Compendium For The Day

There was an iconic ‘60s TV drama featuring a young Judi Dench, called ‘Talking to a Stranger. 

An early black and white ‘kitchen sink’ production, its USP was that the same event over one weekend was seen, over four episodes,  from each of the four characters’ very different viewpoints. It’s on YouTube, but weirdly, the fourth (rather crucial) episode is missing.

In addition to the novelty of seeing a youthful Judi Dench, the accents (and the smoking) give it a quaint, retro air, but the revival of 60s nostalgia (the Christine Keeler and Jeremy Thorpe docudramas) might inspire someone to resurrect this one, you never know. It seemed ahead of its time in that the writing was perceptive enough to make the viewer identify with (and empathise with) each character, as the narrative evolved.

It reminded me of the BBC’s presentation of anything connected with Israel. We get it from the Palestinian perspective, which we’re encouraged to empathise and identify with, but seventy years on, we’re still waiting for another perspective. 

********

The BBC’s anti-Israel bias isn’t necessarily at the top of every bias-watchers’ priorities.  In the hierarchy of biases, although many people are aware of the anti-Israel one, they see other biases  as more relevant to them personally.  For example, default left-wingery, disproportionate obsession with diversity, LGBT issues, youth and the mindless pursuit of ‘controversy’ for the sake of it. Gotchas. Islamophillia.

I’m not going to cite ‘First they came for the Jews’ here, but I will say that biased (fake) news is ultimately a threat to everyone. As for the BBC’s bias against Israel, it ‘gets away with it’ because they have a habit of shrouding it in a passive-aggressive smokescreen designed to make you believe it’s your own paranoia that makes you ‘take it that way’. Gaslighting, it’s called.

Seek and you will find. The bias is there, ‘hiding in plain sight’, but as with the Easter-egg hunt, you have to assume something exists before making the effort to unearth it. Why else would you bother to go scrabbling about in the undergrowth?

Anyway, the BBC pays just enough lip service to ‘the other side’ to provide the complaints department with a few wisps of straw to clutch at.

*************

The other day virusgate shared the headlines on Radio 4’s early morning news bulletin with a story about another outbreak; hostilities involving the IDF. The bulletin included a brief Beebsplanation of what had happened. “That led to this, and this led to that and then this occurred”.

According to the BBC, 'it all started when a Palestinian militant was shot dead by the IDF - and, to add insult to injury, the Israelis recovered the corpse by means of a mechanical shovel.  This infuriated the Palestinians who set off a barrage of rockets from Gaza after which the IDF retaliated with attacks against Islamic Jihad and targets in Syria.'

More information appeared in the online report where the affectionate term “Palestinian militant” had been clarified to read: “Islamic Jihad member”.  BBCWatch adds more information.

“The hostilities began on Sunday morning, when Israel said it killed an Islamic Jihad member along its border fence with the Gaza Strip.

The inbuilt cynicism within the “Israel said” formulation is covertly passive-aggressive (or is that what we now call microaggression?)  It sows doubts. They only said it; we don’t have to treat it as gospel. 

The alleged provocation (planting a bomb) wasn’t included at all in the original radio bulletin, but it does appear in the online report, along with another “said”,

“Israel’s military said the the [sic] man was attempting to plant an explosive device.”

where the absence (in the bulletin) of even that mealy-mouthed (incompetent “man” didn’t even manage to plant a bomb) hint at the fact that the shooting was provoked, left the impression that Israel shoots innocent Palestinians for nothing. (In Israel they murder people a great deal as the Guardian's Michael White once said)

“A video shared widely on social media showed an Israeli bulldozer scooping up the body of the man, provoking anger among Palestinians.”

The grisly detail was bound to ignite revulsion, so no wonder it was widely shared on the internet; less popular was the video of the men (more than one) actually trying to plant their bomb. (Why did the Israelis want to recover the body? I understand as part of a quid pro quo ‘corpse exchange’. The bodies of two deceased Israelis are being held by Hamas.)

 **********

That example of ‘bias hidden in plain sight’ was nothing out of the ordinary. Just routine for the  BBC. The third iteration of the house-in-a-cage story that Tom Bateman has made a meal (banquet) out of provides another example. BBC Watch also revisited the story.

This story relies on the viewer’s ignorance of relevant local history; of previous court rulings, of the questionable legality of Jordan’s pre-1967 situation, and utter dependence on the edifice built on sand commonly known as ‘international law”. (BBC Watch provides links to the missing information.)

It’s not only the viewer who’s ignorant of the relevant facts. Tom Bateman and the BBC Middle East contingent seem to be equally ignorant and quite content to remain so. 

Tom Bateman’s report in all its incarnations is an example of serious bias, and ‘because it can’, the BBC calls the shots by supplying or withholding facts to suit their brand of pro-Palestinian partisanship. The BBC is wilfully as blind to the religiously-rooted antisemitism, notoriously imbibed ‘from cradle-to-grave’ / with the ‘mother’s milk’ as it is to its own, left-wing anti-Israel bias.   

  

Palestinians who subconsciously realise that they’d really and truly benefit from peace with Israel are obliged to continue their eternal Jihad. Encouraged and egged on by activists in the west, including the BBC who kindle the flames with false hope and unachievable aspirations.

**********

A novel is being serialised on Radio 4. Apeirogon by Colum McCann. Actually, it’s not a novel, but a novelised true story based on the friendship between two bereaved fathers, an Israeli and a Palestinian, both of whose young daughters were  killed by ‘the other side.’ 

I only stumbled upon this broadcast belatedly, at episode 3. In order to get a perspective on it, I scoured the internet to see what various critics had made of the book. The Guardian thought it was terrific, but my doubts about the reviewer’s objectivity were sealed when I spotted the words: “Trigger-happy soldier”. The Times reviewer was less keen on the novel, but the negativity was based on the writing style itself, rather than the thrust of the message.

A synopsis indicated that neither man could claim to be truly representative of their ‘tribe’, although the Palestinian’s uniqueness (he found the Holocaust rather moving) seemed more of a one-off than his friend’s (an Israeli who is ‘against the occupation’ ) i.e., not very unique at all. 

I must emphasise that I have not read the book and have only listened to a small part of the serialisation; I’m not tempted to listen to any more. In this case I’m simply reminded that compassion for victims of the Holocaust isn’t an effective smokescreen.  It can’t hide prejudice and it doesn't prove anything.

Just as I was about to post this compendium-for-the-day, I realised that BBC Watch has tackled this book with more authority than I am able to muster. The reference to the political activist Raja Shehadeh I can help with, though.

I know this is another ‘long read’. Please don’t dismiss it as tl;dr until you’ve given it a chance. I allowed myself to lump together what could have been several separate posts, (hence the *******s) but I chose not to. 

Carry on Carrie

No matter how hard we try to stick to our ‘BBC bias’ remit, going off-piste is sometimes irresistible. (to me) 

I wanted to mention an Intelligence Squared debate - the motion was “Anti-Zionism is Anti- Semitism” - but I thought its relevance to the BBC might be seen as tenuous or off-topic. Then I realised that the chairperson was Carrie Gracie. So it’s legit after all.

You can read a full transcript of Melanie Phillips’s opening speech here. 

I watched the whole thing, and it wasn't until Mehdi Hasan stood up to speak that I properly understood why Melanie Phillips had described the audience as ‘hostile’. They whooped and hollered appreciatively before he uttered a single word. In other words, the outcome was a foregone conclusion. Some of the random shots of the audience during Mehdi Hasan’s closing speech helped hammer that notion home. 

On the bright side, the ‘for’ votes increased by 4% (from 15% -19%.) However, ‘against’ increased by 17 votes (from 59% - 76%) 

The extra (21%) came from the per cent that claimed to be undecided (26% before, and 5% after.) Surely Mehdi’s clownish manner couldn’t have been that persuasive?  One might wonder if the undecideds had been entirely honest about their ‘undecidedness’ at the outset.

It would be interesting to know what Carrie Gracie really made of it. She did seem engaged (and equally stern with all speakers.) 

Maybe she’s making a genuine effort to be even-handed. If so - cool.  

Out of Office-ish

This is a kind of ‘out of office message’ but in the meantime, here are two brilliant ‘long(ish) reads’ relating to the new, ‘left’ antisemitism. Harry’s Place "Labour's problem is not antisemitism" (Catch it before the comments disappear) and Brendan O’Neill / Spiked"Why do you hate Israel?"  (Beware of the comments) 

If I’m not mistaken, both these articles explain that the fanatical anti-imperialist / anti western/ anti-capitalist ideology of the devout Corbynista outweighs or overrides the anti-semitism within its inherent anti-Zionism. In other words, followers of the far-left cult, including Jewish members and those who are not necessarily antisemitic, will deflect accusations of racism (antisemitism) with: a.) whataboutery; b.) ‘bad apples’ ; c.) ‘smear’; d.) turning a blind eye.  

One small observation. Jews, on the whole are loath to forget their gratitude to countries that took them in in their hour of need and feel it would be hypocritical to turn away any kind of refugee, ever. That might account for the concept (if true) that the Jews are encouraging , if not actually facilitating, multiculturalism and mass immigration. However, it has to be said. Muslim immigration - much too much, much too soon - plays a huge part in this. 

P.S. Last might’s QT. Barry Gardiner surprised me; he looked genuinely ashamed, but still, in the end he deflected. Kate Andrews was excellent. Dimbles changed the subject with an air of boredom just as it got into its stride. As soon as that lout in the audience mentioned Boris Johnson I knew it. I knew Watermelon  and Piccaninnies  would come up, but i didn’t think the idiot who would come up with it would be Jonathan Freedland. Spiteful, out of context and gratuitous. Oh dear.

The beautiful game

Does anyone remember the debacle at King’s College London in January, when Pro-Palestinian activists broke through security, smashed a window and disrupted an Israeli guest’s talk?

Ivana Bevilaqua, 25, a politics student (good grief) was found guilty of assault, given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay costs and compensation to Esther Enfield, the victim of the assault. I suppose, sadly, in this day and age this behaviour is so widespread it’s not considered a very serious crime or a very important case, and no-one would be surprised if the BBC wasn’t interested in it. 

Student Rights website reported it though. They gave more detail than the Evening Standard.

“In January, Student Rights reported on the protest which shut down an event featuring Ami Ayalon, the former Director of  Israel's internal security service Shin Bet, at King's College London (KCL). 

The protesters disrupted the event from the start by chanting “Free, Free Palestine” and then preceded to bang on the building's windows and doors, smashing glass and setting off multiple fire alarms. 

Eventually, the police arrived and the event finished half an hour early as the building was evacuated. 

 After the event, the president of KCL Israel Society, Ester Endfield, told the Jewish Chronicle: 

“At one point I was against the door and Joseph [Stoll, the society’s vice president] was protecting me. I was crying because I was scared and didn't know what to do.This girl hit me and my phone dropped out of my hand. I was trying to film, she just came up to me and hit me on my arm. 

Some people were trying to punch the door to get into the room. They were very aggressive and angry. It was completely unacceptable.”

Another article on that site is headed: “NUS delegate's rant shows wider problem in student movement”

“Daniel Yahia, a student at the University of Edinburgh elected as a National Union of Students (NUS) delegate, has been accused of using antisemitic language on his Facebook page. 

When discussing Nir Bitton, an Israeli footballer who plays for Celtic, Mr Yahia wrote:
“Sick of seeing Celtic fans creaming themselves over Nir Bitton. We are a club open to all, that cannot be disputed, but by all, we mean humans, of difference creeds, races and religions. 

Zionists are subhuman and, Nir Bitton is a filthy, Zionist rat. Get him as far to fuck from our club as possible. If you’re gonna wave your Palestinian flag, don’t be a hypocrite and demand this bastard takes his place on the team.” 

In response to a comment saying Bitton should be gassed, Yahia replied that this would “be too good for him”. 

The Tab has since published Yahia’s response, in which he wrote:“I did not pick out Bitton for his religion once, nor his nationality. Though my words were intemperate and perhaps a little much, they were not racist.My friend Podge’s comments of gassing him, as is slang in Belfast means to sack/fire, though the context of the status do mean it was inappropriate.…I have no problems with Jews or Israelis, just Zionists.”

There is a distinctly comical air to this. It almost qualifies as a “You couldn’t make it up.” 

So much for the current state of universities. However, it does bring me to the vexed case of football and those Palestinian Flags that appeared in Glasgow when Celtic played an Israeli team.

“Hundreds of fans at a football match between Glasgow Celtic and Israeli side Hapoel Beer Sheva turned whole sections of the stadium into a sea of Palestinian flags in a protest against the Israeli occupation, ignoring an official ban on political demonstrations.”

The BBC did report this. In a disconcertingly upbeat way. It’s pretty clear where the sympathy of whoever wrote it lies.  (and also here)

However the worst thing the BBC has come up with on this topic, as far as I know, is a Talkback phone-in from Belfast. Radio Ulster. 

I’m aware that “Belfast” in general isn’t likely to support Israel - the Irish on both sides of the border are not known for philo-semitism, so I wasn’t surprised that the guests and callers would be ideologically pro-Palestinian, but I was disappointed to learn that they had no objections to the politicisation of sport - at least in this particular case. (I’m pretty sure their leniency might not extend to other forms of political  flag-waving, literal and figurative)

The most telling thing for me was that the host was William Crawley, whom you’ll be familiar with as one of the hosts of the Sunday programme on Radio 4, which tackles religious matters, where impartiality ought to be a given. (Quiet at the back!)

The invited guests included Marxist and arch Israel-hater Eamonn McCann, pro-Palestinian activist Liam  O’Hare, another man (whose name I didn’t catch) and last but not least the Rev Chris Hudson. 

Despite the fact that he agreed with the fact-free allegations about Israel that the others were bandying about willy nilly, the Rev was cast into the distinctly lonely pro-Israel position. (The usual fare: stolen Arab land. Apartheid state. Pariah state, oppressors etc etc.) 

He spoke against the politicisation of sport, but what he really wanted to talk about was the appalling desecration of headstones in a Belfast Jewish cemetery, which is what he claimed he had specifically been asked to come on the programme to do. The BBC has a reputation for misleading participants in that particular way. They ambush them with the real agenda once they’re on air.  

William Crawley even asked him why he kept bringing it up, as if connecting antisemitism with Palestinian flag-waving at Israeli footballers was gratuitous and itself a politicising act.  They all agreed Anti-Zionism has nothing to do with antisemitism, and naturally none of them had anything to with antisemitism.  Who does?

About halfway through, Crawley read out a message: “When are we going to hear something from the Israeli side?”  We had to make do with the reluctant Rev for that. All the callers, without exception, were Israel-bashers of varying degrees of intensity, ranging from spittle-flecked to apoplectic. There was a mini-discussion about Norman Finkelstein and the merits of BDS.  William Crawley hardly even bothered to play Devil’s Advocate.

The Rev Chris Hudson was the only one who knew anything whatsoever about the aims of BDS, and obviously none of them were remotely aware of Ilan Pappe’s recent revelations. 

Being Ulster Radio, the  strong regional accents abounded, particularly the Scottish guy Liam O’Hare whose vowels almost out-distorted the policeman in ‘allo ‘allo. (We say Israel, he says “Usruw” )

To finish, I just thought it would be a nice touch to show what Brendon Rogers, the manager of Celtic had to say about Celtic’s visit to Israel for the return match.

A massive thank you to Brendan Rodgers, manager of Celtic, for his kind words following game with Hapoel Beer Sheva. pic.twitter.com/OoGfj6VnXU

— SussexFriendsIsrael (@SussexFriends) 24 August 2016

Round-up of articles about antisemitism and anti-Zionism

This morning I saw a severe-looking woman in her late 60s wearing a keffiyeh in M & S and I thought ‘what are you doing in here? Aren’t you supposed to be BDSing?’

Maybe she was just following fashion, but it was a proper black and white chequered Arab-style keffiyeh with a straggly fringe, and her facial expression was definitely ‘from the river to the sea’.

Since antisemitism is  a hot topic at the moment, due to Jeremy Corbyn’s meteoric rise to prominence and other BDS-related developments, I feel another item on the subject wouldn’t be completely OT.

Oh, and I spotted a letter in the Times this morning from Tony Greenstein, objecting to a report in last Saturday’s Times (April 2nd) headed “Labour welcomes back blogger who compares Israelis to Nazis” . 

The blogger in question was, of course, Greenstein; his objection appertained to the report’s suggestion that his ‘political views are antisemitic’, when he is in fact a merely “a Jewish anti-Zionist”.

As I hadn’t read Saturday’s Times, I un-recycled it from the blue bag, and had a look. 

Here are the first few paragraphs:

An activist who has referred to his critics as “Zionist scum” and claimed that the state of Israel has informally forbidden mixed-race couples has been re-admitted to the Labour Party. 

Tony Greenstein, a campaigner from Brighton was allowed back after Jeremy Corbyn’s victory in September despite having been barred during an attempt to prevent ‘entryism’ from groups not sharing labour’s “aims and values”. 

On his blog Mr. Greenstein refers to himself as a “socialist, anti-Zionist, anti-racist” and accuses the state of Israel of “wanton murder of Palestinian civilians”. He also compares Israelis to Nazis, saying of a proposed military award for an Israeli soldier “It is the honour that used to attach to the SS”. 

In a post in November entitled “When Nuremberg Came to Israel” Mr Greenstein wrote: “Israel is a Jewish racial state and miscegenation, the mixing of the races, is strictly forbidden in Israel. Not legally, of course, because Israel has to formally adhere to western values, but in the accepted and unwritten Zionist consensus”

In his letter to the Times, Mr. G complains about being arbitrarily removed from the Labour Party and “refused all details of the allegations that led to my suspension”. He ”only found out about them when they were leaked to the Telegraph”. 

One might suspect that re-admitting him to the Labour Party will not be of much help to the current leadership’s pledge to root out the pesky antisemites in their party. 

What do we think a “Jewish anti-Zionist” really is? Perhaps it’s a member of Naturei Karta, the ultra orthodox sect “united against Zionism” described on Wiki as being “viewed as a cult on "the farthest fringes of Judaism" by mainstream Jews”.  Well, they are supposed to be Jews, so I imagine they can’t technically be antisemites, but they are known to “support notable anti-Semites and Islamic extremists”. 

I don’t think Tony Greenstein claims to be a member of that sect, in fact I think he aligns himself with common or garden anti-semites and Islamic extremists of the hard-left of all religions and none. 

So he must just be opposed to the concept of a Jewish state, perhaps because he sees that as a racist concept. (Then why would he identify as a “Jewish anti-Zionist”? Isn’t the concept “Jewish”, absent religious belief, itself just a tad racist?)

Anyway, at the moment questions about the definition of antisemitism and debates about anti-Zionism and antisemitism abound. 

This article has been highly praised. around the blogosphere: “The Holocaust, the Left, and the Return of Hate” by Jamie Palmer, who blogs as Jacobinism. His articles are sometimes cross-posted on Harry’s Place.

It covers a huge amount of ground, from pre WW ll to the present day. It should be read by all keffiyeh-wearing left-wingers who don’t know anything about the political history of the movement they support; they don’t really know why they support it, they just know that they support it, so there. 

Some passages are particularly pertinent here:

“...But the problem goes beyond the question of Israel itself. It also involves a general sense that the Left is unconcerned with Jewish interests and unwilling to take the matter of rising anti-Semitism seriously, preferring instead to dismiss it as a consequence of Israeli policies or a censorious attempt to close down discussion of the same. The horror with which many Jews greeted the election of Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the Labour Party was outstripped only by the realization that his supporters felt that his fondness for the company of anti-Semites was unworthy of their concern.”

“Writers on the Left have spilled an ocean of ink in support of the Palestinian cause, but it is striking just how little of it bothers to concern itself with Palestinian ideology and politics. Israeli crimes are picked over obsessively (not least in Israel’s own press), but Palestinian corruption, oppression, and rejectionism are either blamed on the Israelis or—more frequently—simply ignored.

This lecture at the University of Chicago Law School by William A. Jacobson (H/T EoZ) “When does Anti_Isrealism turn into Anti-Semitism?” illustrates the media’s delegitimisation and vilification of Israel with an analogy that goes something like this:

 “If I came to campus looking for everything I could find that was wrong or unpleasant, say, uncollected litter and neglected, unmaintained nooks and crannies in the campus grounds and filmed that alone, leaving out all the good things about the university, well, that’s what the media does with Israel” 

The sound on the recording doesn’t pick up the questions from the floor, which is a shame.

“Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are two distinct ideologies that over time (especially since the creation of Israel in 1948) have tended to converge, generally without undergoing a full merger” 

said the late Robert Wistrich in a quote in this piece by Ben Cohen, "Fighting Hate: Scholars of Anti-Semitism Target Anti-Zionism" who writes: 

“...most boycotters will, often at the same time, angrily deny that they are anti-Semites and insist that the charge of anti-Semitism is a meaningless smear designed to choke off free debate about the legitimacy of Israel. But what counts is how these political views are put into practice. Examine that and you will find, as recent research by the AMCHA Initiative watchdog group has revealed, a verifiable correlation between anti-Zionist activism and anti-Semitic outrages.”

Here is an article from yesterday’s Telegraph written by Tom Harris, formerly a Scottish Labour MP.

“Earlier this week Richard Angell, the big-brained head of the Blairite think tank Progress, published an eight-point plan to combat anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Rather wonderfully, it includes proposals for members of the party’s ruling NEC to undergo training in “modern anti-Semitism by the Jewish Labour Movement” and in “unconscious bias training”.

Richard Angell’s 8 steps could be a start. Worth a try, anyway. Even better, they could be imposed upon the labour supporters that make up the bulk of BBC personnel.

Here is an open letter from Denis McEoin to the Edinburgh University Students’ Association, which just voted in favour of BDS. He writes “as a concerned Edinburgh graduate”. 

I’m including several excerpts.

“It embarrasses me to say that your grounds for passing a boycott motion are unworthy of anyone who claims to be well educated, intelligent, or well informed. Sadly, the reasons given in your resolution are childish, ignorant, and based on nothing but a series of lies or at best misunderstandings. 

If you stop reading at this point, I call you out as traitors to the most basic principles of academic work: the need for open dialogue, critical debate, and readiness to change one's opinions in the presence of evidence. If you cannot abide by those principles, you are not fit to be at university at all. If your self-righteousness and your conviction that you are utterly right all the time cannot be changed, you will never understand what it is to take part in any intellectual debate. 

“If your government in Scotland or the UK banned books, imprisoned journalists, censored films, or prohibited campus meetings, you would be rightly outraged. You would march to defend those freedoms were there a threat to take them away. You depend on free libraries, uncensored newspapers and journals, and direct access to the Internet. 

“None of those freedoms exists in any Muslim country. Not in Egypt, not in Jordan, not in Saudi Arabia, not in Iran, not in Pakistan. Censorship is rife, secular views are everywhere condemned. Freethinking bloggers such as Raif Badawi in Saudi Arabia, several in Bangladesh, and many in Iran have been imprisoned, sentenced (in Badawi's case) to lashes, or (in Bangladesh) assassinated. The majority of newspapers in these countries are state-owned. Books are banned and burned across the region. Television stations are closed down for the pettiest of reasons, as happened recently in Egypt to MP Tawfiq Okasha. 

There is no freedom of speech in Gaza or under the Palestinian Authority, and those who breach the rules are, as often as not, found with a bullet in their head.” 

“Let me take this one step further. Are you aware that your motion is anti-Semitic? I want you to think about this carefully, too. What, you may ask, does boycotting Israel have to do with hating Jews? You are, I do not doubt, fiercely anti-racist, and for that I strongly commend you. 

Racism is still an ugly feature of modern life, not only in the West, but across a swath of other countries. It is ironic in the extreme, therefore, that your boycott motion was presented by the BME [Black and Minority Ethnic] Liberation Group. Ironic, because anti-Semitism has been and remains one of the most poisonous and genocidal forms of racist hatred. Across Europe, anti-Semitism is growing to levels reminiscent to that of the 1930s. The 2015 figure for anti-Semitic incidents was 53% higher than for 2014. Jews are leaving Europe and taking refuge elsewhere, most of them in Israel.

The Labour members of parliament who spoke at Westminster Hall in favour of local councils being allowed to practice BDS should be made to read Denis McEoin’s following passages in particular:

“Your motion states that "The actions of the State of Israel are in violation of international law," with some supposed examples but not a single piece of evidence. In fact, the State of Israel has an impressive record of full compliance with international law at all levels. Your statement contradicts the opinions of very large numbers of experts in international law, a body of men and women whose knowledge of this subject far surpasses that of undergraduates who spout claims that have no legal or factual or historical backing. 

“It is often said, for example, that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal under international law. In fact, the truth is just the opposite. Under the original partition plan advanced in UN Resolution 181 in 1947, Jewish settlement in the West Bank and Gaza was permitted, just as Arab settlement in Israel was permitted. The law has not changed since then.

If only the BBC would educate itself. If only the Labour Party would do the same. If only keffiyeh-wearing middle aged ladies who think they’re signalling some form of virtue would get real and admit that they’ve been hoodwinked. Either that or let come out of the closet as unashamed antisemites.

The following passage from Jamie Palmer’s essay echoes something we have often lamented in this blog, namely the default assumption by most BBC Middle East correspondents that all Muslim Arabs - Palestinian Arabs included -  think like we do. They’re usually personalised (unlike the unnamed Israelis in reports) and given sympathetic face-value air time just as though they were residents of any London suburb. (Well, since mass immigration that might not be far from the truth) but I meant, of course, that they’re treated by the BBC  as though they abide by the same western, Judeo/Christian principles as we do in the west, and not the irrational antisemitic tenets of Islam. 

“The aftermath of the 9/11 attacks showed that large sections of the Western Left have difficulty comprehending the sincerity of irrational doctrines. If the attacks could not be explained as a rational and desperate response to some kind of monstrous injustice, then they were just acts of mindless slaughter. As a result, various explanations were offered for why terrorists might kill themselves and murder nearly 3,000 American civilians in a single morning, most of which concluded that America must have somehow brought this disaster on itself. For many, this was the only intelligible explanation for the atrocity. 

This was a profound failure of imagination on the part of people clinging to a belief that, deep down, everybody wants basically the same thing that broadminded Western liberals do. In the intervening years, observable reality has called this belief into serious question. The savageries released by the Arab Spring and the Islamist surge across the Middle East and Africa will no longer submit to the liberal demand for rationality. 

“One might have expected that the escalation of regional barbarism would directly correlate with an increase in sympathy for Israel’s predicament. But curiously, antipathy toward Israel has only intensified. Boycotts are demanded and lurid condemnations continue to mount. The assumption seems to be that, as an open society, Israel must be judged like other open societies, such as those in Scandinavia, that do not find it necessary to occupy land or go to war every two or three years. But Israelis live in the Middle East, and the politicians they elect to protect them calibrate their threat assessments and behavior accordingly. This distinction manages to pass by some otherwise highly intelligent people.”

Of the late British historian Tony Judt:

“Judt would likely be untroubled by today’s alarming uptick in anti-Semitic violence that is causing European Jews to seek sanctuary in Israel in unprecedented numbers, since he claimed it was the hateful behavior of Israel, not Arab and Muslim pogromists, that was responsible for endangering the lives of Europe’s Jews. 

But it was Judt’s apparent inability to imagine a reality different to the one he enjoyed in the West that was most astonishing. “

Astonishing indeed. 

I hope the length of this post doesn’t make you want to cry. I prefer short and concise pieces myself, but I didn’t have the time to write one.

Raise your hands if you agree with me......

Piers Corbyn's excitement at the prospect of his brother's "friends" attacking Israel: https://t.co/UhtWMllQWx pic.twitter.com/EyPrbHPq8E

— Alex Wickham (@WikiGuido) April 4, 2016

A series of tweets by Jeremy Corbyn’s meteorologist brother leave little doubt that Piers Corbyn  is a staunch anti-Zionist with unmistakably antisemitic inclinations.  When challenged over retweeting an antisemitic conspiracy theorist’s Tweet: “Isn’t it odd that ISIS has not touched Israel’s oil pipeline?” he pleaded that he only did so “to get an answer.” 

This response is eerily reminiscent of his brother’s excuse for befriending Hamas and Hezbollah (to engage with them) that one has to agree that -  as Jeremy himself says - there is indeed a strong familial similitude.

Today the hard-left Labour leader defended his brother saying: “No, my brother isn’t wrong”. 

Questioned by The Sun after a speech in Harlow, Essex, the Leader of the Opposition added: “My brother has his point of view, I have mine and we actually fundamentally agree - we are a family that were brought up fighting racism from the day we were born.”

How can Jeremy Corbyn actually say, with a straight face, that he’s been fighting racism since ”the day we were born”, when he’s been speaking at rallies and chairing meetings alongside some of the most rabidly antisemitic individuals and actively campaigning against Israel - probably “from the day we were born”?  

It all boils down to those claims that “anti-Zionism is nothing to do with antisemitism” and its sibling “legitimate criticism of the actions of the Israeli government is not antisemitic”.

Which brings me to this:

Britain’s ex-chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks has written an opinion piece in Newsweek.

“Anti-Zionism is the new antisemitism”

“Something is clearly happening, but what? Many on the left argue that they are being wrongly accused. They are not against Jews, they say, only opposed to the policies of the state of Israel. Here one must state the obvious. Criticism of the Israeli government is not anti-Semitic. Nor is the BDS movement inherently anti-Semitic. Many of its supporters have a genuine concern for human rights. It is, though, a front for the new anti-Semitism, an unholy alliance of radical Islamism and the political left.” 

“Anti-semitism is a virus that survives by mutating. In the Middle Ages, Jews were hated because of their religion. In the 19th and 20th centuries they were hated because of their race. Today they are hated because of their nation state, Israel. Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism” 

“Anti-Semitism is a form of cognitive failure. It reduces complex problems to simplicities. It divides the world into black and white, seeing all the fault on one side and all the victimhood on the other. It singles out one group among a hundred offenders for the blame. It silences dissent and never engages in self-criticism. The argument is always the same. We are innocent; they are guilty. It follows that if we—Christians, members of the Aryan race or Muslims—are to be free, they, the Jews, or the state of Israel must be destroyed. That is how the great crimes begin.”

The comments below the line clearly show that antisemitism is alive and kicking.

“legitimate criticism of the actions of the Israeli government is not antisemitic” might well be technically correct, but it rather depends on what is meant by ‘legitimate’. Since most criticisms of the Israeli government relate to actions taken to protect Israeli citizens from all manner of murderous attacks the interpretation of ‘legitimacy’ is ultimately a matter of opinion.

Antisemites interpret most of the Israeli government’s actions as illegitimate, simply because they don’t accept the right of Israel to exist as the Jewish state, and that is simply because they have wilfully swallowed an ahistorical Palestinian version of events surrounding Israel’s inception; therein lies the problem. They have absorbed a peculiar one-sided, racist, narrative - and that’s the way they like it.

If they truly believe that there is a thing called Muslim Land, which solely and immutably  belongs to Palestinian Arabs who are the true indigenes, while Jewish Israelis are merely interlopers and colonialists, that Palestinian Arabs and their descendants, amounting to several million people who have been inculcated with intense Jew-hatred “since they were born”  should be allowed to exercise their “right to return’, then what else can you expect than “from the river to the sea”?

This is where the BBC comes in. It’s the duty of the BBC, in the light of increasing antisemitism, to put the record straight. First they need to educate themselves, then they can begin. 

But I fear it’s way too late. There was a debate the other day in Westminster Hall about “Local government and ethical procurement”. MPs  discussed whether councils should be able to apply BDS - that is BDS against Israel in particular, and as an afterthought (lest anyone should deem that racist) BDS in general in case any local council suddenly feels passionate about some cause or other and wishes to demonstrate displeasure in practical terms.

It came to my attention belatedly; the debate took place on 15th March, and was secured by a well known anti-Zionist MP, Richard Burden Birmingham Northfield) (Lab). The issue was: 

“the procurement policy note issued by the Cabinet Office on 17 February entitled “Putting a stop to public procurement boycotts” and about the proposed changes to the rules governing the local government pension scheme’s investments—for which I understand the Cabinet Office is also responsible, for some reason” 

Nothing to do with his personal wish to BDS Israel or his desire to allow local councils to boycott, divest and sanction Israel to their hearts' content. Just legitimate criticism of the Israeli government and to stand up for the rights of the Palestinians. Never mind what happened with SodaStream, it’s a matter of principle. 

It’s absurd that Zionists can’t cope with anyone supporting rights for Palestine. 

“Comments from Zionists like Merseyside MP Louise Ellman prompted Piers Corbyn, 69, to tweet: “ABSURD! JC + All #Corbyns are committee #AntiNazi. #Zionists cant cope with anyone supporting rights for #Palestine”.

Most of the usual haters attended. They heavily outnumbered the members who turned up to oppose the motion.  Louise Ellman wasn’t there and who could blame her.

Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) gave an impassioned speech opposing BDS, but it fell on deaf ears. 

The consensus was definitively with BDS. The BDSers continually referred to “illegal settlements” with such certainty that one might almost think they knew what they were talking about. They manifestly believed it themselves. The experts. 

Did you know that there is a branch of Fatah in the UK? It’s called Fatah UK, and it has sponsored a visit to ‘Palestine’. One can assume that was the source of such certainty.  

One of the most troubling segments in one particular speech was this speculation about the danger of the government’s decision to put a stop to public procurements boycotts:

Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)

“Can the Minister explain what he thinks the effect will be on race relations in my constituency, which has a large number of people of Muslim faith from a background of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Yemen, Somalia and Somaliland? What would be the impact on them if they saw their council tax being used to buy goods from the illegal Israeli settlements?”

This person had such a hangdog look on his face that I almost felt sorry for him. Imagine being at the mercy of that multicultural pressure group? Can’t be much fun. (But why is it that his constituents from such diverse origins should automatically be ‘impacted’ by their local council procuring goods from Israel or “illegal settlements” ? What business is it of theirs? 

It can’t really be because they want to help the Palestinians, some of whom would be deprived of the productive, materially beneficial employment they currently enjoy, should BDS be applied. No, it’s just simple antisemitism. Racism.  

It makes your heart sink, seeing such a pathetic, spiteful, racist pantomime being performed at the heart of our supposed democracy. 

But that’s nothing, compared to what’s in store for the future.  Did you see the press reports (not the BBC)  about that BDS meeting of a student council at Edinburgh University? 

"Student broke ‘safe space’ rules by raising arm." 

 

Imogen Wilson

“In my year as a sabbatical officer I’ve witnessed a horrific rise in anti-Semitism on university campuses all over the UK. Unsurprisingly, the speeches in favour of BDS were quick to silence cries of anti-Semitism, claiming that BDS isn’t meant to harm Jewish students, and is about the liberation of Palestinians.” 

I’m proud of the work that student unions do for women, BME, LGBT+ and disabled groups of students. However, the ignorance of the struggles that Jewish students face on campus is astounding from people who fight so hard for the liberation of other oppressed groups.

Hands up if you support this thoughtful student. (!)

Here’s a comment appropriated from below the line of the aforementioned article:

KHALED NAJJAR APR 04, 2016 - 02:44 PM“....My name is Khaled Najjar, I’m a Palestinian living in Luxembourg. My entire family lives in Palestine (in the west bank). Since 3 of my brothers and my cousin all work in Israeli companies, I can tell you the BDS movement is by no means a movement supported by most Palestinians. while it is popular by many in Europe, it is economically lethal for the majority of households in Palestine. you might think you are supporting Palestinians when in fact, they are the very first to be hurt from boycotting Israeli firms (aka – their own work places, which put bread on their table and pay their pension). 

As I hear a lot of this BDS talk where I live, I clearly see it is done in good heart and good intentions (mostly by good people). It is just not promoting in any way a Palestinian state, and it also prevents establishing economic joint-ventures between Palestinian and Israeli companies, and by doing so, preventing the Palestinian economy from standing of its feet.”

So there you are. I rest my case.

Update (H/T Harry’s Place)

Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell was today caught in his party’s growing anti-Semitism storm after directing people to a website that has carried “tributes” to suicide bombers.Labour MPs reacted with fury after learning that in 2014 Mr McDonnell linked from his own web page to the site, which once carried sympathetic articles about at least two bombers.One of the pieces focused on a man who murdered 19 Israelis outside a nightclub.Among other archived articles carried on the site was one posted in 2002 claiming Israel has no right to exist and should be “dismantled”.