8 dec 2019
Nikki Haley says by voting for a UN resolution for the Palestinian right to self-determination, drafted by North Korea, the North American state 'traded its integrity for a seat on Security Council,' which held 'monthly Israel-bashing session'
Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said Canada "made a deal with the devil" by revercing its years long policy on Palestine and voting in favour of its right to self determination.
Speaking at the UN Watch Gala in New York City last week, Nikki Haley said Canada is “trading its integrity for a seat on the Security Council" by using the vote for a UN resolution to damage the State of Israel, according to a report in the Algemeiner Journal.
“Two weeks ago, Canada surprised Israel’s friends by voting for a North Korean resolution that challenges the legitimacy of Israel,” Haley said, adding, “This is a resolution that Canadian governments for years have voted against.”
In addition, she described the monthly meetings of the UN Security Council as a "monthly Israel-bashing session," saying the place had fostered a "culture of bullying."
“If we want to talk about security in the Middle East, we should talk about Iran, or Syria, or Hezbollah, or Hamas, or ISIS or the famine in Yemen,” she said. “There are about ten major problems facing the Middle East, and Israel doesn’t have anything to do with any of them.”
The former ambassador also criticized the UN Human Rights Council, comprised of a slew of nations with questionable human rights records, including: China, Cuba, Qatar, Somalia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, with Venezuela, Sudan and Libya joining that list in the coming year.
“Many encouraged us to remain on the council because the U.S. provided the last shred of credibility the Human Rights Council had, and that was precisely why we decided to leave," she said.
"The U.S. should not lend any credibility to this cesspool of political hypocrisy and corruption,” she added.
Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said Canada "made a deal with the devil" by revercing its years long policy on Palestine and voting in favour of its right to self determination.
Speaking at the UN Watch Gala in New York City last week, Nikki Haley said Canada is “trading its integrity for a seat on the Security Council" by using the vote for a UN resolution to damage the State of Israel, according to a report in the Algemeiner Journal.
“Two weeks ago, Canada surprised Israel’s friends by voting for a North Korean resolution that challenges the legitimacy of Israel,” Haley said, adding, “This is a resolution that Canadian governments for years have voted against.”
In addition, she described the monthly meetings of the UN Security Council as a "monthly Israel-bashing session," saying the place had fostered a "culture of bullying."
“If we want to talk about security in the Middle East, we should talk about Iran, or Syria, or Hezbollah, or Hamas, or ISIS or the famine in Yemen,” she said. “There are about ten major problems facing the Middle East, and Israel doesn’t have anything to do with any of them.”
The former ambassador also criticized the UN Human Rights Council, comprised of a slew of nations with questionable human rights records, including: China, Cuba, Qatar, Somalia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, with Venezuela, Sudan and Libya joining that list in the coming year.
“Many encouraged us to remain on the council because the U.S. provided the last shred of credibility the Human Rights Council had, and that was precisely why we decided to leave," she said.
"The U.S. should not lend any credibility to this cesspool of political hypocrisy and corruption,” she added.
The president spoke at the Israeli American Council national summit that is financially backed by one of his top supporters, the husband-and-wife duo of Miriam and Sheldon Adelson
President Donald Trump said Saturday that Israel has never had a better friend in the White House than him because, unlike his predecessors, “I kept my promises.”
Trump energized an audience that numbered in the hundreds at the Israeli American Council National Summit in Florida by recounting his record on issues of importance to Jews, including an extensive riff on his promise to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and relocate the U.S. Embassy there from Tel Aviv.
Trump said his predecessors had promised to move the embassy but only paid lip service to the issue.
“They never had any intention of doing it, in my opinion,” Trump said. “But unlike other presidents, I kept my promises.”
Trump also highlighted his decision earlier this year to reverse more than a half-century of U.S. policy in the Middle East by recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, the strategic highlands on the border with Syria.
In his speech, the president also claimed that there are some Jewish people in America who don’t love Israel enough.“We have to get the people of our country, of this country, to love Israel more, I have to tell you that. We have to do it. We have to get them to love Israel more,” Trump said, to some applause. “Because you have Jewish people that are great people — they don’t love Israel enough.”
Aaron Keyak, the former head of the National Jewish Democratic Council, denounced Trump’s remarks as anti-Semitic.
“Trump’s insistence on using anti-Semitic tropes when addressing Jewish audiences is dangerous and should concern every member of the Jewish community — even Jewish Republicans,” Keyak said.
Trump has been accused of trafficking in anti-Semitic stereotypes before, including in August, when he said American Jews who vote for Democrats show “either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.”
A number of Jewish groups noted at the time that accusations of disloyalty have long been made against Jews.
The Israeli American Council is financially backed by one of Trump’s top supporters, the husband-and-wife duo of Miriam and Sheldon Adelson, a Las Vegas casino magnate.
Both Adelsons appeared on stage to introduce Trump, with Miriam Adelson asserting that Trump “has already gone down in the annals of Jewish history, and that is before he’s even completed his first term in office.”
The Adelsons donated $30 million to Trump’s campaign in the final months of the 2016 race. They followed up by donating $100 million to the Republican Party for last November’s congressional elections.
Trump’s entourage at the event included Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, along with Republican Reps. Jim Jordan and Michael Waltz, whom he described as “two warriors” defending him against “oppression” in the impeachment inquiry.
Trump criticized Israel’s sworn enemy, Iran, saying he withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal with other world powers because Tehran must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.
But Trump voiced support for Iranian citizens who have been protesting a decision by their government to withdraw fuel subsidies, which sent prices skyrocketing.
Trump said that he believes thousands of Iranians have been killed in the protests and that thousands more have been arrested.
“America will always stand with the Iranian people in their righteous struggle for freedom,” he said.
The president introduced his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, who has played a leading role in helping the administration craft its Mideast peace plan.
A self-described deal-maker, Trump said he had long been told that achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians would be the hardest deal of all.
But ″ïf Jared Kushner can’t do it, it can’t be done,” Trump said.
The White House has said its Mideast peace plan is complete and had promised to release it after Israeli elections in September.
The long-delayed plan remains under wraps, and Israel appears headed for its third round of elections this year.
The plan also is facing rejection by Palestinian officials, who object to the pro-Israel leanings of the Trump administration.
During his speech, Trump also name-dropped Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., criticizing her for supporting the “BDS” movement against Israel: boycott, divest and sanction.
In August, at Trump’s urging, Israel denied Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich. — the first two Muslim women elected to Congress and outspoken critics of Israel over its treatment of Palestinians — entry to the country over their support for the BDS movement.
“My administration strongly opposes this despicable rhetoric,” Trump said. “As long as I am your president, it makes no difference. It’s not happening.”
Before addressing the Israeli American Council summit, Trump spoke at the Florida Republican Party’s Statesman’s Dinner in nearby Aventura. The state GOP closed the event to media coverage.
President Donald Trump said Saturday that Israel has never had a better friend in the White House than him because, unlike his predecessors, “I kept my promises.”
Trump energized an audience that numbered in the hundreds at the Israeli American Council National Summit in Florida by recounting his record on issues of importance to Jews, including an extensive riff on his promise to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and relocate the U.S. Embassy there from Tel Aviv.
Trump said his predecessors had promised to move the embassy but only paid lip service to the issue.
“They never had any intention of doing it, in my opinion,” Trump said. “But unlike other presidents, I kept my promises.”
Trump also highlighted his decision earlier this year to reverse more than a half-century of U.S. policy in the Middle East by recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, the strategic highlands on the border with Syria.
In his speech, the president also claimed that there are some Jewish people in America who don’t love Israel enough.“We have to get the people of our country, of this country, to love Israel more, I have to tell you that. We have to do it. We have to get them to love Israel more,” Trump said, to some applause. “Because you have Jewish people that are great people — they don’t love Israel enough.”
Aaron Keyak, the former head of the National Jewish Democratic Council, denounced Trump’s remarks as anti-Semitic.
“Trump’s insistence on using anti-Semitic tropes when addressing Jewish audiences is dangerous and should concern every member of the Jewish community — even Jewish Republicans,” Keyak said.
Trump has been accused of trafficking in anti-Semitic stereotypes before, including in August, when he said American Jews who vote for Democrats show “either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.”
A number of Jewish groups noted at the time that accusations of disloyalty have long been made against Jews.
The Israeli American Council is financially backed by one of Trump’s top supporters, the husband-and-wife duo of Miriam and Sheldon Adelson, a Las Vegas casino magnate.
Both Adelsons appeared on stage to introduce Trump, with Miriam Adelson asserting that Trump “has already gone down in the annals of Jewish history, and that is before he’s even completed his first term in office.”
The Adelsons donated $30 million to Trump’s campaign in the final months of the 2016 race. They followed up by donating $100 million to the Republican Party for last November’s congressional elections.
Trump’s entourage at the event included Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, along with Republican Reps. Jim Jordan and Michael Waltz, whom he described as “two warriors” defending him against “oppression” in the impeachment inquiry.
Trump criticized Israel’s sworn enemy, Iran, saying he withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal with other world powers because Tehran must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.
But Trump voiced support for Iranian citizens who have been protesting a decision by their government to withdraw fuel subsidies, which sent prices skyrocketing.
Trump said that he believes thousands of Iranians have been killed in the protests and that thousands more have been arrested.
“America will always stand with the Iranian people in their righteous struggle for freedom,” he said.
The president introduced his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, who has played a leading role in helping the administration craft its Mideast peace plan.
A self-described deal-maker, Trump said he had long been told that achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians would be the hardest deal of all.
But ″ïf Jared Kushner can’t do it, it can’t be done,” Trump said.
The White House has said its Mideast peace plan is complete and had promised to release it after Israeli elections in September.
The long-delayed plan remains under wraps, and Israel appears headed for its third round of elections this year.
The plan also is facing rejection by Palestinian officials, who object to the pro-Israel leanings of the Trump administration.
During his speech, Trump also name-dropped Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., criticizing her for supporting the “BDS” movement against Israel: boycott, divest and sanction.
In August, at Trump’s urging, Israel denied Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich. — the first two Muslim women elected to Congress and outspoken critics of Israel over its treatment of Palestinians — entry to the country over their support for the BDS movement.
“My administration strongly opposes this despicable rhetoric,” Trump said. “As long as I am your president, it makes no difference. It’s not happening.”
Before addressing the Israeli American Council summit, Trump spoke at the Florida Republican Party’s Statesman’s Dinner in nearby Aventura. The state GOP closed the event to media coverage.
7 dec 2019
Mike Pompeo
The resolution states that only the outcome of a two-state solution that enhances stability and security for Israel and Palestinians can both ensure the state of Israel’s survival as a Jewish and democratic state and fulfill the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for a state of their own
The House of Representatives on Friday approved a resolution in contradiction to the administration's position on settlements and calling for the United States' efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a negotiated two-state solution.
The vote took place less than one month after U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's announcement that the administration has reversed its position regarding the legality of West Bank settlements.
"This resolution expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that only a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can ensure Israel's survival as a secure Jewish and democratic state and fulfill the legitimate aspirations for a Palestinian state." the resolution reads.
It also expresses the sense that any U.S. proposal to achieve a just, stable, and lasting solution should expressly endorse a two-state solution and discourage steps that would put a peaceful resolution further out of reach.
The motion was introduced by Representative Alan S. Lowenthal (D.) and had some Republican support.
The motions passed with 226 votes to 188
The resolution states that only the outcome of a two-state solution that enhances stability and security for Israel, Palestinians, and their neighbors can both ensure the state of Israel’s survival as a Jewish and democratic state and fulfill the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for a state of their own.
It also stated that the United States proposal to achieve a just, stable, and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should expressly endorse a two-state solution as its objective and discourage steps by either side that would put a peaceful end to the conflict further out of reach, including unilateral annexation of territory or efforts to achieve Palestinian statehood status outside the framework of negotiations with Israel.
The President of JStreet, Jeremy Ben Ami posted on twitter that with this vote, "the majority of lawmakers have rejected the Trump administration’s embrace of the Israeli settlement movement’s agenda, which undermines US interests, imperils Israel’s future and tramples on Palestinian rights.”
The resolution was opposed by Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib who accused Israel of perpetuating “inequality, ethnic discrimination, and inhumane conditions.”
Tlaib also said that “Israel’s Nation-State law, which states that only Jews have the right to self-determination has eliminated the political rights of the Palestinian people and effectively made them second-class citizens.”
The resolution states that only the outcome of a two-state solution that enhances stability and security for Israel and Palestinians can both ensure the state of Israel’s survival as a Jewish and democratic state and fulfill the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for a state of their own
The House of Representatives on Friday approved a resolution in contradiction to the administration's position on settlements and calling for the United States' efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a negotiated two-state solution.
The vote took place less than one month after U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's announcement that the administration has reversed its position regarding the legality of West Bank settlements.
"This resolution expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that only a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can ensure Israel's survival as a secure Jewish and democratic state and fulfill the legitimate aspirations for a Palestinian state." the resolution reads.
It also expresses the sense that any U.S. proposal to achieve a just, stable, and lasting solution should expressly endorse a two-state solution and discourage steps that would put a peaceful resolution further out of reach.
The motion was introduced by Representative Alan S. Lowenthal (D.) and had some Republican support.
The motions passed with 226 votes to 188
The resolution states that only the outcome of a two-state solution that enhances stability and security for Israel, Palestinians, and their neighbors can both ensure the state of Israel’s survival as a Jewish and democratic state and fulfill the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for a state of their own.
It also stated that the United States proposal to achieve a just, stable, and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should expressly endorse a two-state solution as its objective and discourage steps by either side that would put a peaceful end to the conflict further out of reach, including unilateral annexation of territory or efforts to achieve Palestinian statehood status outside the framework of negotiations with Israel.
The President of JStreet, Jeremy Ben Ami posted on twitter that with this vote, "the majority of lawmakers have rejected the Trump administration’s embrace of the Israeli settlement movement’s agenda, which undermines US interests, imperils Israel’s future and tramples on Palestinian rights.”
The resolution was opposed by Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib who accused Israel of perpetuating “inequality, ethnic discrimination, and inhumane conditions.”
Tlaib also said that “Israel’s Nation-State law, which states that only Jews have the right to self-determination has eliminated the political rights of the Palestinian people and effectively made them second-class citizens.”
4 dec 2019
Malaysia has opened an “Embassy to Palestine” in Jordan, after Israeli authorities purportedly refused to grant officials from the Southeast Asian country access to the seat of the Palestinian Authority, in the central occupied West Bank city of Ramallah.
Israeli English-language broadsheet newspaper, The Jerusalem Post, reported that the Israeli foreign ministry took the measure in response to what it described as various “anti-Semitic” and anti-Israel statements made by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.
As a result, Malaysia opened an “Embassy to Palestine” in the Jordanian capital city of Amman, the report asserted.
This is while Malaysian Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah had earlier stated that his country plans to open an embassy accredited to Palestine in Jordan because it has no diplomatic ties between Kuala Lumpur and Tel Aviv.
That is the main reason why we cannot open our office in Ramallah, in West Bank. If our embassy is opened in Ramallah, Malaysia will need to officially engage with Israel for logistics, administrative and immigration matters,” he said on October 31.
Saifuddin said the Malaysian government was taking the necessary steps in order to realize the opening of the embassy as soon as possible.
“Our ministry is in the midst of gathering information to implement this decision and getting feedback and experiences from parties that had opened diplomatic missions or embassies in Palestine,” he said then.
Al Ray further reports that, on October 25, Mahathir announced that Malaysia will open an embassy accredited to Palestine, to enable it to extend aid to Palestinians more easily.
On September 8 last year, Malaysia launched a national fundraising campaign to support Palestine refugees, through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).
The campaign sought to mobilize resources for the UNRWA at a time when the UN body faces a financial crisis after the United States, one of its leading supporters, announced its decision to no longer fund the agency.
Palestine currently has an embassy in Kuala Lumpur, and the diplomatic mission is headed by Ambassador Anwar al-Agha.
Malaysian Ambassador to Egypt, Mohd Haniff Abd Rahman, is accredited to Palestine.
Israeli English-language broadsheet newspaper, The Jerusalem Post, reported that the Israeli foreign ministry took the measure in response to what it described as various “anti-Semitic” and anti-Israel statements made by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.
As a result, Malaysia opened an “Embassy to Palestine” in the Jordanian capital city of Amman, the report asserted.
This is while Malaysian Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah had earlier stated that his country plans to open an embassy accredited to Palestine in Jordan because it has no diplomatic ties between Kuala Lumpur and Tel Aviv.
That is the main reason why we cannot open our office in Ramallah, in West Bank. If our embassy is opened in Ramallah, Malaysia will need to officially engage with Israel for logistics, administrative and immigration matters,” he said on October 31.
Saifuddin said the Malaysian government was taking the necessary steps in order to realize the opening of the embassy as soon as possible.
“Our ministry is in the midst of gathering information to implement this decision and getting feedback and experiences from parties that had opened diplomatic missions or embassies in Palestine,” he said then.
Al Ray further reports that, on October 25, Mahathir announced that Malaysia will open an embassy accredited to Palestine, to enable it to extend aid to Palestinians more easily.
On September 8 last year, Malaysia launched a national fundraising campaign to support Palestine refugees, through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).
The campaign sought to mobilize resources for the UNRWA at a time when the UN body faces a financial crisis after the United States, one of its leading supporters, announced its decision to no longer fund the agency.
Palestine currently has an embassy in Kuala Lumpur, and the diplomatic mission is headed by Ambassador Anwar al-Agha.
Malaysian Ambassador to Egypt, Mohd Haniff Abd Rahman, is accredited to Palestine.
30 nov 2019
Chief rabbi Ephraim Mirvis has not only misrepresented the known facts about Labour and its supposed antisemitism crisis. He has not only interfered in an overtly, politically partisan manner in the December 12 election campaign by suggesting that Jeremy Corbyn – against all evidence – is an antisemite.
By speaking out as the voice of British Jews – a false claim he has allowed the UK media to promote – his unprecedented meddling in the election of Britain’s next leader has actually made the wider Jewish community in the UK much less safe. Mirvis is contributing to the very antisemitism he says he wants to eradicate.
Mirvis’ intervention in the election campaign makes sense only if he believes in one of two highly improbable scenarios.
The first requires several demonstrably untrue things to be true. It needs for Corbyn to be a proven antisemite – and not just of the variety that occasionally or accidentally lets slip an antisemitic trope or is susceptible to the unthinking prejudice most of us occasionally display, including (as we shall see) Rabbi Mirvis.
No, for Mirvis to have interfered in the election campaign he would need to believe that Corbyn intends actively as prime minister to inflame a wider antisemitism in British society or implement policies designed to harm the Jewish community.
And in addition, the chief rabbi would have to believe that Corbyn presides over a Labour party that will willingly indulge race-hate speeches or stand by impassively as Corbyn carries out racist policies.
If Mirvis really believes any of that, I have a bridge to sell him. Corbyn has spent his entire political career as an anti-racism campaigner, and his anti-racism activism as a backbencher was especially prominent inside a party that itself has traditionally taken the political lead in tackling racism.
Rising tide of nationalism
The second possibility is that Mirvis doesn’t really believe that Corbyn is a Goebbels in the making. But if that is so, then his decision to intercede in the election campaign to influence British voters must be based on an equally fanciful notion: that there is no significant threat posed by antisemitism from the right or the rapidly emerging far right.
Because if antisemitism is not an issue on the right – the same nationalistic right that has persecuted Jews throughout modern history, culminating in the Nazi atrocities – then Mirvis may feel he can risk playing politics in the name of the Jewish community without serious consequence.
If there is no perceptible populist tide of white nationalism sweeping Europe and the globe, one that hates immigrants and minorities, then making a fuss about Corbyn might seem to make sense for a prominent Jewish community leader.
In those circumstances, it might appear to be worth disrupting the national conversation to highlight the fact that Corbyn once sat with Hamas politicians – just as Tony Blair once sat with Sinn Fein leaders – and that Corbyn’s party has promised in the latest manifesto to stop selling weapons to Israel (and Saudi Arabia) of the kind that have been used to butcher children in Gaza.
Mirvis might believe that by wounding Corbyn he can help into power a supposedly benevolent, or at least inoffensive, Tory party. tweet
But if he is wrong about the re-emergence of a white nationalism and its growing entry into the mainstream – and all the evidence suggests he would be deeply wrong, if this is what he thinks – then undermining Corbyn and the Labour party is self-destructiveness of the first order.
It would amount to self-harm not only because attacking Corbyn inevitably strengthens the electoral chances of Boris “watermelon smiles” Johnson. It plays with fire because Mirvis’ flagrant intervention in the election campaign actually bolsters a key part of the antisemitic discourse of the far right that is rapidly making inroads into the Conservative party.
Succor to white nationalists
White nationalists are all over social media warning of supposed Jewish global conspiracies, of supposed Jewish control of the media, of supposed Jewish subversion of “white rights”. It was precisely this kind of thinking that drove European politics a century ago. It was arch-antisemite Arthur Balfour who signed off the Balfour Declaration of 1917 that sought to end Britain’s “Jewish problem” by encouraging European Jews to move far away, to a part of the Middle East then known as Palestine.
That is, of course, why today’s white supremacists love Israel, why they see it as a model, why they call themselves “white Zionists”. In creating a tribal democracy, and one heavily fortified, land hungry, belligerent and nuclear-armed, Israel has done for Jews exactly what white nationalists hope to do again for their white compatriots. The white supremacists’ love of Israel is intimately bound up with their hatred and fear of Jews.
Mirvis has given succor to white nationalist discourse both because he has spoken out against Corbyn without offering evidence for his claims and because those entirely unsubstantiated claims have been echoed across the media.
There is good reason why the billionaire-owned print media and the Establishment-dominated BBC are happy to exploit the antisemitism smears – and it has nothing to do with concern for the safety of Jews. The corporate media don’t want a Labour leader in power who is going to roll back the corporate free-for-all unleashed by Margaret Thatcher 40 years ago that nearly bankrupted the rest of us in 2008.
But that is not what those flirting with or embracing white nationalism will take away from the relentless media chorus over evidence-free antisemitism claims.
Mirvis’ intervention in the democratic process will drive them more quickly and more deeply into the arms of the far-right. It will persuade them once again that “the Jews” are a “problem”. They will conclude that – though the Jews are now helping the right by destroying Corbyn – once the left has been dealt with, those same Jews will then subvert their white state. Like Balfour before them, they will start thinking of how to rid Britain and Europe of these supposed interlopers.
This is why Mirvis was irresponsible in the extreme for meddling. Because the standard of proof required before making such an intervention – proof either that Cobyn is an outright Jew hater, or that white nationalism is no threat to the UK – is not even close to being met.
The left’s anti-imperialism
In fact much worse, all the evidence shows the exact reverse. That was neatly summed up in a survey this month published by The Economist, a weekly magazine that is no friend to Corbyn or the Labour party.
It showed that those identifying as “very left-wing” – the section of the public that supports Corbyn – were among the least likely to express antisemitic attitudes. Those identifying as “very right-wing”, on the other hand – those likely to support Boris “piccaninnies” Johnson – were three and a half times more likely to express hostile attitudes towards Jews.
Other surveys show even worse racism among Conservatives towards more obviously non-white minorities, such as Muslims and black people. That, after all, is the very reason Boris “letterbox-looking Muslim women” Johnson now heads the Tory party.
The Economist findings reveal something else of relevance in assessing Mirvis’ meddling. Not only is the real left (as distinguished from the phony, centrist left represented by Labour’s Blairites) much less antisemitic than the right, it is also much more critical of Israel than any other section of the British public.
That is easily explained. The real left has always been anti-imperialist. Israel is a particularly problematic part of Britain’s colonial legacy.
Elsewhere, the peoples who gained independence from Britain found themselves inside ruined, impoverished states, often with borders imposed out of naked imperial interest that left them divided and feuding. Internal struggles over the crumbs Britain and other imperial powers left behind were the norm.
But in a very real sense, Britain – or at least the west – never really left Israel. In line with the Balfour Declaration, Britain helped to establish the institutions of a “Jewish home” on the Palestinians’ homeland. British troops may have departed in 1948, but waves of European Jewish immigrants were either encouraged or compelled to come to the newly created state of Israel by racist immigration quotas designed to prevent them fleeing elsewhere, most especially to the United States.
The west helped engineer both the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and Israel’s creation to solve Europe’s “Jewish problem”. It provided the components necessary for Israel to build a nuclear bomb that won it a place at the international top table and ensured the Palestinians were made Israel’s serfs in perpetuity. Ever since, the west has provided Israel with diplomatic cover, military aid and special trading status, even as Israel has worked relentlessly to disappear the Palestinian people from their homeland.
Even now, our most prized rights, such as free speech, are being eroded and subverted to protect Israel from criticism. In the US, the only infringements on the American public’s First Amendment rights have been legislated to silence those seeking to pressure Israel over its crimes against the Palestinians with a boycott – similar to the campaign against apartheid South Africa. In the UK, the Conservative manifesto similarly promises to bar local councils from upholding international law and boycotting products from Israel’s illegal settlements.
Rewarding war crimes
The real left focuses on this continuing colonial crime against the Palestinians not because it is antisemitic (a claim the Economist survey amply refutes), but because the left treats Israel as emblematic of British and western bad faith and hypocrisy. Israel is the imperial west’s Achilles’ heel, the proof that war crimes, massacres and ethnic cleansing are not only not punished but actively rewarded if these crimes accord with western imperial interests.
But ardent friends of Israel such as Mirvis are blind to these arguments. For them, one western antisemitic crime – the Holocaust – entirely obscures another western antisemitic crime: seeking to rid Europe of Jews by forcing them into the Middle East, serving as pawns on an imperial chessboard that paid no regard to the Palestinians whose homeland was being sacrificed.
In his state of historical and political myopia, Mirvis cannot begin to understand that there might be political activists who, in defending the Palestinian people, are also defending Jews. That they, unlike him, understand that Israel was created not out of western benevolence towards Jews, but out of western malevolence towards “lesser peoples”. The real left in Britain speaks out against Israel not because it hates Jews but because it holds dear a commitment to justice and a compassion for all.
Mirvis, on the other hand, is the Zionist equivalent of a little Englander. He prefers particularist, short-term interests over universalist, long-term ones.
It was he, remember, who threw his full support behind Israel in 2014 as it indiscriminately bombed Gaza, killing some 550 children – a bombing campaign that came after years of an Israeli blockade on the Palestinian population there. That siege has led the United Nations to warn that the enclave will be uninhabitable by next year.
It was Mirvis, along with his predecessor Jonathan Sacks, who in 2017 endorsed the fanatical Jewish settlers – Israel’s equivalent of white supremacists – on their annual march through the occupied Old City of Jerusalem. This is the march where the majority of the participants are recorded every year waving masses of Israeli flags at Palestinians and chanting “Death to the Arabs”. One Israeli newspaper columnist has described the Jerusalem Day march as a “religious carnival of hatred”.
It was Mirvis and Sacks that encouraged British Jews to join them on this tub-thumping trip to Israel, which they suggested would provide an opportunity to spend time “dancing with our brave soldiers”. Those soldiers – Israeli, not British – occupy West Bank cities like Hebron where they have locked down life for some 200,000 Palestinians so that a handful of crazed religious Jewish bigots can live undisturbed in their midst.
What is so appalling is that Mirvis is blind to the very obvious parallels between the fearful Palestinians who hastily have to board up their shops as a Jewish mob parades through their neighborhood and today’s white supremacists and neo-Nazis in the west who seek to march provocatively through ethnic minority communities, including Jewish neighborhoods, in places like Charlottesville.
Mirvis has no lessons to teach Corbyn or the Labour party about racism. In fact, it is his own, small-minded prejudice that blinds him to the anti-racist politics of the left. His ugly message is now being loudly amplified by a corporate media keen to use any weapon it can, antisemitism included, to keep Corbyn and the left out of power – and preserve a status quo that benefits the few at the expense of the many.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilizations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.
By speaking out as the voice of British Jews – a false claim he has allowed the UK media to promote – his unprecedented meddling in the election of Britain’s next leader has actually made the wider Jewish community in the UK much less safe. Mirvis is contributing to the very antisemitism he says he wants to eradicate.
Mirvis’ intervention in the election campaign makes sense only if he believes in one of two highly improbable scenarios.
The first requires several demonstrably untrue things to be true. It needs for Corbyn to be a proven antisemite – and not just of the variety that occasionally or accidentally lets slip an antisemitic trope or is susceptible to the unthinking prejudice most of us occasionally display, including (as we shall see) Rabbi Mirvis.
No, for Mirvis to have interfered in the election campaign he would need to believe that Corbyn intends actively as prime minister to inflame a wider antisemitism in British society or implement policies designed to harm the Jewish community.
And in addition, the chief rabbi would have to believe that Corbyn presides over a Labour party that will willingly indulge race-hate speeches or stand by impassively as Corbyn carries out racist policies.
If Mirvis really believes any of that, I have a bridge to sell him. Corbyn has spent his entire political career as an anti-racism campaigner, and his anti-racism activism as a backbencher was especially prominent inside a party that itself has traditionally taken the political lead in tackling racism.
Rising tide of nationalism
The second possibility is that Mirvis doesn’t really believe that Corbyn is a Goebbels in the making. But if that is so, then his decision to intercede in the election campaign to influence British voters must be based on an equally fanciful notion: that there is no significant threat posed by antisemitism from the right or the rapidly emerging far right.
Because if antisemitism is not an issue on the right – the same nationalistic right that has persecuted Jews throughout modern history, culminating in the Nazi atrocities – then Mirvis may feel he can risk playing politics in the name of the Jewish community without serious consequence.
If there is no perceptible populist tide of white nationalism sweeping Europe and the globe, one that hates immigrants and minorities, then making a fuss about Corbyn might seem to make sense for a prominent Jewish community leader.
In those circumstances, it might appear to be worth disrupting the national conversation to highlight the fact that Corbyn once sat with Hamas politicians – just as Tony Blair once sat with Sinn Fein leaders – and that Corbyn’s party has promised in the latest manifesto to stop selling weapons to Israel (and Saudi Arabia) of the kind that have been used to butcher children in Gaza.
Mirvis might believe that by wounding Corbyn he can help into power a supposedly benevolent, or at least inoffensive, Tory party. tweet
But if he is wrong about the re-emergence of a white nationalism and its growing entry into the mainstream – and all the evidence suggests he would be deeply wrong, if this is what he thinks – then undermining Corbyn and the Labour party is self-destructiveness of the first order.
It would amount to self-harm not only because attacking Corbyn inevitably strengthens the electoral chances of Boris “watermelon smiles” Johnson. It plays with fire because Mirvis’ flagrant intervention in the election campaign actually bolsters a key part of the antisemitic discourse of the far right that is rapidly making inroads into the Conservative party.
Succor to white nationalists
White nationalists are all over social media warning of supposed Jewish global conspiracies, of supposed Jewish control of the media, of supposed Jewish subversion of “white rights”. It was precisely this kind of thinking that drove European politics a century ago. It was arch-antisemite Arthur Balfour who signed off the Balfour Declaration of 1917 that sought to end Britain’s “Jewish problem” by encouraging European Jews to move far away, to a part of the Middle East then known as Palestine.
That is, of course, why today’s white supremacists love Israel, why they see it as a model, why they call themselves “white Zionists”. In creating a tribal democracy, and one heavily fortified, land hungry, belligerent and nuclear-armed, Israel has done for Jews exactly what white nationalists hope to do again for their white compatriots. The white supremacists’ love of Israel is intimately bound up with their hatred and fear of Jews.
Mirvis has given succor to white nationalist discourse both because he has spoken out against Corbyn without offering evidence for his claims and because those entirely unsubstantiated claims have been echoed across the media.
There is good reason why the billionaire-owned print media and the Establishment-dominated BBC are happy to exploit the antisemitism smears – and it has nothing to do with concern for the safety of Jews. The corporate media don’t want a Labour leader in power who is going to roll back the corporate free-for-all unleashed by Margaret Thatcher 40 years ago that nearly bankrupted the rest of us in 2008.
But that is not what those flirting with or embracing white nationalism will take away from the relentless media chorus over evidence-free antisemitism claims.
Mirvis’ intervention in the democratic process will drive them more quickly and more deeply into the arms of the far-right. It will persuade them once again that “the Jews” are a “problem”. They will conclude that – though the Jews are now helping the right by destroying Corbyn – once the left has been dealt with, those same Jews will then subvert their white state. Like Balfour before them, they will start thinking of how to rid Britain and Europe of these supposed interlopers.
This is why Mirvis was irresponsible in the extreme for meddling. Because the standard of proof required before making such an intervention – proof either that Cobyn is an outright Jew hater, or that white nationalism is no threat to the UK – is not even close to being met.
The left’s anti-imperialism
In fact much worse, all the evidence shows the exact reverse. That was neatly summed up in a survey this month published by The Economist, a weekly magazine that is no friend to Corbyn or the Labour party.
It showed that those identifying as “very left-wing” – the section of the public that supports Corbyn – were among the least likely to express antisemitic attitudes. Those identifying as “very right-wing”, on the other hand – those likely to support Boris “piccaninnies” Johnson – were three and a half times more likely to express hostile attitudes towards Jews.
Other surveys show even worse racism among Conservatives towards more obviously non-white minorities, such as Muslims and black people. That, after all, is the very reason Boris “letterbox-looking Muslim women” Johnson now heads the Tory party.
The Economist findings reveal something else of relevance in assessing Mirvis’ meddling. Not only is the real left (as distinguished from the phony, centrist left represented by Labour’s Blairites) much less antisemitic than the right, it is also much more critical of Israel than any other section of the British public.
That is easily explained. The real left has always been anti-imperialist. Israel is a particularly problematic part of Britain’s colonial legacy.
Elsewhere, the peoples who gained independence from Britain found themselves inside ruined, impoverished states, often with borders imposed out of naked imperial interest that left them divided and feuding. Internal struggles over the crumbs Britain and other imperial powers left behind were the norm.
But in a very real sense, Britain – or at least the west – never really left Israel. In line with the Balfour Declaration, Britain helped to establish the institutions of a “Jewish home” on the Palestinians’ homeland. British troops may have departed in 1948, but waves of European Jewish immigrants were either encouraged or compelled to come to the newly created state of Israel by racist immigration quotas designed to prevent them fleeing elsewhere, most especially to the United States.
The west helped engineer both the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and Israel’s creation to solve Europe’s “Jewish problem”. It provided the components necessary for Israel to build a nuclear bomb that won it a place at the international top table and ensured the Palestinians were made Israel’s serfs in perpetuity. Ever since, the west has provided Israel with diplomatic cover, military aid and special trading status, even as Israel has worked relentlessly to disappear the Palestinian people from their homeland.
Even now, our most prized rights, such as free speech, are being eroded and subverted to protect Israel from criticism. In the US, the only infringements on the American public’s First Amendment rights have been legislated to silence those seeking to pressure Israel over its crimes against the Palestinians with a boycott – similar to the campaign against apartheid South Africa. In the UK, the Conservative manifesto similarly promises to bar local councils from upholding international law and boycotting products from Israel’s illegal settlements.
Rewarding war crimes
The real left focuses on this continuing colonial crime against the Palestinians not because it is antisemitic (a claim the Economist survey amply refutes), but because the left treats Israel as emblematic of British and western bad faith and hypocrisy. Israel is the imperial west’s Achilles’ heel, the proof that war crimes, massacres and ethnic cleansing are not only not punished but actively rewarded if these crimes accord with western imperial interests.
But ardent friends of Israel such as Mirvis are blind to these arguments. For them, one western antisemitic crime – the Holocaust – entirely obscures another western antisemitic crime: seeking to rid Europe of Jews by forcing them into the Middle East, serving as pawns on an imperial chessboard that paid no regard to the Palestinians whose homeland was being sacrificed.
In his state of historical and political myopia, Mirvis cannot begin to understand that there might be political activists who, in defending the Palestinian people, are also defending Jews. That they, unlike him, understand that Israel was created not out of western benevolence towards Jews, but out of western malevolence towards “lesser peoples”. The real left in Britain speaks out against Israel not because it hates Jews but because it holds dear a commitment to justice and a compassion for all.
Mirvis, on the other hand, is the Zionist equivalent of a little Englander. He prefers particularist, short-term interests over universalist, long-term ones.
It was he, remember, who threw his full support behind Israel in 2014 as it indiscriminately bombed Gaza, killing some 550 children – a bombing campaign that came after years of an Israeli blockade on the Palestinian population there. That siege has led the United Nations to warn that the enclave will be uninhabitable by next year.
It was Mirvis, along with his predecessor Jonathan Sacks, who in 2017 endorsed the fanatical Jewish settlers – Israel’s equivalent of white supremacists – on their annual march through the occupied Old City of Jerusalem. This is the march where the majority of the participants are recorded every year waving masses of Israeli flags at Palestinians and chanting “Death to the Arabs”. One Israeli newspaper columnist has described the Jerusalem Day march as a “religious carnival of hatred”.
It was Mirvis and Sacks that encouraged British Jews to join them on this tub-thumping trip to Israel, which they suggested would provide an opportunity to spend time “dancing with our brave soldiers”. Those soldiers – Israeli, not British – occupy West Bank cities like Hebron where they have locked down life for some 200,000 Palestinians so that a handful of crazed religious Jewish bigots can live undisturbed in their midst.
What is so appalling is that Mirvis is blind to the very obvious parallels between the fearful Palestinians who hastily have to board up their shops as a Jewish mob parades through their neighborhood and today’s white supremacists and neo-Nazis in the west who seek to march provocatively through ethnic minority communities, including Jewish neighborhoods, in places like Charlottesville.
Mirvis has no lessons to teach Corbyn or the Labour party about racism. In fact, it is his own, small-minded prejudice that blinds him to the anti-racist politics of the left. His ugly message is now being loudly amplified by a corporate media keen to use any weapon it can, antisemitism included, to keep Corbyn and the left out of power – and preserve a status quo that benefits the few at the expense of the many.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilizations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.
12 nov 2019
Germany’s ZDF television outlet broadcast a text in large Hebrew letters that stated “End the Occupation” during the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, Middle East Monitor reported.
The public-service television station displayed the statement on the 18th-century neoclassical monument Brandenburg Gate, reported German newspaper Bild.
This was followed by criticism from Jeremy Issacharoff, Israel’s ambassador to Germany, suggesting that it is disgraceful that people consider this a useful time to exploit this event for political goals against Israel, adding that Germany was commemorating the anniversary of the collapse of the communist East German state.
Germany celebrated the 30th anniversary of the opening of the Berlin Wall, Saturday, a decisive event in the fall of communism in Eastern Europe.
It was during the live broadcasting of the actress and singer Anna Loos that the clear and critical message against Israel’s occupation of Palestine was aired.
It came abruptly in the sequence of images and excerpts of videos that were reminding the thousands of people present of worldwide protest movements.
Issacharoff told Bild: “On 9 November, we celebrated the fall of the Wall, but also dignifiedly recalled the pogrom night 81 years ago, which is also symbolic of the horrors of at the time approaching Holocaust.”
The newly elected head of the German-Israel association Uwe Becker, stated that ZDF provided “a stage for “anti-Israel antisemitism,” and expects an explanation on how it came to this “totally unacceptable crossing of a line” and must apologize.
He told the Jerusalem Post: “Against the background of the historical significance of 9 November, 1938, as the beginning of the systematic mass murder of six million European Jews, dealing with the joy of the fall of the Berlin Wall on 9 November, 1989, must be done in a sensitive manner.”
He added “The ZDF has done exactly the opposite.”
Event organizer Kulturprojekte Berlin has apologized on Facebook.
Moritz van Dülmen, head of the agency, claims the slogan was not noticed prior to its display and took to Facebook to post: “It was a mistake, for which I carry the responsibility.”
The public-service television station displayed the statement on the 18th-century neoclassical monument Brandenburg Gate, reported German newspaper Bild.
This was followed by criticism from Jeremy Issacharoff, Israel’s ambassador to Germany, suggesting that it is disgraceful that people consider this a useful time to exploit this event for political goals against Israel, adding that Germany was commemorating the anniversary of the collapse of the communist East German state.
Germany celebrated the 30th anniversary of the opening of the Berlin Wall, Saturday, a decisive event in the fall of communism in Eastern Europe.
It was during the live broadcasting of the actress and singer Anna Loos that the clear and critical message against Israel’s occupation of Palestine was aired.
It came abruptly in the sequence of images and excerpts of videos that were reminding the thousands of people present of worldwide protest movements.
Issacharoff told Bild: “On 9 November, we celebrated the fall of the Wall, but also dignifiedly recalled the pogrom night 81 years ago, which is also symbolic of the horrors of at the time approaching Holocaust.”
The newly elected head of the German-Israel association Uwe Becker, stated that ZDF provided “a stage for “anti-Israel antisemitism,” and expects an explanation on how it came to this “totally unacceptable crossing of a line” and must apologize.
He told the Jerusalem Post: “Against the background of the historical significance of 9 November, 1938, as the beginning of the systematic mass murder of six million European Jews, dealing with the joy of the fall of the Berlin Wall on 9 November, 1989, must be done in a sensitive manner.”
He added “The ZDF has done exactly the opposite.”
Event organizer Kulturprojekte Berlin has apologized on Facebook.
Moritz van Dülmen, head of the agency, claims the slogan was not noticed prior to its display and took to Facebook to post: “It was a mistake, for which I carry the responsibility.”