Eretz Israel is our unforgettable historic homeland...The Jews who will it shall achieve their State...And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind. (Theodor Herzl, DerJudenstaat, 1896)

We offer peace and amity to all the neighbouring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East.
(From Proclamation of the State of Israel, 5 Iyar 5708; 14 May 1948)

Sunday, 1 May 2016

David Singer: Trump Targets Obama and Clinton Betrayal of Israel

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer. 

He writes:

Donald Trump’s foreign policy speech has created expectations that he will match Marco Rubio’s pledge to stand by the commitments made by President Bush to Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Bush’s letter dated 14 April 2004.

Rubio made his unequivocal pledge on 3 December 2015 at the Republican Jewish Coalition Presidential Forum during his unsuccessful race to secure the Republican Party’s endorsement as its Presidential nominee:
“I will revive the common-sense understandings reached in the 2004 Bush-Sharon letter and build on them to help ensure Israel has defensible borders”
President Obama and his then former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did everything in their power to wriggle out of those Bush commitments – despite their having been overwhelmingly endorsed by the Senate 95:3 on 23 June 2004 and by the House of Representatives 407:9 on 24 June 2004.

Trump clearly had Obama and Clinton’s betrayal of Israel in his sights – when stating:
“… your friends need to know that you will stick by the agreements that you have with them. You’ve made that agreement, you have to stand by it and the world will be a better place.”
The Bush-Congress endorsed commitments made in that 2004 letter undoubtedly represent such an agreement.

President Bush’s letter acknowledged the risks that Israel’s proposed unilateral disengagement from Gaza represented – and assured Israel that America:
1. Would do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan other than the Roadmap envisioned by President Bush on 24 June 2002.
2. Would maintain its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders,
3. Was strongly committed to Israel’s well-being as a Jewish state.
4. Understood that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement would need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.
5. Accepted as part of a final peace settlement that Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.
6. Acknowledged that in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it would be unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, that all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution had reached the same conclusion
Sharon’s successor  – Ehud Olmert – had neither forgotten nor overlooked the critical significance of Bush’s commitments when agreeing to resume negotiations with the Palestinian Authority – telling an international audience of world leaders at Annapolis on 27 November 2007:
“The negotiations will be based on previous agreements between us, U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the road map and the April 14, 2004 letter of President Bush to the Prime Minister of Israel.”
Gaza by then had become a de facto terrorist State with Hamas firmly entrenched as Gaza’s governing authority.

Israel had since its disengagement been subjected to a sustained barrage of thousands of rockets and mortars fired indiscriminately into Israeli population centres from Gaza by a bewildering variety of terrorist groups and sub-groups who would have had no chance of operating so freely from Gaza if the Israeli Army had remained there.

President Obama’s attempt to disavow Bush’s commitments was first orchestrated by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – as this report on 6 June 2009 disclosed:
“Since coming to office in January, President Barack Obama has repeatedly called on Israel to halt all settlement activity in Palestinian areas, a demand rejected by the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Israelis say they received commitments from the previous US administration of President George W. Bush permitting some growth in existing settlements.
They say the US position was laid out in a 2004 letter from Bush to then Israeli premier Ariel Sharon.”
Clinton rejected that claim, saying any such US stance was informal and
"did not become part of the official position of the United States government."
Clinton – doubling again as Obama’s attack dog – made Obama’s intentions clearer on 25 November 2009:
“We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”
Bush’s letter never mentioned “agreed swaps” – signalling trouble for Israel if Obama himself were to confirm Clinton’s latest statement. Eighteen months later Israel’s worst fears were realised when Obama declared on 19 May 2011:
“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
 Michael Oren – Israel’s Ambassador to Washington between 2009 and 2013 – called for Bush’s commitments to be resuscitated on 15 January 2015:
"... it’s time to revive the Bush-Sharon letter and act according to it.”
Others are making similar demands.

Trump is responding with his clearly articulated message:

Keep agreements made with your allies – don’t ditch them. Loyalty will always trump expediency.

Obama and Clinton’s shameful betrayal of Israel in this sordid affair seems set to be targeted by Trump.

Jew-baiting Corbynistas Bait John Mann



Labour MP John Mann, a doughty long-time fighter against antisemitism, on why he confronted fellow MP Ken Livingstone for the latter's outburst regarding Hitler and called him a "Nazi apologist":

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/called-ken-livingstone-nazi-apologist-7854534

Richard Littlejohn on Jeremy Corbyn's handling of the current crop of vocal antisemites in his party:
'When accused of anti-semitism, [Ken Livingstone]  resorts to semantics, just as he did yesterday. And until now, his brothers-in-arms have been happy to indulge him and the rest of the Jew-haters in the party.
Consider Corbyn’s initial reaction to the Nazi [sic! i.e. Naz] Shah comments, which he dismissed as ‘historic’.This is a man who sits on the front bench alongside his plus-sized deputy, Nonce Finder General Tom Watson — a muck-raking, dirt-throwing, smear-monger who has spent the past few years accusing assorted Tories of ‘historic’ sex crimes dating back decades and using his position to demand full-scale police investigations.Yet as far as Corbyn was concerned, anti-Jewish remarks made by a Labour politician two years ago were ‘historic’ and thus unworthy of further comment....
But what else should we expect? I’m prepared to concede that Corbyn doesn’t consider himself an anti-semite — despite counting among his ‘friends’ the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah, whose sole purpose in life is wiping Jews off the face of the earth.
He spent most of yesterday hiding behind the sofa as the crisis unfolded and the Boys In The Bubble went into a feeding frenzy. Assorted Labour MPs came out of the woodwork to demand strong action against Livingstone and insist that he wasn’t representative of their party.
Two questions. Where have they been for the past ten years? And what makes them think that Livingstone’s abhorrent views are in any way ‘unrepresentative’?
When I was making my documentary, almost nobody would come forward to speak out publicly. There was one hero prepared to put his head above the parapet — the Bassetlaw MP John Mann. And yesterday he was again front and centre in denouncing Livingstone — a crime for which he was reprimanded by the chief whip.'
Read more here

Meanwhile, here are some whacko reactions from the usual suspects towards antisemitism in the Labour Party.

First, from "Jews for Jeremy".  Anti-Israel activists figure among this bunch. Of course Jews of that stripe are well-liked by the Corbynistas.


Second, a very small taste of the nauseating personal abuse, much of it laced with antisemitism and perceptions of "Zionist" money, that has been left on John Mann's Facebook page, with many angry Corbynistas accusing him of being in the pay of the "Zionists" and telling him he deserves de-selection as a candidate for his Bassetlaw constituency before the next election.  The abuse of him is spilling onto all his recent posts, irrespective of their topic. (I'm sure that, being a politician, Mr Mann is thick-skinned; nevertheless, please consider going to Mr Mann's Facebook page and leaving a supportive comment, for his stand against antisemitism has been tireless and unremitting):

 

And a few of the representative common-or-garden comments by some old mates of ours, Sean (ranting on the streets of Dublin against Israeli "blood" diamonds is his shtik), chieftain Mick and Pam being stalwarts of the PSCs in Ireland, Scotland and England respectively:


And, amid the many posts linking to articles and videos that relate to this crisis in the Labour Party, here's a think-outside-the-box comment by pro-Israel blogger David Collier:


Friday, 29 April 2016

"The Supporters of Israel Have The Whole Political Class Now Dancing To Their Tune"

Well, they're certainly deep in it, Jeremy Corbyn and the gang.

(Update: See this!!!  hat tip: Ian G)

And of course Corbyn's troops are rallying.  (I've even seen one, albeit inconsequential, Livingstone apologist linking to an item in the deranged arsenal of the notoriously antisemitic, Holocaust-denying California-based  "Institute for Historical Review" in an attempt to support Red Ken's disgraceful remarks about Hitler, though I won't give it oxygen by linking to it.)

Here's a familiar demagogue, from whom my header is a quotation:



As comic relief, a pertinent video!

Meanwhile, if the following whets your appetite, please go here to see the rest.


Thursday, 28 April 2016

Leftist Antisemitism: All About Yves's

Photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star
The guy in this picture isn't, as might be thought,
baying at the moon.

To quote the online caption relating to this photo in the Toronto Star (27 July 2014) he's shouting '"Keep killing Palestinian children" towards the Pro-Israel Torontians gathered at Queen's Park to hold a peaceful, positive rally and pray for peace, truth and co-existence'.

His name's Yves Engler and he's a Canadian leftie whose subjects for denouncement regularly include Israel.

In the Huffington Post last week Engler wrote a grubby little piece describing antisemitism as "the most abused term in Canada".

It in fact provides an ugly insight into the antisemitism that motivates leftist anti-Zionism, with what has been termed "rich man antisemitism" (the perception of, and consequent hostility to, Jews as plutocrats) not far from the surface.

His nonsense exemplifies that very curious camaraderie with Islam that leftist "anti-Zionists" exhibit despite Islam's attitude towards all the things which the Left is supposed to hold dear.  Despite all the antisemitism inherent in Islam and the antisemitism emanating from sections of the Muslim umma  today (vide the situation in Europe and videos of Islamist preachers), he implies that Jews are making victims out of Muslims.

He implies that Jews (who of course live in particular neighbourhoods so as to be close to synagogues and other communal institutions, and who integrate seamlessly with the general population, and live by the principle "the Law of the Land is the Law") self-segregate in order to keep aloof from mainstream society.

His odious piece, with its spotlight on intermarriage statistics, seems to resent, and (seemingly devoid of any empathy with a people left deciminated by the Holocaust) regard as nefarious, Jewish survival. 

See what I mean?: 
'"Anti-Semitism" may be the most abused term in Canada today. Almost entirely divorced from its dictionary definition -- "discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews" -- it is now primarily invoked to uphold Jewish/white privilege.....
Rather than calming the tantrum, Canadian political leaders often contribute to the hysteria of certain Jewish groups. During the recent debate to condemn the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign MPs repeatedly accused a movement demanding Israel comply with international law of being "anti-Semitic". The terms "anti-Semitic" and "anti-Semitism" were invoked over 80 times in a debate to justify Jewish/white supremacy in the Middle East....
 Despite widespread discussion of "anti-Semitism", there is little discussion of Canadian Jewry's actual place in Canadian society. Among elite business, political and professional circles Jewish representation far surpasses their slim 1.3% of the Canadian population. Studies demonstrate that Canadian Jews are more likely than the general population to hold a bachelors degree, earn above $75,000, or be part of the billionaire class. 
While Canadian Jews faced discriminatory property, university and immigration restrictions into the 1950s, even the history of structural anti-Jewish prejudice should be put into proper context. Blacks, Japanese and other People of Colour (not to mention indigenous peoples) have been subjected to far worse structural racism and abuse. Even compared to some other "white" groups Canadian Jews have fared well....
While howls of "anti-Semitism" are usually an effort to deter Palestinian solidarity, the shrill claims may also represent what a Freudian psychologist would call a "projection". Prejudice against Arabs and Muslims appears rampant in the Jewish community. Then there are the remarkable efforts to keep the Jewish community separate and apart from others....
After Israel, no subject garners more attention in the Canadian Jewish News than the importance of cloistering children by ethnicity/religion. Half of Jewish children in Montréal attend Jewish schools, which is startling for a community that represented 7% of the city's population a century ago. (In the 1920s Yiddish was Montréal's third most spoken language.)
Montréal's Jewish community has segregated itself geographically as well. Without retail shops in its boundaries, Hampstead is an affluent Montréal suburb that is three quarters Jewish. Four times larger than the adjacent Hampstead, Côte Saint-Luc is a 32,000-person municipality that is two thirds Jewish.
According to Federation CJA, only 15%-17% of Jewish Montrealers live in intermarried (or common-law) households. For those under-30 it's still only a quarter. (In Toronto, where Canada's largest Jewish community resides, the self-segregation is slightly less extreme.)
Inward looking and affluent, the Jewish community is quick to claim victimhood. But, like an out of control child, the major Jewish organizations need a timeout. Without an intervention of some sort, the Jewish community risks having future dictionaries defining "anti-Semitism" as "a movement for justice and equality."' [Emphasis added here and below]
The Canadian Jewish News has condemned this squalid piece thus:
'... Engler opens by attempting to explain away pro-Hamas demonstrations at l’Université du Québec à Montréal and anti-Semitism at Concordia University, as well as York University’s mural controversy and its student government’s divestment campaign. This is, by the way, the same Yves Engler who was dismissed from his role as vice-president of the Concordia student union for his part in the infamous 2002 riot that forced the cancellation of a speech by Benjamin Netanyahu. In what could be a nod to his university days, Engler contends that the term anti-Semitism “is now primarily invoked to uphold Jewish/white privilege.”
Then he really goes off the rails....
Is the implication that anti-Semitism must not be a problem since Canadian Jews are rich? If so, he might be interested to learn that poverty is on the rise in the Canadian Jewish community....
There’s more. “Prejudice against Arabs and Muslims appears rampant in the Jewish community,” he claims, though he cites no statistical evidence to back it up, and the many contributions of the Jewish community toward Syrian refugees contradict his argument. Engler also disapproves of Jewish day schools and Jewish-majority neighbourhoods – “cloistering children by ethnicity/religion,” he calls it....
Inconveniently for Engler, the facts belie his position. Last month, Toronto Police released a report on hate crimes in the city during 2015, and for the 10th year in a row, Jews topped the list of most targeted communities. Meanwhile, in Montreal, there has been a spate of swastika and neo-Nazi graffiti recently. And in Vancouver, a man was found guilty of promoting Jew-hatred online less than six months ago.
Perhaps Engler might have come to a different conclusion had he accurately researched the Jewish community before publishing his essay. At this point, it’s probably too late for that, but it would behoove Engler to take a close look at something else – himself, in a mirror. The facts suggest he has seriously misjudged the state of anti-Semitism in Canada today.'
 [Bottom two images from here]

Wednesday, 27 April 2016

In Milady's Chamber

Ah, the Israel-hating Left and the company it keeps, especially since the Corbynistas have made antisemitism "respectable" again.



Time to do a spring clean of your Facebook "Friends", Your Ladyship.

Monday, 25 April 2016

Septic Mondoweiss Plumbs New Depths

Here's another guest blog by Professor William D. (Bill) Rubinstein.in his occasional series examining the execrable Mondoweiss blog.

He writes:

As this writer has pointed out on the Daphne Anson blog before, the anti-Israel and anti-Zionist website "Mondoweiss" functions as a kind of general septic tank or cesspit to collect and publish virtually any kind of posting that is hostile to Israel's policies or its existence.

Many readers have questioned whether it is antisemitic as well, especially as (needless to say) it does not apply the same standards to any Arab or Islamic regime that it applies to Israel, and virtually whitewashes Muslim and Palestinian terrorism and violence.

As I pointed out in a recent posting here, many of the "Comments" it prints by readers are almost certainly antisemitic by any standard, and the site makes no effort to delete them, despite its stated policy of doing so.

Two recent postings on the "Mondoweiss" site have been so extreme that Daphne's readers should be told about them.

1) The first (11 April 2016) was by Nada Elia, described as a "Palestinian scholar-activist," and is entitled  "As Threats Against BDS Grow, It Is Time for 'Sumoud' in Activist Communities". ("Sumoud" is defined as "the persistence of the Palestinian people.")  Reviewing the history of Zionism, the author states that 
 "Close to a century ago, in November 1917, British Lord Rothschild promised Palestine as a 'national homeland' for (Europe's unwanted) Jewish communities. The rest is a history of US and Europe-sponsored settler-colonialism, genocide, and apartheid..."
Without commenting on any other nonsense in this passage, I would draw the reader's attention to Nada Elia's insinuation that "British Lord Rothschild" wrote the Balfour Declaration. This is, of course, pure codswallop. The Balfour Declaration was signed by Arthur Balfour, Britain's Foreign Minister (a former Prime Minister and a lifelong pro-Zionist). It was actually written by Leopold Amery, a junior minister, and then discussed by the British Cabinet, which made some minor changes and then accepted it.

Lord Rothschild was, of course, not the author of the Balfour Declaration, but its recipient. The Balfour Declaration was addressed to him as the unofficial head of the British Jewish community, as well as being a member of Parliament (in the House of Lords). This Rothschild, the second Baron, was a distinguished scientist and zoologist who had no role of any kind in procuring the Balfour Declaration. He was not a member of the British government, and could not have "promised" the Blarney Stone to gullible American tourists, let alone Palestine to "Europe's unwanted Jews."

It seems clear that Nada Elia has misidentified Rothschild as the author of the Balfour Declaration to stir up what is often termed "rich Jew antisemitism". Whether she has done this deliberately, or because she thinks that the Rothschilds, through some kind of supernatural means, can command the British government to give countries away, isn't clear. More likely sheer ignorance.

2) Secondly, there was the long declaration "Mondoweiss" published on 17 April 2016, "We Stand With Palestine in the Spirit of 'Samud': Statement From the US Prisoner, Labor, and Academic Delegation to Palestine".

I will spare readers any of this very long and rambling disquisition, and will only say that it makes Yasser Arafat look like a speaker at a Keren Hayesod fundraising dinner. The most notable facet of this document, however, is its signatories, those who went on this "delegation" to Palestine and signed this "Statement".

Examining just who they are via entries on the web (often written by themselves or their allies) shows that its nineteen signatories include the following:

Laura Whitehorn (b. 1945) who is described as a "former US-held political prisoner." In reality, in 1985 she was arrested with seven others for conspiring to blow up the US Capitol Building in Washington D.C., as well as three military installations in Washington, and four sites in New York, including the Israeli Aircraft Industries Building and the offices of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (i.e., the pension fund for retired New York policemen). For this, she spent fourteen years in prison. Her association with left-wing extremism began long before. In 1969, as a member of the Weathermen/Weather Underground, according to Wikipedia she "travelled with them to Havana, visiting one of the camps established by Soviet KGB Colonel Vadim Kotchergrine." In 1970 she took part in the Greenwich Village Townhouse explosion in which three members of the Weathermen extremist group were killed.

Claude Marks (pictured, with Whitehorn), who was sentenced in 1995 to six years in prison for "buying thirty-seven pounds of plastic explosives in a plot to help a Puerto Rican separatist leader escape from federal prison." Previously, he had "lived underground" for ten years under an assumed name to avoid arrest. His wife Diana Block, also a signatory, "spent 13 years living underground [under an assumed name] with a political collective committed to supporting the Puerto Rican movement and the Black Liberation movement."

Emory Douglas, who is described as a "Revolutionary Artist and Minister of Culture, Black Panther Party, 1967-82." Many readers will assume that the position of "Minister of Culture" of the "Black Panther Party" would have few duties and a rather short c.v., along the lines of "short books" like The Wit and Humour of Ayatollah Khomeni.

Rachel Herzing (pictured here, seated far right, at an anti-Israel event last year; part of the audience and a wall sign shown below), a "co-founder of "Critical Resistance" [in Oakland, California], a national grassroots organization," which (I'm not joking) is dedicated to abolishing the police. Personally, I would be all in favour of abolishing the police – but would prefer to wait until we have first abolished the criminals.

Manuel La Fontaine, described as "a former captive and survivor of California's Department of Corrections better known as the Punishment System by its survivors".  It is even better known as California's state prisons.  The online material about this gentleman is rather lacking in detail as to why he was in the slammer, although he noted that the "longest time" he served "in captivity" was "approximately 51 months". He did not enlarge on the other "times" he spent inside, or why. The inference from one website is that the 51 months was for attempted murder.




I haven't gone into detail about the other signatories, although readers with time on their hands and a strong stomach might give it a try.

It remains to be seen whether this collection of antisemitism, convicted criminals, and loony-tunes will now be standard fare on Mondoweiss.

Saturday, 23 April 2016

Mo not Joe, Mr Corbyn!


(Spot the one-word difference here)

Nice try, Mr Corbyn, but the "19th century rabbi" you cite with such apparent authority in your so obviously barbed  Pesach message to Anglo-Jewry was not called Joseph Morris.

As you see here, he was called Morris Joseph.


Anyway, as you have perhaps learned from one of your as-a-Jew supporters, "Joseph Morris" (who in 1895 became minister at the Reform-minded West London Synagogue of British Jews)
" personified the Englishman who followed the Mosaic religion. He was determined that immigrant eastern European Jews should become part of the mainstream as rapidly as possible; indeed he saw it as their duty to do so. In the same way he was totally opposed to the concept of political Zionism, and 'abhorred the notion of a nationalist Jewish state' (Kershen and Romain, 116). Anti-Zionism created strange bedfellows: Chief Rabbi Adler and the Revd Morris Joseph joined forces to attack pro-Zionists at the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and London. In addition to his anti-Zionist beliefs Joseph was a pacifist and chairman of the Jewish Peace Society."
(That's a quotation from the entry on him in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.)

I'm sure you applaud his urging his fellow-Jews to integrate rapidly into British society.

Quite a contrast, that, with the opposite approach taken by rather too many among the huge numbers of Muslims who have migrated to Western Europe in recent decades.

As for "Joseph Morris"'s attitude towards political Zionism, he was born in 1848 and died in 1903.

The latter was the year of the terrible Kishinev pogrom.  It was that pogrom which convinced a Jewish minister in Australia, Rev Elias Blaubaum, whose lifespan (1848-1904) was virtually identical to "Joseph Morris"'s, to abandon his own adamantly expressed opposition to political Zionism and concede that persecuted Jewry deserved a refuge in Eretz Israel.

Of course, the Jewish anti-Zionists of that period were opposed to the Herzlian idea because they believed it pre-empted divine restoration of Jews to their historic homeland and/or because they feared that it would raise the spectre of dual loyalties and even endanger Jewish citizenship in the West.

It can't be assumed that "Joseph Morris" would have remained an anti-Zionist had he lived to see the remarkable accomplishments that "philanthropic Zionism" (which was generally supported by Jewish lay and religious leaders after the Balfour Declaration) had wrought in Eretz Israel, to say nothing of the decimation inflicted on European Jewry despite its loyalty and patriotism by one of the great nations of Europe (a nation that's endangering Europe's security today).

Again, an Australian rabbi exemplifies that volte-face, Joseph Danglow (known as Anglo-Danglow for his implacable hostility to political Zionism).  Happily, he had a spectacular change of heart following the establishment of Israel, as did the majority of his congregants.

btw,  I was amused to find this "Jews for Jeremy" Facebook group.


Gee, they must be hard up for members if they have to reach out to the "Jew-ish" brigade.  Those, I assume, are the people who find that a distant or reputed Jewish ancestor can be so useful an asset in bashing Israel, but have never had a meaningful connection with Judaism or Yiddishkeit in their lives.

The sort of people who might well transcribe Morris Joseph into Joseph Morris after a quick google :(

Oh brother!: