sheikh Jarrar and East Jerusalem.
As a group of prominent Palestinians in the Labour
Party wrote:
“The leader is practically treating the whole
community as outcasts and is refusing to meet or even respond. We cannot
separate this from the alarming shift in Labour’s approach to issues of race,
or the shift in Labour’s position on Palestine.
“The message is loud and clear: I don’t care about you
or your issues.”
Labour has elected not only a liar but an open racist
in StarmerA man who hid
the funders of his leadership election campaign until it was over. Starmer
received hundreds of thousands of pounds from rich businessmen including £50,000
from Trevor Chinn, a prominent Zionist. Labour simply doesn’t deserve to be supported
as and until Starmer and Rayner are removed from the leadership and the posts are
occupied by socialists.
I support George Galloway but not without criticisms.
George has without doubt capitulated to a backward political consciousness
amongst the white working class with his attack on ‘woke’ politics. His opposition
to free movement of labour and his support for Brexit is a capitulation to British
chauvinism.In particular his previous support
for Nigel Farage’s Brexit party.
Nonetheless George has been a staunch opponent of the
Iraq War, US imperialism in the Middle East and above all a supporter of the Palestinians.
Weighing all this in the balance I have no doubt that George Galloway, who let
it not be forgot was expelled by Tony Blair, would make a good MP in comparison
with the appalling Leadbetter. I also share his detestation of identity
politics which alienate working class voters.
I have no hesitation in supporting George Galloway and
I hope anyone living in Batley & Spen reading this does likewise.
The
IHRA Misdefinition, previously called the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism
[WDA], was first proposed by Dina Porat of the Stephen Roth Institue of Tel
Aviv University. You can read about the origins of the WDA in a Report on the WDA
– Six Years After in a Conference in Paris in August/September 2010.
Particularly
interesting is the contribution by Kenneth Stern, the principal drafter of the WDA,
"The Working Definition – A Reappraisal"
Stern wrote that
the idea for a common definition was, as far as
I know, first articulated by Dina Porat, who leads the Stephen Roth Institute,...
in April 2004. I recall Dina, who gets very animated when she latches on
to a good idea, talking to me, to my colleague Andy Baker, and just about
anyone else she could corner about the need for a definition.
Dina
Porat is today the Chief Historian at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Propaganda
Museum and is one of the leading ideologues of Zionism.
It
is useful to read Stern’s article because it explains the thinking behind the
IHRA. Stern’s criticism of the previous attempts of the EUMC to formulate a definition
of anti-Semitism was that it had constructed a list of Jewish stereotypes and
come up with what he described as a ‘clunker of a definition’ because it ‘didn’t
know how to deal with the problem of a Jew being attacked on the streets
of Paris or anywhere else as a stand-in for an Israeli.’
Stern
argued that a definition of anti-Semitism could not be created on the basis of
stereotypes of Jews because it was ‘unworkable
to require a clear view of what is in the mind of any actor (many of whom
are never found) before making a classification.’
Stephen Pollard, Editor of the Jewish Chronicle is mystified why what is happening in Israel should impact on Jews in Britain - perhaps he should have a quiet word with the BOD!
And
in this statement you can see why the IHRA, even if Stern was in good faith,
went off the rails. Stern created a definition based on people’s political
beliefs. It’s difficult to understand his thinking. Stern says that the WDA was
created for the collection of statistics but it’s unclear how someone comparing
Israeli policy and the Nazis fits into that. But regardless Stern was wrong. It
is is essential to understand the
motives of someone in order to classify whether it was an anti-Semitic attack.
If someone attacks me
in the street because I’m wearing a rolex watch that is not an anti-Semitic attack.It is a straightforward robbery. The fact
that I am Jewish is irrelevant.But if I’m
attacked because my attacker is of the belief that all Jews are rich and I am
therefore singled out, then of course that is an anti-Semitic attack.
If someone is
attacked because the attacker believes all Jews support Israel then that is an anti-Semitic
attack because the person was attacked because s/he is Jewish. Of course the
reason why so many people believe that British Jews are responsible for what
happens in Gaza is because Zionist organisations like the Board of Deputies repeatedly
support Israeli war crimes whilst, at the same time declaring that they are ‘the voice of the Jewish community.’
No less than Stephen
Pollard of the Jewish Chronicle had the gall to send me his Editor’s Letter
this week which proclaimed:
Quite why people
going about their daily lives in parts of North London should be linked to
Israeli military action is something which lies in the mind of the Jew haters
and their fellow travellers
Could it have
something to do with its support for the actions of Israel in Gaza?Whilst most of the world condemns Israel as a
Apartheid state, the Board intonedon behalf of all British Jews that:
“We are deeply
concerned and saddened by the escalation of violence, and the seemingly
unremittent rocket fire against Israeli civilians by Hamas in Gaza. These
attacks are abhorrent and, despite the protection of Iron Dome, have sadly
already caused loss of life. Israel has the right to defend its citizens and it
is the responsibility of Hamas to immediately halt all rocket fire from Gaza.
Not a single word
about the devastation and loss of life in Gaza.Palestinian Lives Simply Don’t Matter. So of course some people will be
fooled into believing that all Jews support Israeli war crimes and thus it is
the Board itself which has placed British Jews in danger.
The
Working Definition of Anti-Semitism was foisted in 2005 on the European Union Monitoring
Committee. In 2014 the EUMC’s successor body, the Fundamental Rights Agency, removed
the WDA from its website and in 2016 the International Holocaust Remembrance
Alliance, an obscure inter-governmental body adopted it or rather it adopted
the 38 word core IHRA definition. That too is now shrouded in controversy as
the IHRA Secretariat have deliberately misrepresented
the decisions of the 2016 Conference in Bucharest.
The IHRA misdefinition of anti-Semitism
has been used to close down free speech on Palestine and at the moment there is
a particular targeting of academics. This much is admitted by the person who
drafted it, Kenneth Stern, in testimony
to Congress and an article
in the Guardian.
That
is why the Labour Campaign for Free Speech is urging local Labour Parties to
adopt a Model
Motion adopting the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism.
Below you can see all the dishonest ploys of the Jewish Chronicle, all in
one article. We are told that the Zionist Community Security Trust (which acts
effectively as an arm of Israel’s Mossad (MI6)) says it “could hamper efforts to tackle antisemitism”. They don’t explain how it will manage this! What
they really mean is that efforts to close down campaigns in support of the Palestinians
will be less effective.
When Dave Rich of the CST say that the JDA ‘was
drawn up without widespread consultation of Jewish community organisations’
what he means of course is Zionist organisations.
The IHRA limits the Palestinian
right to define their own struggle by branding it as ‘anti-Semitic’. Palestinians who experience racism every day of
their lives, as in the vandalism and destruction of the Al Tafawk Childrens’ Centre
last weekend by the Israeli Military, are told that they are anti-Semitic if
they complain.
Palestinians struggle
for their rights against Zionist oppression not because they are anti-Semitic but
because they, like most people, don’t like being oppressed! It really is that
simple.
But David Rich, an academic prostitute on hire to Mossad’s CST, gives the
game away when he complains that:
While IHRA warns against comparing Israel to
Nazi Germany, the Declaration suggests such comparisons are “contentious” but
not antisemitic.
That is true. When Jewish
demonstrators march in Israel to the chant of ‘death to the Arabs’ we should
call them for what they are – Judeo-Nazis. And when people like the late
Profess Ze’ev Sternhell wrote
an article ‘In Israel,
Growing Fascism and a Racism Akin to Early Nazism’ no doubt Rich would call
him anti-Semitic despite Sternhell being a child survivor of the holocaust.
Rich
also complains that denying the ‘Jewish people their right to self-determination’ would not be anti-Semitic. Why should it? Only
nations have such a right and Jews are a religion not a nation.
Clearly the JDA has
got the Zionists and their academic puppets worried that their chosen
instrument of demonisation of anti-Zionism, the IHRA, is meeting more
resistance than they bargained for.
If you are in the Labour
Party please move this resolution
Model motion: Abandon IHRA and adopt the Jerusalem Declaration
This motion
has been drafted as a model motion to go to Labour Party conference 2021,
but it can be tweaked for other purposes. Please note that this has to go
through your branch first, then your CLP and needs to be submitted to the NEC
by September 13 in order to be heard at Labour Party conference. Remember that
a CLP can either submit a rule change (which needs to be submitted by June 11)
or a ‘contemporary’ motion like this one.
1. We
note
1.1.
That the ‘working definition’ published by the IHRA (International Holocaust
Remembrance Alliance) has been rejected by numerous legal practitioners and
academic scholars , because it conflates anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism and has
been used to ‘chill’ freedom of speech on campuses.
1.2.
Among the many critics of the IHRA are:
Its principal drafter
Kenneth Stern who explained
that: “The definition was not drafted, and was never intended, as a
tool to target or chill speech on a college campus. In fact, at a
conference in 2010 about the impact of the definition, I highlighted this
misuse, and the damage it could do.”
Professor David Feldman (vice-chair
of the Chakrabarti Inquiry and director of the Pears Institute for the
Study of Anti-Semitism) who has described
the definition as “bewilderingly imprecise”.
Sir Stephen Sedley, the Jewish
former Court of Appeal judge, who has written
that the IHRA “fails the first test of any definition: it is
indefinite”.
Hugh Tomlinson QC who has
warned that the IHRA definition had a “chilling effect on public
bodies”.
Geoffrey Robertson QC who has
explained that, “The definition does not cover the most insidious
forms of hostility to Jewish people and the looseness of the definition is
liable to chill legitimate criticisms of the state of Israel and coverage
of human rights abuses against Palestinians.” Robertson, a prominent human
rights barrister, also wrote that the definition was ‘not fit for
purpose’.
Tony Lerman, the
founder of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, wrote
that “it’s not fit for purpose, but it also has the effect of making
Jews more vulnerable to antisemitism, not less, and exacerbating the
bitter arguments Jews have been having over the nature of contemporary
antisemitism for the last 20 to 25 years.”
2. We
believe:
2.1.
That the adoption of the IHRA definition and all eleven examples by the Labour
Party’s NEC in 2018 has not brought an end to the ongoing claims that the
Labour Party is riddled with anti-Semites. In fact, the opposite has occurred.
It has encouraged the leadership of the Labour Party to accelerate the
expulsion and suspension of critics of the Israeli state and Zionism.
2.3.
That unlike the IHRA, the JDA, whilst not without its flaws, is about
anti-Semitism not anti-Zionism.
3. We
resolve:
3.1. To
reverse the Labour Party’s NEC decision and jettison the IHRA definition.
3.2. To
adopt the Jerusalem Declaration,
which has been “developed by a group of scholars in the fields of Holocaust
history, Jewish studies, and Middle East studies to meet what has become a
growing challenge: providing clear guidance to identify and fight antisemitism
while protecting free expression”. In contrast to IHRA, it has been written “in
good faith”, as Professor Moshe Machover said
3.3. To
campaign for freedom of speech, which includes the right to call out Israel’s
policies towards the Palestinians as racist, discriminatory and oppressive.
David Miller is not the first Bristol University
lecturer to have been targeted by the Zionists – the last time it was a Jewish
Professor, Rachel Gould
Board of Deputies Member Robert Festenstein appears in a Tommy Robinson propaganda Video
Below
is a letter that I have written to Bristol University’s Vice-Chancellor, Hugh Brady, with copies to other senior
administrators.Please consider writing
yourself because you can be sure that if there is one thing that the Zionists are
good at it is getting a letter campaign together.
Also if you are Jewish please sign this letter
and everyone please sign this petition.
At the moment the Zionists have more than twice as many signatories.
For
the past 2 years Professor David Miller has been subjected to a relentless
campaign of vilification by Zionist groups, both on and off campus. In the past
week, following his speech at a conference of the Labour
Campaign for Free Speech, these attacks have reached a crescendo.
The
mob attack on David has been led by those well known anti-racist papers, the Daily
Mail and the Jewish
Chronicle.
A
whole gaggle of Zionist groups have joined in the hue and cry including the
Board of Deputies, whose Constitution
mandates it to ‘Take such appropriate action
as lies within its power to advance Israel's security, welfare and standing.’
Another
group in hot pursuit of David is the far-Right Islamaphobic
Campaign Against Anti-Semitism.
Such
is the Board of Deputies’s devotion to Israel that it even justified
Israel’s use of snipers against unarmed Palestinian demonstrators killing 300
people including 50
childrenas well as a number of medics.
What
was David Miller’s ‘crime’? He called for an end to Zionism. As someone who is
Jewish I join him in this call, as do many Jews. There is nothing anti-Semitic in such a call.
Zionism
is a political not an ethnic or religious creed. Would it seriously be
suggested that someone who calls for an end to socialism, fascism or capitalism
be dismissed?
David
also pointed out that Jewish student societies are in reality Zionist
societies. The Union of Jewish Students,
which is the umbrella
organisation for all 67 J-Socs in
Britain, receives funding from the Israeli Embassy, as Al Jazeera’s The
Lobby revealed.
UJS
is also affiliated to the World Zionist Organisation, which according to Ha'aretz
has a ‘land theft division’. The people whose land it steals are Palestinians.
One
of UJS’s ‘core
values’ is “engagement with Israel’,which they
‘passionately and proudly’
boast of. Among its Objects
is “inspiring students to making an enduring commitment” to Israel.’
No anti-Zionist or anti-racist Jewish student would go within a mile of UJS or their affiliated societies.
In the light of the vicious attacks on David Miller
by both the media and pro-Israel groups, the least he is entitled to expect is
that Bristol University’s will stand by him and defend free speech.
Yet what has been the response of Bristol’s
Administration to date? Have you defended David Miller’s right to speak out on
Zionism and Israel without intimidation? No. Instead you have offered to meet David’s student protagonists to discuss the ‘upset’ to them.
Bristol is not located in Israel where people have to be careful what they say.A state where Palestinian
poet Dareen Tatour was gaoled for writing a poem calling for resistance.
If, 40 years ago, a Bristol University lecturer had
called for an end to Apartheid in South Africa and had condemned the attacks on
anti-Apartheid activists by supporters of Apartheid on campus, would you have
rushed to reassure the racists of your support? That is exactly what you have done to date.
On
12 January 2021 Israel’s most respected human rights organisation B’Tselem, declared that Israel was ‘A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River
to the Mediterranean Sea’ The refusal
of Israel to vaccinate 5 million Palestinians whilst inoculating Jewish
settlers living in their midst should settle this debate.
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated:
“Israel is
not a state of all its citizens. According to the basic nationality law we
passed, Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people – and only it.
Sir
Stephen Sedley, a former Lord Justice of Appeal, who is himself Jewish, explained
that s.43 of the 1986 Education Act places a duty on Bristol to ‘take such steps as are reasonably
practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for
members, students and employees.’
I
was one of the organisers of the Free Speechconference
at which David Miller spoke. Speaking alongside him was noted American
intellectual Norman Finkelstein and Ronnie Kasrils, a Minister in Nelson
Mandela’s government. Both of them are Jewish.
Trump exhibits his signing of an Executive Order enabling use of the IHRA in Title VI cases - anti-Semites have no objection to the IHRA since it's not about anti-Semitism
The
IHRA contains 11 illustrations of ‘anti-Semitism’, 7 of which are about Israel.
Israel is not a Jew and anti-Semitism is not anti-Zionism. Your decision to bow
to Zionist pressure previously has led directly to the current attacks on David
Miller.
Islamaphobia
and Zionism
The
organisationswhich have been fronting
the current attack on David Miller have particularly objected to his linking of
Zionist organisations and Islamaphobia. Israel itself is vehemently anti- Muslim.
Israel’s liberal Ha'aretz, wrote
about how:
‘The rising
tide of Islamophobia across the world… provides a backdrop for the hatred of
Arabs in present-day Israel. Earlier this month, Channel 8 broadcast the first
episode of Ron Cahlili’s documentary series, “Hate,” about the growing loathing
for Arabs in Israel. Cahlili shows how the call “Death to the Arabs” moved from
the margins to become a ubiquitous ideology that has infiltrated the Israeli
mainstream.
Not
only have the organisations calling for Professor Miller to be sacked covered
for Israel’s Islamaphobia (a plurality
of Israeli Jews support the physical expulsion of Israeli Palestinians) but one
of the most prominent, the CAA
has a long record of inciting racial hatred of Muslims.
‘growing antisemitism amongst British Muslims. On
every single count, British Muslims were more likely by far than the general
British population to hold deeply antisemitic views. It is clear that many
British Muslims reserve a special hatred for British Jews, rating Jews much
less favourably than people of other religions or no religion... It has long
been suspected that sections of the British Muslim population harboured hatred
towards British Jews... the prejudice is horrifyingly widespread.’
On
the cover of the Report was a picture of a Black person holding a ‘Hitler was
right’ poster. Not content with portraying Muslims as genocidal anti-Semites
the CAA also included a profile of a typical Muslim male accompanied by the
caption ‘Sympathetic to terrorism,
extremism and violence.’ If ‘Jew’ had been substituted for ‘Muslim’ then
who could have doubted that this image was anti-Semitic ?
4
years ago another Bristol University academic, Rachel Gould, who was herself
Jewish, was subject to a similar
campaign to that against David Miller. Dr
Gould’s offence had been to write an article ‘Beyond Anti-Semitism’ which described how the memory of the
holocaust was being used to deflect criticism of Israel’s racist policies.
The
CAA wrote
to you demanding that Dr Gould ‘should be
required… to publicly retract her article.’ If however she refused to do so
then ‘she should be dismissed, and her
dismissal should be made public so as to clearly signal the University of
Bristol’s values.’ These are the people you are currently appeasing.
Kenneth
Stern, an American academic who was the main author of the IHRA, declared in testimony
to the US Congress that the CAA’s behaviour was ‘egregious’ and that ‘the
exercise itself was chilling and McCarthy-like.’ Instead of sending the CAA
away with a flea in their ear Bristol University then conducted an inquiry into
this bogus complaint putting Dr Gould under enormous stress. It is little
wonder that she departed for Birmingham University soon after.
None
of this stopped Sir Eric Pickles, a Cabinet member from describing Gould’s
article as ‘one of the worst cases of
Holocaust denial”.A claim Bristol
Live called
‘ridiculous and inflammatory.’
The CAA has waged similar
campaigns against a host of academics, most of them Jewish. Richard
Falk, an American emeritus professor
at Princeton University and UN
Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian
territories was also subject to the CAA’s attentions. The CAA boasted
that
‘following
intervention by Campaign Against Antisemitism, the university (Middlesex) has now decided to cancel the event.’ This
development comes hours after the University of East London took action to
stop another event at which Falk was due to speak.’
Emeritus Professor Moshe
Machover of King’s College was also a victim of the CAA’s McCarthyisn. Machover
was falsely accused of having ‘accused
Jewish students of being under the control of the Israeli embassy’. A
similar accusation to that against David Miller.
The
CAA’s letter to to Queen Mary College could have been written by Joe McCarthy.
They wrote
‘to ascertain
why Professor Machover was allowed to speak and lodge a complaint, and have
additionally written to King’s College London and the London School of
Economics to ascertain his employment status, and request that disciplinary
proceedings be instigated.’
The
chutzpah (impudence) of an external organisation demanding to know why a
distinguished professor was allowed to speak at a university is illustrative of
the contempt of Zionist organisations for free speech. You Professor Grady have
only encouraged them.
On
no occasion have the gaggle of Zionist organisations currently targeting David
Miller dissociated themselves from the CAA’s tactics.
Marie
van der Zyl, President of the Board of Deputies, in her letter to Bristol
University said
of Professor Miller that his ‘rants
would not look out of place on the pages of Der Sturmer’, a Nazi tabloid.’
Anyone with any acquaintance with Julius
Streicher’s rabidly anti-Semitic pornographic paper would know what a malicious
smear this is. Yet instead of terminating the correspondence Bristol University
has encouraged this type of rancid complaint, stating
that:
“We have received a significant number of calls for
Professor David Miller to be dismissed.
“UK law requires that we, like all employers, act in
accordance with our internal procedures and the ACAS code of conduct.’
UK employment law does not oblige any employer,
least of all a university, to entertain malicious complaints about their employees.
This statement is disingenuous.
Mark Gardener of the CST, a Zionist organisation with links to
Israel’s Mossad, which collects information on Jewish anti-Zionists (they sent
me a file of over 300 pages as a result of a Subject Access Request) accused
Professor Miller of a ‘vile slur’ for
accusing Zionist organisations of Islamaphobia. Yet
this isn’t the first time that the CST has been accused
of Islamaphobia.
Another
of the organisations accused of Islamaphobia is the Jewish National Fund. The
JNF, which owns and controls 93% of Israeli land, refuses to rent or lease this
land to non-Jews. It operates solely for the benefit of the ‘Jewish people’. Gideon
Levy of Ha'aretz described
how Avraham DuvdevaniChair of the JNF,
prevented a Jew having to sell land to an Arab by getting the JNF to buy the
land. Thus keeping it for the Jewish people. The CST considers this policy of
‘Jewish land’ perfectly acceptable.
The
Board of Deputies which is leading the attack on Miller is riddled with
Islamaphobia and anti-Arab racists. Roslyn Pine, a deputy for Finchley United
Synagogue, shared
tweets describing Muslims as “the vilest
of animals” calling Arabs “so evil”.
Although she was suspended for 6 years by the Board she was later quietly
readmitted.
The
Jewish Chronicle described
how Robert Festenstein appeared
alongside Tommy Robinson ‘in a
politically motivated video made for a right-wing media website.’ Festenstein was introduced by
Robinson as ‘a legal adviser’. The
Board didn’t even bother to call Festenstein, the Deputy for Prestwich
synagogue, to account because it knew that once it set out on this road it
would have few members left.
None of this should be of any surprise. The Constitution of the Board mandates it to‘Take
such appropriate action as lies within its power to advance Israel's security,
welfare and standing.’ Not once has it
condemned Israeli war crimes such as the practice of imprisoning Palestinian children as young as 12 or demolishing
Palestinian homes. Even Tory Minister James Cleverly condemned the demolition of Humsa
Al-Baqai’a, a village which housed 73 people, including 41 children, who are
now homeless.
Using the English Language Correctly
I
am sure you will be aware, as a senior academic, of how important it is to use
the English language correctly. When someone is accused of anti-Semitism then
this is a term that should be used accurately and not used to defend the
abuse of Palestinian human rights. Anti-Semitism is about hatred,
hostility and discrimination against Jews as Jews not hatred or opposition to
Zionism.
When
Zionist students at Bristol University say they feel ‘unsafe’ because of a speech
made by Professor Miller at a conference that none of them even attended, what
they are doing is using the English language as a weapon of deceit. Perhaps
these snowflakes should spend a few days on the West Bank where they might come
to appreciate exactly what the word ‘unsafe’ really means.Since the Administration of Bristol
University is too timid to enlighten them perhaps I might give you an
indication of what this word means:
·unsafe
is not knowing when your house is going to be bulldozed
·unsafe
is not knowing if your child will return from the shops because he/she may
become a victim of an Israeli sniper
·unsafe
is not knowing if you are going to be arrested everyday for just being of a
different ethnicity
·unsafe
is not knowing if you'll have any water today because the tank may get riddled
with bullets
·unsafe
is when you have to pay a $20,000 fine for a bulldozer that has destroyed your
village. This practice originated with the Nazis. Jews who were deported to
Auschwitz had to pay the cost of the trains that took them to their deaths.
·unsafe
is when in order to get to your class at Bir Zeit university you have to
negotiate army checkpoints at any of which you could be harassed and delayed.
·unsafe
is not knowing what has happened to your 12 year old child after he had been
arrested in the early hours of the morning, blindfolded with painful plastic
handcuffs put on him, deprived of food and water for hours and then subject to
violence by armed soldiers.
·Unsafe is not knowing
whether your girl, who has been taken by the Israeli military will be one of
those 40%
of girls subject to sexual abuse.
An Israeli flag flies along with Confederate flags amid a sea of neo-Nazi proud boys. Most fascist groups today see Israel as a model Islamaphobic state
Members
of Bristol J-Soc don’t know the meaning of the word ‘unsafe’ and neither it
would appear do you. Below is the description
of one such arrest by Amnesty International (a group described
by Donald Trump as ‘anti-Semitic’).
At about 2am on 24 October, a dozen Israeli police,
armed with machine guns, came to arrest Bakr Sa'id, a 15 year old boy, at his
home in Kufar Kana. Four armed police officers went to where Bakr Sa'id was
sleeping and arrested the boy. Bakr Sa'id was reportedly interrogated for several
hours in the early morning by three interrogators in civilian clothes who
shouted and threatened him. Later in the day he was brought to court, but his
father was not allowed to speak to him. Another detainee in court said he saw a
police officer slap Bakr Sa'id in the face.
A Report
for UNICEF on the treatment of Palestinian Children in Israeli Military
Detention describes a standard interrogation of children, who are not allowed
access to lawyers or their parents.
The interrogation mixes intimidation, threats and
physical violence, with the clear purpose of forcing the child to confess.
Children are restrained during the interrogation, in some cases to the chair
they are sitting on. This sometimes continues for extended periods of time, resulting
in pain to their hands, back and legs. Children have been threatened with
death, physical violence, solitary confinement and sexual assault, against themselves or a family member.
Of
course such treatment would not be meted out to Jewish children. This is why
Israel is an Apartheid police state for Palestinians.
Your
students’ description of themselves as ‘unsafe’ should be treated with
contempt. The only question is whether you have the honesty and integrity to call out these
false accusations against Professor Miller for the lies that they are. Academic
freedom is something that people have given their lives for in other countries.
Do you have the courage to stand up to these orchestrated smears against a
member of staff or are you going to appease these apologists for Israeli war
crimes?
