(1) Labour MP Sir Gerald Kaufman claims 'Jewish money' has influenced Conservatives (2) Kaufman is Jewish; UK Lobby likens his comments to Protocols of Zion (3) Boris Johnson: Plugging into Jewish Networks the Key to Success for Ambitious Politicians (4) Boris Johnson to become Foreign Secretary, in exchange for campaigning for Britain to stay in EU (5) Boris Johnson will be made Foreign Secretary after he quits as London Mayor (6) Boris Johnson declares fealty to the Lobby: ‘I am a passionate Zionist’ (7) Boris Johnson worked on a kibbutz; dismisses claims of 'ethnic cleansing' of Palestinians (8) New Labour turned to Jewish Donors to avoid dependence on the Unions (2007) (9) UK Lobby targets Corbyn for associating with Paul Eisen, a 'holocaust denier' (10) But Lobby fails to mention that Eisen is Jewish, and motivated by compassion for Palestinians (11) Jeremy Corbyn and the Jews - by Gilad Atzmon (12) Corbyn condemns Kaufman claims over 'Jewish money' influencing Tories on Israel (13) In Clear Sight of Yad Vashem - by Paul Eisen (14) Paul Eisen: every example of Jewish suffering is used to justify the crimes of Israel (15) Martin Buber: causeless hatred ... is bound to bring complete ruin upon us ... while we babble and rave about being the "People of the Book" and the "light of the nations" -------------------------------------- (1) Labour MP Sir Gerald Kaufman claims 'Jewish money' has influenced Conservatives http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/148290/labour-veteran-sir-gerald-kaufman-claims-jewish-money-has-influenced-conservativ Labour veteran Sir Gerald Kaufman claims 'Jewish money' has influenced Conservatives By Josh Jackman and Sandy Rashty, October 28, 2015 Veteran Labour MP Sir Gerald Kaufman has accused Israel of fabricating the recent knife attacks in the country and claimed the Conservative Party has been influenced by “Jewish money”. Speaking at a Palestine Return Centre event in Parliament on Tuesday, Sir Gerald said that the British government had become more pro-Israel in recent years. He said: “It’s Jewish money, Jewish donations to the Conservative Party – as in the general election in May – support from the Jewish Chronicle, all of those things, bias the Conservatives. “There is now a big group of Conservative members of parliament who are pro-Israel whatever government does and they are not interested in what Israel, in what the Israeli government does. “They’re not interested in the fact that Palestinians are living a repressed life, and are liable to be shot at any time. In the last few days alone the Israelis have murdered 52 Palestinians and nobody pays attention and this government doesn’t care.” Sir Gerald, Father of the House of Commons, then told the audience of 45 people that the Israeli government had made up the recent spate of violent attacks in order to allow it to “execute Palestinians”. The Manchester Gorton MP said “a friend of mine who lives in East Jerusalem” had emailed him with the accusations about Israel fabricating the attacks. Sir Gerald then read from the letter: “More than half the stabbing claims were definitely fabricated. The other half, some were true, the others there was no way to tell since they executed Palestinians and no one asked questions. “Not only that, they got to the point of executing Arab-looking people and in the past few days they killed two Jewish Israelis and an Eritrean just because they looked Arab. “They fabricated a stabbing story to justify the killings before they found out they were not Palestinians.” Sir Gerald has not responded to a JC request for a comment on his remarks. The comments were recorded by blogger David Collier. Mr Collier said of the experience: “What was it like? It took a while to digest. Yes, you pick up straight away on the 'Jewish money' comment, but as he rolls into the influence this has on the Conservative Party and how this plays out on foreign policy, you start questioning as to whether you are really hearing this. "Is someone really pushing this, in Westminster, in 2015? And nobody in the room raised a protest. How did I feel? It was sickening.” Sir Gerald's fellow Labour MP Andy Slaughter, who also spoke at the event, distanced himself from the remarks. Mr Slaughter, the Shadow Minister for Human Rights, said he had spoken about British foreign policy at the meeting but had been unaware of Mr Kaufman’s remarks until the JC raised them. He said: “I am responsible for what I say; I am not responsible for what anyone else says. “I would not endorse those comments. If you showed me that and said would you agree with that, I would say ‘no’. “Obviously I would not endorse or be associated in any way with those comments.” A spokesman for the Palestine Return Centre also distanced the group from Sir Gerald’s comments but refused to rule out inviting him to speak at a future event. He said: “Sir Gerald said what was on his mind. We did not have any control over what he said. We have often had events with Sir Gerald, but we have never had him saying anything like this. We do not tolerate antisemitism whatsoever. “We understand the difference between antisemitism and criticising Israel. We can’t tolerate any antisemitism. What [Sir Gerald] said is representing his own view.” Sir Gerald caused controversy earlier this year when he said that Israel uses the Holocaust to justify murdering Palestinians. In 2011 he apologised after greeting fellow Jewish MP Louise Ellman by muttering “here we are, the Jews again" when she rose to speak in the Commons. A Labour Party spokesman said: “The views as reported do not reflect the views of the party.” He would not comment on whether the party would reprimand Sir Gerald or ask him to resign. John Mann, Labour MP for Bassetlaw and chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, said: “These are the incoherent ramblings of an ill-informed demagogue.” Labour MP Ruth Smeeth, vice chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, echoed the call for action to be taken by the party. She said: “I think that these are not just unfortunate, but these are disgraceful remarks from the Father of the House and they cannot go unanswered.” Louise Ellman, Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside, said: “These are despicable statements which support antisemitic conspiracy theories, and Gerald should withdraw them immediately.” Mark Gardner, director of communications at the Community Security Trust, said: “The language invites antisemitic interpretation about Jews, money and controlling politicians; and the belated hand wringing from others in the room is meaningless if they did not actually protest when the remarks were made.” Board of Deputies president Jonathan Arkush said: “We condemn Sir Gerald’s outrageous comments. We challenge him to travel to Israel immediately to ride around with the emergency services and to see for himself whether it is possible to fabricate knife attacks when victims are lying on the ground with blood pouring from their wounds. "We also invite the Labour Party to initiate disciplinary proceedings to investigate his disgraceful words.” Martin Rathfelder, Sir Gerald’s election agent, said: “I’m quite sure he won’t [resign]. Why would he? “To say that the Conservative Party has been taking Jewish money isn’t antisemitic. Is that antisemitic? If Jewish people give the Conservative Party money, which no-one is suggesting they haven’t, they probably expect something in return, don’t they? “Gerald really doesn’t care what anyone who doesn’t live in Gorton constituency thinks. If anyone in Gorton constituency would say that, he might be concerned, but no-one in the constituency appears to have been quoted.” When asked about the allegations which Sir Gerald made that Israel had fabricated stabbing attacks, Mr Rathfelder said: “Is it untrue? Again, nobody in your article said it wasn’t true. “There are lots of people in Gorton constituency who worry about Palestine, but when Gerald was accused of being antisemitic in the past, it was never by anyone who lived in the constituency, at least as far as I’m aware. "I’ve had complaints about him saying things that were said to be antisemitic, but never someone who was a voter in the constituency.” (2) Kaufman is Jewish; UK Lobby likens his comments to Protocols of Zion http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/will-jeremy-corbyn-condemn-gerald-kaufmans-comments-about-jewish-money-influencing-the-tories/ Will Jeremy Corbyn condemn Gerald Kaufman’s comments about ‘Jewish money’ influencing the Tories? John R. Bradley {photo} Hamas member Aziz Dweik, of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) walks with Gerald Kaufman MP (Photo: Getty) {end} 29 October 2015 Sir Gerald Kaufman is Jewish, which he seems to use as an excuse to make claims that would, ordinarily, be denounced as anti-Semitic. He has made this a trademark of his career but on Tuesday night, Sir Gerald – now Father of the House of Commons – outdid himself. In an extraordinary speech he allegedly discussed the influence of ‘Jewish money’ over the Conservative party. He also claimed that, according to an email he had received, ‘half’ of the Palestinian knife attacks in Israel over recent weeks have been ‘fabricated’ as an excuse to execute Palestinians, and that the small-circulation weekly newspaper The Jewish Chronicle has biased the Conservatives. Speaking at an event organised by the Palestine Return Centre on Tuesday evening, Sir Gerald – infamous for his ‘Here we are, the Jews again’ comment during a 2011 parliamentary debate on Israel when fellow Labour MP Louise Ellman rose to speak – drew on every last trope in the book: a Jewish-controlled media; a wealthy cabal of Jews buying off the political establishment; blood-thirsty Jews jumping at every opportunity to murder the innocent. Some felt that all that was missing was a reference to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Yesterday, after a recording of the remarks was made public, four of Britain’s prominent Jewish organisations – the Board of Deputies, the Campaign Against Antisemitism, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Community Security Trust – expressed their outrage and demanded that Sir Gerald’s comments be investigated. Today calls for his resignation will grow, but as of now he has remained silent. The Spectator has requested comment from Sir Gerald’s office, but has yet to hear back. When asked by The Jewish Chronicle about the allegations that Israel had fabricated stabbing attacks, Martin Rathfelder, Sir Gerald’s election agent, merely asked in turn: ‘Is it untrue?’ Here, again, we see the classic conspiracy theory mindset at work: the impossibility of contradicting the argument presented as clear proof of its legitimacy. Sir Gerald’s host, the Palestine Return Centre, is a proscribed terrorist group in Israel, with links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and has been dubbed Hamas’s political wing in the UK, although, the group denies any Hamas links. But even the Palestine Return Centre has distanced itself from his remarks, saying that they cross the line between criticism of Israel’s foreign policy and what might be interpreted as anti-Semitism. That is a distinction Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn – friend of Hamas, Hezbollah and hate preachers – has often made to contextualise his own support for the Palestinians. Now he has the perfect opportunity to demonstrate that such a distinction is not a smokescreen by unequivocally condemning Sir Gerald’s speech and calling for his immediate resignation. (3) Boris Johnson: Plugging into Jewish Networks the Key to Success for Ambitious Politicians http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/12/the-friends-of-boris-johnson-plugging-into-jewish-networks-as-the-key-to-success-for-ambitious-politicians/ The Friends of Boris Johnson: Plugging into Jewish Networks as the Key to Success for Ambitious Politicians Francis Carr Begbie Occidental Observer December 19, 2015 There are two pilgrimages which any ambitious British Conservative politician should undertake if he wants to seriously improve his chances of getting the top job. One is to Israel to be pictured with wearing a skull cap at the Western Wall. The second is to the most exclusive Jewish charity event in the London social calendar. The Norwood Trust banquet is one of the most glittering social occasions in London. Under the chandeliers, networkers rub shoulders with likes of Elton John, Simon Cowell, Tom Jones, Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber, Sir Philip Green and anyone who is anyone in British Jewry. It was on this august occasion last month that the Mayor of London Boris Johnson addressed the assembled notables and as usual charmed, amused and entertained the huge crowd at London’s Grosvenor Hotel. For “Boris,” as he is universally known, it was the latest in a long strategy of letting Britain’s most powerful ethnic community know that they can count on him. He followed that up last week with a trademark witty denunciation of Donald Trump’s proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration. “The only reason I wouldn’t go to some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump.” It was a response that delighted the British chattering classes. Typical Boris! A suitably witty quip from a man regarded as humorous as he is unkempt, and a celebrity among the ranks of anonymous political suits. Probably only the Prime Minister himself enjoys more name recognition than London’s Mayor. Journalist, broadcaster, author and most of all, politician, the showbiz crowd-pulling power of “Boris” crosses party boundaries. His tousle-haired, blonde charm is legendary and he has buckets of that most elusive political quality “likeability.” Part of the appeal is the stuttering, affable, upper-class buffoon act which seems cribbed entirely from the role Hugh Grant played in the film Four Weddings and a Funeral. The ‘act’ is not just his persona. In fact he was christened Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson and is called ‘Al’ by his family; “Boris” is a kind of stage name. Deeply concealed though, is the driving ambition. His rivalry with David Cameron may have its roots in their school days at Eton or university at Oxford. Although a few years apart, it was Boris Johnson who struck most as “the man most likely to.” Their relationship has caused so much speculation it was even turned into a TV drama. In the event, Cameron became Prime Minister while Boris was given the consolation prize of Mayor of London and used it to raise his profile even higher. Some thought he may have given up his plans for the top job when Cameron was so decisively re-elected last May but Boris’s ambition burns more fiercely than ever. How do we know? Well, there is the ceaseless defence of the City of London — Britain’s bankers have no greater supporter than Boris. And then there is the informal campaign group and fan club dubbed the “friends of Boris” which seems to be on permanent stand-by. But no Conservative politician can reach the top without the approval of the Jewish financial elite in Britain. And Boris has embarked on a long-term campaign of “signalling” to them that could not have been more blatant if he had hired a Goodyear advertisement blimp. There is the insistence that he is a “one-man melting pot” because he was born in New York and has French, Jewish, English and Turkish blood. There is the adulatory Winston Churchill biography. An addition to the vast Churchill lexicon is not exactly what the world needs, but it is a not-so-subtle pointer that the neocon agenda in general and Zionist foreign policy in particular, are safe with him. There was the unlikely “row” over a trip to Palestinian areas which caused headlines when it was cancelled due to his pro-Israel remarks. There was the tearful visit to Yad Vashem. There was his dismissal of Israel’s critics as “snaggle toothed lefties.” There was his repeated insistence, trotted out again only this week, that he will continue to stand up for Israel after his Mayorship ends. And then there are his new associates. At the last Norwood banquet Johnson was seen congratulating the newly-appointed President of the Norwood charity, former political lobbyist Lord Jonathan Mendelsohn. They bump into each other a lot. They were hobnobbing when Boris addressed a dinner at north London’s most prominent local synagogue with the Chief Rabbi. And at a tech conference Boris shared the stage with Lord Mendelsohn’s high-powered wife. Nicola Mendelsohn is the most powerful Facebook executive outside the USA and husband and wife are often described as a “power couple” . It is hardly surprising that he should be seen conferring with a well-connected political fixer from the powerful Jewish community. What is surprising is that Lord Mendelsohn is a serving House of Lords spokesman for — and member of — the Labour Party. A former Labour Friends of Israel chair and trustee of the Holocaust Education Trust, he was a key link man between Number 10 Downing Street and the business community, and he personally fund-raised for both Blair as well as his successor Gordon Brown. After working for Blair for some years, he launched his lobbying company LLM almost immediately after Labour was elected in 1997. It quickly gained a reputation which has been memorably summarised by the influential Guido Fawkes website thus: In Westminster there is no murkier business than lobbying and of all the sleazy lobbyists there is no sleazier firm than LLM — Lawson, Lucas, Mendelsohn. Famous for cash-for-access scandals, representing opposing sides on legislation and generally being the scummiest lobbying firm in the Westminster village with coincidentally the closest links to New Labour. At 10 Downing Street in the early nineties, Jonathan Mendelsohn and his mentor Michael Levy were quite the fund-raising doubles-act. It was a time when the Jewish business community moved into a driving role in the building up of New Labour and this led to snide media references to the “Kosher Nostra.” As a revealing article in the Guardian noted: New Labour elevated a pre-existing Jewish network to national importance — and therein lies the problem. The Jewish community has long preferred to attempt to influence the political process through discreet advocacy and relationship building rather than through public demonstrations and campaigning. This discretion is rooted in long-standing concerns to be seen as good British citizens, to not show ingratitude to the “hospitality” of this country. British politics since the 1990s has witnessed a paradoxical process in which lobbying has become ever more important to government, yet ever more the object of public suspicion. Wealthy Jewish backers did not want their bankrolling of the party revealed because it did not look good. This presented an interesting problem for Labour’s fundraisers. So, various wheezes were dreamed up by which the identity of donors could be concealed. One was to disguise donations as “loans” to the party, a second was hand-outs to favoured think-tanks or charities, and a third was the use of third-party proxies in whose name donations were made. And Mendelsohn’s own lobbying firm LLM was dragged into the mire time and again. There were the newspaper exposés revealing practices that looked suspiciously like cash-for-access. There was the time that LLM’s client, the — Jewish owned — Tesco supermarket chain donated £12 million to Labour’s The Dome arena project. This coincided with the dropping of a proposed car park tax that could have cost Tesco £20 million. Mendelsohn’s company became embroiled in another sleaze row when he was Labour’s chief fund raiser. On his watch it turned out that approximately £650,000 of donations were channelled through three third party “proxies” in a manoeuvre designed to conceal the identity of a Jewish millionaire. Despite calls for the lobbyist’s head over this one, the Labour Party decided to believe Mendelsohn’s pleas that it had nothing to do with him. Then there was the sleazy gambling machine episode. Britain underwent a gambling boom in the nineties. The spread of a new generation of highly-addictive gambling machines netted huge profits for operators — but were also a scourge in poorer, more vulnerable communities. Poverty advocates, including the Salvation Army, campaigned for tighter controls. This should have been a sensitive issue for a Labour Party which was still masquerading as a defender of the poor. Blair’s government did eventually act, but all it was interested in was grabbing a bigger slice of the gambling machine profits through taxation. At the time the huge Jewish-owned betting shop chain Ladbrokes was seeking to reduce its exposure to this tax.[1] To fight the proposed tax, Ladbrokes retained LLM whose lobbying strategy was later leaked and gave an eye-opening glimpse into a murky world indeed. It revealed that LLM’s campaign involved a lobbying blitz targeted at ministers, MPs and civil servants. The campaign was notable for the lavish hospitality showered on these upstanding government servants, including trips to continental race courses. The leak derailed one of the civil servant’s job applications to join Ladbroke’s parent company. His name was Gideon Hoffman. LLM’s lobbying strategy paid off and the Labour government’s plan to tax the gambling machines was quietly dropped. Instead of controlling the industry, the new Gambling Act paved the way for Britain’s first super-casino (eight more are planned). Boris Johnson also has no compunction about being pictured with another figure from the sleazy world of fund raising — Lord Michael Levy who was a bag man for Tony Blair. From the moment he entered parliament Tony Blair was an enthusiastic member of Friends of Israel. But it was at a dinner party at the home of an Israeli diplomat in 1994 that Blair, the newly appointed leader of the Labour Party, met the man who was to bankroll his private office when he reached Number 10. Michael Levy was a wealthy former record label owner who again, was seen as a gatekeeper to the wealthy Jewish figures whose names pop up again and again on the board of large charities — he was a former chair of Jewish Care, a member of the Jewish Agency World Board of Governors, and a trustee of the Holocaust Educational Trust. Potential donors would be invited for tennis at his palatial “hacienda” style home where Tony Blair would join them for a set or two. Levy would then proceed to ask the guests for donations after Blair had left. When Blair became Prime Minister, Levy’s efforts paid off big time. Levy was subsequently ennobled as Lord Levy and then appointed as a ‘special envoy’ to the Middle-East, leading predictably to the development of a strong pro-Israel line. This drew much critical comment as Levy had both a house and business in Israel and Levy’s son Daniel used to work for the former Justice Minister of Israel. The fact that Levy acted as a fundraiser for former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak cast further doubt on his capacity for impartiality. But it all ended in tears, scandal, and police investigations. Lord Levy was arrested by police three times on suspicion that cash was being exchanged for peerages. (Predictably, police could not make the allegations stick and law officers decided not to prosecute.) Each row seemed to have common characteristics. They involved Jewish businessmen, deception and apparent willingness to go to great lengths to achieve their goals, knowing that they had friends in high places in case things went wrong. There is no suggestion that Levy and Mendelsohn’s connections and access to Jewish funds gave them immunity, but it was striking how they emerged, if not smelling of roses, then unscathed, after each row. Since then both men have prospered. After leaving politics without a stain on his reputation, Lord Levy is still glad-handing and schmoozing on behalf of his favourite Jewish charities. Lord Mendelsohn sold his company for £10 million and is now a Labour shadow minister in the House of Lords. At his induction he was accompanied by old friends and allies Lord Levy and Lord Greville Janner, the alleged pederast, who himself, of course, is no stranger to controversy. Boris Johnson is doubtless quite aware of all this and is using it to ascend the corridors of power by taking full advantage of Jewish political consultants. Even his successful campaign to become President of the Oxford Union was won only with the help of a Jewish adviser who was to become a prominent political consultant in the US, Frank Luntz — which reminds us that a similar situation obtains in the US, except that Donald Trump’s candidacy is notable for eschewing the usual bowing and scraping before Jewish money. Boris will step down after the next Mayoral elections are held in May. As his successor to the Mayorship, he is grooming another fellow Old Etonian, Zac Goldsmith, whose marriage to a Rothschild heiress represented a union of two of world’s wealthiest Jewish banking dynasties. And curiously enough it is the Jewish and banking constituencies which may be most important if he tries to lead the Conservative Party. If he does make a bid for the top job, you can guarantee that Boris Johnson will have done his best to make sure he has all the right friends in the right places. [1] Ladbrokes was owned by a controversial Jewish businessman and philanthropist called Cyril Stein who lost his gaming licences in the early eighties after a regulator decided he was not a “fit and proper person.” (4) Boris Johnson to become Foreign Secretary, in exchange for campaigning for Britain to stay in EU http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12/19/boris-johnson-foreign-secretary_n_8845504.html Boris Johnson To Become Foreign Secretary Next Year In Exchange For EU Support, According To Report The Huffington Post UK | By Paul Vale Posted: 19/12/2015 17:38 GMT Updated: 19/12/2015 17:59 GMT Boris Johnson is being lined up as Britain’s next foreign secretary, according to a report by The Telegraph. The newspaper said David Cameron is to hand the Uxbridge MP the top government position once his role as mayor ends next May. Giving Boris foreign office would be a way to ensure his support in the upcoming EU referendum, according to Tory sources. Johnson, who in recent years has flirted with Euroscepticism, would replace current minister Philip Hammond, who this week was at the UN in New York to agree a peace roadmap for Syria. Although Johnson currently attends cabinet meetings as part of the government, the former journalist does not have a ministry to run. The move would benefit Boris by allowing the ambitious mayor to position himself as a frontrunner for the Tory leadership, competition for the current favourite to replace Cameron at the end of this parliament, Chancellor George Osborne. Following talks in Brussels this week on a renegotiated EU deal for Britain, Cameron hinted that the long-awaited referendum on Britain’s membership would likely be held next June. Despite Cameron’s optimism, the PM has failed to win any major concessions from his EU counterparts, particularly on his demand to stop in-work benefits for migrants for up to four years, a move decried by other EU leaders as “discriminatory.” Last week, Boris spoke out on a petition calling for Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump to be banned from entering Britain over his comments calling for a Muslim travel ban. Though Boris said Trump should be allowed entry into the UK, the London mayor said Trump's "stupefying ignorance" proved he was "clearly out of his mind." (5) Boris Johnson will be made Foreign Secretary after he quits as London Mayor http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson/12056110/Boris-Johnson-could-be-made-foreign-secretary-to-boost-leadership-credentials-after-he-quits-as-London-Mayor.html Boris Johnson could be made foreign secretary to boost leadership credentials after he quits as London Mayor A senior source close to Prime Minister David Cameron said he was considering handing him a prime Government role like foreign secretary in a bid to ensure he campaigns for Britain to stay in the EU Boris Johnson is in the running to succeed Philip Hammond as foreign secretary Photo: Getty Images By Christopher Hope, Matthew Holehouse and Steven Swinford 10:00PM GMT 18 Dec 2015 David Cameron is considering making Boris Johnson foreign secretary within months as part of a bid to ensure he campaigns to keep Britain in the European Union, The Telegraph can disclose. The Prime Minister has discussed the possibility of sending Mr Johnson to the Foreign Office when he stands down as Mayor of London in May, friends of Mr Cameron have said. It would allow Mr Johnson to “position himself” ahead of a potential run for the Conservative Party leadership against George Osborne, the Chancellor. The disclosure comes as Mr Cameron on Friday signalled that the in-out referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU will be held next year. But he prompted fury from Conservative eurosceptics by saying at the end of a crucial Brussels summit that he “firmly believes” Britain’s future remains in the EU, despite his renegotiation not yet being complete. (6) Boris Johnson declares fealty to the Lobby: ‘I am a passionate Zionist’ ‘I am a passionate Zionist,’ declares Boris Johnson http://www.jewishnews.co.uk/boris-johnson-zionist/ August 7, 2014 London Mayor Boris Johnson has been on a kibbutz In the heat of a debate about Gaza this week, London Mayor Boris Johnson declared himself “a Zionist” on morning radio, before distancing himself from Israel’s actions, which he called “disproportionate”. Speaking on LBC, Johnson said: “I am a passionate Zionist. I am a supporter of Israel. I believe in its existence. I’ve been on a kibbutz for heaven’s sake.” Pressed on Prime Minister David Cameron’s refusal to criticise Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip, he added: “I can’t for the life of me see how this can be a sensible strategy. “I think what has been happening in Gaza is disproportionate. I think it’s ugly and tragic and I don’t think it will do Israel any good in the long-run.” (7) Boris Johnson worked on a kibbutz; dismisses claims of 'ethnic cleansing' of Palestinians http://www.jewishnews.co.uk/exclusive-interview-boris-johnson-world-would-be-impoverished-without-israel/ EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW – Boris Johnson: ‘World would be ‘impoverished’ without Israel’ November 12, 2015 Boris Johnson has insisted the world would be “impoverished” without the existence of Israel and acknowledged a “violent response” would be required if London came under attack in a similar way as Israeli communities have from Gaza. News Editor Justin Cohen interviewing Mayor of London Boris Johnson The mayor of London’s comments came in an exclusive interview with the Jewish News during his three-day trade mission to Israel and the territories, during which he sought to further develop trade ties and repeatedly attacked moves to boycott the Jewish state. After plans for the mission were first revealed in the Jewish News two and a half years ago, he joked that the trip was “thanks to you because you kept badgering me” about when he would fulfil the pledge. The visit came on the back of a doubling of bilateral trade over the past five years and after more Israeli firms had listed in London than any other country. Joined by a delegation of representatives from 15 London tech firms looking to connect with counterparts in the startup nation, Johnson kicked off the visit at the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange where he hailed Israel’s hi-tech prowess as “an absolute education”. It is “inestimable” how much poorer the UK and world would be without Israeli innovation, he told this newspaper. “It’s an incredible country that’s changed out of all recognition since I worked on kibbutz 30 years ago. I’m here because of that economic change,” he said. “Israel has been responsible for everything from USB memory sticks to all sorts of apps that are of great value. The country has played a huge role in computing generally and the whole tech explosion. But it’s more fundamental than that: the world would be greatly poorer without Israel. The world would be impoverished without a state – for all its faults and all the the criticisms you can level – is far and away the most free, open, democratic in this neighbourhood. It’s a great thing and we need to preserve that.” He said it didn’t bother him “at all” that the visit was not universally applauded on Twitter, where many reacted to posts about the trip with messages about settlements and claims of “ethnic cleansing” of the Palestinians, some even taking issue with his use of the word democracy. He said: “I fully expected it. I think people – not unreasonably – apply very different standards to Israel than they do to other places in the world because it’s a free democratic country. There’s a high level of expectation. That means there are double standards. People will criticise Israel for things they ignore in other countries. That doesn’t altogether exculpate Israel or successive Israeli governments from some of the failings we’ve seen. There’s no question everyone wants to see more progress in trying to reach an accommodation with the Palestinians. All it takes is leadership. Abba Eban said the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity – that’s been the case over a long time. Let’s hope the current leadership of the Palestinians and Israel can turn it around.” Asked if Benjamin Netanyahu could be doing more to move towards a settlement, he added: “That’s not something I can easily comment on.” [...] Posted by ZF UK – Zionist Federation on Wednesday, 11 November 2015 (8) New Labour turned to Jewish Donors to avoid dependence on the Unions (2007) http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/dec/06/noconspiracyhere No conspiracy here Keith Kahn-Harris The Jewish angle on the Labour donations scandal sheds an interesting light on the party's funding mechanism, but is not evidence of a sinister cabal Thursday 6 December 2007 19.00 AEDT The lead story in last week's Jewish Chronicle revealed the apprehension felt by some leading Jewish communal figures at the prominent involvement of two Jewish people, David Abrahams and Jon Mendelsohn, in the current Labour party funding controversy. The majority of people involved in the scandal are not Jewish, but coming soon after Lord Levy's involvement in the "cash for honours" inquiry, the involvement of more Jews in public scandals provokes understandable concern in the Jewish community. Given the long history of conspiracy theories featuring Jewish cabals and conspiracies, given the stereotypes of money-grubbing Jewish businessmen, Jews are acutely sensitive to anything that would confirm peoples' worst impressions of the Jewish community. Indeed, an earlier Jewish-linked scandal - the conviction of the "Guinness Four" in 1990 - sparked snide media references to the "kosher nostra". Even if Abrahams and Mendelsohn are only two players in a wider scandal, their Jewishness stands out. While it would be absurd and hateful to see the events of the last couple of weeks as evidence of a sinister Jewish conspiracy, it would also be wrong to claim that the Jewishness of the protagonists in this and the previous funding controversy was entirely incidental to it. On the contrary, to understand the controversy, you need to understand the Jewish contexts in which Michael Levy, David Abrahams and Jon Mendelsohn operate. The UK Jewish community of less than 300,000 people boasts an astonishingly varied and complex array of welfare, educational, cultural and other organisations, to say nothing of its several hundred synagogues. While not as wealthy as some imagine, British Jews are largely middle class and sophisticated networks of philanthropy ensure that Anglo-Jewish institutions are well provided for. Michael Levy came to prominence outside the business world as a fundraiser and philanthropist for Jewish causes, most notably Jewish Care, the communal welfare organisation. Similarly, David Abrahams has given generously to a range of Anglo-Jewish charities. While Jews have always been involved in the Labour party in significant numbers (and since the 1980s in the Conservative party too), the importance of Jewish donors to New Labour dates to the mid-1990s. The New Labour project stood or fell on its ability to build a donor base that would allow the Blair-Brown axis to avoid dependence on the unions. It is easy to see the attraction that Michael Levy held for Tony Blair when they met in 1994. Here was a man who was not just rich and generous in his own right, but who had ready access to a network of other potential donors. Levy was an integral part of "the project" not because of some sinister Zionist-inspired quest for influence, but because he offered skills honed and contacts made during his Jewish funding-raising. New Labour elevated a pre-existing Jewish network to national importance - and therein lies the problem. The Jewish community has long preferred to attempt to influence the political process through discreet advocacy and relationship building rather than through public demonstrations and campaigning. This discretion is rooted in long-standing concerns to be seen as good British citizens, to not show ingratitude to the "hospitality" of this country. British politics since the 1990s has witnessed a paradoxical process in which lobbying has become ever more important to government, yet ever more the object of public suspicion. Regardless of the truth or falsehood of the allegations against Abrahams and Mendelsohn, they have fallen victim to the distrust that has surrounded lobbying and private political donations since the early 90s. It is intriguing to note that both the British Jewish communal organisations and British political parties are increasingly reliant on a small number of "high value" donors. This is only a problem if those donations buy disproportionate influence. In the Jewish community the influence of a small number of very wealthy philanthropists is considerable and the same faces appear repeatedly on the boards of major Jewish charities. At the same time, the influence of communal grandees is counter-balanced by the community's vibrant grassroots volunteer culture, in which large numbers of British Jews ensure that the community's institutions can function. In contrast, the Labour party has seen its volunteer corps decimated in recent years in part as a direct result of the leadership's desire to curb the influence of the grassroots. There is little effective counterweight to the influence of major donors. Moreover, whereas bought influence in the Jewish community brings immaterial benefits such as kudos and self-esteem, bought influence in political parties can - potentially at least - bring very real material benefits. Philanthropy can be driven by the very worst and the very best motivations. We do not yet know and we may never know into what category David Abrahams political philanthropy falls. It is possible though that the structures of the British Jewish community may bring out the best in David Abraham and in other Jewish philanthropists, whereas the structures of the Labour party may well have brought out the worst. Jews do not corrupt politics - if anything, politics corrupts Jews. (9) UK Lobby targets Corbyn for associating with Paul Eisen, a 'holocaust denier' http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/17/jeremy-corbyn-british-jews-labour-palestine-jewish It’s vital for Jeremy Corbyn to establish a working relationship with British Jews Keith Kahn-Harris The Labour leader’s passionate support for Palestinian causes has worried many. He now needs to build bridges {photo} ‘Jeremy Corbyn’s victory has been received with shock and even horror by substantial sections of British Jewry.’ Photograph: Andy Hall for the Observer {end} Friday 18 September 2015 00.29 AEST Last modified on Friday 18 September 2015 17.52 AEST Jeremy Corbyn’s intray is filled with a daunting array of challenges resulting from a victory that even he probably thought inconceivable when his campaign started. So it would have been understandable had he not accorded top priority to one of those challenges: how to relate to Britain’s 300,000 Jews. Related: Jeremy Corbyn says antisemitism claims 'ludicrous and wrong' Yet in the tumultuous days after victory, his camp did apparently float the possibility of what some sources described as a “minister for Jews” (later upgraded to a minister for minority faiths). This hasn’t happened – some say it was never even considered – and probably will never happen. But it does show that, at some level, some sections of the Corbyn campaign, and perhaps Corbyn himself, recognised a need to reach out to the Jewish community. The problem is clear. As surveys have shown, the majority of British Jews are Zionists, albeit with varying degrees of enthusiasm for the current Israeli government. While many Zionists believe there need be no inherent tension with Palestinians – envisaging, at least in theory, a state of Israel existing alongside a state of Palestine – the passionate activism of Palestinian supporters, particularly their frequent support for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) and a “one-state” solution, is unnerving to many. But the concern isn’t just about defending Israel. After spikes in antisemitic incidents during Israel’s recent wars, as well as terrorist attacks on Jewish targets in France and Denmark, concern about antisemitism has risen among British Jews. Corbyn’s outspoken support for the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, together with his frequent appearing on platforms with, and alleged support for, Islamist and other controversial speakers who have espoused antisemitic and even Holocaust-denying views (such as in the cases of Raed Salah and Paul Eisen respectively), has inevitably meant that his victory has been received with shock and even horror by substantial sections of British Jewry. It is clear that accusations that he is tolerant of antisemitism have been deeply wounding to him personally and to many of his supporters. He also has many Jewish supporters who are at the forefront of defending him. It may have been that the “minister for Jews” idea was simply a way of solidifying his support among his Jewish defenders. I hope, though, that it was a recognition that Corbyn needs to reach out beyond his existing Jewish supporters to those who are much more suspicious. It was ill-thought out to be sure – the phrase has sinister resonances, as the only societies that have “ministers for Jews” are those that think they have a Jewish problem, although it may have been part of a poorly phrased floating of a proposal for a minister for faith minorities – but it could indicate a genuine desire for a rapprochement. So why does Jeremy Corbyn need to start building bridges with those sections of the British Jewish community that will find it difficult to trust him? If any reconciliation is possible, it will need to begin quietly and out of the glare of the media The main reason is this: to be a potential national leader of a multicultural nation, it’s a very bad idea to be so alienated from a majority of any British minority. While no leader of any political party can reasonably aspire to garner votes from the majority of every minority, a prospective party of government must at the very least be able to have a dialogue with all minorities and listen seriously to their concerns. In short, it’s probably too much to ask that most British Jews will ever be Corbynites, and that Corbyn will in return find Zionism to be anything other than problematic. But it shouldn’t be too much to ask for cordial and businesslike relations to be established with Jewish groups. There are also reasons to think that this might be possible. First of all, at least some Jewish communal organisations do accept the need to establish some kind of relationship with Corbyn. The Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council issued curt but not hostile statements that publicly expressed their desire to meet him. The heads of both organisations have also expressed willingness to “engage”, whilestill making clear that they have concerns. Second, the Jewish relationship with the Labour party is so long and deep that it is going to be difficult for Corbyn’s leadership to avoid dealing with at least some Jewish detractors within his own party. Jewish Labour party members may, in fact, be able to find some way of mediating between Corbyn and the Jewish community. Intriguingly, Luciana Berger – MP for Liverpool Wavertree and a previous director of Labour Friends of Israel – is now serving as shadow minister for mental health. I would not envy her the competing tensions she will have to mediate, but she may prove to be a crucial figure. If any reconciliation is possible, it will need to begin quietly and out of the glare of the media, with the seriousness that dialogue and conflict resolution require. There is clearly a great deal of hurt and suspicion on both sides and it’s going to take time to address. I am suggesting to my fellow members of the British Jewish community some ways in which it might try to build bridges to Corbyn. Both Jeremy Corbyn and his detractors share one belief: they agree that antisemitism is wrong and unacceptable. They may differ profoundly on what constitutes antisemitism, but there is at least something to build on. It’s not much, but it is something. (10) But Lobby fails to mention that Eisen is Jewish, and motivated by compassion for Palestinians http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/8/18/the-kingmaker The Kingmaker August 18, 2015 By Gilad Atzmon Paul Eisen, until a week ago anonymous as far as most Brits were concerned, is now a kingmaker. The UK Jewish Lobby is convinced, for some reason, that the nature of Eisen’s relationship with Labour’s leading candidate Jeremy Corbyn will determine the future of this country. As we witness the most important political debate in Britain for generations being hijacked by the Zionist media and ‘Jewish sensitivities’, the time is ripe to ask: who is Paul Eisen? Eisen has been described by the Jewish press and its acolytes as an ‘anti Semite’ and a ‘holocaust denier’, but peculiarly, no one mentions that Eisen is actually a Jew who sometimes even speaks ‘as a Jew’. Eisen’s ‘crime’ seems obvious - he doesn’t adhere to the Zionist orthodox Shoah narrative. But Eisen doesn’t dispute the fact that German National Socialism despised the Jewish race, he doesn’t dispute the mass deportation of Jews, he doesn’t condone German National Socialist racism against Jews and others. Eisen doesn’t dispute the fact that many Jews died under the Nazi regime in some horrid and unfortunate circumstances. However, Eisen is sceptical on issues to do with the homicidal nature of the Nazi operation. He is not convinced that the Germans used gas chambers as a death factory. [...] Eisen was tormented (as a Jew) to find out that the Israeli Holocaust museum Yad Vashem was erected on the lands of Ayn Karim, a ethnically cleansed Palestinian village <http://www.palestineremembered.com/Jerusalem/Ayn-Karim/>. Eisen was tortured when he realised that Yad Vashem was built in proximity to Deir Yassin, a Palestinian village that was erased along with its inhabitants in a colossal cold-blooded massacre by Jewish paramilitaries in 1948 <http://www.palestineremembered.com/Jerusalem/Dayr-Yasin/>. Just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the newly born Jewish state wiped out a civilization in Palestine in the name of a racist Jewish nationalist ideology. It is this vile cynicism that turned Eisen into a denier – a denier of the primacy of Jewish suffering. In his eyes, if the Jews could commit the massacre in Deir Yassin after Auschwitz, the holocaust must be denied because it failed to mature into a universal ethical message. (11) Jeremy Corbyn and the Jews - Gilad Atzmon http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/8/17/jeremy-corbyn-and-the-jews Jeremy Corbyn and the Jews August 17, 2015 By Gilad Atzmon The relationship between Jeremy Corbyn and British Jews can be summarized into a brief observation: While Corbyn’s success represents a hugely popular shift within British political thinking, the orchestrated Jewish campaign against him is there to suggest that once again, Jews set themselves against the people they dwell upon. The vastly growing popularity of Jeremy Corbyn amongst Brits can be easily explained. Following decades of cultural Marxist, divisive Identiterian politics and Zionist-Neocon domination within the British Left, Corbyn brings along a refreshing ideological alternative. Corbyn seems to re-unite the Brits. He cares for the weak. He opposes interventionist wars. He represents the return of the good old left as opposed to New Labour’s affinity with big money, choseness and exceptionalism. He cares for the students and the youth. He thinks about the future and promises to undo the damage created by Blair and Cameron. But as Britain sees the rise of a hugely popular ideological movement, many Jewish institutions see Corbyn as an arch enemy. They would prefer to see him gone and have used nearly every trick in the book to discredit him. In the last few days we have noticed a tidal wave of Jewish institutional opposition to Corbyn. First it was the Daily Mail that attempted to throw Zionist mud in the direction of the man who is destined to take over what is left out of the Labour party. Surprisingly, not a single British media outlet picked the Mail’s dirt for a few days. Eventually the notorious Zionist Jewish Chronicle had to take the gloves off just ahead of Sabbath and lead the battle against the emerging socialist leader. In the weekend the Jewish Chronicle (JC) outlined its problems with Corbyn while claiming to “speak for the vast majority of British Jews… expressing deep foreboding at the prospect of Mr Corbyn’s election as Labour leader.” Apparently, on behalf of ‘the vast majority of British Jews,’ The JC wanted to know whether it is true that Corbyn donated money to Dier Yassin Remembered (DYR), an organisation that was founded to commemorate the brutal massacre of an entire Palestinian village by right wing Jewish paramilitary fighters in 1948. I guess that the tens of thousands who joined the labour party in the last weeks just to support the first true British labour ideologist for generations were delighted to learn that their favourite candidate supported DYR and truly opposes Zionist barbarism. On behalf of the “vast majority of British Jews” the JC demanded to be fully informed about the non-existent relationship between Corbyn and British DYR chairman Paul Eisen. The JC didn’t approve of the connection between Corbyn and pro-Palestinian Rev Stephen Sizer either. Corbyn was also asked to clarify his association with the Hamas, the Hezbollah and Palestinian cleric Raead Salah. I guess that the JC editorial would like to define the list of kosher ‘friends’ eligible for British elected politicians. Until this happens, the message that is delivered by the Brits is lucid: it is actually Corbyn’s firm stand on justice and his ability to befriend true freedom fighters and humanists which makes him into the most popular politician in Britain at the moment. If someone in the JC fails to read the picture, I will outline it in the clearest form. British people are expressing a clear fatigue of corrupted party politics as much as they are tired of Zionist interventionist wars. They are begging for a change, they demand equality and the prospect of a better future and a leader with ethical integrity. Whether Corbyn can provide these qualities, time will tell. But the British yearning for a radical change has been formally established. Disrespectfully and outrageously, in the open and on behalf of “the vast majority of British Jews”, the JC set an ultimatum to the most popular man in British politics. “If Mr Corbyn is not to be regarded from the day of his election as an enemy of Britain’s Jewish community, he has a number of questions which he must answer in full and immediately.” One would expect the JC editorial to learn something from Jewish history. Those British Jews who insist to speak ‘on behalf’ of their people should at least pretend to uphold some minimal respect to British good manners. The JC, however, admitted that Corbyn ignored them for over a week – “No response has been forthcoming” from Corbyn or his office, the JC wrote. Though I do not have any reason to believe that Corbyn has a cell of hatred in his body, I wouldn’t like to see him bowing to Jewish political pressure. What we need is a firm British leader dedicated to equality, justice, peace and British interests instead of just another Sabbos Goy and servant of the Lobby as well as big money. (12) Corbyn condemns Kaufman claims over 'Jewish money' influencing Tories on Israel http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-condemns-unacceptable-kaufman-claims-over-jewish-money-influencing-tories-on-israel-a6719731.html Jeremy Corbyn condemns 'unacceptable' Kaufman claims over 'Jewish money' influencing Tories on Israel Labour whips have raised the issue with Gerald Kaufman Jon Stone Tuesday 3 November 2015 16:00 BST | Jeremy Corbyn has criticised one of his MPs for making “unacceptable” claims that money from Jewish donors had influence the Conservatives’ policy on Israel. Gerald Kaufman, who is himself Jewish, had said “Jewish money, Jewish donations to the Conservative Party” had led to a pro-Israel “bias” in the Conservatives. Mr Corbyn, a longstanding critic of Israel, said Labour whips had been ordered to speak to Mr Kaufman about the comments. “Last week’s reported comments by Sir Gerald Kaufman about the Jewish community, the Conservative party and Israel are completely unacceptable and deeply regrettable,” he said in a statement. “Such remarks are damaging to community relations, and also do nothing to benefit the Palestinian cause. I have always implacably opposed all forms of racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and will continue to do so. “At my request, the Chief Whip has met Sir Gerald and expressed my deep concern.” READ MORE Jeremy Corbyn answers critics' 'ludicrous and wrong' anti-semitism Jewish leader warns that anti-Semitism in Europe is "like the 1930s" Netanyahu may not be a popular choice, but beware those who use his After the news was announced, Simon Johnson, the chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, said: “The fact that Mr Corbyn has distanced himself from Sir Gerald’s despicable comments is in itself a welcome intervention. We await a response from the Chief Whip as to whether any further disciplinary action will be taken and, of course, if Sir Gerald will apologise.” The initial remarks made by Mr Kaufman led to groups including the Board of Deputies of British Jews writing to Labour’s whip’s office requesting disciplinary action. The comments were made at a meeting in Parliament last Tuesday. Mr Corbyn was criticised by the newspaper the Jewish Chronicle during the Labour leadership campaign for apparently associating with people with allegedly anti-Semitic views. He was also heckled by a supporter of Israel during the Labour Party conference at a reception run by the Labour Friends of Israel. (13) In Clear Sight of Yad Vashem - by Paul Eisen http://www.deiryassin.org/byboard18a.html In Clear Sight of Yad Vashem (January 2003) By Paul Eisen "The central part of Deir Yassin is a cluster of buildings now used as a mental hospital. To the east lies the industrial area of Givat Shaul; to the north lies Har Hamenuchot (the Jewish cemetery), to the west, built into the side of the mountain on which Deir Yassin is located is Har Nof, a new settlement of orthodox Jews. To the south is a steep valley terraced and containing part of the Jerusalem Forest. On the other side of that valley, roughly a mile and a half from Deir Yassin and in clear view of it, are Mount Herzl and Yad Vashem." - Dan McGowan, "Remembering Deir Yassin" Deir Yassin is as important a part of Jewish as it is of Palestinian history. Deir Yassin, coming in April 1948, just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz in January 1945, marks a Jewish transition from enslavement to empowerment and from abused to abuser. Can there ever have been such a remarkable shift, over such a short period, in the history of a people? Deir Yassin also signalled the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians leading to their eventual dispossession and exile and was just one example of a conscious and premeditated plan to destroy the Palestinians as a people in their own homeland. For the fifty-odd years since the establishment of the state of Israel, successive Israeli governments whether Labour or Likud, and whether by force as at Deir Yassin, or by chicanery as at Oslo and Camp David, have followed the same policy of oppressing and dispossessing Palestinians to make way for an exclusively Jewish state. Even now, when Israel could have peace and security for the asking, Israeli governments persist in their original intention of conquering the whole of Palestine for the use of the Jewish people alone. And all this was done, and is still being done, by Jews, for Jews and in the name of Jews. But should we, as Jews, feel ourselves culpable? After all, these are the crimes of Zionists not of Jews committed in a different place and time. Are we, Jews who were not there, who were not even born at the time, to feel responsible for these deeds? And anyway, not all Jews committed these crimes, so surely not all Jews need accept responsibility? But Zionism and the state of Israel now lie at the very heart of Jewish life and so many Jews have benefited from the associated empowerment. So many Jews, even if unaffiliated officially to Zionism, have still supported it in its aims. Indeed, almost the entire organised Jewish establishments throughout the western world, in Israel, Europe and North America have used their power, influence and, most importantly, their moral prestige to support Israel in its attempts to subjugate the Palestinians. And not only have they offered their support for these crimes. These same groups and individuals are also telling the rest of the world that it's not really happening, that Israel is not the aggressor, that Israel is not trying to destroy the Palestinian people, that black is white. And not only do they deny this reality, anyone who dares say otherwise is branded an anti-Semite and excluded from society. This militarization and politicisation of Jewish life, this silencing of dissent, this bowing down before the God of the state of Israel, is this the tradition that was handed down to us, and what does this leave us to pass on to our children? If we are really honest with ourselves, should we not, as suggested by Marc Ellis, replace every Torah scroll, in every ark, in every synagogue in the Jewish world, with a helicopter gunship? Because, as Ellis says, "what we do, we worship". That the relationship with the Palestinian people is fractured is self-evident, but what of the relationships within our own community and the relationship with our own history and tradition? Are these also not affected? And how does one repair a fractured relationship? As with an old friend whom one has offended, but to whom one has never acknowledged the offence, surely only the absolute truth will do. So, for the sake of the future of Jewish life, there can only be one solution - a complete and full confession that what we Jews have done to the Palestinian people is wrong and what we are doing to the Palestinian people is wrong, and, with that confession, a resolve, as far as is possible, to put the matter right. And where better to begin than at Deir Yassin - the scene of the crime against the Palestinian people, the place of transition from enslavement to empowerment and from abused to abuser? For Deir Yassin, in clear sight of Yad Vashem, the symbol of our own tragedy, is the symbol of the tragedy visited by us on another people. Where better to begin this process of confession and restitution? But will they come? Will Jews come to commemorate Deir Yassin? For the overwhelming majority, the answer is a resounding "no". Jews will not come to Deir Yassin. Jews will not confess to the Palestinian people. For most Jews, commemoration of Deir Yassin is tantamount to siding with the enemy, to conspiring to destroy Israel and the Jewish people. Buoyed up by their own propaganda and blinded by their sense of innocence and victimhood, most Jews will not join with Palestinians in commemorating Deir Yassin. But there is a fringe of Jews who do not take this view, Jews who do not share this vision of the Jewish establishments. These Jews, who generally make up what is known as the "Peace Camp," do not wish to see the complete destruction of the Palestinian people but, instead, wish to come to some kind of accommodation with them. These Jews, whilst also uneasy about coming to Deir Yassin, will at least talk about it. What of them? These Jews will often say, "Yes, we will join Palestinians in commemorating Deir Yassin when Palestinians join us in commemorating Maalot" or "We will remember Deir Yassin when Palestinians remember the more recent Sbarro Pizza Bar bombing", We then point out that we don't commemorate Deir Yassin because it was a massacre. (If we did, we would be commemorating every day of the week, every week of the year since there were plenty of massacres, on both sides) We commemorate because Deir Yassin is a symbol of the Palestinian catastrophe rather as Anne Frank is a symbol of the Holocaust. After all, as Anne Frank was just one child so Deir Yassin was just one village. So then these Jews say, "Okay, we shall commemorate Deir Yassin when Palestinians commemorate Auschwitz". To this we have to say, "Yes, but Palestinians didn't do Auschwitz to us; we did do Deir Yassin to them". These Jews also don't want to admit that what they have done to the Palestinians is wrong, and what they are doing to the Palestinians is wrong. Nor do these Jews really want to make restitution to the Palestinians. These Jews, just like those who flatly refuse to come to Deir Yassin and make no apologies, these, more moderate Jews, also want to assert their power. But, unlike the others, they want to keep their innocence as well. And this is not easy. At one time they simply told themselves that it had never happened, but now, largely thanks to the new Israeli historians, this is no longer possible. So they dress it up in what Professor Walid Khalidi has called "the sin of moral equivalence". They say, "This is not a case of one people trying to destroy another, of a victim and a perpetrator; this is a conflict, a conflict between two rights and both sides have suffered terribly. If only both sides would understand each other's suffering, all will be well." So these Jews say that they will come to Deir Yassin and, once there, will say to Palestinians, "Okay, we've suffered; you've suffered, let's talk". To which we have to say, "No, it's not we've suffered, you've suffered, let's talk"; it's "We've suffered and we've caused you to suffer; NOW let's talk". Deir Yassin is surely about peace and reconciliation, but the peace cannot be the peace and quiet for the victor to go on robbing the victims, and the reconciliation cannot be the reconciliation of the victims reconciling themselves with their victim-hood. But for those few Jews of conscience who do make it to our commemorations, for that tiny remnant who do wish to remember and to confess, what will they find? First, they will encounter a people and a narrative that they may never have met or heard before. For most Jews, Palestinians remain stereotyped as biblical shepherds, refugees or terrorists, and their story is largely unknown. To encounter the Palestinian community, as so many Jews did for the first time at our London commemorations, is to encounter a community not only human and diverse, but, most importantly, so very like their own. They will also be witness to Palestinians remembering their own tragedy. For many Palestinians, particularly those old enough to have been present at the events being remembered, Deir Yassin commemorations can be very emotional. Silently to accompany these people as they remember their tragic history is, for any Jew of conscience, a deeply moving experience. Thirdly, and so importantly, they will encounter a story of dispossession and exile so reminiscent of their own. For any Jew, the Palestinian father who was dragged out of his home in Deir Yassin, as re-enacted at the London 2001 commemoration, could so easily have been a surrendered ghetto fighter in Warsaw 1941, and that bourgeois Madame, in her now-bedraggled fur coat trudging the road out of Jaffa and into exile, was nothing if not a Berliner boarding a train for Riga in 1942. Finally, they will have the opportunity and the privilege to say, loud and clear, with no ifs and buts, "what we have done to the Palestinian people is wrong and what we are doing to the Palestinian people is wrong. Let us now work together to put it right." Paul Eisen Paul Eisen is the London-based director of Deir Yassin Remembered paul@eisen.demon.co.uk (14) Paul Eisen: every example of Jewish suffering is used to justify the crimes of Israel http://www.righteousjews.org/article19.html Speaking the Truth to Jews By Paul Eisen What Israel and Zionism have done, and are doing, to the Palestinians is indefensible, yet so many Jews defend it. How and why do they do this? And why does the rest of the world seem complicit and unable to speak out? The Original Sin Many arguments can be advanced in favour of a Jewish state in Palestine, from the simple right of the Jewish people to national self-determination, the right of Jews to return to their ancestral homeland, and the need of a suffering and persecuted people for a haven where they can be safe and secure. Jews can define themselves as they wish. If they feel themselves to be a nation, then they are a nation. But, in accordance with the dictum, that 'your freedom to swing your arm ends where your finger touches my nose', it is when this self-definition impinges on others that the problems begin. It is then that others may ask whether this Jewish sense of nationhood-often an emotional and religious matter based on a perceived sharing of history and even of destiny-can ever be realised politically. What it boils down to is this: Jews, like any other people, may have the right to establish and maintain a state of their own, but, do Jews have the right to establish and maintain a state of their own in Palestine, already the home of the Palestinians? All this may, and will be argued, but what is beyond dispute is that, for Jewish national self-determination and statehood, it is the Palestinians who have paid a terrible price. By 1947-48, Palestinians had been reduced to a state of anxiety and insecurity, and in 1948, when the State of Israel was established, a traditional Palestinian society was no match for its democratic, egalitarian and fiercely ideological foe. As a consequence, an entire way of life was obliterated. At least 750,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes and into exile, more than 450 of their towns and villages were destroyed or pillaged and people who had lived a settled life for generations ended up either in tents in Lebanon, Syria or Jordan, or as a bereft and traumatised diaspora in every corner of the earth. Nor was all this an unintended by-product of war. Although the idea that the Palestinians just 'ran away' has, in the main, been dispelled, we are still left with many stories, obfuscations and downright lies about where responsibility lies for this ethnic cleansing. The critical issue now centres on the question of intentionality. The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, like most instances of ethnic cleansing, was intentional, premeditated and planned. But we need not bother looking for direct documentation. Although there is mounting evidence for the desires and intentions of the Zionist leadership to cleanse the land of Palestinians, the architects of the Nakba left no 'smoking gun'. There was no written order, because there was no need for a written order. Like other instances of ethnic cleansing, the expulsion of the Palestinians was done on 'understandings'. As Ilan Pappé has noted, every local Haganah commander, and all the men under their command at every village and town, knew exactly what was required. Sometimes a few shots in the air would be sufficient, and sometimes a full-blown massacre was needed. However, the result was always the same.[1] This was the original sin. Since then, the sin has been compounded many times over, as Israel has continued its assault on Palestinians and Palestinian life. From border raids and massacres to the occupation and the settlements, to the slaughter of 20,000 in Lebanon, through provocations, closures, expulsions, demolitions, arrests, torture and assassinations, right up to the chicaneries of Oslo and the Roadmap where Palestinians were to be bamboozled into going into their cage quietly, Israel and Zionism have sought to destroy the Palestinians, if not always physically, then certainly as a people in their own land. "...While we babble and rave…" "...Only then will the old and young in our land realise how great was our responsibility to those miserable Arab refugees in whose towns we have settled Jews who were brought from afar; whose homes we have inherited, whose fields we now sow and harvest; the fruits of whose gardens, orchards and vineyards we gather; and in whose cities that we robbed, we put up houses of education, charity and prayer while we babble and rave about being the 'people of the Book' and the 'light of the nations!'" (Buber/Chofshi).[2] For a relatively small number of Jews, support for what is being done to the Palestinians is a relatively easy matter. God gave the land to the Jews, the Palestinians are Amalek, and if they will not submit to Jewish rule they must, and will, be destroyed. Just like those Germans who relinquished Nazism only when the Russians were on the streets of Berlin, such Jews will abandon their militant, eliminationist Zionism only when the options finally close down. [...] Many Jews, now aware of the injustice associated with the establishment of Israel, but still unable to relinquish their belief in Israel's essential innocence, have congregated around the slogans: "End the occupation!" and "Two states for two peoples!" That there is no 'occupation', and that there will never be a true Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza, are simply denied. The long-term Zionist strategy for the conquest of Palestine was always to wait for what Ben-Gurion called 'revolutionary situations', meaning situations which would provide cover under which the take-over of Palestine could be completed. The first of these 'revolutionary situations' presented itself in 1947 and 1948, when, under the cover of the conflict, 78 percent of historic Palestine was transformed into Israel. Another such situation presented itself in 1967. Israel in 1967 was not the innocent party threatened with annihilation by the Arab states (though its population probably thought it was). Israel had been preparing for such a war for years. Neither was Israel's victory anything other then totally expected by anyone who was even a little bit in the know. Like the 1947-48 conflict, the war of 1967 was an opportunity gladly taken for the take-over of the remaining 22 percent of Palestine. This was the fulfilment of Zionism's historic mission. ... To talk about 'a cycle of violence' in the Middle East between Israelis and Palestinians is to commit the sin of 'moral equivalence.'[3] Conceived in the Israeli and Jewish peace camps, taken up by the mainstream and pretty much the entire solidarity movement, and now underpinning all acceptable discourse on Israel and Palestine, is the notion that the conflict in Israel/Palestine is not the brutal dispossession and oppression of one people by another, but a tragic conflict between two equal, but conflicting rights. [...] But it is not true that neither has heard the other's story. Palestinians have heard the Zionist story ad nauseam, and they have certainly heard enough about Jewish suffering. It is not, then, both sides that need to listen: it is Israelis, and Jews who need to listen. But, as is heard so often from inside the Jewish and Israeli peace camps, both sides have a point of view, and both sides must be heard; both sides have suffered, and right or wrong is never on one side only. This, of course, is true, but did these same Jews, then struggling against apartheid and now campaigning for the 'justice' of a disempowered statelet for Palestinians on a mere remnant of what was once their homeland - and many were the same Jews - say then that we had to see both sides of the picture? They did not. They acknowledged that white South Africans were as deserving of peace and prosperity as black South Africans, but they never lost sight of who was the victim and who was the perpetrator. [...] Even for the least observant Jew, Jewish identity is a complex and resonant issue, and Jewishness may be experienced a long way from the synagogue, the yeshiva, or any other formal aspect of Jewish life. Jewish history, inextricably linked with Judaism, is also the bedrock of many secular Jews' sense of Jewish identity. The founders of modern political Zionism, as secular a bunch as one could meet, still had a powerful sense of their history, and even destiny, with all the inevitable emotional and religious overtones. For many of them, and certainly for many of the Jewish masses who offered their allegiance, the founding of a Jewish state in Palestine was, if not overtly religious, still profoundly emotional and spiritual. Many of the founding fathers of the modern state defined themselves as socialists. Unable to choose between their socialism and their Zionism, they tried to combine the two, believing that Zionism and Socialism could go hand in hand in building a Jewish state, founded on principles of equality and social justice, an absurdity really, since the one stood for universal principles and the other for Jewish ethnic interests. The motto of Hashomer Hatzair (The Young Guard), which formed the core of the 'left-Zionist' Mapam party, "Le tzionut, le sozialism ve le achvat amim" ("For Zionism, socialism, and internationalism") is significant in that Zionism always came first. [...] But there was another Zionism: Cultural or Spiritual Zionism that envisioned a Jewish community, a spiritual, religious and cultural centre in Palestine, living in peace and equality with the Palestinians. These voices of bi-nationalism, led by such as Ahad Ha'am, Martin Buber and Judah Magnes, were small in number and increasingly marginalised. In retrospect it is hard to see that they had any effect on Zionist policy, or made much difference to present-day Zionist ideology. [...] It is understandable that Jews might believe that their suffering is greater, more mysterious and meaningful than that of any other people. It is even understandable that Jews might feel that their suffering can justify the oppression of another people. What is harder to understand is why the rest of the world has gone along with it. That Jews have suffered is undeniable. But acknowledgement of this suffering is rarely enough. Jews and others have demanded that not only should Jewish suffering be acknowledged, but that it also be accorded special status. Jewish suffering is held to be unique, central and most importantly, mysterious. Jewish suffering is rarely measured against the sufferings of other groups. Blacks, women, children, gays, workers, peasants, minorities of all kinds, all have suffered, but none as much as Jews. Protestants at the hands of Catholics, Catholics at the hands of Protestants, pagans and heretics, all have suffered religious persecution, but none as relentlessly as Jews. Indians, Armenians, gypsies and aborigines, all have been targeted for elimination, but none as murderously and as premeditatedly as Jews. Jewish suffering is held to be mysterious, and beyond explanation. Context is rarely examined. The place and role of Jews in society - their historical relationships with Church and state, landlords and peasantry - is hardly ever subject to scrutiny, and, whilst non-Jewish attitudes to Jews are the subject of intense interest, Jewish attitudes to non-Jews are rarely mentioned. Attempts to confront these issues are met with suspicion, and sometimes hostility, in the fear that explanation may lead to rationalisation, which may lead to exculpation, and then even to justification. The Holocaust, "the ultimate mystery" The stakes in this already fraught game have been raised so much higher by the Holocaust. Is the Holocaust 'The ultimate mystery, never to be comprehended or transmitted', as Elie Wiesel would have us believe?[5] Are attempts to question the Holocaust narrative merely a cover for the wish to deny or even to justify the Holocaust? Was Jewish suffering in the Holocaust greater and of more significance than that of anyone else? Were the three million Polish Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis more important than the three million Polish non-Jews who also died? Twenty million black Africans, a million Ibos, a million Kampucheans, Armenians, aborigines, all have perished in genocides, but none as meaningfully as the six million Jews slaughtered in the only genocide to be theologically named, and now perceived by Jews and the rest of the Western world to be an event of near religious significance. Whether there is anything special about Jews is not really relevant. What is relevant is that a large part of the Western world, even the most secular part, seems to believe that there is, or are not confident enough in their disbelief to say so. Similarly, whether the world believes that Jewish suffering is qualitatively and quantitatively different from all other suffering is also irrelevant. The fact is that most people seem compelled to agree that it is, or to remain silent. Christianity occupies a central place in Western culture and experience and Jews occupy a central place in the Christian narrative, so it is no surprise that Jews and Jewish concerns receive a lot of attention. The Western world, though largely secular but still Christian in its cultural foundations, seems at times obsessed with Jews, and unable to see them for what, in the words of Richard Rubenstein, they may well be, "a people like any other whose religion and culture were shaped so as to make it possible for them to cope with their very distinctive history and location among the peoples of the world."[6] Jewish life seems at times to be at the very heart of Western concerns. And this goes way beyond the religious contexts. From Jewish history, stories of struggle from the Hebrew Bible, such as the Exodus from Egypt, have become paradigms for other people's struggles and aspirations. The emigration of Jews from Eastern Europe into their Golden Land in America has become as American a legend as the Wild West. Jewish folklore and myth, stereotypes of Jewish humour, food, family life-all are deeply woven into the fabric of Western, particularly American, life. Christian attitudes towards Jews are complex and contradictory: Jesus was born a Jew and died a Jew, and yet, traditionally, His teachings supersede those of Judaism. Jesus lived amongst Jews, His message was shaped by Jews, yet He was rejected by Jews, and, it has been widely believed, died at the behest of Jews. So, for many Christians, Jews are both the people of God and the people who rejected God, and are objects of both great veneration and great loathing. Jewish suffering at the hands of the Christian majority is a matter of great shame and guilt. Yet still, in the minds of some Christians, and possibly buried deep within many more, are notions that the suffering of Jews is, for the killers of a God, deserved. This ambivalence is reflected in the secular world too, where Jews are widely admired for their history and traditions and for their creativity and success, yet are also regarded with some suspicion and dislike for their exclusivity and supposed sense of their own 'specialness'. Jews seem either loved or hated, and, now since the Holocaust, publicly at least, they seem loved, or at least if not loved, then certainly, indulged. During much of their history in Europe Jews were persecuted, culminating most recently in the slaughter in the death camps. The relationship between that ultimate slaughter and the centuries of antisemitism that preceded it, the relationship of the Church to that antisemitism, and the intensity and duration of persecutions of Jews throughout history, all of this is appropriate for examination. The nature of those persecutions may also be investigated, and even the possible collusion by Jews themselves in their own victimhood, all may be subject to proper scrutiny. But, just as in the struggle between Israelis and Palestinians there can be no argument about who are the victims and who are the perpetrators, there can be no doubt that, for much of their history in Europe, Jews were victims. Western society, both Christian and secular, bears a heavy responsibility for Jewish suffering, and this responsibility is now rightly being taken very seriously indeed. But what, when these legitimate feelings of responsibility are employed to conceal rather than reveal the truth? What, when Christian and other responsibility for Jewish suffering is used to justify the oppression of another people? What, when even the issue of who is the victim and who is the perpetrator becomes confused, when yesterday's victim becomes today's perpetrator, and when today's perpetrator uses its past victimhood to justify its present abuse of another people? [...] This article is a chapter in Speaking the Truth about Zionism and Israel, edited by Michael Prior and published by Melisende (London) March 2004. (15) Martin Buber: causeless hatred ... is bound to bring complete ruin upon us ... while we babble and rave about being the "People of the Book" and the "light of the nations" http://www.wrmea.org/jews-for-justice/the-origin-of-the-palestine-israel-conflict-jewish-criticism-of-zionism.html The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict Jewish Criticism of Zionism "Martin Buber—'Only an internal revolution can have the power to heal our people of their murderous sickness of causeless hatred...It is bound to bring complete ruin upon us. Only then will the old and young in our land realize how great was our responsibility to those miserable Arab refugees in whose towns we have settled Jews who were brought here from afar; whose homes we have inherited, whose fields we now sow and harvest; the fruits of whose gardens, orchards and vineyards we gather; and in whose cities that we robbed we put up houses of education, charity, and prayer, while we babble and rave about being the "People of the Book" and the "light of the nations"'... Martin Buber on what Zionism should have been "The first fact is that at the time when we entered into an alliance (an alliance, I admit, that was not well defined) with a European state and we provided that state with a claim to rule over Palestine, we made no attempt to reach an agreement with the Arabs of this land regarding the basis and conditions for the continuation of Jewish settlement. This negative approach caused those Arabs who thought about and were concerned about the future of their people to see us increasingly not as a group which desired to live in cooperation with their people but as something in the nature of uninvited guests and agents of foreign interests (at the time I explicitly pointed out this fact). "The second fact is that we took hold of the key economic positions in the country without compensating the Arab population, that is to say without allowing their capital and their labor a share in our economic activity. Paying the large landowners for purchases made or paying compensation to tenants on the land is not the same as compensating a people. As a result, many of the more thoughtful Arabs viewed the advance of Jewish settlement as a kind of plot designed to dispossess future generations of their people of the land necessary for their existence and development. Only by means of a comprehensive and vigorous economic policy aimed at organizing and developing common interests would it have been possible to contend with this view and its inevitable consequences. This we did not do. "The third fact is that when a possibility arose that the Mandate would soon be terminated, not only did we not propose to the Arab population of the country that a joint Jewish Arab administration be set up in its place, we went ahead and demanded rule over the whole country (the Biltmore program) as a fitting political sequel to the gains we had already made. By this step, we with our own hands provided our enemies in the Arab camp with aid and comfort of the most valuable sort—the support of public opinion—without which the military attack launched against us would not have been possible. For it now appears to the Arab populace that in carrying on the activities we have been engaged in for years, in acquiring land and in working and developing the land, we were systematically laying the ground work for gaining control of the whole country." - Martin Buber, quoted in "A Land of Two Peoples" ed. Mendes-Flohr -------- Peter Myers Australia website: http://mailstar.net/index.html |
Archives >