UNISON REAFFIRMS BOYCOTT

For the second time in 3 years, the National Conference of UNISON, Britain's second largest trade union, has voted to support a Boycott of Israel, as well as demanding a removal of all settlements and the demolition of the Apartheid Wall. The salient parts of the motion are below:

‘Conference reiterates its belief that a just solution must be based on international law and Israel must:

Withdraw to its 1967 borders;

Allow the refugees the right of return;

Remove all settlements from Palestinian occupied territories and occupied Syrian Al-Joulan;

Demolish the apartheid wall;

Respect the Palestinian people’s right to national self-determination and to establish a state in the West Bank and Gaza.

Conference therefore instructs the National Executive Council to:

b) Call on the British government to support a ban on imports of all goods, especially agricultural products from the illegal settlements in the occupied territories and until such a ban is introduced, to support a boycott of these goods;

c) Calls for Israel to end their blockade of Gaza and for all suspected war crimes to be fully
investigated

d) Continue to press the British government to… to end arms exports to Israel, including components via a third party, immediately to end all economic, political, intelligence and logistical aid to Israel; and to work within the European to end the European/Israeli Agreement that allows Israel favoured trading status.

e) To work with and support civil society organisations in Israel, including the scores of young Israelis imprisoned for refusing to take part in the army of occupation, who oppose the continuing occupation and support the rights of Palestinians such as Workers’ Hotline, workers’ advice centres and Sawt el-Amel;

f) To actively oppose and condemn anti-Semitism, racism and xenophobia;

g) Support recognition of the outcome of the last elections to the Palestinian Authority (2006) which were certified as free and fair by international observers;

h) Send a letter of solidarity to the staff and students at Islamic University of Gaza and the Al-Azhar University – Gaza;

l) Conference also expresses its grave concern at the statement 13 January 2009 of the Histadrut (General Federation of Labour in Israel) supporting the military assault on Gaza, and in general at its lack of opposition to the occupation. We therefore agree to a review of our relationship with the Histadrut’s PSI affiliates, Union of Clerical Administrative and Public Service Employees (UCAPSE) and the Government Employees’ Union and to call on the TUC,
STUC, Wales TUC and ICTU to review their relationship with the Histadrut.

There is no disputing that the resolution is an advance, especially the call to review links with Histadrut, on policy of the last 2 years. Despite this the resolution has its weaknesses, for example in accepting that there is any kind of equivalence between the oppressed and oppressor (Hamas rockets) and restricting the call for Boycott to the products of the West Bank settlements rather than a boycott of Israeli institutions and products.

The weaknesses stem from seeing the solution as being a 2 States solution. When you take that position, and posit the conflict as primarily a national one rather than one of a settler colonial occupation, then you accept the validity of the Israeli state behind the Green Line, including the Jewish nature of that state.

It is entirely regrettable that activists in Palestine Solidarity Campaign had to pressurise and force their own Executive, and in particular Trade Union Organiser Bernard Regan, to even take up the question of Histadrut. This extended to a secret letter send from Bernard Regan to various trade union executive members and bureaucrats urging them to attend the conference to support the right slate and vote down the proposals on Histadrut.

At the moment PSC’s position on the Histadrut is no different from that of Unison and the Scottish TUC whereas PSC, as a solidarity organisation, should be in advance of the organisations it is trying to persuade. As it stands, PSC has nothing to say to unions like UNISON which have adopted the position of reviewing links with Histadrut. Do we support and urge breaking links or are we going to continue along the path of allowing pressure from trade union bureaucrats to dictate policy to PSC? Indeed far from us seeking to change the policy of the unions, it is they who are effectively dictating PSC's policy!

Unsurprisingly, the ex-Marxist/Trotskyist 'Alliance for Workers Liberty' group was the only group claiming to be on the left which opposed a Boycott of Israel. Their slogan was 'solidarity not boycott' but as I explained to their paper sellers, the best form of solidarity is Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Unfortunately the AWL chooses once again to ally itself with the oppressor against the oppressed.

Tony Greenstein (Conference delegate from Brighton & Hove UNISON)
　
Gaza violence condemned - UNISON Conference Report
(18/06/09) Conference responded today to the calls of UNISON members to "ratchet up the pressure" on Israel to withdraw from Gaza, demolish the apartheid wall and respect the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. It also instructed the NEC to review the union's relationship with the Histadrut (General Federation of Labour in Israel), in light of the federation's support of the military assault on Gaza in 2008, and its lack of opposition to the occupation.

In what has become an annual motion on the conflict, UNISON "wholeheartedly condemned" the use of violence on both sides, whether the Israeli assault on Gaza or the rocket attacks against Israel.

But it also noted the ongoing humanitarian crisis caused by the Israeli blockade of Gaza, where 79% of the population live below the poverty line, unemployment has reached 50%, people have no access to electricity for 16 hours a day, and 80% of water does not meet World Health Organisation standards for drinking.

Alison Shepherd of the NEC told delegates: "We believe in a two-state solution, but that does not mean that we believe this is a conflict between equals."

The NEC is to call on Israel to end its blockade of Gaza and on the British government to support a ban of all goods from the illegal settlements in occupied territories. It has also been charged to seek a full investigation of suspected war crimes.

Iran - the Revolution in Waiting

Below is an interesting analysis, from the perspective of the Israeli secret service, into what is happening in Iran.

My own take on what is not dissimilar. The question is whether the present, youthful, student demonstrations can trigger a response in the Iranian working class and the poor. If that is the case then we could be beginning to see the end of the Islamic regime in Iran.

If the poor and downtrodden aren’t won over then the demonstrations of today are doomed to failure. What is clear though is that this is the biggest challenge to the corrupt clerical ruling class, with its ties to the bazaar, since 1979. Viciously reactionary it isn’t as of yet sure as to how to react though that section led by Ahmedinajad and the semi-fascist revolutionary guards will want to use the utmost violence to prevent the demonstrations getting out of hand.

To the Zionists there would be no bigger regret than the disappearance of Ahmedinajad, the bloody fool who is President. The article below quotes the head of Mossad as dismissing the elections results. Whether he is right or not may become irrelevant as the anti-regime protests gain their own momentum.

Tony Greenstein

Don't write off Iran regime just yet
By Yossi Melman,
Haaretz Correspondent 17/06/2009

The scenes from Tehran are beginning to remind us of the tumultuous period leading to the fall of the Shah over three decades ago. Yet it is still too early to eulogize the Ayatollah's regime. Who better than clergymen to understand the structure and the history of revolutions in Iran.

Street protests, marches, and strikes make up the formula that has twice brought about regime change. It happened the first time in 1953, when a large-scale strike of workers in the oil industry led by Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq, who was swept into power and who forced the young Shah Reza Pahlavi to flee the country.

That same year, Mosaddeq was overthrown following riots that were organized by the CIA and British intelligence (MI6), and the Shah was restored to the throne. Mossadeq was placed on trial for treason and sentenced to three years in prison.

In 1979, the Shah was removed from power, thus marking the end of the Pahlavi dynasty. The Iranian revolution was characterized by massive demonstrations initiated by the exiled Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers.

If Mossad chief Meir Dagan is correct, and the alleged voting irregularities in Iran are no different than the mishaps which occur in democratic countries, then the latest developments further highlight the notion that the current tensions have less to do with the election results per se. At the most, allegations of voter fraud are just an excuse, or a pretext.

The power struggle behind the scenes, which is important in and of itself, between Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and former president Hashemi Rafsanjani does not lie at the heart of the matter. Khamenei and Rafsanjani are in a tug-of-war for influence, control, and power within the regime.

Indeed, Rafsanjani is perceived by Khamenei and Ahmadinejad as the individual backing Mousavi and the reformist camp. But Rafsanjani, Khamenei, and Mousavi are all products of the Islamic Revolution. They are proteges of the founder of the Islamic Republic, Khomeini. Their goal is not to change the character of the Islamic regime.

But the supporters that have rallied around Mousavi have other goals in mind. This is a coalition of students and young people whose future holds limited opportunities for meaningful employment, women who have been marginalized from the public landscape, and a middle class that has taken up the cause of human rights. They are not willing to settle for the crumbs that have been sent their way by Khamenei, who is now proposing a partial recount of the votes, perhaps even new elections. They want freedom and democracy. Some of them wish to go further, demanding that Iran become a full-fledged democracy.

Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and the Revolutionary Guards, the pillar on which the regime's power rests, all understand the dilemma with which they have to deal: if they give the order to brutally crack down on the riots, which have already spread to other cities, they are liable to ignite an even bigger conflagration.

If they do not suppress the demonstrations, they will be perceived as weaklings who blinked first. In turn, this could whet the appetites of the demonstrators, perhaps moving them to issue more demands.

Iran has reached its fork in the road. The direction in which it turns depends only on the working class. The demonstrators today are those from the middle class, those who are not deprived and who are now working towards attaining freedom and liberty. If they gain the support of the working class, the weaker sectors of the society, the poor, the texture of the campaign will take on a completely new dimension. The demand for freedom will be coupled with the demand for bread. In this case, it is difficult to assess whether the regime can withstand such a development.

The Torture of Palestinian Children

Is there anything more abhorrent than the torture of children? Yet this Nazi-like practice is now adopted by Israel, with its 'independent' judicial system turning its usual blind eye to what is happening. Of course if this was happening to Jewish children then they would intervene immediately and world leaders would queue up to condemn the practice. Such are the norms of 'the Middle East's only democracy.'
Below are extracts from a report by Defence of Children International - Palestine. Tony Greenstein

Defence for Children International ­ Palestine Section (DCI-Palestine) is a national section of the international non-governmental child rights organisation and movement, Defence for Children International (DCI), established in 1979, with consultative status with ECOSOC. DCI-Palestine
was established in 1992, and is dedicated to promoting and protecting the rights of Palestinian children in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), as well as other international, regional and local standards. As part of its ongoing work to uphold the rights of Palestinian children, DCI-Palestine provides free legal assistance, collects evidence, researches and drafts reports and conducts general advocacy targeting various duty bearers.

For further information please contact a DCI-Palestine advocacy officer.

A. Executive summary

The Israeli military court system in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has operated for over 42 years almost devoid of international scrutiny. Each year an average of 9,000 Palestinians are prosecuted in two Israeli military courts operating in the West Bank, including 700 children.

From the moment of arrest, Palestinian children encounter ill-treatment and in some cases torture, at the hands of Israeli soldiers, policemen and interrogators. Children are commonly arrested from the family home in the hours before dawn by heavily armed soldiers. The child is painfully bound, blindfolded and bundled into the back of a military vehicle without any indication as to why or where the child is being taken. Children are commonly mistreated during the transfer process and arrive at the interrogation and detention centres traumatised, tired and alone.

During interrogation, children as young as 12 years are denied access to a lawyer and visits from their families. These children will generally not be permitted to see a lawyer until after they have provided a confession to the interrogator. Whilst under interrogation children are subjected to a number of prohibited techniques, including the excessive use of blindfolds and handcuffs; slapping and kicking; painful position abuse for long periods of time; solitary confinement and sleep deprivation; and a combination of physical and psychological threats to the child, and the child's family. Most children confess and some are forced to sign confessions written in Hebrew, a language they do not comprehend. These interrogations are not video recorded as is required under Israeli domestic law.

Children as young as 12 years are prosecuted in the Israeli military courts and are treated as adults as soon as they turn 16, in contrast to the situation under Israeli domestic law, whereby majority is attained at 18. In 2008 the most common offence Palestinian children were charged with under Israeli military law, was stone throwing. This charge was made in 26.7% of cases and under Israeli Military Order 378 carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. In 91% of all cases involving Palestinian children, bail was denied.

Proceedings in the military courts disregard many basic fair trial rights and general principles of juvenile justice are simply not applied. In almost all cases, the primary evidence against the children is the confession extracted during a coercive interrogation. With no faith in the system and the potential for harsh sentences, approximately 95% of cases end in the child pleading guilty, whether the offence was committed or not.

Once sentenced, the overwhelming majority of Palestinian children are detained inside Israel, in clear contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Many children receive no family visits whilst in prison and limited education is only provided in two out of five of the prisons used to detain Palestinian children.

The ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian children by Israeli authorities is widespread, systematic and institutionalised. This system operates within a general culture of brutality and impunity. Between 2001 and 2008, over 600 complaints were filed against Israeli Security Agency (ISA) interrogators for alleged ill-treatment and torture. To date, there has not been a single criminal investigation.

Unless and until there is some level of accountability for what amounts to serious breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the UN Convention Against Torture and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, both at the domestic and international level, the ill-treatment and torture of
Palestinian children at the hands of Israeli authorities will continue unchecked.

Academic Boycott Victory in UCU - Numerus Clausus in Israeli College

The Boycott motion at the British Universities & Colleges Union began the movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions in 2005. Then it called down a hail of fire from the pro-Zionist lobby. This year it has passed with barely a murmur, although the National Secretary, Sally Hunt, declared it was unlawful, the moral victory is ours.

More importantly it gives strong backing to Boycott actions already underway in academia. No lawyer can stop that and the fact that the motion was passed overwhelmingly is further proof that the cause of Zionism and Israel is now a lost cause amongst all except the careerists and opportunists in the largely irrelevant National Union of Students.

Below is an article in the Guardian from a Palestinian academic and also a report from the main organisation advocating boycott, BRICUP.

Also included is an article from the Alernative Information Centre about how a course was closed down rather than have too many Arabs. Numerus Clausus were one of the major weapons of the anti-Semites against Jews in Europe. It is interesting how Israel is once again using the same weapons used against Jews against Palestinians.

Tony Greenstein

Why Palestinians are calling for a boycott of Israeli universities
A Palestinian academic union urges British colleagues to back a boycott in support of 'our struggle for justice'

Palestinian academics have been heartened by the outpouring of solidarity with our people on the part of British academics and students – the latter attested to by the creative "student occupation movement" in the wake of the brutal Israeli war against the Palestinian people in Gaza last December and January.

What does the Palestinian academic community expect from international colleagues?
It has sometimes been suggested that solidarity with Palestinian academics is best expressed in fostering academic links between British and Palestinian universities, with the aim of strengthening the capacity of Palestinian academic institutions that have suffered from the long siege imposed by Israel's colonial regime.

While we value academic and institutional forms of support, we feel that this is not sufficient. Decades of life under military occupation have taught us that no sustainable development, including in the academy, is possible without freedom from occupation and oppression.

We are keenly aware that British intellectuals and academics have been at the forefront of many international campaigns for justice, the most illustrious and successful of which was the fight against the apartheid regime in South Africa. What we ask for is moral consistency: if it was acceptable for British academics to support unreservedly the academic boycott of South Africa with a view to ending the system of apartheid, then the same should apply in the case of Israel.
It is the duty of civil society to shoulder the moral responsibility of isolating Israel in the international arena through various forms of boycott and sanctions to compel it to obey international law and respect Palestinian rights.

It is well documented that Israeli academic institutions are deeply complicit in Israel's colonial and racist policies against the Palestinian people. Not only do Israeli universities and research institutions co-operate closely with the security-military establishment through research and other academic activities, they have never dissociated themselves from the occupation regime, despite the more than four decades of the systematic stifling of Palestinian education.

Israeli universities have never condemned the entrenched and institutionalised system of discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel within the Israeli polity, society and even the academy.

Israel and its supporters have argued that the Palestinian call for institutional boycott infringes the universal principle of academic freedom. Palestinians find this argument biased and hypocritical – not to mention based on false premises.

The privileging of academic freedom above more basic human rights conflicts with the very idea of universal human rights, as it assigns far more importance to the academic freedom of a sector of Israeli society than to the fundamental rights of all Palestinians to live in freedom and dignity. Is upholding the academic freedom – in our view, the privileges – of Israeli academics a loftier aim than defending the freedom of an entire people living under a brutal and illegal occupation?
"Constructive engagement" with the Israeli academy is often suggested to us as a more effective mechanism to address the injustice inflicted upon us by Israel. We have tried this method, only to realise that as long as the terms of the relationship between the Israelis and the Palestinians are those of occupier and occupied, and oppressor and oppressed, the engagement process only results in normalising the occupation on the ground and whitewashing Israeli atrocities abroad.
I can give an example from my own personal experience. Once, as I was crossing one of the hundreds of military checkpoints on my way to my university, I was stopped by an Israeli soldier who turned out to be a fellow mathematician at an Israeli university. But our collegiality ended here: he told me that I could cross the checkpoint if I was able to answer a mathematics question correctly! What kind of engagement can be possible here?

As to the charge that the boycott is discriminatory, it is completely false. The Palestinian boycott call is institutional; it simply does not target individual Israeli academics and cannot, therefore, be "discriminatory" in any real sense of the term. Endorsing and applying the boycott does not in any way prevent individual Israeli academics from participating in international academic conferences and research projects, so long as the projects themselves are not based on institutional links with Israeli universities and research centers.

Moreover, being enshrined in universalist values and principles, the boycott call adopted by an overwhelming majority in Palestinian civil society categorically rejects all forms of racial discrimination and racism, including Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.

Finally, we of course recognise and deeply appreciate the steadily increasing support for the boycott we are witnessing among Israeli academics, who have reached the conclusion that only sustained pressure on Israel and its complicit institutions can bring about a just peace.

Our struggle for justice and peace is best supported through actions that aim at ending Israel's impunity by compelling it to respect international law and our rights. Boycott is the most effective among those.

• Dr Amjad Barham is president of the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees (PFUUPE)
　
BRICUP - British Committee for Universities of Palestine
UCU Congress endorses boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel despite legal warning
Boycott campaign "now reaching critical mass" say activists

The University and College Union, representing approximately 120,000 teaching and related staff in colleges and universities in the UK, today passed a number of strongly-worded resolutions in support of the human rights of the Palestinian people and condemning Israeli atrocities in Gaza.

The motions had been submitted by a range of bodies within the union.

Motion 24, from the National Executive along with two branches in Further Education colleges, condemned the Israeli military attacks on Gaza and called on UCU to affiliate to the national twinning campaign; to organise events to mark the UN International Day of solidarity with the Palestinian People on 29th November; and to collect information on academics and students prevented from travelling to or from Palestine.

Motion 25, from the Disabled Members’ Standing Committee, pledged solidarity to Palestinians left injured by the Israeli assault in Gaza.

Motion 26, from UCU Scotland, agreed to disseminate the report of the President of UCU Scotland, who had recently taken part in the STUC visit to Palestine. That visit had resulted in an endorsement of Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) by STUC Congress. The motion also welcomed the student campaign for disinvestment from arms companies such as BAe.

Motion 27, from the Black Members’ Standing Committee, called for "recognition of the democratically elected Gaza government" and for Israel to be tried for human rights violations.

All the above motions were carried overwhelmingly, as was Motion 28 from two regional committees of UCU. This motion demanded that the British government ban "arms sales and economic support to Israel", called for a ban on imports of all goods from illegal Israeli settlements in the OPT and demanded the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador. Controversially, Congress also voted overwhelmingly for an amendment to this motion which affirmed support "for the Palestinian call for a boycott, disinvestment and sanctions campaign" despite a statement from the General Secretary that on legal advice this amendment would be treated as being "void and of no effect" if carried.

Motion 29 was brought by two branches at universities and one at an FE college. Tom Hickey, proposing the motion on behalf of a University of Brighton branch, stated that his branch wished to amend its own motion, changing the words "Congress affirms support for the Palestinian call for a boycott, disinvestment and sanctions campaign" to "Congress urges branches to discuss prior to Congress 2010 the Palestinian call for a boycott, disinvestment and sanctions campaign".

Hickey explained that this change was only being made in order to accommodate the current legal advice and prevent the motion from being ruled "void" like motion 28. This was accepted by Congress, who voted to support both the amendment and the motion. The outcome is that UCU has voted to host a Trade Union conference in the Autumn to "investigate the lawful implementation of the strategy, including an option of institutional boycotts".

Sue Blackwell, a BRICUP member who is on the National Executive Committee of UCU, commented,

"This was a smart piece of tactical voting by supporters of academic boycott of
Israel and other forms of BDS. We made it quite clear that we support BDS in
principle, whatever the law says about implementing it. There is nothing
illegal in discussing boycott campaigns, and we will now be doing just that
along with activists in other unions, including people from Scottish TUC who
have just passed a BDS resolution at their Congress."

Hickey suggested in his summing-up speech that the time had come for UCU to obtain a court ruling to settle the question once and for all and to put a stop to the legal threats to which the union has been subjected over the past few years. He expressed his "extreme disappointment" with members of his own union who resorted to such threats instead of pursuing their arguments through the union’s internal democratic processes.

BRICUP members will now be encouraging trade unionists to attend the forthcoming BDS conference in order to broaden the campaign.

BRICUP’s fringe meeting before the start of Congress heard speeches from Ewa Jasiewicz (co-ordinator of the Free Gaza Movement), Samia al-Botmeh (BirZeit University, Palestine) and Prof. Haim Bresheeth of the University of East London. At the meeting, a statement was read out from a group of Israeli academics who were calling on international colleagues to boycott their institutions. "We are now reaching critical mass", said Blackwell. "Boycotts, disinvestments and sanctions against Israel are breaking out everywhere, from South Africa to Norway and even within Israel itself. BRICUP is very proud to be playing a part in the growing campaign alongside our Palestinian brothers and sisters and their supporters worldwide."

Dr. Amjad Barham, President of the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees, is attending UCU Congress as an official guest of the union. He will address Congress tomorrow (Thursday).

2. The full text of all the motions, except for late motions and late amendments, can be read here on the UCU website:

3. The PACBI (Palestinian BDS campaign) press release is here:

4. The national Twinning campaign website is at:

The Free Gaza Movement website is at:

The Carmel Academic Center in Haifa Closes Academic Track As Too Many Palestinian Students

The Alternative Information Center (AIC)

The Carmel Academic Center in Haifa shut down the concentration in accounting within its Department of Business Administration because a majority of the students applying were Palestinian citizens of Israel. This was revealed in a news item reported on Israeli news Channel 10 on 24 May (in Hebrew only).

According to this report, just over one week before studies were to commence, the center administration announced that the accountancy concentration would not open. According to a student (S.), "I was told […] that the students for accounting did not pay tuition, and later that there were not enough students."

Dr. Amos Baranes, a senior lecturer at the Carmel Academic Center and head of the Accounting Concentration, held a conversation about this decision with Gil Reshef, the entrepreneur behind the for profit Carmel center, which opened in the current academic year:
In this recorded conversation, Reshef said

"If it is a majority Arab, we can’t allow ourselves, because we can’t allow
ourselves an institution that will be categorized as Arab. Haifa University has
this image and has a big problem [as] it is perceived as a university of Arabs
[…] We are not funded (by the state) and if we will be seen as Arab, [students]
will not come […]"

Shocked by this conversation. Dr. Baranes met with Carmel Academic Center President, Professor Yehezkel Taler, formerly the Deputy Chair of the Israel Council for Higher Education. The conversation was recorded:

Dr. Baranes: "Yesterday I had a conversation with Gil; Gil also raised the issue about which you spoke, the Jewish/Arab issue, that we shouldn’t be an Arab majority […]"
Taler: "Here there was also a problem."
Dr. Baranes: "What?"
Taler: "Here there was also a problem. Of all those who registered, three were Jews, the rest Arab."

A horrified Baranes turned to the Israel Council of Higher Education, which accredits all institutes of higher education in Israel, including the Carmel center. In a written response, the Council noted that "it was clarified beyond doubt that the college didn’t open the program due to financial considerations."

However, when Carmel College President Taler learned that Dr. Baranes contacted the Israel Council for Higher Education, he removed Baranes from the center’s academic council and told him his future at the college is unclear. Taler told Baranes (in a taped conversation):

Taler: "I don’t want you there (Carmel’s academic council) […] I am not prepared that someone from the academic council will correspond with Ahmad Tibi (Dr. Tibi, Knesset member from the Ra’am Ta’al party) and the Israel Council for Higher Education."

Carmel College’s website (in Hebrew only) provides a telephone number (*5745) that can be dialed only from the areas under Israel’s control. When calling this number, the AIC was told that no telephone number exists that can be dialed from abroad, and that no fax number is available. However, we found their email and fax number, which you may find below.

The Alternative Information Center encourages Palestinian, Israeli and international activists for justice to contact the Carmel Academic Center and the Israeli Council of Higher Education to protest this blatant case of institutionalized racism by the Carmel Academic Center, and the lack of an in-depth investigation of this case by the Israel Council for Higher Education.
Carmel Academic Center:

E-mail: carmelcam@carmel.ac.il This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it Fax: +972 (0)3 533-1645Telephone: *5745 (For those able to call from areas under Israeli control)Israel Council for Higher Education: Secretariat of the Council Fax: +972 (0)2 5679955 Telephone: +972 (0)2 5679911 Quality Assessment Unit: adi@che.org.il Fax: +972 (0)2 5611914 Telephone: +972 (0)2 5611914

Lubavitch Rabbi Urges Extermination of Arab Children, Women and Men

Below is an article from Haaretz which displays the racist and genocidal beliefs of Chabad (Lubavitch) a Hasidic sect, in all its murderous glory. This is the reality behind all the talk of 'peace' and '2 states'. The growing support for a 'radical' solution in Palestine. It was Rabbis such as Friedman who provided the 'educational' support for Israeli troops going into Gaza earlier this year, with the devastating consequences that we all know about.

The Nazis too believed they were a 'light unto the nations' with their acts of genocide and extermination. Himmler in a lecture to SS officers in October 1943 in Posen argued that this was a 'never to be written, glorious page of our history' and how people would look back and see how terrible the burdens of the SS were in having to undertake the distasteful task of extermination of Jewish men, women and children.

Of course he has apologised, not because of his statements, which he still defends as coming from the Torah (& they also come from the Talmud) but because it is forbidden to say such things openly among 'goys' if that would put Jews in danger. But the views he expresses are standard fare for religious Zionists who venerate above all the genocidal Book of Joshua.

Tony Greenstein

Chabad rabbi: Jews should kill Arab men, women and children during war
By Nathaniel Popper

Like the best Chabad-Lubavitch rabbis, Manis Friedman has won the hearts of many unaffiliated Jews with his charismatic talks about love and God; it was Friedman who helped lead Bob Dylan into a relationship with Chabad.

But Friedman, who today travels the country as a Chabad speaker, showed a less warm and cuddly side when he was asked how he thinks Jews should treat their Arab neighbors.

"The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy
sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle)"

Friedman wrote in response to the question posed by Moment Magazine for its "Ask the Rabbis" feature. Friedman argued that if Israel followed this wisdom, there would be "no civilian casualties, no children in the line of fire, no false sense of righteousness, in fact, no war."

"I don't believe in Western morality," he wrote. "Living by Torah values will make us a light unto the nations who suffer defeat because of a disastrous morality of human invention."

Friedman's use of phrasing that might seem more familiar coming from an Islamic extremist has generated a swift backlash. The editor of Moment, Nadine Epstein, said that since the piece was printed in the current issue they "have received many letters and e-mails in response to Rabbi Friedman's comments - and almost none of them have been positive."

Friedman quickly went into damage control. He released a statement to the Forward, through a Chabad spokesman, saying that his answer in Moment was "misleading" and that he does believe that "any neighbor of the Jewish people should be treated, as the Torah commands us, with respect and compassion."

But Friedman's words have generated a debate about whether there is a darker side to the cheery face that the Chabad-Lubavitch movement shows to the world in its friendly outreach to unaffiliated Jews. Mordecai Specktor, editor of the Jewish community newspaper in Friedman's hometown, St. Paul. Minnesota, said: "The public face of Lubavitch is educational programs and promoting Yiddishkeit. But I do often hear this hard line that Friedman expresses here."

"He sets things out in pretty stark terms, but I think this is what Lubavitchers believe, more or less," said Specktor, who is also the publisher of the American Jewish World.

"They are not about loving the Arabs or a two-state solution or any of that stuff. They are fundamentalists. They are our fundamentalists." Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League and a regular critic of Arab extremists, said that in the Jewish community, "We are not immune to having these views. There are people in our community who have these bigoted, racist views."

But, Foxman warned, Friedman's views are not reflective of the Chabad rabbis he knows. "I am not shocked that there would be a rabbi who would have these views," Foxman said, "but I am shocked that Moment would give up all editorial discretion and good sense to publish this as representative of Chabad."

A few days after anger about the comment surfaced, Chabad headquarters released a statement saying that, "we vehemently disagree with any sentiment suggesting that Judaism allows for the wanton destruction of civilian life, even when at war." The statement added: "In keeping with Jewish law, it is the unequivocal position of Chabad-Lubavitch that all human life is G-d given, precious, and must be treated with respect, dignity and compassion."

In Moment, Friedman's comment is listed as the Chabad response to the question "How Should Jews Treat Their Arab Neighbors?" after a number of answers from rabbis representing other Jewish streams, most of which state a conciliatory attitude toward Arabs.

Epstein said that Friedman was "brave" for stating his views so clearly.

"The American Jewish community doesn't have the chance to hear opinions like this," Epstein said, "not because they are rare, but because we don't often ask Chabad and other similar groups what they think."

The Chabad movement is generally known for its hawkish policies toward the Palestinians; the Chabad Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, rejected peace accords with the Palestinians. Rabbi Moshe Feller, the top Chabad rabbi in Minnesota, said that the rebbe taught that it is not a mitzvah to kill, but that Jews do have an obligation to act in self-defense.

"Jews as a whole, they try to save the lives of others," Feller told the Forward, "but if it's to save our lives, then we have to do what we have to do. It's a last resort."

Friedman is not a fringe rabbi within the Chabad-Lubavitch movement. He was the English translator for the Chabad Rebbe, and at the rebbe's urging, he founded Beis Chana, a network of camps and schools for Jewish women. Friedman is also a popular speaker and writer on issues of love and relationships. His first book, "Doesn't Anyone Blush Anymore?" was promoted with a quote from Bob Dylan, who Friedman brought to meet the rebbe.

On his blog and Facebook page, Friedman's emphasis is on his sympathetic, caring side. It was this reputation that made the comment in Moment so surprising to Steve Hunegs, director of the Jewish Community Relations Council: Minnesota and the Dakotas.

"Rabbi Friedman is a best-selling author who addresses some of the most sensitive issues of the time," Hunegs said. "I intend to call him and talk to him about this."

But Shmarya Rosenberg, a blogger and critic of Chabad who lives a few blocks from Friedman in Minnesota, says that the comment in Moment is not an aberration from his experiences with Friedman and many other Chabad rabbis.

"What he's saying is the standard normal view of a Chabadnik," Rosenberg said. "They just don't say it in public."

For his part, Friedman was quick to modify the statement that he wrote in Moment. He told the Forward that the line about killing women and children should have been in quotes; he said it is a line from the Torah, though he declined to specify from which part. Friedman also said that he was not advocating for Israel to actually kill women and children. Instead, he said, he believed that Israel should publicly say that it is willing to do these things in order to scare Palestinians and prevent war.

"If we took this policy, no one would be killed - because there would be no war," Friedman said. "The same is true of the United States."

Friedman did acknowledge, however, that in self-defense, the behavior he talked about would be permissible.

"If your children are threatened, you do whatever it takes - and you don't have to apologize," he said.

Friedman argued that he is different from Arab terrorists who have used similar language about killing Jewish civilians.

"When they say it, it's genocide, not self-defense," Friedman said. "With them, it's a religious belief - they need to rid the area of us. We're not saying that."

Feller, the Chabad leader in Minnesota, said that the way Friedman had chosen to express himself was "radical."

"I love him," Feller said. "I brought him out here - he's magnificent. He's brought thousands back to Torah mitzvah. But he shoots from the hip sometimes."

Contact Nathaniel Popper at popper@forward.com

The Political Death of a Hideous Creature

New Labours Death Agony

Twelve years ago, I wrote a pamphlet ‘The Noble Sayings of Lord Bassam’. Lord Bassam was a minor star in the New Labour firmament, one of those people who were willing to junk all they had professed to believe in for the same of personal advancement. Principle was not a word that passed their lips easily and when it did they meant their principal, as opposed to second, home.

With the massive political crisis affecting the British political establishment and New Labour in particular, I decided to revisit the introductory essay to the pamphlet. The predictions I made then are even more relevant now:

‘those who live by spin and the sound-bite will also die by them. Historically New Labour is a passing and temporary phenomenon with as much significance as the opposition of the Duke of Wellington to the Great Reform Bill. The greater the heights of New Labour’s popularity today, the greater will be the depths of its unpopularity tomorrow.’
There is no guiding principle to New Labour. It has no natural constituency. Its only difference from the Conservatives is its open belief in social control and moulding society in the interests of capital, hence their fierce attack on all notions of democratic rights and accountability. ID cards and databases, police powers and cameras are the legacy of this, the bastard offspring of Margaret Thatcher.

So we should welcome with open arms the travails of hypocrites like Hazel Blears who speak of their empathy with their working-class electorate whilst at the same time avoiding capital gains tax on their multiple homes. The resignation of that reincarnation of a Victorian Poor Law Commissioner, James Purnell (he even look like one!) is to be equally welcomed.

There are those, such as the remnants of the left of the Labour Party, whose sole talent is the art of self-deception. People like Jeremy Corbyn and Dianne Abbot who imagine that Gordon Brown is an improvement Blair. That he is some kind of socialist even. These people, and a few remnants of sectarian socialist groups who imagine that a vote for New Labour is somehow a progressive step.

In fact when Brown succeeded Blair he went out of his way to demonstrate that he was even more right-wing than Blair. He had famously cultivated a relationship with the Daily Mail’s editor, Paul Dacre, on the basis of his own reactionary Presbyterian legacy, which included support for Zionism. Immediately on becoming Prime Minister he became a patron of the Jewish National Fund, which is one of the pillars of Israeli Apartheid, refusing to allow Arabs to rent or lease ‘Jewish’ land.

Brown it was who pioneered the Public Private Partnerships and PFI, which have mortgaged our public services to the private sector (and which they are now having to bail out!). Brown it was who insisted on the privatisation of the London Tube. Brown who pushed for privatisation of Air Traffic Control and a host of other publicly owned companies. Even today his alliance with Peter Mandelson is based on the privatisation of the Post Office. Internationally he is utterly reactionary, speaking in fond terms of the British Empire (whilst omitting inconvenient facts like the Colour Bar).

On Asylum Seekers and Immigration Brown is as racist and reactionary as his predecessor. One of the first things he did was to try and force an extension from 28 to 42 days imprisonment without trial. He presided over the continuation of ID cards when political consensus had turned decisively against them. He deliberately overturned the recommendation to continue with the classification of cannabis as a Class C drug, making it Class B for the sake of cheap plaudits from the Tory press, despite his own Home Secretary having smoked the stuff!

But Gordon Brown, even more so than Blair with his 3rd Way, has spoken of a vision he could never articulate because the only vision New Labour has is one where the bankers and cartels drop a percentage in their back pockets. Their vision is one of a population that is monitored every second of the day. Where the Police have unlimited powers and capital is free to roam across borders whilst labour is strictly controlled.

Brown’s legacy as Chancellor will be as the creator of the conditions for the new Depression. His legacy as Prime Minister will be a big zero.

We should welcome the demise of the Smiths, Blears and Purnells and also welcome the reprisals of the electorate at the general election. The tragedy is that the socialist left has been unable to get its act together and for this the primary blame must be placed on the Socialist Workers Party who destroyed the Socialist Alliance and then tried the same with Respect. To them, and not only them, sectarian advantage is more important than the attainment of socialism.

Below is the essay I wrote 12 years ago. It is as relevant as when it was written. And I’m pleased to say that the Independent published a letter from me yesterday along the lines of the above.

When I came to Brighton in 1974 Bassam was one of the people I squatted Brighton’s many empty homes with, as part of the Brighton Squatters Union. In time we became members of the Labour Party and there was no one more willing to support a left-wing cause than Bassam. As a councillor, parliamentary candidate and member of the left-wing Labour Briefing Bassam would mouth all the latest cliches if it would advance his climb to the top. As someone who had interviewed him on more than one occasion I took pleasure in reminding him of his previous utterances and thus the pamphlet I wrote.
The idea for writing this pamphlet came after reading about the new Blair supporters club, Members’ First. Its spokesperson was none other than that well-known grassroots activist, his Gracious and Noble Lord Bassam. This couldn’t be the Steven Bassam who I stood shoulder to shoulder with, as the Police battered their way into our squat at Temple Gardens in 1975, or who – a decade later - was a founder member of National Labour Briefing? Was this the same Steve Bassam whose commitment to members first was such that he single-handedly arranged, in the early 1990s, that 26 of us should be suspended or expelled from Brighton Labour Party for exercising our rights as members to challenge his leadership of the Council?

I have known Steve (sorry my noble Lord) Bassam since I came to Brighton as a student in the autumn of 1974. Since then I have been mercilessly teased, by miscreants such as Andy Ward, about “your old squatting mate Steve Bassam”. Having selflessly borne such taunts for years, and having refused on principle to disavow an old comrade because he entered the Lords in the line of duty, I feel entitled to put pen to paper in order that a little light is shed about our gracious Baron Bassam.

It is true that we squatted together, or rather we were part of Brighton Squatters’ Union. But even in our earlier days, our noble Lord was apt to compromise, to look for the least line of resistance, despite his avowed anarchist politics. A graduate from the Sussex University school of anarchism, if his actions were somewhat less than revolutionary then his rhetoric was always fiery and radical. Many people are puzzled that ex-squatter Lord Bassam, who once turned a flashing red nose to that caricature of a reactionary judge, His Honour Justice Grant, has now made it into the citadel of hereditary privilege that he once decried. How is it that someone who once told me – after we had given a talk to the Labour Party in the mid-1970’s – that he could never join the Labour Party, it was far too right-wing for him, could turn out to be the most sycophantic, on-message cipher for all that New Labour represents? Someone whose first vote in the Lords was in support of Rupert Murdoch!!

The purpose of this pamphlet isn’t simply to single out one particular individual who tailored his political views to the needs of his political career. Nor is it an excoriation of all that New Labour’s sharp-suited clones stand for. Rather it is to use Lord Bassam as an example of the corruption at the heart of New Labour. It is a corruption that isn’t merely financial, though there is plenty of that (Bernie Ecclestone, Draper, Liddle et al.) but a corruption of the political process itself, which hides behind the soundbite and verbal chaff. It is a corruption which seduces perfectly decent people into trading political integrity for personal advancement. It is this that Lord Bassam represents so clearly.

Lord Bassam has made the transition from radical politics to New Labour clone effortlessly. His ideas and beliefs are as durable as the message on the mandatory New Labour pager. New Labour may, in many ways, be the logical culmination of Old Labour, with its class collaborationism, but it is also a break with old Labour. In particular it reviles the organisations that the working class threw up, the Trade Unions and Friendly Societies. Socialism and class-solidarity are part of the dark past. The market, globalism, cheap and flexible labour are the new gods. The political lobbyist – Ben Lucas & co. – are the real practitioners of the art of politics. The role of New Labour is not merely to destroy the Left, but to remould that Left by reuniting the Liberal and Labour traditions. Blairism, despite its toying with a 'third way', 'stakeholding' and much other verbal nonsense, struggles for anything new to say. Its goal is to reverse the tide of history and go back to the golden age of Gladstone and the Midlothian campaign.

Blairism first learnt its lessons at the feet of Bill Clinton and the New Democrats. It seeks to remodel British politics accordingly. Its goal is the destruction of socialist politics, the idea that there is any alternative to the present way of organising society. It seeks instead to replace the present party political system with two openly capitalist parties – Tory and New Labour/Liberal Democrat – each seeking to outbid the other in their attacks on welfare and the poor. When political differences between parties disappear, then it is inevitable that personal advancement and corruption follow in their wake. It is no accident that the sleaze of the latter years of the Tory Government has appeared within the first year of New Labour. Bassam's appointment as 'consultant' to KPMG is merely a local manifestation of the Draper, Robinson phenomenon.
New Labour’s greatest strength is its opponents' weaknesses. Not only the weakness of the Left and the organised working class but the divisions in the Tory Party over Europe. It was the self-destruction of the traditional party of the British Establishment that gave, and gives, Blairism its seeming strength. The ranks of New Labour, and Lord Bassam is as good an example as any, are teeming with the superficial and mediocre, distinguished only by the extent of their ambition. But those who live by spin and the sound-bite will also die by them. Historically New Labour is a passing and temporary phenomenon with as much significance as the opposition of the Duke of Wellington to the Great Reform Bill. The greater the heights of New Labour’s popularity today, the greater will be the depths of its unpopularity tomorrow.

We are all entitled to amuse ourselves at the verbal indiscretions of our rulers, their foibles and pretensions. It needs no Oscar Wilde to point to the absurdities of ruling class speech and manners when we have the clichés of Bassam past. Of course it is easy to quote back what people have said in different circumstances and different times. Most peoples’ views don’t remain static. There are those, Tony Benn for example, who have moved to the Left with age. There are others, such as Roy Hattersley, who have travelled to the left merely by standing still, as everybody around changed. Our noble Lord is the perfect example of the political chameleon, whose views change in perfect harmony with his surroundings. Political principle is not only completely absent from Lord Bassam’s career, it is a concept that he would have genuine difficulty understanding. I therefore offer, with as little comment as possible, some of the choicest sayings of the Noble and Gracious Lord Bassam, from his many interviews and recordings, and leave it to others to judge the mettle of the man. If it takes a long spoon to sup with the devil then Lord Bassam can truly be said to be a man of many spoons.

A little background information may be useful to the reader. In 1987, when our noble Lord became Leader of the Labour Group on Brighton Council, there was a rule that nobody could be leader for more than 3 years. His predecessor, Dave Leppar (now MP for Brighton Pavilion) had abided by this rule but Bassam made it his first objective to overturn this particular encumbrance on his career. In this he was successful as he carved a thin majority among his Council colleagues by promising positions and sinecures to those who proved malleable. Those Councillors who refused to support him or his policies were subject to various levels of vendetta. Six councillors had the whip withdrawn in 1991 because they refused to support prosecuting those who refused to pay their Poll Tax. Others who in the ‘soft-left’ also fell out of favour. One particular example of personal vindictiveness that remains etched in my memory is the treatment of long-standing Councillor Joyce Edmond-Smith. The position of mayor had always gone to the longest-serving councillor, alternating between male and female. When it came to Joyce, the majority of the Group, after Bassam had done his usual fixing, voted not to support Joyce as mayor. Others Councillors were simply whispered against and maligned and deprived of seats on Council committees.

Our Steve started his life strong on civil liberties, squatting, opposition to state abuse of power. He used to sell Statewatch magazine and was active in a local radical paper, Brighton Voice (indeed he was its Treasurer for a long time). At the GLC he worked hard in the Police Committee exposing the racism and thuggery of the Metropolitan Police. Today, as Jack Straw reduces the right to trial by jury and gives immigration officers the right to enter any home without warrant, Baron Bassam remains silent and supportive of all that New Labour does. Today Lord Bassam is a ‘consultant’ to Accountancy firm KPMG. KPMG are, of course, ‘experts’ on the privatisation of Council Services, and who better as an adviser than a noble Lord who just happens to be leader of the Council. Of course, none of this is corruption and, as Mark Anthony noted, he is an honourable man. Of one thing we can be certain. Lord Bassam has certainly earned his place in a future government reshuffle.

With a glittering future ahead of him, Lord Brownnose – as he is known to his colleagues – certainly deserves greater recognition for his past. The erudite philosophy that he espoused, the thoughtful answers, the dedicated commitment that he showed, all of these demand a wider audience. Perish the thought that my intention is to steal a cheap laugh at Lord Bassam’s expense. There may come a time, when New Labour is just a bad memory, when our noble Lord will rediscover his roots, and the word ‘socialist’ will once again grace his most noble of lips. What could be more useful than a compendium of his noble Lord’s sayings?

Mary Rizzo – Atzmon’s Useful Idiot

Mary Rizzo is the indefatiguable helper and accomplice of notorious anti-Semite Gilad Atzmon, with whom she runs the Palestine Thinktank.

Indeed she is a friend and supporter of any and all the anti-Semites hovering on the fringes of the Palestine solidarity movement – Israel Shamir, Paul Eisen, Atzmon of course. And on the blogs she runs, first Peace Palestinian and now the Palestine Sink Tank – she does her best to provide them with a platform. Which isn’t surprising because the Sink Tank makes it clear what its view of Jewish participation in anti-Zionist politics:

‘We truly think that Jewish tribal politics has absolutely no place within the Palestinian solidarity discourse. Palestinian solidarity is primarily about Palestine rather than prosaic wars against imaginary anti-Semitism. However, we suggest that if the proponents of Jewish ideology and tribal interests insist upon interfering with Palestinian solidarity activism, they really should invest a lot more effort into hiding their crude agenda.’

Shades of conspiracies or what?

Likewise she is a great believer in the idea that all Jews have common interests, although these are rarely defined:

‘You are safe as milk, Tony, since you are a blog that protects Jewish interests’

But if Ms Rizzo is challenged about the fact that she is anti-Semitic then she has a stock response.

‘You call me rabidly anti-semitic. Come out with one thing I have ever printed as such. Just one will do!’
However there is a catch. If you do come out with 1 (or 20) anti-semitic things she’s said, she’ll deny their anti-Semitic!

But then Mary is no intellectual. She leaves that to Atzmon, who believes himself to be a great philosopher, alongside Israel Shamir and Paul Eisen. So, when, not so long ago, she was asked, in view of her association with Atzmon, to at least distance herself from Atzmon's svengali, Israel Shamir, she reacted with her normal outrage when asked to condemn any manifestation of anti-Semitism:

‘But, PLEASE don't bother with your argumentation, because just as much as you have on your view, others have on the other,… I never saw Shamir on this list, Tony. … So, since I don't believe Shamir is an anti semite, it is not "incumbant" upon me to demonstrate diddly squat to you about my support of the Palestinian cause.’

Of course this is true. It is not incumbent upon Rizzo to criticise anything, least of all racism. But some of us find it difficult to oppose racism against the Palestinians and support it against Jews. Indeed most people find it difficult to know how many Jewish people, themselves the victims of racism, can defend Zionist racism. Which is why those of us who are anti-Zionists also oppose anti-Semitism. Not so Rizzo who believes that criticism of Shamir was nothing buit a ‘smear campaign’. She asks:

‘Why should I be obligated to join in on the smear campaign? …. I am convinced that there are indeed attempts made at ritutal defamation both against Shamir, and oftentimes on this board, against myself, Paul, Gilad, Chris Ledbetter, hell, far too many people for my Taste

And what of Israel Shamir, who Rizzo is convinced is anything but an anti-Semite? Well we are spoilt for choice. We could cite his views that the British National Party is not anti-Semitic enough!

Or his comments about Auschwitz.

Another go of Zionist propaganda. The camp was an internment facility, attended by the Red Cross (as opposed to the US internment centre in Guantanamo). If it were bombed, the internees would die – or as a result of the bombing, or due to starvation for the supplies would not arrive.

Anti-Semitic? Perish the thought.

But if she resented having to criticise Shamir, she was very much in favour of defending Paul Eisen.

I am very much annoyed that people have been carrying on with a badmouthing of Paul Eisen. It is actually pretty disheartening.

This is the Eisen who writes, on the web site of Deir Yassin Remembered that:

The Holocaust too has come under assault. Over the last fifty years, revisionist scholars have amassed a formidable body of substantial evidence, which runs in direct opposition to the traditional Holocaust narrative. "Where is the evidence," they say, "for this alleged gargantuan mass-murder? Where are the documents? Where are the traces and remains? Where are the weapons of murder?" These revisionists all acknowledge of course, that there was a terrible assault on Jews on the part of the National Socialist government, but disagree as to the scale, motive, and methods cited in the typical narrative, a narrative that most of us choose or are obliged to accept. "What befell the Jews", they say, "was a brutal ethnic cleansing accompanied by dispossession, pillage and massacre.

And when she posted an article with a photo of myself and ‘JEW’ printed underneath her ‘defence’? That this was copied from the Zionist campaign to free Gilad Shalit. And that’s true. Her racism is a reflection of Zionist racism.

Unfortunately Mary has developed both an oversized ego and a feeling that she is persecuted because of all the criticism she gets. So she hit on the idea, with Atzmon, of running a petition in support of herself (which she duly signed, although the signatories seem to have disappeared from the Redress site where it originated). The petition praises her and Atzmon as 'two outstanding personalities'!!!

Below are a sample of the anti-Semites who have signed this ‘petition’, including Daniel McGowan, a supporter of Ernst Zundel, Wendy Campbell and The Radical Press (alongside a survivor of Auschwitz, Hajo Meyer who along with Ellen Rohlfs couldn’t remember signing!).

Wendy Campbell, California, USA, MarWen Media
Daniel McGowan, Geneva, NY, Exec. Director, Deir Yassin Remembered
Dr Hajo G. Meyer, Heiloo, the Netherlands, survivor of Auschwitz
The Radical Press, Canada

Let us have a look at one of the signatories, one Wendy Campbell who runs her own web site.

Eernst Zundel is one of the foremost holocaust deniers. He is currently in gaol in Germany. Now I happen to oppose criminalising holocaust denial, not least because it makes martyrs of those who justify the murder of millions of Jews and non-Jews by the Nazis. But I can think of people far more deserving of sympathy and support than defenders of the most barbaric regime the world has seen. Asylum seekers for example, prisoners of conscience. But for Campbell and the DYR brigade it is Nazi sympathisers who are the world's most persecuted species. Of Zundel she asks:

‘Why is Ernst Zundel in jail?’ Campbell asks, ‘Because the Zionists want him there, since he has publicly questioned aspects of their favorite obsession and political war-time propaganda tool: the Holocaust…. as far as I can tell, he is not advocating violence against anyone, and furthermore, has never committed violence against anyone.’

And like Rizzo, Campbell is a supporter of Paul Eisen, the sensitive ‘intellectual’ of Rizzo and Atzmon’s anti-Semitic clique. In his article ‘Holocaust Wars’ he quotes Zundel’s wife’s letter to him:

Dear Paul,

Many WWII soldiers (now very old) have told me that World War II - that is, the war against the East - was really a preventive/defensive war against Communism, which was Jewish. Europe was about to be overrun by the Red Terror - Stalin had amassed his assault troops at the border, and it was only a matter of weeks, so Hitler hit first. ….
Ingrid

In one short paragraph we have the Bolshevik-Communist conspiracy and a justification for Hitler’s wars of expansion. Eisen is visibly moved, writing:

How do those Germans now nearing the end of their lives, feel when told that what seemed so right then and perhaps even still seems so right, was in fact so wrong?’ Clearly there’s no sympathy with those trade unionists, socialists, democrats who died in places like Dachau, Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald etc:

And when Eisen posted a comment on her blog fantasising about the murder of Jews:

The Ukrainian peasant listens (for a couple of hundred years) about why the Jewish tavern keeper, tax farmer, landlord or whatever is doing what he's doing for the sake of 'tolerance' freedom' or 'human rights' But the time comes when he's just had enough. He lifts his axe and splits the Jews head - it's what they call a pogrom.

Jewish power needs to be confronted - peacefully and intelligently - and the sooner the better for everyone.Paul Eisen 01.13.08 - 9:16 pm #

What was Rizzo’s response? Condemnation? No, a gentle reminder that he may be misquoted!!!
‘Paul, you realise that statement of yours is going to me misquoted, out of any context and interpreted as your approval of pogroms…. Just so you understand why these attacks are as they are. People just want to do it and they will twist your words in order to do so.'
thecutter 01.13.08 - 9:45 pm #

And if there is any doubt, then Eisen makes his views clear in a posting of 26th February 2007. ‘Regarding gas, again I am not sure but the evidence for the use of homicidal gas-chambers is not good at all. The evidence against it is much, much stronger.’

It would be tedious to list all the anti-Semitic articles on Campbell’s site, but 9-11 Truth and The Holocaust which is on The Radical Press site is a particular gem!

But the Jewel in the Crown of signatures was none other than Canada’s Radical Press. Its site is a wonder to behold. We are informed that:

'Judaism is a “chameleon” culture/religion. It “becomes” whatever is necessary in order to deceive and trick non-Jews'
It has whole sections on 'Jewish Banking Cartel (82) Jewish Holocaust Industry (77) Jewish Lobby (112) Jewish Media Monopoly (105) Jewish Porn Industry (50) Jews (148) Jews Behind Bolshevik Revolution'

and of course an obligatory article entitled:
AMERICA IS RUN BY JEWS By Brother Nathanael Kapner:
'AMERICA IS NOW A JEW-RUN NATION. Here is a list of the prominent Jews who run America:' and more and more, yawn. And Atzmon writes and contributes articles to it for example

Gilad Atzmon - The Primacy of the Ear
Thursday, January 10th, 2008

[Thanks to Gilad for sending along this wonderful article. Ed.]

But as with Israel Shamir, Rizzo had a different take on matters:

‘THIS is what I wrote in support of Radical Press: Jan 17, 2008
Dear Editor,
The issue of peace in the Middle East is far too important for anyone to attempt to think it can only be dealt with between other “more important” issues such as sporting events and what Paris Hilton is doing these days. Yet, I do understand (as I am a journalist myself) that people do like to read things they already agree with that don’t challenge anything they think they already know, and especially, they don’t get encouraged to think out of the box.
At any rate, The Radical Press presents thought-provoking and intelligent information and analysis. It is absolutely NOT anti-Semitic, but many who might not agree with its harsh critique on Israel might try to label it as such, so that people will create confusion between the two, and things never change.
I hope you realise that it is a valuable resource, and any campaigning made to insinuate that it is a racist site is not at all accurate.
Mary RizzoComment by thecutter — 10 February, 2008 @ 9:57 am

She further commented:

If we are talking about other sites, The Radical Press had come under pressure by some people who wanted it to be closed down. Knowing who most of these people are, it was easy enough for me to assume they were considering things in a way that was jaundiced. It was odd that it was Anti-Zionist Jews doing it, not Zionists… This happens far too often for me to believe it is simply accidental. The Radical Press explained to me that they were an anti-Zionist site and that they were dedicated to the Palestinian cause. So, I went to the site, took a look, not deeply, basically into a few issues on Palestine that were good, because I don’t have all the time Tony, andy and Goodwin have, and it looked fine to me. I am not responsible for the content they have, nor am I their editor. I am another blogger and I defend the rights of bloggers dedicated to the Palestinian cause to do what they do, who come under attack far too often. If they are being forced to change because of pressure, I will defend them to NOT have to endure pressure. I don’t see Tony running around to close ZIONIST blogs and sites, not in the slightest, so I am not going to campaign to have Pro-Palestinian ones shut down. Each blog or site is the image of the creator, not the reader, so I believe that if we value the fact that creators select material that they wish, this is their right. Why should I feel ashamed to defend an editor in a site? I can’t vouch for the entire site, and why should I? Who am I, the thought police? I can find Brother Kapner’s article a total piece of shite, and it probably is, but I am not about to waste time to investigate every article on Jews, nor read them because someone wants me to express some opinion. It simply is not that interesting to me. I look at the value of a site in how they are able to express the Palestinian cause as being the result of Zionism and of the lack of awareness as to what Zionism is. I am not going to delve into the rest, because my time is limited. Comment by thecutter — 12 February, 2008 @ 7:08 pm

you see, her time is limited. And anyway why don’t I try and close a few Zionist sites. Presumably my involvement in the Boycott Campaign doesn’t count. But why should it since her friend Atzmon considers a Boycott of Israeli Universities to be an example of ‘book burning’.

‘interfering with academic freedom isn’t exactly something I can blindly advocate. Unlike some of my best enlightened friends, I am against any form of gatekeeping or book burning. But it goes further, I actually want to hear what Israelis and Zionists have to say. I want to read their books. I want to confront their academics. If justice is on our side we should be able to confront them.’

And on the same thread she later said:

Hey, you want me to denounce a site I came into contact with a few weeks ago? The site owner was directed to me by someone who told me that the site was receiving heavy threats from someone like (probably) Goodman. The webmaster, who is not even the author of the piece wrote me telling me they were a site that was anti-Zionist and defended Palestinian rights. I am not anyone’s judge, just like no one is mine, but I went in, the home page looked ok, I clicked on the articles that interested me, and I found them of value. What more can I say. In fact, now you can dance around claiming victory because I tell you I didn’t read the whole site and my views were expressed on the articles that are relevant to Zionism and Israel, which is what I am interested in. If there are things that are questionable, I regret that I defended a site I do not know like the pockets of my jeans, knowing that anything and everything will be used by those trying to attack me who have nothing to do all day but plug my name in on Google. It is tiring being stalked guys, you can stop now, unless you think this is political activism. I think it is sick in the head and deranged. I however am not going to grovel for you, and I’m not going to denounce any sites, not even this “sewer”!!! Let it be! I mean, what the hell, we are in a free world where people can write what they want and others comment as they feel. Or aren’t we? Comment by thecutter — 12 February, 2008 @ 10:42 pm

So Mary Rizzo, who is happy to denounce me, even to try and persuade Palestinians to sign a petition denouncing me, is unwilling to denounce an anti-Semitic sewer. And why? Well I’ll leave it to you to draw the obvious conclusion.

On 14th February Mary Rizzo removed the link to The Radical Press and in addition removed her link to a site run by Klan Wizard David Duke, however Wendy Campbell remains: