For over 40 years
the Union of Jewish Students, has labelled critics of Israel ‘anti-Semites’ Last
year it was Ken Loach today it is Shaima Dallali
The suspension of Shaima Dallali,
by the National Union of Students, is a shameful and cowardly response to the
attacks on a Black Muslim student leader by the apartheid supporting, Israeli funded
Union of Jewish Students.
Faced with an attack
on Shaima by the Conservative Government and the political establishment, for
example the letter signed by 21
former NUS presidents, NUS simply caved in as Islamaphobic bigots like
former Home Secretaries Jack Straw and Charles Clarke sought to oust Shaima.
After the ex-presidents’ letter, a letter in support of Dallali was
circulated which called for there to be a simultaneous NUS investigations into Islamophobia and
racism, as well as antisemitism. This was ignored.
Instead of setting up an ‘investigation’
into the bogus allegations, NUS should have gone on the offensive and called
out the hypocrisy of a government that has demonised asylum seekers and is
currently trying to send Black refugees (not white Ukrainians) to Rwanda whilst being concerned about 'antisemitism'.
Former Conservative Education Minister, the corrupt Nadhim
Zahawi, warned about allegations of “systemic antisemitism” within NUS, threatening that the government
may sever links with them. According to the Guardian
Zahawi’s intervention followed ‘concerns
raised by the Union of Jewish Students’.
Even more absurdly, James Wharton, Chair of the Office for Students, England’s higher education
regulator, also cut
off contact with NUS for ‘anti-Semitism’ in the same week as he addressed a political conference in Hungary that attracted far-right and
antisemitic speakers. Wharton publicly endorsed the re-election of the openly
anti-Semitic Viktor Orbán, the Hungarian prime minister! But then there is
‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘anti-Semitism’. Hatred of Jews is fine.Hatred of Israel and Zionism isn’t fine.
The pretext for the attack on Shaima was a tweet she made 10
years ago when 17. The comment read “Khaybar
Khaybar O Jews … Muhammad’s army will return Gaza”, referencing an assault
on Jews 1400 years ago. It is doubtful whether she even understood what this
meant. Nonetheless Shaima has apologised
for the tweet, saying she is not the same person she was then. That should be
the end of it.
But of course for UJS an apology is merely grist to the Zionist mill because
their concern is not anti-Semitism but her opposition to the fake IHRA
definition of anti-Semitism and Zionism.
As Shaima observed, the Zionist backlash against her election was part of a pattern, first seen with Malia
Bouattia, who in 2016 became the first black Muslim woman to become NUS President.
Just as with Shaima UJS began a systematic campaign of denigration against
someone who was an anti-Zionist. NUS, with all its ‘liberation strands’, has
succumbed to an identity politics that equates the identity of privileged white racist Jewish students with that of a refugee like Malia and a Black Muslim Shaima. Shaima
wrote:
“Unfortunately, as a black Muslim woman, it is
something that I expected because I’ve seen it happen to other black Muslim
women when they take up positions in the student union or the NUS, where they
are attacked based on their political beliefs or their pro-Palestinian stance.”
She
said she had received a lot of Islamaphobic, racist online abuse.
“I’ve had private messages of people calling me a
raghead, people telling me to go and kill myself, calling me a Jew hater and an
antisemite. That has been difficult to read.
“And so many threats as well – if I continue to do
this then things will happen to me. I just try to delete, to block, I try not
to let it get to my head. It’s something I receive every day and I’m continuing
to receive. It’s affected me mentally and physically. Sometimes I don’t feel
safe.”
As a result of the attacks by UJS
and others Malia Bouattia also began getting
the normal Zionist abuse, including death threats. This is the effect of UJS’s
lying allegations. UJS is a threat to the safety of Black and Muslim students
not them to Jewish students.
UJS are well aware of the effect that their scurrilous
racist campaigns have and yet they never condemn it. Indeed it almost normal
for Zionist campaigns like this to engender vile racist attacks. Only tonight
in the second episode of Al Jazeera’s The
Labour Files, we heard the voice of a Zionist in a phone message for
Jenny Manson, Jewish Voice for Labour’s Chair, telling her he wishes
that she die in a gas oven. I’ve had the same.Prick a Zionist and you will find an anti-Semite lurking below.
Malia Bouattia's Response to UJS accusations of 'antisemitism'
During the Zionist campaign against Malia, more than
50 heads of Jewish societies across the country wrote an open letter to her
because of her anti-Zionism asking her to clarify her position on antisemitism,
including comments in an article where she described the University of
Birmingham – with its large Jewish society – as being “something of a Zionist outpost in British higher education”. This
is only anti-Semitic if you conflate Zionism and being Jewish. Malia made
it clear that:
I celebrate the ability of people and students of
all backgrounds to get together and express their backgrounds and faith openly
and positively, and will continue to do so
Despite its verbal opposition to
‘anti-Semitism’ UJS has never taken part in anti-fascist campaigns directed
against genuine anti-Semites on the far-Right. When I was on the Executive of
Anti-Fascist Action, UJS attacked AFA because it was seen as anti-Zionist. In
the 70s with the Anti-Nazi League they did exactly the same.
The Board of Deputies was even
worse. When the ANL was formed in 1977 the Board launched vehement attacks on
it, not the National Front, because of the presence of anti-Zionists in it.
Even Searchlight anti-fascist
magazine, which under the late Maurice Ludmer was scrupulous in avoiding the
question of Zionism, wrote in an editorial
In
the face of
mounting attacks against the Jewish
community both ideologically and physically, we
have the amazing sight of the Jewish Board of Deputies launching an attack on
the Anti Nazi League with all the fervour of
Kamikaze pilots... It was as though
they were watching a time capsule rerun
of the 1930's, in the form of a flickering old movie, with a grim determination to repeat every mistake of that era. [Searchlight 41, November 1978].
Zionism begins where
the fight against anti-Semitism ends. Zionism accepts the anti-Semitic argument
that Jews don’t belong living among non-Jews. In
1895, during the Dreyfus Affair, the founder of Political Zionism, Theodor Herzl
wrote in his Diaries that
In Paris... I achieved a freer attitude towards anti-Semitism, which I
now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, I recognise the
emptiness and futility of trying to 'combat' anti-Semitism.
The Zionist belief that Jews should ‘return’ to Palestine chimed
in with what the anti-Semites demanded. In a speech by Israeli Ambassador Yehuda
Avner to Conservative Friends of Israel at the 1983 Tory Party Conference, Zionism was described as a movement of
‘self-repatriation’. [JC 21.10.83]
Herzl understood this well when he wrote
in his Diaries on June 12 1895:
The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends,
the anti-Semitic countries our allies.
Today it is anti-Semites, from Christian Zionists
to Viktor Orban, Tommy Robinson and Steve Bannon who are the most ardent
Zionists. As Israeli historian, Yigal Elam wrote:
Zionism did not consider anti-Semitism an abnormal, absurd, perverse or
marginal phenomenon. Zionism considered anti-Semitism a fact of nature, a
standard constant, the norm in the relationship of the non-Jews to the presence
of Jews in their midst… a normal, almost rational reaction of the gentiles to
the abnormal, absurd and perverse situation of the Jewish people in the
Diaspora. [Zionism and its Scarecrows, Khamsin 6]
UJS has a long history of attacking anti-Zionists
as ‘anti-Semitic’. UJS is not a Jewish but a Zionist organisation. It is not
open to anti-Zionist Jews nor would they want to be members. Section 2.1.1. of UJS’s
constitution
commits the organisation to:
Creating meaningful Jewish campus
experiences and inspiring Jewish students to make an enduring commitment to
their Jewish identity, Israel, and the community.
When Shaima was elected as NUS
President UJS got to work attacking her. In what was a repeat
of the playbook tested out during the Corbyn era, UJS spoke of attacks on the
Jewish community. And what were these attacks?Not supporting Israel.
Shaima is just one more victim of
UJS’s witchhunting. Victims have included George Johannes of the ANC, Ken
Loach, Professor David Miller, Shahd Abusalama of Sheffield Hallam University
and Jewish opponents of Zionism, myself included, though most of their recent
victims are Black and Palestinian students.
In my blog
I described how in 1986 UJS attempted to stop me speaking at the London School
of Economics by making false accusations of, yes you’ve guessed it,
anti-Semitism! When LSE’s Labour Club investigated the allegations they were
found wanting. The Labour Club were then accused of ‘anti-Semitism’ and
‘fascism’!
UJS is affiliated to the World Zionist
Organisation. The WZO is a funder and co-ordinator of the settlements in
the West Bank. It even has a ‘land
theft division’. Of this UJS says nothing. Indeed at no time has UJS ever
criticised or condemned Israel for its flagrant breach of Palestinian human
rights. Nothing perturbs it, be it torture of children, demolition of Palestine
homes, imprisonment without trial. Its only concern is ‘anti-Semitism’, which it
defines as opposition to Zionism.
If Jewish students in Britain were subject to a fraction of what Palestinian
students face under occupation, including invasions of campuses, beatings,
checkpoints and torture, then they would have just cause to complain of
anti-Semitism.As it is we should treat
members of UJS for what they are - spoilt White Jewish racists.
Al Jazeera’s documentary ‘The Lobby’ showed Adam Schapira, a candidate for UJS President, openly admitting that
UJS was funded by the Israeli Embassy.
Emma become Chair of the Jewish
society at SOAS in 2006-7 despite not being a Zionist. Emma describedthe ‘intense pressure’ from UJS:
Before she became the chair of the SOAS Jewish Society, she had found it
was like an Israel Society…. She took over the chair on condition that there
was to be a clear distinction between the Jewish Society and the Israel
Society. This led to a furious reaction from UJS which told her: “That’s not what the Jewish Society does. You
can’t separate Israeli politics from Jewish identity. It is all the same.”
The antagonism reached a peak after she went to the launch of
Independent Jewish Voices in 2007 and found the speakers “honest articulate and inspirational.” When she invited some of the
speakers [like Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC] to a meeting at SOAS to discuss “the impact of nationalism on Jewish
identity” the pressure on her increased, and she was told that UJS and the
Israeli Embassy were very concerned about the meeting.
In an article
for the Guardian’s Comment is Free
[before anti-Zionists were banned] I described what happened next:
According
to... Emma Clyne, posters for a meeting the society put on were repeatedly torn
down. Ms Clyne told a meeting of Independent Jewish Voices on May 15 that she had to
put new ones up every day.
A
clue as to the reason
for its silence might lie in an article in the Jewish Chronicle of April 27 ("Students in
censorship row over IJV debate").
‘"It is the view of the
UJS that certain views are not acceptable under free speech."
Netanyahu's comments are clearly racist and they describe Israel as it is. Yet to call it racist is 'antisemitic' according to the IHRA even though it is true!
Imagine if a White South African student group had described certain
views opposing Apartheid as ‘not
acceptable’. Yet NUS Executive has granted UJS their
wishes.All of course under the guise
ofdefending poor Jewish students who
are too fragile to withstand criticism of their favourite racist state.
“an organisation whose primary purpose is defence of
Israel, right or wrong. It has consistently sought to portray opponents,
especially Jewish anti-Zionists, as anti-semites. That is why it receives,
according to the Jewish Chronicle (May 11) hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Silencing opponents of Zionism and supporters of the
Palestinians is its stock-in-trade. I have personally spoken on most major
university campuses in Britain and I cannot remember an occasion when the UJS
didn't try to prevent the meeting going ahead.
Ken Loach
Another target of UJS was the veteran left-wing film-maker, Ken Loach. He was invited by his alma mater, St. Peter’s College, Oxford
to speak. All hell broke out and UJS was at the centre of this McCarthyist
witchhunt.Loach was accused of
‘anti-Semitism’ although no one seemed able to produce a single statement of
his that was anti-Semitic.
UJS does its best to have Ken Loach banned - they failed
“Oxford University Jewish Society is deeply
disappointed by the decision of Professor Judith Buchanan, Master of St Peter’s
College, to host an event with filmmaker Ken Loach. On numerous occasions,
Loach has made remarks that are antisemitic under the IHRA definition,
Calling Israel a racist state, or saying you don’t
believe in a Jewish state or comparing Zionism to Nazism is ‘anti-Semitic’
under the IHRA. That’s why the Zionists fought so hard to have it adopted.The IHRA conflates anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism.
Its sole concern is with anti-Zionism not the genuine anti-Semitism of the
far-Right.
St Peter’s College, University of Oxford, should not
be platforming a person who has repeatedly been accused of and has been an
apologist for antisemitism.
Strangely enough neither group quoted what Loach had
actually said. For UJS it’s enough to be accused of anti-Semitism to be
guilty.And what does an ‘apologist for
anti-Semitism’ mean? Again no quotes.
The President of the Board of Deputies Marie van der Zyl issued
a statement telling Professor Judith Buchanan, Master of St Peter’s College
that
‘the decision to invite him [Loach] to speak at the college [was]
‘entirely unacceptable’ and calling for the event to be cancelled. That an
Oxford college would not conduct its due diligence and allow Ken Loach to
address students is entirely unacceptable. Higher education institutions have a
duty of care to their students
Let us dissect that.By inviting Ken Loach, an 85 year old man, to address a group of
students these poor Jewish snowflakes might suffer irreparable harm!It’s as if words don’t mean anything to these
died-in-the-wool racists.
What was Ken Loach’s real offence? That he produced the play Perdition 35 years
ago. The play was a fictional account of the Kasztner trial in Israel
which the Zionists never refer to today.
Kasztner was the leader of Hungarian Zionism.
The Jerusalem District Court upheld the allegations of collaboration against
him. In the words of Judge Benjamin Halevi, Kasztner ‘sold his soul to Satan.’
Although the conviction was overturned 4-1 by the Supreme Court this was
patently political and used dubious legal technicalities.
In fact on one charge of collaboration, giving testimony at
Nuremberg in support of a Nazi war criminal, Kurt Becher, the allegation of collaboration was upheld by the
Supreme Court. The Court didn’t know that Kasztner had also given testimony in
support of Eichmann’s deputy, Hermann Krumey and another mass murderer Dieter
Wisliceny. Krumey lived out his life in Germany, until Rudolf Vrba gave
evidence against him.Wisliceny was
executed by the Czechs. See “Anti-Semitism”
accusations used in attempt to prevent Ken Loach speaking at Oxford University
The Kasztner trial is covered in my forthcoming book Zionism During the Holocaust.Kasztner made an agreement with Eichmann for 600, increased to 1,684, of the Zionist and Jewish elite escaping deportation in a train out of Hungary.
In returnKasztner suppressed the
Auschwitz Protocols, which 2 escapees from Auschwitz, Vrba and Wetzler had
written exposing Auschwitz as an extermination camp.
The result was that Hungarian Jewry were kept in the dark as to
where they were being ‘resettled’ and were told by Kasztner’s Zionist friends,
that they were merely being taken to a safer place in Hungary.
It is to be hoped that after the investigation concludes that
NUS will defend its President Shaima Dallali against any further attacks by
racists, UJS included.
Having abandoned anti-Zionism, does PSC actually have any strategy other
than Appeasing the Establishment and ‘Mainstreaming’?
My interview on an independent Bristol radio station
Ben Jamal,
PSC and Zionism
In the wake of my resignation from PSC, an organisation I helped found
in 1982, Ben Jamal emailed me. His complaint was that I had misquoted him when
I said that the reason he had given for PSC changing its constitution, so as to
remove opposition to Zionism, was that Zionism ‘meant different things to different people.’
In the course of our conversation Jamal became ever more abusive. He
began by saying that I had ‘mischaracterised’
his view. When I pointed out that I had directly quoted what Dave Chapel, a
member of Exeter PSC had told me, and that I had checked back with Dave, Jamal
spluttered that:
My strongest concern about the way you conduct yourself is that you are
not concerned with being accurate- You make assertions that you cannot know to
be true but are not concerned about establishing whether they are or not ,lest
the truth doesn’t suit your polemic-
Ben Jamal - PSC Director
Jamal ignored the fact that I had cited my source, which I did not have
to do, having first sought Dave’s permission.
Jamal denied saying what I had quoted him as saying but despite my probing, he could not or would not explain why anti-Zionism
had been removed from PSC’s Constitution.
Jamal said
that he himself was an anti-Zionist but I never questioned his personal beliefs.
My concern was that he had been instrumental in fostering on PSC a constitution
which abandoned even nominal opposition to Zionism. The question is why?
The White Zionist Union of Jewish Students, funded by Israel, makes a habit of targeting Black students
Imagine the
Anti-Apartheid Movement 30 years ago saying that it was opposed to human rights
abuses in South Africa but it was neutral about Apartheid! Zionism is the
ideology of Israeli apartheid and if you are willing to dispense with opposition
to Zionism then PSC has become little more than another NGO without politics or
direction.
Clause 3(h) of the Aims and
Objectives of the 2015 Constitution spoke of:
opposition to racism, including
anti-Jewish prejudice and the apartheid and Zionist nature of the Israeli
state.
The 2015
Constitution was not brilliant but at least it made clear its opposition to the
‘Zionist nature of the Israeli state.’Clause 3.1.3.
of the new Constitution speaks of support for:
the Palestinian
struggle to end the systems of settler colonialism, apartheid, and military
occupations, motivated by Zionism.
Nowhere
does the Constitution state its opposition to Zionism. It is my view that the quote attributed to Ben
Jamal is credible and makes sense, especially in the light of his comment that:
because
people suggest they many (mean? TG) different things when they talk of Zionism
it is important for us to be clear and precise in what we say
However the new clause is anything but precise
or clear. All it says is that settler colonialism, apartheid and the occupation
are ‘motivated by Zionism.’ In what
way we are never told nor are we enlightened as to what Zionism is. In any case
Israeli colonisation and apartheid are not ‘motivated’ by Zionism but Zionism
is integral to them.
Nowhere in the Annual Report or Plan for this
year or last year does the word ‘Zionism’ even make an appearance. PSC to all
intents and purposes is not an anti-Zionist organisation.
This is not academic. The Israeli state was
created by the Zionist movement. The Zionist goal was maximum land with fewest
Arabs. Transfer of the Palestinians was at the heart of Zionist strategy.
Zionism sought to recreate the mythical Jewish nation/race in Palestine just as
it sought to bring to an end the Jewish diaspora. Zionist attitudes to
anti-Semitism was one of acceptance. It is a mistake for Jamal to draw a
distinction between pre-State and post-state Zionism. Zionism is a beast whose contours
have never changed.
Because Zionism is an integral part of the West’s
foreign policy, what are essentially Israeli state organisations, such as the
Union of Jewish Students, the Community Security Trust and the Campaign Against
Antisemitism are able to operate in this country as agents of the Israeli state
in a way that similar political organisations promoting Chinese or Russian
interests would not be able to do.
If we look at the Israeli funded UJS it is a Zionist as
opposed to a Jewish organisation. It does not represent Jewish students who are
anti-Zionist or anti-racist. Its Code of Conduct stipulates that
UJS members, event
participants and representatives are expected to proudly and passionately
embody UJS values of representation; peer leadership; cross-communalism; and
Israel engagement.
Professor David Miller,
who was dismissed by Bristol University as a result of a vicious campaign of
denigration by UJS, wrote about how
the current president Nina Freedman openly admits that “UJS alumni are currently serving in senior
positions in the Israeli government, the foreign ministry, the IDF [Israel’s
military] and even the [Israeli] president’s office.”
Accusing Black students of 'antisemitism' is one of the Union of Jewish Students' favourite ploys
Nina Friedman was the
person who led the campaign against David Miller yet at no time did PSC, under
Jamal’s direction, give David any support. UJS is currently waging another campaign
– this time against Black anti-racist rapper Lowkey. Accusing Black people of
‘anti-Semitism’ is a favourite pastime of UJS and they are now targeting the
National Union of Students’ President Shaima Dallali.
PSC refused to support Miller. On 22
February 2021 I emailed Jamal:
I hope that PSC is not going to repeat the errors of the past and
simply turn a blind eye to what is going on. The reasons that the Board of
Deputies, CAA et al are behaving in this way is to do with changing the
discourse from the rights of Palestinians to those of Jewish students.
I hope therefore that PSC
will write to the Vice-Chancellor of Bristol University, in addition to issuing
a press statement. It would also be helpful if a petition I have launched in
defence of David Miller could be publicised on PSC's social media as a matter
of some urgency.
Ben Jamal replied telling me that
PSC has had discussions with
a range of key partners in past 2 days. We have put out a statement today which
addresses the broad context of the attempts to delegitimise activism and puts
the attack on David Miller in that context. It also reflects the conversations
we have had with partners. You can find it here
What
the statement didn’t do was express support for David.See
UJS is playing the same role in the student
movement that the Jewish Labour Movement played in the Labour Party under
Corbyn. The JLM Chair, Mike Katz, has recently done an interview under the
title How I Banished Jeremy Corbyn From the Labour Party and now the same process
is underway in the student movement led by UJS. Naturally false allegations of
‘anti-Semitism’ against a Black President have been supported to the hilt by this government. This
is the same government which has just introduced a policy of deporting asylum
seekers to Rwanda.
PSC simply ignores the
Zionist movement in this country despite it constantly attacking the Palestine
solidarity movement. Imagine the Anti-Apartheid Movement 30 years ago turning
the other cheek to pro-Apartheid organisations yet that is exactly what PSC
does and Ben Jamal presides over it.
The fact is that Israel ‘right-or-wrong’
Zionist organisations organise at multiple levels in Britain today. They are supported
by both the Government and the Labour Opposition (if that is the right word to
describe Starmer’s Labour). Yet not once has PSC criticised the bogus assertion
that these organisations represent socialist or non/anti-Zionist Jews.
See the statement issued by representatives of Sussex University Student
Union.
Jamal claims to be an
anti-Zionist but clearly that doesn’t inform his work. His understanding of
Zionism is limited to its effect on the Palestinians. Unfortunately that is
only half the picture and it is because the PLO never understood Zionism that
it believed that the Oslo Accords would pave the way to a Palestinian state
rather than, as it has done, enable a Palestinian Bantustan.
Zionism is based on the
idea of a transnational Jewish nation/race. It is an exclusivist and chauvinist
organisation that arose in opposition to Jewish socialists and which found its
main allies in the anti-Semites. In Israel today it is continuing the same
settler colonialism in Jerusalem that has always characterised its endeavours.
My problem was that I had
‘no knowledge
of any discussions that took place regarding changes to wording in the
constitution.’ And for once Jamal is right.I didn’t and nor did 99.9% of PSC’s
membership. So how could they be expected to pass in half an hour a replacement
constitution that was twice as long as the previous one?
Anyone committed to the principles of democracy would have spelt out the
changes and explained, in a simple paper, why were necessary and what the
purpose of the exercise of adopting a new constitution was. Instead there were a
series of pathetic lies and claims which fell apart under the lightest
scrutiny. It is a measure of the sheep-like quality (and stupidity) of most of
those attending PSC’s AGM that delegates were prepared to vote blindly to adopt
a constitution that negated their very reason for being a member of PSC.
Palestine Action offered real solidarity when they disabled the Leicester factory of Elbit during the 2021 attack on Gaza - PSC and the BNC thought otherwise
Jamal on Palestine
Action
Jamal made a number of
trivial personal accusations such as suggesting that I demonised and
dehumanised my opponents. My crime was dehumanising the Zionists by calling
them scum!
Luke Akehurst - the racist favourite of Keir Starmer - but calling someone who supports snipers murdering children a 'scumbag' is dehumanising apparently!
We used to call members of
the National Front ‘scum’. Fascists are the lowest of the low, the filth that
rises to the surface. What other adjective can be used to describe someone like
Luke Akehurst who justified
Israeli snipers mowing
down children at the Gaza fence?
Those who justify Israeli
war crimes dehumanise themselves. Jamal’s sensitivities suggest that his heart
is not really in it. He may be a Palestinian by origin but he has long since
become too comfortable. Those who work night and day, to defame their opponents
and portray Palestinians as worse than Nazis are indeed the scum of the earth.
Jamal all but accused me of racism for issuing an Open Letter to Omar
Barghouti, a leading figure in the Boycott National Committee. I did this because
of Barghouti’s support for PSC’s venomous attacks on Palestine Action. The
‘tone’ of my letter was ‘offensive and
bordering on racist and colonial – the white man telling the brown man how to
conduct his liberation struggle.’ This is a good example of how those on
the right employ identity politics to cover for the deficiencies in their own
politics.
As a simple matter of anti-imperialist politics those who are part of
the solidarity movement certainly have the right to criticise those amongst the
leadership of the oppressed who are acting against the interests of those they
purport to represent. Is it seriously suggested that we can’t criticise Israel’s
military subcontractor, Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority?
Palestinians are no more monolithic politically than Jews. To say that
criticism of one Palestinian is a criticism of all Palestinians is borrowed
from the Zionist toolbox. It is the Zionists who pretend that the Board of
Deputies represents all Jews. Both Omar Barghouti and the BNC chose to take
Jamal’s criticisms of PA on trust.
Jamal also distributed false and misleading legal advice to try and
deter PSC members from supporting PA. PA was accused of not telling activists
of the risks they faced and not giving them support.
The reason behind these criticisms of PA relate to the way PSC sees the
role of a solidarity movement. It believes in token demonstrations, polite
lobbying and tugging the forelock to the Establishment and anyone they perceive
has influence. From putting open Zionists on their platform (Lisa Nandy, Emily
Thornberry, Starmer) to refusing to critique the assumptions behind Zionism or
the role that Zionist organisations play today.
When the Oldham factory of Elbit was closed as a result of PA actions
BNC put out a statement welcoming the closure without once mentioning PA. PSC also put out a statement
which failed to mention Palestine Action. This is simply dishonest politics.
Despite the strictures of Ben Jamal, the BNC and Omar Barghouti people in Gaza have made their feelings known with this wall mural
I asked Barghouti and Jamal a simple question.Did they think that people in Gaza at the
sharp end of Elbit’s missiles would appreciate their attacks on Palestine
Action?Neither responded.
And sure enough, what appeared in the heart of Gaza City recently but a mural depicting PA as striking back against those who are attacking them. It
is clear that the actions of PA, rather than endangering Palestinians as has
been suggested, are a form of solidarity that is far more effective than the
actions of the well-funded Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
PSC’s indifference to Zionism is part of a greater problem – the lack of
any political strategy
The poverty of Jamal and PSC’s approach is
that it is blinkered. It does not see the Palestinian struggle as part of a
larger struggle for the liberation of the Middle East from its despotic
regimes. Nor does PSC have an anti-imperialist outlook or analysis. The
Palestinian struggle takes place in a complete vacuum as far as
they are concerned. It is a self-contained box.
The problem with this is that the Palestinians
are not in the same situation as the Black masses in South Africa. South Africa
was surrounded by states that had been newly liberated from Portuguese
colonialism. They were hostile to South Africa and furthermore South Africa had
just lost a war in Angola thanks to Cuba.
Israel is surrounded by regimes which have
made alliances with it. Most Arab regimes now openly or covertly work with Israel
including the Gulf Sheikhdoms and Saudi Arabia. Israel acts as the watchdog of
imperialism over its client regimes. It is inconceivable that the Palestinians
can overthrown the Israeli state by themselves. They are simply too weak. The
solution to the Palestinian Question is also a solution to the problem of
imperialism in the Middle East.
PSC Refuses to Condemn the Quisling Palestinian Authority
I moved a motion condemning the Quisling
Palestinian Authority at the last AGM. It was defeated. This is the same PA
that Israel and the United States funds and which deems cooperation with
Israeli security forces as something ‘sacred’
in the words of Abbas.
Nizar Banat, murdered by the thugs of the collaborationist Palestine Authority that PSC won't criticise
The motion condemned the killing by the
PA of Nizar Banat, a strident critic of the PA and the Fateh group which
controls it. PSC Executive, backed by the union block vote, preferred to
support the thugs of the PA. When the Apartheid regime in South Africa sponsored
the Inkatha movement of Gatsha Buthelezi, the Anti-Apartheid Movement in this
country had no hesitation in criticising Black collaborators yet PSC refuses to
do the same.
PSC also refuses to say anything about the
kind of society they are striving for. They have nothing to say on 2 states or
1 state. Because trade unions mostly support 2 states PSC doesn’t want to
alienate them but this is the problem. The Two State Solution allows the unions
to ‘balance’ their support for the Palestinians with support for the racist
Israeli state.It allows them to avoid
taking sides and to accept the IHRA definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ that defines
support for the Palestinians as anti-Semitic.
All PSC can do is encourage its members to
stand on street corners handing out leaflets in the vain hope that one day,
some day, our rulers will develop enough of a conscience to stop supporting
Israel. But the problem is that it is in the interests of British and US
capitalism to support Israel as the West’s strategic guard dog. The fact that
the majority of the public supports Palestine is irrelevant. Public opinion has
next to no say on international affairs.
Yet PSC and Jamal have found a new slogan
called ‘mainstreaming’. In other words by a process of political osmosis
support for Palestine will somehow infiltrate the body politic.Yet the evidence for this is not good. MPs have
become more hostile, not less so, to Palestine. As a result of the fake
‘anti-Semitism’ attack on Corbyn and the Labour Left, MPs are less willing to
support the Palestinians than ever.
Part of the blame for this lies with PSC
itself. Whilst all Zionist organisations joined in the attack on Corbyn, PSC
remained aloof. Partly this was because National Secretary Ben Sofa, a member
of Socialist Action, was also Digital Officer for the Labour Party and didn’t
want to be compromised. It was a clear conflict of interest yet it cause few
people to comment.
The reality is that the British Establishment
and its prostitute press is more not less hostile to the Palestinians even as
the debate on Zionism and Israel has changed. However PSC is not responsible
for that change, which is primarily because all the world’s major human rights
organisations, from Israel’s B’Tselem to Human Rights Watch to Amnesty
International have declared Israel to be an apartheid state.
Mainstreaming is a nice cliché which avoids
asking simple questions such as why the British Establishment from Johnson and
Truss to Sunak and Starmer support Israel right or wrong?What is it that brings down condemnation when
it is the Uighurs in China or Russia in Ukraine but silence when it is the
Palestinians?In other words PSC cannot
be effective politically as long as it aspires to join the British
Establishment. Support for Palestine is a radical political posture which
brings one into conflict with western imperialism. There is no solution to
the Palestine question within imperialism.That is a lesson PSC and Ben Jamal have yet to learn.
Tony Greenstein
Ben Jamal Thu, 7 Apr,
19:56 (6 days ago)
Tony, to confirm your record has been updated.
There are many things you say in your resignation and on your blog about
this that are simply untrue, but I see little point in addressing them in
detail- weve been there before. There is one issue however I would like to
address. You have reposted an allegation
you made at the AGM that I chose not to address at the time but wish to do so
now. You have reported that I have indicated some equivalence about
antizionism, on the basis of some reported conversation about which you choose
to provide no detail or context. I have
no sense of what conversation is being reported but I am clear that I have not
nor ever would equivocate about my position on Zionism. I have and would say
that because people suggest they many
different things when they talk of Zionism it is important for us to be clear
and precise in what we say. So for the record, and to be clear, my position
has always been straightforward. I describe myself as an antizionist on the
basis that I understand Zionism in this way. Before 1948 Zionism meant the
claim of the right of the Jewish people to found a state in Palestine. (my
emphasis)
They did not have that right because Palestine was inhabited by a
majority population of indigenous Palestinian arabs, including my ancestors . There was no way to found a state that did
not involve the dispossession and denial of the individual and collective
rights of the Palestinians . Since 1948 Zionism has meant the right for Israel
to sustain itself as a majority Jewish state that privileges the rights of its
Jewish majority over non Jews , especially Palestinians. That ideology and the
policies that stem from it are racist.
On that basis I define myself as an antizionist. You will not find a single
statement from me that contradicts this.
I ask you as someone with whom I have many disagreements ( and many agreements)
but who has always claimed to express the truth , to cease to mischaracterise my views. It is deeply disrespectful and as a
Palestinian I find it insulting
I will leave it to your conscience how you choose to respond
Tony Greenstein <tonygreenstein111@gmail.com>
Thu, 7 Apr,
22:26
Ben,
As you say we are not going to agree.
The conversation I was reporting was with Dave Chappell of Exeter who
reported that you said, in response to a query on the change in PSC's position
on Zionism in the constitution, that the reason for this was that Zionism meant
different things to different people. That of course is irrelevant because what
matters is what Zionism has done to the Palestinians and the role it has played
and continued to play in the region, not how some of its more feeble supporters
see it. You were in a position to oppose
this change in the constitution but you failed to do so. It was not your
private views that I criticised but your public emanation of them.
I don't accept that Zionism pre-1948 is any different to Zionism post-48. Zionism has never wavered from its
determination to exclude as many Palestinians from the area of the State and to
contain those that remain in as small a portion of the land as possible. Judaisation of the Galilee, Jerusalem and the
Naqab today is no different from its policies and practices before 1948. Zionism always meant more than simply the
right of the Jewish people, itself a myth, to form a state in Palestine. To Zionism a Jewish state meant a state that
was as Jewish as England is English, to quote Weizmann. Since 1948 it has meant
a continuation of colonisation, first internally and now both in the Occupied
Territories and in Israel itself.
The fact that PSC should have changed its Aims and Objectives so
fundamentally, without any debate whatsoever, is a disgrace. It is shameful that PSC today is not
explicitly anti-Zionist and that is why it has been unable to come to terms
with the 'antisemitism' campaign. It was unable to counter this campaign by
pointing out that Zionism has never fought anti-Semitism. Indeed Zionism arose on the basis that
anti-Semitism could not be fought. PSC
abstained from the fight in the Labour Party, unlike every Zionist lobby group.
This campaign, which resulted in the acceptance by the British Establishment of
the IHRA has resulted in the targeting of academics such as David Miller, who
PSC did not support, Shahd Abusalama and others.
I do not accept therefore that I have mischaracterised your views in the
slightest.
Tony
Ben Jamal 8 Apr 2022,
18:38
tony
Well Tony, as I made clear I did not say what was reported to you and
what you subsequently reported. You also have no knowledge of any discussions
that took place regarding changes to wording in the constitution. Further it is
wrong to characterise them as a shift from an antizionist position. Your logic
on this is absurd. For years you have
claimed that PSC does not oppose Zionism despite the old constitutions wording.
Now you say because that has been changed PSC has abandoned its antizionist
position.
All of that is by and by. My request to you, appealing to your
conscience was that you cease to mischaracterise my position and my views . You
have chosen not to do so using the logic that your interpretation of what the
change to the constitution means must reflect my views whatever I say to the
contrary.
So be it. One final thing I will say. There is much you have written
over the years I agree with- much I don’t. My strongest concern about the way
you conduct yourself is that you are not concerned with being accurate- You
make assertions that you cannot know to
be true but are not concerned about establishing whether they are or not ,lest
the truth doesn’t suit your polemic- such as your years long absurd statements
that Socialist Action controls PSC. But more than this my deepest concern is
about the manner in which you conduct your politics. I have always believed
that those who genuinely stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people , must
do so not from a position of hatred but because of a profound commitment to a
set of principles about how people and peoples should be treated- what they are
owed. One key test of that commitment is
how you apply those principles in your personal dealings with those with whom you disagree.
You unfortunately have consistently resorted to the tactics of demonisation and
dehumanisation . These not only do you no credit but actively harm the movement
when you are associated with it. I am
certain you must have had similar feedback from many over the years and simply
choose to ignore it. I would hope that you might reflect on how the way you
present yourself informs why the positions you hold – as demonstrated by many
failed motions at PSC AGM’s - receive
little support.
We received huge numbers of feedback from people who were deeply
dismayed at your conduct at this years AGM which they experienced as
disrespectful to other members and dismissive of the work of others. I received
similar feedback about your open letter to Omar Barghouti including from many
Palestinians who found its tone
offensive and bordering on racist and colonial – the white man telling the
brown man how to conduct his liberation struggle.
Your influence in the movement could be so positive. I am genuinely
saddened that you have chosen to act in ways which have resulted in the
opposite
Tony Greenstein <tonygreenstein111@gmail.com>
8 Apr 2022, 23:40 (5 days ago)
Ben,
You say that you did not say what I quoted you as saying, namely
that Zionism means different things to different people and that was why PSC’s
constitution has been amended. Dave Chappell of Exeter has emailed me today to
confirm that what I wrote was an accurate account of what you did say to him. I
believe Dave’s account because it is more credible.
I did not say that you were not an anti-Zionist. I have no way of
knowing. The problem is that when it comes to PSC your views don’t translate
into practice.
The reason I believe Dave’s account is that it accords with what happened.
The 2015 Constitution was clear. Clause 3(h) of the Aims and Objectives spoke
of:
opposition
to racism, including anti-Jewish prejudice and the apartheid and Zionist nature
of the Israeli state.
The 2022 Constitution, Clause 3.1.3. speaks of support for:
the Palestinian struggle
to end the systems of settler colonialism, apartheid, and military occupations,
motivated by Zionism, which deny the realisation of those rights.
You
say that ‘For years you have claimed that PSC does not oppose Zionism despite
the old constitutions wording.’ What you say is true but it was always open
to members to change PSC’s refusal to oppose Zionism and the Zionist lobby.
Then anti-Zionism was part of PSC's Constitution even if the Executive chose to
ignore it. Today the Constitution itself has been changed to reflect that past
practice. To me that is a bridge too
far.
The
AGM marked a watershed. All we know is that Israeli settler colonialism and
apartheid ‘is motivated by Zionism’. I suspect some Zionists could live with the
present formulation.
PSC
is no longer constitutionally opposed to the very Zionist movement and ideology
that is at the root of Palestinian problem. This is not an incidental change.
For me personally that is the final straw. Your statement that ‘it is wrong
to characterise’ the constitutional changes ‘as a shift from an
antizionist position.’ is simply untrue. Why else make these changes? What
was their purpose? To this day neither you nor the Executive has given an
explanation.
You
are absolutely correct. I had little or no knowledge of the discussions that
took place regarding these changes. The same applies to 99% of PSC’s
membership. That is why it was incumbent upon you and the Executive to explain,
in a simple document, what the need for these particular changes were. The
Executive needed to be transparent and open in what it does. In practice it is
anything but. That is what accountability means. In that you utterly failed.
You
are wrong when you say that I am not concerned with accuracy. That is why I
went back to Dave Chappell to make sure that I had not misheard what he said.
My
allegation that PSC is effectively controlled by a tiny political group
Socialist Action is not just my opinion. Both the Secretary Ben Sofa and the
Vice-President Louise Regan are supporters. Others such as Bernard Regan are supporters of
the Communist League, which like SA came out of the old IMG. These affiliations
have never been declared yet the politics of these groups is what guides the
actions of PSC’s leading bodies.
I
reject your accusation that my politics stem from hatred. Nor do I accept your
allegations of dehumanisation or demonisation. If you feel my criticisms
demonise or dehumanise you then you are wrong. I note that you have given no
concrete examples.
The motions I have
presented over the years have received varying support but yes it is
disappointing that PSC AGMs have largely consisted either of a trade union block vote or
delegates who are not activists, not highly politicised and who all too often
vote like sheep.
For example when I
moved that PSC should support the breaking of links with Histadrut, the Zionist
‘trade union’ which Golda Meir described
as a ‘‘big labor union that wasn’t just a trade union organisation.It was a great colonizing
agency’. Bernard Regan opposed it as did the Executive. He didn’t want to
alienate PSC’s trade union affiliates even though UNISON had already
broken their links. The fact that a majority of the AGM supported Regan’s
position speaks volumes. They have a very low political awareness of Zionism
and PSC deliberately keeps them in that position. There are no educational
leaflets or background papers about Zionism and the history of Zionism, for
example its relationship to anti-Semitism.
I suspect that the
major activity of many of the delegates is attending the AGM and that is why
they feel the need to support the Executive. Of course I can’t be sure because
delegates do not have a list of other attendees. Information is deliberately
kept from members just as the Executive ensured that the Chat facility of the
AGM was closed on a spurious pretext.
You say you have
had ‘huge feedback’ from people who thought I had been disrespectful at
the AGM. I will be blunt. Assuming that
this is true, which I doubt, I confess that I have no respect for the opinion
of anyone who supported keeping the Chat facility closed. They voted not to
have contact with other delegates. They are what people call sheeple.
Likewise I have
contempt for those who accepted the wholesale changes to the constitution
without even debating them and without, it would seem, even wanting to debate
them.
As to my letter to
Omar Bargouti. I am sorry that Omar and the BNC went along with your defamatory
accusations against Palestine Action. The question I asked then remains
pertinent. Would the people of Gaza who
were under bombardment from Israel agree with Omar or with Palestine Action?
All the feedback I had from Palestinians was that they were hugely in favour of
what PA were doing to Elbit’s factories.
Just because I
support the Palestinian struggle it doesn’t mean that I am uncritical. In 1993
I resigned from PSC over its support for the Oslo Accords. I predicted then
that they would lead to disaster. I faced much more criticism of the kind you
mention. If Palestinians had listened, not just to me but people like Edward
Said, then they would not be facing having to confront not only the Israeli
army but Palestinian security forces too.
The position of
the Executive in opposing the motion on the Palestinian Authority, despite the
support of the family of the murdered Nizar Banat was disgraceful and it shows
that you aren’t afraid of disregarding Palestinian voices when it is convenient
for you to do so.
It is the duty of
socialists to give critical but unconditional support to national liberation
movements. Because the leaders of such movements are often, as with the case of
Abbas, merely aspiring dictators eager to oppress their own people it is our
duty to be critical. I am still staggered that PSC was unable to condemn the
Palestinian Authority which considers co-operation with the Israeli Defence
Forces as ‘sacred’ and which supported Operation Protective Sword in 2014 which
killed over 2,200 Palestinians including 550 children.
The problem with
you Ben and the politics of the leadership of PSC is that you are not
anti-imperialist. That is why you have nothing to say about the Arab regimes
which today are Israel’s junior partners. Historically the position of the
Palestinian left was to oppose Zionism, Imperialism and Arab Reaction.
Finally. I have
made my decision to resign from PSC for the reasons I have given. I am not
asking anyone to do likewise. That is their decision. I am sorry that in your
response you are unable to see the wider questions and instead indulge in
personal blaming. If what you say is true, then at next year’s AGM, all the
positions I advocated should now go through! I somehow doubt it.
Regards
Ben,
Further to my previous email.
Since I intend to write up our correspondence for a blog, as
part of a debate on the road ahead for the Palestine Solidarity movement I
thought I should comment on the one part of your emails that I didn’t respond
to. You said that:
I received similar feedback about your open letter
to Omar Barghouti including from many Palestinians who found its tone offensive and bordering on
racist and colonial – the white man telling the brown man how to conduct his
liberation struggle.
My open letter to Omar was in relation to his
support for your attacks on Palestine Action. Omar, took on trust the
information that you supplied him with and as a result both he and the BNC criticised
PA’s activities. It was because of this that the BNC put out a statement welcoming
the closure of Elbit’s Oldham factory without once mentioning PA. Anyone
reading the statement would assume that it was either a result of ‘years of grassroots campaigning’ or
that Elbit had grown tired of the scenery.
The question in my letter to these leaders was extremely relevant and
not in the slightest racist. Do they think that people in Gaza at the sharp end
of Elbit’s missiles would appreciate their attacks on Palestine Action?Neither Omar Barghouti nor the BNC are
infallible and above criticism. Infallibility is the domain of the Pope!
So it wasn’t a question of the white man telling the brown man how to
conduct his struggle.Rather it was a
few Palestinians with whom we are in solidarity telling us how to build
solidarity with them. With respect to Omar, I think we are in the best position
to do that because only we know local conditions.
The problem with your reducing the question of solidarity with the
Palestinians to a question of identity politics (‘white’ vs ‘brown) is that it
entirely misses out the fact that not all brown (?) people, i.e. Palestinians
think alike. Not only that but not all Palestinians have the same interests as
each other because Palestinian society too is stratified.
It is because of class divisions that you have a small comprador
bourgeoisie amongst the Palestinians who are only too happy to act as Israel’s collaborators
in return for their own privileges.This
was, after all, what Zionism did in Europe when it collaborated with the Nazis.
Your failure to recognise the intersection of class, race and liberation
struggles leads PSC to remain silent on the treacherous role of the Palestinian
Authority.
It also leads PSC to become inarticulate when it comes to what exactly
is our vision. What do we say to supporters who ask whether we support a
‘Jewish’ state i.e. the ‘right of Israel to exist’. Do we support a unitary,
secular state between the river and the sea or do we support a Palestinian bantustan
located in the interstices of the West Bank settlements?
The failure to discuss how, given their lack of strength, the
Palestinians can achieve liberation means that PSC organises routine solidarity
whilst knowing that it will have next to no impact. A genuine solidarity
organisation would have something to say about the complicity of the Arab
regimes in the Zionist dispossession and oppression of the Palestinians. These
are not side issues as it is clear that the liberation of the Palestinians is
inseparable from the liberation of the people of the Arab East from imperialism
and its client regimes.
Arab regimes who are now openly complicit with Israel as a result of the
Abraham Accords should also be the target of the solidarity movement.
The Palestinian left always recognised this in theory if not in
practice. The tragedy is that PSC doesn’t even recognise that there is a
problem.What other reason can there be
for PSC continuing to stay silent on the abomination that is the Palestinian
Authority?
In its latest report on the situation in Jenin and on the fighters in
Jenin’s refugee camp, Middle East Eye reports that ‘Since late last year, Israel and the Palestinian
Authority (PA) have made several attempts to contain the growing number of
armed fighters in the city.’
Does it not embarrass you that PSC has
nothing to say about Israel’s military subcontractor?
In Solidarity
Tony Greenstein
Ben Jamal
Wed, 13 Apr,
09:44
Tony- to be
clear- I do not give you my permission to make this correspondence public- I
wrote to you with a request that you do not mischaracterise my position on
Zionism. Im afraid I do not trust you to give an accurate account of any
exchange . You have already in your previous response mischaracterised or
misunderstood what I was saying to you. I did not for example accus you of
dehumanising conduct towards me. I was referring to your routine use of
dehumanising language- eg scum- towards political opponents. I see no purpose in a public dialogue on these
issues .
Tony
Greenstein <tonygreenstein111@gmail.com> Thurs, 14
Apr, 00:40
Ben
I note your
objection. However you did not make clear or at all that you were writing to me
in confidence and the matters you raised are not personal to us.
I am glad to
receive your clarification of what you accused me of. I don't think calling people like Jonathan
Hoffman, Sharon Klaff or her sister in law, Lesley, to name but 3, ‘scum’ is 'dehumanising'.
It is their own behaviour which is
inhuman. But to be clear I don't call
all Zionists 'scum'. It is an
appellation I reserve for Zionists who are clearly and overtly fascist or
racist.
You say that
you don't trust me to give an accurate account of any exchange. That is precisely why I prefer to copy a
verbatim transcript of our exchanges.
When I do
write up our exchanges I will of course be happy for you reply in the Comments
sections of my blog.
