Jews sans frontieres

For pics of yesterday's demo for Palestine go here

I think that's my fave.

National Demonstration for Palestine

Saturday 10th May 2008

FREE PALESTINE

END THE SIEGE ON GAZA – FOR THE RIGHT OF RETURN – END ISRAELI OCCUPATION

Assemble 1pm Temple Underground station/ Victoria Embankment, rally in Trafalgar Square.

Organised by: British Muslim Initiative, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Palestinian Forum in Britain.

Supported by: UNISON, Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), Unite the Union (Amicus and T&GWU), Communication Workers Union, GMB, TSSA, National Union of Miners, FBU, RMT, Association of Palestinian Community UK, Amos Trust, Friends of Al Aqsa UK, War on Want, Jewish Socialist Group, Pax Christi, Stop the War Coalition, Britain Palestine Twinning Network , ICAHDUK, Midlands Palestinian Community Association.

If you're in the UK and you're heartily sick of the constant stream of zionist propaganda from our newspapers, television and radio, well you can always try the internet or you can take to the streets to demonstrate against 41 or 60 years of zionist occupation of Palestine, depending how credulous you are.

National Demonstration for Palestine

Saturday 10th May 2008

FREE PALESTINE

END THE SIEGE ON GAZA – FOR THE RIGHT OF RETURN – END ISRAELI OCCUPATION

Assemble 1pm Temple Underground station/ Victoria Embankment, rally in Trafalgar Square.

Organised by: British Muslim Initiative, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Palestinian Forum in Britain.

Supported by: UNISON, Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), Unite the Union (Amicus and T&GWU), Communication Workers Union, GMB, TSSA, National Union of Miners, FBU, RMT, Association of Palestinian Community UK, Amos Trust, Friends of Al Aqsa UK, War on Want, Jewish Socialist Group, Pax Christi, Stop the War Coalition, Britain Palestine Twinning Network , ICAHDUK, Midlands Palestinian Community Association.

Please make sure to put this date in your diary right now and start booking transport to London.

Contact your local PSC branch for coaches and to find out how you can help.

Contact us for leaflets and posters to publicise the event: info@palestinecampaign.org // 02077006192

Coaches Info

- Birmingham: West Midlands PSC coach to the rally.

Departs from Albert Street, off Dale End, Birmingham City Centre 9:30am; returns from Central London c. 1730. Price : £12; £8 concessions

To book : buy a ticket from our stall on Saturday afternoons (c. 2.15 to 4.15 p.m.) outside the M&S branch near Carr’s Lane; or e-mail pscwm@yahoo.co.uk ;or phone 07941 452034.

- Cambridge: coach is leaving 10.30 am from Parkside and will return about

5pm. The tickets are £10/5/3. They must be booked and paid for in advance.

Contact is Anna Gordon 07817196042

- Leicester: Transport leaves Secular Hall, Leicester (opposite Sainsburys) Humberstone GateAt 8.30am. £15 waged £5 unwaged

Tel Chris 2219459 or 07963 690326

- West Yorkshire: Bradford/Halifax/Leeds/Dewsbury:

coach leaves from Bradford University, Great Horton Road at 7.30am. Tickets £20 or £10 unwaged - 'phone 01422 320139 or 07971545327

- Bristol Bristol Palestine Solidarity Campaign will be running a coach up to this demo. Tickets £15 waged / £8 concessions.

Itinerary:- 8.00am Anchor Road, Bristol - 8.45am Avon Street Coach Park, Bath

Arrive back Bath/Bristol 8.30/9.00pm approx.

Tickets on sale at Booty, 82 Colston Street, Bristol or email Bristol.Nakba60@yahoo.co.uk

- Coventry: 9:30 from Coventry Leisure Centre, Fairfax Street. £12 waged £6 unwaged Contact: hanna@khamiskujore.plus.com

- Exeter: £24 waged /£10 concesssions tickets- Sarah on 07902207922/e-mail 43sarahb@googlemail.com or Amal on 07977 95 7553

Leaves 7.30am from Exeter Belgrave Road, and to stop en route at Tiverton Parkway. returning from London at approx 17:30.

- Brighton: 49 seater coach booked to leave Brighton - St Peter's Church, Lewes Road at 9 am. Return from London at 4 pm. Cost £5. For tickets contact Brenda 01273 502406/mob 07792 009758 or visit Saturday stall in town centre.

It may not be fit to print settlement mogul Lev Leviev's human rights violations in the NYT, or mention the international campaign against him, but they sure do like taking the "diamantaire extraordinaire's" ad money. This one to the left is, somehow fittingly, on their op-ed page. Also not fit to print in the newspaper of record is the following, from Defence for Children International, Palestine section. It's called "Letter of Concern to UNICEF":

Ms. Ann Veneman,
Executive Director
UNICEF

Ramallah, 9 April 2008

Dear Ms. Veneman,
We are writing today to voice our concern about a matter that has been brought to our attention regarding the Israeli businessman Lev Leviev and his support to UNICEF.

Leviev owns companies that are responsible for building housing units in several settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), in contravention of international humanitarian law.

[...]

In the interest of protecting and ensuring the rights of Palestinian children, we - Defence for Children International-Palestine Section and the Palestinian Network for Children’s Rights - request that UNICEF rejects all support – both direct and indirect – from Lev Leviev; and, as a matter of urgency, publicly renounces any connections with him due to his involvement in settlement construction.

UNICEF cannot promote children's rights and international law, renounce settlements and simultaneously accept funds from a settlement builder. UNICEF knows as well as DCI-Palestine and all other child rights actors in the oPt that settlement construction is not only illegal but also has a profound negative impact on the lives of many Palestinian children.

In order to build these illegal colonies, the State of Israel has confiscated acres and acres of cultivated and non-cultivated privately-owned land, depriving scores of families of their assets and livelihood, thus severely compromising their ability and options to provide for their children. In some cases this leads to a reversal of roles, whereby the children have to drop out of school in order to help provide for their families, by working to supplement income or by saving their parents the need to pay for school fees.

For example, in the West Bank village of Jayyous, the construction of Leviev's settlement nearby and the construction of the wall to annex more land for the settlement has denied scores of families access to their farmland, leading to the drop out of a staggering 103 out of a total of 195 students in grades 7-12, according to the school’s headmaster.

[...]

Military violence linked to the construction of the wall and settlements is another violation that children suffer. During popular protests against the illegal construction of the wall and the settlement of Mattityahu East on lands belonging to residents of the West Bank village of Bil’in, 13 children have been imprisoned and approximately 300 injured by the Israeli military over the space of three years, according to information provided by a community leader.

One of the companies building Mattiyahu East is a company owned by Leviev called Danya Cebus.[...]

Jeez, Anthony Julius probably couldn't defend this guy, but the NYT keeps printing his ads at about 40,000 bux a pop.

Mother's day is apparently the third largest shopping period of the season for gems. The NYT seems to opine, what better way to celebrate than buying your mother a pricey bauble from a man whose colonies deny the right to education to Palestinian kids? Well, Adalah-NY's not having that, apparently. They've enlisted mothers of the world to call to boycott Leviev on Mother's day. To whit:

(Mothers can click here to sign on)

M’azuza Abu Rahmeh, a mother from Bil’in, explains, “I hope that on this important day for mothers that no women in the world will have to live through this type of experience and that instead they will live with their families and homes, in security and peace.” Halima Husain, a mother from Jayyous, adds, “I hope that free people around the world will boycott Israel’s occupation and will not support businesses of wealthy Israelis like Leviev who is building the settlement of Zufim, and that they will stand with us to lift this shadow and darkness that hangs over the Palestinian people....”

Lev isn't running to his momma to solve his recent woes in Dubai, he's going directly to the US government. In today's New York Jewish Week, in an article on the emirate's nixing Leviev's Dubai expansion plans, titled "Protesting Leviev, From Here To Dubai," Walter Ruby tells us:

Yet Blake’s remarks indicate that Leviev may be planning to fight Dubai’s decision not to allow him to brand the stores with his own name, and will likely press the U.S. government to apply pressure on Dubai to reverse its decision. Leviev has previously asserted that attacks on his business activities by Adalah-NY and other groups are “politically motivated” or impelled by anti-Semitism.

Ethan Heitner, a spokesman for Adalah-NY, which is composed almost equally of Arabs and anti-Zionist Jews, claimed primary credit for Dubai’s reversal of its earlier apparent willingness to allow Leviev to open his stores there. “Working in conjunction with activists in Dubai and Palestine, Adalah-NY sent out a press release calling for Dubai to boycott Leviev on the basis of his violations of international humanitarian law. ... We’ve heard reports of UAE papers and officials receiving our press release from multiple sources and angry phone calls.”

Heitner said that even if Leviev ultimately succeeds in opening his new stores in Dubai under the “Levant” name, Adalah-NY will still have achieved a moral victory. “Before our boycott call ... Leviev was proudly planning to open an eponymous flagship boutique in the tallest building in the world — a grand symbolic achievement for a titan of global capitalism. Now, that’s not going to happen.”

Lev Leviev appears to believe otherwise.

Will the USG intervene on Leviev's behalf? More importantly, will Engage?

Well this is bad news if you don't like fascism. Here's the Financial Times on how Jews are learning to love the Italian fascists:

Rome's election last week of its first rightwing mayor since the time of Benito Mussolini has been celebrated by fascists as a historic victory over the left.

Packs of young, thuggish supporters of Gianni Alemanno greeted the new mayor's appearance at the Campidoglio city hall with straight-armed "Roman" salutes, shouting abuse at communists and foreign immigrants.

But apparently they weren't alone:

Debate over the significance of the National Alliance's first election victory in a major city has been intense - especially among the capital's small but important Jewish commun-ity, which is widely thought to have swung in Mr Alemanno's favour. Rome's Jewish voters, numbering about 9,000, explain their shift to the right in various ways, most often because they see the National Alliance as firmly pro-Israel.

Ah, fascists are pro-Israel, that's alright then.

I think that's what this Ynet article is saying of Israel:

We really didn’t mean to do it. Again we didn’t mean to do it. We have never meant to do it. Yet as usual, even though we didn’t mean it – we hit them. We hit them 1,000 times already without meaning to do it. We have killed a total of 1,000 Palestinian children since the second Intifada broke out on September 29, 2000. A thousand.

We already have a special procedure for cases where a Palestinian child dies as a result of a misfired missile, a misaimed shell, an unfocused helicopter, or a distracted sniper. At first, we deny a child even died. Later we argue that his own people killed him. Later we issue explanations and excuses and scenarios that only become dumber with the passage of time.

Then comes the turn of the “investigating officer” (it will never be an investigating judge, a scrutinizing observer, or an inquisitive civilian. It’s always an officer) who proceeds to issue some nonsense that clears us of any wrongdoing. Ultimately, we declare that the evil Arabs are at fault, because they take cover among civilians.

Yet if the regular “it was a mistake” claim has already become completely ridiculous – because how many times can one say “we didn’t mean it” without making those words empty and hollow and cold – the argument regarding taking cover among civilians is truly infuriating with its chutzpa.

A state whose military high command and the office of its defense minister are located at the heart of a crowded city, and which sends civilians, including their women and children, to “expand the boundaries of the country” and whose bridgehead for occupation and takeover regularly hides being babies and pregnant women, and which refers to its own armed soldiers who died in battle or were captured as “boys” – such state needs a very high level of nerve in order to blame others for hiding behind civilians and children.

And for those who wish to clear what is left of their conscience with the number of Israeli children killed by the Palestinians, here is a little information: Since the start of 2004, the Palestinians killed 11 Israeli children. We, during the same period of time, killed 452 Palestinian children.

But how can we even compare? After all, they mean to do it, while we don’t. (So maybe it would be better if we also start meaning to do it? Many children will be spared that way.)

Of course there's no need to call in Anthony Julius on this one. It only appeared in an Israeli paper. It won't find its way into a western English language paper and if it does it will be balanced out.

So let him eat honey, no? No!

This can't be the last word. Three letters exposing yesterday's zionist apologetics and lies in the Guardian's letters page.

The statements that there was "no massacre at Deir Yassin" and that "no one has ever found evidence of an ideology of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians" (Letters, May 2) cannot be allowed to stand. Ilan Pappe's The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine is meticulously researched and referenced, citing Israeli and Zionist material as well as Arab sources. In it, for example, Pappe reports Herzl's view that "cleansing the land was a valid option" and quotes from the alleged "liberal" thinker Leo Motzkin in 1917: "Our thought is that the colonisation of Palestine has to go in two directions: Jewish settlement in Eretz Israel and the resettlement of the Arabs of Eretz Israel in areas outside the country. The transfer of so many Arabs may seem at first unacceptable economically, but is none the less practical. It does not require too much money to resettle a Palestinian village on another land."

Pappe also refers to the Hagana-implemented systematic and detailed identification of the location and characteristics of all Arab villages, including individuals who were thought likely to present problems. He writes of the subsequent use of this information, first in a campaign of intimidation and then in "expulsion and destruction".
Lyndon Pugh
Brecon, Powys

A massacre did indeed occur at Deir Yassin and even worse atrocities were perpetrated in Haifa, Tantura, Dawaymeh and elsewhere, as documented by the Jewish historians Ilan Pappe and Avi Shlaim. Plan Dalet did involve ethnic cleansing. At least 10,000 Palestinians were killed, more than 30,000 injured and 750,000 were driven out of their homes and their land. Over 400 of their villages were razed to the ground and 60% of Palestinians became homeless.
David Pegg
York

The letters responding to Messrs Fry, Rose, Pinter et al (Letters, April 30) demonstrate the problem we still face 60 years since the Naqba and the establishment of Israel in Palestine: the denial by Zionists of Palestinians, their rights and that Israel was set up in their land and against their will. They should be directing their frustration and anger at the then Zionist leaders who sold them the lie that Palestine was a "land without a people for a people without a land".

As a Palestinian, I applaud Jews who realise the injustice that befell the Palestinians and are prepared to stand up and say this knowing the vicious attacks they will endure. We will only have peace in Palestine when Zionists come to terms with the injustice and Israel has a leadership that will embark on a genuine peace process and reconciliation and not the charade that is Annapolis and post-Annapolis.
Kamel Hawwash
Birmingham

If these letters are correct, especially the first two, then yesterday's were lies. And what headline did the Guardian run above today's offerings? Contested history that haunts the Middle East peace process. Contested my eye!

Doctor David Hirsh of Engage seems to be saying that Ken Livingstone, London Mayor for 8 years, lost Thursday's contest on account of what he claims is his antisemitism:

London has a Conservative mayor. The Labour candidate was a bigot and Londoners refused to vote for him again. Labour should have given us a better candidate around whom we could unite

I'm fairly sure that Ken Livingstone has been a casualty of a nationwide abandonment and turning away from Labour. In fact, far from Labour selecting the wrong candidate, it was Ken who opportunistically selected the wrong party. As before, he should have gone it alone and he should never have even considered rejoining the party that led the UK into wars on Afghanistan and Iraq and offers uncritical support to the racist war criminals of the State of Israel. But let the "left wing" David Hirsh take the credit for the Tory victory.

Just below their ludicrous post on the mayoral elections there's Hirsh hounding the Guardian's Seumas Milne to admit that he was wrong to say that Hamas are distancing themselves from their Charter with various antisemitic pronouncements in it. See the post itself here. Clearly Hirsh feels that there is some unfinished business between the two of them for in the post we see this:

So will Seumas Milne will now admit that he was wrong when he repeated his claim? He wrote:

"More telling still is his perverse and contemptible claim that I was "apologizing for, and denying, racism against Jews". I was of course doing the opposite. As I said in my earlier post, the Hamas charter of 1988 was a "reactionary, anti-Jewish document", but it has been repeatedly disavowed in recent years by Hamas leaders, specifically in relation to the anti-Jewish tropes."

Is Seumas Milne capable of admitting that he was wrong about Hamas? Is Seumas Milne capable of admitting that Hamas is indeed an unambiguously antisemitic organization?

I don't understand why Hirsh can't just make his assertions without alleging a lack of good faith on the part of those he picks on. Hirsh is wildly dishonest. He resorts to sock puppets to support his own and his partners articles and ludicrous petitions like the Euston Manifesto. He misrepresents what people have written and he promotes quite nasty racists himself, eg Richard Littlejohn, just as long as they are pro-Jewish or more particularly pro-Israel racists and then he pretends that he has done no such thing. I'll return to that.

I don't believe that Milne has anything to admit to. Jews have made total war against the Palestinians. Jewish voices against this total war are excluded from mainstream Jewish and mainstream media discourse. Of course people on the receiving end of Jewish violence, ethnic cleansing and discrimination will make the occasional pronouncement against Jews. It's a trivialisation of antisemitism to fail to distinguish between the generalised lashing out of the oppressed and a clearly thought out position that has Jews in general as essentially bad people. It is even worse to suggest that the statements of Hamas somehow justify the massive violence that Israel has deployed against the Palestinians. And yet Hirsh, to cover for Israel even calls Hamas "genocidal" while Israel starves the Gaza population. In his response to Milne on Cif, Hirsh said that Israel had withdrawn from Gaza, as if the blockade, the "diet", the wall in the sea, the aerial supremacy (is that word allowed?) and bombardment, count for nothing. Even his thinking Engagenik colleague, John Strawson, isn't having any of that. See yesterday's Jewish Chronicle:

As a signatory of the Jews for Justice for Palestinians advertisement on Gaza, I must correct Eylon Levy’s assertion that “Israel has no legal obligation for provide Gaza with anything...as it unilaterally withdraw in 2005” (Letters, April 25). As a matter of fact Israel neither withdrew in 2005, nor indeed suggested that withdrawal was its intention.

Under the disengagement plan issued by the Cabinet on June 6, 2004, the future status of Gaza is dealt with in section B (3) entitled “security situation following the relocation”. Paragraph (1) reads: “The state of Israel will guard and monitor the external land perimeter of the Gaza Strip, will continue to maintain exclusive authority in Gaza airspace and will continue to exercise security activity in the sea off the coast of the Gaza strip.”

Thus the military control of Gaza that began in June 1967 continued after what Israel called variously “disengagement” or “relocation” from Gaza. As a consequence the occupation of Gaza continues and Israel remains obliged by the relevant provisions of the Hague and Geneva Conventions for the welfare of the civilian population under occupation.

It is in Israel’s hands to end this situation immediately by unconditionally withdrawing from all the territory it occupied in 1967.

John Strawson, University of East London, Stratford High Street, London E15

Will Hirsh admit that he was wrong then, to have said this?

Milne is right that Israel should do more to make a just peace with Palestine than it has done so far, but the idea that the rockets would stop after Israel withdraws from occupied territory is evidently moonshine, given that the rocket attacks come from territory from which Israel has recently withdrawn.

Now, I'm on thin ice here because, whilst an anonymous commenter here likes to say I am obsessed with Engage, I don't actually hang on Hirsh/Green/Shachtman's every word so he may have admitted to it and I just missed it. Until someone points out his retraction of such an egregious zionist lie I'll have to run with the idea that Hirsh has not withdrawn his statement that Israel has withdrawn from Gaza. But I can't help remembering how Hirsh swings his airbrush with gay abandon rather than admit to any wrongdoing or sometimes after a partial admission amounts to carrying on digging when he should perhaps have stopped.

I mentioned his support for Richard Littlejohn earlier. This is how Hirsh puffed his puff for Littlejohn, born again fighter against racism:

I'm just about to publicize Littlejohn's TV documentary about antisemitism and link to an interview with him and I'm wondering how to do it. Maybe this is the end of my credibility, as someone on the left, as a sociologist, as a human being? Maybe this one act signifies my final defeat?

One of many, I'd say. In fact this post after Engage's open support for Alan Dershowitz, repeated in the comments here so I don't know how Hirsh could still claim any left wing credentials by then. Anyway the comments drew some criticism by even those who could tolerate Dershowitz and had Hirsh claiming that Littlejohn was now more anti-racist than certain leftists he could, and did, name. Now in fairness Hirsh ran a post following the promotion of Littlejohn, saying that he (Hirsh) had been wrong in certain, possibly all, aspects of it but that "I didn’t mean to give the impression – and I didn’t say – that Littlejohn is more of an antiracist than they are." But that was precisely what he did say:

But diasporist, my point was, how come this right wing sleaze is now suddenly more of an anti-racist than you are? At least than Livingstone is, than the SWP is, than Alexei Sayle is, than UCU is than UNISON is, than T&G? How come?

What has happened to antiracist politics when even Richard Littlejohn is to the left of all those that I mention? I never said he was good, I said he was a clearer opponent of anti-Jewish racism than a whole layer of "antiracists".

So Hirsh did a post promoting Littlejohn, he was justly condemned for it, even by some Israel apologists, he then admitted to being wrong but denied being as wrong as he actually was. He lied to do so by denying having made a claim that he definitely had made. So he then rather dishonestly deleted all posting about Littlejohn and the comments too. This is a man who has clear issues about owning up to being wrong and yet he can badger Seumas Milne to do what Hirsh will engage in serial dishonesty to avoid doing.

Oh, and did I mention that time Hirsh dragged his own children into some of his zionist apologetics? He got told off by Likudniks for that one. Yet again he courageously and morally admitted to being wrong before deciding that the best thing to do would be to change the post, disappear the offending passage, disappear the complaints about the offending passage and of course, disappear the admission of any wrong-doing on his part.

I've now noticed another post that has Hirsh deep in denial. Cop this £100 challenge from Hirsh:

If anybody can catch me linking to Nazi websites by mistake, or being feted by antisemites, or other racists, I'll give them £100. It doesn't happen to me because what I write doesn't have any connection to what antisemites write. - DH

But what about "other racists" Doctor? Littlejohn, for example? Of course, he didn't link to Littlejohn, he just, er, feted him. But of course being feted by Hirsh wasn't the challenge. He's cleverer than I thought. No £100 for me this time round. Ah well....

I read the letter signed by over a hundred Jewish anti-zionists yesterday in the Guardian. It was mostly good and got the main points about why the existence of the State of Israel is nothing for decent people to be celebrating. Here it is in full:

In May, Jewish organisations will be celebrating the 60th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel. This is understandable in the context of centuries of persecution culminating in the Holocaust. Nevertheless, we are Jews who will not be celebrating. Surely it is now time to acknowledge the narrative of the other, the price paid by another people for European anti-semitism and Hitler's genocidal policies. As Edward Said emphasised, what the Holocaust is to the Jews, the Naqba is to the Palestinians.

In April 1948, the same month as the infamous massacre at Deir Yassin and the mortar attack on Palestinian civilians in Haifa's market square, Plan Dalet was put into operation. This authorised the destruction of Palestinian villages and the expulsion of the indigenous population outside the borders of the state. We will not be celebrating.

In July 1948, 70,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes in Lydda and Ramleh in the heat of the summer with no food or water. Hundreds died. It was known as the Death March. We will not be celebrating.

In all, 750,000 Palestinians became refugees. Some 400 villages were wiped off the map. That did not end the ethnic cleansing. Thousands of Palestinians (Israeli citizens) were expelled from the Galilee in 1956. Many thousands more when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza. Under international law and sanctioned by UN resolution 194, refugees from war have a right to return or compensation. Israel has never accepted that right. We will not be celebrating.

We cannot celebrate the birthday of a state founded on terrorism, massacres and the dispossession of another people from their land. We cannot celebrate the birthday of a state that even now engages in ethnic cleansing, that violates international law, that is inflicting a monstrous collective punishment on the civilian population of Gaza and that continues to deny to Palestinians their human rights and national aspirations.

We will celebrate when Arab and Jew live as equals in a peaceful Middle East.

Seymour Alexander
Ruth Appleton
Steve Arloff
Rica Bird
Jo Bird
Cllr Jonathan Bloch
Ilse Boas
Prof. Haim Bresheeth
Tanya Bronstein
Sheila Colman
Ruth Clark
Sylvia Cohen
Judith Cravitz
Mike Cushman
Angela Dale
Ivor Dembina
Dr. Linda Edmondson
Nancy Elan
Liz Elkind
Pia Feig
Colin Fine
Deborah Fink
Sylvia Finzi
Brian Fisher MBE
Frank Fisher
Bella Freud
Catherine Fried
Uri Fruchtmann
Stephen Fry
David Garfinkel
Carolyn Gelenter
Claire Glasman
Tony Greenstein
Heinz Grunewald
Michael Halpern
Abe Hayeem
Rosamine Hayeem
Anna Hellman
Amy Hordes
Joan Horrocks
Deborah Hyams
Selma James
Riva Joffe
Yael Oren Kahn
Michael Kalmanovitz
Paul Kaufman
Prof. Adah Kay
Yehudit Keshet
Prof. Eleonore Kofman
Rene Krayer
Stevie Krayer
Berry Kreel
Leah Levane
Les Levidow
Peter Levin
Louis Levy
Ros Levy
Prof. Yosefa Loshitzky
Catherine Lyons
Deborah Maccoby
Daniel Machover
Prof. Emeritus Moshe Machover
Miriam Margolyes OBE
Mike Marqusee
Laura Miller
Simon Natas
Hilda Meers
Martine Miel
Laura Miller
Arthur Neslen
Diana Neslen
Orna Neumann
Harold Pinter
Roland Rance
Frances Rivkin
Sheila Robin
Dr. Brian Robinson
Neil Rogall
Prof. Steven Rose
Mike Rosen
Prof. Jonathan Rosenhead
Leon Rosselson
Michael Sackin
Sabby Sagall
Ian Saville
Alexei Sayle
Anna Schuman
Sidney Schuman
Monika Schwartz
Amanda Sebestyen
Sam Semoff
Linda Shampan
Sybil Shine
Prof. Frances Stewart
Inbar Tamari
Ruth Tenne
Martin Toch
Tirza Waisel
Stanley Walinets
Martin White
Ruth Williams
Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi
Devra Wiseman
Gerry Wolff
Sherry Yanowitz

Powerful stuff, huh? I wasn't entirely happy with it when I first saw it. I didn't like the idea that celebrating the ethnic cleansing of Palestine was understandable because of the holocaust. Most Jews who survived the holocaust chose not to participate in the zionist project and of those that actually did go to Palestine, many seem to have been press-ganged into it by the zionist movement and its allies in western governments.

I also didn't like the fact that the Edward Said quote was bound to be taken out of context.

what the Holocaust is to the Jews, the Naqba is to the Palestinians

But Jews collectively have survived the holocaust. It's only indoctrination, manipulation and propaganda that has Jews in general living in the shadow of the holocaust. The nakba, is with the Palestinians all the time whether they are exiled beyond Palestine's borders, occupied in the West Bank, Jerusalem or Gaza or they are second class citizens under the law. And that's because the nakba is still on-going.

Anyway, the publication of one anti-zionist letter in the Guardian couldn't go unanswered by a gaggle of zionists (woops, dehumanisation). I think they cover the entire curriculum of the "putting the case for Israel" course. First there was personal abuse about ivory towers and how the signatories should address their statement to the Israelis who might not "know what they do." Then there was full blown nakba denial, from the enormity and significance of Deir Yassin to the jaded "they started it" routine. Then there was a sneaky, zionism as a bona fide European nationalism coupled with some more straight fact denial. We even got a bit of religious obscurantism together with (in the same letter) an appeal to readers to be more like Daniel Barenboim. I'm not sure that Barenboim would like his name linked to the ideology providing the motivation for that one.

My favourite letter this morning was the one that disputes the holocaust analogy. See this:

The signatories of your letter assert that "what the Holocaust is to the Jews, the Naqba is to the Palestinians". I am puzzled by this. The Nazis murdered most Jews in the many lands they controlled and expropriated and expelled the rest, in all many millions. When did the Israelis do this to the Arabs? The letter's only detail as to deaths is that "hundreds" died on a death march in 1948. Hundreds, not thousands, not tens of thousands, still less millions.

So there's a clear difference between the holocaust and the nakba. So that's how the holocaust differs from other genocidal campaigns. The way it's promoted it's as if there is a qualitative difference between a genocidal campaign against Jews and one against non-Jews. But this guy has brought a fresh approach. The nakba was better than the holocaust because more were killed in the holocaust. It's the numbers that count. I'm sure the same guy will intervene on the letters page if ever anyone compares the slave trade or the genocide of the American natives to the holocaust. "No the holocaust was much better than those others!" Well, what else can he say given his logical corollary?

The original letter is also published on Tony Greenstein's blog here.

National Demonstration for Palestine

Saturday 10th May 2008

FREE PALESTINE

END THE SIEGE ON GAZA – FOR THE RIGHT OF RETURN – END ISRAELI OCCUPATION

Assemble 1pm Temple Underground station/ Victoria Embankment, rally in Trafalgar Square.

Organised by: British Muslim Initiative, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Palestinian Forum in Britain.

Supported by: UNISON, Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), Unite the Union (Amicus and T&GWU), Communication Workers Union, GMB, TSSA, National Union of Miners, FBU, RMT, Association of Palestinian Community UK, Amos Trust, Friends of Al Aqsa UK, War on Want, Jewish Socialist Group, Pax Christi, Stop the War Coalition, Britain Palestine Twinning Network , ICAHDUK, Midlands Palestinian Community Association.

Please make sure to put this date in your diary right now and start booking transport to London.

Contact your local PSC branch for coaches and to find out how you can help.

Contact us for leaflets and posters to publicise the event: info@palestinecampaign.org // 02077006192

Coaches Info

- Birmingham: West Midlands PSC coach to the rally.

Departs from Albert Street, off Dale End, Birmingham City Centre 9:30am; returns from Central London c. 1730. Price : £12; £8 concessions

To book : buy a ticket from our stall on Saturday afternoons (c. 2.15 to 4.15 p.m.) outside the M&S branch near Carr’s Lane; or e-mail pscwm@yahoo.co.uk ;or phone 07941 452034.

- Cambridge: coach is leaving 10.30 am from Parkside and will return about

5pm. The tickets are £10/5/3. They must be booked and paid for in advance.

Contact is Anna Gordon 07817196042

- Leicester: Transport leaves Secular Hall, Leicester (opposite Sainsburys) Humberstone GateAt 8.30am. £15 waged £5 unwaged

Tel Chris 2219459 or 07963 690326

- West Yorkshire: Bradford/Halifax/Leeds/Dewsbury:

coach leaves from Bradford University, Great Horton Road at 7.30am. Tickets £20 or £10 unwaged - 'phone 01422 320139 or 07971545327

- Bristol Bristol Palestine Solidarity Campaign will be running a coach up to this demo. Tickets £15 waged / £8 concessions.

Itinerary:- 8.00am Anchor Road, Bristol - 8.45am Avon Street Coach Park, Bath

Arrive back Bath/Bristol 8.30/9.00pm approx.

Tickets on sale at Booty, 82 Colston Street, Bristol or email Bristol.Nakba60@yahoo.co.uk

- Coventry: 9:30 from Coventry Leisure Centre, Fairfax Street. £12 waged £6 unwaged Contact: hanna@khamiskujore.plus.com

- Exeter: £24 waged /£10 concesssions tickets- Sarah on 07902207922/e-mail 43sarahb@googlemail.com or Amal on 07977 95 7553

Leaves 7.30am from Exeter Belgrave Road, and to stop en route at Tiverton Parkway. returning from London at approx 17:30.

- Brighton: 49 seater coach booked to leave Brighton - St Peter's Church, Lewes Road at 9 am. Return from London at 4 pm. Cost £5. For tickets contact Brenda 01273 502406/mob 07792 009758 or visit Saturday stall in town centre.

Is this going to be the new halfway-house response by artists to the growing cultural boycott on Israel? Recently, the IPSC (Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign) has been in contact with Bono asking him not to accept an invitation from Shimon Peres, known and loved as ‘the father of Israel’s atom bomb’. The invite was to go over to Jerusalem next month as part of the 60 years celebrations of successful ethnic cleansing.

Finally – by sheer coincidence it was a day before our Deir Yassin demonstration - the bould Bono, or rather his agent, contacted our chairperson to tell her that Bono isn’t, after all, going to Israel. But there was nothing political about it, we were told. The decision was simply ‘for personal reasons’.

And now I see it’s happening again. There’s a big campaign by AIC (nice to see Israeli organisations getting involved in this) and PACBI to ask writers not to go to the Jerusalem Writer’s festival in mid-May. We in the IPSC have done our bit, sending an open letter to Irish writer, Niall Williams, not to go.

One of the writers has actually pulled out – Russell Banks. On Tuesday a forceful letter was sent to him from BRICUP, and on Wednesday he announced he wasn’t actually going – you’ve guessed it – ‘for personal reasons’.

So maybe we have a new catchphrase as the cultural boycott starts to bite, but artists are still a bit abashed about it? I suppose it’ll do – for now the real question is whether Nadine Gordimer rediscovers her personal reasonable conscience?

http://www.pacbi.org/letters_more.php?id=725_0_3_0_C

It seems Lev Leviev, the Israeli diamantaire who builds settlements on Palestinian land for a hobby, bit off a bit more than he could chew in Dubai. A mere two weeks after announcing grand designs to open two of his lavish stores in the blingtastic emirate, a spate of bad press and activist pressure seems to have convinced his erstwhile landlords to give him the boot.

The edifice on the left is the Burj Dubai, slated to be the tallest building in the world when complete. With Dubai as an up and coming international hub of diamond-trading, why wouldn't the self-described "diamantaire extraordinaire" want to set up shop in such a landmark? As his flacks proudly announced on April 16:

One LEVIEV store will be a flagship boutique located in the most prestigious section of the BURJ DUBAI Mall, billed as the world's biggest mall, under the world's tallest building, the BURJ DUBAI Tower, culminating at approximately 2,000 feet.

Construction of the store will begin in the 4th quarter of 2008, when the mall is ready for tenants, and inaugurated when the mall opens to the public.

The LEVIEV Dubai flagship will be a full-fledged LEVIEV store, complete with elegant design elements that are a constant throughout all LEVIEV boutiques, a private salon, and several thousand carats of extraordinary diamonds.

The only problem with this plan, and it appears the Diamontaire Extraordinaire still hasn't figured it out, is Leviev isn't the best corporate citizen. When he's not building settlements on Palestinian land and impoverishing the farming villages of Jayyous and Bil'in, for example, or housing security companies in Angola where he gets he rocks which are known for “humiliation, whipping, torture, sexual abuse, and, in some cases, assassinations,” Leviev is busy blaming his "business competitors" for being behind all the protests against him in Palestine, Tel Aviv, New York, and London. He just doesn't seem to get there are people out there who are genuinely motivated by human rights.

To recap, on April 18, Adalah-NY and Jews Against the Occupation-NYC released a call to the people and government of Dubai to boycott Leviev. They were joined in their call by the villages of Jayyous and Bil'in, and Palestinian civil society organizations. A steady drumbeat of negative press, including Khaled Amaryeh,Islamonline.net, and Will Youmans in Arab-American.net, appeared to be enough to persuade Dubai officialdom that Leviev was not worth the hassle. Even the Jerusalem Post noticed the hubbub. Abbas al-Alwati in The Gulf News, April 30:

Dubai: No trade licence has been granted to open Israeli jewellery store Leviev in Dubai contrary to claims by Leviev and its agent in Dubai, said a top official at the Department of Economic Development.

"We are aware of these reports and have not granted a trade licence to any business of this name. If such an application does come to us we will deal with it accordingly," Ali Ebrahim, Deputy Director General for Executive Affairs in Dubai, told Gulf News.

Now how did a heimishe fellow like Leviev get brought to the Gulf in the first place? Naturally, by his local Palestinian-Moroccan business partner, Arif Bin Khadra, clearly a principled fellow:

Asked if he was aware of the activities of Lev Leviev's companies in the West Bank, Bin Khadra said that he had heard of Leviev's practices in the West Bank but had seen no proof of the allegations, adding that they were not a major concern because "such questions are not asked in the diamond business".

Dubai, he said, was an apolitical and international city that needed global brands such as Leviev. "What we have learned here is that you don't have to talk about politics or religion if you're doing business," he said.

Bin Khadra added that he knows of other major Dubai-based jewellers who were interested in bringing Leviev to the UAE. "If we hadn't brought Leviev, someone else would have".

The question remains as to whether Leviev will attempt to peddle his wares in front-shops managed by his apolitical friend Arif.

So it appears Leviev has lost his dream of a flagship store in the world's tallest building. The question is, will Leviev figure out that violating international humanitarian law is harming his image and business interests?

UPDATE:The story makes a UAE CNN producer's blog:


http://www.cnn.com/CNNI/Programs/middle.east/blog/

April 30, 2008
Breakfast News: Israeli Jeweller Not Welcome In Dubai



Another interesting item that got my attention while reading the local paper over breakfast today:

"Israeli Jeweller Has No Trade Licence To Open Shop In Dubai," reads the headline in today's Gulf News.

There is a whole lot of money floating around in Dubai who could blame Lev Leviev for wanting to open one (or more) of his self-named stores in the tiny emirate?

But, according to this article, no trade licence was granted to Israeli diamond magnate and the Dubai Department of Economic Development is quoted as saying that "Israeli citizens are not allowed to operate in Dubai."

Advocacy groups that oppose Leviev's investments in the U.A.E. say Leviev profits from companies that operate in the occupied territories.

The stores were supposed to open in the swanky Dubai Mall and the Atlantis Hotel later this year.

Who will win this one?

UPDATE:Ha'aretz buys into Leviev's "business competitors" theory for his woes,Finkelstein declares,"Long live the People's Republic of Dubai!," and the JC, May 2:

DIAMOND TYCOON Lev Leviev has announced plans to open at least two more luxury jewellery shops in Dubai, after launching one such outlet there in the Qasr Hotel last March. His plans have come under attack from pro-Palestinian lobbyists, who are urging the United Arab emirates to boycott Mr Leviev.

All this news of Israel's on going killing of children reminded me of Engage's favourite lawyer, Anthony Julius. When the number of children killed by Israeli soldiers had passed the 500 (or was it 600, 700 or 800? - he didn't say) mark Anthony Julius produced a paper on the medieval blood libel. Completely irrelevant of course. Israel really does kill children as the post below this one makes clear. The medieval blood libel was, er libel, that is to say, not true. The best defence against a libel action is truth of statement, and the statement that Israel kills children is perfectly true and relevant to the way it works in and beyond the occupied territories.

Julius is a British lawyer. I don't know how accurate American courtroom dramas are but we often see American lawyers jumping up and saying "objection irrelevant" and the judge says "sustained". If that happened here Anthony Julius would never get anything done. Another of his papers was about, not the arguments or political positions of various Jewish anti-zionists but their "vanity".

The above paragraphs were just a big intro to something that's got nothing to do with the above title. It's just yet another ludicrous piece of work by Julius, this time distributed by some Christian zionists in the UK called Anglicans for Israel. They've produced a pdf document titled "How did we get here - the restoration of Israel". Here's Julius's introductory blurb:

I am delighted to have been asked to contribute a foreword to this pamphlet, written to celebrate the 60th anniversary of Israel, the Jewish State. There is a long and honourable history of Anglican involvement in the Zionist project. From the 17th to the 20th centuries, English advocates of the Jews' restoration in the Holy Land worked tirelessly to realise Jewish dreams – often, in more practical ways than by the Jews themselves. It became their mission to restore the land to its lawful owners, and thereby assist in fulfilling Biblical prophecy. The pamphlet, in its own sober and factual way, is but the most recent instance of this centuries-long endeavour. I welcome it.

So British imperialism at prayer has been seeking the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, in line with "Jewish dreams" since the 17th century. Hmm, if Jews were dreaming of going to Palestine in the 17th century why did they only go in significant numbers in the late 19th century? Ah, they supported zionism in "more practical ways than....Jews" did. They went to Palestine while Jews dreamt? They stopped Jews getting into Britain or stopped them getting naturalised in Britain? Really, was Julius making a coded reference to Anglican antisemitism? Antisemitism has historically been the best friend of zionism, as Herzl predicted (and practised) at the formal inception of the zionist movement.

And what's all this about "their mission to restore the land to its lawful owners, and thereby assist in fulfilling Biblical prophecy"? Sheesh. Lawful? Does this mean that Jews worldwide are entitled to the ownership of land prophesied in the bible to be under Jewish dominion at some time in the future? Does this mean I am a lawful owner of somewhere, anywhere, between "the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates"? Does it mean that those who are not Jewish but, in spite of Israel's ethnic cleansing, race discrimination and relentless violence, still live in these places are not lawful owners? This is rather scary. Anthony Julius seems to be saying that he believes in biblical prophecy, that is Christian biblical prophecy in this instance and that this prophecy has the status of law. Who's law? Where is it written? Or is this just obscurantist nonsense?

One more question, is Anthony Julius a chancer or a lunatic?

I've got a commenter in the USA (land of the most zealous zionists) with the oxymoronic name "Zionist Revolution" claiming that Israel didn't kill, indeed couldn't have killed, Mohamed al Dura. The thread (here) reminded me of an article by Gideon Levy in Ha'aretz last year. Here's the article in full:

The concern Israel demonstrates for the fate of one Palestinian boy touches the heart: Again, note what a fuss is being made about the case of the killing of Mohammed al-Dura. Our heart is impervious to the fate of other children who have been killed. Just little Mohammed continues to haunt us. But the question of who killed al-Dura is not important. And maybe he is even alive, as some eccentrics claim. Perhaps he committed suicide, as the strange investigations are liable to suggest.

All of these are tasteless questions designed to divert attention from the truly important issues: According to data collected by human rights group B'Tselem, Israel is responsible for killing more than 850 Palestinian children and teenagers since al-Dura was killed, including 92 in the past year alone. Last October, we killed 31 children in Gaza. This is what should have raised a storm and not the measurements by the former head of the Israel Defense Forces' Southern Command, Yom Tov Samiyeh, aimed at proving that his soldiers did not kill al-Dura, or the "investigations" by the physicist Nahum Shahaf. In an eccentric obsession, Shahaf has devoted the past years to this affair, after previously having also obtained "amazing material" on the murder of Yitzhak Rabin.

Al-Dura refuses to step down from the stage because he has become an icon of the Palestinian struggle and a symbol of Israeli brutality. A thousand Nahum Shahafs will not succeed in blurring the unequivocal fact that a scandalous killing of children is taking place in the territories.

Even if the director of the Government Press Office, Danny Seaman, is right in determining that the film made by the reliable and experienced French journalist Charles Enderlin was "staged," and even if he succeeds in clearing Israel from responsibility for this killing, what will we say about the other children who have been killed? That their killing was also "staged?" That the IDF did not kill them through carelessness and contempt for their lives; by being trigger-happy and even acting with premeditation? If Israel were really interested in improving its "public relations," it would embrace the al-Dura family instead of all the foolish investigations. It would provide compensation to the family and show the world that it is truly and sincerely sorry about the death of one child.

The question of who killed al-Dura is like the question of what Joseph Trumpeldor mumbled before his death. The myth in both cases is already stronger than any investigation. Al-Dura became a symbol because his killing was documented on videotape. All the other hundreds of children were killed without cameras present, so no one is interested in their fate. If there had been a camera in Bushara Barjis' room in the Jenin refugee camp while she was studying for a pre-matriculation test, we would have a film showing an IDF sniper firing a bullet at her head. If there had been a photographer near Jamal Jabaji from the Askar camp, we would see soldiers emerging from an armored jeep and aiming their weapons at the head of a child who threw stones at them. But these children did not become symbols; there are no stamps bearing their portraits, no streets named after them and no songs composed for them as with al-Dura because they were not filmed at the time of their deaths.

Al-Dura became a symbol because every struggle needs a symbol, a shrine for the masses of dead and the anonymous heroes. The assumption that the IDF soldiers firing at Palestinians at the Netzarim junction killed the boy cradled in his father's arms exactly seven years ago is the most reasonable one. As far as we can remember, there has been no other case in which Palestinians fired at the IDF and hit a Palestinian child.

But even if there is some doubt, it is certain that the IDF has killed and is killing children. So this ridiculous focus on who killed al-Dura, a question that will never be resolved, is no more than a tempest in a putrid teapot. There should be a tempest, a great and mighty one, but one focused on an entirely different issue: Why is the IDF continuing to kill children at such a frightening pace, and why doesn't Israel take responsibility for this and compensate the families of those killed? But no one is conducting "investigations" about this.

All of which reminds me, someone sent me a ludicrous blurb by Anthony Julius. I'll post that in a little minute.

Israel has wiped out yet another Palestinian Arab family according to Reuters. But the child killers have explained why it's ok.

Israeli fire hit a house in the Gaza Strip on Monday while a family was eating breakfast, killing six Palestinians, including four children and their mother, residents and medical officials said.

"They have wiped out my family," said the children's father, Ahmed Abu Meateq, putting his hands on his head in despair and weeping as the bodies were prepared for burial.

The Israeli army said aircraft fired at two Palestinian militants near the house who were carrying bags.

Based on the size of the resulting explosion, the army said it now believed that those bags were filled with bombs and other explosive devices.

"As a result of this big explosion, extensive damage was caused to a house that was near the gunmen and uninvolved civilians were hit," the army said in a statement.

The deaths in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun cast another shadow over Egyptian efforts to forge a ceasefire between Israel and militant groups and end violence threatening U.S.-brokered Palestinian statehood talks.

"This aggression does not serve efforts being exerted to achieve calm, and it obstructs the peace process," Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, referring to Israel's military activities, said in a statement carried by WAFA news agency.

Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak, without giving details of the raid in Beit Hanoun, said Hamas Islamists controlling the Gaza Strip bore overall responsibility for casualties among non-combatants because gunmen "operated among civilians".

There you go, it's the Palestinians' fault, that's why it's ok. And by the same reasoning random attacks against Israel are justified because Israeli gunmen operate among civilians. Kill say 5 or 6 Israelis at random and some are just bound to be racist war criminals.

By the way, the picture above is no thanks to the BBC

Here's a curious, if a little over-emotional, Ha'aretz article written by Avraham Burg against the backdrop of another spy for Israel being arrested and charged in America. The central character in the article is Jonathan Pollard, who the article describes as an American Vanunu. Now you may see this as an insult to Vanunu but Burg does draw out the important distinctions between Pollard and Vanunu:

Jonathan Pollard is the Americans' Mordechai Vanunu. In principle, there is no difference between them, except perhaps for the fact that Vanunu did what he did out of deep, if controversial, conviction, while Pollard received money, some say a great deal of money, for his "values system."

That's quite a difference but I think Avraham Burg is being clever here. He's leading on to something else. He narrows down his focus to Pollard and then he introduces AIPAC:

Pollard has become a much greater icon than his dubious attributes would account for. To understand what he symbolizes for the Israeli political right, you have to crack the basic formula of the Pollard problem. He and his handlers lived and plotted in the twilight zone of the complex loyalty of the Jews of the United States.

Their basic premise was and still is that all Jews everywhere have dual loyalty - the loyalty of an American citizen to his homeland, and a much deeper, national-spiritual loyalty to the Jewish people and the State of Israel. For years,Israel officially fostered this snarled loyalty. It entangled and became entangled, plotted and spied. AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) - the Jewish lobby in Washington - is the bluntest conceptualization of institutionalizing near treason and turning it into an enormous octopus of a political mechanism with enormous dimensions and numerous victims.

Cor, this is powerful, line-crossing, taboo-breaking, iconoclastic (ok, drop the thesaurus or I'll shoot - Ed) stuff. Nope, I've got thoughts but no comment. Try Mondoweiss.

There's been a mixed bag of letters in today's Observer in response to Sam Kiley's largely ludicrous piece "on" Israel's 60th anniversary. Unfortunately some of the letters perpetuate or even bolster the myths expounded in the (not so) original piece. Happily some do expose the sheer dishonesty in it. I'd say on balance that the hasbara machine has come out on top but, you know, little acorns and all that.

Anyway, here are my faves:

It is difficult to know where the inaccuracies end and the dishonesty begins in Sam Kiley's rendering of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Kiley asserts it is 'a conflict which has been fed by Arab nationalism, Islamist hostility to Israel and its allies and the threat of a nuclear Iran'. It is as if the illegal, military occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, the rise of the settler movement which continues to steal Palestinian land with the backing of the Israeli government and the refusal by the same government to seriously entertain the notion of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state in any meaningful sense, count for nothing.

Kiley refers to mysterious 'threats from the Arab world' without specifying what these are and whence they originate: for the very simple reason that he can't because they don't exist except perhaps in his imagination.
Greg Stokes
Leeds

Sam Kiley makes the ridiculous statement that in 1945: 'Tel Aviv was ... no more than a few jerry-built blocks and huts.' I was there early in 1945 as an RAF pilot and witnessed the actuality: a handsome city of more than 200,000 inhabitants designed in part by Bauhaus architects who were Thirties refugees from Nazi Germany. Their work is now a Unesco World Heritage site.

Kiley describes the 1945 Tel Aviv population as 'frequently starved and broken shells of humanity who had made it through the death camps'. In fact, most had lived there since the Twenties.
Francis Bennion
Budleigh Salterton, Devon

Zionists are fond of their miracles. They cover up so much that would otherwise be called criminality by those less credulous than Sam Kiley.

The flight of 750,000 Arabs - not the 250,000 claimed by Kiley - from what became Israel was a 'miraculous simplification of our tasks,' said Israel's first President, Chaim Weizmann. No, it was ethnic cleansing.

The victory of Zionist forces over neighbouring Arab states too is depicted as a miracle but the Zionists initiated hostilities a full seven months before the Arab states could mobilise and one of the Arab states, Transjordan, had a deal with the Zionists not to attack their forces.
Mark Elf
Dagenham, east London

Hey, hold on a minute, I recognise that name, Elf. I don't remember writing that. Let me see my sent box. Ah, they must mean this:

Dear Sir

Zionists are very fond of their miracles. After all they cover up so much that would otherwise be called criminality by those less credulous than Sam Kiley.

The flight of 750,000 Arabs (not the 250,000 claimed by Kiley) from what became Israel was a "miraculous simplification of our tasks" according to the first Israeli president, Chaim Weizmann". No it wasn't; it was ethnic cleansing.

The victory of zionist forces over neighbouring Arab states too is depicted as a miracle but the zionists initiated hostilities a full seven months before the Arab states could mobilise and one of the Arab states, Transjordan, had a deal with the zionists not to attack their forces. Apart from rejectionist war talk, there is no evidence that the hapless corrupt Arab states were intent on anything more than halting the expansion of Israel and preventing the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. The zionists certainly knew that the Arabs were incapable of defeating them. Israel was receiving weapons from America and from the Soviet block. The Arabs' weapons were mostly from WWI. Zionist/Israeli troops outnumbered their Arab counterparts by between two and three to one. And Israel's first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, calmly stated more than once that within twenty years Israel would conquer the rest of Palestine. Some miracle!

There are even zionists who like to claim, disgustingly, that the holocaust itself was a miracle in that Israel was the result. But if it wasn't for the outbreak of WWII Israel would probably have been established in 1939 by which time the British authorities had suppressed the Arab revolt against the zionist takeover of their country. The only help the holocaust has been to Israel is that it succeeded in wiping out a Jewish working class that was overwhelmingly anti-zionist. And of course Israel and the zionist movement at large have very deftly exploited the memory of the holocaust to stifle criticism and to extort money from European banks while Israel's own banks have never returned holocaust assets to the heirs of the holocaust dead.

The only miracle of zionism is that, in spite of all that is known and well documented, western journalists are still writing such wretched apologetics for this racist war criminal project known as the State of Israel.

Yours faithfully


Mark Elf

Many thanks to Christian h in the comments to an earlier post. I might not have read the Observer today if it wasn't for him.

Oh yuk!! I've just realised what the Observer has done here. If you check the letters and see the zionist ones, ok let's look at one:

It is a pity that your balanced and interesting feature, 'Israel: 60 Years of Hope and Despair', last week was misleading in two respects.

First, it minimised the very real threat of annihilation faced by Israel in both 1948 and 1967. On both occasions, Israel was faced by a coalition of Arab countries whose avowed aim was to destroy the state and its Jewish population. On both occasions, too, the majority of outside experts believed Israel would be defeated

The fact that the threat was averted is not a reason for pretending it didn't exist or ignoring the genocide of the Jewish population that would have followed.

Second, despite discussing the impact of various waves of Jewish immigration, the article completely ignored one of the most significant, namely the influx of more than 600,000 Jewish refugees from persecution in Arab countries after 1948 (close to the number of Arabs who were displaced from present-day Israel). Unlike the latter, they were not left languishing in refugee camps for political reasons, and have therefore tended to be ignored by the pundits. Today, these 'Eastern' Jews form around half the Jewish population of Israel.
Harry Goldstein
London N14

You see what they did? They've published letters criticising Kiley from both sides. His piece was heavily tilted in Israel's favour and the ludicrous idea of the "threat of annihilation" was aired by Kiley but now the readers' editor can claim that since Kiley was attacked by "both sides" he must have got it about right. Pass the sick bag Ali.

// posted by Levi9909 @ 6:42:00 AM