13 aug 2019
The Big Ride for Palestine in London, on 27 July 2019
Last week the Palestine Solidarity Campaign revealed that a council in East London had banned the use of any of its parks by a charity bike ride for Palestinian kids.
The Big Ride for Palestine holds annual sponsored events in London and Manchester to raise money for Palestinian children’s charities.
This year its chosen cause was the Middle East Children’s Alliance, which focuses on the mental health of those traumatised living under Israel’s vicious military dictatorship.
It has raised tens of thousands of pounds for such good causes over the years.
Organisers back in March had gone through the whole rigmarole of filling in the necessary applications to use Tower Hamlets’ public parks for the final rally for the event.
It took more than a month’s worth of follow-up emails for council officers to finally give their reply to the organisers’ application: it was declined.
The reasons given seemed nebulous – “rallies with political connotations” were deemed “problematic” especially if one of the speakers was to “say something controversial”.
The email also talked vaguely about “community cohesion and equality issues.”
Nothing in the email, however, mentioned alleged anti-Semitism, or the discredited IHRA “working definition” of anti-Semitism – which the council adopted last year.
Organisers, however, smelled a rat. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign then put in a freedom of information request, and eventually obtained 158 pages worth of council officers’ emails discussing the application.
They reveal the real reason for the council barring the event from using any of its public parks or open spaces.
The stated justification in the refusal email to organisers – that “rallies with political connotations” are not allowed on council facilities – was a smokescreen.
(This was transparently untrue in any case – Altab Ali park, which the Big Ride initially asked the council if it could use, has been used for rallies many times in the past, including by none other than Tower Hamlets’ own mayor, John Biggs, during his election campaign in 2015.)
The real reason was that council officers, in their infinite wisdom, had decided that the Big Ride for Palestine’s website was “anti-Semitic” based on the fact that it condemned “the crimes of the Israeli state” and spoke of “the parallels between apartheid South Africa and the state of Israel.”
The council manager in question ignored – seemingly deliberately – a sentence on the same webpage stating the group’s unequivocal opposition to anti-Semitism.
To justify this twisted and bizarre inversion of reality, the manager, Oudwa Idehen, invoked the IHRA “working definition” of anti-Semitism in some detail, claiming that the examples quoted from their website would “fall foul” of the document.
The definition was written by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, but based on a much older and almost identical discarded and discredited definition written by a US Israel lobbyist.
It is a confusing definition, far longer than would be necessary for any real anti-racist work. Even worse, several of its “examples” of anti-Semitism bring Israel into the mix, when not necessary.
The whole purpose of the document is to attack Palestine solidarity campaigning. This incident in Tower Hamlets makes that clearer than ever.
The Tory government in 2017 first put the pressure on local authorities to “formally adopt” the IHRA definition, even while admitting it has no legal standing.
But the Labour Party too has helped to censor Palestine solidarity by adopting this document. It did so last year, after a massive pressure campaign by the right-wing of the party, by many MPs, and by the Israel lobby.
All the while, critics in local communities and in the grassroots of the Labour Party were constantly gaslighted by the right and by the Israel lobby groups, and even by some figures on the Labour left, like Jon Lansman.
We were told we were making a fuss over nothing, and that the definition did not prohibit “legitimate” criticisms of “the Netanyahu government” that didn’t go beyond their permissible boundaries.
This was always a lie. But the evidence in Tower Hamlets is a slam dunk.
You could not imagine a more, cuddly, fluffy, family-friendly form of Palestine solidarity than the Big Ride to Palestine.
These was not the radical, hard left, anti-Zionist organisation of the Israel lobbyists’ fevered imaginations. This was simply a fun way to raise much-needed cash for a children charity – some of the most vulnerable children in the Middle East, if not in the world.
But for the anti-Palestinian racists behind the constant push to adopt the IHRA “working definition”, the problem is not the way solidarity with Palestine is expressed, it is the very existence of Palestine that is the problem.
And that is what the IHRA’s poisonous definition is all about – erasing any support for Palestine and Palestinian existence from this country.
Anyone concerned about resisting this, should therefore struggle to overthrow the IHRA definition it its entirety.
Last week the Palestine Solidarity Campaign revealed that a council in East London had banned the use of any of its parks by a charity bike ride for Palestinian kids.
The Big Ride for Palestine holds annual sponsored events in London and Manchester to raise money for Palestinian children’s charities.
This year its chosen cause was the Middle East Children’s Alliance, which focuses on the mental health of those traumatised living under Israel’s vicious military dictatorship.
It has raised tens of thousands of pounds for such good causes over the years.
Organisers back in March had gone through the whole rigmarole of filling in the necessary applications to use Tower Hamlets’ public parks for the final rally for the event.
It took more than a month’s worth of follow-up emails for council officers to finally give their reply to the organisers’ application: it was declined.
The reasons given seemed nebulous – “rallies with political connotations” were deemed “problematic” especially if one of the speakers was to “say something controversial”.
The email also talked vaguely about “community cohesion and equality issues.”
Nothing in the email, however, mentioned alleged anti-Semitism, or the discredited IHRA “working definition” of anti-Semitism – which the council adopted last year.
Organisers, however, smelled a rat. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign then put in a freedom of information request, and eventually obtained 158 pages worth of council officers’ emails discussing the application.
They reveal the real reason for the council barring the event from using any of its public parks or open spaces.
The stated justification in the refusal email to organisers – that “rallies with political connotations” are not allowed on council facilities – was a smokescreen.
(This was transparently untrue in any case – Altab Ali park, which the Big Ride initially asked the council if it could use, has been used for rallies many times in the past, including by none other than Tower Hamlets’ own mayor, John Biggs, during his election campaign in 2015.)
The real reason was that council officers, in their infinite wisdom, had decided that the Big Ride for Palestine’s website was “anti-Semitic” based on the fact that it condemned “the crimes of the Israeli state” and spoke of “the parallels between apartheid South Africa and the state of Israel.”
The council manager in question ignored – seemingly deliberately – a sentence on the same webpage stating the group’s unequivocal opposition to anti-Semitism.
To justify this twisted and bizarre inversion of reality, the manager, Oudwa Idehen, invoked the IHRA “working definition” of anti-Semitism in some detail, claiming that the examples quoted from their website would “fall foul” of the document.
The definition was written by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, but based on a much older and almost identical discarded and discredited definition written by a US Israel lobbyist.
It is a confusing definition, far longer than would be necessary for any real anti-racist work. Even worse, several of its “examples” of anti-Semitism bring Israel into the mix, when not necessary.
The whole purpose of the document is to attack Palestine solidarity campaigning. This incident in Tower Hamlets makes that clearer than ever.
The Tory government in 2017 first put the pressure on local authorities to “formally adopt” the IHRA definition, even while admitting it has no legal standing.
But the Labour Party too has helped to censor Palestine solidarity by adopting this document. It did so last year, after a massive pressure campaign by the right-wing of the party, by many MPs, and by the Israel lobby.
All the while, critics in local communities and in the grassroots of the Labour Party were constantly gaslighted by the right and by the Israel lobby groups, and even by some figures on the Labour left, like Jon Lansman.
We were told we were making a fuss over nothing, and that the definition did not prohibit “legitimate” criticisms of “the Netanyahu government” that didn’t go beyond their permissible boundaries.
This was always a lie. But the evidence in Tower Hamlets is a slam dunk.
You could not imagine a more, cuddly, fluffy, family-friendly form of Palestine solidarity than the Big Ride to Palestine.
These was not the radical, hard left, anti-Zionist organisation of the Israel lobbyists’ fevered imaginations. This was simply a fun way to raise much-needed cash for a children charity – some of the most vulnerable children in the Middle East, if not in the world.
But for the anti-Palestinian racists behind the constant push to adopt the IHRA “working definition”, the problem is not the way solidarity with Palestine is expressed, it is the very existence of Palestine that is the problem.
And that is what the IHRA’s poisonous definition is all about – erasing any support for Palestine and Palestinian existence from this country.
Anyone concerned about resisting this, should therefore struggle to overthrow the IHRA definition it its entirety.
4 aug 2019
Medics treat Palestinian children suffering from teargas inhalation. The Big Ride for Palestine says it focuses on helping the 300,000 children in Gaza showing signs of severe psychological distress
Tower Hamlets officials did not divulge real reason for turning down Big Ride for Palestine
Officials at a London council that refused to host a charity event in aid of Palestinian children did not tell the organisers the decision was based on fears their criticism of Israel could breach antisemitism guidelines, internal emails have revealed.
The exchanges among officials at Tower Hamlets council also reveal they thought the event should be turned down, in part because of the row over antisemitism in the Labour party.
The council told The Big Ride for Palestine, which has raised nearly £150,000 for sports equipment for children in Gaza since 2015, that the event’s “political connotations” meant that the closing rally of this year’s bike ride could not go ahead in the borough “without problems”.
Officials told organisers there was a risk speakers might express views which contradicted the council’s policies on community cohesion and equality.
Behind the scenes, council staff raised fears of a “real risk” that the event and its organisers could be seen to have breached the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism because of references on their website to apartheid and ethnic cleansing.
One official said there were concerns “not least because of the recent furour [sic] within the Labour party over Anti Semitism [sic]”.
When considering how to explain the decision, one council official said it would be wise to “avoid the anti Semitism aspect ref their website as this could open a can of worms and come back to bite us”. There was no reference to antisemitism in the email to the event’s organisers.
The internal emails, released after a freedom of information request by the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, revealed the council attempted to assess the Big Ride website according to the rubric of the controversial IHRA definition.
The emails showed concern among council officials over quotes on the Big Ride website that described the Israeli treatment of Palestinians as ethnic cleansing and drew parallels between Israeli policies and apartheid-era South Africa.
One section of the website said: “Active opposition to the crimes of the Israeli state is a responsibility, just as opposition to South African apartheid was a moral and political imperative for many”, while another said: “It’s blatantly obvious to recognise the parallels between Apartheid South Africa and the state of Israel ...
This is an Israeli issue, not a Jewish one, many Jewish friends oppose this oppression.”
Elsewhere, the ride was described as a protest “against 67 years of Israeli ethnic cleansing”.
The controversial IHRA definition warns “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” constitutes antisemitism. It grew in prominence after the Labour party adopted a version that excluded some examples included in the original text.
The party ultimately adopted the full definition, alongside a statement specifying that nothing in it should “undermine freedom of expression on Israel or the rights of Palestinians”.
Critics say the definition potentially conflates legitimate criticism of Israel with racism. Its supporters view it as a means of helping organisations assess subtler forms of antisemitic abuse.
The emails show council staff had already decided the event could be refused on the grounds it was “controversial and sensitive” before calling on colleagues to check it against IHRA criteria.
After looking at the text of the website, an official, whose name was redacted from the released emails, wrote: “It seems therefore, that although the application form raises no issues, the contents of their website does raise the risk that the event will fall foul of the position the council has adopted.”
In a separate email, the council’s head of sports, leisure and culture said she felt the event should be refused because “the council has recently adopted the [IHRA] definition of antisemitism and there are concerns about the content of the organisation’s website with regard to this”.
The head of parks, Stephen Murray, suggested avoiding explaining the reasons behind the refusal in any reply to Big Ride organisers because of concerns that it would open “a can of worms”.
A Tower Hamlets council spokesperson told the Guardian: “The council gave the application careful consideration and decided not to host the event, because we do not host rallies with political connotations, albeit without direct links to political parties.”
A spokesperson for the charity said its work was focused on helping the 300,000 children in Gaza showing signs of severe psychological distress.
The spokesperson added: “It’s a dreadful thing when an over-scrupulous interpretation of the IHRA definition of antisemitism is used behind closed doors to prevent awareness raising of the situation in Palestine and the need for humanitarian support.”
Tower Hamlets officials did not divulge real reason for turning down Big Ride for Palestine
Officials at a London council that refused to host a charity event in aid of Palestinian children did not tell the organisers the decision was based on fears their criticism of Israel could breach antisemitism guidelines, internal emails have revealed.
The exchanges among officials at Tower Hamlets council also reveal they thought the event should be turned down, in part because of the row over antisemitism in the Labour party.
The council told The Big Ride for Palestine, which has raised nearly £150,000 for sports equipment for children in Gaza since 2015, that the event’s “political connotations” meant that the closing rally of this year’s bike ride could not go ahead in the borough “without problems”.
Officials told organisers there was a risk speakers might express views which contradicted the council’s policies on community cohesion and equality.
Behind the scenes, council staff raised fears of a “real risk” that the event and its organisers could be seen to have breached the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism because of references on their website to apartheid and ethnic cleansing.
One official said there were concerns “not least because of the recent furour [sic] within the Labour party over Anti Semitism [sic]”.
When considering how to explain the decision, one council official said it would be wise to “avoid the anti Semitism aspect ref their website as this could open a can of worms and come back to bite us”. There was no reference to antisemitism in the email to the event’s organisers.
The internal emails, released after a freedom of information request by the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, revealed the council attempted to assess the Big Ride website according to the rubric of the controversial IHRA definition.
The emails showed concern among council officials over quotes on the Big Ride website that described the Israeli treatment of Palestinians as ethnic cleansing and drew parallels between Israeli policies and apartheid-era South Africa.
One section of the website said: “Active opposition to the crimes of the Israeli state is a responsibility, just as opposition to South African apartheid was a moral and political imperative for many”, while another said: “It’s blatantly obvious to recognise the parallels between Apartheid South Africa and the state of Israel ...
This is an Israeli issue, not a Jewish one, many Jewish friends oppose this oppression.”
Elsewhere, the ride was described as a protest “against 67 years of Israeli ethnic cleansing”.
The controversial IHRA definition warns “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” constitutes antisemitism. It grew in prominence after the Labour party adopted a version that excluded some examples included in the original text.
The party ultimately adopted the full definition, alongside a statement specifying that nothing in it should “undermine freedom of expression on Israel or the rights of Palestinians”.
Critics say the definition potentially conflates legitimate criticism of Israel with racism. Its supporters view it as a means of helping organisations assess subtler forms of antisemitic abuse.
The emails show council staff had already decided the event could be refused on the grounds it was “controversial and sensitive” before calling on colleagues to check it against IHRA criteria.
After looking at the text of the website, an official, whose name was redacted from the released emails, wrote: “It seems therefore, that although the application form raises no issues, the contents of their website does raise the risk that the event will fall foul of the position the council has adopted.”
In a separate email, the council’s head of sports, leisure and culture said she felt the event should be refused because “the council has recently adopted the [IHRA] definition of antisemitism and there are concerns about the content of the organisation’s website with regard to this”.
The head of parks, Stephen Murray, suggested avoiding explaining the reasons behind the refusal in any reply to Big Ride organisers because of concerns that it would open “a can of worms”.
A Tower Hamlets council spokesperson told the Guardian: “The council gave the application careful consideration and decided not to host the event, because we do not host rallies with political connotations, albeit without direct links to political parties.”
A spokesperson for the charity said its work was focused on helping the 300,000 children in Gaza showing signs of severe psychological distress.
The spokesperson added: “It’s a dreadful thing when an over-scrupulous interpretation of the IHRA definition of antisemitism is used behind closed doors to prevent awareness raising of the situation in Palestine and the need for humanitarian support.”
19 july 2019
scene peopled by countless excited young volunteers in Palestine-themed black t-shirts along with thousands of visitors, young and old, women and men, all brimming with enthusiasm.
Welcome to Palestine Expo, the largest Palestinian event in Europe. Welcome to a surprising breath of fresh air.
Futility of hope
Two fascinating days at this expo, packed with experiences.
Even as the Palestinian issue seems to be gradually fading from the agenda of mainstream public opinion in the West, worn down by the futility of hope; despite the brainwashing in Israel that conflates Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda and Islamic State group (IS) as identical, and despite the rising Islamophobia, I saw just the opposite during these two days: a tremendous interest in Palestine and genuine concern for its people, and determination to actively aid the Palestinians.
There was a scathing and bitter criticism of the occupation and its dispossession, abuse, humiliation, crimes, violations of international law – but without manifestations of antisemitism. Proving once again that it is possible (and necessary) to criticise Israel and even to act against it without being antisemitic.
Two figures I met there tell the story best: Ismail Patel, chairman of the Friends of Al-Aqsa, which organised the event, and Chief Zwelivelile Mandela, a member of the South African parliament and a key speaker at the exhibition. Patel is a Malawian-born Muslim of Indian origin who grew up in Britain.
A deep commitment
One visit to Palestine changed his life: he became an activist for Palestinian rights. He is an impressive, authoritative, soft-spoken man. He organizes these events from a deep commitment to the Palestinian issue.
Mandela is a larger-than-life figure: Nelson Mandela’s first grandson, he accompanied him during much of his global travel and today lives in his village, Qunu, and keeps faith with his grandfather’s legacy.
He is completely committed to the Palestinian cause, guided by Nelson Mandela’s teachings, including this one from 1995: “Our struggle will not be complete without freedom for the Palestinian people.”
Zwelivelile Mandela spoke very firmly during the panel discussions: Apartheid Israel shows all the characteristics of an apartheid state. In Israel, as in the West, some people still argue vainly over whether Israel is an apartheid state or not; the grandson of Nelson Mandela states unequivocally: “To us, the South Africans, it is clear: Israel is an apartheid state.
"We, all of us, who have experienced the brutality of South African apartheid – this [in Israel] is the worst form of apartheid we have witnessed.” His operative conclusion was also unequivocal: “We have a moral duty to boycott Israel because of its apartheid regime against the Palestinians.”
Could it be said with any greater clarity? Can we also brand the grandson of the greatest statesman and freedom fighter of the 20th century, the companion who was shaped by his influence and follows his path, as an antisemite? Zwelivelile Mandela’s words and the fascinating meetings with him will remain with me for a long time.
Another reality
One conference does not tell the whole story, of course, and we must not harbor false expectations.
At a time when Islamophobia is intensifying, the Jewish and Israeli propaganda machines are racking up big successes in Europe and America, branding every criticism of the Israeli occupation as antisemitism, the struggle against Israeli occupation is undergoing decriminalization. With all the regulations and legislation against BDS in Europe and the US, it becomes harder and harder to work against the Israeli occupation: just try to rent a hall for a Palestinian solidarity event in Germany or the US.
This gathering reminds us that another reality exists. It reminds us that the spirit of the struggle has not disappeared from Europe. That Palestine remains in the hearts of many. But we mustn’t delude ourselves: the struggle for justice and freedom for Palestinians is now at a nadir.
Palestinians are divided, bleeding from the wounds of the occupation and lacking leadership; Gaza is under a siege that defies credibility and has no end in sight; the West Bank is under a slightly more convenient occupation; US President Donald Trump is giving the occupation its strongest backing ever; and, with not a few right-wing governments supporting the occupation uninhibitedly, and Israel stronger than ever – the struggle is in a bad shape.
The inflection point in the international discourse between the two-state solution, whose time is apparently gone forever, and the one-state alternative, the only remaining solution, was evident in all the conference deliberations. Most, if not all, of the speakers explicitly supported the one-state solution. Most are not motivated by a desire to destroy Israel, as Israeli propaganda warns and as most Israelis claim.
Rather, they understand that only in the framework of one state can relative justice be achieved and most of the problems redressed. Most of the speakers also supported the only currently effective mode of action available in Western civil societies: BDS.
My two days at Olympia London were enjoyable and interesting. For two days in London it was possible to speak of hope, however faint and far away.
- Gideon Levy is a Haaretz columnist and a member of the newspaper's editorial board. Levy joined Haaretz in 1982, and spent four years as the newspaper's deputy editor. He was the recipient of the Euro-Med Journalist Prize for 2008; the Leipzig Freedom Prize in 2001; the Israeli Journalists’ Union Prize in 1997; and The Association of Human Rights in Israel Award for 1996. His new book, The Punishment of Gaza, has just been published by Verso.
Welcome to Palestine Expo, the largest Palestinian event in Europe. Welcome to a surprising breath of fresh air.
Futility of hope
Two fascinating days at this expo, packed with experiences.
Even as the Palestinian issue seems to be gradually fading from the agenda of mainstream public opinion in the West, worn down by the futility of hope; despite the brainwashing in Israel that conflates Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda and Islamic State group (IS) as identical, and despite the rising Islamophobia, I saw just the opposite during these two days: a tremendous interest in Palestine and genuine concern for its people, and determination to actively aid the Palestinians.
There was a scathing and bitter criticism of the occupation and its dispossession, abuse, humiliation, crimes, violations of international law – but without manifestations of antisemitism. Proving once again that it is possible (and necessary) to criticise Israel and even to act against it without being antisemitic.
Two figures I met there tell the story best: Ismail Patel, chairman of the Friends of Al-Aqsa, which organised the event, and Chief Zwelivelile Mandela, a member of the South African parliament and a key speaker at the exhibition. Patel is a Malawian-born Muslim of Indian origin who grew up in Britain.
A deep commitment
One visit to Palestine changed his life: he became an activist for Palestinian rights. He is an impressive, authoritative, soft-spoken man. He organizes these events from a deep commitment to the Palestinian issue.
Mandela is a larger-than-life figure: Nelson Mandela’s first grandson, he accompanied him during much of his global travel and today lives in his village, Qunu, and keeps faith with his grandfather’s legacy.
He is completely committed to the Palestinian cause, guided by Nelson Mandela’s teachings, including this one from 1995: “Our struggle will not be complete without freedom for the Palestinian people.”
Zwelivelile Mandela spoke very firmly during the panel discussions: Apartheid Israel shows all the characteristics of an apartheid state. In Israel, as in the West, some people still argue vainly over whether Israel is an apartheid state or not; the grandson of Nelson Mandela states unequivocally: “To us, the South Africans, it is clear: Israel is an apartheid state.
"We, all of us, who have experienced the brutality of South African apartheid – this [in Israel] is the worst form of apartheid we have witnessed.” His operative conclusion was also unequivocal: “We have a moral duty to boycott Israel because of its apartheid regime against the Palestinians.”
Could it be said with any greater clarity? Can we also brand the grandson of the greatest statesman and freedom fighter of the 20th century, the companion who was shaped by his influence and follows his path, as an antisemite? Zwelivelile Mandela’s words and the fascinating meetings with him will remain with me for a long time.
Another reality
One conference does not tell the whole story, of course, and we must not harbor false expectations.
At a time when Islamophobia is intensifying, the Jewish and Israeli propaganda machines are racking up big successes in Europe and America, branding every criticism of the Israeli occupation as antisemitism, the struggle against Israeli occupation is undergoing decriminalization. With all the regulations and legislation against BDS in Europe and the US, it becomes harder and harder to work against the Israeli occupation: just try to rent a hall for a Palestinian solidarity event in Germany or the US.
This gathering reminds us that another reality exists. It reminds us that the spirit of the struggle has not disappeared from Europe. That Palestine remains in the hearts of many. But we mustn’t delude ourselves: the struggle for justice and freedom for Palestinians is now at a nadir.
Palestinians are divided, bleeding from the wounds of the occupation and lacking leadership; Gaza is under a siege that defies credibility and has no end in sight; the West Bank is under a slightly more convenient occupation; US President Donald Trump is giving the occupation its strongest backing ever; and, with not a few right-wing governments supporting the occupation uninhibitedly, and Israel stronger than ever – the struggle is in a bad shape.
The inflection point in the international discourse between the two-state solution, whose time is apparently gone forever, and the one-state alternative, the only remaining solution, was evident in all the conference deliberations. Most, if not all, of the speakers explicitly supported the one-state solution. Most are not motivated by a desire to destroy Israel, as Israeli propaganda warns and as most Israelis claim.
Rather, they understand that only in the framework of one state can relative justice be achieved and most of the problems redressed. Most of the speakers also supported the only currently effective mode of action available in Western civil societies: BDS.
My two days at Olympia London were enjoyable and interesting. For two days in London it was possible to speak of hope, however faint and far away.
- Gideon Levy is a Haaretz columnist and a member of the newspaper's editorial board. Levy joined Haaretz in 1982, and spent four years as the newspaper's deputy editor. He was the recipient of the Euro-Med Journalist Prize for 2008; the Leipzig Freedom Prize in 2001; the Israeli Journalists’ Union Prize in 1997; and The Association of Human Rights in Israel Award for 1996. His new book, The Punishment of Gaza, has just been published by Verso.