22 October 2012

Racist Jewish National Fund On Brink of Collapse as it loses over half its revenue

Jewish Chronicle Censors itself – 

as Zionist Federation attacks ‘Crude Smear Story’

You couldn’t make it up.  The Jewish Chronicle’s front page story this week is ‘JNF loses half its revenue’ by Simon Rocker.  Try finding it on the JC's own site however.  It has disappeared!  Failing JC Editor, Stephen Pollard, now quakes in his boots whenever he is reprimanded by Zionist rightwinger Jonathan Hoffman.

According to Hoffman ‘The page 1 lead in the JC this week was a squalid smear story about the JNF which would not even have passed muster for the Morning Star.’

I managed, with difficult to find the story on Press Display.  The JC's normally reliable search facility couldn’t find it.  Normally if you type the JC's web address  you get the front page automatically, but this week it has now been replaced by Jimmy Saville instead!  The article read:

Charity ‘no longer credible’ and may be ‘unsustainable’, says community leader
The Jewish Chronicle was forced to stage a debate into the bleeding obvious - is lending to Jews-only racist!

ONE OF the community’s leading Israel charities, JNF UK, has suffered a massive drop in contributions, with voluntary income plummeting by more than half from 2010 to 2011.
According to its newly-published accounts, income from donations, legacies and investments fell from around £5.1 million in 2010 to just over £2.4 million last year.

The collapse in its income contrasts with the leading British Israel charity, the UJIA, which has experienced a far more modest 13 per cent fall in comparative income over the same period, from £14.3 million to £12.4 million.

It is four years since JNF UK’s chairman Samuel Hayek took over from Gail Seal as part of a deal to end a costly legal conflict with its Israeli associate Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael (KKL).
The dramatic fall in its revenues has been blamed on a perceived politicisation of the charity by Mr Hayek.

At the end of 2007, JNF UK posted an income of more than £8 million, but that yield has slid in successive years. In 2011, donations fell from nearly £2.6 million in 2010 to just over £1.5 million last year, and legacies from nearly £2.5 million to £832,000.

A senior communal figure said: “This collapse in philanthropic support is the clearest possible signal that the community no longer the sees the JNF, under its current leadership, as a credible receptacle for its charitable support for Israel. On the basis of these accounts it is questionable whether the JNF can any longer accurately be described as a major communal organisation. Its long-term sustainability looks uncertain.”

But Daniel Frohwein, JNF UK’s head of marketing, said that its viability remained “strong. We have a level of reserves which enables us to support our commitment in leaner years.” Legacy income would “always be variable and understandably outside our control”.

The JNF’s response to lower income levels was to “restructure departments and professionally manage our expenses in line with our income.”

JNF UK cut its support costs from £1.7 million in 2010 to just over £1.2 million last year — although that figure does not include another £400,000 or so for fundraising and publicity last year.

The charity sent £2.3 million to Israel last year.
A report of JNF’s activities accompanying the accounts states that it held a successful annual dinner for 250 guests in 2011 but does not say what, if any, money was raised.

Samuel Hayek - Buffoon in Charge of the Jewish Ethnic Cleansing Fund
Response to Hayek's Lies
The £2.4 million income excludes £7.5 million raised through a JNF subsidiary, KKL charity vouchers, which is a conduit of funds for other charities.

Now there was a time, when I was growing up, when every Jewish household had the blue JNF box into which the odd coin would be dropped.  It was there to ‘redeem’ the land of Palestine.  I never even though it was abnormal.  The JNF was there to develop the land of Israel, to plant forests and make the land fit to live in.

Never once did I understand that the purpose of the JNF was to ‘redeem’ the land from the Arabs in order that only Jews could live on it.  That the JNF was the primary apartheid institution in Israel.
It is a testament to the Palestine solidarity movement that this message has got through at last.  That people now realise that giving to the JNF means supporting the most racist aspects of Israel.  Of course their multi-million pound legal battle with the JNF in Israel a few years ago didn’t help. 
Nor did the reception that the Royal Family gave them at Windsor Castle, on Israel’s 60th anniversary, help them.  Prince Phillip had a diplomatic illness and Prince Edward, who is pretty low on the Royal food chain, made a quick appearance and then disappeared! 

The JNF hasn’t had a good time recently.  It was normal until the advent of David Cameron, for Prime Ministers to be patrons of the JNF and for the other party leaders to be too.  But Cameron took the step of not allowing his name to be associated with it.  Why?  Because the JNF in recent years has come to be seen as an overtly racist group. 

This even culminated in a debate in the Jewish Chronicle, of all papers, on 2nd August 2007 as to whether or not the JNF was racist.  This followed the decision of Israel’s High Court that the JNF could no longer refuse to rent or lease land or apartments to non-Jews.  A simple matter of apartheid and racism it would appear but not to defenders of Zionism.  The Israeli Knesset subsequently passed legislation, Acceptance to Communities Bill,  allowing the JNF to do exactly that, by allowing existing (Jewish) communities to veto undesirables i.e. Arabs and Black Jews (Ethiopians).

And then last May the JNF decided to invite (again) the far-Right Foreign Minister of Israel – Avigdor Lieberman to Britain. As Simon Rocker reported on 24th May 2012 ‘Lieberman visit triggers bitter community clash’.   Despite Hoffman’s support, over 300 Habonim & Reform Synagogue members signed a petition which ‘accused JNF of being involved in “activities which jeopardise the possibility of peace and Israel’s ability to maintain a strong democracy”.  It gave as examples the eviction of Palestinians from homes in Silwan, east Jerusalem and the displacement of Bedouins living in the Negev town of Al-Araqib to make way for trees.’

Signatories included chairman of Liberal Judaism’s rabbinic conference Rabbi Aaron Goldstein, Ilana Fenster, who jointly chairs the Zionist Youth Council, Anthony Tricot, who is a board member of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews’ Congregation, and prominent Orthodox educator Maureen Kendler.
However the right-wing buffoon who has single-handedly brought the JNF to the edge of the abyss in the UK, Samuel Hayek said that the “libellous” claims had “no foundation. JNF UK is not involved in any of the disputes with sections of Israel’s Bedouin citizen.’  This is because ‘JNF UK is a separate charity from KKL-JNF in Israel, although it does send funds to the Israeli body.’   A strange form of independence!  And more to the point, Hayek said that ‘the petition had “provided a great deal of ammunition and encouragement to anti-Jewish and anti-Israel groups. The JNF, as the flag bearer of Israel in the United Kingdom, stands firmly against the demonisation of Israel.”  Err quite.

When a group of us wrote to the Guardian on 7.10.10. pointing out that the JNF was a racist organisation, Hayek responded that the work of the JNF ‘is not based on any political or religious affiliation".  As I pointed out in a subsequent letter, to which he didn’t respond (or wasn’t printed!) Hayek is ‘either being disingenuous or he has not read the JNF's own entry on the Charity Commission website, which states that its objects include "such charitable purposes as benefit persons of Jewish religion, race or origin".

Lieberman’s invitation this year triggered a Palestine Solidarity Demonstration in Hendon.  Despite chanting how much they wanted ‘peace’, Zionist thugs then tried to attack demonstrators and in the process smashed the car windows of  members of the anti-Zionist Neturei Karta group.

Unfortunately (for them!) they were apprehended by a passing jogger who they also ‘peacefully’ assaulted – again unfortunately for them he happened to be the Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police!

And there is also a report from Ben White that JNF UK has made its Manchester based regional director, Jo Krasner, redundant following reports of its revenue being cut by half.  It seems that good news comes by the bucketload!

Crosspost Jewsansfrontieres

Israeli Soldiers Testify to the Army's Reign of Terror in the West Bank

Compilations of soldiers' testimonies published by Breaking the Silence


Soldier preparing for a ‘demonstration of presence.’ Batir, 2004
 Intimidation of the Palestinian Population - "Prevention"
Since the outbreak of the Second Intifada in September 2000, more than 1,000 Israelis and 6,000 Palestinians have been killed. The considerable escalation in violence between Palestinians and Israelis both in the Occupied Territories and within Israel prompted the Israeli security system to develop new, more aggressive methods of action, which were intended to oppress Palestinian opposition and prevent thousands of attempted attacks on Israeli civilians and soldiers on both sides of the Green Line.

This chapter addresses the offensive and proactive military actions of the IDF in the Occupied Territories during the past decade. Although Israeli security forces claim they are "preventing terror," the soldiers' testimonies compiled here reveal how broad the security forces' interpretation of the term "prevention" truly is: the term has become a code-word which signifies all offensive action in the Territories. The testimonies in this chapter demonstrate that a significant portion of the IDF's offensive actions are not intended to prevent a specific act of terrorism, but rather to punish, deter, or tighten control over the Palestinian population. "Prevention of terror" is the stamp of approval granted to any offensive IDF action in the Territories, obscuring the distinction between the use of force against terrorists and the use of force against civilians. In this way, the IDF is able to justify actions that intimidate and oppress the Palestinian population overall. The testimonies in this chapter also show the serious implications of the blurring of this distinction for the lives, dignity, and property of the Palestinians.

The military actions described in the present chapter include arrests, assassinations, occupation of homes, and others. The testimonies also reveal the principles and considerations that guide decision-makers both in the field and at high levels of command. Even at the beginning of the Second Intifada, the IDF had already established the principle that would guide new methods of action against Palestinian opposition, known as "searing of consciousness". It assumes that Palestinian resistance will fade once it is proven to Palestinians as a whole that opposition is useless. The testimonies in this chapter demonstrate that in practice, the principle of "searing of consciousness" translates to intimidation, instilling of fear, and indiscriminate punishment of the Palestinian population. In other words, the testimonies show that violence against and collective punishment of a civilian population can be justified by the principle of "searing of consciousness", and are cornerstones of IDF strategy in the Territories (e.g. testimonies 1,2, and 3).

One of the methods of action most often identified with the IDF's efforts at "prevention" in the Territories is the policy of assassinations. The IDF has repeatedly claimed that assassinations are used as a last resort to protect against those who plan and carry out terrorist attacks. The soldiers' testimonies reveal that the military's actions in the last decade are not consistent with official statements made in the media and in the courts. More than once was a unit sent to carry out an assassination when other options were at its disposal, such as arresting the suspects (testimony 10). In addition, it becomes clear in this chapter that at least a portion of the assassinations are intended to revenge or punish, and not necessarily to prevent the materialization of a terrorist attack. One testimony describes the assassination of unarmed Palestinian police officers who were not suspected of acts of terror (testimony 55). According to this testimony, the assassination was carried out as revenge for the murder of soldiers the day before at the hands of Palestinian militants who came from the same area. Other testimonies included here describe a policy of "paying the price": missions whose goals are - to quote one of the commanders - "bring in the bodies." (testimony 41).
Palestinian detainees during ‘Operation Defensive Shield.’ Photo by S. Bloomberg, Ramallah, 20021
Arrests are another principal expression of the efforts to "prevent terror" in the Territories. Over the course of the last decade, tens of thousands of Palestinians have been arrested in military operations conducted deep in Palestinian territory nearly every night. Soldiers' testimonies reveal the methods for carrying out such arrests: In many cases, arrests were accompanied by abuse of bound detainees, who were beaten or degraded by IDF soldiers and commanders. The testimonies also reveal that arrests are used to accomplish a variety of aims, and in many cases, the reason for an arrest is unclear to those being arrested. For example, in many operations in which IDF forces invaded Palestinian cities and villages, all the men were arrested and gathered in a defined area, with no connection to any misdeeds and with no information on their intents, and were held, bound and blindfolded, for hours (e.g. testimony 24). Thus, under the guise of "prevention of terror", mass arrests are used to instill fear in the Palestinian population and tighten Israeli military control.

Arrests are often accompanied by destruction of Palestinian infrastructure and property, or by confiscation of property. The testimonies demonstrate that destruction is often the result of a mistake or operational need, while in other cases is the outcome of intentional actions by soldiers and commanders in the field, or by orders coming from higher levels of command. In every case, destruction of infrastructure and property has become an additional avenue for control of the Palestinian population in the Territories.
Palestinian detainees in an IDF vehicle. Nahal Brigade, 50th Battalion1
The invasion into and control of the Palestinian private domain has also been common in the last ten years. Nearly every night, IDF forces invade homes of Palestinian families, often taking post in the house for days or even weeks. This pattern of activity, known as a "straw widow", is intended to improve the IDF's control of territory by capturing and controlling positions and creating hidden lookout points. The testimonies demonstrate, however, that often the aim of taking control of a house is not to prevent violence, but to cause conflict. Thus, for example, testimonies included in this chapter describe "decoy" missions, whose aim is to bring armed Palestinians out of hiding and into the streets so that military forces can strike against them. As such, these testimonies show that IDF field units don't work only in preventing military clashes, but also in creating them.

Beyond assassinations, arrests, and destruction, the soldiers' testimonies gathered in this chapter reveal the method of intimidation and punishment coined "demonstration of presence" - one of the IDF's primary approaches used to instill fear in the Palestinian population. One of the most conspicuous expressions of "demonstration of presence" in the Territories is the method of night patrol in Palestinian cities and villages. During the course of the patrol, soldiers are sent to stroll the alleys and streets of a Palestinian village, and they "demonstrate their presence" in a variety of ways: shooting into the air, throwing sound bombs, shooting off flares or tear gas, conducting random home invasions and takeovers, and interrogating passersby. Field-level commanders term these patrols "violent patrols","harassing activity",or "disruption of normalcy". The testimonies reveal that "demonstrations of presence" in the Territories are carried out on a frequent and ongoing basis, and they are not dependent on intelligence regarding a specific terrorist activity. Missions to "demonstrate presence" prove that the IDF sees in every member of the Palestinian population - whether involved in opposition efforts or not - a target for intimidation, harassment, and instilling of fear.

"Mock operations" are another example of the objective of "disrupting normalcy". Military forces invade homes and arrest Palestinians for purposes of training and drilling: they take over Palestinian villages as a drill in preparation for war or in order to train for combat in an urban setting. Although the arrested Palestinians and those whose villages are taken over by the IDF may think these military incursions are completely real, the soldiers' testimonies show that mock operations are explicitly defined as drilling and training activities and are not intended to arrest a wanted person or prevent a future attack. These testimonies suggest that mock operations are becoming more common as the level of Palestinian violence diminishes and attempts to attack Israeli soldiers or civilians decrease.
Finally, the misuse of the term "prevention" also finds expression in military activities intended to oppress unarmed opposition to the Occupation of the Territories. During the past few years, a number of grassroots Palestinian protest movements have developed in areas throughout the Territories, often with the cooperation of Israeli and international activists. These movements use various forms of non-violent opposition, such as demonstrations, publications, and legal battles. IDF "prevention" activities also include attempts to oppress these movements by using violence against protesters, arresting political activists, and declaring curfews on villages in which political activity takes place

(testimony 28).
The various objectives and phenomena revealed in this chapter form part of the logic of IDF activity in the Territories over the last decade. At the foundation of the reasoning behind IDF activity rests the assumption that there is no need to distinguish between enemy civilians and enemy combatants. "Searing of consciousness" and "demonstration of presence" best express this logic: systematic harm to Palestinians as a whole makes the Palestinian population more obedient and easier to control.


1 I didn't know what a "demonstration of presence" really meant

Is that what's called "a demonstration of presence?"

A demonstration of presence.

Was it an order? Would you do it all the time?


No, that's it...I didn't get to do it a lot. There were a few specific cases. Meaning I got to do a demonstration of presence once or twice, but that specifically I know it wasn't OK, I'll explain right away. When we went in, we went in with that officer and another officer, and us. I personally as a soldier knew that there was an order to do a patrol, to do a "demonstration of presence." I didn't know what a "demonstration of presence" really meant. They went in, like basically all of us went in...we had an APC and a security patrol jeep if I'm not mistaken, and they fired rounds. Like the officers were...one was on the APC, you know, he aimed the APC so he had a MAG machine gun. We also fired our weapons sometimes...the officer would fire some more.

Fire in the air? Live rounds?

No, at houses, at garbage cans, things like that.

Shooting at a home means at the walls, the windows?

Both. Garbage cans, water heaters, things like that. Now the thing is, what became clear after the fact, we later heard on the radio, someone reported that he heard the shots from Yatta or the village that we were in, I don't remember. So, no one knew...meaning they knew we were there, and they asked if we saw something, so the officers said: "No." Apparently, I wasn't near the radio at that point, but when we returned after the fact they said, the deputy company commander asked: "What, how could it be you didn't hear anything there, they fired off rounds like crazy. So they said they didn't hear anything. And basically it seems that they weren't supposed to fire a single bullet, it was really meant to be a patrol with the APC, you know, just for show

2 Stun grenades at three in the morning

unit: Paratroopers · location: Nablus District · year: 2003
Palestinian detainee on a military base. Nablus, 2004
We had all kinds of situations of very dubious work in Area A [i.e. under the control of the Palestinian Authority]. If that means going in on Friday, when the market is packed, in Tubas for example, to make a checkpost - a surprise checkpoint - in the middle of the village. One time, we arrived to make a surprise checkpoint like that on Friday morning, and we started to spread out as if at a checkpoint: inspecting vehicles and every car that passed. 300 meters from us a small demonstration of kids who were throwing rocks started, but they went maybe ten meters, and weren't hitting us. They starting cursing us and everything. At the same time people start gathering. Of course it was followed with the aiming of weapons at the kids, you can call it self-defense.

What was the point of the checkpoint?

To show the presence of the IDF inside the village. Inside the village, where the women go shopping, where the children play, just to show presence, and to enter a firefight, which within a second we didn't know if we would get it there. In the end we got out without a scratch, without anything happening, but the company commander lost it. He asked one of the grenade launchers to fire a riot control grenade toward the demonstrators, the children. The grenade launcher refused, and afterwards he was treated terribly by the company commander. He didn't receive a punishment because the company commander knew it was an illegal order, but he was treated really disgustingly by the staff. In the end that's how it ended. Another story was going into Tubas at three in the morning in a safari, with stun grenades and just throwing them in the street. For no reason, waking people up.

For what purpose?

"We are here. The IDF is here." In general, they told us that some terrorist, if he were to hear the IDF presence in the village then maybe he would leave. He never left. It seems that the objective was just to show the local population that the IDF is here, and it's a policy which repeats itself: "The IDF is here, in the territories, and we'll make your life bitter until you decide to stop the terror." The IDF has no problem with it. We, the ones who were throwing the grenades didn't understand why we were doing it. We threw a grenade. We heard the "boom" and we saw people waking up. When we got back they said to us: "Great operation," but we didn't understand why. It was every day. A different force from the company each time, part of the routine. Not an especially positive way of life

3 To create a lack of sleep for the village
unit: Artillery · location: Gush Etzion · year: 2004

The objective of "Happy Purim" is normally to not let people sleep. It's coming in the middle of the night, going around the village throwing stun grenades and making noise. Not all night long but at some specific time. It doesn't matter how much, they don't set a time for you. They say to you: "OK, they threw stones at you today in Husan, so do a "Happy Purim" there". There weren't many of those.
What we call a "demonstration of presence"?

I'm sure you've heard the term "Happy Purim" at some point. If not, you'll hear it. Yes, a demonstration of presence. We receive instructions from the battalion to carry out something like that a few times, as part of the situation report we did in the battalion. It's part of the activities that happen before...

What's the rationale behind an operation like that?

If the village initiates an operation, then you'll initiate lack of sleep for the village. I never checked how much this kind of operation causes lack of sleep, because you aren't in the village for four hours throwing a stun grenade every ten minutes, because after three times like that the IDF would have a tremendous shortage of stun grenades and couldn't do it anymore. It's operations that are at a specific time, and if you throw a single stun grenade at point x in Nahalin, apparently 100-200 meters from there it won't make so much noise. It maybe creates an effect that the IDF is around the village at night, you don't do too much activity, but I don't think it's more than that

4 They called it an "arousal operation"
unit: Nahshon Infantry · location: Salfit district · year: 2001

There were the standard missions - checkpoint, lookout, whatever - and then there was what's called "initiated operations." So that was like the action. Meaning going around the village, 3 in the morning, 4 in the morning, you know. And as we on the training track progressed then it became like more...Like I know? At first they would do the lookout on the village, they would sit between the village and the road, so no one would come and shoot at the road. So they would sit there with night vision, sitting, looking. Then, continuing on the track, then the platoon commander would already enter homes there and whatever...interrogate. What's there to interrogate? I remember that one time, you know, at very late hours, two, three, four, five, it doesn't matter, he randomly started knocking on people's homes. There isn't like, there is nothing...no information, [the platoon commander] just chooses a home. You go in, look around, wake everyone up...it's all very polite, he even spoke Arabic, I don't know what he would say to them. Without any physical violence, but with all of the presence. 5-6 soldiers enter the house in the middle of the night, stand in the living room. So we were very...you know, behind the platoon commander. Wherever he went we go with him. There isn't too much...no one breaks anything. You go in, five minutes, you leave, you look at everyone's ID in the house and that's it. But then too: All of a sudden you get it: walla, they enter homes at five in the morning without thinking twice. There is no information, there is nothing.

What was the excuse?

No excuse. That's the operation, going into homes.

What do you write on the operation paper, the report you submit for the bureaucracy?
The bureaucracy? "Operation against those bisecting the road, the route to the A-Dik village to prevent shooting on the road." And you know...it's late, and boring, and you're falling asleep...then he [the platoon commander] takes you, goes on a patrol in the village, the dogs are barking...you know, to enter a bit...

Action?

Yes. I remember, one time he let me: "come on, now you do the interrogation." I knock, see a guy in front of me, I don't know what to say. Like I know? I tell him: "Ask him who threw the rocks today at the patrol jeep." They also liked going in on the patrol jeeps, they would call it like an "arousal operation," so they'll throw stones. It had another name, but that's the definition. They would go in so...

They would throw stones?

And then they could see who...

The trouble maker.

Yeah, yeah. So we entered and he said to me, like before we went in he said to me: "Ask who threw it." And I'm like on this high: "Do you maybe know who..." In short, it was embarrassing, everyone made fun of me. I wasn't the primary interrogator anymore, you can imagine.

So your operations are arousal operations?

The company tactical team enters the village in order to draw out the stone throwers.
Is it also part of the framework of initiated operations?

No, that's during the light of day, because normally the stone throwers are during the day. The initiated operations are at night. Those operations were entry into homes. Also, it was only our platoon commander. I know that in other platoons it happened less because you know, you don't mess with our platoon commander. He was also, you know, you asked me about the mission report - he didn't have to answer to anyone. If he wanted to, he could have done whatever he wanted. He wouldn't do much, but I'm saying if he wanted to. He didn't have to answer to anyone, you understand? You know, the jeep has to be in a certain place? So he would take it to buy shwarma, you get it? And who would say anything? If someone were to punch him, they would be paralyzed for a long time

5 They beat him up, smashed his head with the butt of their weapons
unit: Kfir Brigade · location: Nablus district · year: 2009

During your service in the territories, what shook you the most?

We did searches in Hares, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. They said that there are 60 houses that need to be searched. I said that surely there was some warning from intelligence, I tried to justify it to myself.

During the day or at night?
At night.

You went out as a patrol?

No, the whole division. It was a battalion operation, they spread out over the whole village, took control of the school, broke the locks, the classrooms. One room was the investigation room for the Shin Bet, one room for detentions, a room for the fighters to rest. I remember that it annoyed me in particular that they chose a school. We went in house by house, knocking at 2 in the morning on the door of a family. They are dying of fear, girls pee in their pants from fear. We knock hard on the doors, there is an atmosphere of "We'll bring them down," a fanatical atmosphere. We go into the house and turn the whole thing upside down.

What's the procedure?

Gather the family in a particular room, put a guard, say to the guard to aim the barrel of his gun at them, and check the whole house. Another order we received, everyone born from 1980 until ... an age range from 16-29, it doesn't matter who, bring him in cuffed with a plastic cuffs and a blindfold. They also yelled at old people, one of them had an epileptic seizure. They continue to yell at him more. He doesn't speak Hebrew and they continue to yell at him. The medic treated him. We did the rounds. Every house they went into, they took everyone between 16-29 and from there brought them to the school, they sat tied up in the schoolyard.

Did they tell you the purpose of this thing?

To locate weapons. And we didn't find any weapons in the end. They confiscated kitchen knives. What shook me the most was that there were also thefts there. One took 20 shekels. People went into the houses and looked for things to steal. This was a village where the people are very poor. There was a stage where they said, "What a letdown, there was nothing for me to steal. I stole what I found, markers, just to say that I stole something." You see really poor people.

That was what the soldiers said?

Just between soldiers, in the room after the action. There was a lot of joy at others' misfortune, people even told it happily. There was also a thing where one Palestinian (who was known to be mentally ill) yelled at the soldiers, but the soldier decided that he was going to attack him, then they simply exploded at him with blows. They hit him in the head with the butt of a weapon, he bled and they brought him to the school, to assemble with the rest. There were a lot of arrest orders ready and signed by the battalion commander, with a blank area. They wrote that the person was detained on suspicion of disturbing the peace. So they just filled in the name and the reason for the arrest. I remember that the people in plastic handcuffs, where they had put them on really close to the hands, I cut them off and put on freer ones. I got to speak with people there. There was one who works 13 hours a day, there was one whom a settler had brought into Israel to work for him, and after two months he didn't pay him his salary and handed him over to the police.

Everyone was from that village?

Yes.

Was there something else you remember from that evening?

That disturbed me? A small thing, but it disturbed me. There was a thing that they came to a house and simply demolished it. There's a weapons-finding dog and they wouldn't go with it and they just destroyed the house. The mom watched from the side and cried, the kids sitting with her and stroking her. I'm seeing how my mom put so much effort into every corner of our house and suddenly they come and destroy it.

What does it mean to wreck a house?

To break the floors, turn over sofas, throw plants and pictures, turn over beds, break closets, tiles. There were smaller things, but they didn't really disturb me. The looks of people whose house you've gone into. It really hurt me to see. And after that, they left them for hours in the school tied and blindfolded. At four in the afternoon the order came to free them. That was more than 12 hours. There were security services investigators who sat and went one by one and interrogated them.

Was there a terrorist attack earlier in the area?

No. We didn't even find any weapons. The claim of the brigade commander was that the Shin Bet agents did manage to find intelligence and that there are many stone throwers that we will now succeed at catching... Things always come up for me from the operation in Hares.

Which things?

How they looked at us there, what went through their and their children's heads. How you take the son of a woman in the middle of the night and put him in restraints and a blindfold

6 The deputy brigade commander beat up

a restrained detainee unit: General staff reconnaissance unit · location: Nablus area · year: 2000

It was in Kfar Tal, we went to look for a few suspects, a Nassar Asaida and his brother Osama Asaida. And we were at a house that Osama was supposed to be in, we surrounded the house and closed in on it, the procedure was that you yell and make noise...and if not - you throw a stone at the door so they'll wake up and in a situation in which...if it doesn't work then you shoot in the air or the wall of the house and if it continues to deteriorate, like I know, in the end there would be bombs on the roof, but the procedure was clear that you start the...the "action" with...

Not with shooting?

Not with shooting and...really at the end...when they report that we were in position, from the...side...at the house's three o'clock, I wasn't, I was at the twelve o'clock, from the three o'clock where ***'s force was, there were shots from a machine gun, maybe a Negev, I don't remember what they had, at the wall of the house. A burst of gunfire, you know five, six times: rat-tat-tat-tat like that...like they fired a lot and again against procedure and against...

So what happened to the suspect afterwards?

The suspect came out afterwards, no, not from there and he was interrogated by, by us and it was really him and they restrained him with his hands behind his back and blindfolded him, I don't remember what we put on, um...and I took him to...to the northeastern corner of the courtyard and some kind of, they sent some kind of armored jeep of the deputy brigade commander, the brigade commander at that time was *** but he wasn't there. I don't know who the deputy brigade commander was, the deputy brigade commander arrived with a driver and a radioman or some other guy and when I took [the detainee] I certainly wasn't rough but I also wasn't gentle, I was very assertive, I took him and made it clear, so it was totally clear who the boss was in the situation, but when I got to the to the deputy brigade commander then the deputy brigade commander decided that instead of taking him with assertiveness he would also remind him, he would remind him who the boss is, who the Jew is and who the Arab is, who the prisoner is and he gave him some two, three, four, chops, elbows to the ribs, a kick to the ass, all kinds of...

The deputy brigade commander himself?

The deputy brigade commander himself. It wasn't "see who's boss," which, say, would be one hit to show him, I would say I don't understand, it could be the guy, it was just releasing tension. It was the deputy brigade commander releasing tension on the...the son of a bitch who apparently sent suicide bombers... And I in that situation was standing between these two people, between the terrorist or the wanted terrorist and the deputy brigade commander so that he won't...to prevent abuse of the detainee. I also found myself threatening the...two or three times the driver and the radioman when they put him into the back of the jeep or whatever it was, because if I heard that something happened, I personally take care of them and I don't know where he is, then how would it end. I remember that after the fact I thought that as a soldier who was there to protect the State of Israel, in the end I said to myself: what's the difference between the deputy brigade commander abusing a...a Palestinian detainee who, it doesn't matter who it is, who is now restrained and blindfolded. Of course I also told this, it didn't lead to anything.

The interrogation?

The interrogation. You know, a small interrogation at the end of the night

7 A bound man, they kick him in his stomach and head

unit: Armored corps · location: General · year: 2000

There is some law that it's forbidden to hit a Palestinian when he is bound, when his hands are bound. When a General Security Services Agent would take people out of their homes in the middle of the night, they would tie their eyes and kick them in the stomach when they were bound. Three in the morning, opening the door, bursting into the house. The mother is in hysterics, the whole family is in hysterics...they send someone to be checked, it's not always terrorists, yes, they catch them, bring them down...and you can't imagine what's going through the guys' head, they blindfold them, two soldiers accompany him from behind, holding him and other soldiers come along the way. And it's standing army people, 15 people who are a problematic minority in the company. And they just, a bound man, they kick him in the stomach and the head...those guys really liked it.

It wasn't reported to the staff?

It was an officer on the staff! A serious officer on the staff! You don't understand anything during regular service...if he didn't have the legitimization to do it he wouldn't do it! It's just because that's how it is. The Wild West and everyone...whatever they want.

And the majority, they should just take it as a given?

I don't remember if I respected the person. I can't ignore it and say, "OK, he's like that." But the truth is that when I think about it, I should have done something. I really had to stop it...you don't think like that...you say that's the reality...it doesn't have to happen, they're shits that they do it...but you don't exactly know what to do. You don't feel like you have anyone to turn to.

You go back home. Did you tell your mother and father?

Are you serious? You suppress it.

Your parents didn't know anything about it?

What the hell! You're part of it. Really there isn't much to do. Especially when it's officers and you are a soldier in the tank corps who they wouldn't even piss on, so what? You'll get into a fight? You'll stop them? You'll bother them? You can't disrupt the company unity or the group dynamic, you can't come and fight people during. Now it wouldn't happen. I wouldn't allow it to happen, but that's not a big deal because I'm a reservist

8 The unit commander used a guy as a human shield

unit: Nahal Brigade · location: Hebron · year: 2002-2003

I remember a specific incident where we used a human shield, not the neighbor procedure. A guy from the house, scared to death. The unit commander grabbed him like that, he walked in front of him with his hand on his neck, proceeding in his steps. The terrorist who was inside was wanted for 11 years. very, very, very senior. Very, very dangerous. We knew that he went into the PA police station, killed a few Palestinian police, threw grenades in every direction, like Rambo, went in and took two of his friends out of the prison. A very, very dangerous guy.

Where was this and when?

I think either Hebron or Jenin. It makes sense that it was Hebron because we were active a lot in Hebron during that time. It makes sense that it was Hebron. The end of my service, meaning the beginning of 2003 or the end of 2002. There was a very senior suspect who didn't leave the building, we knew definitively that he was inside. He had a bunch of weapons. The unit commander proceeded, and said to the guy whose arm he was holding that he should say that we'd kill him if he didn't come out, if he didn't surrender. That we were going to kill the guy we were holding if he didn't surrender. It was all a show, a show...I believe it was a soldier. Afterwards they put him up against a wall, I never told anyone this in my life, they put him against a wall right at the door to the room of the senior suspect. We came with a laser scope, regular ammunition, so we weren't to expect these kinds of responses. And the unit commander puts the gun to his head and yells: "Where is he? Where is he? Where is he?" In the end it worked, he said where he was. To the credit of the unit commander. He was sure he was going to die. I was also sure he was going to die, by the way, as an observer from the side. I thought that he, I didn't think he would kill him but I was very, very confused by the situation

9 We would send neighbors to disarm explosives

unit: Engineering Corps · location: Ramallah · year: 2002

So there was an uproar when the Kasams arrived in the West Bank. There was some location, they called us [because] they found Kasams in the minaret of a mosque. What do you do? You look for someone to go up to the mosque and take down the Kasams because it's dangerous for us. So they knocked on doors in the area. There is always someone who speaks Arabic on the force. There is a unit in the army of Arabic speakers who are like mediators who go with the force and make all of the announcements. In short they knocked on doors and found someone. They knocked on doors and found someone. He was retarded. They said to him: "Go up to the mosque. Above in the minaret are pipes. Bring them down." They didn't even tell him it was explosives. It turned out it was motors for Kasams. It wasn't so dangerous but it was certainly not work for someone like that but the reason it happened was because "neighbor procedure" was a reality, it was a basic procedure of combat. I think that until today it's a basic procedure of the rules of combat, "neighbor procedure"...that's it, I just remember how central "neighbor procedure" was to the rules of combat.

Yours? You used it a lot?

A lot. All the time.

In what way, you really used him as a human shield?

Yes, a human shield in that if there was something dangerous.

But you have a robot.

But the robot takes a ton of time to operate and to bring it everywhere. You need a special vehicle.

Our vehicles are not armored, and to put it on an armored vehicle is a whole story. Until it moves, and there were a ton of malfunctions. Bringing a robot to the minaret of a mosque, even the best engineers can't create a robot that can do that. "Neighbor procedure" was certainly central when dealing with suspicious objects.

That's very strange...the basis of your entire duty is to know how to approach and a bomb and to neutralize it.

Our duty is to remove the threat.

OK, I can also shoot. Tell everyone to take cover and...

When they were doing the considerations, in optimal conditions it could have worked but to start shooting at the minaret of a mosque at one in the morning in the middle of Ramallah or to have one of the neighbors take it down...we aren't a command authority, we are a professional authority. We go to the commander and tell him our options (according to our order of preference): "Either you bring a tank now and shoot at the minaret of the mosque, or you bring a neighbor, or you want me to go up and bring it down." It's hard for me to remember what we said in that situation.

What do you prefer?

For a neighbor to do it.

Were you afraid?

What? Presumably. With improvised explosives any small mistake is extremely dangerous. If you have a telephone on you it's extremely dangerous, static electricity is extremely dangerous. Explosives are very very dangerous, friction near them is very dangerous. When you know how dangerous they are you don't want to go near them. So many times they used...I remember a case where there was a very big argument in the unit. It was in the area of Hebron. Someone in the area of Hebron who they shot at and was wearing a vest. Now I'm trying to remember if they took the vest off of him. I think they did, but now you have to destroy it because you don't know what's inside of it [but] you don't want to endanger yourself by opening it. It's better to blow it up.

Are you talking about a terrorist?

Yes. One of the soldiers in the unit gave one of the neighbors a brick of explosives prepared to explode...he took the brick with the electric wire or maybe it was wireless, there were all different kinds, "take it, put it down and go." I'm like...as the army we don't take a risk, "you take it and put it [there]." There was a big argument if it was right or not right. I don't think there were many cases like that. But he said: "I'm not going near explosives if there is no reason."

If there is someone else?

Yes. If there is someone else. They did the same thing as a trend with the South Lebanon Army. I don't know if you know about it. They created a unit of South Lebanon Army soldiers who basically...they trained them on a very low level. They gave them short training and they would deal with the explosives in Lebanon. They didn't give them a lot of means or training. It's a similar trend here if there is someone else willing to do it.

Willing...?

Yes...

So what was the argument?

If it's right to let someone else do it from a professional standpoint. It's considered something professional.

So it was a professional argument?

Yes.  It wasn't on an ethical level it was on a professional level? On no level.

Is that what you learned in the course?

Yes, totally.
Before "neighbor procedure," if that is not an option you do it yourself?  How is there a situation where that is not an option.

If there are no people? Did anyone ever tell you no?

Just understand that the argument was solely professional: if it's professional to let someone go before you in a place where there are suspected explosives. Can he activate something or initiate something. Anything having to do with ethics didn't come up at all in the argument

10 I couldn't believe how an order to kill someone could be carried out in a minute

unit: Special Forces · location: Gaza strip · year: 2000

The story which brought me here happened in Gaza. After these two incidents, I think there was a period at the beginning of the Intifada where they assassinated people with helicopters, a huge media frenzy because sometime it would miss and kill other people. They decided to send people in, ground forces, and we started to get ready.

This was at the beginning of the Intifada?

Yes, it was at the beginning of the Intifada. Until then there were a few assassinations with the help of helicopter missiles, from a media perspective...I remember there was a mess because they were offensive and they killed our guys and they informed us they we were going to do a "ground elimination operation".

Is that the terminology they used? "Ground elimination operation"?

I don't remember. But I do know that we knew it was going to be the first operation of the Intifada. That was very important for the commanders and we started to train for the operation, the plan was to catch a terrorist on his way to Rafah, block him in the middle of the road and eliminate him.

Not to stop him?

No, a straight elimination, targeted. The operation was cancelled and a few days later they informed us an operation was going out but we were going on an arrest-operation. I remember the disappointment that we were going to arrest him instead of something revolutionary, out of the ordinary in combat, changing the phase - instead we were going to arrest him. The operation was planned... Can I have a pen and paper?

Yes.

[Drawing] this is the road, here is where the APC regularly sits. We were supposed

After the fact, the objective was to show the local population that the IDF was there, it's a policy that repeats itself...
 "The IDF is here, in the territories, and we'll make your life hell until you decide to stop the terror."

All of a sudden you get it: walla, they enter homes at five in the morning without thinking twice. There is no information, there is nothing Girls pee in their pants from fear.

There is an atmosphere of "We'll bring them down," a fanatical atmosphere. We go into the house and turn the whole thing upside down It was for no reason. Releasing depression...He decided that he would remind him who the boss is, who the Jew is and who the Arab is, who the prisoner is...And I in that situation was standing between these two people, between the terrorist or the wanted  terrorist and the deputy brigade commander so that he won't...to prevent abuse of  the detainee

Those guys really liked it...really there isn't too much to do. Especially when it's officers... They knocked on doors and found someone. He was retarded.  They  said to him: "Go up to the mosque. Above in the minaret are pipes. Bring them down."

They didn't even tell him it was explosives The General Security Service agents were happy like kids who came back from camp...No one in the unit dealt with the  shooting at the wrong car, the killing of innocent people...I was shocked when  the newspapers published that "a secret unit killed four terrorists"

Eritrean refugees protest in front of ministry of defense, Tel aviv 18.10.12


According to Benjamin Netanyahu,  Zionism Dictates that Israel cannot accept refugees or asylum seekers without ‘diluting’ its Jewish majority.  Racism?  Good gracious no!   Apparently ‘This phenomenon is very grave and threatens the social fabric of society, our national security and our national identity," he said on May 29.  Note the last  remark – ‘our national identity’ – a specifically racist concept since in Israel ‘national identity’ and being ‘Jewish’ are synonymous.
Israel is proof that victims of racism retreating into a ghetto state of their own doesn’t cure the problem of racism, it merely redefines it.
Tony Greenstein

Date: 18 October 2012 20:50:29 BST

Eritrean refugees living in Israel take part in a protest on October 18, 2012 in Tel Aviv,

The protesters were calling for the ousting of the dictatorship regime in Eritrea, and the release of all political prisoners. they wore demanding as well recognition as refuges and stooping the jailing policy of the Israeli government

Tel Aviv, Israel - South Tel Aviv's Neve Shaanan Street, dubbed by many Israelis as "little Africa", is deserted. This once-bustling area is riddled with panic as immigration officers ferret out African migrants and asylum seekers to detain and consequently deport them. One South Sudanese woman who lives in an apartment in the neighbourhood is terrified to leave home to even collect her daughter from nursery. Her neighbour was arrested the previous night and she is in a panic over what to do.
Israel's Population and Immigration Authority recently arrested scores of African migrants, officials have said. The majority of those imprisoned are South Sudanese nationals while the others are migrants from Nigeria, the Ivory Coast and Ghana. The crackdown, known as "Operation Going Home", comes in the wake of a court decision last week to expel all South Sudanese migrants.

Israel to deport African migrants
Isaac, a South Sudanese asylum seeker, was detained on Sunday by Israeli authorities. He desperately contacted the African Refugee Development Center (ARDC) based in Tel Aviv from Saharonim detention centre to try to understand his legal status. However, the ARDC and similar relief organisations feel helpless in this situation. These aid organisations recently lost a petition in court against the collective deportations of asylum seekers from South Sudan.

"It is a frustrating job, because we know we are not going to succeed sometimes, and we are trying to help them [the asylum seekers]," Yael Aberman, the legal project manager at ARDC, said.

'Scared to go home'

The Israeli government is determined to reverse the flow of the estimated 60,000 African migrants living in the country, starting with those from South Sudan. Israel recognises South Sudan as an independent state and maintains that it is no longer life-threatening for them to return. This week's arrests are the first step by Israel's interior ministry to detain, deport, and prevent illegal migrants and asylum seekers from entering or staying in the country. According to the government, there are 1,500 South Sudanese in Israel, yet relief organisations say there are no more than 700.

On June 17, the first plane will take off for Juba, the capital of South Sudan, with about 200 migrants on board.

"The situation in South Sudan is not stable yet, and the people are really scared to go back home," said Adam Ibrahim, a 28-year-old asylum seeker from Darfur currently in Israel.

Those who agree to leave Israel voluntarily will receive free airline tickets and a grant of 1,000 euros ($1,255), the interior ministry announced. While voluntary deportation exists officially, in reality many choose to leave because they have no choice, activists say.

"People who are being picked up on the street or who approach the immigration authority are being told that if they don't sign the document, they won't be allowed to collect their belongings and will remain in custody, so I have my doubts about how many are leaving of their own free will," Rami Gudovitch, a migrant rights activist, told Israel's Haaretz newspaper.

'National security'
The detention and deportation is only one of the measures to stop the influx of African migrants and asylum seekers. Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, has pledged to erect a 241 kilometre long and 4.9-metre-tall steel wall at the Israeli-Egyptian border to stop migrants from illegally entering the country. Additionally, a law went into effect last Sunday that grants Israeli authorities the power to arrest and detain illegal migrants for up to three years. These migrants could face jail time, without trial or deportation. Anyone assisting them could also be detained for anywhere between five and 15 years.

In Israel, the government does not consider the Africans as refugees and has deemed them to be "infiltrators" or "economic migrants". Netanyahu listed "infiltrators" as a threat to the security and identity of a Jewish state. "This phenomenon is very grave and threatens the social fabric of society, our national security and our national identity," he said on May 29.

It is not only the government that is cracking down on the African migrants: the local population of South Tel Aviv, incited by right-wing politicians, is also embittered by the influx of outsiders taking over their neighbourhood. Racial tensions escalated in late May, when hundreds of residents led by Jewish settlers marched into African areas of Tel Aviv, looting, attacking and chanting discriminatory slogans.

It is difficult to trace the bitter animosity in South Tel Aviv. Some migrants say the violence began when two Molotov cocktails were hurled at their building in April, while locals say it began with a series of crimes and rapes on the part of the Africans.

Abdullah Mustafa, a Darfuri asylum seeker who owns a Sudanese restaurant on Neve Shaanan street, told Al Jazeera: "Israel is not safe for us".
Mustafa blames the Israeli government for the violence against his community.

"The [Israeli] government is mobilising the community against the refugees," Mustafa said. "We don't have a problem with the public, but with the government." Economic migrant or asylum seeker?

Some Israelis believe that the government has neglected the issue of African migrants from its onset, and are only dealing with it in a reactionary form.

"One thing which is a common denominator for all government activity regarding the refugees is the problem that it is more reactions, instead of thinking ahead, and thinking systematically about the whole issue," said Dvorah Blum, the director of the Ruppin Academic Center's Institute for Immigration and Social Integration in Israel.

"Given a choice between being called 'an enlightened liberal' without a Jewish and Zionist state, and being called a ‘benighted racist' but a proud citizen, I choose the latter."   Interior Minister Eli Yishai

With no official policy for asylum seekers, African migrants who were smuggled into the country by Bedouins through the Sinai, were initially granted papers upon their arrival. These documents gave them temporary protection and allowed them to stay, but did not provide them with work permits or healthcare. After administrative work, migrants were able to get temporary employment permits, usually valid for three month at most. However, the government has not examined these cases individually, to distinguish between asylum seekers and economic migrants.

"It [the policy] is not logical - the big mistake is the collective temporary protection. They [the government] need to interview us and see who is a refugee and who is not," Mustafa said.
There is no official system for asylum seekers in Israel. According to Blum, Israel's immigration process is based on two laws - the right of return for all Jews to the land of Israel, and the law of entrance, which gives power to the interior ministry to decide in an ad hoc manner who can enter and on what terms.

"Given a choice between being called 'an enlightened liberal' without a Jewish and Zionist state, and being called a ‘benighted racist' but a proud citizen, I choose the latter," Eli Yishai, Israel's interior minister, said on Sunday. "The era of slogans is over, the era of action has begun."

Migration is a universal phenomenon. But the way the issue has been treated in Israel has fuelled passionate arguments. While some Israelis say that Jewish history means that Israel should bear the responsibility for these asylum seekers, others maintain that Israel has been overrun at its borders and should evict these foreigners to maintain the territorial integrity and national identity of the Jewish people.

"We know that the Jews were persecuted, and they have a right to a state. Sometimes when a lot of refugees come to your state you have to host them; they will not stay forever." Mustafa said. "They just need protection and when they get the stability or peace they will go."

See How did Israel, a state founded on refugee hopes, become so hostile to asylum seekers?

19 October 2012

Islam: The Untold Story

 


 Islam: The Untold Story

Blasphemy is a Medieval Idea – Religion is a Belief System we are entitled to criticise 

That there are racists from Nick Griffin to the latest Islam: Innocence of Islam who attack a religion as a means of attacking its adherents is undeniable.  But the right to criticise religion – whatever religion it is – to question and criticise ifs belief system – is another matter altogether.  Of course I have no way of knowing whether the argument of Tom Holland is true or not.  That is an entirely different matter but it is certainly one that should be debated.


http://youtu.be/dm8xKh8eQqU


Add caption
For hundreds of years Blasphemy in the United Kingdom was a crime.  The last conviction was of Gay News for Blasphemous Libel, for portraying Jesus as Gay!  Alan King Hamiltion, the idiot judge in that trial, held that Homosexuality had been responsible for the Fall of the Roman Empire!
Israel Shahak, the noted Israeli and Jewish scholar wrote Jewish History – Jewish Religion & Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, 2 books which debunked many myths about the Jewish religion, including its claim to monotheism.  Of course they produced outrage for telling secrets such as the ban on saving non-Jewish life on the Sabbath (unless it placed Jewish lives at risk).

So why should Islam remain immune?  Under the banner of Islam corrupt and brutal regimes like that in Iran have murdered thousands of people and presided over a State of Corruption.  They have a vested interest in not tolerating criticism.  Salafist Groups, which believe that Shi’ite Islam is an apostasy and who seek to create sectarian conflict with fellow Muslims, also don’t like their belief system held up to scrutiny.
So it is no surprise that Tom Holland’s Islam -  The Untold Story met with criticism and threats from bigots who prefer to deal with criticism not with reason – a concept unknown to them – but with crude threats of violence.  It is no surprise that Channel 4 bowed before these threats and cancelled a second showing of the film. 
 
However the film is on U-Tube (though embedding has been disabled) and I’m happy to carry a link to the film.

Eric Hobsbawm - An Obituary

 
Eric Hobsbawm was someone who stayed with the Communist Party till the end.  Whereas many intellectuals deserted the CP at the time of Hungary, Hobsbawm stayed the course.  He was, of course, criticised for his attitude toward Stalinism but whatever faults he had he was a great historian and equally importantly, he didn’t abandon class politics in the way that the Blairites under Nina Temple and Marxism Today did. 

Below is an Obituary on one of the greatest historians of the present age and also a reference to a contrary view of Hobsbawm.

 
Tony Greenstein

Remember us with forbearance: the unrepentant Eric Hobsbawm, an obituary

In his study
Donald Sassoon [1] , 5 October 2012

A fellow historian celebrates the life of one of the greatest British exponents of one strand of the tradition of European Marxism: a pessimism of the intelligence barely tempered by an optimism of the will.

Eric Hobsbawm outlived his short twentieth century [8] (1917-1991) by more than twenty years. And right to the end he was still the object of scandal for having been far too long a communist. ‘You see’, he might have said, (‘you see’ was one of his habitual linguistic tics) ‘there have been many communists among major historians, but they left. Some stayed on the left (E.P. Thompson), some moved right (Annie Kriegel, François Furet). I stayed until the end, the bitter end.’

Since even the popular media agree that Hobsbawm was a remarkable historian, a great historian, and some even say that he was the greatest living historian (something which he found rather unconvincing and a little embarrassing), it begs the question: how can an impenitent communist be a great historian? Indeed, whenever Hobsbawm was interviewed, especially in Britain or the United States, sooner or later, the utterly predictable questions would pop up. And why did you support the USSR? And why did you stay so long in the communist party? (the sub-text here being ‘the producer insisted I should ask you this because it would look odd if I didn’t’). The interviewer would offer a challenge: Here is the opportunity to denounce your past, to repent, to say sorry. Take the chance. Admit it: you were wrong!

Although he has consistently refused to abjure, he freely admitted mistakes, erroneous interpretations, his belated realization of the gravity of Stalin’s crimes (Khrushchev’s speech was to him a revelation). However, on the substance: ‘are you sorry to have been a communist?’ he always remained unrepentant.

Peter De Francia, *Eric Hobsbawm* (c.1955) James Hyman Fine Art, currently on public display in Room One of the stunning curation of art and archives connected to John Berger, 'Art and property now' [9] at the Inigo Rooms, Somerset House East Wing, King's College London, the Strand, WC2R till November 10, 2012. Monday-Saturday 13:00 - !9:00

What kind of communist was he? He belonged, he explained in his autobiography, Interesting Times [10], to the generation for whom the hope of a world revolution was so strong that to abandon the communist party was like giving in to despair. But he must have been tempted. After the Soviet invasion of Hungary a letter was sent to the Daily Worker, then the party daily. It was signed by Hobsbawm as well as other party intellectuals such as Christopher Hill, E.P Thompson, Ronald Meek, Rodney Hilton, Doris Lessing, and the remarkable Scottish poet [11] Hugh MacDiarmid (who, in a somewhat eccentric way, is supposed to have rejoined the party over Hungary on the grounds that one does not desert friends in need). The letter declared that, ‘We feel that the uncritical support given by the Executive Committee of the Communist Party to the Soviet action in Hungary is the undesirable culmination of years of distortion of fact, and failure of the British communists to think our political problems for themselves...The exposure of grave crimes and abuses in the USSR and the recent revolt of workers and intellectuals against the pseudo-Communist bureaucracies and police systems of Poland and Hungary, have shown that for the past twelve years we have based our political analyses on the false presentation of the facts....’. Of course the party refused to publish it, so it appeared instead in the New Statesman. Other statements made at the time suggests that Hobsbawm, unlike perhaps the majority of his co-signatories, thought the intervention was a regrettable necessity, a kind of humanitarian intervention ante litteram (we know the formula: if the USSR had not intervened, fascism would have prevailed).

By then Hobsbawm had already lost any admiration he might have had for Russian society. In Interesting Times he explains that his first trip to the ‘socialist camp’ in 1954-55 had proved disappointing. He found the USSR and the system depressing and though he continued to defend the party line his scepticism grew as supporters were increasingly asked to believe the unbelievable. Communists of his generation regarded themselves, as he says, ‘as combatant in an omnipresent war’. Like their counter-parts on the anti-communist side they were prepared to disregard human rights in order to stop what they regarded as a greater evil. But then, how else can one tolerate evil if not by believing that something worse would have happened? This does not justify anything, but it explains much. And it explains Hobsbawm’s fondness for Brecht’s famous poem written in the 1930s An die Nachgeborenen (To Those Born After Us):

Ach, wir/ Die wir den Boden bereiten wollten für Freundlichkeit/ Konnten selber nicht freundlich sein./    Ihr aber, wenn es soweit sein wird/ Dass der Mensch dem Menschen ein Helfer ist/ Gedenkt unsrer/ Mit Nachsicht.

Alas, we
Who wanted to prepare the ground for kindness
Could not ourselves be kind.

But you, when the time comes
Where man can help his fellow man
Remember us
With forbearance.

Be that as it may, the question of why he decided to remain in the CP is, ultimately, a question of personal psychology. It was perhaps a desire not to give in, an affirmation that he preferred to remain loyal to the choice of his younger days when the international fight against fascism was the main motivation. After all he could have easily joined the establishment. In a way he did: he was made Companion of Honour in 1997 joining national treasures such as David Attenborough, Alec Guinness, and David Hockney and less treasurable treasures such as Tebbitt and Heseltine.

In the autobiography he alludes to the ‘pride’ of having gone so far without conceding an inch almost as if to say ‘If I can “make it” as an old commie, imagine what I could have achieved as an ex-commie?’ There was, after all, not the slightest personal advantage in remaining in the CPGB, a tiny party irrelevant in almost all areas of British life, unlike France or Italy where a large communist party offered some form of collective protection to a besieged community.

Though not really involved in the everyday politics of the CPGB (except as a student at Cambridge) he was always more than willing to give talks, write in the party press (such as Marxism Today) and be generally available provided no-one told him what to say.

Britain in the 1950s was overwhelmingly anti-communist. Even being a Marxist constituted a problem. To give the younger readers an idea of what was at stake I should perhaps mention that when I was at University College London in the 1960s, I took a course in British economic history. The lecturer in charge (whose name I have forgotten, so undistinguished he has remained) distributed a lengthy bibliography at the beginning of the academic year. He invited us to turn to a particular page and warned us: ‘Note on p. xxx: E.J. Hobsbawm, Industry and Empire. Now Hobsbawm is a perfectly good historian, but be careful: he is a Marxist. Turn now to page yyy: E.P Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class. Thompson too is a good historian, but be on your guards: he too is a Marxist.’ He mentioned no-one else. At school I had not heard of either of them. Of course, when the lecture was finished many of us trooped to the bookshop Dillons across the road to acquire Hobsbawm and Thompson with the excitement of teen-agers buying dirty books.

From the 1970s onward Hobsbawm’s closest allegiance was with the Italian communist party, probably the only party in which he could have been entirely comfortable, a party of which, as he explained, he had become a ‘spiritual member’. He could have joined the Labour Party in the 1980s, during the heydays of Thatcherism and when Neil Kinnock had made it clear that he would have liked to use a prestigious personal guru like Hobsbawm (everybody on the left, and not just on the left, had been reading his 1978 Marx Memorial Lecture ‘The Forward March of Labour Halted?’). But Eric kept his independence.

Hobsbawm did not really join the CPGB except in the technical sense. The CPGB was the local branch of an international movement which, when Eric joined, in the 1930s, was at its most centralized, but it was also the time when the threat of fascism was at its most vivid and when communists had gone beyond their more sectarian phase and espoused the policy of the Popular Front. Once he told me, that’s the kind of communist I am: a popular front communist.

As events unfolded after 1945 the movement began to disintegrate with increasing speed as soon as it extended itself. First there was Tito’s great refusal (1948), then the uprisings in East Germany (1953), in Poland (1956), and in Hungary (1956), then the break with Albania and the Great Schism with China (1960), then the Prague Spring (1968), then Romania’s nationalist declaration of independence from the USSR (1968), and finally eurocommunism (1976). Far from being a monolithic movement, world communism was less and less international once Moscow ceased to be ‘home’. Someone like Hobsbawm could stay in the movement, and take any position he liked without having to leave.
Past and Present and haute vulgarization

His works, which I started reading at university, were certainly not ‘communist’ whatever that may mean. Industry and Empire [12] was not the call to arms I had hoped. Hobsbawm’s contribution to the then raging debate on whether the standard of living of the working classes declined or improved during the industrial revolution – conducted in the 1950s and 1960s in journals such as the Economic History Review - was unimpeachably academic. The only slightly ironic tone Hobsbawm used was in his persistence in calling those who held the view that the conditions of life of the working class improved throughout the period of industrialization, ‘the cheerful ones’. This was a highly specialist querelle. It was somewhat outside what was then the dominant trend in British historiography whose chief concern was with political and diplomatic history rather than social and economic, with the short-term rather than the long-term, with the conjuncture rather than with structures.

This is why communist and Marxist historians made a common front with others who were close to the French Annales school. The outcome was the creation of the journal Past and Present [13]. Like Annales the group around Past and Present were committed to a study of structures, analysis and synthesis. They liked comparisons. They liked the long term, the longue durée [14]. Originally non-Marxist historians were reluctant to join the journal or to publish in it, but eventually they did. Distinguished scholars such as Moses Finley, Lawrence Stone, and John Elliott joined Marxists such as Christopher Hill, Rodney Hilton, E.P. Thompson and others. Hobsbawm supported the journal indefatigably [15] even managing to attend a meeting of the board in Oxford at a time when his mobility was seriously impaired.

Hobsbawm, at least in his scholarly production, remained was quite distant from the preoccupation of so many ‘organic’ communist intellectuals. In his historical work he wrote nothing about the USSR (until the Age of Extremes [16]) and little about communist history. When he did he was fiercely independent. I remember a scathing review he wrote in New Left Review (March-April 1969) of the first volume of the ‘official’ history of the CPGB by James Klugmann (History of the Communist Party of Great Britain: Formation and early years. 1919-24) accusing him of being ‘paralysed by the impossibility of being both a good historian and a loyal functionary’ and contrasting it unfavourably with Paolo Spriano’s history of the PCI ‘a debatable, but serious and scholarly work’.

Unwilling to defend communism - at least, not when the integrity of historical research was at stake - he did defend Marx and Marxism. Such defence, however, was seldom intransigent and he acquired his earliest renown and a distinctive voice as a historian on a subject with which traditional Marxist historiography (or, indeed, any historiography) had not dealt. I am thinking of his works of the late 1950s and 1960s on social banditry and pre-capitalist rebellions: Primitive Rebels [17] (1959) and Bandits [18] (1969) as well as Captain Swing [19] (with George Rudé) in 1968. Since then the scholarship on these themes has increased enormously yet it is difficult to encounter a book or an article on pre-capitalist social unrest or social banditry or millenarian movements without some reference to Hobsbawm. These references were initially deferential, then, with the passing of time, less so - yet his work could not be ignored, something he recollected with some satisfaction in the interview, one of the last, he gave to Simon Schama for the Archive on 4 [20] on the BBC.

Given the success obtained with bandits, primitive rebels, anarchists and other adorable creatures, other, lesser historians would have continued to plough that particular furrow, producing further articles and books on a theme of such wide interest. Hobsbawm was more intent in scattering ideas on a far broader canvas. And he did. His four volumes on the history of capitalism from 1789 to 1991 will remain a monument of haute vulgarization (a term occasionally used as a pejorative, but Eric gloried in it: it meant that he was not writing just for the academy). His Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality [21] (1990) echoed his profound dislike of nationalism and of identity politics. His Echoes of the Marseillaise [22] (1990) was levelled against Alfred Cobban whose revisionist The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution (1964) had preceded the better known work of François Furet (Penser la Révolution Française 1978) which had become all the rage as France prepared to celebrate the Revolution.

Blessed with an uncommon facility of expression, a lively style and an ability to synthesize complex events, these works made him known in wide circles of non-specialists.

Alongside these works he produced a myriad articles ranging on a variety of topics in journals ranging from Marxism Today to New Left Review, the New York Review of Books, the Times Literary Supplement, the New Statesman, the London Review of Books (to mention only the English-language journals). In all of these we see one of the strands of the tradition of European Marxism: a pessimism of the intelligence barely tempered by an optimism of the will. As he said, as the hopes of a socialist future waned, and as he got older, all one had left was pessimism of the intelligence.

The last book published while he was still alive (he was preparing a volume of his writings on cultural matters), How to Change the World: Tales of Marx and Marxism [23], collects many articles and essays published elsewhere and many that had been published in Italian but not in English. Some were new. All were centred on Marx (and Engels) except for two on Gramsci.

Hobsbawm’s last Marx is not the theoretician of the world revolution and of the leading role of the proletariat. This Marx is the theorist of globalization and of crises, a Marx finally emancipated from the USSR. It is a Marx for a world in which few parties of significance are anti-capitalist, in which the hopes generated by the events of 1968 (events which had left Hobsbawm fairly sceptical) have not materialized, a world in which many advocate a retreat from the Enlightenment, a world in which the last great social revolution was led by an Islamic fundamentalist, the Ayatollah Khomeini. The triumph of neo-liberal economic policies, particularly in the west, had also constituted a defeat for traditional social democracy since this required, for the accomplishment of its ‘minimum’ programme a strong state. As Hobsbawm puts it: neo-liberalism attempted to destroy not communism (whose stagnation had become clear) but the kind of gradualist reformism advocated by Eduard Bernstein and the Fabians.
Cultural crisis

Hobsbawm located the crisis of Marxism in the crucial decades after 1980. The crisis was not purely political and economic but cultural as well. Increasingly, the possibility of understanding the structures of human society was being challenged by post-modern attitudes; there was a return to mere narrative history, a disdain for generalizations and for the study of reality, a new relativism. He saw the retreat from Marxism as part of a wider change in the social sciences where intellectuals were giving up rationalist attempts to produce a global picture of our times. Here Hobsbawm attributes great importance to the revolt of the intellectuals of the 1960s of which he was quite critical. He disliked their anti-centralism, their love of spontaneity and localism, their third worldism.

This could be seen as the complaints of an old Marxist generationally separated from the generation of the 1968. But this generation is now old and perhaps it should begin to come to terms with itself. During one of our last conversations he noted that it was rather strange that that generation (mine) with such a commitment towards intellectual pursuit and culture should have produced so little historical analysis of its own itinerary. While he probably over-estimated the importance of post-modern irrationality in the cultural crisis of the last thirty years, I think it is true that totalizing explanations have been put in the attic, along with Marx, but mainly among the intelligentsia. If we look elsewhere, totalizing explanations rule OK. The enemies of the west are seen either in terms of irrationality (Islamic fundamentalism, fanaticism, terrorists dreaming of restoring the Caliphate) or in terms of a defence of vested interests (states and institutions) against the individualism of the market. Market fundamentalism is just as over-comprehensive as the statism of the old left. It declares, along with Hayek, that the decisions of millions of consumers are more ‘rational’ than those taken by planners and elites.

Where Hobsbawm is right is when he points out that what has disappeared (for now) was a belief, shared by all the protagonists of the great revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth century (the French, the American and the industrial) that it was possible to change the existing social order and to substitute for it one which is better.

We may have lost, he wrote, but the supporters of ‘let the market rip’, so hegemonic in the years 1973-2008 have lost too. Was there an element of consolation in his belief that the stage is set for a return to Marx, the theoretician of capitalism? Possibly. But one should take seriously Eric Hobsbawm’s injunction to take Marx seriously and, let me add, take history seriously, and rescue it from those who simply use history as if it were a supermarket where one gathers some useful facts, piles them on the trolley and uses them to justify whatever policies one likes.
Creative Commons License [25]
This article is published under a Creative Commons licence. If you have any queries about republishing please contact us [26]. Please check individual images for licensing details.
Source URL: http://www.opendemocracy.net/donald-sassoon/remember-us-with-forbearance-unrepentant-eric-hobsbawm-obituary

Links:
[1] http://www.opendemocracy.net/author/donald-sassoon
[2] http://www.opendemocracy.net/topics/international-politics
[3] http://www.opendemocracy.net/topics/ideas
[4] http://www.opendemocracy.net/topics/democracy-and-government
[5] http://www.opendemocracy.net/topics/culture
[6] http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.opendemocracy.net/print/68660&t=Remember us with forbearance: the unrepentant Eric Hobsbawm, an obituary
[7] http://twitter.com/share?text=Remember us with forbearance: the unrepentant Eric Hobsbawm, an obituary
[8] http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/28
[9] http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/english/eventrecords/Bergerexhibition.aspx
[10] http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/034911353X/ref=rdr_ext_tmb
[11] http://www.poetryarchive.org/poetryarchive/singlePoet.do?poetId=1557
[12] http://www.amazon.com/Industry-Empire-Birth-Industrial-Revolution/dp/1565845617
[13] http://past.oxfordjournals.org/content/177/1/3.full.pdf+html?sid=55df7d5c-84a1-4416-8a06-d528bc7f66d0
[14] http://past.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/1/44.full.pdf+html?sid=1b246b09-191e-4cf7-a25e-98a93b57b47c
[15] http://past.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/1/100.full.pdf+html?sid=1b246b09-191e-4cf7-a25e-98a93b57b47c
[16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Extremes
[17] http://www.amazon.com/Primitive-Rebels-Eric-Hobsbawm/dp/0393003280
[18] http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bandits-J-Hobsbawm/dp/0349113025
[19] http://www.amazon.co.uk/Captain-Swing-Prof-Eric-Hobsbawm/dp/1842122355
[20] http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01g4f87
[21] http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nations-Nationalism-since-1780-Programme/dp/0521439612
[22] http://www.amazon.com/Echoes-Marseillaise-Centuries-Revolution-Lecture/dp/0813515246
[23] http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Change-World-Tales-Marxism/dp/1408702878
[24] http://opendemocracy.disqus.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opendemocracy.net%2Fdonald-sassoon%2Fremember-us-with-forbearance-unrepentant-eric-hobsbawm-obituary
[25] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
[26] http://www.opendemocracy.net/contact

Obituary: Unrepentance of Eric Hobsbawm

Harley Filben casts an eye over Hobsbawm's legacy

Neil Kinnock’s ‘favourite Marxist’
The death of Eric Hobsbawm was greeted, for the most part, with highly respectful eulogies. Across the bourgeois political spectrum, many a good word was found for the man who, until October 1, was the officially designated ‘greatest living Marxist historian’.

It was perhaps not a surprise to find tributes on the pages of The Guardian and the lips of Ed Miliband - who, after all, is something of a ‘red diaper baby’ himself. Others were slightly more surprising - such as the fond farewell to a “good friend” that came from Niall Ferguson, the perpetual Tory boy charlatan. “He and I shared the belief that it was economic change, above all, that shaped the modern era,” Ferguson wrote. “The fact that he sided with the workers and peasants, while I side with the bourgeoisie, was no obstacle to friendship.”1

Others of Ferguson’s general stripe were less amiable. The irrepressible Michael Burleigh castigated Hobsbawm for being a “believer in the red utopia to the very end” in the Torygraph,2 while AN Wilson rather juicily suggested in the Daily Mail that Hobsbawm may have recruited agents for the Soviet Union at Cambridge University - a charge, alas, unsullied by anything resembling evidence.3

Communist

The bourgeois commentariat is united on one point - Hobsbawm was, to his death, an unrepentant Marxist. His commitment to the communist cause is a rather more complicated beast than that, but it is certainly true that his subjective commitment to the movement that, in Britain at least, predeceased him by over two decades, was tenacious.

This was in the main a consequence of the circumstances that brought him into that movement. Born to Jewish parents, he was a schoolboy in Berlin when Hitler came to power; his family immediately decamped to England. The young Hobsbawm witnessed Hitler’s rise first hand, and saw from a relatively safe distance the shadow of fascism spreading over Europe. At the head of those struggling against that barbarism, for better or worse, were the communist parties.

Hobsbawm returned from military service in World War II to the political freeze of the cold war; he was one of many communist intellectuals to promptly bury himself away in academia, ducking the intensifying anti-communist mood more or less successfully (although, unsurprisingly, the secret services kept a substantial file on him). It was in this capacity - as a lecturer and professor at Birkbeck College in London and a fellow of King’s College, Cambridge - that he made his most lasting mark on British intellectual life.

Hobsbawm rapidly came into the Communist Party Historians Group, whose influence both within and without the left is well known; the group launched his career, and those of comrades such as Christopher Hill, EP Thompson and John Saville. The watchword for the group was ‘history from below’; history was no longer to be thought of as the playground of Great Men or an abstract sequence of events that culminates in bourgeois society as the apogee, but rather as a field in which the toiling masses are key agents.

Hobsbawm’s central contribution to this project was the three-volume history of what he called the “long 19th century”, joining up two decisive events in modern European history - the French Revolution of 1789 and the great war of 1914 - through a complex intervening narrative. He hewed closer to economic-technological explanations for historical change than, say, Thompson - but always in the context of popular life and struggles.

All of Hobsbawm’s major writings postdate the major crisis-point in the Historians Group - the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. That year is well known as having plunged the ‘official’ communist movement internationally into a serious internal crisis, as activists and intellectuals struggled both with Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin and with the crushing of the Hungarian uprising. Hobsbawm, almost uniquely among his colleagues, stuck with the CPGB, approving “with a heavy heart” and not without criticisms of the Soviet intervention.

He would later look back on the 1950s cold war atmosphere in academia as oppressive, but not intolerable: “You didn’t get promotion for 10 years, but nobody threw you out.” Something similar was on offer to intellectuals of a Stalinist persuasion in the communist parties. Hobsbawm’s interventions in the CPGB were characterised throughout by a certain academic distance from the cut and thrust of factional struggle. He was able to praise presumptively the French student revolts of 1968 - provided he kept from criticising the French party when it abdicated its responsibility.

Eurocommunist

But 1968 was not a turning point to the left, as it may first have appeared, in ‘official’ communism. Discontent with another Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia sped up the crystallisation of so-called Eurocommunism - in the western parties; by the late 1970s, the Euros were a well-established and influential faction in the CPGB.

Hobsbawm’s sympathy for this trend was plain for all to see. In 1977, he published a volume of interviews with Giorgio Napolitano (then leader of the Communist Party of Italy; now the country’s president), which had, the previous decade, been the crucible for Eurocommunism, the great “triumph” having been the “historic compromise”, which saw a coalition government between the PCI and the Christian Democrats (as comrade Toby Abse has put it, the Christian Democrats made the history, while the communists made the compromise).

The following year, he delivered the annual Marx Memorial lecture, the text of which became the infamous essay, ‘Forward march of labour halted?’ His argument was simple and somewhat statistics-heavy: the CPGB’s focus on developing its ranks through the trade unions and the traditional labour movement left it vulnerable to ongoing changes in the structure of the British labour force. The extension of women’s employment, the declining overall share of manual workers in the total workforce - all pointed to the unsustainability of the view that the labour movement was on a perpetual forward march to social dominance. Hobsbawm concludes by suggesting that we need a less economistic vision of the working class.4

The essay is in fact an object lesson in how the history of ideas works. There is very little in it that is, at face value, objectionable from the point of view of revolutionary Marxism - even its vague conclusions. The meaning it took on in the context of 1978 - the year of the ‘winter of discontent’, that rounded off a decade of militant labour struggles - was unmistakable. Soviet-loyal centrists in the CPGB, such as the Straight Left faction, were also the most enthusiastic advocates of work in the unions and labour movement as a whole; dismissing this period of industrial militancy as, in a sense, the last gasp of that movement, fired a shot across the bows of such elements, and emboldened the Euros.

It became the opening sally, if you will, of the ‘long 1980s’ in the CPGB, a period of decay and dissolution; seized on (as was intended) by the Eurocommunists to justify not a less economistic working class politics, but an ever more intense disavowal of class politics altogether, culminating in the formal liquidation of the CPGB in 1991.

Hobsbawm’s political activity in the 1980s was of this character. It was not only Martin Jacques, the Euro editor of Marxism Today, who seized on ‘Forward march ...’, but Neil Kinnock, who described Hobsbawm as his “favourite Marxist”. Hobsbawm provided the intellectual meat for the wholesale decimation of the Labour left by the Labour Party bureaucracy. The ultimate result was the Tony Blair government, which at different times included a number of former Euros.

Unrepentant?

The greatest irony of Eurocommunism is that it promised a ‘third way’ between social democracy and pro-Soviet communism, but ended up on the ‘third way’ as we now recognise it - that is, a political project radically to the right of the social democratic mainstream of the 1980s.

It is to Hobsbawm’s credit that his drift to the right stopped well short of certain former ‘comrades’ (“I used to be a Marxist,” sneered former Blair-era home secretary John Reid once - “I used to believe in Santa Claus”). In a rogue’s gallery that includes not only Jacques and Reid, but also Jack Straw and the prince of darkness himself, Peter Mandelson, Hobsbawm stands out as the most principled of a pretty unprincipled bunch.

He continued to avow a commitment to the Marxist method - as he understood it - to his death. He scandalised the good people of the BBC by affirming that, in his view, 20 million deaths would have been justified if they had genuinely ushered in a communist society. Despite having abandoned more or less every direct political commitment to communism, he refused to lower the flag.
In the end, this was an emotional problem for him, rather than a political one. His writings on the 20th century are slippery and evasive, in order to keep open the possibility that ‘official communism’ was a legitimate - indeed, the only correct - political choice for progressive individuals of his generation.

We may grant Hobsbawm his unrepentance - but that sentimental attachment to Stalinism did not, in the end, strengthen the cause to which he committed almost his whole adult life. Rather it led him to prepare the ground for Blair.

Notes
1. The Guardian October 1.
2. The Daily Telegraph October 1.
3. Daily Mail October 1.
4. www.amielandmelburn.org.uk/collections/mt/pdf/78_09_hobsbawm.pdf.