It is a ludicrous situation when anyone criticizing Israeli state violations against Palestinians or neighbouring countries is then instantly discredited as being “antisemitic”.
We see this in Britain and the United States all the time. Congresswomen like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib have been denounced for being “anti-Jewish”, including by President Trump, simply because they protested Israeli policy of occupying Palestinian lands or for having a malign influence on US foreign policy.
In Britain, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and his party have once again this week been vilified as “antisemitic” in prominent news media.
The reality is that Corbyn is neither racist or anti-Jewish. The specious allegation stems from him and sections of Labour being vehemently critical of Israel and its conduct towards Palestinians.
If elected in the general election next month, Labour says it will cut military trade with Israel and move to officially recognize a Palestinian state.
This conflation of valid criticism of the Israeli state with being “anti-Jew” is a cynical distortion which is wielded to give Israel impunity from international law. It plays on moral blackmail of critics by equating the historical persecution of Jews and in particular the Nazi holocaust with the sanctity of the modern Israeli state.
That distortion is exposed by many Jews themselves who have spoken out in the US and in Britain to defend the right of people to criticize Israeli policies. They understand the vital distinction between the Israeli state and the much wider existence of Jewishness. They understand that to be opposed to Israeli state practices is in no way to mean animus towards Jews in general.
Only in the past week, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared his government intends to expand annexation of Palestinian territory in the West Bank. The land occupied by Israeli forces since the 1967 Six Day War is illegally occupied, according to multiple UN resolutions under international law. Now Netanyahu wants to increase the violations. And with the support of the Trump administration which also announced it was no longer viewing Israeli settlements on Palestinian land as illegitimate.
Over the past month, the Israeli military has stepped up airstrikes on the Gaza Strip where nearly two million Palestinians subsist in abject poverty largely because of an Israeli blockade. One family of nine, including children, was killed by an airstrike on their home on November 14. As always the death toll among Palestinian civilians is grotesquely disproportionate to Israeli victims of rockets fired from Gaza.
Israeli forces have also been carrying out hundreds of airstrikes in Syria, including the capital Damascus, over the past year. Russia, among others, has condemned those attacks as “unlawful aggression”. Arguably, war crimes.
When Jeremy Corbyn and Britain’s Labour Party and a handful of American politicians speak out to denounce Israeli violations they are doing so to uphold international law and voice support for victims of state violence. That is a principled and honourable position.
Shamefully, the US and British governments and much of the corporate news media never do speak out. They shield Israeli leaders from international accountability by vetoing UN resolutions or by turning a blind eye. Pro-Israeli lobbies funnel massive donations to politicians in Washington on both sides of the aisle, and to the British Conservative Party. Their silence is bought. Not only silence but outright distortion, such as when people criticize Israeli malfeasance – and there is much of that – then they are absurdly character-assassinated as “antisemites”.
Admittedly, many British Jews phoned into radio stations this week to complain that they feel unwelcome in Britain due to what they perceive as growth in antisemitism under the Labour Party. To be fair though, their claims were not backed up by hard evidence of specifically anti-Jewish behaviour. They were eliding their Jewishness with Labour’s criticism of Israel.
The claims made against Corbyn this week by the British Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirviz of being “unfit for office” because of an alleged complacent attitude towards antisemitism in his party should be put in context.
Corbyn has apologized several times for a tiny fraction (less than 0.1 per cent) of party members accused of antisemitism. Why should he be obliged to keep on apologizing, as BBC interviewer Andrew Neil imperiously demanded again this week?
Chief Rabbi Mirviz is a self-declared friend of Conservative leader Boris Johnson and an ardent, uncritical supporter of the Israeli state.
Mirviz does not represent all British Jews, as many other Jewish groups came out voicing their support for Corbyn and his valid right of free speech to criticize Israel.
Mirviz got prominent media coverage for his views this week in the London Times and Daily Mail, among others. Britain’s rightwing media are owned by billionaire oligarchs who despise Labour’s manifesto for progressive wealth redistribution.
Official race-hate figures for Britain show that physical attacks against British Muslims are preponderantly more than attacks against any other religious minority, including Jews. Boris Johnson’s Conservatives have evident problems of fomenting Islamophobia. Yet we don’t see British media providing proportionate criticism on that to balance their focus on Corbyn and his alleged views.The antisemitic card is played to shield Israel from important criticism; and by Britain’s plutocrats and their media who would rather see the public squabbling over spurious claims about antisemitism so they can keep on plundering wealth from the majority of British people.
The views and opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.
He’s a very tall man with bright eyes and a broad smile, and he holds out a great paw when he greets you. But Michael Lynk is no gentle giant.
He may teach human rights law at the Western University in London, Ontario, but as the UN’s special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, he has to endure the fury of Israel and its acolytes abroad – not least in his native Canada – and, two years ago, even the enmity of his own country’s foreign minister.
In his latest UN report, he reminds readers that the creation of Israel’s “civilian settlements” in occupied territory is a breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and a “war crime” under the Rome Statute. So you can see why the 67-year old Lynk, a labour lawyer by training, has been having a tough time since his appointment to the voluntary, unpaid UN post three years ago.
When Lynk was appointed special rapporteur, Stephane Dion, then Justin Trudeau’s foreign minister, spotted that UN Watch, a pro-Israeli lobby, had called Lynk “antisemitic” – the usual slur for anyone who criticises the actions of the Israeli government – and suggested that he be forced to resign. Dion soon lost his foreign minister’s job and his career went downhill.
Lynk’s went in the other direction. He became a gadfly to all who stand accused of breaking international law in the Middle East. Hamas is certainly not spared in his report; he accuses the Islamist militia in charge of Gaza of “beatings, arbitrary arrest and detentions, and torture and ill treatment” of hundreds of Palestinian protestors. But the opposition to him wasn’t about his even-handedness.
Dion took these shoddy arguments [from UN Watch] and used them to re-tweet his opposition to my appointment,” Lynk told me. “I would have thought a former academic would have looked at my writings before saying this – but I guess he was just the ‘politician Dion’. I always find it surprising that someone could be deemed radical for insisting on the functioning of international law.”
Lynk rather disingenuously told me he’s just “a stodgy absent-minded law professor with two kids” – which may or may not be true – but in his report, he is far from stodgy in his attacks on the decades of Israeli occupation.
Try this paragraph, for example: “No occupation in the modern world has been conducted with the international community so alert to its many grave breaches of international law, so knowledgeable about the [Israeli] occupiers’ obvious and well-signalled intent to annex and establish permanent sovereignty, so well-informed about the scale of suffering and dispossession endured by the protected [Palestinian] population under occupation, and yet so unwilling to act upon the overwhelming evidence before it…”
Reading this and subsequent paragraphs in his 23-page report, it’s clear that Lynk not only writes the truth; even more dangerously, he knows how to write. Eloquence is only rarely discovered in the UN’s house of cards.
The Israeli government has not even replied to Lynk’s requests to visit the Palestinian lands occupied since 1967 – most of his first hand-witness accounts are acquired in Amman or via video-conference between Jordan and Gaza – but he concentrates not so much on the willful suppression of the Palestinians but on the moral question of accountability.
Here he is, for example, on Israel’s failure to account for its exercise of power: “The enemies of accountability are impunity and exceptionalism,” he writes, “…Those who maintain that they are exempt from the directions of our international legal and diplomatic order not only defy the rule of law, but they also fail the test of political realism. For no country can sustain for long its standing and influence among the community of nations if it asserts special arguments forbidden to others … Impunity anywhere is a danger to justice everywhere.”
Israel, Lynk adds, “has rightly assessed that the international community – particularly the western industrial nations – has lacked the political will to compel an end to its impunity.” He even quotes the Israeli journalist Gideon Levy, who wrote that “no country is as dependent on the support of the international community as Israel, yet Israel allows itself to defy the world as few dare”.
What Lynk calls the “occu-annexation” of Palestinian territories is “endlessly sustainable without decisive international intervention”. He suggests – and here is the nub of the matter – that the world should “take the necessary steps to collectively construct a list of effective countermeasures … Should the [Israeli] occupying power remain unmoved”, the range of “targeted countermeasures would be escalated.”
This sounds to me very like sanctions; the ghost of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement hovers over these words, although Lynk makes no reference to it. The real message of his report, however, seems quite clear: this impunity must end.
But we all know that the Lynks of this world, and the old UN donkey, will have no effect on the Trumps and the Kushners and their fantasy “deal of the century” which impoverishes the Palestinians into compliance and destroys any last hope of self-determination.
There will be no Palestinian state. And if Trump is re-elected next year, Israel may indeed claim ownership of all the land between Jerusalem and the Jordan River, and that will be the end of “Palestine”.
It might also – if this is an apartheid state with no votes for the Palestinians – be the end of a “democratic” Israel too.
Major Israeli media outlets have launched a systematic bullying campaign to demonize Germany’s leading news weekly, Der Spiegel, after it recently revealed that two small pro-Israel organizations were directing Berlin’s Middle East policy.
Reacting to Der Spiegel’s article, Israeli Hebrew-language daily newspaper Israel Hayom, which is close to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, claimed that journalists involved in the article were linked to the fake news reporting by Claas Relotius, a well-known investigative journalist.
The Jerusalem Post and several other Israeli media outlets on Monday also accused the German magazine of promoting Israel-related anti-Semitism and demanded an apology.
Der Spiegel, a 71-year-old publication, is renowned for its quality journalism and is read by hundreds of thousands of people in print and by millions online.
The defamatory campaign by Israeli media comes after a team of six Spiegel journalists wrote in a three-page article that two Germany-based organizations – Values Initiative and The Middle East Peace Forum (Naffo) — used “dubious methods” to mount a “targeted campaign” to secure a Bundestag (parliament) resolution opposing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.
The German magazine in its weekend publication went onto point out that German lawmakers did “not want to reject the resolution out of fear of being labeled an anti-semite.”
In May, a cross-party alliance in the German parliament Bundestag voted to condemn as “anti-Semitic” the BDS movement, which calls for economic pressure on Israel to end the occupation of Palestinian territories.
In a move welcomed by the Tel Aviv regime, the majority of German lawmakers in the Bundestag voted in favor of a motion that accuses the BDS of using anti-Semitic tactics to fulfill its political goals.
The resolution was submitted by German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s fellow-conservatives, their Social Democrat coalition partners, as well as the Greens and Free Democrats.
The vote was denounced by the BDS as anti-Palestinian.
Der Spiegel further revealed that the two organizations were “front organizations” for the Tel Aviv regime with links to the Israeli spy agency Mossad.
Naffo “advocates for positions of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu” and “carries out aggressive lobby work” in Berlin’s government district, the magazine noted
The authors stated that the “questionable methods” of Naffo involved a conference where positions were exchanged with politicians and trips were arranged to bring German MPs to Israel.
The magazine has stressed that the organizations run a “network” and wield outsized “influence.”
The article also quoted German Undersecretary of State Niels Annen, who criticized the two pro-Israel groups: “Any attempt to influence the balanced position of Germany or Europe in one of the sides’ directions is problematic.”
Israel and its allies in Washington and other Western capitals have long railed against the BDS, which calls for people and groups across the world to cut economic, cultural and academic ties to Tel Aviv.
Inspired by the South African anti-apartheid movement, the BDS has claimed several recent successes in isolating Israel.
On June 25, Canada’s Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism announced that the Trudeau government’s new anti-racism strategy would include the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. The Co-Chair of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) proudly noted that
“the IHRA definition also explicitly recognizes that anti-Zionism – that is the delegitimization and demonization of the Jewish state – is a clear and unequivocal expression of antisemitism.”
While the adoption of this definition is as yet only ‘symbolic and declaratory,’ it can form the basis for attacks on Palestinian solidarity at various levels. The funding of NGOs that are critical of Israel may be threatened. Public institutions will be pressured to deny meeting facilities for events that take the Palestinian side. It is also quite possible that this initiative could be taken further and the expression of anti-Zionist views actually be treated as a form of hate crime.
Misuse of Antisemitism
This latest move is part of the Canadian component of a concerted international drive to weaponise the false allegation of antisemitism in the service of Israel. In 2009, the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism (CPCCA) was formed, comprised of former and sitting MPs from each party. It issued its report in 2011 and the focus was on combating the so called ‘new antisemitism’ of those who challenge Israel. Independent Jewish Voices (Canada) described the whole initiative as an ‘attempt to attack free speech and silence criticism of the Israeli government’s oppressive and illegal policies’ and ‘to label criticism of Israel and its behaviour, as well as organized efforts to change them, as anti-Semitic and to criminalize both.’
The BDS Movement has also been attacked by governments in Canada, with resolutions condemning the boycott effort coming from both the federal parliament and the provincial legislature in Ontario. The Al Quds Day Rally in Toronto has faced concerted efforts to undermine it, with the Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, asserting last year that
“Our government will take action to ensure that events like Al Quds Day… are no longer part of the landscape in Ontario.”
Independent Jewish Voices (Canada) has produced an excellent report that shows how the IHRA definition is being used to further the attack on Palestinian solidarity, insufficient attention is paid to very real forms of antisemitic hate crime. The Israeli government and its supporters are aggressively using this document as a key tool in their efforts to ‘suppress – and even criminalize – criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights.’
If the effort to intimidate and suppress support for the Palestinians, especially when it is expressed as clear and forthright anti-Zionism, is being challenged with such escalating ferocity, this largely reflects a certain note of desperation on the part of Israel’s apologists. The BDS Movement has made gains and the general mood has shifted against the Zionist state. At the same time, Israel’s political leadership is racing to the right with the support of the Trump Administration and dispensing with polite fictions about a peace process, as they move to brutally complete the colonial project. The pretense of a liberal democracy seeking a just resolution is no longer viable. The accusation of antisemitism against international supporters of a free Palestine is really all that’s left in the toolbox. So, while fascists in Eastern Europe pose a real threat to Jewish communities and US nazis march through the streets chanting, ‘Jews will not replace us,’ fire is focused on the left and life long anti-racists, like Jeremy Corbyn, are labeled as hatemongers. Moreover, the goal of the attack is no longer merely character assassination. The IHRA definition is being put forward as one that should inform the work of police and prosecutors. They prepare the ground to arrest those they can’t intimidate into silence.
Labour and the IHRA Definition
The Labour Party’s acceptance last year of the IHRA definition, with all of the examples included, was desperately unfortunate. As an effort by some on the left to appease the right and achieve peace, it was a predictable failure and only emboldened the attackers to go further with their cynical misuse of antisemitism. However, it also had the most serious implications for international Palestinian solidarity. Precisely because the prestige of the Corbyn leadership is so considerable and it is looked to with such hope in many other countries, the retreat had a damaging effect. We can expect the Liberal Party of Canada, fully complicit in the oppression of the Palestinians, to readily accept the IHRA definition but, for Labour to do this, even as the document is being used to attack solidarity movements in country after country, was massively unhelpful.
For obvious historical reasons, the position that a left-led party in Britain takes on an anti-colonial struggle is a decisive question. Leftists in the country from which the Balfour Declaration was issued have a particular responsibility to the Palestinians.
Though he was not the first Zionist politician to make this gesture, Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, stood before the Security Council in April of this year and waved a bible in his hand as he declared that “this is our deed to our land.” That anyone can suggest that an ancient religious text should be used to decide affairs of state and international relations in the 21st Century is quite astounding yet no Western leader would even consider questioning these theatrics. If, however, Danon’s bible promised, not a part of the Middle East, but a portion of Western Europe, the Zionist claim to self-determination would have gone nowhere. When Zionism emerged in the 19th Century, as an adjunct of European colonialism, no one spoke in code. Everyone understood that the plan was for a settler colony that would serve as a garrison of Western interests. It would be, as Theodor Herzl put it,
Herzl’s wall is standing today. It was erected by ethnically cleansing the bulk of the Palestinian population, creating vast numbers of refugees and establishing an Apartheid regime for those who could not be removed. Last month, Netanyahu ventured the opinion that,
By that, of course, he means that the US-led domination of the entire region would be called into question and he is far from wrong.
The nature and role of the State of Israel is such that we can’t be content to be critical of its excesses and worst aspects. The seventh of the ‘contemporary examples of antisemitism’ listed in the IHRA definition speaks of ‘Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.’ The dispossession of the Palestinians can’t possibly be considered the exercise of a right to self-determination and Israel, a colonial settler state, is a fundamentally racist endeavour. Zionism is not a religion or an ethnicity but a political ideology and its propositions are questioned or rejected by many Jews, while they are supported by leaders of Western powers who are, for the most part, not Jewish.
As Israel seeks to crush Palestinian resistance, complete the colonial project and become an impregnable fortress of Western interests in the Middle East, a frank and clear anti-Zionism is at a premium. When Palestinians join the Great March of Return to the Gaza fence, it is not enough to accuse the IDF of using excessive force. We must declare that the Palestinians do, indeed, have a right of return and to live in a free, democratic and secular Palestine. If they can show such courage and pay such a price, surely we can face down and refute the lies and slanders and show our solidarity and support for the Palestinians is non-negotiable.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
John Clarke became an organiser with the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty when it was formed in 1990 and has been involved in mobilising poor communities under attack ever since.
Featured image: Free Palestine protest at Parliament Hill, Ottawa, July 2014. Photo: Flickr/Tony Webster
Morris Dees, founder and director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an element of the Israel Lobby that smears and demeans truth-tellers, was fired. The article reporting Dees’ removal speculates that he was fired for sexual harassment.More likely he was fired for having to pay out $60 million of the SPLC’s $500,000,000 endowment to settle defamation lawsuits.
Ask yourself how is it that an organization committed to smearing people has an endowment of a half billion dollars and not the Institute for Political Economy that focuses on providing truthful information that is contrary to official explanations. Clearly, there is far more money available for “hitman” organizations dedicated to destroying truth tellers than there is for the targets of such organizations.
If truth tellers criticize Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, the truth tellers are branded “anti-Semites.”
If truth tellers question official government explanations such as 9/11, they are branded “conspiracy theorists.”
If truth tellers correct the official lies that portray Russia as a dire threat to the United States and Russia’s President Putin as the “New Hitler,” they are branded “Russian agents,” and “Putin dupes.”
$500,000,000 is a huge endowment for a reputation-smearing organization operating in Montgomery, Alabama.Where did that money come from?
Why, in contrast, are organizations struggling to present facts and rational analysis operating on shoe strings?
The philanthropic foundations, which once supported information independent of government and private agendas, have been taken into the propaganda Matrix that has blinded Americans to the demise of their liberties.Every day another piece of America withers away.Soon there will be nothing left.
Readers need to understand that there is an infinite number of people worldwide who are devoid of all morality and all integrity.Their only concern is money, and they will do anything to get it.Many are paid to smear truth tellers on Internet sites that have comment sections and on Facebook and other social media.Entire websites, such as ProporNot, have been created in order to discredit truth-tellers. Government agencies and special interests employ agents to spread propaganda via social media in order to create public support for overthrowing targeted governments such as Venezuela, Cuba, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Iran.
It is very expensive for a person to exercise the right of free speech for the purpose of telling the truth.But if you attack truth, you get a half billion dollar endowment.
In the United States, the only hope for truth lies in the pocketbook of ordinary people. If they do not support the alternative media websites that are dedicated to truth, the truth will wither away with the country.
Zionists openly brag about the power of the Israel Lobby, but others who mention the lobby’s power are branded as anti-Semites. We are supposed to accept the lobby’s power but never complain about it.
This documentary prepared for broadcast by Al Jazeera shows the extraordinary power of the Israel Lobby in two ways.
One is that it consists of recordings by a Jewish journalist who infiltrated Zionist organizations and captured the self-satisfied bragging of Israeli and American Zionist agents about how they destroy critics of Israel and defenders of Palestinians and exercise Jewish power over the US Congress, US media, and US universities.There is no doubt that the Zionist Lobby is extremely powerful.Former US Representative Jim Moran describes how the Israel Lobby ended his 24-year career in Congress, not for criticizing Israel but just for opposing one of Washington’s wars that Israel regarded as beneficial to Israel.
The other is that the Israel Lobby succeeded in preventing the broadcast of the documentary prepared for the Arab news agency.
Eventually the documentary was leaked to the Internet and can be watched at the URL above. For a one hour abridgement of the 4 hour film, see:
In order to appease the internet censors, today’s Caitlin Johnstone article has been replaced with a breaking report from the National News Conglomerate. NNC: Obey.
Washington, D.C. (NNC) — Following the publication of the results of a groundbreaking new study this week, experts are now reporting that every single person who questions western military interventionism is both an antisemitic bigot and a Russian national.
Research analyst Les Overton is a senior fellow at the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Democracy (ASPCD), a Washington, D.C.-based think tank whose motives we can only assume are perfectly truthful and unbiased. He told NNC that the ASPCD’s research clearly shows that the rate of correlation between an individual opposing western foreign policy, harboring a virulent hatred of Jewish people, and being a citizen of the Russian Federation is “at least a hundred percent, if not more.”
“This is not to suggest that all Russians are antisemites or that all antisemites oppose American wars,” Overton reports. “Our research shows only that people who do oppose western military interventionism are both of these things.”
These findings track with revelations exposed by respected foreign policy analyst Max Boot in an article published yesterday in the Washington Post titled “It’s time to retire the ‘neocon’ label”. Boot explains that those who criticize the relentless warmongering of neoconservatism are actually facilitating antisemitism, writing that antiwar voices have been known to use that label “to suggest that Jews are running U.S. foreign policy.”
These findings also help explain the fact that British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and US Congresswomen Tulsi Gabbard and Ilhan Omar have all been found to be arousing suspicion with their irrational affection for Vladimir Putin and irrational disdain for people of Jewish ancestry.
“Take Tulsi Gabbard, a longtime critic of US interventionism,” Overton said while explaining how ASPCD reached its conclusions. “Her affection for Syria’s Bashar al-Assad is well-documented, and Assad, being an ally of Putin, is effectively Russian. This makes Tulsi Gabbard a Russian by proxy, which probably explains why Putin loves her so much.”
“Interestingly, we have also found this same correlation between individuals who believe that poor people should be treated with kindness, and those who believe Palestinians are human beings,” added Overton. “We found a direct, causal and completely ubiquitous correlation between sympathy for impoverished and Palestinian people, a hatred of Jews, and an unwavering loyalty to Mother Russia.”
Overton advises westerners who find themselves questioning the wisdom and beneficence of the current liberal democratic world order that they can avoid the overpowering urge to betray their country to the Kremlin and begin loading Jews onto cargo trains by “watching lots of television and just kind of zoning out about everything.”
“An anti-Semite used to mean a man who hated Jews.
Now it means a man who is hated by Jews.”– Joe Sobran
Pictures and captions by Darkmoon
“The word ‘anti-Semitic’ . . . it’s a trick, we always use it.”
— Former Israeli Minister Shulamit Aloni
In his novel 1984 George Orwell invented the expression “newspeak” to describe the ambiguous or deliberately misleading use of language to make political propaganda and narrow the “thought options” of those who are on the receiving end. In the context of today’s political discourse, or what passes for the same, it would be interesting to know what George would think of the saturation use of “anti-Semitism” as something like a tactical discussion stopper, employed to end all dispute while also condemning those accused of the crime as somehow outside the pale, monsters who are consigned forever to derision and obscurity.
The Israelis and, to be sure, many diaspora Jews know exactly how the expression has been weaponized. Former Israeli Minister Shulamit Aloni explained how it is done “Anti-Semitic”…”its a trick, we always use it.”
If one were to read the U.S. mainstream media, reflective as it nearly always is of a certain institutional Jewish viewpoint, one would think that there has been a dramatic increase in anti-Semitism worldwide, but that claim is incorrect. What has been taking place is not hatred of Jews but rather a confluence of two factors.
First is the undeniable fact that Israel has been behaving particularly badly, even by its admittedly low standards. Its slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza has been unusually observable in spite of media attempts to avoid mentioning it, plus its support of terrorists in Syria and attacks on that country have also raised questions about the intentions of the kleptocratic regime in Tel Aviv, which is currently pushing for an attack on Iran. That all means that the perception of Israel, which boasts that it is the exclusively Jewish state, inevitably raises questions about the international Jewish community that provides much of its support. But the shift in perception is driven by Israeli behavior, not by Jews as an ethnicity or a religion.
“The undeniable fact is that Israel
has been behaving particularly badly,
even by its admittedly low standards.”
“The shift in perception is driven by Israeli behavior.”
Second, the alleged increase in anti-Semitic incidents is largely fueled by how those incidents are defined. Israel and its friends have worked hard to broaden the parameters of the discussion, making any criticism of Israel or its activities either a hate crime or ipso facto an anti-Semitic incident. The U.S. State Department’s working definition of anti-Semitism includes “…the targeting of the state of Israel” and it warns that anti-Semitism is a criminal offense. Recent legislation in Washington and also in Europe has criminalized hitherto legal and non-violent efforts to pressure Israel regarding its inhumanity vis-à-vis the Palestinians. Legitimate criticism of Israel thereby becomes both anti-Semitism and criminal, increasing the count of so-called anti-Semitic incidents. That means that the numbers inevitably go up, providing fodder to validate a repressive response.
One might add that Hollywood, the mainstream media and academia have contributed to the allegations regarding surging anti-Semitism, relentlessly unleashing a torrent of material rooting out alleged anti-Semites and so-called holocaust deniers, while simultaneously heaping praise on Israel and its achievements. Professor of Holocaust Studies Deborah Lipstadt has written a bookAnti-Semitism: Here and Now about what she regards as the new anti-Semitism, supporting her belief that it is getting markedly worse in both Europe and the U.S. There is also a movie about her confrontation with holocaust critic David Irving called Denial.
All of the media exposure of so-called anti-Semitism has a political objective, whether intended or not, which is to insulate Israel itself from any criticism and to create for all Jews the status of perpetual victimhood which permits many in the diaspora to unflinchingly support a foreign country against the interests of the nations where they were born, raised and made their fortunes.
That is called dual loyalty and, in spite of frequent denials from Israel-apologists, it clearly exists for many American Jews who are passionate about the Jewish state, including members of the Trump Administration Jason Greenblatt, David Friedman and Jared Kushner.
— § —
In the past week, a newly elected member of congress has been derided, shunned and then forced to both recant and apologize for having said something that is manifestly true: that Jewish money corrupts the American political system to favor Israel.
The controversy erupted after House minority leader Republican Kevin McCarthy said he would initiate investigations of two Muslim congresswomen, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, over their criticisms of Israel. McCarthy called for the two to be denounced by the Democratic Party as anti-Semites after Tlaib had said that the sponsors of recent legislation intended to benefit Israel by limiting free speech “…forgot what country they represent. This is the U.S. where boycotting is a right and part of our historical fight for freedom and equality. Maybe a refresher on our U.S. Constitution is in order, then get back to opening up our government instead of taking our rights away.”
Indeed, Tlaib had a point as the Congressional Israel boosters have long since forgotten that they are supposed to uphold the Constitution of the United States while also promoting the interests of their constituents, not those of a country seven thousand miles away. Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept responded to the news of the McCarthy threat with a tweet “It’s stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it means attacking free speech rights of Americans.”
Ilhan Omar then tweeted her own pithy rejoinder to Greenwald on Sunday February 10th: “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby!” which was in reference to the Founder Benjamin Franklin’s portrait on hundred-dollar bills. Her comment was almost immediately interpreted as meaning that she was accusing McCarthy of being bought by Jews. She followed up on a question about who was doing the buying she tweeted “AIPAC,” an elaboration that unleashed something like an anti-Semitism shit storm in her direction.
It was manufactured outrage, with political leaders from both parties latching on to a media frenzy to score points against each other. Even though it is perfectly legitimate for a Congresswoman on the Foreign Affairs Committee to challenge what AIPAC does and where its money comes from, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi complained that Omar’s “use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters” was “deeply offensive.” Chelsea Clinton accused Omar of “trafficking in anti-Semitism.”
President Donald Trump, who has admitted that his Mideast policy is intended to serve Israeli rather than U.S. interests, also jumped in, saying “I think she should either resign from congress or she should certainly resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.”
This is the psychopath Trump supports
and is happy to do a commercial for:
— § —
Ilhan Omar quickly understood that she had touched a live wire, surrendered, and recanted. She apologized by Monday afternoon, 18 hours after her original tweet, saying “Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes. My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole. We have to always be willing to step back and think through criticism, just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize.” But she also bravely wrote “At the same time, I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry. It’s gone on too long and we must be willing to address it.”
Pelosi approved of the apology. Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota who is running for president in 2020, chimed in to make sure that everyone knew how much she loves Israel, saying “I’m glad she apologized. That was the right thing to do. There is just no room for those kinds of words. I think Israel is our beacon of democracy. I’ve been a strong supporter of Israel and that will never change.”
Two days later, a motion sponsored by Congressman Lee Zeldin of New York passed by a 424 to 0 vote. It was specifically intended to serve as a rebuke to Omar. It stated that “it is in the national security interest of the United States to combat anti-Semitism around the world because…there has been a significant amount of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hatred that must be most strongly condemned.”
Congressional votes professing love for Israel notwithstanding, the fact is that there is a massive, generously funded effort to corrupt America’s government in favor of Israel. It is euphemistically called the Israel Lobby even though it is overwhelmingly Jewish and it boasts fairly openly of its power when talking with its closest friends about how its money influences the decisions made on Capitol Hill and in the White House. Its combined budget exceeds one billion dollars per year and it includes lobbying powerhouses like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) which alone had $229 million in income in 2017, supporting more than 200 employees. It exists only to promote Israeli interests on Capitol Hill and throughout the United States with an army of lobbyists and its activities include using questionably legal all expenses paid “orientation” trips to Israel for all new congressmen and spouses.
McCarthy and the other stooges in Congress deliberately sought to frame the argument in terms of Ilhan Omar having claimed that he personally was receiving money from pro-Israel sources and that money influenced his voting. Well, the fact is that such activity does take place and was documented three years ago by the respected Foreign Policy Journal, which published a piece entitled “The Best Congress AIPAC can Buy” as well as more recently in an al-Jazeera investigative expose using a concealed camera.
And Kevin McCarthy does indeed receive money from Israel PACs – $33,200 in 2018. The amount individual congressmen receive is dependent on their actual or potential value to Israel. Completely corrupt and enthusiastically pro-Israel Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey received $548,507 in 2018. In the House, Beto O’Rourke of Texas received $226,690. The numbers do not include individual contributions of under $200, which are encouraged by AIPAC and can be considerable. In general, congressmen currently receive over $23,000 on averagefrom the major pro-Israel organizations while Senators get $77,000.
But, of course, direct donations of money are not the whole story. If a congressman is unfriendly to Israel, money moves in the other direction, towards funding an opponent when re-election is coming up. Former Rep. Brian Bard has observed that “Any member of Congress knows that AIPAC is associated indirectly with significant amounts of campaign spending if you’re with them, and significant amounts against you if you’re not with them.” Lara Friedman, who has worked on the Hill for 15 years on Israel/Palestine, notes how congressmen and staffs of “both parties told me over and over that they agreed with me but didn’t dare say so publicly for fear of repercussions from AIPAC.”
A good example of how it all worked involves one honest congressman, Walter Jones of North Carolina, who recently passed away. In 2014, “Wall Street billionaires, financial industry lobbyists, and neoconservative hawks” tried to unseat Jones by bankrolling his primary opponent. The “dark money” intended to defeat him came from a PAC called “The Emergency Committee for Israel,” headed by leading neoconservative Bill Kristol. Jones’ war views, including avoiding a war with Iran, were clearly perceived as anti-Israel.
And one should also consider contributions directly to the political parties. Israeli/U.S. dual nationals Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are the largest single donors to the GOP and to the Democrats, having contributed $82 million and $8,780,000 respectively in the 2016 presidential campaign. Both have indicated openly that Israel is their top priority.
If they have demonstrated fealty to Israel while in office, many Congressmen also find that loyalty pays off after retirement from government with richly remunerated second careers in Jewish dominated industries, like financial services or the media. And there are hundreds of Jewish organizations that contribute to Israel as charities, even though the money frequently goes to fund illegal activity, including the settlements. Money also is used to buy newspapers and media outlets which then adhere to a pro-Israel line, or, where that does not work, to buy advertising that is conditional on being friendly to Israel. So the bottom line is indeed “the Benjamins” and the corruption that they buy.
Karen Pollock of the Holocaust Education Trust said in January that “One person questioning the truth of the Holocaust is one too many.” That is nonsense. Any, and all, historical events should be questioned regularly, a principle that is particular true regarding developments that carry a lot of emotional baggage. The Israel Lobby would have all Americans believe that any criticism of Israel is motivated by historic hatred of Jews and is therefore anti-Semitism. Don’t believe it.
When the AIPAC crowd screams that linking Jews and money is a classic anti-Semitic trope respond by pointing out that Jews and money are very much in play in the corruption of congress and the media over Israel. Terrible things are being done in the Middle East in the name of Jews and of Israel and it all comes down to those Benjamins and the silence they buy by accusing all critics of anti-Semitism. Just recall what the Israeli minister admitted, “It’s a trick, we always use it.”
On Monday a district court in Washington threw out the lawsuit against ASA, which is the oldest scholarly organization devoted to the interdisciplinary study of U.S. culture and history. The federal judge ruled that the anti-BDS plaintiffs were unable to explain how they were injured by the boycott, a requirement for the lawsuit to go forward.
Pro-Israel group, the Louis D. Brandeis Centre, filed a lawsuit against ASA in April 2016 over its resolution to boycott Israeli academic institutions. The lawsuit argued that in adopting the resolution, which was voted on by an overwhelming Democratic majority, the ASA operated beyond its corporate charter and caused the plaintiffs to “suffer significant economic and reputational damage.”
In the court’s 20-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras wrote that the pro-Israeli group had “danced around key issues” and was unable to show that they had suffered enough monetary damages to warrant a federal case.
The judge found that at most, the individual plaintiffs could seek damages of a few hundred dollars to cover membership dues they allege were misappropriated, but they would have to find some other venue to pursue their claims.
Radhika Sainath, senior attorney with the civil rights group Palestine Legal, summed up the court’s judgment saying that “the court basically said, in no uncertain words, that the plaintiffs suing ASA lied when they claimed to have ‘suffered significant economic and reputational damage’.”
“But, as the court explained, ‘nowhere’ in the lawsuit could the plaintiffs explain what that damage was. It didn’t pass the smell test,” she added.
One of the four co-defendants, Dr. Stephen Salaita, an outspoken advocate of Palestinian rights who was fired from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for tweets criticizing Israel’s 2014 assault on Gaza, said after the verdict:
I’m thrilled that this baseless case has been dismissed. It served no purpose other than persecuting those who dare to criticize Israeli policy and seek to end the occupation through peaceful means.”
Another co-defended Wesleyan University Professor Kehaulani Kauanui denounced the lawsuit as a politically motivated attempt to suppress free speech.
The Brandeis Centre did not hold back its clear intent to punish me for standing up in solidarity with Palestinians and to deter others. They don’t call it lawfare for nothing.”
The court’s decision comes in the context of a broader federal assault on BDS for Palestinian human rights. On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate passed a measure that would criminalize politically motivated boycotts of Israel across the U.S.
Many of you know that a B’nai B’rith organization gave birth to the ADL while defending its Atlanta chapter president Leon Frank, who raped and murdered a 13 year old girl who he was also employing along with many other teens, against child labor laws. Leon Frank ran a pencil factory sweatshop and often flirted with his illegal underage employees. The ADL was formed to defend him when he murdered and raped Mary Phagan. The details were disgusting. Her underwear was ripped and bloody and she was strangled to death with a wire. Her head had also been pummeled with a pipe. She went to get her paycheck of a meager $1.20 and never returned home. She was raped and murdered and then her body was dragged to the basement. Police found strands of her hair and blood on the floor above, right across from Frank’s office. Frank nervously revealed the victim’s name in front of police before they had given him any such details.
The ADL was going to get him released based purely on the fact that he was Jewish and a high profile crime made Jews look bad. Arguably a Jewish organization trying to get a child murderer off the hook, makes Jews look worse. They would like one to believe that he was innocent with fake news history and will tell you so on Wikipedia, which has Israelis paid to edit it. Leon admitted on the witness stand to the jury that he was “unconsciously” at the scene of the crime when the murder occurred. What we don’t know is if he raped her before or after killing her. He was convicted. The grand jury vote 21 – 0 for indicting him. Four of those jurors were Jewish. That shouldn’t matter, but it does because later the ADL would try to argue that the jury wrongly convicted him because of antisemitism rather than because of all the evidence showed that he did it in everyone’s eyes. He was convicted. After the Judge, Leonard Roan, rejected all the appeals, he ordered Leon to be hanged on his birthday April 17, 1913. However Frank, who was unanimously elected president on the B’Nai Birth Chapter again even after being convicted of rape and murder, had one last method to weasel out. With Jewish Pressure groups, he appealed to the Governor. The lame-duck governor, John M. Slaton, in a very Clinton-esque move, commuted Leon’s sentence his last week in office. He changed it form the death penalty to life in prison.
Frank was knifed in prison by an inmate who took justice into their own hands. William Creen used a butcher knife and cut Leon’s throat, severely injuring him. On August 16th a mob broke into the prison, captured Leon Frank and took him 2 miles away and hanged him. Although they took photographs, no one in town would identify them. Of course the ADL twisted the story to say that these men were motivated by antisemitism and not they hated him for raping and murdering a child. To see Southern Justice click here.
The ADL would fight to have him get a posthumous pardon, which he got in 1986. Fred Grimm of the Miami Herald said in response to the pardon, “A salve for one of the South’s most hateful, festering memories, was finally applied”, showing his own prejudice towards the South rather than a well known exploiter of child labor, who raped and killed a young girl and was unanimously convicted for the crime and sentenced to death, being killed even after weaseling a pardon by an outgoing governor. Fred Grimm is constantly chasing down and doing stories about “Neo-Confederates” and “Neo-Nazis” as if either one are some huge bane and influence in modern society. Ironically it is groups like Antifa who act like ISIS, tearing down American Statues and assaulting people. Despite having entire cities burned, civilian homes and all by Lincoln’s terrorists, not once in 150 years did a Southerner attack a Union monument. Yelling racism at everything is fun though because it exercises safe moral indignation. That the US recently invaded Libya and have caused a country to be run by Al Qaeda terrorists who have revived the institution of slavery, selling humans for $400 in the market, doesn’t seem to bother these same people so much as statues of Confederate generals. Apparently the Union military generals like Custer who rode west and committed genocide on Native Americans immediately following the Civil War, or enslaving the Chinese to build railroads, doesn’t count as racism either.
The ADL itself was created with Jewish mafia money. With connections to Meyer Lansky, Moe Dalitz, Bugsy Siegal, and illegal arms trafficker Hank Greenspun. The ADL gave Jewish gangster Moe Dalitz the Torch of Liberty Award. Dalitz was partnered with Galvastan’s Sam Marceo and his brother Rosario of international narcotic trafficking fame. Dalitz and Sam began with a bootlegging gig. And it was the Maceo brothers who with Dalitz financed the Desert Inn Casio (where Frank Sinatra got his first Vegas gig). Interesting note, Sam’s sister Olivia married Joseph Fertitta. You probably know the famous former owners of the UFC Frank III and Lorenzo Fertitta. They’re all “family”. Maceo died only a year after purchasing the casino and it quickly went into the Fertitta side of the family. Dalitz not only did business with Maceo, he ran with the Mayfield Road gang in Ohio who had a branch dubbed the Collinwood Crew nicknamed the Young Turks. This is a very fitting name considering that the ADL denies the Armenian genocide. They even fired a New England Director Andrew H. Tarsy because he broke rank and called it a genocide. See, killing 1,500,000 people isn’t genocide because nothing is allowed to compete with the Holocaust victimhood.
Moe Dalitz at Desert Inn
Dalitz was an early business partner with Abe Berstien of the murderous Purple Gang. They used to murder motorists for sport. That didn’t bother the ADL. In 1985 they gave Moe an award. Moe would become the Mob Boss of Cleveland, even tough most of his operations would move and center on Vegas. His businesses however were all over the United States. Dalitz was not only a close confidant of Meyer Lansky, the two co-owned the Frolic Club in Miami. (p.6)
The Desert Inn casino also took investments from convicted illegal arms smuggler Hank Greenspun, who was not only invested but became the publicist as well. He owned the Las Vegas Sun and pulled a money laundering scheme with advertising similar to what Boris Berezovsky repeated in Russia. Prior to that, he had been the publicist for another Mafia Casino, the Flamingo, which was run by Lanksy’s childhood friend and murderer Bugsy Siegal. Greenspun’s wife was given top honors by the ADL.Her husband attempted to smuggle 42 Pratt and Whitney R2800 LOW airplane engines to Palestine when the Haganah terrorist group was creating the state of Israel through ethnic cleansing.
After jury tampering, with the sole Jewish juror meeting with the defense, Greenspun and two of his cohorts William Sosnow, and Samuel Lewis were acquitted, but his other partners Adolph Schwimmer, Leon Gardner, Renoyld Selk, and Abraham Levin, were convicted.
But Greenspun would be found guilty of smuggling the machine guns that would go with the planes as well as artillery and ammo. He stole 30 and 50 cal machine guns from Hawaii and shipped them to the Haganah in Palestine through Mexico. When he was indicted Greenspun tried to bribe his way out. He offered $25,000 to Seth Solomon Pope “or anyone else designated by Pope” to “quash” a second Neutrality Act indictment against him. Solomon worked in Hawaii at the War Assets Administration, in charge of decommissioning and selling off WWII surplus. He was most likely the original contact for the smuggling. The man was investigated three time for fraudulent sales. They also stole over 500 machine gun barrels. Reportedly Hank took an additional 10% kickback from arms sales he made. A Grand Jury in Los Angeles indicted Hank and six other of violating the Neutrality Act and Export Control Law, Title 50 United States Code section 701 and Title 22 United Stated Code, section 452. However he got only a 10k fine and no jail time. Greenspun was paid through the SSE. The SSE was a front for the AJDC’s Lishka which financed communist and Bricha illegal immigration. The Jewish Agency which was the government in waiting that organized the terrorist groups that formed Israel, facilitated the cash flow to gun runners like Frank. In “Concealed in the Open: Recipients of International Clandestine Jewish Aid in Early 1950s Hungary”, Zachary Paul Levine, of Yeshiva University Museum writes:
The JDC-Israeli collaboration that formed around clandestine emigration to Israel and welfare to migrants filled the vacuum with the creation of two institutions. The first was created in 1952 by the Israeli government’s Liaison Bureau of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or Lishka by its Hebrew acronym, which collected information and administered individual aid. The second was created in Switzerland in 1953. Known as the Society for Mutual Aid (SSE by its French acronym), this organization directed AJDC funds to the Lishka and represented Jewish aid providers’ interests to communist governments …
However, as an American organization at the height of the McCarthy “Red Scare,” AJDC administrators could hardly justify the appearance of sending cash or material into a state with which the U.S. was technically engaged in “economic warfare.” In March 1953, the AJDC and Lishka together established the SSE, a “paper organization” that “covered” the AJDC-Israeli partnership, and provided a means for regularized AJDC funding for Lishka from the Joint’s Relief-in-Transit budget that funded activities that might have contravened U.S. law (Beizer 2009: 117). The SSE’s Swiss chairman, Erwin Haymann, had years of experience channeling money from the U.S. for Bricha and other clandestine activities. Funds traveled through the SSE and on to Lishka agents who received U.S. dollars or another western currency and exchanged them into Hungarian forints on the black market in Vienna. Subsequently, these forints traveled via diplomatic pouch or in the suitcase of an apparent traveler to the legation in Budapest, whose staff distributed the cash around the country.
We learn from declassified FBI documents that Erwin Hayman, the same man aiding communists on behalf of the JA, is who made three transfers of 1.3 million dollars to Greenspun. Greenspun would later become the Western Director of bonds for Israel. Hayman sent the payments to Banco del Ahorro, Mexico by cable.
Interesting, because 1.3 million is exactly how much Moe Dalitz sank into the Desert Inn Casino, which Greenspun was a publicist for and invested in – what a coincidence. If you are into Kennedy Research here is a cookie for you. Hungarian Jew Tibor Rosenbaum is the bridge between Meyer Lansky, Erwin Hayman, and heavy Florida-Cuba crime syndicate. …
But I will leave that tangent alone. Greespun was known for having blackmail on political candidates; Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy even plotted to raid on the Vegas Sun vault in order to gain access to blackmail that Hank had on Howard Hughes. Hughes by the way bought Mafia properties like the Desert Inn Casino using millions in cash. They credit him with cleaning Vegas up from the mob; it was more like the mob took him to the cleaners. Dalitz ironically started out with a cash-only dry-cleaning business.
Kennedy’s father was involved with the Outfit and the East Coast mob and had a love affair with his friend Frank Sinatra’s ex-girlfriend Judith Exner while she was also involved with Chicago mob boss Sam Giancana. Sinatra introduced her to JFK. Kennedy gave Greenspun a pardon his first year in office. I wonder why. LBJ likewise was sleeping with Mathilde Krim who was also part of the Swiss connection who help Irgun terrorists. Johnson did all this while she was married to his campaign advisor Athur Krim, a willing cuck. It makes you rethink Monica Lewinsky doesn’t it. Well Clinton did give Jewish Billionaire Marc Rich a pardon, after Rich donated $100,000 to the ADL. Rich was yet another crook in the Swiss connection.
These are the founders and reward recipients of the ADL.
The ADL was given de facto powers of an intelligence agency in the United State and it gathers intel on who it pleases. It is anything but an Anti-Defamation League. They defame people themselves. The ADL under the cover of fighting Anti-Semitism, simply uses this cray as a club to chase down and censor anyone critical of Zionism or the Israeli state. If you point out that Israeli snipers are shooting children in Palestine from across the border, then the ADL can get you removed. Vimeo stole $5,000 in profits form me and erased six years worth of my work because of my criticism of Israel. When the ADL partnered with YouTube December of 2008, my channel was gone the first day, and over a thousand videos were erased. No justification was needed, simply the accusation of antisemitism. When I made a complaint in my appeal I learned that the ADL would oversee the case. Of course I never had my channel restored nor was I even given an explanation from YouTube. Another wing of the ADL is the SPLC and they too have been granted censorship powers across social media. The ADL used the SPLC as both an attack dog and a buffer to separate itself from ramifications of its constant chicken little censorship. In the rare case of actual antisemitic groups online or otherwise the ADL has been busted reacting to its own creations as the “Nazis” they screech about turn out to be their own provocateurs.
Birthed to defend a murdering child rapist, financed by mass murdering terrorists and organized crime, narcotic peddling, and gun running, psychopaths formed the pro Zionist organizational bully called the ADL. They have been caught spying through American police departments, spying on American citizens, and even coaching American police on what they should be on the look out for and how Hate Crime means anything Israel doesn’t like. And this is their great online weapon. The Zog Media already refuses to report on what Israeli is doing to Palestine, the Israeli role in orchestrating the Iraq War, and the Proxy War on Syria. People have been giving the information online. Naturally the ADL has been censoring such journalists all while screaming antisemitism. AIPAC bribes congress and the ADL censors the media. It is a one two punch to protect criminal Zionists interest. And now you know its criminal origins.
One of the first new laws created by the Jewish Bolsheviks when they took over Russia was to make “antisemitism” punishable by jail or death.
The Jewish senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, has introduced House Resolution 1697 – known as the Israel Anti-Boycott Act. This legislation is in direct conflict with the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech and targets those who are critical of Israel with draconian prison sentences and fines:
“American citizens are set to be fined up to $1 million or imprisoned for up to 20 years for criticizing Israel or supporting the BDS boycott, thanks to new legislation sponsored by Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer.
Anyone guilty of violating the new prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison under the new law.
According to the ACLU, the Cardin legislation would “bar U.S. persons from supporting boycotts against Israel, including its settlements in the Palestinian Occupied Territories conducted by international governmental organizations, such as the United Nations and the European Union.
It would also… include penalties for simply requesting information about such boycotts. Violations would be subject to a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison….This bill would impose civil and criminal punishment on individuals solely because of their political beliefs about Israel and its policies.”
Although this bill was first introduced in 2017, it continues to gain traction with more co-sponsors recently signing on.
One of the first new laws created by the Jewish Bolsheviks when they took over Russia was to make “antisemitism” punishable by jail or death. Despite its freedoms, the United States is now following in Russia’s footsteps, with Jews like Chuck Schumer leading the charge.
One hundred years later, we find ourselves in a very similar situation – proposed Federal laws protecting Jews from criticism. Only criminals and liars are afraid of being criticized.
What other ethnic group is powerful enough to demand such draconian laws to protect them from criticism?
According to the organized Jewish community and professional Jewish ethnic activists, anyone claiming that Jews are over-represented in key aspects of American political, cultural, and economic life are “irrational, paranoid, hateful, anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists.”
Making basic, factual, and easily verifiable statements about the reality of Jewish power and influence in America – pointing out their domination and control of the mainstream mass news media, Hollywood and entertainment industry, for example, or their influence in the Federal Reserve banking system, Wall Street, and corporate America – is considered “anti-Semitic” and “hateful,” according to Jews, despite how obvious it all is.
Here we have even more proof of the total Jewish domination of our society: according to a recent report published by The Times of Israel, 5 of the top 10 wealthiest individuals in America are Jewish. That means that 50% of the richest people in the United States are ethnically Jewish, despite Jews representing less than 5% of the total U.S. population.
Think about that for a moment. And think about why we are prevented from openly and honestly discussing these basic facts, despite them being reported in mainstream publications, including explicitly Jewish publications like The Times of Israel.
Forbes published its 2018 roster of America’s wealthiest this week, and five members of the tribe made the top 10 list.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg leads the Jewish pack at number 4, with a net worth of $61 billion. He is followed by software giant Oracle’s Larry Ellison at #5 with $58.4b and Google co-founder Larry Page at #6 with $53.8b.
Donald Trump is devoted to his bottom line and to a belief in his own greatness. Beyond that, he has no fixed convictions.
He does have instincts and attitudes, however. Some of them are less odious, at least in theory, than the fixed convictions of neoliberal and liberal imperialist Democrats. Most are worse; and, because the Donald is “special,” nearly all of them are in a state of constant flux.
The more permanent ones have mainly to do with keeping brown and black people, and women of all hues, down and in their place.
The general idea is to maintain patriarchy and, above all, to make America white again – or rather, since it still is mighty white, as white as it used to be.
Trump doesn’t much care for Muslims or Hispanics. He is happy to deal with them, though – if they are rich and far away and if there is some percentage in it for him. Otherwise, like many of his supporters, he holds them in contempt and wishes them ill.
Whenever he can, he harms them as well – often with gratuitous cruelty.
He seems to hold Palestinians in especially low regard. This comes from working with and living among real estate moguls like himself and the politicians, lawyers, accountants, and other shady characters who serve their interests. Many of them, the Jewish ones especially, do have fixed, anti-Palestinian convictions. In our time and place, this goes with being of a certain age.
Were we living in a healthier political environment, the kind that existed before the Democratic Party gave itself over to corporate-friendly identity politics, I’d call aging members of the tribe for whom Israel is everything and Palestinians are nothing “elders of Zion.” A quip like that is a historical but on point and, in a snarky way, even funny.
However, it is no longer kosher to joke around in ways like that. The problem is not just that the dominant tone in politics nowadays is humorless and self-absorbed. It is also that on the surface, politics has come to have little to do with how the class struggle is going, or with who is doing what to whom, or with where societal benefits and burdens are going.
That was all so sixties and seventies. Politics today is about not offending peoples’ identities.
Overwrought identity politics does address the interests of subaltern groups in positive ways. However, the situation is more complicated than that.
Black and brown people and victims of patriarchal attitudes are asserting themselves – boldly and to good effect. But, despite how things may appear, the class struggle has not gone missing.
Quite to the contrary, American politics today is about what it has always been about: furthering the interests of still mostly white, still mostly male, titans of commerce, industry, and finance. It is about securing their power and wealth, and the capitalist system that makes their good fortune possible, from hostile political contestation.
To that end, it helps that identity politics is all, or nearly all, there is.
And so, the action nowadays, at least on the surface, is on what Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) called “trifles… a word, a smile … and any other sign of undervalue…” Democrats, and Republicans too, have seen to that.
This is why nowadays only the foolhardy dare say anything that could be construed as hurtful by those who have forgotten what they ought to have learned in nursery school — that “sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me.”
Jokes about classic anti-Semitic tracts, like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, are therefore best left unmade.
But what the hell! “Elders,” straight out of central casting, who have shaped the Donald’s “thinking,” deserve all the disparagement and all the ridicule they get.
For all I know, there are Jewish Trump cronies who are religious or, what comes to the same thing, observant; they may even pray three times a day, keep kosher, and abstain from work on Jewish holidays and on the Sabbath. It is a good bet, though, that, if there are people in Trump’s life who fit that description, that, even for them, Zionism, Jewish nationalism, matters more than Judaism, the Jewish religion.
Were the Prophetic tradition still alive, there would be religious Jews now calling Zionism a false idol. Instead, there are religious (observant) Jews who see it as the fulfillment of Judaism, and therefore as a suitable replacement for it.
Since it emerged in the late nineteenth century, Zionism has come in many versions — some liberal, some not. The kinds Trump knows are virulently rightwing. It comes with the territory.
His cronies, and their co-thinkers in Israel and around the world, want Palestine ethnically cleansed of Palestinians – to make room for the Herrenvolk,and to guarantee that no “population bomb” will ever jeopardize the Jewish character of what Benjamin Netanyahu, in defiance of logic and history, calls “the nation state of the Jewish people.”
Trump’s presidency has been a godsend for Zionists like that.
It would give our Commander-in-Chief too much credit to say that he has policy objectives in mind. But some of the people he has empowered do. They want to give rightwing Israelis whatever they want, and otherwise to do all they can for them.
Trump put his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, a not-too-bright graduate of a Zionist day school and the gzillionaire son of a felonious Trump-like New Jersey real estate mogul, in charge of Middle East diplomacy. He made a Trump Organization lawyer, Jason Greenblatt, an “Assistant to the President and Special Representative for International Negotiations.” His bankruptcy lawyer, David Friedman, is his Ambassador to Israel. All three are in way over their heads; and all three are zealous ethnocrats.
Trump also appointed Nikki Haley his Ambassador to the United Nations and John Bolton his National Security Advisor. Haley might as well be angling for the title “Whore of AIPAC.” Bolton is arguably the most execrable neocon in creation. This is just the tip of the iceberg; the rot goes all the way down.
And so, the Trump administration moved the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and cut the entire U.S. aid budget to UNRWA, the UN agency that has been addressing the needs of Palestinian refugees, victims of U.S. backed Israeli ethnic cleansing, since 1949.
Who knows what his rationale for that bit of gratuitous cruelty might be? Perhaps he wants to be able to say that the humanitarian disasters he causes are bigger than the ones Netanyahu can boast of.
The nicest thing to say about these and other, less spectacularly egregious anti-Palestinian Team Trump initiatives is that they have delivered the coup de graceto the long defunct “two state solution,” and to the pretense that the United States is an “honest broker” with whom Palestinians can deal.
It would be fair to say too that Trump has all but given the keys to the White House to Netanyahu and to even more noxious Israeli politicians farther to his right.
With the House and Senate in the pocket of the Israel lobby, this has always been the course of least resistance for American presidents, especially in recent decades, as Christian Zionists have become a mighty political force.
Those benighted souls are hell bent (literally) on bringing on the End Times – and, with it, the conversion or eternal damnation of each and every Jew. Jewish Zionists with a modicum of self-respect would therefore tell them t0 go to hell.
But because they realize how important Christian Zionists can be for keeping the Republican Party on board, they pander to them shamelessly. The Trump administration does too.
Thus, under Trump, American policy towards Israel and Palestine has become worse, but not qualitatively different than it used to be. This is par for the course; Trump makes everything worse, while nothing fundamental ever changes.
Before Trump, there used to be at least a pretense of evenhandedness, and, when pushed too hard, American presidents would sometimes timidly, but decisively, show the Israelis who is boss.
In principle, this has never been hard to do because Israel, as we know it, could not survive for long without massive American support, and because the vaunted Israel lobby – the Jewish, not the Christian, part of it — has always been a Paper Tiger.
It is too bad that the American political class and the media that reflect its thinking have never been able to wrap their heads around that simple fact. Many in the media are Zionists too. Many are simply obtuse.
But with liberal Zionism in its death throes, thanks largely to the evolution of Israeli politics and society in the Netanyahu era, this could soon change.
Liberal Zionism is, after all, a contradictory project; a liberal state is a state of its citizens, not of a particular religious or ethnic group, especially one scattered around the world with no real connection to the land, the language, or, religion apart, the culture of the country with which they are supposed to identify.
Even so, liberal Zionism was once a flourishing ideology, grounded in the realities of Israeli society. Israel could never become quite what it claimed to be – “Jewish and democratic” – but it did become a functioning liberal democracy for the roughly eighty percent of its population that is Jewish.
For the other twenty percent, it was a flawed, but not entirely failed, democracy; not much to boast of, but not bad for the region either.
Had a Palestinian state been established alongside Israel, as was supposed to happen after Oslo, the liberal Zionist idea might even now be viable.
However, successive Israeli governments kept that from happening, even while nominally endorsing the idea of a Palestinian state.
What they were really doing was buying time for the settlement movement to grow in power and extent. They were establishing “facts on the ground.”
Even so, Oslo’s failure was not entirely Israel’s fault; Palestinian leaders deserve blame too. However, Israel is by far the more culpable party – if only because it has always held nearly all the cards.
Liberal Zionism is among the casualties of Israeli intransigence, and of the sheer inhumanity of “the only democracy in the Middle East” and “the most moral army in the world.”
It was hanging by a thread a decade ago. But now that the occupation of the West Bank has been going on for more than half a century, and now that the government of Israel has turned Gaza into an open-air prison and waged three savage wars against its basically unarmed population, liberal Zionism has become a dead letter.
But this is not the only reason why so many younger American Jews are uninterested in or embarrassed by the state that is supposed to be theirs by “birthright.”
The passage of time is a factor too. Even apart from Israel’s violations of international law and the brutality of the occupation regime it has installed, younger American Jews would still be drifting away from the Zionist sympathies of their parents and grandparents.
Too bad that the American political class and its counterparts in other Western countries have no appetite for taking this plain fact into account.
Therefore, now as in the past, Israel gets more or less what it wants from the United States; it seldom even has to ask.
The tail wags the dog, but sometimes the dog does try to set the situation straight. At first, Obama sorely wanted to do the right thing, but, in the end, he didn’t have the backbone. Bush 41 pushed back a little in 1991, when Yitzhak Shamir all but forced him to make America less abject again. And there were other, even lamer, attempts over the past half-century at putting the dog, not the tail, in charge.
Even so, Eisenhower was the only real exception to the rule. When necessary, as it was during the Suez crisis, he was not shy about making it clear to the Israelis who the boss really is.
But that was more than seven decades ago. Now we have Trump – a president who shamelessly gives the ethnocratic settler state all that it wants – and then some.
And yet the conventional wisdom has it that Trump and his people are working on, dare I say, a “final solution” to “the Palestine Question.” They even parrot the risible Trump-Netanyahu contention that Palestinians are at fault for not being “a partner for peace.”
It isn’t just nasty, over-the-hill Jewish men, and Jared Kushner, who are the problem; it isn’t even them plus the Bible thumpers in the Trump base.
It is also the much ballyhooed MBS, Mohammad bin Salman, and the entire ruling cohort in Saudi Arabia, the most retrograde state in the world. And it is the leaders of smaller and slightly less noxious feudal regimes in the Persian Gulf, along with others in the Sunni Muslim world who are, in varying degrees, in thrall to Saudi money.
Thus the injustice that the Trump administration exacerbates is an abomination of regional, if not quite global, dimensions, in which the Palestinian people are up against have some of the world’s most malign and most powerful forces, and in which their friends, such as they are, are unable or unwilling to do much of anything to help them.
Undoutedly, MBS is an even worse moral monster than Trump – witness what the Saudis have done and continue to do to the people of Yemen. But, for Palestinians, Trump’s afflictions are the cruelest of the lot.
Not only has he cut off the U.S. contribution to UN efforts to provide vital life services to Palestinian refugees – in other words, to mitigate some of the worst consequences of U.S. backed Israeli ethnic cleansing – but now, probably at John Bolton’s direction, he is closing down the PLO’s diplomatic mission in Washington, and cutting off all U.S. aid to Palestinians period.
He is also moving against Palestine solidarity activists. Indeed, it seems that this is what the latest flurry of anti-Palestinian Trump machinations is all about.
At the direction of the Israeli government, the Israel lobby in the United States and other countries is now taking full aim at the large and growing Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement.
Modeled on forms of struggle developed against Apartheid South Africa, BDS was called into being by civil society forces in Occupied Palestine and abroad in 2005. Despite the best efforts of Israel and its supporters around the world, it has been growing mightily, especially in recent years.
In Netanyahu’s eyes, this amounts to an “existential threat.” But, because BDS is non-violent, and because it does not physically threaten Israeli Jews, what can he say against it that could possibly move anyone who is not a willfully blind Zionist ideologue?
The answer: that BDS is anti-Semitic.
The charge is manifestly illogical and ahistorical, but there is nothing else that could serve the purpose, and Zionists nowadays need what American football fans call “a Hail Mary pass.”
It was to combat the specter of BDS that the Trump administration, with the support of pro-Israel legislators in Congress, has now adopted the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of anti-Semitism, according to which saying that Zionism is racist or likening Israeli policies to Nazi policies is deemed anti-Semitic.
Partly on the basis of the IHRA definition, Kenneth Marcus, a longtime Israel advocate who heads the Office of Civil Rights in the Trump – Betsy DeVos Education Department is now reopening a case that the Obama administration dismissed in which the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and others accused Palestinian solidarity activists of anti-Semitism for an incident that occurred at Rutgers University in 2011.
The offending activists are supposed to have discriminated against Jewish students by charging a fee to attend an event on the Nakba after scores of pro-Israel students arrived to protest and presumably disrupt the event.
The ZOA then filed a Title VI complaint saying that the pro-Israel students experienced a hostile environment because they are Jews. In fact, the organizers of the event requested a fee from everyone to cover not just the costs of the venue, but also increased security costs stemming from the presence of the protestors.
The alleged smoking gun was an email from an organizer saying that “150 Zionists” had shown up at the event. Marcus claims “Zionists” meant “Jews”.
His letter to the ZOA reopening the case said: “The visual perception of ‘150 Zionists’ referenced in the email could have been rooted in a perception of Jewish ancestry or ethnic characteristics common to the groups.” The argument then was that in cases such as this, “Zionist” is code for “Jewish.”
Since, according to the IHRA definition, if you deny the right of Jews to self-determination in historic Palestine or apply a “double standard” to Israel’s actions and those of other nations or compare Israeli policies to Nazi policies, you are an anti-Semite. QED.
This is plainly indefensible conceptually; it is also a subterfuge – cut from the same cloth as charges leveled against Jeremy Corbyn and others in the British Labor Party.
The UK has an Israel lobby too, but there is more to the anti-Corbyn smear campaign in Britain than that; there is a specter haunting the ruling class and its allies.
It is not the specter of communism that Marx and Engels had in mind in The Communist Manifesto(1847), nor even the specter of as much socialism as the British enjoyed in the pre-Thatcher era. The fear is that, before long, Corbyn, a genuine socialist and internationalist, will become Prime Minister – putting the UK back onto a progressive track for the first time in decades.
Elections are not imminent, but neither is it a sure thing that they can be put off for long. And while a Labor victory is far from assured, it is not impossible.
For one thing, the Conservative Party in the UK is a rotting hulk — though, in its favor, unlike our GOP, it is merely retrograde and, not withstanding the presence of its many miscreants, not also the party of anyone as viciously awful as Donald Trump. Still there is little doubt that quite a few Brits would be happy to see the back of it.
For another, while the UK electoral system is flawed and undemocratic, it is less so than its U.S. counterpart. The Labor Party’s parliamentary wing is as bad, or nearly as bad, as our Democrats, but Labor is also a membership party with a rank-and-file solidly behind Corbyn, the party leader. Thanks to him, it is now, by far, the largest party in the UK, and one of the largest in Europe.
To be sure, what ultimately matters is not how many members a party has; it is how many votes it gets. The growth in Labor Party membership may have more to do with the extent of popular discontent with the status quo than with the course of future elections. Even so, the power elites are worried.
There is little evidence, so far, that, in these scoundrel times, those elites, in alliance with UK Zionist organizations and with the support of the Israeli government, are getting much traction, outside media circles, by charging one of the most principled anti-racist – and anti-anti-Semitic – politicians in the world with anti-Semitism.
Still, it is a dangerous game that they are playing in much the way that the Trump administration’s unabashed adoption of rightwing Zionist policies and propaganda is dangerous. Not only are such machinations immoral and stupid; they are also “bad for the Jews.”
For the most part, anti-Semites still avoid calling themselves what they are; the word “anti-Semite,” like the word “racist” still has bad connotations. How much, if at all, this affects real world anti-Semitism and racism is debatable, but even if it doesn’t affect it much, it does serve a worthwhile purpose.
Hypocrisy always does; it is, as the saying goes, the compliment vice pays to virtue. It helps maintain a state of affairs in which, in theory if not in practice, anti-Semitism, along with other forms of racism, is delegitimized.
But how long can that way of thinking be maintained when the word is illogically and relentlessly applied to positions to which right-thinking, morally decent people of all faiths and ethnicities are drawn?
The question answers itself.
Not to belabor the obvious, but to be clear: one can be critical of Israel without being anti-Zionist; even the IHRA definition concedes that. In the United States and other Western countries, there are probably more Zionists critical of Israel, and also critics who have no position on Zionism, than there are anti-Zionists.
Even more obviously, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are not just logically distinct, but also historically and, even today, for some of the most extreme Orthodox Jews, theologically at odds.
Before the Nazis took power in Germany, and indeed even until the end of World War II, most American Jews were non- or anti-Zionist – not because they were “self-hating,” but because they were true to Jewish traditions.
It is only slightly less obvious that when anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism do shade off into one another, that incidents are rare and that they mainly occur within poorly off subaltern immigrant Muslim communities in Western countries. If there is a problem, that is where it lies.
The far Right in Europe and North America loves Israel; and the Israeli far Right loves them back. The endemic anti-Semitism of rightwing political movements in our time can survive in this mutual admiration society, but it is dampened somewhat, especially when trumped by the hardcore Right’s blatant Islamophobia.
It is telling, though, that, in the circumstances, it is anti-Semitism and Zionism, not anti-Zionism, that run together.
This is not the only thing that proponents of the anti-BDS smear campaign prefer not to acknowledge. They also take care not to point out that the expressions of anti-Semitic attitudes that they do dwell on have little, if any, connection either to classical anti-Semitism or to Islamic traditions.
Bona fide anti-Semitism is a descendant of Christian anti-Judaism; it is not a Muslim thing. Muslims and Jews have had a very different and generally more amicable relationship.
To be sure, Muslims have never treated Jews, or members of any non-Muslim religious community, as full-fledged equals. But they have nearly always treated the “people of the book” decently and with respect.
However, nowadays, fine points such as these are deliberately overlooked. For a state not acting at all like the “light unto the nations” that it purports to be, a state that long ago exhausted all the moral capital it could squeeze out of the Holocaust, these are all just inconvenient facts.
The Israeli propaganda machine, like Trump’s mind, latches on to whatever works. Lately, with boycotts, divestment, and perhaps some day even sanctions looming, it is pushing all the buttons.
But the buttons aren’t working like before. For most people alive today, the Holocaust is not a living memory. And except for those who think, as many older Zionists do, that Jews can only be safe in a Jewish state, its relevance is obscure. It was, after all, the work of Europeans, not Palestinians; and it took place before the state of Israel even existed.
Nevertheless, except for the force of arms and the acquiescence of American and other Western governments, it is all that Zionists, the kind that want historic Palestine ethnically cleansed of Palestinians, have going for them.
Therefore now, with significant parts of world – and Jewish – public opinion coming around to the conclusion that enough is enough, apologists for Israel are becoming desperate.
Too bad that they just don’t get it: that their desperation is doing Jews around the world, and in Israel too, no favors.
I’ve recently taken a bit of a break after three long months of writing in my American Pravda series, during which I finally got around to publishing many of the very surprising discoveries I had made over the last fifteen-odd years. That total came to more than 90,000 words of text, and required me to read or (mostly) reread some 40-50 books, so I was quite exhausted by the end of the cycle.
However, the results were quite encouraging, with my small series of articles generating nearly half a million pageviews of readership over that short period, while helping to drive our small webzine to record-setting traffic. Even more remarkably, those articles provoked nearly 13,000 comments, totaling an astonishing 1.8 million words of text. Indeed, the three most heavily-commented articles in our webzine’s history came from that group, as did five of our seven most widely-read pieces from the last six months.
Furthermore, several of these articles appear to have very strong “legs” and are still attracting enough readership to remain on the front page many weeks after they were first released, suggesting that they may end up accumulating remarkable aggregate traffic across the coming months and years.
Although all items in my American Pravda series have certainly been controversial, many of this group were especially so, with numerous observers noting that I had leaped four-square onto the deadliest “Third Rail” of journalist topics and some of them predicting that I would quickly be annihilated as a consequences of my foolhardy undertaking. I think the following is a reasonable list of these especially “touchy” pieces:
After the first and most innocuous of these pieces ran, an ultra-right-wing blogger quite unfriendly to me claimed that I had gone completely insane and for some bizarre reason had decided to commit immediate journalistic suicide by writing about such utterly forbidden topics. But that statement was made in early June and those reports of my demise seem rather premature.
Another right-winger bitterly hostile to my views said he was astonished that I had dared to publish the “Jewish Religion” article, and declared that if that piece didn’t immediately kill The Review, then absolutely nothing could. Ten weeks have now gone by, and I see no apparent need for any burial shroud.
Several much friendlier readers commended me for my remarkable bravery, but warned that I should prepare myself for one of the most ferocious onslaughts of attacks and denunciations in recent Internet history. Offhand, that might seem a very plausible prediction. After all, writers with far less visibility and readership have sometimes been fried to a crisp by a blast of vituperation for daring to cautiously mention even just one percent of the controversial claims I had boldly made in my columns. Yet almost no such attacks ensued, except from a couple of rather obscure and marginal quarters.
Surely the ADL ranks as the leading enforcer of silence on these sorts of forbidden issues, with Hollywood stars and powerful politicians trembling at merely a cross word from that fearsome organization. But their own silence over the last three months has been absolutely deafening, and without their apparent willingness to participate in any such attack, what other group or individual of any significance would dare to take the lead?
A very shrewd observation, widely misattributed to Voltaire, states that “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Or put another way, individuals are reluctant to publicly challenge those whose power they fear. Certainly, this simple standard helps to explain many important aspects of America’s severely malfunctioning political system.
But suppose that same test were applied to the reaction of the ADL and its close allies toward this small series of articles, which have already been read nearly half a million times. What does such total silence indicate about the organization’s opinion on the relative power relationship they would face? I very much doubt that the ADL fears me in the least as an individual, but I do think they may be absolutely terrified of the many facts contained within the series of recent columns that I have now published, and such abject terror is what keeps them far, far away.
The easiest means of testing this hypothesis would for readers to bring these columns to the direct attention of the ADL and any journalists or activists who may be aligned with it. Perhaps the entire leadership of the ADL has merely been on an extended summer vacation, and remains unaware of the existence of this body of highly controversial material, which they normally would attack in such harsh terms. Surely, they would be grateful at an opportunity to begin earning their munificent salaries.
I don’t use Twitter myself, but I believe it’s very good means for passing along such information and links, and the ADL and its top leadership have several public Twitter addresses, as do their friends and allies.
Meanwhile, I’ve recently spent some time reading a couple of the essay collections of Israel Shamir published in the mid-2000s. These had been sitting on my shelf for three or four years, and found the material extremely interesting.
I was very pleased to discover that he had come to so many conclusions quite similar to my own, though his analysis was usually derived from a vastly greater base of historical and personal knowledge rather than my own casual readings here and there. A portion of his articles from such years as 2005 and 2006 are conveniently available here, and provide a flavor of his views.
I first encountered his writings on Counterpunch a few years ago, and I remember the late Alex Cockburn once telling me that no other writer they published received such tremendous support from some of their readers but also such enormous hostility from others. Apparently, the latter group eventually triumphed, and his last column ran there just over three years ago, apparently making him one of the first of their regular contributors to fall in the ongoing purge.
Anyway, I’d strongly recommend his books, which so far at least have not yet been banned from Amazon.com.
MEMO) — The US House of Representatives passed two separate Israel related bills this week, endorsing what is being described as the largest aid package in American history and the appointment of an international tsar to monitor anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel worldwide.
The military aid package of $3.3 billion will be delivered to Israel over the next year. This figure is likely to increase by an additional $550 million as a result of Congress passing a $716 billion defense bill. A further $1 billion has been set aside for the US weapons stockpiles in Israel, which Israel taps into during escalations of violence against the Palestinians and Lebanon. In 2016, the US agreed to give Israel $38 billion in military aid over 10 years.
The bill passed under the cover of a media blackout and at the same time that President Donald Trump pulled humanitarian aid to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) which provides basic provisions for over five million Palestinian refugees.
In August, the bill officially called the “United States-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act of 2018” passed a Senate vote. Representing what is believed to be the single largest military aid package in American history, according to Mintpress the astronomical sum translates into $23,000 for every Jewish family living in Israel.
In addition to the massive amount that the new legislation promises to the Israeli military, the bill will also mandate NASA to cooperate closely with the Israel Space Agency. The decision has been described as very unusual in light of the Israel’s history of espionage targeting NASA.
The second bill passed by Congress has also been largely overlooked by the media. It calls for a special government envoy to be tasked with monitoring anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel worldwide.
According to the text of the bill –the “Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Act of 2017” – the postholder would “serve as the primary advisor to, and coordinate efforts across, the United States government relating to monitoring and combating anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incitement that occur in foreign countries.” The envoy is expected to be given the rank of an ambassador.
Opponents of the bill have pointed to the problematic nature of it citing the Congress adoption of a definition of anti-Semitism that equates criticism of Israel with racism. It’s feared that the new appointee will clamp down on domestic and international criticism of the Israeli government in a clear attack on free speech.
Or is it a dead feminist, homosexual, transgendered walking zombie?
While driving yesterday, I turned on the car radio to see if the Russian/Syrian liberation of Idlib, Syria, from the Washington-supported terrorists had begun. What I got was two white females deploring white racism on NPR. They were so guilty that they had indirectly benefited from white racism. I thought I was going to drown in the guilt of one of the females before she ever finished her sentence.
You are not going to believe the “indirect benefit” that produced such wrenching guilt in the white female. But maybe you will. She had purchased a brick bungalow Identical to the one next door in which a black American lived with the difference that the attic in her house had been refurbished, but the black man’s attic had not. Her racial guilt came from the fact that the white person from whom she had purchased the house had been able to refurbish the attic, but her black neighbor had not, apparently because of racism.
Does this seem like a reasonable explanation for wallowing in racial guilt? I can think of many better ones that go unmentioned in the presstitute media. For example, as Eric Zuesse reports, Saudi Arabia, the puppet state that Washington has sicced on Yemen, is “systematically blocking food from reaching tens of millions of people, Houthis, who live in Yemen and are surrounded by the U.S. alliance’s engines of death.” The Houthis are being starved to death because they wanted a government of their own, not one imposed by Washington.
One wonders at the extremely limited definition of racial guilt that the two white women on NPR found so difficult to bear: The black neighbor had a house just like hers only his attic wasn’t refurbished, a sign of racism that she felt guilty about.
How would such emotional and intellectual weaklings, as these NPR women, bear the US-enforced starvation of ten million people in Yemen currently underway, the destruction in whole or part of 8 countries under the criminal Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama Regimes, now extending into the Trump regime. How could these guilt-burdened women bear the Israeli state’s systematic genocide of the Palestinians?
Of course, they don’t have to, because NPR never tells them about it. NPR is where white people go to do their self-denunciation as unworthy. This process can’t be interrupted by showing where the heavy guilt resides. If white people can’t be made to feel guilty, how can blacks and Jews be safe?
The US print and TV media along with NPR have been missing in action for a long time. Russiagate is an orchestration by the US military/security complex to prevent President Trump from reducing the dangerous tensions between the two main nuclear powers by normalizing relations with Russia. Normal relations could adversely impact the enormous budget and power of the military/security complex. Therefore, humanity must remain at high risk of nuclear Armageddon in order to protect the military/security complex’s budget, especially Dick Chaney’s interests in Halliburton.
The Russian government has presented documented and proven information to the United Nations that the Washington-supported terrortists in Idlib province have prepared a false-flag chemical attack to be blamed on Syria and by implication on Russia. Films are available online, prior to the announcement of an attack, of the preparatory drills that school children in Idlib are practicing for the cameras. Washington has such control over media explanations that this false-flag “Syrian chemical attack” can go forward despite the certification from the international organization that monitors chemical weapons that the Syrian government has zero chemical weapons. See, for example:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYBJH2IaLF8&feature=youtu.be
I hope readers are not so brainwashed that they are unable to see that this is a film prepared in advance of a false flag event that will be released to the presstitute media as a real event.
The American media has never done the job that the Founding Fathers gave it and protected with the First Amendment. But until the criminal Clinton regime, which permited 6 monopolies to concentrate in 6 hands 90% of the US media, truth could sometimes get out. But no more. The US media is incapable of reporting the most compelling events of our time which could result in the destruction of life on earth. Instead, the presstitutes save their jobs by reporting fake news that serves the interests of the ruling elite.
Currently, Russia, Syria, and Iran are preparing to liberate the last Syrian province that is still in the hands of Washington’s proxy army—Al Qaeda, Al Nursa, and ISIS. Washington has sent US troops to be dispersed among the terrorists that Washington sent to overthrow Syria, thinking the American presence would deter the Russian/Syrian attack on Washington’s terrorists allies. Once again, Washington took advantage of Putin’s hesitancy to make the situation more difficult for him.
Apparently, Washington has succeeded in delaying the final liberation of Syria from US-supported terrorists. However, the Russian military, if not the Russian government, understands that at this late stage in the game, Russia cannot back down without being inundated with massive provocations as the price of its rectitude. This is why there is an armada of Russian navy off the coast of Syria armed with Russia’s new hypersonic missiles against which the US has no defense whatsoever. If it comes to a conflict, it is the Russian government’s choice alone whether any US ship will still be afloat.
The Russian military also has its newest aircraft, far superior to the American junk, armed with the hypersonic missiles. A Russian/ Washington showdown in Syria means a humiliating military defeat for Washington.
This realization makes the Russian government hesitant to use its military power in Syria. The Russian government knows that Washington is insane, that the insane neoconservatives believe in US exceptionalism and indispensability and are committed to American unilateralism. The Russians are aware that Trump, although he intended to reduce tensions, has collapsed to the onslaught from the military/security complex and would be likely to “rescue America’s honor” by pushing the button.
This, I think, could be the reason that the liberation of Idlib province has not begun. This part of Syria might be left in Washington hands as a way of avoiding the end of the world
On the other hand, the Russian military and Russian nationalists are tired of Washington’s and militarily-impotent UK’s insults and provocations. They are growing impatient waiting for a defense of Russia’s honor. They understand that accepting one provocation leads to another and that eventually Russia will have to fight. Putin has been weakened by his pension changes, fostered off on him by Washington’s fifth column inside Russia—the Washington-trained neoliberal economists. It is a mystery to everyone why Putin trusts these de facto US agents who intend his and Russia’s ruin.
In other words, the situation in Syria is dangerous, and the US media ignores it except as a propaganda opportunity to condemn Russia for chemical attacks and civilian deaths. Indeed, the US media’s only interest is to be the first to report Syria’s use of chemical weapons in the liberation of Idlib province. In other words, the US media can’t wait to propel the world into World War 3.
The other extraordinary failure of the American media is the reporting on Israel. The Israeli Zionists have been committing genocide against the Palestinians, whose country they have stolen in plain view, with no effective protest from the Great Moral Western World or anyone else, for many decades. Today the remnants of Palestine are mainly in refugee camps outside the country and in the concentration camp, the Gaza Ghetto.
As far as NPR, CNN, the NY Times, or the CIA’s Washington Post are concerned, Israel’s heavy crimes against humanity do not exist. Indeed, President Trump’s National Security Advisor, a neoconservative, recently declared that the US government would use all its power to protect every American and Israeli from accountability as war criminals before the International Criminal Court.
So, what do we have? We have the US media comfortable with the fact that Israeli crimes against humanity are not reported, because to do so would be anti-semitic and holocaust denial.
The US media has no interest in the self-interest that the military/security complex has in Russiagate, because investigating this interest would distract from the media’s commitment to get Trump impeached as a Russian agent.
The US media, indeed, the entirety of the Western media, has no interest in the dangerous conflict that the West has gratuitously orchestrated with Russia, because any such reporting would scare people to death and make them realize that the agendas promoted by the media threaten the life of the planet.
America is threatening war in Syria. The Wall Street Journal says Russian troops will be targeted. Though this story from September 10, 2018 is fake, there is a sinister method behind it.
Trump wants a war with Russia, a war he thinks Russia will fight half-heartedly, a few ships sunk, a few planes downed, no American ground troops, perhaps with Trump able to use his secret arsenal of biological and chemical weapons and deniable tactical nukes as well.
Trump has long stated that he loves war, in fact loves nuclear war. Trump never served in the military and knows nothing of war or suffering. Blind and delusional love of war is easy for the privileged.
Trump is assured Russia will back down, act with sanity and restraint, things no longer in America’s tool box. Russia is to be crushed forever, beyond sanctions, pushed to demilitarize, denuclearize, become the puppet state America envisioned with the fall of the Soviet Union.
America needs to crush Russia now, something we will discuss. Timing is all important, and to Washington, the clock is ticking and Russia must be crushed as soon as possible.
Trump’s primary task, as more and more analysts see it, is to not crush Iran but crush one man, Vladimir Putin.
Someone has told Trump this is possible. Moreover, someone seems to be telling Trump lots of things, giving him orders, not taking orders from him. Who is doing this is the real question, the “Deep State” or perhaps Israel or a cabal of war mongering bankers, oil executives and the infamous “military industrial complex.”
What is clear is what is being said by America, John Bolton, Nikki Haley, Trump himself and America’s mainstream media has long crossed over into the realm of insanity, something polls indicate at least 61% of Americans believe as well.
It is the worst kept secret in the world that millions of Americans are so upset with their own government that the idea of the United States losing a major war, even facing occupation, is no longer seen as a “negative.” Millions of Americans believe it already happened, by dark of night, rigged elections, bribed officials, Israeli trained militarized police, massive internet spying, dead end low paying jobs, a rigged game, a life of subsistence and slavery, and end to hope.
In America, the anger in the air is so thick you can feel it, an undercurrent of murderous rage, none aimed at Russia or Syria. Most of it is aimed at Donald Trump while others who have partaken of the “Kool-Aid” blame immigrants, African Americans and Hispanics or liberals and progressives.
We are now entering a time of brinksmanship, not so much a facing-off of nuclear super powers but rather something far more sinister. America is proving to those who pay attention that it has become a madhouse and that the descriptions coming out of former Trump associates, the raving lunacy attributed to Trump himself, is now unbridled and ready for Armageddon.
The fanaticism was always there, the real root cause of 9/11 and the wars since, based on a system that exalts psychopathy cloaked in religion, patriotism and, worst of all, racial purity. At the heart of the “Trump base” are things we have all seen before, eugenics, White Supremacy, race identity, intolerance or, using a term too often misapplied, “Nazism.”
Russia is holding the largest military exercises in recent history with 300,000 and more taking part while the US is moving forces forward as well.
One thing is clear, Donald Trump wants to push Russia into a retaliatory attack on America and continually makes outlandish statements threatening Russia. Britain and France are doing the same, yet neither Britain nor France, not even the United States, is militarily capable of anything but taking “pot shots” at soft targets in Syria.
America’s navy is a “fake deterrent,” its ships easily sunk, its carrier-based planes easily downed, most being 4th generation and vulnerable to air attack.
Past that, America is using tanks from 1970, their carcasses are strewn across Iraq where small children with aging Soviet weapons had destroyed them, reminiscent of Israel’s debacle into Lebanon in 2006.
Hezbollah maintains a museum of destroyed Israeli armor outside Beirut.
The date is 9/11, 2018. With the actual cause for the decades long and now totally discredited “War on Terror” still a major controversy, the roles of Israel and Saudi Arabia a subject of continual speculation, America is looking for a new war.
According to the media, the war will be against Syria and will be based on retaliation for chlorine attacks ordered by President Assad on his own people. Reports to the contrary, totally censored by the US media and being cleaned off the internet by Google and Facebook, are now being taken to the United Nations Security Council and International Criminal Court at The Hague.
The US ignores both institutions. Presidential Advisor John Bolton recently threatened the justices of the ICC with personal retaliation if any cases were brought against American war criminals, himself included.
A History of Crimes
The US has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Commission as well, though individual Americans, this writer included, maintain delegate status despite threats from the Department of Homeland Security.
The US long quit the Geneva Convention, dropped out of nuclear and space weapon treaties, yet few Americans are aware, no vote was held, no reporting in the media, no consequences debated.
America’s naval activities in the Black Sea violate treaties there, their threats against Iran over that nation’s legal control of the Straits of Hormuz are equally illegal. Trump’s support of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is a war crime as was moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
America’s role in Syria is illegal as is America’s role in the war on Yemen as well. Drone attacks on Pakistan are illegal as is CIA complicity in attacks in Iran.
Past this, America has been caught, particularly in the issue of the National Reference Laboratory in Tbilisi, Georgia, of manufacturing and deploying biological weapons.
America’s rendition program, largely run covertly from Tripoli, Libya through cooperation with the Gaddafi regime, violated not only the rules of war but constituted kidnapping and murder in over 40 nations. Innocents were detained for more than a decade, subjected to illegal military tribunals, tortured and killed, mass graves in Poland, Ethiopia, Egypt, Libya and places few are aware of while one of those responsible, Gina Haspel, has been promoted to head the CIA.
To properly understand the threat, notions long outdated, of American democracy or “Christian decency” must be abandoned. By the 1980’s a “religion of convenience” had supplanted the normal majority sects of Protestant Christianity. Under the heretic doctrine of “Dominionism,” a religion paralleling Christianity arose, melding the back woods “speaking in tongues” and snake handling sects of the primitive and violent regions of poverty-stricken Appalachia with newly formed apocalypse cults centered on support of Zionism and Israel.
Spreading like wildfire, these extremist cults centered on bizarre mistranslations of odd and contradictory bible passages, seeded themselves into dozens of pseudo-Christian sects “infecting” up to 45 million Americans.
Behind it all was, of course, extremism at its purest and the political organizations ready to exploit the ignorant and angry through religious leaders more closely akin to game show hosts and carnival barkers.
At the base of it all were undercurrents of class envy, race hatred, resentment of women and fear, a powerful concoction. Feeding the frenzy was a newly legalized foreign controlled media organization run by Rupert Murdoch, joining a bevy of corporate entities that had long since gutted American journalistic integrity.
Add to this Google and Facebook, their NSA partners and a deterioration of individual protections under legislation such as the Patriot Acts, and the America many believe exists is now and has been long dead.
America is terrified of seeing its aircraft and ships sunk. Vietnam destroyed America’s willingness to lose troops publicly. Wars are now fought using mercenaries and terrorists, using missiles and sanctions, fought with propaganda and bluster, cowardice for sure, and cowardice may well be America’s new religion.
The only thing that stops a coward and bully is a bloody nose, this is the lesson of the schoolyard. Donald Trump is often portrayed as a child. He speaks and acts like a spoiled child and those around him are, for all intents and purposes, even those who claim to “rebel,” simply the weak and inadequate, losers and malcontents hiding behind a bully and tyrant.
The situation we are faced with is backing down to a bully and coward, and for those of us living in America, quite shamefully recognizing that the “bully and coward” is in fact “us,” or fighting back.
Domestically, fighting back is considered treason. Even reporting the truth is criminalized and all that is preventing the rounding up of real journalists is the ability of the internet to censor and silence or smear.
For some vague reason, any opposition to America’s insane policies is considered “anti-Semitism.”
When America attacks Syria, which will be an attack on Russia as well, admittedly or not, there are choices. If nothing is done, knowing America can’t prevent the freeing of Idlib from US backed terror, the world will be safer, for a while.
From there, America will move on to Iran, a base of operations against Russia. America is already moving against Belarus.
To Trump, or more appropriately, those who control Trump, if controlling an angry child is possible at all, pushing Russia to fight back is the Holy Grail. Seeing an American aircraft carrier sunk, American planes down by the S400, the media is waiting to scream “Pearl Harbor” and “9/11.”
Russia won’t use its nuclear arsenal and doesn’t have an economy that will sustain a war against NATO. You see, though NATO has already died, just hasn’t been buried yet, pushing Russia into a shooting war might well reinvigorate NATO. France is onboard, Macron a long proven “tool” and “asset.”
Britain is ungoverned entirely, with madman Boris Johnson ready to seize power.
America believes China is a decade away from military confrontation with the United States. This, perhaps, drives America to push for war now more than anything else. Once China has more aircraft carriers, and this is how America gauges power, America will feel “flanked” in Asia.
If Russia is taken out now, China will stand alone. If Russia is pushed to war now, Europe will fall under America rule again, as it did in 1945, rule by an America that is no longer “American” in any way, manner, shape or form.
Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He’s a senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
(MEMO) — Dozens of Jewish groups worldwide issued “an unprecedented joint statement on Tuesday backing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and saying that criticism of Israel’s actions does not equate to antisemitism”, reported The New Arab.
The initiative was led by US-based Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and the signatories include 36 Jewish groups from 15 countries, including Britain, South Africa, Germany and Brazil.
“As social justice organizations from around the world, we write this letter with growing alarm regarding the targeting of organizations that support Palestinian rights in general and the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, in particular”, the statement begins.
“These attacks too often take the form of cynical and false accusations of antisemitism that dangerously conflate anti-Jewish racism with opposition to Israel’s policies and system of occupation and apartheid”.
The statement highlights in particular the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which, it says, “is worded in such a way as to be easily adopted or considered by western governments to intentionally equate legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism, as a means to suppress the former”.
“This conflation undermines both the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality and the global struggle against antisemitism. It also serves to shield Israel from being held accountable to universal standards of human rights and international law”, the statement continues.
The signatories “urge our governments, municipalities, universities and other institutions to reject the IHRA definition and instead take effective measures to defeat white supremacist nationalist hate and violence and to end complicity in Israel’s human rights violations”.
Notably, some of the groups who signed the statement “support BDS in full, others in part, and others have no formal position on BDS”, but “all affirm the current call for BDS as a set of tools and tactics that should not be defined as antisemitic”.
Leah Levane, from the UK’s Antisemitism Consortium, said: “There is no room for hate speech, but equally there must be no suppression of legitimate political protest, nor chilling of critical discussion, as is happening to pro-Palestinian activists in the UK and elsewhere”.
Martha Stout, a leading expert on psychopaths, says that the single most characteristic sign of the psychopath is the way they “play the victim card” while victimizing others. Case in point: Israel, the Psychopathic Nation: a bunch of invaders, looters, and genocide perpetrators who claim that THEY are the eternal victims.
Another case in point: wheelchair-bound ultra-Zionist lawyer Mark Lewis, who works overtime to put Palestinian kids in wheelchairs too, by doing everything he can to support the genocidal Zionist entity that is shooting them down by the scores with exploding bullets designed to kill or inflict permanent disabilities.
Lewis is behind much of the “lawfare” program described in Eve Mykytn’s article below—a political strategy aimed at crushing and bankrupting pro-Palestinian voices that relies on the notoriously pro-plaintiff bias in British libel law. Lewis apparently purchases legal insurance that guarantees that lawyers for plaintiffs in libel cases will get paid a flat fee, regardless of outcome—and applies that insurance program to a witch hunt against critics of Israel and Zionism. (No such insurance is available for libel defendants.) The result is that Zionist associates of Lewis have been combing the media for statements by pro-Palestinians that could be punished via libel cases, then contacting the “victims” and offering pro bono legal services. It’s a lot like the common sleazebag lawyer practice of ambulance chasing, only in this case it is designed to punish political speech criticizing a powerful lobby.
In the libel case against Gilad Atzmon described below, the plaintiff, Gideon Falter, originally asked for somewhere between 45,000 and 60,000 pounds damages—then offered to settle for 7,500 pounds. Normally settlement offers are in the neighborhood of 75% of the original demand. Why did Falter (presumably advised by his lawyer) lowball his initial settlement offer? One likely reason: they didn’t want the CAA program to be exposed in court. Another reason: Falter’s lawyer is guaranteed a flat fee by Lewis’s legal insurance arrangement or alternatively by the defendant, so he makes the same amount of money whether or not he actually litigates the case, and whether the settlement is huge or paltry.
How long will the Zionists continue to get away with crushing free speech via well-organized, heavily-funded “lawfare”? How long will their dominance of the MSM allow them to keep hoodwinking Americans and Europeans? And how long will they continue to get away with genocidal crimes against Palestine? The answer, as a certain Robert Zimmerman once sang, is “blowin’ in the wind.”
This article about the British charitable organisation, the Campaign against Anti-Semitism (CAA), and its officers, Gideon Falter and Steve Silverman, examines events in England but ought to serve as a cautionary message for Canadians and Americans.
The article will delve into the corrosive methods of the CAA; review the manner in which this ultra Zionist group “discovers” anti-Semitic “incidents”; examine their inaccurate statistical “studies” and see how they seek to intimidate political parties, venues, the press and others; and look at the court cases which the CAA has prosecuted. In the guise of fighting anti-Semitism, the CAA has managed to manoeuvre British society into abdicating its core liberal values, intimidate the prosecutorial and judicial system, and silence criticism of Israel in both social media and the mainstream media.
The CAA does not just attempt to limit speech; it openly follows a scorched earth policy “that if someone commits an anti-Semitic act in the UK (including criticism of Israel)” the CAA “ensure[s] ruinous consequences, be they criminal, professional, financial or reputational”.
For example, in the last 18 months Britain’s largest political party, the Labour Party, has suspended and expelled over a hundred of its members for expressing their views on Israel or Jewish history. Presumably these dismissals act as a deterrent to others who might also wish to express their opinions. Hard as it is to believe, in 21st century Britain people have been imprisoned for trying to be funny…
The CAA’s “success” in Britain is not irrelevant to Americans. Despite the First Amendment, rules limiting speech have been creeping into our society, notwithstanding our constitutional protections.
In 2006 Rowan Laxton was using an exercise bike alone on the mezzanine floor of a London gym when he saw a television report about an elderly Palestinian man killed by the Israeli assault on Gaza. Laxton allegedly exclaimed: “F…..g Israelis! F…..g Jews!” Gideon Falter (now head of the CAA) and William Lemaine, who were on a lower floor using weights, claimed to have overheard Laxton, and complained to staff at the gym.
The police were going to let Laxton off with a caution but, before it could be arranged, Falter found out that Laxton was a senior Foreign Office official and brought the story to half a dozen newspapers. The police decided to proceed with a prosecution.
Laxton was initially found guilty of “using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour… within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby…” aggravated by using abusive words that had a racial or ethnic element. Laxton was fined and removed from his Foreign Office position.
Laxton exercised his right to an appeal and a rehearing wherein the Crown Court found that Laxton did not say “f…..g Jews”, the comment on which the prosecution was based and which he had always denied. The court also found, as an alternative ground, that Laxton would have thought no one was within earshot.
The Daily Mailplayed a key role in ensuring that the case received national attention and went to trial, but seems not to have reported the appeal and acquittal at all. It is an open question of how Falter heard Laxton’s alleged outburst, if at the time no one was within earshot of Laxton. One reasonable assumption is that the court did not believe that Falter actually heard Laxton’s statement.
Eight years after the Laxton incident, Gideon Falter founded the Campaign Against Anti-Semitsm, a hardcore Zionist charity that advocates zero tolerance of, and vows to ensure “criminal, professional and reputational consequences”, to those it decides are anti-Semites.
Stephen Silverman is the CAA’s “Director of Investigations and Enforcement” and has dedicated much of his time to ruining the intellectual and artistic careers of others. Silverman is himself a musician wannabe, and runs a music school in a London suburb.
In the last few years Silverman and the CAA have engaged in a relentless assault against artists, intellectuals, religious leaders and elected politicians operating in or visiting England. The “Director of Investigations” does not like ex-London Mayor Ken Livingstone, nor does he approve of a list of academics or church ministers who care for human rights or dare to disagree with Israel. The self-appointed inquisitor despises the hugely popular Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Silverman has made a number of attempts to ruin the music careers of both Alison Chabloz and Gilad Atzmon. In addition, Silverman takes it upon himself to write and call music venues demanding that they cancel Atzmon concerts claiming that Atzmon is a notorious anti-Semite.
Stephen Silverman, was exposed in open court in December 2016 as having been the Twitter troll @bedlamjones. As a Zionist troll, Silverman abused anti-Zionists, particularly women. His sadistic posts called for arrest and imprisonment in response what he considered to be “anti-Semitic” comments.
Silverman has also determined that Gordon Nardell, the man who has taken on the unenviable job of policing anti-Semitism within the Labour Party, is insufficiently sensitive to anti-Semitism. Apparently, according to Silverman, “Nardell has also turned his sights on Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, stating that our work to combat hatred directed at Jews by Labour members is “revolting” and results in anti-Semitism being “abused and belittled”.
For Nardell’s sin of distrusting the CAA, the CAA has demanded that “an independent and transparent disciplinary process… be instituted in the Labour Party”. The CAA’s website does not explain why the Labour Party need justify its own campaign against anti-Semitism to the CAA.
What is anti-Semitism?
UNESCO’s definition of racism is that it is “a theory of races hierarchy which argues that the superior race should be preserved and should dominate the others. Racism can also be an unfair attitude towards another ethnic group. Finally racism can also be defined as a violent hostility against a social group.” The traditional definition of anti-Semitism is the “criticising of, or discriminating against Jews for being Jews”. This definition is not substantially different from UNESCO’s definition of racism.
However, despite the fact that enforcing hate speech laws based on a traditional definition of racism would protect Jews as well as others, in December 2016 the United Kingdom followed other countries in adopting the “international definition of anti-Semitism”, which begins by saying: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
The new “international definition” is troubling because it specifically targets speech and thoughts and fails to define what a “certain” perception of Jews is, and an expression of hatred towards Jews is cited, not to make the definition more precise but only as one possible example.
It is well worth reviewing the “examples of anti-Semitism” included in the “international definition” which are extremely broad and include, among other things, accusing a Jewish person of valuing Israel or his fellow Jews over his home country and the seemingly paradoxical provision prohibiting speech denying that Jews have the right to self-determination through Israel.
But if racism against one group is to be fought on a broader basis than other forms of racism, that extra protection ought to be to aid a group uniquely needing the state’s protection – an allegedly poor, downtrodden and persecuted group. It is of note that, in contrast to the downtrodden, Jews as a group have been extraordinarily successful at utilising the media and the courts and obtaining the power to “hold the feet of the government to the fire”.
If UNESCO’s definition aimed at defining racism as a universal problem, the “international definition” adheres to the idea that Jews are not a part of the universal, they are somehow different, their plight is unique.
Why do the Jews in particular need a broader definition of racial hatred? Why do Jews see a need to create a category of hatred that applies only to them? What is lacking in the UNESCO definition that is covered by the “international” one? The answer is that the “international definition” serves to restrain speech and restrict thought. It conflates the Jewish State of Israel with Jews as it vets a range of discourses such as criticism of Israeli politics, Jewish culture, Jewish history and Zionist ideology.
It is not surprising that this definition is espoused by some Zionist institutions. However, its adoption by so many countries is perplexing and begs an explanation. In a world in which free speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion are valued, there is a real question of why such a broad definition of anti-Semitism is appropriate and what exactly it is designed to accomplish.
Then there is the CAA, for whom the international definition is only a starting point. Their accusations of anti-Semitism go beyond even the very broad and over-inclusive definition of the “international definition”. If you find anti-Semitism in t-shirts, major party political gatherings or stupid pet videos, then the definition is very expansive indeed. Why would an organisation dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism be so interested in finding anti-Semitism in every possible utterance? It is clear that the CAA wants to stop any discussion of Jews, Israel or Jewish history in any but its prescribed manner. In its aggressive policing of speech, the CAA and others work to enforce Jewish power precisely as it is defined by Gilad Atzmon: “the power to suppress criticism of Jewish power”.
Freedom of t-shirt
While freedom of speech may be evaporating throughout the English-speaking world, at least we are assured that freedom of t-shirt is still protected in England.
Last year, the CAA’s website bemoaned that Edinburgh-based law graduate Sophie Stephenson won’t face criminal charges for wearing a Hezbollah t-shirt. The CAA wrote that: “On 1 July 2017, Stephenson tweeted a photograph of herself wearing a Hizballah t-shirt, explaining: “Went out to dinner with my family tonight wearing a Hizballah t-shirt.” And then, even worse, Stephenson confirmed: “I have a flag too.”
The CAA, in its zeal to fight anti-Semitism, reported Stephenson to the police, alleging that she had committed an offense under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. But despite the CAA’s urging, Scottish Police declined to act against the young “rebel”.
The CAA “considered undertaking a private prosecution” against Stephenson. However, its website lamented, “we were unable to secure enough funding to do so”. Following its report of the supposedly anti-Semitic/terrorist-loving Stephenson, the CAA called upon the public to “consider making a monthly donation to help fund Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” presumably to allow it to continue to harass Britons, accusing them of anti-Semitic behaviour, and interfering with their elementary freedoms including the right to wear rebellious t-shirts. Disturbingly, asking for donations in this context suggests that the CAA is attempting to cash in from its dubious anti-Semitic claims. Not exactly the ethical conduct you might expect of a charity.
Methodology, it is not!
The CAA claims to run “methodological” “research into anti-Semitism in British political parties”. Trolling and spying on elected British politicians on social media and public meetings, the CAA keeps a “record” of allegedly “anti-Semitic discourse and discourse that enables anti-Semitism, by officials and candidates in political parties”. This means that a Jewish organisation with a clear political agenda endeavours to monitor the British political discourse to restrain certain political opinions. The CAA’s actions prosecuting its farfetched “findings” are dangerous enough, but more troubling is its success in terrorising the British political universe into compliance with its dictates.
What are some “examples” of discourse that the CAA has claimed enable anti-Semitism and the dissemination of anti-Semitic ideas?
Internationally acclaimed film-maker and Labour supporter Ken Loach told the BBC’s Daily Politics programme that he had been attending Labour meetings for 50 years and had “never in that whole time heard a single anti-Semitic word or a racist word”, and that allegations of anti-Semitism were a fallacy “without validation or any evidence”.
The CAA claimed that Loach’s statement brought to light a “discourse that enables anti-Semitism and the dissemination of anti-Semitic ideas”. How is Loach’s statement racist? Does it target Jews, identify Jews as a collective or advocate discrimination against Jews or anyone else? Is there even a criminal category or a showing of bias in which “not witnessing” conduct implicates one in that very conduct? How does not witnessing anti-Semitism make one into an anti-Semite? Does not witnessing a murder makes one a murderer? Under the CAA’s “rationale” anyone who fails to see the anti-Semitism they do is an anti-Semite.
Abbott ran afoul of the CAA when she said: “It’s a smear to say that Labour has a problem with anti-Semitism. It is something like a smear against ordinary party members.” The CAA claimed that “Abbott’s comments were widely condemned. The overwhelming majority of UK Jewish community bodies have expressed public concern about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, including the chief rabbi.” Whether or not this statement is accurate, how is it that Abbott’s statement was misinterpreted as a criticism of Jews when it is clearly a defence of the Labour Party?
The CAA has a long file on former London Mayor Livingstone, beginning in 1982 when the paper, the Labour Herald, of which Livingstone was co-editor, ran an unfavorable cartoon of the then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. According to the CAA, Livingstone’s most egregious anti-Semitic remark was his claim that that in 1932 (Hitler came to power in 1933) Hitler had championed Jewish emigration to Israel (actually, then Palestine) and was “supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews”. The United States Holocaust Museum website generally supports Livingstone’s statement and reveals that until 1941, Germany encouraged Jews to emigrate and that 60,000 Jews left Germany/Austria for Palestine, a number second only to the number of Jews who went to the United States.
Livingstone rejected claims that he had brought the Labour Party into disrepute and said he was not guilty of anti-Semitism, but resigned from the party and acknowledged that his comments had upset Jews and offended others. “I am truly sorry for that,” he said.
Some of Livingstone’s critics were not satisfied with his apology for his truthful statement. Ruth Smeeth, a Labour lawmaker, described his behaviour as “grossly offensive to British Jews”. MP Smeeth’s reaction is bizarre. Is it anti-Semitic for Livingstone to discuss Jewish history? The Transfer Agreement between Hitler’s Germany and the Zionist Congress may be embarrassing for some Jews, but how is recounting history hate speech? MP Smeeth, the CAA and others claiming to be offended managed by ousting Livingstone to enforce their ironclad rule that certain Jewish history is “off limits”.
War on Labour
Following its anti-methodology, the CAA came to the conclusion that the British Labour Party is “eight times worse than any other party”. Not 5, 6 or 8.3 but exactly 8. What “evidence” supports this “finding?”
The British media have failed to do their job of investigating alleged incidents of anti-Semitism, and instead accept the CAA’s claims without questions.
The CAA’s website publishes an “enemies list” of sorts, chronicling the alleged anti-Semitism of 39 members of the Labour Party. A striking number of the CAA’s complaints address statements about Israel, not about Israel as Jews, but about the actions of the country. To date, about 150 members of the Labour Party have been expelled for alleged anti-Semitism and there is a backlog of cases.
Dubious cases such as those cited here are treated by the CAA as “anti-Semitic incidents” that help the CAA feed the idea that England is rife with anti-Semitism. The British media have failed to do their job of investigating alleged incidents of anti-Semitism, and instead accept the CAA’s claims without questions.
Fiddling with numbers
Fiddler on the Roof may be emblematic of Eastern European Jewish folklore but fiddling with numbers is a symptom of contemporary Zionist politics in general and of the CAA in particular. The CAA compiles and disseminates information on anti-Semitism, basing its claims on methodology that is patently unreliable.
The “anti-Semitism audit” produced by the CAA purports to track incidents of anti-Semitism on an annual basis. The audit is a deeply flawed document, relying on data known to be unreliable and subjected to no proper statistical analysis.
Even the CAA’s use of the term “audit” is inappropriate. An “audit” is defined as “an official inspection of an… organisation’s accounts, typically by an independent body”. The CAA has no official or professional status as an auditor, nor would its methods be accepted by anyone in a position to conduct a professional audit.
The CAA has been advised by police forces that comparing police reports across jurisdictions and years leads to misleading results. The CAA’s anti-Semitism audit was heavily criticised in the Jewish media by statistics expertswho noted that the CAA’s “methodology” was “flawed”, “amateurish” and “misleading”. But none of that stopped the CAA from promoting its manufactured “findings” in the mainstream media.
The CAA based its audit on gathering data from the police. But the CAA doesn’t enjoy free access to police files. Instead, it uses different techniques to gather information. This haphazard “methodology” creates crucial problems:
1. Police forces in different regions of Britain use different standards to gather data regarding hate crimes.
2. Police forces in Britain are presently in the process of revising how they collect their hate crime records so that data from one year may show different results than data from a different year even if the number of hate crimes remains constant.
3. The CAA basically gathers information on the volume of incidents recorded that it considers to be anti-Semitic. But the CAA itself is actively engaged in increasing this volume. It frequently reports incidents to the police and urges other members of the Jewish community to follow suit. An interested body that actively contributes to the rise of reported anti-Semitic incidents cannot also claim to be objective in its “audit” that measures the rise of anti-Semitsm.
4. While the CAA’s audit of anti-Semitism shows a nationwide rise of 14.9 per cent in anti-Semitic incidents between 2016 and 2017, this is based on data gathered by the CAA half of which shows wild year to year fluctuations of up to 1050 per cent. Such fluctuations defy any rationale. These statistical anomalies beg careful analysis that the CAA not only fails to apply – the CAA fails to address this drastic shift in number of reported incidents. The CAA’s study aggregates divergent data collected in different ways and calls that an “audit” of anti-Semitism in Britain. The flawed study was released to the British public with the help of the disgracefully gullible British media. The BBC, Sky, the Guardian and others reported the amateurish statistical “audit” to the British public without raising a single question as to its reliability.
On page 4 it reads: “2016 was the worst year on record for anti-Semitic crimes”, reporting a 14.9 per cent rise in crimes “targeting Jews” nationwide. But a few lines below, the audit states that during the same period “violent anti-Semitic crimes fell by 44.7 per cent”. This difference in incidences appears contradictory.
The CAA admits that it doesn’t have an explanation for the drop in violent crimes: “We have considered various explanations; however at this point we do not find them persuasive.” (page 6). This drop occurred even though the CAA inflated the number of “violent incidents” by expanding the Home Office definition of violent incidents. (page 16) The CAA defined violent anti-Semitic acts as the combination of the Home Office categories of “homicide” or “violence with injury”, and the heretofore non-violent “assault without injury” and “racially or religiously aggravated assault without injury”.
This means that the audit conveyed the good news that, even using the CAA’s inflated category, the number of “violent anti-Semitic incidents” dropped. Strangely, the Jewish pressure group does not write that the drop in violent anti-Semitic crime is a positive finding.
Fishing for J words
Since the CAA doesn’t have an access to each police force’s records, it derives its statistics from police reports. When a police force does not flag anti-Semitic incidents, the CAA asks that police force to conduct a keyword search of its files:
For the purposes of this research, the keywords used were the following whole words: Jew, Jews, Jewish, Judaism, Semite, Semitic, Semitism, antisemite, anti-Semitic, anti-Semitism, Yid, Yids, Yiddo, or Yiddish. (page 17)
Some police forces made the CAA aware that their keywords method is not a reliable way to find anti-Semitic crime. “Not all incidents where ‘Jew’ is mentioned are anti-Semitic,” wrote the Northumbria police force. It also refers to the CAA exercise as a “fishing expedition”. The CAA ignored this caution and simply used as the number of incidents the data they had been warned were incorrect.
Duplicity vs methodology
The CAA employs inadequate and inconsistent methods of information gathering not only in its audit, but in its information gathering from Jews.
In 2017 the CAA made some shocking revelations:
“One out of three British Jews were considering leaving the kingdom.”
“Four out of five Jews saw anti-Semitism disguised as comments about Israel.”
“Four out of five saw Labour as anti-Semitic.”
“Half of British Jews didn’t trust the Crown Prosecution Service.”
And the source of these disturbing feelings? They came from the results of an online questionnaire found on the CAA’s website. The CAA’s findings were not even from as unbiased sample as the average FaceBook poll. Instead of revealing what British Jews think, the CAA “survey” revealed the opinions of its Zionist readers. It is outrageous to label the results of this exercise “statistics”. In fact, Jewish leaders who criticised the CAA’s duplicitous use of the “poll” were brutally silenced and slandered. Probably the most problematic result of the poll was that the British press reported it but did not point out that the CAA’s findings were based on a self-selecting sample.
Stupidity or duplicity?
Is the CAA a dysfunctional body of incompetent and clueless characters or is the CAA a group of consciously deceptive Zionists who deliberately deceives the British public? The following evidence suggests the latter.
As discussed above, the CAA 2016 anti-Semitsm audit is methodically and factually a problematic document. The CAA was warned of this by different law-enforcement bodies such as the Northumbria police. The CAA audit uses its questionable data to show an increase in the volume of reported anti-Semitic incidents but still fails to prove an increase in anti-Semitsm. Does that mean that the CAA intended to produce a deceptive audit?
The CAA audit’s raw data (from page 24 onward) reveals extreme fluctuations in anti-Semitic incidents reported by police forces from 2015 to 2016, with year to year increases of up to 1050 per cent in some categories and drops of 80-90 per cent in others.
In Derbyshire, for instance (page 34), the audit shows an increase of 1050 per cent in non-criminal anti-Semitic incidents: from two in 2015 to 23 in 2016. This would mean that non-criminal anti-Semitic incidents rose in Derby 70 times more than the CAA’s own nationwide rate of 14.9 per cent. On paper, the situation in Derbyshire is almost a Shoah scenario. Did the CAA try to verify, as even elementary statistics would require, this enormous increase? Was there a pogrom reported in Derbyshire?
In Hertfordshire (page 44), they show an increase of almost 400 per cent in anti-Semitic crime and a surge of 800 per cent in non criminal anti-Semitic incidents. Again, there is no indication that the CAA tried to look into the cause of this improbable increase.
The explanation of the unreasonable rise was known to the CAA. West Yorkshire police notified the CAA that the recent rise in numbers of hate crime incidents “are predominantly associated with administrative change in relation to force crime-recording processes”. It was an administrative change, not an increase in anti-Semitism that led to the huge increase in the number of hate crimes recorded. So, despite the CAA’s knowledge of the reasons for the wild fluctuations, the CAA still dispensed the misleading numbers to the British public.
The raw police reports that the CAA’s audit relies upon reveal that 21 of the 46 reports showed fluctuations well beyond what could reasonably be likely (more than three times the CAA own nationwide figure of 14.9 per cent rise in anti-Semitic incidents). The CAA could claim that its mistakes were due to incompetence, that they simply copied and pasted police reports without thinking. But the last page of the audit reveals that this is not the case.
The CAA does admit that the numbers reported by Wiltshire police (page 73) were unreliable, as they showed a radical rise from one incident in 2015 to 139 incidents in 2016. This is an increase of 13900 per cent in anti-Semitic incidents in a region with fewer than 540 Jews. The CAA discarded the data from Wiltshire as unreliable. But by deciding not to include the Wiltshire police report the CAA reveals that it doesn’t just copy and paste police data.
So, the CAA included some data and discarded others with no apparent standards. What statistical methodology did the CAA use when it decided to discard a rise in 13,900 per cent in anti-Semitic incidents in one jurisdiction and to include a rise in 1000 per cent, 400 per cent or even 50 per cent in others?
It is a basic tenet of statistical analysis that statistics from different sources cannot be combined or meaningfully compared without properly adjusting for different data gathering systems and methods. Deriving an overall percentage increase by averaging data derived by different systems is patently absurd. Nor is it accurate to compare different years from the same data source unless the gathering methodology is the same. The CAA’s audit compiles apples, oranges and bananas and treats them as identical. The extreme fluctuations in police reporting reveals that police force systems did exactly as the police force said it did and underwent significant reporting changes as the CAA admits in its introduction (page 3).
The alerts from the police forces that collection methods had changed means that the CAA should have known that its audit was flawed. This was also pointed out to the CAA by experts within the Jewish community who were highly critical of the audit.
Michael Pinto Duschinsky, a well respected political scientist, wrote a devastating commentary in the Jewish Chronicleabout the CAA. As a holocaust survivor, Duschinsky writes, I have two commitments: “to combat anti-Semitism and other forms of racism and to avoid trivialising it by misleading allegations”. Duschinsky denounced the CAA for its “deeply flawed”, “misleading” and “amateurish” methods.
Of the self-selected CAA poll, Duschinsky wrote:
It was completely predicable that the questionnaire would produce the conclusion that one in four British Jews had considered leaving the UK… This was because the questions were so slanted and tendentious and because anyone who wished could complete the questionnaire… Not only did CAA incorrectly characterise its amateur questionnaire of Jewish opinion as a “poll” (thereby suggesting a statistically-valid sample), it then used overblown language in reporting it results.
Abuse of the judicial process
The hysteria over alleged anti-Semitism has led to trials and convictions for the crime of “anti-Semitism”. Cases that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) refused to prosecute two years ago have now been brought by the CPS after action from the CAA. Is the change in prosecutions a sign that the CPS now realises that it can obtain convictions it thought unlikely, does it result from a change in what the state considers to be “speech” crimes, or is the CPS placating the CAA?
Gideon Falter and the CAA have been instrumental in utilising a variety of techniques to force prosecution of “anti-Semitism”. Their campaign to restrain speech previously thought permissible has been successful in England as the following sampling of cases shows.
Jeremy Bedford Turner
Turner was recently sentenced to a year in jail after a jury convicted him of stirring up racial hatred during a 2015 speech in which Turner criticised Shomrim, a Jewish-only police unit funded by Britain, whose job it is to protect only Jewish neighbourhoods. Turner further opined the racist sentiment that he wanted Jews out of England.
The CPS declined to prosecute Turner’s speech as incitement to racial hatred. There is an “incitement to racial hatred” clause in the statutes but it is not all-encompassing, and it did not come close to making “anti-Semitism” illegal. The CPS’s policy guidelines on cases involving “incitement” clearly state that the language employed by a defendant must have been “threatening, abusive or insulting“. The courts have upheld the right to freedom of speech even when behaviour is, as in this case, “annoying, rude or even offensive without necessarily being insulting”.
Falter requested a “victim’s right to review” in reponse to the CPS’s decision not to prosecute. The request was denied on the basis that Turner hadn’t mentioned Falter, Falter did not personally hear Turner’s speech and therefore Falter couldn’t claim victim status. The CAA then instituted the process for judicial review of the CPS over its decision not to prosecute and, on the eve of a hearing in the High Court, the CPS agreed to quash its original decision, put a more senior lawyer on the case and proceeded to prosecute and convict Turner.
CAA head Falter claimed the verdict was a “damning indictment” not only of Turner, but of the CPS and its outgoing head, Alison Saunders. Falter said: “The real question is why the director of public prosecutions and CPS got this so dismally wrong.” Falter’s question conflates a jury verdict of “guilty” with proof that the CPS was misinterpreting the law.
Further in 2015, when Turner gave his speech, the United Kingdom had not yet signalled its willingness to stifle speech by adopting the “international definition” of anti-Semitism.
Alison Chabloz, 54, of Derbyshire, was recently convicted on two counts of causing an offensive, indecent or menacing message to be sent over a public communications network. District Judge John Zani said he was satisfied the material was grossly offensive and that Chabloz intended to insult Jewish people.
The CPS initially declined to prosecute Chabloz’s speech, presumably because it was both satirical and political. The CAA launched a private prosecution against Chabloz. Private prosecutions are undertaken in the British system as a direct way for a citizen to institute a criminal case. The rules are intricate, but until recently such prosecutions generally dealt with complex business questions.
Under constant pressure from the CAA, the CPS took over the prosecution of Chabloz. The CAA had not utilised private prosecution in the Turner case since it were not present to hear the “slurs” and would have had no basis for private prosecution.
The songs that provoked Chabloz’s prosecution had been performed at a London Forum event (hardcore nationalist gathering) in 2016 and uploaded to YouTube. They included one song describing the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz as “a theme park” and the gas chambers a “proven hoax”. This is a pretty clear example of provocative speech that most of us disagree with. However, does the state need to criminalise such speech? Won’t the “marketplace of ideas” call out Chabloz? I suspect the internet world would not allow her lyrics to go unchallenged.
Prosecutor Karen Robinson told the court: “Miss Chabloz’s songs are a million miles away from an attempt to provide an academic critique of the holocaust. They’re not political songs. They are no more than a dressed-up attack on a group of people for no more than their adherence to a religion.”
But is it a legal requirement that political song lyrics provide an “academic critique”? Must political satire be clearly defined as found by a court? It’s not clear that “Alice’s Restaurant” or “Fortunate Son” would pass this test.
Adrian Davies, defending, argued that: “It is hard to know what right has been infringed by Miss Chabloz’s singing.” The singer has defended her work as “satire”, saying many Jewish people found the songs funny.
The focus of the private prosecution brought by Falter was Alison’s comments criticising the narratives of Elie Wiesel, Irene Zisblatt and Otto Frank, in her song Survivors.
The authenticity of the tales of these three holocaust victims have been the subject of academic debate. The Anne Frank foundation recently admitted the diary had not been solely authored by Anne. Elie Wiesel’s wartime saga has been called into question over a number of issues. Under cross-examination, Falter was forced to admit that he had not actually read Zisblatt’s book, and so knew nothing about its accuracy, despite having brought a private prosecution to protect it from ridicule.
There are no specific laws against holocaust denial in the UK, even if that is what this was. Britain has resisted attempts to enforce a European Union directive outlawing holocaust denial. Falter seemed to differ from the Crown which said that the prosecution was not against mere questioning of the holocaust. Falter indicated that those who question the new holocaust religion should be prosecuted under the law and attacked professionally: that is, ruined financially.
Falter also claimed that it was “intrinsically offensive” for Chabloz to refer to Palestine being reclaimed “from the river to the sea”. But, of course, the question of whether Palestine ought to be reclaimed for its indigenous people is a political question and not one of race, so what exactly was her crime? Falter openly stated that he is intent on shielding Israel from criticism, and said of the pro-Palestinian aspects of Chabloz’s songs: “You want to silence her and stop her putting those messages out.”
All of this left inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case with regard to whether the truth/falsehood of Chabloz’s criticisms of Zisblatt, et al, were relevant, or whether instead the Crown was enforcing an unspoken law that no-one claiming to be a holocaust survivor can be ridiculed, regardless of truth/falsehood.
Adrian Davies, Chabloz’s lawyer, told Judge Zani that his ruling would be a landmark one, setting a precedent on the exercise of free speech. This is a particularly egregious precedent limiting speech since it is not clear what speech led to Chabloz’s conviction and the case therefore provides no insight to others on what speech must be avoided.
The case against Atzmon illustrates that in the present environment in Britain, you can be liable not only for anti-Semitism, but for questioning the methodology by which anti-Semitism is determined.
Falter appeared on Sky News on 16 July 2017 to explain how he, on behalf of the CAA, had brought a law suit against the Crown for failure to prosecute the anti-Semitic speech supposedly uttered by Jeremy Bedford-Turner. Falter further complained that his statistics on the incidence of anti-Semitism showed far more anti-Semitic incidents than the CPS claimed. Falter claimed, “our view [on anti-Semitism] is right and the Crown is wrong”.
Writing in response to Falter’s appearance, Atzmon wrote on his own website that: “We are asked to choose between two versions of the truth, that delivered by Falter who leads the CAA and basically makes his living manufacturing anti-Semitic incidents and the judicial approach of the CPS: a public body, subject to scrutiny and committed to impartiality.”
Atzmon pointed out that “Falter interprets condemnation of Israel and Jewish politics as ‘hate crimes”. Atzmon commended the CPS for upholding “freedom of expression”, and this in free speech’s most cherished exercise – political speech.
Atzmon noted that Zionism also benefits from anti-Semitism (even though it does not intentionally cause it) since Israel claims that it exists to provide shelter to all Jews. Comparing Falter and the CAA to Israel, Atzmon noted, “since a decrease in anti-Semitic incidents [could have] fatal consequences for Falter and his CAA’s business plan. They need anti-Semitism and a lot of it.”
Falter filed a suit against Atzmon, claiming libel and defamation. Falter’s complaint reads, in part: “In order to justify the existence of, and raise funds for, the CAA the Claimant (Falter) dishonestly fabricates anti-Semitic incidents, that is to say he characterizes conduct as anti-Semitic when he knows it is not, and knowingly exaggerates the prevalence of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic activity.”
Falter complains that he was called a “devious fraud and a hypocrite”, even though neither word appears in Atzmon’s article. Falter further interprets Atzmon: “He [Falter] publicly campaigns against anti-Semitism but in reality his business plan is that he wants Jews to be hated so that he can make money.” In fact, Atzmon made the claim that Falter is a covert Jew hater who pretends to campaign against anti-Semitism.
In addition, Falter claimed that unless restrained, Atzmon would continue to publish similar words. Here Falter openly reveals that his lawsuit is not only against the words complained of, but an attempt to muzzle Atzmon.
The first stage of the lawsuit was a hearing before Justice Nicklin of the British High Court to define the issues created by the language complained of. In his ruling, the judge went beyond the complaint to determine that Atzmon’s words said that the claimant obtained funds through “fraud”.
Atzmon had not claimed that Falter committed fraud, and it was not clear that Falter’s misuse of statistics rose to the level of fraud, i.e. involving a criminal intent. The ruling made clear that a further defence before this justice would be pointless. The parties settled: Atzmon had to issue an apology and pay Falter £7500 in damages, plus an additional amount in legal fees. The irony of forcing Atzmon to pay Falter based on the allegedly false claim that Falter seeks money for anti-Semitism begs recognition.
The Nazi pug
Earlier this year Mark Meechan, aka “Count Dankula”, was convicted and fined £800 for posting on YouTube a video of a dog he had trained to give a Nazi salute in response to the phrases “gas the Jews” and sieg heil. In case viewers worried that he was trying to turn canines into Nazis, one pug dog at a time, Meechan stated in the video that he wasn’t himself a Nazi but thought that what he had done was funny. It is a reasonable interpretation of this video that it ridiculed Hitler supporters as much as it was offensive to others.
The Scottish police arrested Meecham and charged him with posting “grossly offensive, anti-Semitic and racist material”. Sheriff O’Carroll said the right to freedom of expression was very important but “in all modern democratic countries the law necessarily places some limits on that right”.
Meecham pleaded not guilty but was convicted under the Communications Act in a crime that the court found was aggravated by “religious prejudice”. Although Meecham’s video was certainly tasteless and offensive, it is not clear how it fell into the obscure category of “religious prejudice”.
Meecham’s lawyer, Ross Brown, stated of Meecham, his difficulty, “it seems, was that he was someone who enjoyed shock humour… and went about his life under the impression that he lived in a jurisdiction which permitted its citizens the right to freely express themselves”. This perception is understandable; British humour is famous for its tastelessness. Monte Python mocked the church, Little Britain mocks the disabled and so on.
Why did Scottish law enforcement prosecute a silly offensive video of a dog? Is Scotland so crime-free that this is a matter worthy of its crime-fighting resources? It’s hard not to wonder if the same case would have been brought five years ago.
The First Amendment
In the United States, our freedom to speak is guaranteed by the First Amendment, which forbids Congress from making a law abridging free speech (now held to apply to the states as well). The First Amendment was enacted primarily as a defence against government power. The founders were concerned that the federal government exercise only enumerated powers and no more. Still, free speech is not unlimited: the United States limits some speech, including false commercial speech, defamation and incitement to violence.
No reasonable person enjoys confronting hate speech, but allowing free speech, even at its most obnoxious, frees us from self-appointed guardians of the discourse. Who would any of us choose to decide what speech ought to be allowed? Congress? Trump? Obama? The FBI? The NSA? Scientists? The courts? Or the CAA or ADL (Anti-Defamation League)?
The United States government has spent more money on Israel than on any other foreign country, and it is reasonable for Americans to be free to comment on where their money is spent. And yet we have laws that punish those who speak out against Israel, even though we have no such laws for criticising our own government or to protect the people whom we formerly enslaved.
While speech against Israel is not illegal per se, the US government, and states such as New York and Texas (among others) have chosen to punish criticism of Israel as anti Semitic. They do this by prohibiting state funding or business with any group that advocates boycotting Israel.
Canada also protects speech, but not “hate” speech. Under the urging of B’nai B’rith, Canada has prosecuted “anti-Semitic” speech as hate speech. As in the cases in England, it is difficult to ascertain which particular speech was forbidden. In a trial against blogger Arthur Topham, the prosecution cited all of Topham’s writings that were unfavourable to Israel or Jewish culture and hoped some of them stuck. They did, and Topham was convicted.
Despite Canada’s enforcement of its hate speech laws, Falter urged Canadian Jews to follow his example of aggressive prosecution. He stated, “I believe that Canadian [Jews] increasingly will be looking at their situation and asking, ‘Do we have a future in this country?’ And that’s a question they shouldn’t be having to ask at all.” Where is Falter’s evidence that Canadian Jews are asking if they have a future in Canada? Is he trying to lay seeds of alienation so that Jews in Canada will feel less like a part of Canada?
This raises the question of whether the CAA intensifies anti-Semitism by urging Jews to find anti-Semitism everywhere and to prosecute perceived anti-Semitism and “to ensure ruinous consequences, be they criminal, professional, financial or reputational”. The CAA uses the judicial system to achieve its aims, but its use of the law seems cynical as in its legal machinations the CAA deliberately disrespects the principle of freedom of speech that is ingrained in the law of Britain, the United States and Canada.
“Our citizens should know the urgent facts…but they don’t because our media serves imperial, not popular interests. They lie, deceive, connive and suppress what everyone needs to know, substituting managed news misinformation and rubbish for hard truths…”—Oliver Stone