18 October 2009

Defend Jonathan Hoffman!


More than once in the past few months I had wondered why the stuffed shirts of the English Zionist Federation had appointed an activist who didn’t mind getting his hands dirty, when Jonathan Hoffman surfaced as its Vice-Chair. I must confess it has been a pleasant surprise. Whenever a demonstration is getting a bit tired and enfeebled we can always rely on Jonathan to get people going.

Traditionally, getting Zionists into a debate and into defending their position was almost impossible. I can remember when I was a student activist that everytime a college invited the Union of Jewish Students to debate with me, UJS ducked out on grounds of my ‘anti-Semitism’. How wonderful it would have been to have had a UJS Jonathan Hoffman, who was capable of repeating, parrot-like, the normal mantras (‘Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East’, ‘Arabs in Israel are equal’, ‘anti-Semitism equals anti-Zionism’) whilst incapable of responding to any detailed point of criticism.

And now I hear that out of pique, the defeated candidate for Vice-Chair of the ZF, one of the more traditional members of the Zionist Establishment, who also doubles as Vice-Chair of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Jerry Lewis, is trying to undermine, silence and even remove what is fast becoming a national treasure.


Now it is true that at the debate over whether Zionism was wrong, at the Iran Press TV debate chaired by Alan Hart, that Jonathan Hoffman was his normal outrageous self - interrrupting everyone, listening to no one and ignoring the Chair, but on reflection one image said more than a thousand sound bites. True I called Jonathan Hoffman ‘
autistic’ at one point, and having experience of an autistic child it is quite probable that he probably does suffer from Asperger’s Syndrome (as well as bad politics), but Jonathan Hoffman is nonetheless an asset.

I am therefore forming the ‘Defend Jonathan Hoffman Campaign’ with Deborah Fink of Jews 4 Boycotting Israeli Goods as my deputy. Attacks on Jonathan Hoffman and attempts to remove him are, in my opinion, motivated by nothing less than the deepest anti-Semitism.

After Jonathan’s bravura performance at the picket of Ahava beauty shop in Covent Garden a month ago, when he was almost singlehandedly responsible for driving away any customers that had slipped through our net, as well as attracting attention to our protest and motivating the protestors, we say ‘Leave Jonathan Hoffman alone.’


Tony Greenstein

Board blasts Israel’s 'maverick' defender
Jewish Chronicle October 15 2009
By Marcus Dysch and Simon Rocker, October 15, 2009

Board of Deputies vice-president Jerry Lewis has launched a stinging attack on fellow Board member Jonathan Hoffman over his tactics when defending Israel in public.

Mr Hoffman, who is also vice-chair of the Zionist Federation, has been criticised by War on Want and Amnesty for his vociferous attempts to challenge attacks on the Jewish state.

Mr Lewis, who oversees Israel advocacy at the Board, said: “Given his position, Mr Hoffman should be far more cognisant of the necessity to act with common sense and not to act unilaterally in a way which damages both Israel’s case and beyond.

“I’m painfully aware his tactics have been the cause of many complaints to the Board, and his behaviour has been less than helpful.”

Hoffman's actions damage Israel's case


It is believed the Board has also expressed its concerns to ZF chairman Andrew Balcombe. But Mr Hoffman said Mr Lewis’ comments represented “the sourest of sour grapes”.
He said:

“In 2008 he [Mr Lewis] announced his intention to stand as chairman of the ZF but then withdrew. He stood as vice chairman and I beat him. He has done nothing but badmouth the ZF ever since.

“Why has Jerry Lewis not signed my petition to Gordon Brown about the Goldstone Report, signed by 2,500 in little over a week? Why has the Board — which constitutionally is obliged to advance Israel’s standing — been silent on the report, unlike the ZF?”
Mr Lewis’ attack came after Mr Hoffman’s ongoing row with War on Want took a new twist when the anti-poverty charity’s executive director John Hilary called his complaints “witless” and “laughable”.

Mr Hilary said the Charity Commission should dismiss “vexatious” complaints from Mr Hoffman, who has also come under fire from Amnesty UK, which accused him of “immature and disruptive behaviour” at public events.

Last month the Charity Commission cleared WoW of wrongdoing after the charity hosted an event which accused Israel of human rights abuses and called for a worldwide boycott of the Jewish state.

But the commission’s board is still investigating alleged factual inaccuracies in a separate WoW leaflet which discusses Israel’s creation and claims Palestinian suffering is “an acknowledged product of Israeli occupation”.

At the commission’s annual public meeting last week, Mr Hoffman again questioned how the charity could pass a public benefit test and accused it of “fomenting hatred”.

The repeated questioning sparked Mr Hilary’s outburst and prompted him to ask the Charity Commision whether it had a “vexatious complaints” policy.

Mr Hoffman responded: “The notion that my complaint is vexatious is utter nonsense. The fact the commission has agreed to reopen the case proves it is not ‘vexatious’. This is simply John Hilary’s way of bullying the commission.”

Amnesty UK is hosting an event on October 28, entitled Discriminatory and unsustainable: Water and politics in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, at which the main speaker will be Ben White, author of Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide.

He also appeared at the WoW event about which Mr Hoffman complained to the commission.
After learning of the Amnesty event, Mr Hoffman wrote to its organiser, Kristyan Benedict, demanding a 15-minute section of the evening to respond to Mr White.

Mr Benedict responded: “Given your immature and disruptive behaviour, at the last event and previous ones I am aware about, I can see no reason to grant you this amazing demand. “If you are willing to invite people from the human rights community to any ZF events and give them 15 minutes to challenge positions which vilify international human rights law, then I may reconsider.”

15 October 2009

A Petition to A Quisling - It's Time to Go

Below is an open letter to the Palestinian Quisling Leader, Mahmud Abbas. It is signed by many well known supporters of the Palestinians, including Noam Chomsky, and key Palestinian activists like Omar Barghouti.

If you agree, sign!
Tony Greenstein


An Open Letter to Mahmud ‘Abbas on the Goldstone Report:

We are a diverse group of Palestinians, solidarity activists, and supporters of human rights and international law. We write to join the Palestinian political parties, civil society groups, trade unions, and citizens that have condemned the recent decision at the UN Human Rights Council to withdraw Palestinian support for a resolution endorsing the report of the “UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict,” led by Richard Goldstone.

We consider this decision a betrayal of the Palestinian struggle for self-determination and of broader efforts to promote human rights and a just international system.

Although we have no illusions that the Goldstone report would have guaranteed accountability for the atrocities committed in Gaza, we recognize it as an important tool in mobilizing the world community for the cause of peace and justice in the region. We also understand that Israel and its allies exerted pressure on you to bury the report. But by withdrawing support for a resolution in the Human Rights Council, you have done more to undermine these efforts than all of the sustained, high-level attacks by Israel and its allies combined. You have squandered the support of the world community for no good reason.

We understand that you have appointed a committee to investigate how and why the Goldstone report was shelved. Such an inquiry is not needed to tell us that the person ultimately responsible for this disastrous decision is you. We are outraged that the self-described leader of a national liberation movement would seek to evade responsibility for such a reckless and damaging error.

Furthermore, we believe this self-inflicted wound raises serious doubts about the soundness of your leadership and the authority of the diplomatic missions under your control worldwide to represent the interests of the Palestinian people.

As Palestinians and non-Palestinian supporters of universal rights, our solidarity is first and foremost with the Palestinian people. We stand together for all actions that strengthen the national liberation movement and a just international system. Your most recent decision so egregiously undermines these goals that it leaves us with no choice but to clarify the contours of our solidarity – to stand with the Palestinian people and against you.

We demand that you restore full Palestinian diplomatic support for advancing the Goldstone report through the United Nations system, including to the Security Council and the International Criminal Court.

Furthermore, we reiterate our support for efforts to restore the unity and legitimacy of the Palestinian national struggle. Until such unity is restored, any appeals for solidarity or support from you or your subordinates will carry no weight.

Meanwhile, we pledge ourselves to redoubling our efforts for a just peace in the region based on respect for human rights and international law, including the right to self-determination – with or without your help.

__________________________________________________________

To sign this letter or view all signatures, click here.

__________________________________________________________

Signed by (among others),

Noam Chomsky
Omar Barghouti
Noura Erakat, Georgetown University
Mahmood Mamdani
Iyad al Sarraj, Gaza Community Mental Health Program
Mamduh al Akr
Nur Masalha, Director, Centre for Religion and History and Holy Land Research Project, St. Mary’s University College (UK)
A/Prof Bassam Dally, The Australian Friends of Palestine
Dror Feiler, Chair, JIPF (Judar för Israelisk Plaestinsk Fred), Sweden
Keith Hammond, Scottish Committee for the Universities of Palestine
Dr. Sara Roy
Philip Weiss
Salim Tamari, Director, Institute of Jerusalem Studies
Daniel Machover, Chair, Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights, London
Hasan Khader
Nahed Samour, German-Palestinian Lawyers’ Association
Abraham Melzer, Editor, SEMIT Jewish Magazine, 63263 Neu-Isenberg, Germany
Mazin Qumsiyeh, PhD, Professor, Bethlehem University
Ingrid Jaradat Gassner, Director, BADIL Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights
Dr. Nancy Murray, President, Gaza Mental Health Foundation
Matan Cohen, co-founder Anarchists Against The Wall, SJP Hampshire College. Member- Boycott From Within
Salman Abu Sitta
Islah Jad
Salih Abdul Jawwad
Joel Kovel
Elaine C. Hagopian, Ph.D., Professor Emerita of Sociology, Simmons College, Boston
Elliott Colla, Dept. of Arabic and Islamic Studies, Georgetown University
Nora Lester Murad
Dr. Marcy Newman
Leila Farsakh, University of Massachusetts-Boston
Eyal Weizman
Noel Ignatiev, Edward Said Visiting Professor of American Studies, American University of Beirut
Dr. Anat Matar, head of Israeli Association for the Palestinian Prisoners, Prof., Tel Aviv University
Marc Estrin, Vermonters for a Just Peace in Palestine/Israel
Thomas Asher, President, The American Council
Mousa Budeiri, Prof., Birzeit University, Israeli-Occupied West Bank
Rachel Giora, Prof., Tel Aviv University
Khalid Farraj
Zakariyya Muhammad
Paolo Canarutto, European Jews for a Just Peace
Tony Greenstein, Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods/Brighton PSC

Zionism Boycotts the Funeral of Marek Edelman

A sad farewell to Marek Edelman - the last surviving Commander of the Bund. The article below describes his funeral in Warsaw, where he was buried, although he lived in Poland's second city, Lodz.

It is noticeable that apart from the attendance of Shevach Weiss, a previous Israeli Ambassador to Poland, in his personal capacity, there was no represen
tation from the 'Jewish' State or any 'national' institution of Zionism.

Having tried to claim the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising for itself, despite the fact that Zionism from 1933 onwards collaborated with Nazism wherever it could, and opposed resistance as 'unZionist', in particular in breaking the anti-Nazi economic and cultural boycott, [see Edwin Black's 'The Transfer Agreement for details] it found Edelman an embarrassment.

Marek Edelman was not a mythical Massada figure or straight from central casting in Hollywood, but a real, live Jewish resistance fighter who had survived against the odds. The problem was that he was not a Zionist. Indeed, even worse. He had compared the fight of the ZOB, Jewish Fighting Organisation, to that of the Palestinians, whom he termed the Palestinian Fighting Organisations.

It was he, Edelman, who saw that th
e murderous racism of the Nazis was mirrored in Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. So, as the article says, Edelman was treated like an embarrassing relative. Never to be mentioned. It was left to the Polish people, represented by their President, to pay their last respects to a uniquely remarkable man. So we should welcome that The State of Collaborators - Israel - not unnaturally decided to boycott the funeral, petty and vindictive to the last.

The article makes mention of the first Commander of ZOB, Mordechai Anielwicz of Hashomer Hatzair. In Israel Anielwicz's role is used to associate Zionism with resistance whereas the opposite is the case. ZOB had to take out and assassinate members of the Jewish Police and the Judenrat (Jewish Council) most of whom were Zionists, including members of Hashomer Hatzair like Abraham Gancawajch.

But in fact members of the Zionist youth groups who took
part in the Warsaw Ghetto Resistance rebelled not because of, but despite, their Zionist allegiance. They were both young, and therefore not hidebound by their bourgeois elders, but also they had an organisation. In any such situation, the mere fact of an organisation, regardless of the purposes for which it was formed, is an advantage in crystallising rebellion.

Indeed the conclusions that Anielwicz, who let us not forget was very young, drew are very interesting.
Anielwicz’s who commanded ZOB, expressed his regret over the “wasted time” undergoing Zionist educational work.* Anielwicz went on to say that “had the fate of the Jews in 1942 lain in the hands only
of the political parties (Zionist - TG), the revolt would never have taken place.” **

*
Gutman p. 441 fn. 23.
** Yisrael Gutman, the Jews of Warsaw 1939-45, Ghetto, Underground, Revolt, Harvester Press, Brighton, 1994 , p. 143 citing Yitzhak Zuckerman and Council of Kibbutz Hi Meuhad 4/1945.,

Tony Greenstein


The Last Bundist

Marek Edelman dies last week. He was 90.

He was bur
ied on Friday. Marek Edeleman was the last surviving member of the Warsaw Ghetto. He was one of the leaders of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, and its last commander - after Mordechai Anelewicz was killed.

The President of Poland spoke at his funeral, held in the old Jewish cemetery of Warsaw. Two thousand people attended the grave-side ceremony. But no one from the Israeli government attended - though Israel's former ambassador to Poland, Shevach Weiss, attended in a personal capacity. No official representative of any international Jewish organization attended either: not even from the Holocaust memorialization organizations. As far as I can tell, neither the Jerusalem Post nor Ha'aretz ran a story when Edelman died, nor any sort of eulogy. (Haaretz did run a short AP wire story about his funeral.)

Why is Edeleman mostly ignored while Anelewicz is lionized? (I lived for a year on Mordechai Anelewicz St. in Jerusalem, there is a kibbutz Kfar Mordechai named after him, his name and story is taught in every Israeli school, and in most Hebrew Schools around the world.)

Perhaps because he remained a firm anti-Zionist all his life. In pre-war Poland he was a leader of the "Bund" - the Jewish Socialist Party, that advocated for a "multi-cultural" solution for Jews within a socialist Poland. It dreamed of a thriving Yiddish based Jewish culture within a secular, multi-ethnic Poland - where significant minorities - like Jews and Ukrainians - would have cultural autonomy. The Bund was a significant party within the Polish Parliament of those years, and there where as many supporters of the Bund as there where Zionists among polish Jews of the 1930s. After the war Edelman remained in Poland, became a noted doctor, and later was active in the Soli
darity movement that brought down Communism in Poland. In the 1990s, he served in the Polish Parliament.

In 2002, in the middle of the second intifada, Edelman wrote a letter to Palestinian resistance leaders. Though the letter criticized the suicide bombers, its tone infuriated the Israeli government and press. According to The Guardian, "He wrote in a spirit of solidarity from a fellow resistance fighter, as a former leader of a Jewish uprising not dissimilar in desperation to the Palestinian uprising in the occupied territories." He addressed his letter to "To all the leaders of Palestinian military, paramilitary and guerrilla organizations - To all the soldiers of Palestinian militant groups". This set up a howl of rage in the Israeli press, especially that Edelman had consciously used the terms that described the structures of the resistance movement in Warsaw.

I am struck by Edelman's consistency throughout his life. He believed that Jewish liberation could only come through the liberation of the people among whom they lived, and he opposed Zionism as an escape from the Jewish responsibility to help liberate all people. He was too much of an anti-Zionist to move to Israel, and too much of a socialist to move to America. He also felt a responsibility to the few Jews remaining in Poland, and to the memory of all those who perished there. He saw no reason for a Jews to move in order to solve "the Jewish problem". He believed that Jews should fight for their rights (and those of others) wherever they lived. He believed that a Jewish life could be lived anywhere. He remained a Bundist to the end.

The picture at the top of this posting is of Edelman's funeral on Friday. The picture below is an enhanced close up of the banner that is draped over his coffin. It reads in Yiddish: Yiddisher Sotzailisicher Farbund - "The Jewish Socialist Bund."

From Sydney Nestel’s Blog

12 October 2009

Conservatives Anti-Semitic Friend Declares his Undying Sympathy for Israel!

I May Not like Jews but I Just Love Israel
Michal Kaminski - friend of British Conservatism

The row over the Tory Party’s choice of allies in the European Parliament rumbles on. In particular over Michal Kaminiski, member of the far-right Law and Justice Party in Poland’s Sejm and leader of the Conservatives and Reformists Group in the European Parliament. Leaving aside Robert Zile’s Freedom and Fatherland Party in Latvia, which has a soft spot for all those Latvian SS men who helped round up the Jews.

What is interesting in this debate is how, BNP style, Kaminiski’s retort to the allegation of anti-Semitism is: ‘What me? But I support Israel.’ And that is precisely the problem. It reminds me of a quotation in Francis Nicosia’s new book, ‘anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany.’ [2008].

Nicosia is an American Professor of Political Science and an ardent Zionist who continually finds himself at odds with the evidence he uncovers. But despite his Zionism he notes that although today criticism of Zionism
‘is often dismissed as motivated by a deeper anti-Semitism, in Herzl’s day an opposite non-Jewish reaction, one of support for the Zionist idea, might have resulted in a similar reaction.’ [p.7]
His conclusion is that ‘Before the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, active anti-Zionism… was largely a Jewish phenomenon…’ [13]

And that is precisely the point. If someone says that they believe Jews don’t belong in this country and should depart, then they are either an anti-semite or a Zionist or both. So it’s no surprise that Israel’s Ambassador to Britain, the intellectually challenged Ron Prossor, should be up there giving Kaminiski his full support. Likewise the Conservative Friends of Israel stand shoulder to shoulder with a man who has opposed any form of Polish apology for the massacre at Jedwabne (because Jews should apologise for the behaviour of the Soviet Union – understandable if you hold that Jews collectively were responsible for Stalin's atrocities or for Communism more generally, which is something Hitler certainly believed in.

Kaminski also paid homage to see General Pinochet when he was under house arrest in Britain, presenting him with some Catholic curiosity. Leaving aside of course his anti-gay credentials.

Now it may be, as some have argued, that Kaminski is more an opportunist than a fascist supporter. But regardless he makes a good bedfellow for both Israeli apologists and David Cameron. Interestingly, senior members of the Jewish Leadership Council have been spitting blood at the letter Vivian Wineman, President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews sent David Cameron asking, ever so politely, about his new far-right friends.

We are told that ‘One JLC member described colleagues as “livid” at the timing of the letter. Another said he was “incandescent”. A senior Jewish Conservative said: “The Board has done itself a lot of damage. It is acting naively, it has been manipulated by left-wing interests into a completely inappropriate position. The irony is that the new Tory European group will be the most pro-Israel lobby group.”

Of course this is no irony at all. I can once remember watching a programme featuring one Ian Paisley, leader of the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland. He littered his conversation with anti-Semitic epithets, but this man was as pro-Zionist as you could get.

What of course the unnamed senior Jewish conservative meant is that ‘anti-Semitism’ is only a stick to beat the left and those horrible Muslims around the head with. It’s not actually mean to be taken seriously, as in anti-Semitism, hatred of Jews. ‘Anti-Semitism’ is merely a form of defamation and libel to be used against anti-racists in the name of Israel’s war against the Palestinians. It is effectively the conscious and deliberate misuse of the memory of those who died in the Final Solution to bolster Israel and US imperialism.

Kaminski admits wearing 'fascist' symbol
By Martin Bright and Jessica Elgot, October 10, 2009

Michal KaminskI, the Polish MEP at the centre of the controversy over David Cameron’s European alliances has admitted he wore the symbol of a totalitarion group, claims he had previously denied.

In an interview with the JC, Mr Kaminski was asked if he had ever said he was proud to wear the Chrobry Sword, the symbol of the National Radical Camp (ONR).

Formed in 1934, the extreme rightwing, nationalist ONR- Falanga was largely a student movement, but practised violent anti-Semitism including attacks on Jewish students, buildings and businesses, organised boycotts of Jewish businesses and attacks on left wing groups.
The group used the medieval symbol of the Mieczyk Chrobrego – the Chrobry sword,

Mr KaminskI categorically denied knowledge of wearing the Chrobry sword symbol.
He told the JC: “No, I never wear it. I don’t even know which symbol you are referring to.”
But Mr Kaminski later issued a clarification, where he admitted he had worn the badge.
He said:
"I did wear the sword, which was used around a millennia ago to crown Polish Kings, on my lapel on occasions. After 1989 it was used as one of the symbols of the Christian National Union and many Conservative politicians would wear it, including politicians now in the Civic Platform.

“In recent years it has been taken as a symbol by the Far Right. Although it is not the same, there are similarities with how the BNP in Britain has taken the Union Jack as their symbol.
“When I felt the symbol started having this meaning I stopped wearing it and I asked the rest of my party to stop too.”
He added: “I acknowledge that it is possible that my pronunciation was unclear, so I am happy to clarify his position on this controversial symbol."

EXCLUSIVE Michal Kaminski: 'I'm no antisemite'

When I finally interview Michal Kaminski he is looking extremely flustered, not to say hounded, by the attention he has received during his flying visit to Conservative Party conference. The controversial leader of David Cameron’s new allies in the European Parliament has been chased into a fringe meeting by a woman from Channel 4 and to the doors of a lunch hosted by Conservative Friends of Israel. Allegations about his far-right past have quite literally pursued him to a suite at Manchester’s Midland Hotel.

Here it is that the 37-year-old head of the new European Conservatives and Reformists grouping has chosen to explain his controversial past statements, which range from the Holocaust and the role of Jewish partisans in the Soviet occupation, to General Pinochet and homosexuality.

In his only interview with a British newspaper, he says he welcomes the opportunity to reassure readers of the JC that he is no antisemite.“If you grew up in Poland, if you saw the traces of the Holocaust in my country, the accusation of being an antisemite is, I think, really hard,” he says. “Being an antisemite is something which is contradictory to all my beliefs, starting with my religious beliefs as a Christian and ending with my political conservative views.”

He adds that he considers that western civilisation is essentially Judeo-Christian and therefore “created to a big extent by Jews”.

Mr Kaminski says that he understands the concerns raised by some of the allegations against him. His colourful CV has already caused acute embarrassment to the Conservative Party and provided ammunition to those who say Cameron has rejected the mainstream centre-right in Europe in favour of a rag-tag bunch of apologists for fascism. At the same time, his robust support for Israel provides Anglo-Jews with a dilemma. His status as guest of honour at the CFI lunch demonstrates the level of trust he commands among leading Jewish Tories. His visit to Israel last month saw him welcomed by Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon.

But how does this square with Mr Kaminski’s political beginnings with the far-right National Revival of Poland party (NOP)? The party he joined as a teenager is said to have pledged that “Jews will be removed from Poland and their possessions confiscated”. His response is that he was just 15 when he joined the NOP in 1987 when it was still an underground movement. Two years later it merged into the mainstream Conservative Christian National Union. “It was for me the first available option to join the anti-Communist movement and when I was 17 I left this group,” he says, adding that there was no evidence of a neo-fascist tendency at the time. “When I was a member of them, I don’t remember. Maybe you will find that someone will… but as far as I know it was a party which was Catholic and nationalist-orientated.”

Mr Kaminski himself raises the issue of Jedwabne, a town in the north-east of Poland which was the site of a massacre of hundreds of its Jewish inhabitants in July 1941 by a mob of Poles. Sixty years later, the then Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski issued an apology for the atrocity, but the issue was hugely divisive. As the deputy in the Polish parliament responsible for the area, Mr Kaminski expressed his opposition to a generalised apology, a decision he stands by.
From the very beginning I was saying as a human being, as a Pole, that Jedwabne was a terrible crime, unfortunately committed by the Polish people. My point was from the very start: we are ashamed of these people, we have to condemn them, we have to judge them if they are still alive. But I don’t want to take the whole responsibility for this crime for the whole Polish nation.
He adds that he doesn’t believe the Jedwabne massacre should be classified on the same level as the Holocaust. “I think that it’s unfair comparing it with Nazi crimes and putting it with the same level as the Nazi policy.”

More difficult for Mr Kaminski (and potentially Mr Cameron) is the suggestion that the Polish politician claimed no apology should be made until Jews apologised for alleged Jewish crimes of collaboration with the Soviet Union. His answer is ingenious. He says that asking the Poles as a whole to apologise for Jedwabne would make as much sense as asking the Jews to apologise for alleged Jewish involvement in Communist crimes.It is a theme to which he returns later in the interview:
My position is that there were acts of collaboration of the Jewish people with the Soviet army when the Soviet army came to Poland. It’s a fact. It’s a historical fact… If you are asking the Polish nation to apologise for the crime made in Jedwabne, you would require from the whole Jewish nation to apologise for what some Jewish Communists did in Eastern Poland.
I ask him about an interview he gave to the ultra-nationalist Polish newspaper Nacza Polska at the time of the apology, when he is alleged to have said he would only apologise for Jedwabne when “someone from the Jewish side will apologise for what the Jews did during the Soviet occupation between 1939 and 1941, for the mass collaboration of the Jewish people with the Soviet occupier.” He claims he does not remember giving the interview. Does he recognise the words as his? “I absolutely do not recognise them. It was nine years ago.” He adds that official statements at the time made his position on the matter clear. I ask him about his use of the slogan “Poland is for the Poles”, which is said to have associations with pre-war Polish ultra-nationalism. He says he had been referring to Poland’s corruption scandals of 2000 when the new democracy was seriously under threat. “We have to give Poland to Poles but….not in a racial or nationalistic sense but in terms of democracy. We want to give back Polish democracy to the Poles, to the citizens.”

I ask him to clarify claims that he expressed pride in wearing the Chrobry sword, the symbol of the National Radical Camp Falanga, a Catholic totalitarian group formed in 1935. He issues a categorical denial: “No, I never wear it. I don’t even know which symbol you are referring to." [Mr Kaminski later clarified his position, claiming he had in fact worn the symbol]

There is no doubt there has been a concerted attempt by David Cameron’s political enemies to discredit Mr Kaminski. But there are areas of his own political biography where he admits he made serious errors of judgment. In 1999, he visited the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in London, an event he described as “the most important moment of my whole life”. He later made a statement to the Polish parliament saying he regretted his actions. He says: “I think I made a mistake visiting Pinochet. A decent politician should have the courage to admit the mistake”.

I wonder if he thinks it was also a mistake to have described homosexuals as “pedaly”, a derogatory term akin to “shirt-lifters”. Again he admits an error of judgement. “I said I would never use these words again. But please remember it was a word used commonly by Polish politicians about homosexuals. “Since I discovered that this word was offensive in the eyes of homosexuals, I never used it again.” As we end the interview he talks of his pride at heading up the new conservative grouping in the European parliament and his great respect for British Conservatism. But Mr Kaminski cannot have imagined that he would end up as such a controversial figure for the party that has inspired his politics for so long.

The creation of the ECR has been a huge risk for David Cameron, brought about because he needed to provide some “red meat” to the Eurosceptics in his party. In the final irony, though, it turns out that Mr Kaminski is himself an enthusiastic Europhile who has embraced the Lisbon Treaty so hated by the right-wing of the British Conservative Party. “I was on the side of those who were in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. It is well known in Poland. It is not a secret,” he says. I apologise that so much of the interview has been taken up by allegations from Mr Kaminski’s political enemies. To his credit he says that it has been important to answer his critics.

UPDATE: Mr Kaminski made the following statement to the JC on Friday:
I did wear the sword, which was used around a millennia ago to crown Polish Kings, on my lapel on occasions. After 1989 it was used as one of the symbols of the Christian National Union and many Conservative politicians would wear it, including politicians now in the Civic Platform. In recent years it has been taken as a symbol by the Far Right. Although it is not the same, there are similarities with how the BNP in Britainhas taken the Union Jack as their symbol. When I felt the symbol started having this meaning I stopped wearing it and I asked the rest of my party to stop too.
Analysis by Political Editor Martin Bright Editor Stephen Pollard

See also
Kaminski apologists play with fire

11 October 2009

Israel's New Chemistry Laureate calls for Release of All Palestinian Prisoners

I guess it is inevitable but when I heard that an Israeli scientist, Professor Ada Yonath, had received the Nobel Prize, my heart sank a little. She was head of research in the field of structural biology and biochemistry at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot and was therefore almost certainly involved in some part of the industrial military complex. Now some people will say this is bigoted and prejudiced, but it is a fact that science and military in Israel go together like Hans and Gretel. So what a pleasant surprise that Prof. Yonath is a pacifist who has almost immediately called for the release of all Palestinian prisoners in Israel.

Below is the report from Haaretz and from the settler Israel News which of course puts the words 'terrorist' into her mouth.
Tony Greenstein


Israeli Nobel Laureate calls for release of all Hamas prisoners
Haaretz 10 Oct 2009

Israeli Nobel Prize for chemistry laureate Professor Ada Yonath on Saturday said all Hamas prisoners held in Israel should be released in order to bring Gilad Shalit home.

“I don’t understand why we incarcerate them in Israel in the first place,” the professor told Army Radio Saturday.

She added that “all prisoners should be returned to Palestine regardless of a deal for Gilad Shalit’s release.”

Yonath was interviewed on the weekly Saturday radio show about her thoughts in general regarding the Middle East conflict and called for a “change in the status quo.” She said that holding Palestinians captive encourages and perpetuates their motivation to harm Israel and its citizens.

“If we hold Palestinian prisoners captive for years on end, their familys’ resentment for Israel will grow and we are actively creating terrorists,” the Nobel Laureate suggested.

She also said that if we cease from incarcerating Palestinians it will end soldier abductions. “Once we don’t have any prisoners to release they will have no reason to kidnap soldiers.”
Yonath described many Palestinian lives as having “no hope for the future,” and said that “in a state of such despair they have every reason to jump at the opportunity to better their prospects for a better afterlife.”

Nobel Prize Winner: Release all Terrorists from Jail
by Gil Ronen

Professor Ada Yonath, who received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry last week, wasted no time in using her newly found fame to air her political views. In an interview Saturday on Army Radio station (Galei Tzahal) she opined that Israel should release all the terrorists incarcerated in its jails.

"We need to think of ways that people will not have motivation to go and kill and be killed,”

Yonath said.
“It is is not just a political matter. These people are people who usually do not have a horizon, they have no hope, they have no reason to want to live and therefore they do not care that others will not live, and at the same time maybe they will also go to heaven and receive some rewards. This does not happen to people who have options for life, who have a life in which they at least have the possibility of hope. We can change that.”
Yonath seemed to dispute the very term “terrorist” when she said that regardless of the question of releasing captive Sgt. Gilad Shalit, “anyone who sits in our jails who is not just a criminal but what we call a terrorist, with or without blood on his hands – and these definitions are also unclear to me – should not be sitting in our custody.”

She added: “As for the argument that they will go back to crime, or what you call terror, I believe that there are enough [terrorists] without them. I think that when a young man or woman sits in our jails for years, his or her family gets angry and we create additional terrorists.”

Using terminology which is often heard in “gender studies” academic circles, Yonath drew a connection between her gender and her pacifist views. “As a person, as a woman, as a mother – but mainly as a person – it pains me that a sweet guy [like Shalit] is in jail for three years, or is a hostage, and I do not know if we see him returning and I do not understand why he is there.”

9 October 2009

Marek Edelman - The best, and last, of an era


An interesting obituary for Marek Edelman in Ha'aretz by someone who is clearly a Revisionist Zionist but who nonetheless recognises the contribution of Marekt Edelman and the fact that he remained a determined opponent of Zionism to the last. Not for him the 'negation of the Diaspora' and other anti-Semitic notions. Tony Greenstein

Marek Edelman - The End of an Era
By Laurence Weinbaum

The death of Marek Edelman, on October 2, surely marks the end of an era. Although a handful of Warsaw Ghetto insurgents are still with us, Edelman was certainly the best known of them, and was the last surviving leader. He escaped through the sewers and returned to fight again in the abortive 1944 Warsaw Uprising. Edelman wrote one of the first accounts of the struggle of his comrades in the ghetto. Characterizing the Jewish resistance there, he said: "We fought simply not to allow the Germans alone to pick the time and place of our deaths."

After the war, he settled in Lodz and studied medicine, determined to play a part in the building of a new Poland founded on socialist principles, in which Jews would enjoy civil rights and cultural autonomy. This was, of course, not to be. For Edelman, like others, Jews and non-Jews alike, who genuinely believed in the socialist cause and in human rights, the so-called "People's Poland" proved a great disappointment. Over successive years, many voiced that disillusionment with their feet by leaving the country.

But Edelman remained in Poland, even when his immediate family chose to leave. "After all, someone has to stay here with all those who perished here," he repeatedly declared.
One can decry that stubbornness or admire it, but there is no denying that in electing to live in Poland, he became a thorn in the side of the communist regime - and a symbol of the Polish-Jewish symbiosis that many believed had perished in the gas chambers of Treblinka and, immediately following the war, in the bloodstained streets of Kielce.

True to his Bundist roots, Edelman never made his peace with Zionism, and was often a bitter, even vitriolic, critic of the Jewish state and its policies. In August 2002, he wrote a letter in support of those whom he called "commanders of the Palestinian military, paramilitary and partisan operations - to all the soldiers of the Palestinian fighting organizations." Although condemning the wave of suicide bombings that wracked Israel at the time, Edelman expressed solidarity with the Palestinian struggle. In so doing, the ghetto veteran furnished advocates of the Arab case with potent ammunition.

Edelman's disenchantment with Israel arose out of his own sense of humanism. Above all, it was rooted in his belief in an ideology that has been relegated to the dustbin of history. Edelman was probably the last representative of a once-flourishing movement in Poland and throughout East Central Europe that believed in doikeit (Yiddish for "hereness"). Bundism rejected the idea that Jews should pick up and leave their native lands.

While neither religiously observant nor a Zionist, Edelman was a passionate Jew. Had he succumbed to the fleshpots of New York, Paris or Melbourne, perhaps his former ghetto comrades now living on kibbutz could have forgiven him. It was his decision to remain in the dilapidated city of Lodz, the former epicenter of the Shoah, that seemed so objectionable and even offensive - and an inexplicable, yet powerful negation of Zionist triumphalism.

Upon hearing of Edelman's death, Tadeusz Pieronek, a Polish bishop known for his liberal views opined, "I respect him mostly for the fact that he stayed in this land, which made him fight so hard for his Jewish and Polish identity ... He became a real witness; he was giving real testimony with his life." Like many witnesses asked to describe events in which they had taken part, Edelman was an imperfect source of information. At times, his undisguised and intemperate distaste for his Jewish political rivals tainted the veracity of his testimony.

After the war, perhaps Edelman's "finest hour" was in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, when he joined the precursor of Solidarity and later the mass movement itself. During that time, he displayed courage and outspokenness in the face of the repressive policies of the Communist regime. He was even once briefly subjected to house arrest.

In 1983 he was invited to take part in a showcase ceremony to mark the 40th anniversary of the ghetto uprising. He refused to participate in what he saw as a shameless and transparent attempt by Communist authorities to deflect international attention from its attempt to stifle opposition. To appear at the event, he claimed, "would be an act of cynicism and contempt" in a country "where social life is dominated throughout by humiliation and coercion."

Edelman did, however, take part in the 1989 Round Table Talks that led to democratic rule and genuine national rebirth, and was elected to the Polish parliament, the Sejm.

Writing in Haaretz earlier this week, Moshe Arens, one of the commanding personages of the Revisionist Movement - for which Edelman, it must be said, had nothing but contempt - described his own failed attempts to secure an honorary degree for Edelman. "I ran into stubborn opposition ... in Israel. He had received Poland's highest honor, and at the 65th commemoration of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising he was awarded the French Legion of Honor medal. He died not having received the recognition from Israel that he so richly deserved."

Perhaps that graceful and generous display of recognition by one octogenarian for another, though on the opposite side of the political fence, is a most fitting obituary for the complicated and cantankerous Polish cardiologist and ghetto fighter - and the best testimony to his greatness.

Dr. Laurence Weinbaum is chief editor of the Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, and co-author of a forthcoming book on the Jewish Military Union (ZZW) in the Warsaw Ghetto.

Finally PSC Executive Answer Some Questions – But They Still Say Nothing!

Below, in an e-mail to two PSC activists, Betty Hunter, General Secretary of PSC, admits that the Palestinian Authority decision was 'appalling.' And that's it.

She denies burying the Goldstone Report. But that is not the point. PSC have refrained from any criticism of the Palestinian Authority's decision to do exactly that. The main factions in PSC Executive - Socialist Action and Communist League - believe in uncritical support of all representatives of an oppressed people. If the Anti-Apartheid Movement had taken this approach to the South African regime then it would never have said anything about its stooges in the Bantustans and Mangasuthu Buthelezi.

Let us recap:

i. Last week Mahmoud Abbas, Chair/President of the Palestinian Authority withdrew its own resolution calling on the UN’s Human Rights Committee to endorse the Goldstone Report on Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

ii. A number of reasons for this have been advanced including the corruption of the PA and
telecommunications contracts and allegations that Israel threatened to release a tape showing that Abbas and cronies had urged Israel to continue the attack and occupation of Gaza earlier this year. They have offered no explanation of their own.

iii. It is a matter of record that the Palestinian Authority did nothing to campaign against Israel’s attack on Gaza and in fact criticised Hamas when the attack first happened.

iv. It is also a matter of record that the PA has co-ordinated its response with the Egyptian regime of Hosni Mubarak, which is also a party to the blockade of Gaza.

v. Over 30 Palestinian organisations, including Balad in Israel, have called on Abbas to resign.

vi. Palestine Solidarity Campaign in Britain has said nothing about what happened other than to carry a link to an article from Haaretz Israel to UN body: Come to your senses on Goldstone Report explaining why Israel doesn’t like the Goldstone Report and a link to a Guardian article entitled ‘Palestinian Authority withdraws support for UN war crimes resolution' as well as a link to an old article by Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada on the decontextualisation of war crimes rather than more current articles attacking the PA decision such as Abbas helps Israel bury its crimes in Gaza by Ali Abunimah and UN must act on Goldstone and the PA must be dissolved by Omar Baghouti.

There are therefore obvious questions that a PSC which was democratic, and whose Executive considered itself accountable, would answer. Instead we have the pathetic response from Betty Hunter, its General-Secretary, below. Such question as:

i. Why has PSC nothing to say about Abbas pulling the rug from beneath the feet of the UN.

ii. Does PSC not owe it to the murdered 1,400 people in Gaza to speak out against this decision by a corrupt and pliant puppet regime?

iii. Why if Betty Hunter considers the decision ‘appalling’ does she not say this aloud?

iv. Why does PSC continue to back a quisling/Vichy regime in Ramallah which is supported and armed by Israel and the United States?

v. Is the imposition of a Palestinian police state fine by PSC, even if it is effectively created by Israel and the USA?

vi. How can PSC Executive (now that Socialist Action is active in the Galloway part of Respect) back the Convoy to Gaza (Viva Palestina) and at the same time back the quisling regime in Ramallah which supported the attack by Israel on Gaza?

Below are the e-mails that 2 PSC activists sent to Betty Hunter and her reply. Judge for yourself if this is an adequate response. It would seem that Betty Hunter was more concerned about the membership of Alan and Miriam than what they had to say!

Tony Greenstein

Tony wrote:
When I first read what is on PSC's website I rubbed my eyes. Was this a spoof PSC site? How come its take on the withdrawal of the PA resolution from the UN's Human Rights Committee focussed on what Israel was saying to the UN? 'Come to your senses on Goldstone Report.' Or that the focus was on 'intense diplomacy' whatever that is? We know very well what the forces were that wanted to absolve Israel of war crimes, why pretend this was an inevitable outcome of diplomacy?

And then there was the link to Ali Abunimah's article. Why not link to the current article 'Abbas helps Israel bury its crimes in Gaza' or was that too controversial?

Dear Tony (and all)

In reply to what you wrote about PSC website (please see below), the Ali Abunimah article, 'Abbas helps Israel bury its crimes in Gaza' that you refer to is not on the PSC website. A much milder one from the ei site by three authors which pre-dates the events at Geneva is, however, on the PSC site and should, in our opinion, be replaced by the one above.

May we add our voice to others and call for a strong statement/press release from PSC condemning Abbas's actions.

Another excellent article that we think should be on the website is by Amira Hass 'Mahmoud Abbas's chronic submissiveness'

In solidarity,

M&A (PSC members).

From: betty.hunter@palestinecampaign.org
Subject: RE: [bhpsc] burying the goldstone report
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 15:26:29 +0100

Hi,

Don’t worry I received it the first time.

Far from burying the Goldstone report, we have been doing a lot of media work and there are several articles on the website.
We are of course consulting with key people in Palestine and internationally about the best way of responding to this appalling decision of the PA.

Best wishes
Betty
Betty Hunter

General Secretary
Palestine Solidarity Campaign
www.palestinecampaign.org

Hi Betty


Thanks for the prompt clarification.

Our concern is that it is the PA that is helping Israel to bury the Goldstone Report. We trust that the PSC response will be both robust and timely - there is clearly so much at stake, here.


Best wishes,

M

8 October 2009

Goldstone Report Withdrawal - Abbas Blackmailed by Israeli Tape


When I last posted on the subject of the PA’s capitulation to Israeli demands to withdraw a resolution from the UN’s Human Rights Committee endorsing the Goldstone Report, which called Israel's actions in Gaza 'war crimes', I suggested that it was linked to the question of lucrative mobile telephone contracts.

It seems from Al Jazeera that the explanation is even more sinister. Israel also threatened to release a tape showing Abbas and his Secretary-General urging Israel to not only invade and occupy Gaza but to perpetuate the war even longer.

If this is true then it is nothing less than naked blackmail which has prevented a vote and discussion on the Report. Since blackmail is normally considered a criminal offence, one wonders whether the UNHRC is going to allow it’s agenda or lack of it to be dictated by such considerations.

The latest revelations, that Abbas and the PA actually egged Israel on in its murderous mission, reveal the true agenda of this bastard fruit of Oslo. The sooner the Palestinian Authority is dismantled the better. They are like the Judenrat, the collaborating Jewish Councils of the Nazi era. Britain's Palestine Solidarity Campaign might want to explain how you can oppose the attack on Gaza and support Israel's client regime in supporting that attack!

PSC Executive Behave Like Trappist Monks
But to members of PSC Executive like Bernard Regan, PSC's Trade Union officer, who spoke in favour of a Communist Party of Britain (the old Morning Star Stalinists) resolution at the last AGM in January, a resolution that said Israel's attack on Gaza was an attack on the PA, any amount of somersaults are possible.

Meanwhile the abysmal Socialist Action leadership of Britain’s Palestine Solidarity Campaign are behaving like trappist monks. They have said absolutely nothing about what is happening. They prefer to refer people to what the Zionists think about the Goldstone Report: 'Israel to UN Body: Come to Your Senses on Goldstone Report'

For another good analysis of the PA's behaviour see an article by Jonathan Cook, a writer based in Nazareth.

And finally, an excellent letter was sent to Prof. Manuel Hassassian, the Palestine Delegate to Britain by Prof. Kamel Hawwash, who until recently was Vice Chair of Palestine Solidarity Campaign before he resigned.

Tony Greenstein

PA's Goldstone block linked to tape

Many Palestinians have protested against the delay in endorsing the Goldstone report [AFP]
A videotape is behind the decision by the Palestinian Authority (PA) to delay the vote on a UN report accusing Israel of war crimes during its offensive on the Gaza Strip, a Palestinian news agency has reported.

Quoting what it called reliable sources, Shahab news agency said on Tuesday that PA representatives at a meeting in Washington had initially rejected Israel's request not to endorse the report and were determined to stick to this position.

But, the agency added, Brigadier Eli Avraham played a videotape showing a meeting between Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, and Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister.
The meeting was also attended by Tzipi Livni, Israel's former foreign minister.

The video reportedly showed Abbas trying to convince Barak to continue the war on Gaza, while Barak looked hesitant, although Livni appeared to be in support of the plan, Shahab quoted its sources as saying.

The report by Shahab emerged on the same day that Libya called on the UN Security Council to hold an emergency meeting to consider the content of the report by Richard Goldstone, a former South African judge, which accused Israel of committing war crimes.

Palestine TV, the official television channel of the PA, reported that Abbas would send Riyadh al-Malki, the Palestinian foreign minister, to New York to assist in the Libyan bid to have the council address the report.

Israel launched a major offensive on the Hamas-run Gaza Strip in December 2008, saying it wanted to stop rockets fired by Hamas into its territory.

At least 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis died during Israel's three-week war in Gaza.
Recorded phone call

Shahab also reported that Avraham played an audiotape of a telephone call between Dov Weissglas, the director of the Israeli chief of staff bureau, and al-Tayyib Abdul Rahim, secretary-general of the Palestinian presidency.

In the conversation, Abdul Rahim says that circumstances were suitable for entry of the Israeli army into Jabalya and al-Shatea refugee camps, and adds that the fall of these two camps would end Hamas's rule in Gaza Strip, Shahab says.

Weissglas then told Abdul Rahim that this operation would lead to the death of thousands of civilians, but, according to Shahab, Abdul Rahim said: "They have all elected Hamas, so they are the ones who have chosen their fate, not us."

Shehab said the Israeli delegation threatened the PA representatives that it would present the recorded material to the UN and news organisations, forcing the delegation to accede to Israel's demand to delay the vote on the report.

Meanwhile, a senior Qatari foreign ministry official said the Palestinians missed a rare chance by delaying the vote on the Goldstone report.

Sheikh Khaled bin Jassem al-Thani, the ministry's human rights department head, told Al Jazeera on Tuesday that the Palestinian representative to the UN Human Rights Council had requested a delay until the next meeting in March.

'Missed opportunity'

"The Palestinian decision was based on their wishes ... and member states could not take unilateral measures contrary to the wishes of the Palestinian Authority. "There were many countries that supported [the report and a vote] ... it could have been adopted, but I think that an opportunity was missed and it may not come back."
Israel and Hamas have been blamed by the UN report for war crimes [File: EPA]

Abbas is under pressure from the PA's executive council and the central committee of his Fatah movement has launched an investigation into the delay.

But there appears to be no respite for him from the barrage of criticism from Palestinians.
A senior member of Hamas has demanded that Abbas resign for supporting the postponement of the vote.

Mahmoud al-Zahar told Al Jazeera on Monday that Abbas was guilty of "a very big crime against the Palestinian people" over the PA's support to defer endorsing the report. "He is encouraging the Israeli military leaders to attack Gaza, to kill Hamas, and to kill people because they voted for Hamas; to postpone a very important report concerning the Israelis committing crimes against human beings," al-Zahar said.

"He should resign and he should seek a fair trial. He is not representing any of the Palestinian people."

The comments came as hundreds of people in the West Bank city of Ramallah protested against the delay in the vote on the report.

Protesters waved placards at Monday's events, saying the delay "insults the blood of the martyrs and wounds our people".

Protests were also held in Jerusalem, where pro-Palestinian activists demanded an apology from Abbas.

"If the government had anything to do with the decision we want it to resign," Muhammad Jadallah, the head of the Coalition for Jerusalem, said.

Thirty-two Palestinian groups in Europe also called on Abbas to immediately step down.

In a statement, the groups said "the step to delay the endorsement was not less dangerous than the atrocities committed by the Israeli occupation in Gaza".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwiEu7c6zx4&feature=player_embedded#




Open letter to Palestinian Delegate in UK, Prof. Manuel Hassassian
5 October 2009
Open Letter to the Palestinian Delegate in the UKHE
Professor Manuel Hassassian
Palestinian Delegation
5 Galena Road
Hammersmith
London
W60 LT

Dear Professor Hassassian

The Midlands Palestinian Community Association (MPCA)is shocked and dismayed at the decision of the Palestinian Authority (PA) to call for the postponement of the vote in the Human Rights Council to refer the Goldstone Commission Report to the United Nations Security Council until March next year. I am asking you to kindly communicate the MPCA’s condemnation of the PAs decision to the PA President Mr Mahmoud Abbas. This extremely important report has confirmed what we all saw on ourtelevision screens, that Israel committed war crimes and crimes againsthumanity in its war on Gaza back in January of this year.

The helplessPalestinians in Gaza have waited for far too long to see the International Community begin the process of bringing the Israeli criminal leadership to justice, only to find the process hindered bytheir own leadership. If the PAs leadership will not seek every avenue to bring Israeli war criminals to justice on behalf of the Palestinian People then it should step aside immediately so a more responsible leadership can take this on and carry the torch for liberation into the future.

Yours sincerely

Associate Professor Kamel Hawwash
Chair
Midlands Palestinian Community Association (MPCA)
PO Box 11986
Birmingham
B31 2ZL
UK

7 October 2009

Marek Edelman - Death of an anti-fascist hero of the Warsaw Jewish Resistance

Last Commander of the Warsaw Ghetto Revolt Dies Aged 90

On October 2nd 2009, Marek Edelman, Deputy Leader of ZOB, the Jewish Fighting Organisation in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, died aged 90. Marek Edelman who, after the death of Mordechai Anielwicz, became Commander of ZOB, was a living legend as well as a world famous heart surgeon. He led the Bund units in the area of the Brushworks and the Tobins factories.

In December 1990 I reviewed his book The Ghetto Fights in Return 5, a Jewish anti-Zionist magazine.

Marek Edelman was a member of the anti-Zionist Bund, the General Jewish Workers Union of Poland. The Bund has originally been formed as the General Jewish Workers Union of Lithuania, Poland and Russia, but the Stalinists had eliminated it and its leadership.

Edelman’s life was the stuff of fiction. From fighting in the Ghetto Uprising, escaping via the sewers to the ‘Aryan’ side of Warsaw, a founder of Solidarity in Poland who was briefly imprisoned by the Stalinists.

Edelman was the living proof that Jews could fight anti-Semitism where they lived and didn’t have to escape to a state mirrored on the principles of their oppressors in someone else's land in Palestine. Above all he excoriated the Jewish collaborators and traitors who the Zionists had seen fit to call ‘heroes’. He didn’t fit in with or conform to Zionism’s narrative of the Holocaust.

Today Zionism praises the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, but in the 1930’s and 1940’s it treated and made deals with the Nazis. In the Ghetto the Jewish leadership did nothing as two-thirds of the Jews were deported without resistance. The Chairman of the Judenrat, Adam Czerniakow, a General Zionist and compared to most leaders of the Judenrat, an honourable man, committed suicide. 'what could we do’ was the familiar refrain of the Jewish leadership. But the Bund, which delayed the setting up of the Ghetto through demonstrations and mass mobilisation, believed in relying on the masses, not the lying words of the Nazi enemy.

Zionism had always preached the line of least resistance. As the anti-Nazi Boycott of German goods was launched in Britain and the USA in 1933 by the Jewish labour movement, the Zionist leaders negotiated an economic transfer agreement (Ha'avara) that led to 60% of capital investment in Palestine between 1933 and 1939 coming from Nazi Germany.

Edelman became a ‘non-person’ in Israel. He challenged the Zionist fable that the holocaust was part of a continuous road that led to the Israeli state and that the Ghetto Uprising was part of that same road. Having abandoned the Jews of Europe to their fate, Zionism created the myth that resistance to the Nazis was a Zionist endeavour.

As Yitzhak Laor noted in his review in Ha'aretz of 26.12.04. of Ruth Linn’s, Escaping Auschwitz: A Culture of Forgetting
‘How long did it take before we finally learned that there had been anti-Zionists among the fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? Who was Marek Edelman? Why could he show up from time to time at Kibbutz Lohamei Hageta’ot (“Ghetto Fighters”) to sit down and chat with his soul mate Antek Zuckerman, while we, as readers, were kept in the dark as to the man’s charm and greatness? Because the collective memory was unable to tolerate people who had consciously chosen not to identify with the Zionist enterprise, even in the context of Holocaust memory.’
Linn’s book dealt with another Jewish hero of the holocaust hero, Rudolf Vrba, who with Alfred Wetzler, escaped from Auschwitz, to warn the 800,000 Hungarian Jews that they were next on the Nazi butchers’ list. Their detailed description of the gas chambers and the location of their murder, the Auschwitz Protocols, was suppressed by the Zionist press and movement until the Swiss newspapers , the War Refugee Board and the Vatican, among others, blew the whistle.

The reason for the silencing of Edelman and Vrba was because the Holocaust has been harnessed to the cause the dispossession of the Palestinians. The Palestinians were the new Nazis and anyone who disagreed was also an anti-Semite. As Richard Goldstone found out this week when Israel's finance minister, Yuval Steinitz, accused him of being an anti-Semite. (BREAKING NEWS - Israel Finance Minister: Goldstone Is 'Anti-Semite').

As Idith Zertal wrote:
"Nationalizing the ghetto uprisings was a way of nationalizing the narrative and removing all the contradictory, non-Zionist elements…. The fact that the umbrella organizations involved in the rebellion included all the political parties was minimized or obscured. Of all the efforts to hush up and disguise the truth, the case of Marek Edelman is perhaps the most glaring."
As Zertal pointed out, the "Encyclopedia of the Holocaust," edited by Israel Gutman, one of Israel's Establishment Holocaust Historians at Yad Vashem, is very vague about Edelman's role, and devotes only one column to him. (The Living Dead, Yitzhak Laor)

Marek Edelman’s book, The Ghetto is Fighting, was first published in Poland in 1945 and republished in Britain in 1990. Given that this was the only first-hand account by a leader of the Uprising, it is hardly accidental that it took 56 years, until 2001, before it was published in Israel.
“Like Vrba, Edelman ‘ascended’ to Israel, refusing to become the ‘dead and obedient hero who could be moulded along with the political order of that time. On the contrary he remained alive and kicking and refusing and, therefore, extremely inconvenient for the creation of a heroic Zionist condensing and compensating myth.’ Zertal, I. Death and the Nation, 56-7 (Translation from Hebrew).
As another survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto, Professor Israel Shahak, wrote in a letter published on 19 May 1989 in Kol Ha'ir, Jerusalem:
Nearly all the work of administration, and later the work of transporting hundreds of thousands of Jews to their deaths, was carried out by Jewish collaborators. Before the outbreak of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising… the Jewish underground killed, with perfect justification, every Jewish collaborator they could find. If they had not done so the Uprising could never have started. The majority of the population of the Ghetto hated the collaborators far more than the German Nazis….

the entire Nazi success in easy and continued rule over millions of people stemmed from the subtle and diabolical use of collaborators… This, and not what is 'instilled' was the reality. Of the Yad Vashem (official state Holocaust museum in Jerusalem - Ed.) theatre, I do not wish to speak, at all. It, and its vile exploits, such as honouring South Africa collaborators with the Nazis [the visit of South African Premier John Vorster to Israel - TG) are truly beneath contempt.
And this is the reason for the silencing and invisibility of Marek Edelman and Rudolf Vrba. They were living proof that Zionism was not and never was a movement of resistance in Europe, but a movement of collaboration. Ironically, given that Zionism accuses its Jewish opponents of ‘self-hatred’, it is as Antony Lerman points out in the Guardian, ‘arguable that Zionism was actually a display of it.’
Of course there were many Zionists who, despite their Zionism, fought against the Nazis. They included the Commander of ZOB, Mordechai Anielwicz of Hashomer Hatzair. But he too began the fightback with a declaration that his Zionist work in Poland had been wasted years. Even as preparations for the Uprising were underway, Zionist collaborators such as Abraham Gancawajch of Hashomer Hatzair were targeted (unsuccessfully in his case) for assassination.

As John Rose notes in his obituary in the summer of 2002,
Edelman, intervened in Israel's show trial of jailed Palestinian resistance leader, Marwan Barghouti. He wrote a letter of solidarity to the Palestinian movement, and though he criticised the suicide bombers, its tone infuriated the Israeli government and its press. Edelman had always resented Israel's claim on the Warsaw Ghetto uprising as a symbol of Jewish liberation. Now he said this belonged to the Palestinians.

He addressed his letter to the Palestinian ZOB, "commanders of the Palestinian military, paramilitary and partisan operations – to all the soldiers of the Palestinian fighting organisations". The old Jewish anti-Nazi Ghetto fighter had placed his immense moral authority at the disposable of the only side he deemed worthy of it.
And this is the response to those who query the connection between the Palestinian fighters and the Jewish fighters of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

Former Israeli Foreign Minister, Moshe Arens, in Ha'aretz: reveals that when trying to get Edelman an award of an honorary doctorate from an Israeli university, Vrba received one in 1999 from Haifa University as a result of Ruth Linn’s efforts, ‘I ran into stubborn opposition led by Holocaust historians in Israel.’ These were the Zionists' establishment historians, people such as Yehuda Bauer, Yisrael Guttman, Gili Fatran and Otto dov Kulka, who have been in the forefront of Zionising and nationalising the Holocaust. Their task is to rewrite the history of the Holocaust so that it becomes the property of those who, in their time, were the real Jewish self-haters and collaborators.

Arens wrote of Edelman that
‘He had received Poland's highest honor, and at the 65th commemoration of the Warsaw ghetto uprising he was awarded the French Legion of Honor medal. He died not having received the recognition from Israel that he so richly deserved.’
Some would say that he was doubly fortunate in this respect!

Tony Greenstein