Monday, August 13, 2018

Gaza Solidarity Succeeds Despite Israeli Siege

Mission Accomplished: Why Solidarity Boats to Gaza Succeed Despite Failing to Break the Siege

by Ramzy Baroud


August 13, 2018

When Mike Treen, National Director of the ‘Unite Union’ in New Zealand arrived at the airport in Auckland August 1, a group of people anxiously awaited at the terminal with Palestinian flags and flowers.

They hugged him, chanted for Palestinian freedom and performed the customary native Haka dance. For them, Mike, as all those who set sail aboard the Freedom Flotilla to Gaza last July, were heroes.

But the truth is, Mike Treen and his comrades were not the only heroes for braving the sea with the aim of breaking the hermetic Israeli military blockade on the impoverished and isolated Gaza Strip.

Without those who were present at the Auckland airport, upon Mike’s arrival, and without the thousands of supporters all across the world who have mobilized as a community - held numerous meetings, raised funds, created a powerful media discourse, and so on - Treen’s attempted trip to Gaza would not have been possible in the first place.

The first boats to successfully break the Gaza siege, in October, 2008 were the ‘Free Gaza’ and the ‘Liberty’. They carried 44 people from 17 countries. The activists wanted to push their countries to acknowledge the illegality of the Israeli blockade on Gaza and to, eventually, challenge the siege.

Their triumphant arrival in Gaza ten years ago, marked a historic moment for the international solidarity movement, a moment, perhaps, unparalleled. Since then, Israel has launched several massive and deadly wars on Gaza. The first war took place merely weeks after the arrival of the first boats, followed by another war in 2012 and, the deadliest of them all, in 2014. The siege grew tighter.

Also, since then, many attempts have been made at breaking the siege. Between 2008 and 2016, 31 boats have sailed to Gaza from many destination, all intercepted, their cargo seized and their passengers mistreated. The most tragic of these incidents was in May 2010 when the Israeli navy attacked the ‘Mavi Marmara’ ship - which sailed alongside other boats - killing 10 activists and wounding many more.

Even then, the stream of solidarity boats continued to arrive, not only unhindered by the fear of Israeli retribution, but also stronger in their resolve. Palestinians consider the killed activists as ‘martyrs’ to be added to their own growing list of martyrs.

However, none of the boats made it to Gaza; so why keep on trying?

Last May, I arrived in New Zealand as part of a book tour that took me to other countries as well. However, in New Zealand, a relatively small Pacific island with a population that does not exceed five million people, the solidarity with Palestine was exceptional.

I asked about the strong Palestine solidarity work in New Zealand, inquiring with the coordinator for ‘Kia Ora Gaza’, Roger Fowler, who, at the time, was busy with final preparations for the Freedom Flotilla.

In New Zealand, he said, “for many years support for the Palestinian struggle lingered, often perceived as being too distant, and falsely portrayed as being 'too complicated'. But the global outrage at Israel's murderous attack on the ‘Mavi Marmara’-led humanitarian flotilla to Gaza in 2010 was a major turning-point that changed all that.”

Fowler, himself, along with other New Zealand activists joined the ‘Lifeline to Gaza’ convoy soon after the attack on the ‘Mavi Marmara’, reaching Gaza with three ambulances, packed with badly needed medicine, as the Israeli siege also deprived the Strip of hospital equipment and urgently needed medicine. Coordinating all of this was not a simple task as it also needed to be streamlined with the global efforts for the convoy, which included the dispatching of 140 other ambulances and 300 activists arriving from 30 countries.

“There were many moving scenes as Palestinians learned how far we had come from to offer solidarity - their Israel overlords had told the Palestinians for years that nobody cared about them, which is a big line,” Fowler told me.

I also spoke with Mike Treen upon his return from his Gaza sea journey. Treen is a seasoned activist, who works daily at defending the rights of workers from across the country. He sees his struggle for workers’ rights in New Zealand as part and parcel of his global solidarity outlook as well.

“In my role as part of the union movement in this country, I was also able to explain (to New Zealanders) that innocent working people (in Gaza) are the victims of this siege and that Israel has driven unemployment to over 50% for working people - one of the highest rates in the world,” he told me.

Treen, just like Fowler, understands that the boat solidarity is not merely an issue of providing urgently needed supplies, but as a well-coordinated effort at exposing the evils of the Israeli blockade.

“Unless Israel is directly bombing Gaza, the siege and its hideous human implications simply drop off the radar of public consciousness,” he said.

And this is precisely the real mission of the Gaza flotillas: While Israel wants to normalize the Gaza siege as it is currently normalizing its Occupation and Apartheid regimes, the solidarity movement has created a counter discourse that constantly foils Israeli plans.

In other words, whether the boats arrive on the Gaza coast or are hijacked by the Israeli navy, it makes little difference.

The power and effectiveness of this kind of solidarity goes even beyond Gaza and Palestine. “Our involvement in international solidarity endeavors, such as the Freedom Flotillas has, in turn, sparked a resurgence in other important elements of building the strength of the world-wide movement for justice”, Fowler told me, soon after Treen’s return to New Zealand.

Mike Treen also has his work cut out for him as he is now busy engaging the media and various communities in his own country, sharing his experiences on the boat, which led to his arrest, beating, tasering and deportation.

And like the horrific Apartheid regime in South Africa, the Israeli Apartheid will collapse, too, because Palestinians continue to resist and because millions of people, like Mike and Roger, are standing by their side.

Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of Palestine Chronicle. His latest book is ‘The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story’ (Pluto Press, London). Baroud has a Ph.D. in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter and is a Non-Resident Scholar at Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, University of California Santa Barbara. His website is www.ramzybaroud.net.

Ramzy Baroud, Ph.D, University of Exeter, UK. Non-Resident Scholar at Orfalea Center for International Studies, UCSB.

Learn about his latest book: The Last Earth (Pluto Press, London) 

Defying Country Convention: Europe's New City States

As Europe Goes Right, Some Cities Take a Different Path

by TRNN


August 12, 2018

At the Fearless Cities Conference, Barcelona en ComĂș’s Gala Pin says cities are the future of democratic governance.



At the Fearless Cities North America Conference, we sat down with housing activist Gala Pin, councilperson and member of citizen platform Barcelona en Comu. 

Britons Being Brain-Slaved by Blatant Antisemitism Meme

The goal of propaganda is a population that polices itself...or why the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn are not what they seem...

by MarkGB


August 13, 2018

Propaganda has reached its zenith when each member of the target population thinks the same; when they are afraid to think differently. At this point 'leadership' may commit whatever atrocities it sees fit...in the certainty that the population will either not 'see' it, or will view the expression of criticism as a more heinous crime than the act being observed.

This is achieved through cementing a 'false equivalence' in the mind of the group. Such a false equivalence is being cemented in the UK right now - the idea that criticism of Israel's persecution of Palestinians is an act of anti-Semitism.

The propagandist seeks to bend the 'group mind'. Thoughts and actions consistent with the 'narrative' are deemed to be socially acceptable & politically correct...ones that challenge it are regarded as socially UN-acceptable & politically IN-correct.

Overtime this is reinforced through a dynamic that exists within every human grouping, and many species of mammal - fear of disapproval. Ergo, the propagandist is employing a form of 'crowd control'.

When the fear of disapproval becomes so strong that one's sense of belonging, or even physical survival, depend on adherence to the narrative...when failure to comply with it attracts immediate rebuke from other members of the group...then the population can be said to be policing itself. That is how 'cults' function, and more frequently than you might imagine...it's how intelligence agencies and other governmental figures attempt to work through the media.

This is what Orwell warned of in the dystopia of '1984'. The Party had achieved what we might call a 'maintenance state' for the narrative - society was policing itself. For example, in Oceania, children were taught to report their parents to the 'Thought Police' if they demonstrated any sign of disloyalty to The Party. Disloyalty was considered a 'thought crime':

"Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them. There is almost no kind of outrage - torture, imprisonment without trial, assassination, the bombing of civilians - which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by 'our' side. The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them" - George Orwell, '1984'

This process is happening now. The false equivalence of 'criticism of Israel' with 'anti-Semitism' is being inculcated into society in general, into the Labour Party in particular, and in its sharpest manifestation, into the smear campaign against Jeremy Corbyn.

As you will already be aware (unless you've been trapped behind the fridge for several weeks) Corbyn is the target of a virulent campaign from a number of different directions, which have made 'common cause' on the accusation of anti-Semitism. Here, for example, are three major Jewish Newspapers, competitors of each other, who made the extraordinary decision to agree a common headline and verdict on 'Corbyn's Labour Party':



And here is the Jewish Chronicle after Margaret Hodges attacked Corbyn in public with 'you're a fucking racist and anti-Semite':



The mainstream media has not missed any opportunity to bash Corbyn either. Here's a relatively mild headline from the Sun, who selected a comment from one of Corbyn's backbenchers, Wes Streeting:



And to demonstrate that upmarket & downmarket means little when it comes to this stuff, here’s a hysterical comment from the usually ‘sober’ Telegraph:





What you will probably NOT have seen, however, is coverage of a statement published by 650 members of the Jewish Community, who are passionately opposed to the narrative. Here is the statement from 'Independent Jewish Voices' whose aim is 'human rights and a just and peaceful solution':




Neither is it likely that you will have heard the following statement from a Jewish academic, a person I've never met, but one who strikes me as a thoroughly intelligent and compassionate human being, Professor Annabelle Sreberney: https://twitter.com/TheBirmingham6/status/1022617218041999363

At this point, let me spell out my personal opinion regarding Jeremy Corbyn's alleged anti-Semitism:


You have to be a propagandist, an opportunist, or a complete idiot to discount decades of evidence demonstrating that Jeremy Corbyn is an enemy of racism. Wake up and smell the coffee - the guy stands up for the underdog...racists, by stark contrast, are always bullies

The reality I perceive, is not that Corbyn hates Jews, or loves Arabs...it's that he challenges injustice where he sees it - and he sees it in the treatment that Palestinians receive from the State of Israel.

The Propagandists in this situation must 'redirect' the attention of the population to the 'false equivalence': Criticism of Israel = Anti-Semitism.

The Opportunists in the equation are many:


This is a wonderful distraction for a Tory government that couldn't run a kid's party at Willy Wonka's
The Blairites in the Labour Party who've been trying to get rid of Corbyn since Day 1, have been handed a much more powerful weapon than anything they’ve tried up-to-now, and boy do they love it
There are a number of other groups who would rather invite Dracula over the threshold than see Corbyn enter Number Ten. The banks and the Murdoch empire are two examples

As for the Complete Idiots...sadly 'careful thought' is about as popular as 'listening', and to be fair to younger folk & millennials, this has been the case for the six decades I've been observing my fellow 'talking monkeys'. In short, propaganda relies on people 'not thinking' - there's a lot of it about.

Now, let's look at some 'nitty gritty' - the everyday stuff. This isn't something that only happens in the newspapers - it's a real part of everyday thinking and discourse. Here is an example I encountered a few days ago, which will serve to illustrate the process:

Context:


A Labour supporter on Twitter made an accurate observation that the BBC's coverage of Jeremy Corbyn is so biased that it's painful to listen to. I will keep his identity confidential since I have no desire to embarrass him - my purpose is to demonstrate 'false equivalence' in action.

Secondly, I should add that the Israeli Embassy has a fearsome reputation amongst journalists for making its feelings known if Israel doesn't get the coverage it feels it deserves. This is no secret…and it’s not new. Here is Tim Llewellyn, former Middle East correspondent for the BBC, writing in The Observer in June 2004:

“The reasons for this tentative, unbalanced attitude to the central Middle East story are powerful. BBC news management is by turns schmoozed and pestered by the Israeli embassy.
The pressure by this hyperactive, skilful mission and by Israel's many influential and well organised friends is unremitting and productive, especially now that accusations of anti-Semitism can be so wildly deployed”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/jun/20/israel.broadcasting


And here is a clip from a suppressed Al-Jazeera film, showing Israeli Embassy staff advising Labour activists about how to discredit MPs who support an end to the abuse of Palestinians: https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1026024215672221697


The conversation:


Labour Supporter:

Will the Media ever accept Corbyn as the leader of Lab Party, No! Listen to Justin Webb’s Masterclass in unconscious bias, in a short interview with John McDonnell he trundled out every Anti Corbyn narrative and the newest or oldest That Corbyn is like Trump

MarkGB:

When 'journalists' at BBC interview Jeremy Corbyn, they repeat what they hear in the echo chamber of Whitehall, itself an echo of the fears of corps, banks & other 'lobbyists'...but the thing that scares the veritable 'crap' out of the BBC is a call from the Israeli Embassy

Labour Supporter:

You know that sounds like Paranoia and to my ears Anti-Semitic. If we are going to convince the media to give us a fair crack of the whip and balance reporting we need to be careful in our use of language

MarkGB:

'To your ears'. There is no anti-Semitism in my tweet whatsoever. Don't buy the conflation between criticism of Israeli government policy and anti-Semitism, or if you do, don't try to pin it onto me. There's none here.

As expected, he did not reply.

My comments:


So here is a guy who is so scared of being seen as anti-Semitic he does the following, albeit probably unconsciously:
  • Sacrifices truth on the altar of the need to be careful. I.E. don't tell the truth - it gets us into trouble. It may bring me disapprova
  • Projects his fear onto another, in this case myself, who is thus cast as the 'anti-Semitic' one…so that people know that he isn't
  • Imagines that there is the remotest possibility that the media will give Labour or Corbyn, a 'fair crack of the whip'

There is no way that Jeremy Corbyn or the Labour Party will ever get a 'fair crack of the whip' on this issue. The narrative requires that Corbyn's support for Palestinians goes away...if you are entertaining the possibility that there is any place for 'rational argument' or 'objective reporting' from or with the people driving this narrative...you are deluding yourself. This is Propaganda...this is how it's supposed to work

And it is working…have you noticed how the media is utterly obsessed with talking about Corbyn’s ‘anti-Semitism’…at the expense of the underlying issue he calls attention to - Israel’s abuse of the Palestinian people?

What then, is a person to do?


The solution to this is not quick, and it's not easy. However, one action that any human being can take, is to stay alert to the meaningof words and how they are structured. If the communication is verbal, also to the body language and vocal tonalities.Pay attention to what is really being said...and also notice what is notbeing said or skirted around...and refuse to sacrifice your truth for an easier life. Do not let the false equivalence stand. As Gandalf said to the Balrog on the bridge at Khazad Dum…"You shall not pass".

Propaganda is a thought virus. Speaking your truth is the antidote. Here is the antidote in action - the splendid Dr Norman Finkelstein, giving an impassioned reply to an audience intent on using 'emotional blackmail' to shut him up:





Ian56
@Ian56789
Norman Finkelstein's Famous Speech: Do NOT use the Holocaust to try and justify the Israelis brutalizing the Palestinians.
This is War Crimes
Ahed Tamimi


Here is my personal response to this thought virus, and to anyone who tries to infect me with it:


I don’t care if you worship in a synagogue, a church, a temple, or a mosque. I don’t care if you’re black, white, yellow, brown or green. I don’t give a monkey's what you eat for dinner & I don’t care who you sleep with...provided it's a consenting adult. I cannot abide bullies, liars and sociopaths. Benjamin Netanyahu and the current government of Israel are war criminals…& your guilt-trip won’t work on me.

Finally, to those who are having thoughts like ‘this is all a misunderstanding’ or ‘common sense will prevail’, or ’a few concessions is enough to fix this’…it isn’t, it won’t, & it never will be…that isn’t how this works.

You cannot appease a smear campaign.

 

MarkGB is a retired UK businessperson with 35 years experience of working with people from 30 countries and six continents. He is not a member of any political party and does not represent any vested interests. He offers an independent view on economic and political events as they unfold.

Mark’s blog is www.MarkGB.com & you can find him on Twitter @MarkGBblog
 


Originally published at Renegade Inc. on 10th August 2018: https://renegadeinc.com/goal-propaganda-population-polices/

Republished by OffGuardian on 13th August 2018: https://off-guardian.org/2018/08/13/the-goal-of-propaganda-is-a-population-that-polices-itself/
 

Sunday, August 12, 2018

Canada Provides Safe Haven for "Syrian Civil Defense" Operatives

Canada Imports the White Helmets from Syria: A Dangerous, Criminal Decision 

by Eva Bartlett - RT


August 10, 2018

Did Canadians get to vote on whether or not to bring potential terrorists or supporters of terrorists to Canada? No.

Will Canadians get a say in where these potentially dangerous men will be settled? Highly unlikely.

Ninety-eight members of the White Helmets, and a few hundred of their families, were evacuated by Israel and allies to Jordan late in evening of July 21.

They will seemingly be shipped off to a few Western nations for resettlement: Canada, the UK, and Germany. So far, Canada has pledged to take 50 White Helmets and around 200 family members.

Wrongly dubbed the “Syrian Civil Defense” (the actual Syrian Civil Defense has existed since 1953), the White Helmets narrative is flawed in every conceivable manner.

Packaged as neutral, heroic, volunteer rescuers, who have “saved 115,000 lives”, according to White Helmets leader Raed Al Saleh, they are in reality a massively Western-funded organization with salaried volunteers, and have no documentation of those 115,000 saved. They contain numerous members who have participated in or supported criminal acts in Syria, including torture, assassinations, beheading, and kidnapping of civilians, as well as inciting Western military intervention in Syria.

James LeMesurier, (pictured centre below) a former member of the British military who founded the White Helmets, did so in countries neighbouring Syria: in Turkey and Jordan. They have since worked solely in terrorist-held areas of Syria, and according to Syrian civilians in eastern Ghouta, they worked directly with, or were themselves, extremists of Jaysh al-Islam or other extremist groups. Civilians in east Aleppo said that White Helmets worked with al-Qaeda in Syria (the Nusra Front).


https://21stcenturywire.com/2017/08/01/james-le-mesurier-
the-british-mercenary-who-founded-the-white-helmets/

The fact that White Helmets centres are frequently, if not always, found near or next to headquarters of al-Qaeda and other terrorist factions further supports the accusations that they collaborate with terrorists—even with ISIS, as noted by ISIS hostage John Cantlie. He described the White helmets as an “ISIS fire brigade“.

White Helmets have also been at the scene of executions; filmed standing over dead Syrian soldiers; cheering on and cleaning up after an execution in Daraa Governorate, and disposing of the bodies of assassinated Syrian soldiers (including decapitated bodies) in Daraa Governorate.

White Helmets members were present to welcome Saudi terrorist Abdullah al-Muhaysini, leader of al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) who the US government designated a terrorist for “acting for or on behalf of” al-Nusra, and helping to finance them.

Over sixty White Helmets members have clear ties to terrorist and extremist groups, as shown by their own social media accounts and videos. In many of their own photos they hold weapons. Some White Helmets members have called for the murders of Shia villagers in Idlib governorate, and were instrumental in the massacre and injury of over 300 villagers, including 116 children in April 2017.

Not exactly neutral and members of the Daraa batch of White Helmets could very possibly be among those soon to be en route to Western nations.

Not Russian propaganda: Canadian, American, British journalists first exposed the White Helmets


In September 2014, independent Canadian journalist Cory Morningstar wrote about the New York City PR firm, Purpose Inc, and its propaganda role regarding the White Helmets. In March and April 2015, independent US journalist Rick Sterling, further scrutinized the White Helmets and related “humanitarian” groups serving to call for a no-fly-zone in Syria.

Since then, and for years now, concerned journalists and commentators have written or posed questions on the entity known as the White Helmets.

In addition to the years-long investigations by Vanessa Beeley, commentators – from former British ambassador to Syria Peter Ford, award-winning US journalist Gareth Porter, award-winning journalist John Pilger, and even rock legend Roger Waters, have noted that the White Helmets are a dangerous and fraudulent group, or as Pilger put it, a propaganda construct.

I have already outlined this chronology of investigations, refuting corporate media claims that voices critical of the White Helmets stem from Russian influence. Yet, slavish supporters of the White Helmets, continue to demonize anyone posing critical and needed questions on this group, generally labelling such people as “Russian bots”, “influenced by Russia”, or some variation of that, in an attempt to insist only people under the influence of Russia have been critical of the White Helmets.

In the case of the Atlantic Council’s Ben Nimmo, his tweet on the lack of or scant mention by RT or Sputnik in 2014, 2015, to mid 2016 of the White Helmets supports my argument: those are precisely the times when the above-mentioned independent journalists were investigating the group.

White Helmets next to terrorists’ headquarters


In Syria, I saw two different White Helmets centres in close proximity to terrorists’ headquarters: one in eastern Aleppo, and one in Saqba, eastern Ghouta. The Saqba centre was two hundred metres from a factory extremists used to manufacture mortars and missiles, quite possibly those used to bomb civilians in Damascus. It contained a fire-truck stolen from the real Syrian Civil Defense, as well as ambulances and vehicles all torched when the White Helmets left Ghouta with terrorists of Jaysh al-Islam and Faylaq al-Rahman, among others. They were all safely transported to Idlib as per the deal with the Syrian government.

The other White Helmets centre I saw was in the Ansari district of Aleppo’s east. Formerly a school (and now returned to this status), this centre was a half minute’s walk to the headquarters of al-Qaeda in Syria, as well as the Abu Amara Brigades, and other extremists.

Vanessa Beeley, who had previously been to Ansari, wrote a detailed article additionally noting that just 200 metres from that same White Helmets centre was Al Mashad Square, where 12-year-old Palestinian youth, Abdullah Issa, was savagely tortured and then slowly beheaded.

In the Old City, next to Aleppo’s citadel last May, I spoke with an older man who had remained in Aleppo during the terrorists’ rule. He told me: “The Civil Defence is supposed to rescue people, but they used to steal women’s earrings from their dead bodies. If she was wearing gold, they’d cut her hand to steal it. They are thieves, not rescuers. We saw them murdering people, many times.”

In Douma and Kafr Batna, I spoke with civilians who told me they saw Jaysh al-Islam extremists wearing White Helmets uniforms, and White Helmets working with Jaysh al-Islam. Another eastern Ghouta resident, Marwan Qreisheh, said the early White Helmets members who came to Ghouta weren’t Syrian, didn’t speak Arabic, and used their money to attract “volunteers”.

He spoke of them staging rescue scenes:

“They’d start filming and claiming that SAA hit this area, it was in front of our eyes, and we knew it was all staged, but we didn’t dare to stand against them because they would kill us, they would empty their gun in you immediately.” 

Who killed the civilians in White Helmets Douma videos?


It was the White Helmets who released (WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC) videos and photos alleging a chemical attack in Douma in April 2018. Yet, no civilian among the many I met in Douma believed there had been a chemical attack and medical staff didn’t see patients exposed to a chemical agent. More recently, the OPCW ruled out the use of a nerve agent used in Douma, finding only traces of “chlorinated organic chemicals”.

So, who and what killed the women and children shown in the White Helmets-distributed video from Douma? Did the White Helmets take part in their murder, or merely film their bodies (some arranged) after the fact?

Corporate media has diligently avoided asking a single honest question of the propaganda group they laud, and has for years attacked those of us who do ask questions and take testimonies of Syrian civilians on this matter.

Canadian cover for White Helmets


Canada has been assisting the White Helmets for some years now, under the pretext of aiding humanitarians. While the full extent of Canadian financial support to the White Helmets has yet to be revealed, at least Can$7.5 million (US$5.7mn) was given to the group, helping with “the development and expansion of early warning air raid systems.”


Following the Israeli evacuation of White Helmets and their families from southern Syria, Global Affairs Canada released a statement by Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chrystia Freeland, (pictured left) on the “courageous volunteers”, regurgitating the White Helmets “save the innocent and the wounded” unsubstantiated claim.

Unsubstantiated because, in spite of the fancy videos, neither the White Helmets nor its UK backers can provide a list of the supposed over 115,000 civilians rescued.

While the media has lauded Canada’s role in the evacuation of the White Helmets members, it’s worth noting the person, Robin Wettlaufer, behind this evacuation effort. Wettlaufer met with White Helmet leader Raed Saleh (once denied entry to the US due to his potential ties to extremists, according to Mark Toner) in late June, as the Syrian army was regaining territory in Daraa governorate.

Wettlaufer has held the Istanbul-based position of Special Representative for Syria, under Global Affairs Canada, from March 2014 to present, according to her LinkedIn page.

In fact, she is the Special Representative to the Syrian Opposition, something noted in a December 2016 Global Affairs Canada video featuring Wettlaufer.

Given that Wettlaufer is thus Canada’s Representative to extremists in Syria, her key role in instigating the evacuation of the White Helmets is hardly surprising, let alone praise-worthy. But it should be worrying to Canadians. Did Canadians get to vote on whether or not to bring potential terrorists or supporters of terrorists to Canada? No. No vote in the Parliament, no public discussion. Will Canadians get a say in where these potentially dangerous men will be settled? No sign of that so far, and indeed highly unlikely.

Why did the Canadian government refuse the entry of 100 injured Palestinian children from Gaza in 2014, a truly humanitarian effort, and yet will fast-track the entry of potentially dangerous men with potential ties to terrorists?

As for the claims of danger to the White Helmets in southern Syria, their comrades in eastern Aleppo and in eastern Ghouta were safely transported out of those areas, along with their families and with extremists who refused to take amnesty, while Aleppo and eastern Ghouta had peace restored. The White Helmets are potential security threats to citizens in the Western nations planning on hosting them.

As citizens privy to all this information and all the questions on the White Helmets, we must demand our governments reverse this plan, or at least provide us with confirmation that the immigrants in question have been fully investigated and have not been involved in terrorist activities in Syria in any way.

Eva Bartlett is a freelance journalist and rights activist with extensive experience in the Gaza Strip and Syria. Her writings can be found on her blog, In Gaza.

This article originally published at RT.

Saturday, August 11, 2018

Political Shut Down of Social Media Underway (And Guess Which Side is Being Silenced)

Venezuelanalysis: Official Statement on Facebook's Removal of Our Page

by The VA Collective


August 9, 2018

VA's Facebook page was arbitrarily removed by the social media tech-giant on Thursday morning.

STATEMENT FROM VENEZUELANALYSIS


On Thursday morning our Facebook page was arbitrarily "unpublished" by Facebook with no warning or explanation, apart from a standard message informing us that we had allegedly violated the company's terms and conditions.

The timing of such a move is concerning for several reasons.

Firstly, there is the international context, in which Facebook appears to be targeting independent or leftwing sites in the wake of Russiagate.

However, in terms of our own coverage, in the days leading up to our removal, we had published important pieces which challenge the corporate mainstream media narrative on Venezuela.

Specifically, we published an article giving details on the assassination attempt against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, as well as a very popular analysis criticising the mainstream media's coverage of the attack.

In addition, Venezuelanalysis has also been covering the growing international campaign to End US and Canadian Sanctions against Venezuela which are unilateral, coercive economic measures that are illegal under the Organization of American States as well as United Nations charters.

The campaign recently released a Call to Action for individual and organizational sign-ons condemning this act of economic strangulation, and has organised International Days of Action on August 14th 2018 to mark the one year anniversary when the Trump administration heightened economic sanctions and referenced military intervention as a possibility in Venezuela. 

Venezuelanalysis is the only independent English language website covering news and analysis on Venezuela from a progressive perspective, & which platforms leftist grassroots voices from within Venezuela. It is run by committed journalists, authors and academics, & praised by renowned journalists and intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Marta Harnecker, Oliver Stone, and so on.

We cannot help but feel that the removal of our page is related to an attempt to stifle the alternative and progressive perspectives that we feature on Venezuela.

Though our page was suddenly reinstated on Thursday evening, following our official appeal, as well as people expressing their support for us on Twitter, media interviews and an article on the issue in Sputnik International, Facebook has still not responded with any explanation for what happened, nor to inform us which terms and conditions we allegedly violated.

The whole thing is extremely mysterious, to say the least.

The VA Collective



This work is licensed under a Attribution Non-commercial 
No Derivatives Creative Commons license

"Health and Safety" Measures Cited in Tent City Removals

Homelessness is a health and safety risk: Why we need a public health approach in tent cities

by The Undersigned


August 11, 2018

Close to 500 residents of Discontent City in Nanaimo, Anita Place in Maple Ridge, and Camp Namegans in Saanich, BC are facing the threat of displacement largely on the basis of health and safety concerns, often focused on fire safety to the exclusion of other health and safety risks.

Persistent homelessness, visible in the presence of tent cities throughout Canada and particularly in BC, highlights the failure of society to ensure basic human rights and access to the basic determinants of health such as food, water, housing, social supports, self-determination, and freedom from violence and discrimination enshrined in international agreements including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. [1]

Yet, residents of these tent cities have repeatedly claimed that living in tent cities, in the absence of other acceptable options, improves psychological and physical health including community belonging, autonomy and self-determination. We call on all governments to shift from using public health as a rationale to displace tent cities to adopting a public health approach that treats fire safety as one factor amongst others to reduce public health and safety concerns associated with homelessness.

Overemphasizing fire safety can obscure and exacerbate other harms


A frequent and reoccurring issue related to tent cities is that of safety with often increasing concerns related to fire safety, public order and public health hazards. In BC, in summer, fire hazards are elevated across the province. For people who are homeless, the risk of fire is added to other risks of being homeless such as violence, assault, lack of stable housing, food and food storage as well as resultant health issues.

The risk of fire exists whether people live in unsheltered settings alone or in tent cities. The “solutions” to these fire risks in tent cities across the province has been legal actions and fire orders often with conditions that can exacerbate the harms of homelessness.

For instance, in Discontent City, the fire order includes a “no tarp” condition which increases exposure to heat for tent city residents. A temperature reading of a tent with and without a tarp recently showed a 5-degree difference, the latter making the tent 40 degrees Celsius. While it is in the interests of everyone to manage fire risks, banning tarps is something we would never dream of doing in a BC Parks campsite.

Homelessness is not a consequence of bad choices but a consequence of bad policies including withdrawal of funding from social housing, privatization of the housing market, erosion of the social safety net, and colonization that has stripped Indigenous people of opportunities, land and resources. As well, there are systemic gaps when people exit corrections, health care, and foster care and gaps between health and social systems.

The risks of fire and public disorder are often powerful narratives that fail to recognize the reality of the situation in which tent cities emerge and the conditions in which people live and the lack of access to safe, acceptable and affordable housing and inadequate incomes needed for a decent standard of living. The public health hazards are a lack of adequate shelter, safe drinking water, sanitation, food, and food storage as well as adequate structures to protect people from the elements and environmental hazards. All of which threaten the health of camp residents.

The Ottawa Charter: Five Principles of a Public Health Approach


International rights to housing and health including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [1] uphold access to adequate physical structures with safe drinking water, heating and lighting, sanitation, food storage, site drainage, energy for cooking and access to emergency services, security of tenure, affordability, and habitability (livable in terms of protection from weather and potential threats to well-being, accommodate special physical needs with accessibility to services and built with respect to cultural identity and diversity). In addition to this, the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights [2] lays out the importance of self-determination and being able to obtain an adequate standard of living without discrimination.

Public health aims to improve conditions in which people can be healthy through health promotion, health protection, and disease and illness prevention. Canada is a world leader in population health and public health. The Ottawa Charter [3] is an internationally recognized public health framework consisting of five principles meant to guide action to promote the population’s health and well-being. In the absence of affordable and appropriate housing, we, the undersigned, call on the provincial government to adopt a public health approach to tent cities in BC by adopting the following five principles:

Build Healthy Public Policy - Healthy public policy means ensuring that all citizens have access to decent housing that is acceptable, culturally appropriate and at a cost that they can afford given minimum wage earnings and/or social assistance rates. In the absence of implementing evidence-based responses to homelessness, municipal governments should not construct bylaws that unfairly restrict the ability of homeless people, including those living in tent cities, to erect permanent shelter to protect themselves from the elements and provide a measure of safety and stability.

Create environments which support healthy living


Recognizing that people who are homeless do not have access to the basic determinants of health, environments should be organized in a way that does not create or contribute to poor health, and instead, improves it. Health protection measures include ensuring access to a safe quality and quantity of water, waste removal, food (including food storage, cooking areas, and refrigeration), hygiene, prevention of communicable disease, pest control, and measures to protect against exposure to cold and heat, electricity, and fire prevention- in other words, just what we all want and need. Health promotion measures include immediate housing placement offered with options, income and disability assistance as needed, and employment assistance if requested. Governments and all organizations should be working with and assisting all homeless people, including maximizing the opportunities for increased health protections possible in tent cities as well as working towards permanent solutions.

Strengthen community action on health - Communities themselves must determine what their needs are and how best to meet them. We must ensure that tent city residents maintain autonomy and self-determination over their homes and lives while also gaining access to health, social and public safety services. Governments and all organizations should work with tent city residents to meet their health and safety needs as well as to develop long-term solutions.

Help people develop their skills – so that they can have more control over their health. Governments and all organizations should work with people in tent cities to comply with various safety requirements including safety orders as well as encouraging and supporting the development of peer workers in the provision of health and other services.

Reorient health systems - to promote a better balance between health promotion and curative services. Governments and all organizations should ensure that health services for tent cities focus on promotion, prevention and restorative services and include an emphasis on the inclusion of peer workers. Basic health services available to camp residents should include primary care (management of acute and chronic health conditions, wound management, immunizations, screening and assessments); mental health and harm reduction training and support (overdose management and prevention; sterile supplies); and first aid training.

A public health approach means working with residents to implement evidence-based approaches to ending homelessness rather than legal proceedings which are not evidence based, diverting resources and energy from public health solutions and even increasing harms.


Sincerely,

Bernie Pauly, Nursing, University of Victoria

Marilou Gagnon, Nursing, University of Victoria

Chrissy Brett, Nuxalk Nation, Founder of Camp Namegans

James Frankish, Population and Public Health. University of British Columbia

Ashley Mollison, Institute on Aging & Lifelong Health, University of Victoria

Shannon Turner, Executive Director, Public Health Association of BC

Heather Ouellette,Co-Chair, Policy Research and Advocacy committee, Public Health Association of BC

Stephen Portman, Together Against Poverty Society

Donald MacPherson,Director, Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addictions, Simon Fraser University

Jordan Westfall, President, Canadian Association of People who use Drugs

Sana Shahram, Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria

Dakota Inglis, Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria

Karena Shaw, Law, University of Victoria

Gerrit Clements, Law, University of Victoria.

Karen Urbanoski, Public Health and Social Policy, University of Victoria.

Meaghan Brown, Nursing, University of Victoria

Ryan McNeil, Medicine, University of British Columbia and BC Centre on Substance Use

Sally Thorne, Nursing, University of British Columbia

Jade Boyd, Medicine, University of BC and BC Centre on Substance Use

Adrienne Montani, Provincial Coordinator, First Call: BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition.

Alissa Greer, University of British Columbia and Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research

Budd Hall, Community Development, University of Victoria

Sally A. Kimpson, Centre for Research on Work disability Policy, Simon Fraser University

Piotr Burek, Chair of the Vancouver Island Persons Living with HIV/AIDS Society

Astrid Brousselle, Public Administration, University of Victoria

Rod Knight, Medicine, University of British Columbia, and BC Centre on Substance Use

Eric Roth, Anthropology, University of Victoria

Debra Sheets, Nursing, University of Victoria

Damien Contandriopoulos, Nursing, University of Victoria

Karen Evers Fahey, Nursing, University of Victoria

Marjorie MacDonald, Nursing, University of Victoria

Sonya Jakubec, Nursing, Mount Royal University

Kelli Stajduhar, Nursing, University of Victoria

Trudy Norman, Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research

Jan Storch, Nursing, University of Victoria

Lynn Young, Nursing, University of Victoria

Vera Caine, Nursing, University of Alberta

Margo Matwychuk, Anthropology and Social Justice Studies, University of Victoria

Flora Pagan, Social Work, University of Victoria

Bruce Wallace, Social Work, University of Victoria

Nathan Lachowsky, Public health and Social Policy, University of Victoria

Lynn Marks, History, University of Victoria

Franco Carnevale, Nursing, McGill

Shane Calder, Coordinator, Clinical Education

Kate Vallance, Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research

John Millar, Population and Public Health, UBC

Amber Prince, Atira Women’s Resource Society

James Rowe, Environmental Studies, University of Victoria

Anna Cooper, Staff Lawyer, Pivot Legal Society

DJ Larkin, Interim Co-Executive Director, Pivot Legal Society

Kendra Milne, Social justice lawyer, Vancouver BC

Sarah Wilson, Vancouver Island Persons Living with HIV/AIDS Society

Erin E. Donald, Nursing, University of Victoria

Jean Daniel Jacob, Nursing, University of Ottawa

F Beryl Pilkington, Global Health York University

Deborah Curran, Law and School of Environmental Studies, Environmental Law Centre, University of Victoria

Natalie Drolet, Staff Lawyer/Executive Director, Migrant Workers Centre

Josephine Etowa, Chair Public Health Nursing University of Ottawa

Elizabeth McGibbon, Nursing, St. Francis Xavier University

Meenakshi Mannoe, University of British Columbia

Heather Hobbs, AIDS Vancouver Island

Kim Daly, Nursing, University of Victoria

Simon Carroll, Sociology, University of Victoria

Dan Reist, Assistant Director, Knowledge Exchange, Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria

Karen MacKinnon, Nursing, University Of Victoria

Carren Dujela, Institute on Aging & Lifelong Health, University of Victoria

Kim Speers, Public Administration, University of Victoria

Amélie Perron,Nursing, University of Ottawa

Gillian Kolla, Public Health, University of Toronto

Michelle Lalonde, Nursing, University of Ottawa

Adrian Guta, Social Work, University of Windsor

Stuart J. Murray, Canada Research Chair in Rhetoric and Ethics, Carleton University

Marie-Eve Sylvestre, Civil Law Section, University of Ottawa

Sarah Flicker, Environmental Studies, York University

Geoff Bardwell, Medicine, University of British Columbia and BC Centre on Substance Use

Vicky Bungay, Canada Research Chair, Nursing, University of British Columbia

Alexandra Collins, Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, BC Centre on Substance Use

Dave Holmes, Nursing, University of Ottawa

Cheryl van Daalen-Smith, Nursing, York University

Naomi Moses, Lawyer, Rosenberg Kosakoski LLB

Lindsay Victoria Shaw, Canadian Institute of Substance Use Research

David K Wright, Nursing Professor, University of Ottawa

Kiffer G. Card, Public Health & Social Policy, University of Victoria

Leonora Marcellus, NursingUniversity of Victoria

Justin Sorge, Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research

Timothy Richards, Law, University of Victoria

Clea F. Parfitt", Lawyer

Jessica Hannon, Executive Director, Megaphone

Kendra Milne, “Canadian Mental Health Association – BC Division”

Karyn Fulcher, School of Public Health & Social Policy, University of Victoria

Ben Isitt, Victoria City Councillor and Capital Regional District Director."

Tom Sandborn, Vancouver, journalist

Erin Pritchard, Lawyer, Vancouver.

Amy Lubik, Public Health Association of BC

Kelsey Evan Rounds, Nursing, University of Victoria

Sarah Sheridan, Research Associate, BC Centre for Substance Use

Caitlin Hickman, Public Health and Social Policy, University of Victoria

Board of Directors, Lake Country Health Planning Society

Jason Nickerson, Clinical Investigator, BruyĂšre Research Institute

Nick Falvo, Research Associate, Carleton University Centre for Community Innovation

Helene Demers, Honourary Research Associate, Anthropology, Vancouver Island University



References

1. United Nations, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 1966. https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx

2. United Nations, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 1966, https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx

3. World Health Organization, The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. 1986, Canadian Public Health Association and World Health Organization: Ottawa. http://www.who.int/healthpromoti…/conferences/previous/…/en/

TREATIES.UN.ORG

UNTC

Ceci est la page d'accueil de la Collection des traités des Nations Unies.

Friday, August 10, 2018

Complicity: Not Just Saudis Killing Yemen

U.S. Is Complicit in Child Slaughter in Yemen

by Kathy Kelly - The Progressive


August 10, 2018

On August 9, a U.S.-supported Saudi airstrike bombed a bus carrying schoolchildren in Sa’ada, a city in northern Yemen.

The New York Times reported that the students were on a recreational trip.

According to the Sa’ada health department, the attack killed at least forty-three people.

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, at least twenty-nine of those killed were children under the age of fifteen, and forty-eight people were wounded, including thirty children.

CNN aired horrifying, heartbreaking footage of children who survived the attack being treated in an emergency room. One of the children, carrying his UNICEF issued blue backpack, is covered with blood and badly burned.

Commenting on the tragedy, CNN’s senior correspondent Nima Elbagir emphasized that she had seen unaired video which was even worse than what the CNN segment showed. She then noted that conditions could worsen because Yemen’s vital port of Hodeidah, the only port currently functioning in Yemen, has been under attack for weeks of protracted Saudi coalition-led airstrikes.

Ms. Elbagir described the port of Hodeidah as “the only lifeline to bring in supplies to Yemen.”

“This conflict is backed by the U.S. and the U.K.,” Elbagir said, concluding her report with,
“They are in full support of the Saudi-led activities in Yemen today.”

U.S. companies such as Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin have sold billions of dollars’ worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other countries in the Saudi-Emirati-led coalition which is attacking Yemen.

The U.S. military refuels Saudi and Emirati warplanes through midair exercises. And, the United States helps the Saudi coalition warmakers choose their targets.

Isa Blumi, an associate professor at Stockholm University and author of the book Destroying Yemen, has said the United States is “front and center responsible” for the Saudi coalition attacks.

Looking for a helpful way to describe U.S. support for the Saudi-Emirati operation in Yemen, journalist Samuel Oakford recently offered this comparison:

“If an airstrike was a drive-by and killed someone, the U.S. provided the car, the wheels, the servicing and repair, the gun, the bullets, help with maintenance of those—and the gas.”

The August 9 attack against children and other civilians follows a tragic and sordid list of Saudi-Emirati attacks causing carnage and extreme affliction in Yemen. On June 12, Doctors Without Borders reported an airstrike which destroyed its newly constructed facility for treatment of cholera, in the town of Abs, built in anticipation of a third epidemic outbreak of cholera in Yemen.

Scores of people were killed and wounded in an August 3 attack near the entrance to the port of Hodeidah’s Al Thawra hospital. Analysts examining the munitions used in the attack believe the killing and destruction was caused when United Arab Emirates forces situated near the Hodeidah airport fired mortars into the area.

Why have the Saudis and Emiratis led a coalition attacking Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab peninsula, since March of 2015?

Professor Isa Blumi believes the goal is to bludgeon Yemenis into complete submission and exert control over “a gold mine” of resources, including oil reserves, natural gas, minerals, and a strategic location. Blumi notes that the war against Yemen costs the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 200 million dollars per day, yet Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who commented that a prolonged war is in the interests of Saudi Arabia, seems to believe the cost is worth it, considering potential future gains.

Business profits seem to also motivate U.S. weapon companies that continue benefiting from weapon sales to the Saudi-Emirati led coalition.

The United States is deeply implicated in the appalling carnage in Yemen. It is our responsibility as citizens to do what we can to demand an end to this complicity.

Kathy Kelly (kathy@vcnv.org) co-coordinates Voices for Creative Nonviolence (www.vcnv.org).
This article first appeared on the website of The Progressive magazine.

Framing Anti-Semitism: The Media Necklacing of Jeremy Corbyn

Labour’s Crisis is Over Israel, Not Anti-semitism

by Jonathan Cook


August 8, 2018

If there is indeed an anti-semitism problem in the UK’s Labour party, it is not in the places where the British corporate media have been directing our attention. What can be said with even more certainty is that there is rampant hatred expressed towards Jews in the same British media that is currently decrying the supposed anti-semitism of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.


Here is a piece of what I hope is wisdom, earnt the hard way as a reporter in Israel over nearly two decades. I offer it in case it helps to resolve the confusion felt by some still pondering the endless reports of Labour’s supposed anti-semitism “crisis”.

Racism towards Palestinians


Nazareth - In the first year after my arrival in Israel in late 2001, during the most violent phase of Israel’s suppression of the Palestinians’ second intifada, I desperately tried to make sense of the events raging around me. Like most new reporters, I searched for experts – at that time, mostly leftwing Israeli analysts and academics. But the more I listened, the less I understood. I felt like a ball in a pinball machine, bounced from one hair-trigger to the next.

My problem was exacerbated by the fact that, unlike my colleagues, I had chosen to locate myself in Nazareth, the largest Palestinian city in Israel, rather than in a Jewish area or in the occupied territories. The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians seemed much more complex when viewed through the prism of Palestinian “citizens” living inside a self-declared Jewish state.

The Israeli experts I contacted deplored the brutality of the occupation unequivocally and in ways it was difficult not to admire, given the morass of anti-Palestinian sentiment and self-righteousness into which the rest of Israeli society was rapidly sinking. But each time I latched on to such an Israeli in the hope of deepening my own understanding, something they said would knock me sideways.

As readily as they condemned the occupation, they would laud the self-evidently bogus liberal democratic credentials of a Jewish state, one that I could see from my location in Nazareth was structurally organised to deny equal rights to its Palestinian citizens. Or the experts would echo the Israeli government’s inciteful claims that this largely quiescent Palestinian minority in Israel – a fifth of the population – was at best a demographic threat to the Jewish majority, and at worst a Trojan horse secretly working to destroy the Jewish state from within.

The very racism towards Palestinians in the occupied territories these experts eschewed, they readily flaunted when discussing Palestinians inside Israel. Were they really leftists or covert ethnic chauvinists?

Appearances can be deceptive


It was many months before I could make sense of this puzzle. An answer was only possible when I factored in the Israeli state’s official ideology: Zionism.

Israeli leftists who were also avowed Zionists – the vast majority of them – saw the conflict exclusively through the colonial prism of their own ethnic privilege. They didn’t much care for Palestinians or their rights. Their opposition to the occupation was barely related to the tangible harm it did to the Palestinian population.

Rather, they wanted an end to the occupation because they believed it brutalised and corrupted Israeli Jewish society, seeping into its pores like a toxin. Or they wanted the occupation to end because the combined populations of Palestinians in “Greater Israel” – in the occupied territories and inside Israel – would soon outnumber Jews, leading, they feared, to comparisons with apartheid South Africa. They wanted Israel out of all or most of the occupied territories, cutting off these areas like a gangrenous limb threatening the rest of the body’s health.

Only later, when I started to meet anti-Zionist Jews, did I find an opposition to the occupation rooted in a respect for the rights and dignity of the Palestinians in the territories. And because their position was an ethical, rights-based one, rather than motivated by opportunism and self-interest, these anti-Zionist Jews also cared about ending discrimination against the one in five Israeli citizens who were Palestinian. Unlike my experts, they were morally consistent.

I raise this, because the lesson I eventually learnt was this: you should never assume that, because someone has adopted a moral position you share, their view is based on the moral principles that led you to adopt that position. The motives of those you stand alongside can be very different from your own. People can express a morally sound view for morally dubious, or even outright immoral, reasons. If you ally yourself with such people, you will invariably be disappointed or betrayed.

There was another, more particular lesson. Ostensible support for Palestinians may in fact be cover for other ways of oppressing them.

And so it has been with most of those warning of an anti-semitism “crisis” in Labour. Anti-semitism, like all racisms, is to be denounced. But not all denunciations of it are what they seem. And not all professions of support for Palestinians should be taken at face value.

The vilification of Corbyn


Most reasonable observers, especially if they are not Jewish, instinctively recoil from criticising a Jew who is highlighting anti-semitism. It is that insulation from criticism, that protective shield, that encouraged Labour MP Margaret Hodge recently to publicly launch a verbal assault on Corbyn, vilifying him, against all evidence, as an “anti-semite and racist”.

It was that same protective shield that led to Labour officials dropping an investigation of Hodge, even though it is surely beyond doubt that her actions brought the party “into disrepute” – in this case, in a flagrant manner hard to imagine being equalled. This is the same party, remember, that recently expelled Marc Wadsworth, a prominent black anti-racism activist, on precisely those grounds after he accused Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth of colluding with rightwing newspapers to undermine Corbyn.

The Labour party is so hamstrung by fears about anti-semitism, it seems, that it decided that an activist (Wadsworth) denigrating a Labour MP (Smeeth) was more damaging to the party’s reputation than a Labour MP (Hodge) vilifying the party’s leader (Corbyn). In this twisted set of priorities, a suspicion of possible racism towards a Jewish MP served to justify actual racism against a black party activist.

But the perversion of Labour party values goes much further. Recent events have proven that party officials have decisively prioritised the rights of diehard supporters of Israel among British Jewry to defend Israel at all costs over the right of others, including Jews, to speak out about the continuing brutalisation of Palestinians by Israel’s occupation regime.

Hodge and the other Labour MPs trumpeting anti-semitism might be entitled to the benefit of the doubt – that they truly fear anti-semitism is on the rise in the Labour party – had they not repeatedly indulged in the kind of anti-semitism they themselves have deplored.

What do I mean?

When they speak of an anti-semitism “crisis” in the party, these Labour MPs – and the fervently pro-Israel lobby groups behind them like the Jewish Labour Movement – intentionally gloss over the fact that many of the prominent activists who have been investigated, suspended or expelled for anti-semitism in recent months – fuelling the claim of a “crisis” – are in fact Jewish.

Why are the “Jewish” sensitivities of Margaret Hodge, Ruth Smeeth or Louise Ellman more important than those of Moshe Machover, Tony Greenstein, Cyril Chilson, Jackie Walker or Glyn Secker – all Labour activists who have found their sensitivities, as Jews opposing the abuse of Palestinians, count for little or nothing among Labour officials? Why must we tiptoe around Hodge because she is Jewish, ignoring her bullygirl tactics to promote her political agenda in defence of Israel, but crack down on Greenstein and Chilson, even though they are Jewish, to silence their voices in defence of the rights of Palestinians?

‘Wrong kind of Jews’


The problem runs deeper still. Labour MPs like Hodge, Smeeth, Ellman and John Mann have stoked the anti-semitic predilections of the British media, which has been only too ready to indict “bad Jews” while extolling “good Jews”.

That was only too evident earlier this year when Corbyn tried to put out the fire that such Labour MPs had intentionally fuelled. He joined Jewdas, a satirical leftwing Jewish group that is critical of Israel, for a Passover meal. He was roundly condemned for the move.

Jewdas were declared by rightwing Jewish establishment organisations like the Board of Deputies and by the British corporate media as the “wrong kind of Jews”, or even as not “real” Jews. In the view of the Board and the media, Corbyn was tainted by his association with them.

How are Jewdas the “wrong kind of Jews”? Because they do not reflexively kneel before Israel. Ignore Corbyn for a moment. Did Labour MPs Hodge, Ellman or Smeeth speak out in the defence of fellow Jews under attack over their Jewishness? No, they did not.

If Greenstein and Chilson are being excommunicated as (Jewish) “anti-semites” for their full-throated condemnations of Israel’s institutional racism, why are Hodge and Ellman not equally anti-semites for their collusion in the vilification of supposedly “bad” or “phoney” Jews like Jewdas, Greenstein and Chilson.

It should be clear that this anti-semitism “crisis” is not chiefly about respecting Jewish sensitivities or even about Jewish identity. It is about protecting the sensitivities of some Jews on Israel, a state oppressing and dispossessing the Palestinian people.

Policing debates on Israel


When the Guardian’s senior columnist Jonathan Freedland insists that his Jewish identity is intimately tied to Israel, and that to attack Israel is to attack him personally, he is demanding the exclusive right to police the parameters of discussions about Israel. He is asserting his right, over the rights of other Jews – and, of course, Palestinians – to determine what the boundaries of political discourse on Israel are, and where the red lines denoting anti-semitism are drawn.

This is why Labour MPs like Hodge and journalists like Freedland are at the centre of another confected anti-semitism row in the Labour party: over the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-semitism and an associated set of examples. They want all the IHRA’s examples adopted by Labour, not just most of them.

There are very clear, existing definitions of anti-semitism. They are variations of the simple formulation: “Anti-semitism is the hatred of Jews for being Jews.” But the IHRA takes this clear definition and muddies it to the point that all sorts of political debates can be viewed as potentially anti-semitic, as leading jurists have warned (see here and here).

That is only underscored by the fact that a majority of the IHRA’s examples of anti-semitism relate to Israel – a nuclear-armed state now constitutionally designed to privilege Jews over non-Jews inside its recognised borders and engaged in a half-century of brutal military occupation of the Palestinian people outside its borders.

To be fair to the drafters of the IHRA guidelines, these examples were supposed only to be treated as potentially anti-semitic, depending on the context. That is the express view of the definition’s drafter, Kenneth Stern, a Jewish lawyer, who has warned that the guidelines are being perverted to silence criticism of Israel and stifle free speech.

And who are leading precisely the moves that Stern has warned against? People like Jonathan Freedland and Margaret Hodge, cheered on by large swaths of Labour MPs, who have strongly implied that Corbyn and his allies in the party are anti-semitic for sharing Stern’s concerns.

Hodge and Freedland are desperate to strong-arm the Labour party into setting the IHRA guidelines in stone, as the unchallengeable, definitive new definition of anti-semitism. That will relieve them of the arduous task of policing those discourse boundaries on the basis of evidence and of context. They will have a ready-made, one-size-fits-all definition to foreclose almost all serious debate about Israel.

Want to suggest that Israel’s new Nation-State Law, giving Jewish citizens constitutionally guaranteed rights denied to non-Jewish citizens, is proof of the institutional racism on which political Zionism is premised and that was enshrined in the founding principles of the state of Israel? Well, you just violated one of the IHRA guidelines by arguing that Israel is a “racist endeavour”. If Freedland and Hodge get their way, you would be certain to be declared an anti-semite and expelled from the Labour party.

Grovelling apology


Revealing how cynical this manoeuvring by Hodge, Freedland and others is, one only has to inspect the faux-outrage over the latest “anti-semitism crisis” involving Corbyn. He has been forced to make a grovelling apology – one that deeply discredits him – for hosting an anti-racism conference in 2010 at which a speaker made a comparison between Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and the Nazis’ treatment of Jews.

That violated another of the IHRA examples.

But again, what none of these anti-semitism warriors has wanted to highlight is that the speaker given a platform at the conference was the late Hajo Meyer, a Jewish Holocaust survivor who dedicated his later years to supporting Palestinian rights.

Who, if not Meyer, deserved the right to make such a comparison? And to imply that he was an anti-semite because he prioritised Palestinian rights over the preservation of Israel’s privileges for Jews is truly contemptible.

In fact, it is more than that. It is far closer to anti-semitism than the behaviour of Jewish critics of Israel like Greenstein and Chilson, who have been expelled from the Labour party. To intentionally exploit and vilify a Holocaust survivor for cheap, short-term political advantage – in an attempt to damage Corbyn – is malevolence of the worst kind.

Having stoked fears of an anti-semitism crisis, Hodge, Freedland and others have actively sought to obscure the wider context in which it must be judged – as, in large part, a painful debate raging inside the Jewish community. It is a debate between fervently pro-Israel Jewish establishment groups and a growing body of marginalised anti-Zionist Jewish activists who wish to show solidarity with the Palestinians. Labour is not suffering from an “anti-semitism crisis”; it is mired in an “Israel crisis”.

‘Repulsive’ campaign


In their silence about the abuses of Meyer, Jewdas, Greenstein, Chilson and many others, Freedland and Hodge have shown that they do not really care about the safety or sensitivities of Jews. What they chiefly care about is protecting their chosen cause of Israel, and crippling the chances of a committed supporter of Palestinian rights from ever reaching power. They are prepared to sacrifice other Jews, even victims of the Holocaust, as well as the Labour party itself, for that kind of political gain.

Hodge and Freedland are behaving as though they are decent Jews, the only ones who have the right to a voice and to sensitivities. They are wrong.

They are like the experts I first met in Israel who concealed their racism towards Palestinians by flaunting their self-serving anti-occupation credentials. Under the cover of concerns about anti-semitism, Freedland and Hodge have helped stoke hatred – either explicitly or through their silence – towards the “wrong kind of Jews”, towards Jews whose critical views of Israel they fear.

It does not have to be this way. Rather than foreclose it, they could allow a debate to flourish within Britain’s Jewish community and within the Labour party. They could admit that not only is there no evidence that Corbyn is racist, but that he has clearly been committed to fighting racism all his life.

Don’t want to take my word for it? You don’t have to. Listen instead to Stephen Oryszczuk, foreign editor of the Corbyn-hating Jewish News. His newspaper was one of three Jewish weeklies that recently published the same front-page editorial claiming that Corbyn was an “existential threat” to British Jews.

Oryszczuk, even if no friend to the Labour leader, deplored the behaviour of his own newspaper. In an interview, he observed of this campaign to vilify Corbyn:

“It’s repulsive. This is a dedicated anti-racist we’re trashing. I just don’t buy into it at all.”

He added of Corbyn:
 
“I don’t believe he’s antisemitic, nor do most reasonable people. He’s anti-Israel and that’s not the same.”

Oryszczuk conceded that some people were weaponising anti-semitism and that these individuals were “certainly out to get him [Corbyn]”. Unlike Freedland and Hodge, he was also prepared to admit that some voices in the Jewish community were being actively silenced:

“It’s partly our fault, in the mainstream Jewish media. We could – and arguably should – have done a better job at giving a voice to Jews who think differently, for which I personally feel a little ashamed. … On Israel today, what you hear publicly tends to be very uniform.”

And that is exactly how Hodge and Freedland would like to keep it – in the Labour party, in the Jewish community, and in wider British society.

No one pays me to write these blog posts. If you appreciated it, or any of the others, please consider hitting the donate button here.