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) With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law, a flourishing market economy producing technological innovation to the benefit of the wider world, and a population as educated and cultured as anywhere in Europe or North America, Israel is a normal Western country with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations.... For the global jihad, Israel may be the first objective. But it will not be the last.(Friends of Israel Initiative)
At a time when Israel needs firm and resolute advocates more than ever before, the UK's Union of Jewish Students (UJS) has, it seems, been taken over by Yachad/J Street types.
It appears to many in the Anglo-Jewish community that while the UJS exists for the commendable purposes of enabling Jewish students to eat kosher, daven, and have fun, its heart is not really in getting involved in Israel advocacy in a committed, strenuous way.
Critics point to what they see as a lamentable track record of the UJS going lily-livered and caving in to pressure ("Islamist-cowed" is how it has been described by one victim http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglasmurray/100034452/how-to-lose-friends-and-alienate-people-a-lesson-from-islamist-cowed-jewish-students/), citing as cases in point the UJS's withdrawal of its invitations to well-known public intellectual Douglas Murray, a strong friend of Israel and critic of Islamofascism, to speak at Gateshead and to Benny Morris to speak at Cambridge, and its attempt to prevent prominent pro-Israel activist Jonathan Hoffman from demonstrating in support of Israeli deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon in a public street outside LSE.
Now comes news that will strike many people as utterly depressing.
'Jewish students arriving at universities in the next fortnight will be asked to pledge their support to "two states for two peoples", hand out Israeli and Palestinian flags, and support "freedom, justice and equality" for all.'
That's how the Jewish Chronicle describes a "radical, progressive" campaign, encouraging students to speak up for the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians, to be launched by the Union of Jewish Students (UJS), a campaign that will carefully cherry-pick which issues to fight, not react in "knee-jerk" fashion to criticism of Israel, and which reportedly has the tacit backing of communal organisations. The report continues:
'There is a belief within UJS that standard advocacy efforts "do not cut it any more" because "students are not stupid". Students will be encouraged to back the "liberation" of Israelis from Palestinian terror, and Palestinians through the formation of a new state.
Campaigns director Dan Sheldon said UJS had decided on the new direction because "hasbara is not working". He said:
"We have done our research. Old campaigns regarding Israel have not worked, so we are trying a bold approach.
Not everyone will agree with our bold campaigns this year, but we're hoping to start a conversation, to get our community properly engaging with and discussing Israel. Already, we've sat with everyone from Yachad to StandWithUs to start that dialogue."'
The report notes that
"Efforts to overturn the National Union of Students' anti-Israel policies adopted earlier this year will continue, as will opposition to campus extremism and invitations to hate speakers."
Some might well consider this ostensibly well-meaning new approach defeatist or naive. Indeed, the contention that hasbara is ineffective because "students are not stupid" would appear to blame the victim, conceding that Israel deserves much of the hostility it incurs. Since demonisation and delegitimisation of Israel needs no excuse these days, especially on British campuses, it seems a singularly ill-advised choice of words.
Let's hope the new policy - which the UJS admits may alienate some of its members and which has reportedly infuriated the Israeli Embassy in London - does not, unwittingly, play into the enemy's hands.
Jonathan Hoffman, for one, is certainly less than impressed. He says:
"Hamas is committed to the genocide of all Jews and the PA refuses to recognise the State of Israel. The vast majority of Israeli Jews and indeed of UK Jews will find the image of UJS pressing Palestinian flags on Jewish students utterly repulsive. Fortunately there are now alternatives on campus to UJS - namely Stand With Us and British Israel Coalition. I would urge Jewish students and indeed their parents to vote with their feet."
These aren't exactly of cinematic quality, but they show the events in Melbourne on 9 September, with the repulsive blood-libelling BDS rabble defaming Israel and the chocolatier in their usual hysterical, antisemitic and deafening manner (but see the Israeli lady sock it to 'em, in the first and second videos!):
I don't normally post items that have no relevance to Jews and/or Israel, but since the EDL and its apparent Jewish component has been mentioned on this blog recently I've decided to post this. It shows how angry, frustrated and disgusted the people often dubbed "fascists" or "neo-fascists" are with the perceived failure of the British government and its agencies to tackle Islamic extremism - another type of fascism - in England's green and once pleasant land. (For the background see http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2011/09/britons-never-never-never-shall-be.html)
In a debate in the House of Lords on major changes to the welfare system, the first Asian woman to become (in 1990) a life peer, Tory-turned-crossbencher Baroness Flather (pictured), who was born in Lahore before the creation of Pakistan, has drawn an analogy between the Jewish and Indian communities in the United Kingdom.
Like the Jews, she told the Lords, Indians value education and limit the size of their families, reflecting British mores.
By contrast, she pointed out, immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh continue, as is customary in the subcontinent, where traditionally parents have had to depend on their sons to support them in their old age, to have large numbers of children, far more than the British average:
"The minority communities in this country, particularly the Pakistanis and the Bangladeshis have a very large number of children and the attraction is the large number of benefits that follow the child.
Nobody likes to accept that, nobody likes to talk about it because it is supposed to be very politically incorrect.
Indians have fallen into the pattern here. They do not have large families because they are like the Jews of old. They want their children to be educated.
This is the other problem - there is no emphasis on education in the Pakistani and Bangladeshi families.
I really feel that for the first two children there should be a full raft of benefits, for the third child three-quarters and for the fourth child a half."
The baroness, who added that immigrant families must stop having lots of children "as a means of improving the amount of money they receive or getting a bigger house," has certainly highlighted a factor in the notable underachievement at school of British children of Pakistani and Bangladeshi background, as well as (though she did not mention this) a demographic reality that worries large numbers of people in the UK - not only owing to fears of an erosion of British culture and creeping islamification, but of the deleterious impact on the environment of a small and overcrowded island that population explosion is having. (Where, now, is that 1960s and 1970s slogan that was used to browbeat British couples into having a maximum of two children each - "Zero Population Growth"?)
But Baroness Flather's reasoned and reasonable remarks were met that "political correctness" that she cited. Thus, in his summing up in the debate, welfare reform minister Lord Freud pointedly ignored her contributions, and Lord McKenzie, the Opposition work and pensions spokesman, complained: "I had not expected the treatise on the family sizes of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities and hope I don't again."
Here's Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, explaining how peace has been thwarted by Palestinian Arab rejectionism, and what the attainment of peace will entail. (Hat tip: Ian G)
And while we're on that theme -
"At an emotional level, the declaration of a state is a positive and uplifting feeling for anyone, especially when the state is for a people who’ve been refugees and occupied for over 60 years. Those of us with a liberal outlook, see it as a fitting event in context of the Arab Spring/Summer, and the movement of the Arab states away from the dictatorships that have plagued them (for centuries)."
Thus observes the author of a timely short article entitled 'Building a "Palestinian State" on "Get Out of Jail Free Cards"'.
He continues:
"Those same liberal-minded people see Mahmoud Abbas, Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, as a moderate, whose leadership has moved the Palestinian Authority into peace negotiations, and non-violent paths to creating a Palestinian state.
Media pundits love to tell us that a Palestinian state, a just solution for the Palestinian people, will stabilize the middle east, and bring peace to the whole region.
But at a realistic level, these rosy tinted glass views are at odds with the Palestinian players, and the Palestinian theatre.
Actual events on the Palestinian stage don’t support the western, liberal optimism.
The truth is, that the Palestinian Authority is exempt from the critical analysis that the media applies to Israel. Much of what the PA does, the policy they set, what they tell their people, and tell other Arab governments, isn’t reported in our news."
Those "Get Out Of Jail Free Cards" are, he reminds us, the Palestinian Authority's ongoing rejection of rapprochement with Israel, its incitement of hatred towards Israel, and its glorification of terrorism - yet the mainstream media ignores these facts (and thereby, of course, helps to weigh public opinion against Israel).
"Can anybody seriously examine these three categories of political behaviour, and conclude the ludicrous notion that a Palestinian state will bring peace and stability to the middle east?" asks the article.
"Is this the Palestinian state that you’d want created next door to you?
And why aren’t these Palestinian facts reported by the media?"
As reported by J-Wire, Australian Jewry's umbrella organisation, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, has issued a statement regarding the odious BDS campaign and reactions to it. I think the statement is worth reproducing in full. I've added a video, complete with Jewish socialist - or "useful idiot," as some would say.
'There has been widespread criticism of the recent BDS protests against Max Brenner outlets in Sydney and Melbourne. The criticism has come not only from Labor and Coalition members of parliament, Federal and State, but also from some of their Greens colleagues. The ECAJ thanks all of them for their efforts in opposing and speaking out against the Australian arm of the global BDS campaign against Israel.
The Max Brenner chain is a legitimate, privately owned business that operates in accordance with Australian law. It provides employment to approximately 750 Australian workers and pays taxes that contribute to the public revenue. Its alleged "crime" is to be connected in some way to a company that supplies chocolate and other food products to the Israeli army.
Recently, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) was asked by the Victorian government, with the near unanimous support of the Australian Senate (excluding the Greens), whether the BDS campaign against Max Brenner outlets constitutes a secondary boycott in contravention of section 45D of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The ACCC concluded that thus far there has been no contravention because the BDS campaign is unlikely to have had the effect of causing substantial loss or damage to the business of Max Brenner, as would be required to constitute a breach of section 45D.
Whilst in some respects that conclusion is disappointing, it highlights how ineffectual and unsuccessful the BDS campaign has been in persuading the Australian public not to patronise Max Brenner shops. Indeed, the BDS campaign has, if anything, succeeded in alienating broader public opinion in Australia and engendering sympathy and support for the target businesses.
The ECAJ is, however, concerned about some of the rhetoric that has been deployed by both sides of the public debate concerning BDS. On occasions, some of those supporting BDS have lapsed into both overt and implicit antisemitism, and some of those opposing BDS have inappropriately likened Greens leaders to "Nazis". Neither infracyion excuses the other. We note that no member of parliament, Federal or State, on wither side of the debate, have engaged in these extreme forms of rhetoric.
All expressions of antisemitism are repugnant not only to the Jewish community but also to the vast majority of Australians. An ancient and pernicious form of antisemitism is known as the “blood libel”, a vicious and revolting smear to the effect that Jews as a group habitually shed and consume human blood. (In point of fact, this is the exact opposite of Jewish teaching, which holds human life to be sacrosanct, a belief that has been inherited by both Christianity and Islam). In the BDS campaign against Max Brenner, the ancient blood libel is revived in the protesters’ chants:
There’s blood in your hot chocolate. You support genocide. Max, Max murderer.
It is of course ludicrous to describe someone who merely sells chocolate products as a "murderer". Yet in our view, it is no accident that the BDS protesters choose to make their points in these specific ways, which tap into an historical reservoir of anti-Jewish tropes. They could make their points in other ways. True moral leadership requires our political representatives to repudiate this sort of deeply racist rhetoric, regardless of where they stand on the BDS issue. One aspect of the BDS campaign that is particularly troubling is that the boycotts are aimed at businesses with Jewish owners. Thus, Max Brenner is targeted, but Intel or Microsoft or any other similar company, which operates significantly in Israel and supplies the Israeli Defence Force, is not targeted. It is entirely legitimate to draw attention to this disparity and to question the motives of BDS leaders.
There is further antisemitism in the implied denial of the Jewish people’s right of national self-determination. [My emphasis]
Another frequent anti-Israel chant is:
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.
This implies that all of the land situated between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea is "Palestine". Of course, part of that land consists of Israel. What is thereby advocated is the end of Israel as a sovereign State and its replacement by "Palestine". [My emphasis]
Distinguishing between political comment and inappropriate rhetoric
The ECAJ does not suggest that all criticisms of Israel are antisemitic. Israel is a vibrant pluralist democracy and its citizens (Jews, Bedouin, Palestinians and Druze) are often its most incisive critics. But it is also false to suggest that no criticisms of Israel are antisemitic. There is clearly an overlap, as the foregoing examples illustrate.
The existence of an overlap was also acknowledged in the Working Definition of Antisemitism developed by the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), which monitors racism and xenophobia in the 31 countries and candidate countries of the European Union, in collaboration with key NGOs and representatives of the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR).
The EUMC, now called the European Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), adopted the definition in 2005 and distributed it to all its national monitors. In September 2006, the definition was adopted by the United Kingdom All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism. It is also employed by units of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), representing about states. The definition has been translated into 33 languages including Arabic and Turkish. In February 2009, it was adopted in the London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism. The working definition includes the following:
Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour. • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
The way to combat these more contemporary and subtle forms of antisemitism is not, in our view, to fight fire with fire. Whilst hyperbole is to be expected in any free-flowing political discussion in Australia’s robust democracy, special care is needed to avoid comparing any Australian political leaders or members of parliament to "Nazis" or comparing any political party in Australia to the former Nazi regime in Germany. There is, thankfully, nothing in Australia’s history and experience that is even remotely comparable to the unique evil and horror of the Hitler period in Germany and Europe.
Yet the use of inappropriate analogies with Nazism has crept into political discourse in Australia with increasing frequency. This has the effect of trivialising Nazi totalitarianism, particularly in the thinking of younger people who have no personal point of entry into understanding the realities of life under the Nazi jackboot.
For this reason our organisation some years ago adopted an express policy against inappropriate Holocaust rhetoric (see http://www.ecaj.org.au/ under 'ECAJ Platform'). The ECAJ: recognised that the Holocaust, the Nazi program of genocide, was a unique historical event; noted that the Holocaust is generally recognised as the benchmark of the most extreme case of human evil; and deplored the inappropriate use of analogies to the Nazi Genocide in Australian public debate.
The ECAJ is concerned that some of the media discourse has resorted to rhetoric that has been less disciplined than it should be. In particular we seek to discourage the use of imprecise analogies with the Nazi regime. One must acknowledge that there are significant historical differences between rag-tag groups of BDS protesters outside Max Brenner outlets in Australia and a campaign backed by the Nazi state and enforced by state-sanctioned Nazi thugs who picketed shops owned by Jews in Germany in the 1930’s. Yet Nazis commenced their campaign as purportedly private action before there was government sanction for it.
In another context which has nothing to do with the BDS issue cartoons were recently published in a syndicated newspaper depicting Greens leader Bob Brown as a book-burning Nazi, complete with swastika arm-band, Gestapo cap and SA (Sturmabteilung) uniform. Prime Minister Julia Gillard was similarly portrayed. Even allowing for the usual latitude accorded to political cartoonists, nothing can justify comment of this nature. Political leaders are fair game for all kinds of criticism, but this exceeds the bounds of fairness and diminishes the uniquely evil character of the Nazi regime and the Holocaust.
Some BDS supporters have also been guilty of making inappropriate comparisons with the Nazi era. It is not uncommon to see placards at their demonstrations which depict the Israeli flag with a swastika at its centre in place of the Star of David or contain other images which, as referred to in the Working Definition of Antisemitism, draw comparisons between Israel and the Nazis. Clearly, BDS leaders and supporters are in no moral position to accuse others of lacking rhetorical virtue.
Rejecting inappropriate comparisons between the BDS campaign and Nazi Germany does not require us to accept the claim that the BDS protesters are merely opposed to Israeli government policies and actions with regard to the Palestinians, but are not in any way animated by anti-Jewish prejudice. The BDS protests do not have to rise to the level of seriousness of the Nazi era in order, on occasion, to qualify as antisemitic.
Further, the BDS campaign is calculated to orchestrate public hatred, an ugly and unworthy tactic regardless of the alleged target. The fact is that an unusually high percentage of Australian Jews are survivors of the Holocaust. Nobody should callously dismiss the reaction of Australian Jews to the sight of Jewish-owned shops once more being picketed by chanting, aggressive demonstrators many of whose faces are contorted in hate, as can be seen on YouTube and other recordings of BDS events. Even though the parallels to Nazi Germany are an historical over-statement, those who have suggested that that reaction is contrived should be ashamed of themselves. The reaction is entirely genuine and understandable. [My emphasis]
Nevertheless, the ECAJ is asking all of our political representatives who count themselves as supporters of Israel and opponents of BDS, and the media, to refrain from the inappropriate use of analogies to the Nazis, and to provide moral leadership to others to exercise restraint in their rhetoric. This is the right thing to do even if it is a vain hope that supporters of BDS will exercise a reciprocal responsibility to eliminate express or implicit antisemitism from their rhetoric.'
Remember the EDL march into Tower Hamlets just over a fortnight ago, when so-called "anti-fascists" from the (Israel-hating) hard left turned out in force?
Remember the disgraceful spectacle of Islamic extremists, belonging to a once-banned organisation (Islam4UK) which regrouped and morphed into the tolerated Muslims Against Crusades, mustering strong outside the American Embassy to shout their contempt for Western values and how they burnt with impunity the Stars and Stripes, watched by a protective contingent of docile British bobbies? The same bobbies who with alacrity hopped into action to prevent a wreath being laid at the Embassy while the Islamists' demo was taking place? http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2011/09/britons-never-never-never-shall-be.html
Well, the Board of Deputies of British Jews has issued the following statement:
"As we have done so consistently in the past, the Board of Deputies of British Jews condemns unreservedly the EDL, their ideology and their actions. It is clear for all to see that the EDL are solely intent on causing divisions and mistrust between different groups in British society. When they wave Israeli flags at a rally or demonstration, they do so only to goad the Muslim community and to stir communal tensions. This, and everything that the EDL stands for, is utterly abhorrent. Equally sickening were the scenes of [note the missing adjective! - D.A.] demonstrators attacking America and celebrating 9/11. All right thinking people should be repulsed by extremism from any quarter." http://www.bod.org.uk/live/content.php?Item_ID=201
To which the EDL's Jewish Division has issued the following riposte (note the way it takes off some of the Board's phraseology!):
"As we have done so consistently in the past, the EDL Jewish Division condemns unreservedly the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BDBJ), their lack of spine and their astonishing inaction in the face of the massive rise of antisemitism coming squarely from Radical Islam in the UK.
It is clear for all to see that the BDBJ is solely intent on brown nosing their way to personal knighthoods especially if it means stepping on the backs of Jews forced to endure daily taunts and worse from out of control Muslim youth.
When they attack the EDL they do this solely to cement their place, begging for scraps from the table of the British political establishment. This and everything the BDBJ stand for is utterly abhorrent.
Equally sickening is the gross moral impotence of a group of Jews, unable and unwilling to realise that Muslims on the streets of London calling for the imposition of a fascist theocracy and end of the rule of Law and democracy bears absolutely no comparison with proud patriots who's [sic] own inclusive brand of nationalism is a direct mirror to the spirit of inclusive Zionism that built Israel into the great hope it is for the Jewish people.
