Yesterday the largest ever Palestine
Solidarity Demonstration took place in Brighton and Hove.Over 3,000 people marched to a warm
reception from passing cars and locals. You can hear on the video above the
honking of car horns.
It was fitting that the march was
led by children in memory of the 5,000+ children that the Israeli state has
deliberately murdered in Gaza as it bombs homes, hospitals, schools and refugee
camps.
Yet NOT ONE Labour Councillor nor the despicable MPfor Hove, Peter Kyle, who doubles up as
Shadow Science Minister and Vice-Chair of Labour Friends of Israel has called
for an end to genocide in Gaza.
At the next election we must call
on people to vote no to having a war criminal as MP for Hove. His predecessor,
Ivor Caplin, former Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement was also a war criminal,
being a junior Defence Minister in Blair’s government at the time of the
IraqWar.
Yesterday I wrote to all 38 Labour Councillors
asking why they had not supported the demand for a ceasefire in Gaza. As of yet
none of them have replied.
In my letter I included two images –
one was a sticker, thousands of which are circulating in Israel with the message
‘Exterminate Gaza’. Extermination is
what the Nazis did and now Israel, in the name of fighting Nazis has adopted
exactly the same terminology.
Not for nothing did Primo Levi, the
Italian Jewish survivor of Auschwitz describe
the Palestinians as the Jews of the Middle East. Although Israelis may imagine
they are fighting the Nazis in reality they are the heirs of the Nazis.
Echoing Hitler's Deputy Heinrich Himmler, Israel's War Minister Yoav Gallant Calls the Palestinians 'human animals'
When Yoav Gallant, Israel’s War
Minister launched the current attacks on Gaza he declared
that ‘We are fighting human animals and
we will act accordingly.’ When Hitler’s
Deputy Heinrich Himmler sought to justify the extermination of the Jews in a speech in Poznań on 4 October 1943,
he described the Nazis as ‘the only
people in the world who have a decent attitude toward animals’ and who ‘will also take a decent towards these human
animals’ referring to the Jews. [A
Holocaust Reader, Lucy Dawidowicz, p.131]
Israeli PM Netanyahu Describes the Palestinians as Amalek whom god commanded the Israelites to wipe out to the last infant - as Israel is doing now in Gaza
If anyone doubts that genocide is in the hearts and minds of
the present Israeli government then one only has to listen to Benjamin Netanyahu,
the Prime Minister of Israel and read
his Letter to Soldiers and Commanders: 'Remember what Amalek did to you.'
In the Bible God commands King Saul in the first Book of
Samuelto kill every person in Amalek, a mythical
tribe. The prophet Samuel tells
Saul to
‘attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that
belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and
infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’
This can be found in Deuteronomy 25:17 or the first Book of
Samuel 15:2. It has been the standard interpretation of Amalek by those in Israel
who advocate the extermination of the Palestinians when they chant ‘Death to the Arabs’ to equate the Palestinians
with Amalek. Now the Israeli Prime Minister has done so we should be under no
illusions.
The fact that Biden, Sunak, Starmer, Macron, Scholz and the
other Western leaders are nonetheless willing, despite knowledge of this, to
support Israel unequivocally to the extent of supplying and resupplying Israel’s
missiles and bombs make them equally culpablein the Israeli state’s war crimes. In short we are led by war criminals.
Tony Greenstein
this was the Zionist counter-demonstration in support of genocide - there were more police than Zios
Last week
the first trial of Palestine Action activists trying to close down Elbit
arms factories in Britain ended with the acquittal of all 3 activists. This is
the first of a series of such trials. Unlike the defendants at Newcastle, those
on trial will be able to appeal to juries and argue that the very existence of
such companies, dedicated as they are to the murder and maiming of civilians,
is contrary to both British and International Law. Below is a summary of the
main points of law that led to the acquittals by John Nicholson, a former
barrister and himself a Palestine solidarity activist.
In January three activists threw bottles of red paint and locked
themselves across the entrance gates, closing down UAV Systems in Shenstone as
part of Palestine Action’s campaign against Elbit Systems. UAV is a subsidiary of
Elbit which manufactures drones used against Palestinians in the occupied
territories.
Eleven months later, they appeared at Newcastle-Under-Lyme
magistrates court accused of committing criminal damage. On Monday, at the end
of a two-day trial, Judge Waites found them not guilty.
For nearly 18 months there have been a series of sustained protests at many of Elbit’s offices and factories around the country which police claim have caused a total of around £15
million of damage. While activists gave evidence in open court the Elbit
witness gave their evidence hidden behind a screen.
The Judge ruled that the Crown Prosecution Service had not
proved that convicting the defendants would be proportionate to their right to
protest, adding that Palestine and the arms trade were important issues and the
activists had specifically targeted the drone manufacturer in accordance with
their strongly-held beliefs.
UK police have offered 24 hour rapid-response at Elbit sites and
have regularly raided and arrested activists in an attempt to disrupt the
campaign. See UK's
Palestine Action wins Israel protest court battle. This contrasts with their virtual decriminalisation of rape as they plead 'lack of resources'.
Legal Summary
The judge found that:
1.This was an important issue. Palestine and the arms trade were serious concerns. In Ziegler the Supreme
Court said that the court cannot judge on the merit of the protest, but the
right to protest is important and this particular protest was on serious and
important issues.
2.The defendants believed in what
they were doing. Defendants’ views came across
clearly (time in Palestine, campaigning and friendship with a Palestinian
family [most of whom had been killed by a drone attack]) and they were serious
people who were strongly motivated.
3.The location was deliberately
chosen – UAV Engines. There were a
number of aims, educating, stopping production, symbolic blood, all linked to
the location.
4.The duration was limited. 7 hours (4.30-11.30 am). One gate. The second part of the protest was
not said to be criminal, the CPS only charged on criminal damage, throwing the
red paint and although it was not just the time taken to throw the paint (a few
minutes) but the time to clear it up, the fact that Elbit took two days and
charged £900 was not realistic. It was just that they hadn’t got round to it –
really it was an hour or so as only 5-6 car parking spaces were affected.
5.The disruption was limited. And there was no evidence the paint/bottles went near the dog handler
or his dog. He gave evidence that he felt “not
happy” but made it clear that there was no violence. There was no especial
trauma caused to him. The CPS mentioned private houses opposite – but there was
no evidence that anyone was upset. They might have been out or even
sympathetic. The nature of the area was otherwise commercial. Extent of
obstruction was broken glass, limited to a few bottles, not all were broken,
and one of the defendants graphically described how it was swept up! No
obstruction to members of the public.
6.No danger to public order. It could have been different if it had been during
the day.
The judge then summarised – important issues, limited duration, focused
on objectives, limited impact on workers or public, no significant danger. They
did however commit a criminal offence. But... the legal authorities make clear
that judgment requires more than just consideration of blocking the highways
(Ziegler). There is also Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human
Rights (ECHR) and that this could include cases involving criminal damage (one
such included red paint on a statue). The degree of damage is part of the
balancing act – at one end cutting off a petal, at the other bulldozing a
building. This was in between. Symbolic use of paint (not disputed it was water
based and washed off easily – if it had been done more quickly by Elbit that
is). It was at the upper end of the scale of proportionality and the judge was
therefore not sure that the interference (by the CPS) with the right to protest
was justified. Not guilty!!
The Judge emphasised that there are consequences to this. It is not a
precedent (i.e. don’t do it again and expect to get away with it and don’t
expect other cases to be able to say “we won here so we can win again”). Every
case depends on the individual facts.
This was a legal judgment based on Ziegler, the Supreme Court case
(which is binding on all courts). Ziegler is about proportionality, which the
court agreed is not limited to blocking the roads. This was much more likely to
succeed than other defences (which were also put), such as necessity, because the
action taken here may not so easily be linked to the desired outcome there,
that is, it may not be effective enough to stop bombing of Gaza and the link
between the two may be too remote.
The judge was absolutely insistent that this was not a precedent.
Legally that is correct. The barristers made clear that the judge could and
should find in our favour here, irrespective of any other possible future
cases. One of the defendants made it pretty clear that she would be going back
to protest every day she could – and that everyone in the court had a moral
duty to go and do the same! So the judge was trying to say we can’t do that and
expect to get away with it. But – in all human and political terms – this is a
precedent. If we had lost, the CPS would be using it the other way. Maybe (just
maybe) the CPS will have to rethink some of the other charges in the light of
this.
An EXTRA artillery rocket system developed and manufactured by Israel Military Industries.Credit: Elbit
The CPS didn’t charge for anything other than throwing the red paint
(and criminal damage resulting). This meant they artificially separated the
aspects of the action, and the defendants did well to say that all of the bits
of the action were part and parcel of the one action. It did not seem to be
clear to the judge why the CPS didn’t go for other charges, such as
preventing workers going to work or other trade union related “offences”. I
think that all the other PA protesters have had charges dropped when they just
blocked the road or locked on, while this one was “lock-on plus”, ie they threw
red paint (soluble, symbolic, red paint to represent the blood of the
Palestinians killed by Elbit). So the CPS fought this on the “plus”. [Doesn’t
anyone know about the suffragists??]
There is a tension between our arguments – on the one hand the actions
do aim to maximise the stopping of production at Elbit and/or damage; on the
other hand, in court our arguments are that it was limited and didn’t do very
much. No way of getting round this, other than the more “political” defences of
necessity and crime prevention. Elbit’s crime is far worse than ours,
international law is on our side etc.
Support in the court is essential. It hopefully did help the defendants,
to feel they had an audience, and they were very well prepared and “performed”
brilliantly. END
Israel – A Military With A State
In 2020 Israel spent $22bn on its military, $2,508 per capita
and some 12% of total government spending. This is the highest in the world.
Compare this to Israel’s treatment of its holocaust survivors.
When it comes to defending Israeli apartheid Israel’s propagandists never fail
to use the holocaust as a justification for Israel’s crimes. Yet what is the
reality of Israel’s treatment of the survivors?
According to the Times
of Israel over half of Israel’s holocaust survivors require food handouts, ‘with many saying they don’t have the funds
to pay for essentials such as eyeglasses and hearing aids’.
In a poll conducted by the Holocaust Survivors’ Welfare Fund,
51% said they relied on food given to them by various charities, with a third
saying they were in “dire need” of assistance.
According to the poll, many Holocaust survivors
say they are forced to give up essentials in order to have enough money for
food. Forty-three percent of respondents said they didn’t have enough money for
spectacles, 33% said they couldn’t afford dental care and 27% said they
couldn’t pay for hearing aids.
The reality is that the holocaust survivors have subsidised
the Israeli state ever since its foundation. The reparations that Germany paid
to Israel did not go to the survivors but to the Israeli state and the Jewish Claims
Conference, where much of it was embezzled away.
But if Israel is generous to its military and arms industry
it is parsimonious to those who survived the holocaust. Below is a graph of Israeli
spending compared to other countries.
Israel is a key global supplier of advanced weaponry,
including drones, missiles, radar technology and other systems. In 2020, it was
the 12th-biggest arms supplier with more than $345m in weapons sales to 16
countries, according to the SIPRI database.
It’s been nearly five months since
the last scandal involving the cyber offense firm NSO Group. In the time since,
it has become abundantly clear that it was one scandal too many.
An international inquiry has produced
a long list of journalists, social activists and politicians, including VIPs,
all of whom were ostensibly targeted by NSO’s Pegasus software.
At the top of the list is French President Emmanuel Macron.
'If we did not collaborate with this or the other
dictatorial regime we would not have the defense that we do have'
The list also sheds light on the
states that are evidently in possession of Pegasus, and its suspicious
correspondence with the states that Israel’s government has identified as
geopolitical targets. From there, it’s a short road to the assertion that not
only does NSO have a light trigger finger when it comes to providing services
to controversial regimes around the world, but that Pegasus virtually serves as
a down payment on the establishment of unofficial diplomatic relations between
these countries and Israel. These revelations led to a procession of apologies
and clarifications from high-ranking Israelis.
These efforts did nothing to keep the
United States from placing NSO on a blacklist –
a death blow to the company. Moreover, on Saturday Reuters published a report
claiming that the mobile devices of at least nine U.S. State Department serving
in Africa were hacked using Pegasus, driving a final nail into the company’s
coffin.
Eli Pinko, the first director of the Defense Export Control Agency.Credit: Linkedin
Throughout this entire period, official Israeli sources have failed to
offer any response to the NSO affair, even when the debate focused on
theoretical issues, such as the role of Israeli defense exports in a changing world.
Given all this, interest ran high when Eli Pinko – who had been the first
director of the Defense Export Control Agency, appointed in 2006 – addressed a
closed conference at a Ramat Gan law firm last week dealing with Israeli defense exports. According to
materials obtained by The Marker, Pinko didn’t disappoint the attendees, who
were drawn from the ranks of the defense export industry.
“The Defense Ministry should have
come out in defense of NSO,” Pinko said, “rather than caving
to the Americans and the French and sending [Defense Minister Benny Gantz to
France] to explain what did and didn’t happen.” As such, Pinko was
expressing the prevailing mood in the ministry, even though he is no longer a
civil servant.
“Did NSO receive a license? Were they working in accordance with that
license? If so, then defend them!” Pinko admonished the audience.
‘Those
arrogant Israelis’
Behind closed doors, NSO is claiming that their sales received government
approval. The company has appealed to the Foreign Ministry and the Prime
Minister’s Office with a plea for help. At the gathering in Ramat Gan, the
company’s narrative was practically taken for granted.
“This whole ordeal is a match-up
between the U.S. National Security Agency and NSO,” one participant said,
insinuating that NSO had “stepped on the
toes” of the NSA. “Those arrogant
Israelis eliminated the technological edge that the Americans had been building
up over 20 years, ever since 9/11 – and began selling this know-how to every
good-for-nothing leader in Africa,” he explained. “I’m convinced that NSO has no idea why they ended up on the list over
anyone else,” another participant said.
Office
buildings in Ramat Gan, central Israel. Credit:
Tomer Appelbaum
The gathering was held at the offices of the Meitar law firm. Along with
the Association of Corporate Counsel, the meeting was chaired by Yuval Sasson,
a partner at Meitar and one of the most senior attorneys in the world of
defense exports. The audience included the legal counsels of Israeli defense
contractors. Through his questions, Sasson adeptly zeroed in on the state of
distress his colleagues find themselves in.
“Everyone in this room has fielded
a request of some sort from a state agency, or someone serving a state agency.
Doesn’t that imply some obligation toward us?” Sasson wondered aloud.
“If a company that has aided a state agency, as a
result of that action, finds itself on the American watch list – or is hit with
a civil suit in Europe – isn’t the State of Israel obligated to stand by its
side, to protect it, to handle the situation?”
Pinko
responded authoritatively: “There are
quite a few examples of times Israel stood behind companies and these sort of
activities – not only through legal defense, but even by paying fees that the
defense contractors were compelled to pay in the face of various sanctions –
without asking for repayment.”
“In Turkey, for example, Israel
defended the interests of two large Israeli companies,” Pinko recalled (possibly referring
to the canceled export permits of Elbit and Israel Aerospace Industries in
2011, which caused the loss of contracts with the Turkish air force valued at
$140 million).
“What we have here is a matter of
reasonable expectations,” Sasson contended, likening the situation to the
approval of a prospectus by the Israel Securities Authority. “Anyone working in a regulated area, assuming
he abides by the regulations, can reasonably expect that if he suffers damages
as a result of those activities, then the state should enter the fray and not
shirk its responsibility.”
Yuval
Sasson, a partner at Meitar and one of the most senior attorneys in the world
of defense exports. Credit: Tomer Yaakobson
‘We were silent until their release’
The conference was called “Considerations of Ethics, Morality and Human
Rights in Defense Exports.” An oxymoron, one might say. On the other hand, it
indicates the increasingly critical global discourse regarding defense exports
and the increasing accessibility to no-less-dangerous technological weaponry.
“Are weapons exports ethical at all?
If you’re asking in a utopian world, then the answer is no,” Pinko said. “But we live in a different reality – globally and regionally.”
In his view, the Defense Ministry’s behavior as it pertains to the
protection of human rights – vis-a-vis serving the political interests of
Israel – is “complex,” but with a
clear inference as to which way the balance should skew.
“Human rights [in the target
countries of the exports] are on the agenda – both at the Defense Export
Control Agency and the Foreign Ministry – but rights do not always take top
billing,” he
admitted. “There are state interests that
need to be taken into account, and more than once the decision regarding the
dilemma has been left to the highest political echelons,” said Pinko.
“The defense of the state depends on
many systems. If we did not collaborate with this or the other dictatorial
regime we would not have the defense that we do have,” said Pinko, likely hinting at the
useful relationships that Israel has developed with Iran’s neighbor Saudi
Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Azerbaijan.
The
SPYDER, an Israeli short and medium range mobile air defence system developed
by Rafael.Credit: Rafael
According to foreign reports, these relations include the export
of sensitive weaponry in exchange for an additional layer of protection for
Israel. As such, based on the most recent report by the Stockholm International
Peace Research Institute, Israel is the source of 70 percent of Azerbaijani
weapons imports.
“We are facing a unique situation.
Nothing will change that. There is no other possibility. Take this into
account: It’s either the civil rights in some country or Israel’s right to
exist. I would like to see each of you face this dilemma and say: ‘No, we will
champion human rights in the other country.’ Gentlemen, it doesn’t work.”
“If we were Sweden or France, perhaps
we’d be in a different position, but take, for example, the recent incident in
Turkey,” Pinko said,
referring to the arrest of Mordi and Natalie Oknin. “We avoided saying a single word about the involvement of Hamas-Turkey
in the recently exposed terror activities in the territories, even though it
originated from there – until after the couple was released. So to sit here and
spin theories about what should be done and optics – that’s fine, but you
constantly have to see the other side of the coin, as well,” Pink said.
‘Even
Merkel offered the Saudis a submarine fleet’
Pinko repeatedly expressed his contentions regarding the world’s double
standard and hypocrisy in its attitude toward Israel.
“I have yet to see publications
referencing American attacks in Afghanistan where women and children were
killed, nor any reference to massacres committed by French forces in Africa.
The world accepts those incidents with equanimity. But when it comes to NSO,
which sold a system in accordance with government permits? Suddenly there’s a
global outcry. Guys, this is the duplicitous nature of the world.”
“The French company Thales is the
number one exporter of cyber technology in Europe. Who don’t they sell to? Just
name it, they’re already there. Places we wouldn’t dare touch. So they have an
ethical code, or so they say. Very nice,” Pinko said.
“The only
state that upholds the human rights issue is Germany. Germany will not sell to
Saudi Arabia or other such countries, out of considerations of human rights and
the character of the regime in these countries. But still, that didn’t prevent
[German Chancellor Angela] Merkel from offering the Saudis a fleet of
submarines. The fact that they didn’t buy it is a different matter, but the
world is hypocritical.”
Pinko further demonstrated his point, referring to
Microsoft’s withdrawal last March from purchasing the Israeli startup AnyVision
(now called Oosto). AnyVision developed facial-recognition tracking technology.
According to reports in foreign media outlets, Israeli security forces have
made use of this system to surveil Palestinians. “Pressure from the Palestinian lobby on the Democratic Party is what
stopped the sale,” said Pinko. “Microsoft
did not withdraw because it did not want the company. It wanted it. But at the
same time it was under pressure.”
Pinko insinuated that some of the negative publicity
surrounding the Israeli industry results from commercial competition in the
export markets among three blocs: the United States, Europe and China. As such,
he alluded to another role for the Defense Ministry as a sales agent of the
local defense industry.
None
other than lawyer Eitay Mack was asked to give his seal of approval at the
gathering. Credit: Emil Salman
“The
regimes in Beijing and Moscow have not changed, and will not change. Wherever
we exit, they will enter, and wherever the Americans and the French exit, they
will enter,” Pinko said. “Does that
still mean that we should leave? I’m conflicted. What is certain is that we
have to be more deliberate and to do a better job of taking these things into
account.”
Pinko, it should be noted, bears the scars of the
drones that Israel sold to China in the 1990s, provoking American ire. In
general, regarding recent U.S. pressure on its allies to cut commercial ties
with China, Pinko was critical of the Israeli course of action: “Being in the middle of the West’s demands
and what the Asian bloc is doing is a very difficult task. The regime is
proceeding cautiously, and trying to cover its ass. Nowadays, there’s no
imagination, there’s no long term vision. It’s all short term.”
‘You’re
alone in the fray’
New European Union regulations that took effect in
September require that human rights be considered in all defense export
transactions. Meanwhile, in early November, the United States released a draft
of its own regulations for preliminary public discussion. These included
specific supervision of cyber exports.
The rules of the game are changing, all of the
speakers at the session agreed. Legal threats are not the only new factor under
consideration when export companies make more vigorous efforts to assess
whether a sale is worthwhile.
“Investments in problematic places bring bad
PR,” noted Sasson. “People want to
work in companies with a good reputation, and some companies are having a hard
time recruiting personnel due to the publicity about their actions.”
None other than lawyer Eitay Mack was asked to give
his seal of approval at the gathering. Mack is one of the most prominent
individuals in the human rights niche. In recent years, he has (voluntarily)
taken it upon himself to engage in public supervision of Israel’s defense
exports.
“You’ve been left alone in the fray,”
Mack informed the legal counsels of the defense contractors. “It seems to me, that even though you’re
inundated by the bureaucracy of the defense and foreign ministries, at the end
of the day, they’re incapable of defending you. The Defense Export Control
Agency is not an insurance policy either. Obtaining a permit from them isn’t
like getting approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.”
Mack did not spare his criticism for Israeli
administration officials. The Foreign Ministry, he contended, has been caught
making mistakes more than once and “doesn’t
always know what is going on.” The Defense Ministry consistently foils
parliamentary supervision of defense exports out of its fear of leaks.
The two ministries, Mack contends, oppose amending the
Defense Export Control Law, as it would impose restrictions on the export of
arms – even to countries that are not subject to UN Security Council embargo.
He no longer holds out much hope for the courts either.
A
smartphone with the website of Israel's NSO Group.Credit: JOEL SAGET - AFP
The High Court of Justice recently ruled that
public criticism of the Defense Export Control Agency decisions is inadmissible
to the court (Mack: “That track has
ended, which I feel very sorry about.”) Ultimately, Mack says, after the
government refused to recognize its obligation to the defense contractors, the
Knesset and the courts followed suit. “From
here on out, the responsibility you bear has grown very heavy,” he told his
colleagues, “even before you get into
questions of ethics.”
Sasson posed a scenario to Mack.
“Let’s say I sold a rifle. I told the customer
that he must not enter opposition territory with it. But what can I do? A few
months later, you see five soldiers entering a village and massacring people
with my rifle. What can I do? Sue my customer? What am I expected to do, aside
from not selling to him anymore?”
Mack responded:
“When you’re talking about low-tech,
there isn’t really much you can do. Even when Israel decided to stop exports –
it couldn’t simply round up the weapons. But when it comes to high-tech
technologies, such a possibility must exist. If the exporter has implemented
all means of prevention, kept its finger on the trigger and stopped its use at
the right moment, then, maybe, it has fulfilled its legal obligation.”
The
offices of NSO Group in Sapir, a community settlement in southern Israel.Credit: Sebastian Scheiner/AP“It is true that the world is
hypocritical and politics plays into it, but everyone has to take
responsibility for their own square on the chess board. Defense companies have
to look after their own interests – and we can all agree that there are enough
extreme instances in which the legal counsels are the ones that should be
hitting the off switch,”
Mack concluded.
Another speaker at the gathering was Matan Gutman,
founder of CybeRighTech, and the advisor to former state comptroller Joseph
Shapira. “Each company should look at
itself first of all, at its own obligation to loyalty. And at the minimum
requirements that it must comply with in order to prepare for a moment of
crisis,” he said.
“Even if
the company is scrupulous about preliminary actions that will respond [in the
event of an entanglement] – that may not be enough, because the world is moving
ahead too quickly,” said Gutman.
Pinko concluded the technical discussion of the issue
of arms exports – we are, after all, speaking of a professional gathering –
with a tip for the defense contractors: “I am familiar with the license granted
by the Defense Ministry. If any change needs to be made – it is in the clauses
of this license. It is by means of these clauses that the ministry frees itself
from all responsibility for the licensing process.”
Is there anything more sickening than a politician who steps on the bodies of Palestinian children in order to build her career?
I
thought it was about time that I wrote to an old friend, Starmer’s Shadow
Foreign Secretary, Lisa Nandy. Because it is of general interest I have decided
to share it with others but I would ask that you keep it confidential. I don’t want our friendship to be derailed!!
The JLM's Mike Katz praises Louise Ellman, who has defended the torture and abuse of Palestinian children in the name of 'security' - Ruth Smeeth was very brave in lying to get Marc Wadsworth expelled
It’s
not often that I agree with Stephane Savary of the Jewish Labour Movement,
who accused Lisa
Nandy of “playing both sides.” Just a day after saying,
at a JLM hustings for Labour leadership candidates that she was a Zionist,
Nandy agreed to
sign up to 3 Pledges from PSC, including the right of return for Palestinian
refugees.
If
Nandy had understood what she said then she would know that a return of those
who were ethnically cleansed in 1948 would spell doom for Israel as a Jewish
Supremacist state. It would force Zionism to choose between a democratic
state or an apartheid state. In practice the choice has already been made.
Israel rules over 5 million Palestinians in the Occupied Territories yet
refuses to grant them even the most minimal civil or political rights.
The
refugees were expelled in order to create a Jewish majority in Israel. That was
always the intention of the Zionist movement. In December 1940, Joseph Weitz,
Director of the Jewish National Fund's Lands Settlement Department, wrote in his diary:
Ruth Smeeth, described in one US memo published by Wikileaks as a Protected Asset of the United States. A hard line Zionist, she lied about anti-racist activist Marc Wadsworth whom Corbyn failed to defend
There
is no way besides transferring the Arabs from here to the neighboring
countries, and to transfer all of them, save perhaps for [the Arabs of]
Bethlehem, Nazareth and Old Jerusalem. Not one village must be left, not one
[bedouin] tribe. And only after this transfer will the country be able to
absorb millions of our brothers and the Jewish problem will cease to exist.
There is no other solution."
In
December 2018 Nandy became
Chair of the invisible Labour Friends of Palestine. In an article outlining
her plans as the new Chair, Nandy waxed lyrical about the oppression that
the Palestinians faced.
How
is it that Nandy, who wrote eloquently about ‘families humiliated at
checkpoints on a daily basis and the denial of basic medical care’ and
in support of an arms embargo could also support the fake ‘anti-Semitism’
campaign directed against Corbyn and supporters of the Palestinians?
Labour Party policy on Palestine as passed by the 2021 Conference
Nandy’s
condemnation of the Palestine motion passed at Labour Party conference was a
further example of how she is prepared to sell the Palestinians down the river
if it benefits her career. He condemnation was of course supported by
Starmer, who had previously declared that
he is a ‘Zionist without qualification.’
As someone who always believes in the
best in people I thought I should write a personal letter to Nandy expressing
my disappointment and hoping that she had been misquoted. After all Nandy can't
want people to think that the only thing she is interested in is power for its
own sake!
Open Letter to Lisa Nandy
Dear Lisa Nandy,
I am sure you will agree with me that
consistency, honesty and integrity are qualities to be admired in a politician,
rare as it might be to find such a person. I have looked in vain for any
evidence that you possess any of these qualities. Given your record to
date you will understand why integrity, honesty and consistency are not the
things that spring to mind when your name is mentioned.
However,
since I always try to look for the best in a person I thought that if I wrote
to you that you might help me in my endeavours.
My problems stem from the fact that
in December 2018, when you became Chair
of Labour Friends of Palestine, you spoke movingly of your experiences visiting
the West Bank. I hope I am not embarrassing you if I quote back to you what you
said, as in today's climate in the Labour Party they may well be termed
'anti-Semitic' and get you suspended:
I met a three-year-old child whose house was surrounded
by the Separation Wall and was growing up without daylight. I saw a 15-year-old
shackled by the ankles, who had been held in administrative detention for
months without any contact with his family, access to school or a lawyer. I saw
families humiliated at checkpoints on a daily basis and the denial of basic
medical care as a result…. After a decade working with some of the most
marginalised children in the UK, I didn’t think I could be shocked anymore, but
what I saw in the West Bank amounted to the deliberate destruction of the hopes
of a generation.
You will be aware that the cry of
‘anti-Semitism’ is routinely used, not only against critics of Israel and
Zionism but even against its friends who stray from the Zionist pth. The
examples are legion. Even President Obama, who agree to the largest ever
military aid to Israel, some $38 billion over 10 years, was labelled an
‘anti-Semite’ for having the temerity to abstain on a UN resolution condemning
Israel’s illegal settlements.
The accusation that anti-Zionism is
anti-Semitism is a catchphrase of the Right, from President
Macron of France to Mike
Pompei, Trump’s Christian fundamentalist Secretary of State. It is a lie
that has become part of the West’s imperialist narrative. As Goebbels noted if
you “Repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth”
What surprised me most about this
fake narrative was how yesterday’s racists, such as Tom Watson and John Mann,
were born again opponents of ‘anti-Semitism’. How is this possible?
Who would have thought that Watson,
who ‘lost sleep thinking about poor old Phil Woolas and his leaflets’
was the same Watson who declared that
he wouldn’t rest until the last anti-Semite had been driven out of the Labour
Party? This was the same Tom Watson who, as campaign manager in the Birmingham
Hodshrove by-election in 2004 had issued
a leaflet"Labour is on your side, the Lib Dems are on the
side of failed asylum seekers."
The Feeble Five Labour Leadership Candidates
You will I am sure remember Woolas
and the campaign he ran in Oldham. The campaign strategy was‘making
the White folk angry’. John Mann, the ‘anti-Semitism Czar’ (a
fitting title) was also angry at
the ‘injustice’ to Phil Woolas as was Steve McCabe, the current Chair of Labour
Friends of Israel.
Following the suspension of
Woolas, after not before, the High Court removed him from the
House of Commons, John Pienaar revealed that a mutiny took
place during the weekly meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Harriet
Harman, the acting leader of the party was called a ‘disgrace’ for suspending
this vile racist. These are the same people who carried the
flag for the fake ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign five years later.
Indeed John Mann went even further.
No stauncher defender of Israel and Zionism is there than Mann. He is infamous
for his bullying confrontation with
Ken Livingstone for having referred to how the Nazis and the Zionists got on
like a house on fire in the 1930s. It was the same John Mann who wrote a
handbook on anti-social behaviour which described Gypsies and Roma as examples
of anti-social behaviour, an asocial pest to be excluded from polite
society.
In the section on ‘Travellers’ there
was ‘a big, bold strapline saying “the Police have powers to remove any
gypsies and travellers”. If John Mann or the Labour Right had any sense of
history they might recall that it wasn’t only the Jews who died in the Nazi
death camps but Gypsies too and in much the same proportions.
Don’t you think it is strange that
the most rabidly racist section of the PLP were also the most ardent opponents
of ‘anti-Semitism’ under Jeremy Corbyn? Why do you think it is that the mass
media, from the Mail and the Sun to the BBC and LBC, were united in condemning
‘anti-Semitism’ when they have all played their part in whipping up hatred
against Black and Muslims in this country?
But you also played your part in
stirring the ‘anti-Semitism’ cauldron. In your imitation of a nodding dog, in
an interview with Andrew Neil in 2020, Rachel Cousins was quoted by Neil as a ‘prominent
Labour activist’ who had tweeted that the Board of Deputies were
‘Conservative backers’, which is a statement of fact. The Board welcomed the anti-Semitic White
Supremacist Donald Trump to power but not Corbyn to the Labour leadership.
Rachel demanded that the BOD condemn
all Israeli military atrocities in the West Bank. Neil then asked you
‘is that anti-Semitic?’ to which you answered – ‘yes, it is’.
Forgive me if I am slightly puzzled
but that is always what happens when non-Jews profess to be such experts on
‘anti-Semitism’. Perhaps you could tell me, being Jewish, exactly what was
anti-Semitic about calling on the BOD to condemn Israel’s military atrocities?
This is the same Board which has supported each
and every Israeli attack on the Palestinians.
When Israeli snipers mowed down
unarmed Palestinian civilians in Gaza the Board was on hand to defend Israel.
When Israel attacked Gaza earlier this year the BOD immediately issued a
statement of support. It even organised a demonstration of support (which Tommy
Robinson, that well known opponent of racism, attended).
Indeed Robinson was welcomed like a hero.
One of the most striking thing about
support for Israel today is how the strongest supporters of Zionism, from
Viktor Orban and Steve Bannon to neo-Nazi Richard Spencer and Tommy Robinson,
come from the White Supremacist far-Right. Don't you think that is strange? How
is it that the most racist and anti-Semitic elements in society are also those
who are most opposed to 'anti-Semitism'?
But I digress. The BOD has support
for Israel embedded in
its constitution. Why then should Rachel Cousin’s call for the Board to
criticise Israel’s military reign of terror, which you yourself once opposed,
be anti-Semitic?
Given your previous role as Chair of
Labour Friends of Palestine it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that you
are a prime example of a hypocrite who will say and do anything in order to
advance her career.
Lisa Nandy's idea of 'balance' is to support both the victims of Israeli apartheid and the supporters of apartheid!
Given your strong condemnation, as
Chair of LFP, of Israel’s reign of terror in the West Bank, I would have
assumed that you would have welcomed the Young
Labour motion on Palestine which was passed by the most recent Labour
Party conference.
The
motion called for support for the ‘international campaign to stop
annexation and end apartheid.’ It was only this year that B’Tselem and Human
Rights Watch concluded that Israel is practising the crime of
apartheid. How can there be any doubt about this? It is a statement of fact.
You
yourself condemned Israel’s treatment of Palestinian children whereas Jewish
children living in the settlements receive entirely different treatment. They
aren’t arrested in the middle of the night, blindfolded, shackled and beaten?
How can this be anything than racism and apartheid? Or were you also
‘anti-Semitic’ at one time?
The
motion condemned
‘the
ongoing Nakba in Palestine, Israel’s militarised violence attacking the Al Aqsa
mosque, the forced displacements from Sheikh Jarrah and the deadly assault on
Gaza.’
‘International
Criminal Court decision to hold an inquiry into abuses committed in the
Occupied Palestinian Territories since 2014.’
as
well as calling for ‘stopping any arms trade used to violate
Palestinian human rights and trade with illegal Israeli settlements’ and
to ‘support “effective measures” including sanctions’ against
Israel, as well as supporting the Right of Return. It also called for an end to
the occupation of the West Bank, the blockade of Gaza and the demolition of the
Apartheid Wall.
The Board of Deputies held its first ever 'anti-racist' demonstration in 2018 - against Jeremy Corbyn. Against the National Front and Oswald Moseley it advised Jews to stay at home!
Finding nothing
that you could disagree with in the motion you declared that the Labour
leadership ‘cannot support pro Palestine motion’ at conference because
the motion 'does not address the issues in a comprehensive or balanced
way'.
Perhaps
I am naïve but didn’t South Africa in the days of Apartheid also condemn the
attacks on it as ‘one sided’? Today the Saudi regime makes similar
criticisms of UN resolutions on Yemen. Would you would have insisted,
as many in the West did, on a ‘balanced’ approach to the Nazis’ treatment
of the Jews prior to 1939?
What
does ‘balance’ mean when there is a choice between good and evil? It can only
mean conniving in the perpetuation of injustice. Turning a blind eye to evil.
That and that alone is the real meaning of your weasel words. As Martin Luther
King observed,
‘The hottest
place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral
conflict.’
In days gone by even Sir Keith supported the Palestinians
I
realise that hope must spring eternal in your breast as you look upon the
walking disaster that goes by the name of Keith Starmer. It cannot be but a
matter of time before Starmer, whose performance as Labour leader resembles Ian
Duncan Smith’s leadership of the Tory Party, is removed. Ambition seems
to be the only quality you have. But as Shakespeare noted in Hamlet ‘The
very substance of the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream.’
At
the hustings for Labour candidates in the leadership campaign you described yourself
as a Zionist. You said that:
“I
believe that Jewish people have the right to national self-determination. That
makes me a zionist.”
Zionism
was a political ideology and movement that sought to create a 'Jewish' state in
Palestine. The first Zionists weren't Jewish. They were Protesetants.
Lords Shaftesbury and Palmerstone, George Elliot, Napoleon, Ernest
Laharanne. In essence western imperialists who wanted a 'Jewish' settler
state to safeguard their imperialist interests, notably the Suez Canal and the
route to India.
Zionism
has nothing to do with Jewish 'self determination'. Zionism never claimed
to be such a movement. It saw itself as a colonising movement, hence why
Zionists organisations such as the Jewish Colonisation Agency were set up. Of
course today, with movements for racial justice and national liberation,
Zionists want to be part of the zeitgeist. They use the language of the
left in defence of their colonising project much as the Jewish National Fund,
whose sole purpose is to effect ethnic cleansing, has taken to describing
itself as an ecological movement.
It
never ceases to amaze me that those who shout loudest about ‘anti-Semitism’ are
usually the worst anti-Semites. When you say that Jews are entitled to 'self
determination' what you mean is that Jews don't belong in the countries where
they live.
Unfortunately Palestine Solidarity Campaign thinks it advances the Palestinian cause to put Zionists on its platforms
When
Zionism first arose, its fiercest opponents were themselves Jewish. They
saw in Zionism a form of Jewish anti-Semitism, which is not surprising since
most anti-Semites - from the anti-Dreyfusard leader Edouard Drumont to Williams
Evans-Gordon, the founder of the British Brothers League and Alfred Rosenberg,
the Nazi Party's main theoretician, all supported Zionism.
The
reaction of Lucien Wolf, Secretary of the Conjoint Foreign Committee of
the Board of Deputies to the idea that Jews constituted a separate nation from
other British people was typical:
I have spent most of my life in combating these very doctrines, when
presented to me in the form of anti-Semitism, and I can only regard them as the
more dangerous when they come to me in the guise of Zionism. They constitute a
capitulation to our enemies.’ [i]
[i]
B Destani (ed) The Zionist movement and the foundation of Israel 1839-1972,
p.727.
The
only people who are entitled to national self-determination are oppressed
nations. The Jews are neither oppressed nor a nation. Jews speak a variety of
languages and live in a multiplicity of countries.
In
other words, in adopting the Zionist creed you have also adopted the
anti-Semites belief that Jews are not really British.
Rest
assured Lisa that it may well be that the Labour Party deserves you as a
leader. Today it seems as if the only person fit to lead the Labour Party is
someone totally lacking in principle and whose only distinguishing
characteristic is a willingness to say anything if it pleases the British
Establishment.
