The Aussie Anti-Israel Arena Acquires A Star Performer

Compare and contrast these two letters, which appeared in the same British newspaper (one not noted for its love for Israel) on the same day:

'The real problem with the Gerald Scarfe cartoon [which, of course, appeared in another British newspaper, the Sunday Times, on 27 January, sparking outrage] is that it perpetuates the "big lie" about the Jewish state.

Not the blood, not the hook-nose: that's what all his cartoons look like. It promotes the idea that Zionism/Israel/Netanyahu/Jews (take your pick) are singularly at fault for the plight of the Palestinians.

Israel is not blameless, but what about Palestinian division and rejectionism? The ethnic cleansing of Jews from the Arab world? The rabid anti-Semitism throughout the Middle East? Last Monday, the day after the cartoon was published, 10 Palestinians were killed just as Scarfe had prophesied... but they were murdered in Syria, a conflict that has claimed more lives in two years than the entire Arab-Israeli conflict.

That is why the cartoon could be described as anti-Semitic even though its author is not.'

A reasoned and entirely reasonable view of the matter, written by a Jewish individual in Hertfordshire.

His letter followed this one, authored by 28 Jewish and apparently Jewish individuals, plus (or are they all members of?) the Brighton-based Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods, which reads:

'The suggestion by Zionist supporters that Gerald Scarfe's cartoon in The Sunday Times was anti-Semitic is a classic example of the abuse of the term. It drains the term of all meaning and, like the boy who cried wolf, desensitises people to anti-Semitism when it does rear its head.

Jennifer Lipman's grudging defence ... of Gerald Scarfe described the cartoon's portrayal of Palestinian blood cementing the Separation Wall as "profoundly offensive" because the intention of the Wall was to prevent suicide bombing. We disagree. Palestinian blood is being shed and the security pretext for the wall was a means of further confiscating Palestinian land. That was why the wall didn't follow the 1967 Green Line.

On 23 January, without warning or excuse, Israeli soldiers killed student Lobna Hannash, 21, outside al-Arroub Agricultural College. On 17 January a boy of 16, Saleh al-Amareen, was shot in the head at a refugee camp in Bethlehem. These are but two examples of why the cartoon was extremely pertinent.

Those who constantly raise the bogus cry of "anti-Semitism" whenever Israel is criticised are trading on the memory of the past oppression of Jews in order to justify the current oppression of the Palestinians.

As Jewish opponents of Zionism and racism we wish to declare that we do not believe that there was a trace of anti-Semitism in Gerald Scarfe's cartoon. Holocaust Memorial Day was indeed a fitting time to signal the evils of racism. As the Prophet Micah said: "They build up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity." (Micah, 3:10).'  [My emphasis]

Several of the signatories to that putrid statement are seemingly ubiquitous anti-Israel activists.  Their names appear on most if not all "as-a-Jew" denunciations of the imperilled little Jewish State.  At least two participated in the despicable disruption of the IPO concert in the Albert Hall in 2011, and, if my memory serves me correctly, have been involved in similar stunts.  The signatories include three out of the four academics who recently implored Cliff Richard to cancel his forthcoming visit to Israel.  Another signatory has addressed Al Quds Day crowds in London as a featured speaker.  Yet another posts anti-Israel messages on a certain social networking site with almost manic frequency and zeal, messages which are sometimes so shockingly intemperate (and attract shockingly intemperate messages of support in return) that the mind boggles at the discovery that the person in question is a Jew.

There's a stand-up comedian on the list, the halachically Jewish son of Communist parents.  His name appears immediately below that of the first signatory, the well-known actress Miriam Margolyes.

Ms Margolyes, the subject of this memorable post by blogger Ray Cook, needs little introduction to readers in either her native Britain or in Australia, where she has maintained a home for some years.  An inveterate critic of Israel, she took part Down Under  in Caryl Churchill's controversial Seven Jewish Children: A Play for Gaza, a play seen by many as antisemitic.  That performance, which also starred the well-known Aussie actor and comedian Max Gillies (husband of a prominent critical-of-Israel Jewish publishing executive whose academic press has published anti-Israel works by Antony Loewenstein and Jacqueline Rose) was held to raise money for Australians for Palestine.

Last month, Ms Margolyes (pictured, receiving her naturalisation certificate from prime minister Julia Gillard), became an Australian citizen, and told the Sydney Morning Herald:

'Her desire to become a citizen crystallised when she wanted the right to vote against the former prime minister John Howard [whom I, Daphne, once had the privilege of meeting and who is, incidentally, outstandingly pro-Israel], whom she described as a ''pillock''.

On her agenda as a new citizen are joining the Australian Labor Party, getting to know more indigenous Australians and improving her knowledge of the ''other Australia'' beyond the middle class.

Quoting John F. Kennedy's famous line, ''Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country'', Margolyes said she wanted to help ''Australia become a nation of thinkers''....

She is also worried about the surge of nationalism and ugliness towards foreigners. While she plans to be a loyal citizen, she does not plan to follow blindly.

''This sheila is not going to shut up,'' she said ....'

Hagel & The Mullahs (video) & Here It Comes, Here It Comes Again (video)

The Emergency Committee for Israel continues its seemingly well-justified campaign against Defense Secretary nominee Senator Chuck Hagel.  This advertisement, entitled "Endorsed," is due to air on television screens in Washington, DC and New York from tomorrow.  It contrasts Hagel's views on the Iranian regime, which he described last week as "elected" and "legitimate," with Hillary Clinton's description of the regime as a "military dictatorship".

And now, as a video bonus, a rude reminder that this annual excrescence will soon be upon us:

Meanwhile, the disturbing impact on Jewish students caused by the shameful support by a majority of the professors in the Political Science Department at Brooklyn College for the department's co-sponsorship of a BDS event on campus is evident in this lament:

"... I don’t think this is just a pro-Palestinian event, this is an anti-Israel event. The speakers have a history of speaking about the destruction of Israel. BDS is not just a pro-Palestinian group, it’s anti-Israel. So for them to sponsor this event is troubling to me because it seems as though they are taking a side. Which is something that should not be happening at a college.

 As a Jew, as someone who supports Israel, it makes me feel very uncomfortable sitting in front of these teachers."

Read more here

David Singer On Why The West Should Call For Palestinian Elections

"Palestine – Bring On The Elections" is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

'Democracy continues to be seen nowhere in "the State of Palestine" – whilst Israel's choice for next prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu – is engaged in the usual machinations involved in putting a coalition together to govern Israel for the next four years.

Such political comings and goings are being eagerly followed by a free press commenting with gay abandon on every twist and turn in the daily developments – as their avid readership devours the opinions of dozens of different commentators in newspapers and on radio, television and the internet with very different political viewpoints.

The 2003 Bush Roadmap For Peace – supposedly still the basis on which the long-stalled negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (defunct since 3 January 2013) were being conducted –  was uncompromising in its final destination:

"A two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will only be achieved through an end to violence and terrorism, when the Palestinian people have a leadership acting decisively against terror and willing and able to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty, and through Israel's readiness to do what is necessary for a democratic Palestinian state to be established, and a clear, unambiguous acceptance by both parties of the goal of a negotiated settlement as described below."

Any attempt by the "Palestinian people" to have any say in electing a leadership that will act decisively against terror and ending violence and terrorism has been silenced since 25 January 2006 – when their votes elected Hamas as winner of the elections with 74 seats to Fatah's 45 – providing Hamas with the majority of the 132 available seats and the ability to form a majority government of its own.

The people chose the wrong horse if they expected violence and terrorism would end – but then they have to live with their choice until they get another chance to change their minds.

That is surely the essence of democracy – that there is an "out" –  the ability of the people to regularly express their confidence or otherwise in the people they have elected.

However the people have not been given this opportunity since 2006.

The elected prime minister, Ismail Haniya, was unceremoniously dumped by Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, on 15 June 2007 on the basis of "national emergency".

This has resulted in bitter internecine strife between Hamas and Fatah ever since – that has seen the human rights of hundreds of thousands of the electorate abused in an orgy of violence, killing and detention without trial.

Frequent attempts to effect a reconciliation have failed – and will continue to fail – as both pursue very different political goals and objectives.

The people need to be the circuit breakers in this long running dispute – but indications are they will not be allowed to have their say.

Meantime, President Mahmoud Abbas continues to hold the reins of power as an unelected and unconstitutional president – whose term expired on 9 January 2009.

Due to the conflict he had created by dismissing Haniya in 2007, Abbas unilaterally extended his term for another year and still continues in office in 2013 even after that second deadline expired.

As a result Hamas announced that it would not recognise the extension or view Abbas as rightful president.

Yet Abbas is still given the full presidential treatment internationally wherever he travels.

Following Abbas's election as president on 9 January 2005, David Carroll, acting director of the Democracy Program and an active member of the Carter Center – NDI observer delegation to that election – discussed the election process, its outcome and the wider implications for Middle East Peace.

He was asked the following question and gave the following respons:

Q: What does this election mean to democracy in the region

A: Many people see the Jan. 9 presidential election as an opportunity for a new leader to recommit to the peace process and make real progress in negotiations with Israel. In addition, however, the election sets an important example for the Arab world; it shows Arab peoples and leaders that citizens' yearnings for democracy can and should be met, and that democratic renewal strengthens political legitimacy. Further, like the recent elections in Indonesia, the Palestinian election is a reminder that Islam and democracy are not incompatible.

Carroll may indeed be proved right if events of the past few years in Yemen, Libya, Egypt and Syria are indicators.

The real test of democracy, however, is not the first election – it is the second election.

Sadly, any such moves to allow citizen yearnings for democracy continue to be denied in the one Islamic area where it is essential they be allowed – the West Bank and Gaza.

Whilst this sorry state of affairs continues the following words of the Bush Road Map remain meaningless:

A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbours.

Those non-democratic states supporting a fictitious "State of Palestine" – headed by an unconstitutional president, an unelected government with an unelected prime minister and a far from free press – will certainly be unable to grasp the importance of elections to allow the people to have their say after seven years of enforced silence.

The world's democracies should know better.

"Bring on the elections" should be their unified and rallying demand.

Perhaps President Obama should whisper such words in Abbas's ear when he meets with him next month.

Whilst the democracies remain silent, Jews and Arabs will continue to bear the scars of war and conflict.'

Sizer's Supporters Size Up Antisemitism

Stephen Sizer – the one without the keffiyeh

"That Stepehn [sic; i.e. Stephen Sizer, Anglican vicar of Virginia Water] is not an anti-semite and has not knowingly endorsed anti-semitism, I have no doubt. But what worries me is the growing bravura with which all critics of Israel or supporters of the Palestinians are charged with the – rightfully – damning slur of anti-semitism.

Just as the government of Israel has lurched to the far right, so “official” Jewish institutions in the UK have abandoned their once notable liberalism. The Board of Deputies used to deserve high respect and be a pillar of reason. It is astonishing to me that it has launched this absolutely unfounded attack on an Anglican priest. The Jewish Chronicle has lurched so far to the right as to be off the scale. There seems to be such a disconnect now between these institutions and the views of the Jewish people I know that I hope this state of affairs cannot last."

So maintains a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan,  the leftwing Craig Murray, on his blog. Murray was reminding readers that a defence fund has been opened for Sizer , and that donations may be sent to Meesrs J. Moodey and S. Leah.

The former is presumably Mr Jeremy Moodey, head of this organisation (formerly Bible Lands) and apparently also a former FCO diplomat.  The latter is presumably the Methodist minister and York PSC stalwart Dr Stephen Leah, author of alternative Israel-demonising lines (you can find them here) to a traditional carol, O Little Town of Bethlehem.

As I mentioned here, the Board of Deputies, in a formal complaint to his bishop, has accused Stephen Sizer of

"crossing the line into antisemitism, even if this is neither his motivation nor intention.  This is not all, as we also complain of Revd Sizer posting links from his website to articles on racist and antisemitic websites where scurrilous views against Jews and others are published."

Obviously, this commenter's never heard of Wilhelm Marr

On Craig Murray's blog are a number of comments, nearly all in support of Sizer, and some betraying decidedly dodgy views.

For example:

"the sexist homophobes are calling him [Sizer] racist."  [I don't think this comment refers to Islamic extremists!]

 ".... You talked about Matthew Gould, British ambassador to Israel, being Jewish.  Never mind that Gould grins as he openly helps out a foreign power’s propaganda effort in Britain. (Hasbara, Leeds, if anyone wants to check.) Never mind that we couldn’t imagine an ambassador to Moscow or Tehran doing the same. The KGB or the mullahs would have nowhere enough clout in the FCO, elsewhere in Whitehall, or SIS, to put them in such a strong position.

For the Zionists, there’s a race (sorry, ‘ethno-religious’) war on, and you’re on the other side.

By the way, this stuff about the Board of Deputies being once upon a time ‘liberal’, and about ‘Israel’ being something other than ‘far right’. You’re joking, right? The front that’s chosen is whatever works for the perceived ethnic interest. Although even that’s a vague way of putting it. As I keep on saying, Zionism is not just an ideology – it’s an organisation.

If you think Israel was once good and has turned bad, you suffer from historical amnesia. Need I say ‘Deir Yassin’? The ‘good turned bad’ idea is propaganda. It’s putting up defences on the Green Line and arguing over what happens on the more recently conquered side of it. Do you get this? Push, push, push. Obscure the debate. Lie. Nazi! There’s only one language the Zionists will understand, and it isn’t diplomacy or guilt-tripping."

"Is this board Of deputies as one unanimously fervent Arab-haters and apologists for genocide or are there moderates who simply wish to kill everyone but their lot and let $deity sort who was really good or bad? ...."

"The dubious accusation of being an anti-semite is now so toxic that any successful defence is unlikely .... I wonder if anyone has lost their job for being an anti-gentile."

" ....Zionist and pro-Israeli Jews have by now completely devalued the accusation of anti-semitism by its massive and unwarranted application to anyone who criticizes the actions of that appaling “state” stolen from the Palestinians. It has become the first refuge of the scoundrel.

But what is really shocking to me is the knowing application of the financial mis use of the law (ie, knowing that their enemies will be bankrupted in the effort to clear their name, while they [the Board of Deputies]are bankrolled by zionist money)...."

"It is no secret that Ahmadinajad is himself descended from an Iranian Jewish family and that the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel is in Iran. Not those East European converts mind but the real deal with Hebrew genes – which may explain their reluctance to embrace the extreme form of racism and hatred of humanity that is the modern state of Israel – and despite the Israeli government offering them piles of money and land (not their own of course)."

A sober voice opined:

"As for Sizer, I have no idea whether he’s anti-Semitic (and, by the way, the word is plain to anyone but the dumbest or playing-dumbest pedants), but I had a look at that I Am The Witness website and it is about as obviously an anti-Semitic and conspiratorial website as there is. If you had difficulty locating the Protocols on that site then the big adverts for “Syanagogues [sic] of Satan”, the links to articles on “Jewish Bolshevism”, the accusations that Jews ran the Atlantic slave trade, the accusations that Jews funded the Nazis, the apparent praise for Father Charles Coughlin (if you’ve read Philip Roth’s Plot Against America you will know who he was) sort of give the game away. Same with Veterans Today which is one of the most obsessively anti-Israel Troofer sites.

Of course, it is possible that he’s not remotely anti-Semitic and many of his best friends are Jews, and I also hope that people don’t lose their jobs for their wacky beliefs. That said, I think it was clueless of him to not see something like that coming; if he’s going to link to the rather bizarre conspiracy theory sites, it must, at the least, lose him credibility."

Still on the theme of antisemitism, below is brief footage of Tom Wilson from the inter-faith organisation StandforPeace participating in the "BBC Big Questions" discussion programme on Sunday morning from Leicester, when debate turned from the issue of preferential recruitment of black police officers to whether criticism of Israel is antisemitic.

Regarding that segment, "Is criticising Israel anti-semitic?" (I guess no one has told the usually oh-so-politically-correct BBC that the hyphen is not the done thing these days), Hadar Sela of BBCWatch has a penetrating piece here.

Snippets Of Stone: "Occupied Territory" & misuse of the Fourth Geneva Convention

Born in Leeds, Yorkshire, to immigrant parents from Lithuania, Julius Stone (1907-85), proved a brilliant scholar, graduating from Oxford with first-class honours in jurisprudence, and later becoming a Rockefeller Foundation fellow at Harvard.  Subsequently, he became an academic in New Zealand, where he was president of the League of Nations Union, and afterwards (1942-72), following a controversy in which antisemitism played its dismal part, Challis Professor of Jurisprudence and International Law at the University of Sydney.

A proud Jew and a staunch supporter of Israel, Stone vigorously combated, during the 1940s, the anti-Zionist stance of Australia's first native-born Governor-General, another proud Jew and brilliant scholar, Sir Isaac Isaacs (1855-1948), who, believing that advocacy of a Jewish State was disloyal to Britain, attacked "political Zionism" in the columns of the Sydney-based Hebrew Standard.  Stone's main counter-blast against Sir Isaac, a typical "Briton [Australians in those days were regarded as overseas Britons, and most referred to Britain as "Home"] of the Mosaic persuasion," was contained in his 1944 pamphlet "Stand Up and Be Counted!" An Open Letter to the Right Honourable Sir Isaac Isaacs ... on the Occasional of the Twenty-Sixth Anniversary of the Jewish National Home , which brought upon him opprobrium from Jews of Isaacs's ilk – whose influence in a demographically changing Australian Jewish community was, though, on the wane – and conferred on him hero-status in the eyes of others.  His pro-Zionist arguments influenced Aussie politician  Dr H. V. Evatt (1894-1965), who as I described here played a pivotal role in ensuring support at the United Nations for the creation of Israel.

An eminent figure in his field, Stone penned numerous works including several specifically pertaining to Jewry and to Israel, such as The Eichmann Trial and the Rule of Law (1961), Soviet Jewry (1965), Self-Determination and the Palestinian Arabs (1970), and Israel and Palestine: An Assault on the Law of Nations (1981).
   

A champion of Israel to the end, Stone denied that the "settlements" violate international law:

"Irony would...be pushed to the absurdity of claiming that Article 49(6), designed to prevent repetition of Nazi-type genocidal policies of rendering Nazi metropolitan territories judenrein, has now come to mean that...the West Bank...must be made judenrein and must be so maintained, if necessary by the use of force by the government of Israel against its own inhabitants. Common sense as well as correct historical and functional context excludes so tyrannical a reading of Article 49(6) [of the Fourth Geneva Convention"

As Eli E. Hertz wrote yesterday, in a piece entitled "Inappropriate Use of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

"The language of Article 49 was crafted in the wake of World War II and the Nazi occupation – an occupation that led to a war of aggression in which Nazi Germany attacked its neighbors with impunity, committing a host of atrocities against civilian populations, including deportation and displacement of local populations in occupied Europe. Millions were sent to forced labor camps and those of particular ethnic origin, most notably the Jews, were sent to their deaths in the gas chambers. The drafters of Article 49 were concerned with preventing future genocide against humanity.

Critics and enemies of Israel, including members of the UN and organs such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have come to use the Geneva Convention as a weapon against Israel, even when statements by authoritative analysts, scholars and drafters of the document contradict everything said by those who distort history for politically motivated reasons.

It is common knowledge that from its birth, Israel follows customarily international humanitarian law without being told or forced to do so by outside authorities....

The term “occupied territory,” which appears in the Fourth Geneva Convention, originated as a result of the Nazi occupation of Europe. Though it has become common parlance to describe the West Bank and Gaza as “occupied territories,” there is no legal basis for using this term in connection to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on the Law of Nations, categorically rejected the use of the term “occupied territory” to describe the territories controlled by Israel on the following counts:

(1) Article 49 relates to the invasion of sovereign states and is inapplicable because the West Bank did not and does not belong to any other state.

(2) The drafting history of Article 49 [Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War] – that is, preventing “genocidal objectives” must be taken into account. Those conditions do not exist in Israel’s case.

(3) Settlement of Jews in the West Bank is voluntary and does not displace local inhabitants. Moreover, Stone asserted: that “no serious dilution (much less extinction) of native populations” [exits]; rather “a dramatic improvement in the economic situation of the [local Palestinian] inhabitants since 1967 [has occurred].”....

Arab opposition to Jewish settlements is based on the last paragraph of Article 49. The “Occupying Power” may not “Deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

One can hardly believe this baseless ICJ assertion that Israel, the only free and democratic country in the Middle East, used “deportation” and “forced transfer” of its own population into “occupied territories.” ....

Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention applies only to conflicts that “arise between two or more high Contracting Parties,” which is not the case at hand, as Israel is the only High Contracting Party (or state) in this conflict, and Jordan never was. Thus, the Fourth Geneva Convention is inapplicable!

Professor Julius Stone, one of the twentieth century leading authorities on the Law of Nations touches on the applicability of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, writing on the subject in 1980:

"That because of the ex iniuria principle [unjust acts cannot create law], Jordan never had nor now has any legal title in the West Bank, nor does any other state even claim such title. Article 49 seems thus simply not applicable. Even if it were, it may be added that the facts of recent voluntary settlements seem not to be caught by the intent of Article 49 which is rather directed at the forced transfer of the belligerent's inhabitants to the occupied territory, or the displacement of the local inhabitants, for other than security reasons"....'

Read all of Eli Hertz's synopsis, which cites authorities who concur with Stone, here

Hertz's piece should be required reading for the BBC, with its infuriatingly unexplained mantra that frequently tells its readers of website reports:

"The settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this".

Magical Danny, Magical Jerusalem (video)

What a spellbinding communicator Israel's deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon is!  Here he is presenting an enchanting new video, "The Magic of Jerusalem."  It's had thousands of hits already, since its release on 30 January, and deserves tens of thousands more.

Ah, if only a wave of a wand and an "Abracadabra" could clone Danny Ayalon.  Israel's cause needs and deserves more communicators of his calibre and easy, pleasant persona.

Would You Entrust America's Defence To This Man? (video)

Well might all who seek Israel's welfare express dismay at the prospect of Senator Chuck Hagel as US Secretary for Defense: Isi Leibler's recent piece is one of a number of articles by various pundits articulating deeply held and highly justified misgivings.

Asks Noah Pollak, executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI):

"Is it too much to ask that the nominee for Secretary of Defense understands the policy of the Obama administration on the single most important national security challenge facing the United States?"

Indeed.

Here's a video released today by the ECI.  It highlights Hagel's confused response, at his confirmation hearing last Thursday, to questions about the Obama administration's policy towards Iran.  Having viewed it on YouTube, one well-known blogger, the irrepressible Yisrael Medad, commented "Dumb and Dumbest"; an unkind assessment of the nominee for the Defense Secretaryship's performance, perhaps, but not inappropriate.

For Hagel initially asserted he supported Obama's policy of "containment," meaning containing Iran after it acquires nuclear weapons.  Then he made a bumbling attempt to correct himself, saying the administration "takes no position" on containment.  Finally, he had to be told by Senator Carl Levin that "we do not favour containment."  Oy!