Monday, March 12, 2012

421 Isi Leibler attacks leading British Jew (CEO of Xstrata) for criticism of Netanyahu

(1) & (2) Isi Leibler attacks leading British Jew (CEO of Xstrata) for criticism of Netanyahu
(3) Race "hate speech" should be a criminal offense - Education alone won't end racism: Colin Tatz
(4) AIPAC spy scandal: Rosen says AIPAC approved of the receipt of classified information

(1) Isi Leibler attacks leading British Jew (CEO of Xstrata) for criticism of Netanyahu

From: Paul de Burgh-Day <pdeburgh@harboursat.com.au> Date: 02.12.2010 08:29 AM

Candidly speaking: The de-Zionization of Anglo Jewry

Alan Hart

November 29, 2010

http://www.alanhart.net/candidly-speaking-the-de-zionization-of-anglo-jewry/

That was the headline over a story – wonderful news, I say, if it's true – in Israel's English language newspaper, the Jerusalem Post, on 25 November. On behalf of Zionism's colonial project in Palestine, the writer, Isi Leibler, was verbally crucifying one of Britain's most influential Jewish leaders for daring to go public with his criticism of Netanyahu and saying, among other things, that Israel's policies and actions were harming the best interests of British Jews, and by implication non-Israeli Jews everywhere.

The target of Leibler's attack was Mick Davis. For those who don't know about him, he is b-i-g in business. He's the CEO of Xstrata, a major global diversified mining group (alloys, coal, copper, nickel and zinc) which is listed on the London and Swiss stock exchanges and, in the words of the group's mission statement, has "the single aim of delivering industry-leading returns for our shareholders". But there's much more to Mick Davis than that.

He is the chairman of Anglo Jewry's United Jewish Israel Appeal (UJIA). That's the principal fund-raising institution for Israel of the UK Jewish community. He also heads a body known as the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC). This was described by Leibler as essentially comprised of "a group of wealthy British Jews and their acolytes who, by virtue of their financial largesse, assume a dominant influence on many levels of communal life." Leibler added (my emphasis): "The power represented by their collective wealth enables them not to be accountable to anyone and few would dare question their policies."

Leibler acknowledged that many Jews are critical of Israeli governments but Davis, he wrote, "brazenly incites his fellow Jews to criticize Israel." Leibler went on:

"While occupying the role of chairman of the UIJA resident in London, he had the chutzpa to berate the Israeli prime minister 'for lacking the courage to take the steps' to advance the peace process, arguing that 'I don't understand the lack of strategy in Israel.' He also employed the terminology of our enemies, predicting an 'apartheid state' unless Israel was able to achieve a two-state solution – unashamedly blaming Israelis rather than Palestinians for being the obstacle to peace.

"His sheer arrogance was best demonstrated in his most outrageous remark: 'I think the government of Israel has to recognize that their actions directly impact on me as a Jew living in London, UK When they do good things, it is good for me; when they do bad things, it is bad for me… I want them to recognize that.'"

Davis, Leibler added, was not only implying "that Israel is responsible for the anti-Semitism he is encountering," He was also "effectively warning that when considering defense issues which may have life-or-death implications for Israelis, the government must be sure not to create problems for him in his non-Jewish social circles. From his London mansion, he blithely brushes aside suicide bombers, rockets launched against our children and the threat of nuclear annihilation because his gentile friends might complain about the behaviour of his Israeli friends."

The notion that Israel faces the threat of nuclear annihilation is Zionist propaganda nonsense on stilts and there was more of it. "Emanating from a Jewish leader in the anti-Semitic UK environment in which campaigns to boycott and delegitimize Israel are at an all-time high, and at a time when Israel is under siege and fighting for its existence, it (Davis' contribution to debate) surely represents a level of unprecedented vulgarity."

Then I had to laugh. Davis' latest outburst, Leibler wrote, "is neither intellectually challenging nor persuasive." So why then, I asked myself, was Leibler bothering to address it and, by so doing, give it the oxygen of publicity?

The answer is that Leibler is right about one thing. In Palestine that became Israel mainly as a consequence of Zionist terrorism and ethnic cleansing, Zionism is under siege, but not from Arab or other Muslim hordes. Israel is under siege because of its racist policies and criminal actions. Put another way, more and more citizens of the world (if not their governments) are beginning to understand that Zionism's in-Israel leaders are not interested in peace on terms the vast majority of Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere could just about accept.

Even more to the point is that a growing if still smallish number of the Jews of the world are beginning to understand two things. One, even if they cannot bring themselves to read it, is that there is substance to the title of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. The other is the danger (in my view extreme danger) of the rising tide of anti-Israelism being transformed at a point into violent anti-Semitism if they, the Jews of the world and American and European Jews in particular, are perceived as being complicit in Zionism's crimes.

It might be too late save Israelis brainwashed by Zionist propaganda from themselves, but it's not yet too late for the Jews of the world to save themselves from Zionism's colonial enterprise and all the evils that came and are still with it.

If the de-Zionization of Anglo Jewry and possibly even Western Jewry in general is underway, I think the following question should be asked. What, if anything, can the Gentiles among whom most Jews live do to encourage the process?

In the original UK two-volume edition of my book I called for a New Covenant, not between the Jews and their God but between the Jews and the Gentiles. In the three-volume American edition of the book, I dropped the call because I thought on reflection that it was somewhat naive.

I've changed my mind again and now think the idea for a New Covenant should be back on the agenda.

For their part of the deal the Jews of the world would commit to making common cause with rational Israelis for the purpose of de-Zionizing Israel/Palestine. The Gentiles for their part would commit to slaying the monster of anti-Semitism. As I noted in my original text: "An undertaking to let the monster die in its sleep would not be good enough. There would have to be evidence that a stake was being driven into its heart."

Why, really, do I believe that such a covenant – in spirit at least – is a good and necessary idea?

The main reason for the silence of the Jews of the world is the unspeakable fear – the product of persecution through the centuries and, after the Nazi holocaust, Zionism's manipulation of the fear – that another great turning against them is inevitable. That being so, if only in their sub-consciousness, they perceive the need for Israel as their refuge of last resort. So say nothing and do nothing that could assist Israel's enemies and put that insurance policy at risk.

It follows that if the Jews of the world are to play their necessary part in de-Zionizing Israel/Palestine, they need to be reassured about their security and wellbeing in the lands in which they live. For most Jews these are the nations of the mainly Gentile world. (Most of the Arabs and other Muslims who also live in these lands have always known the difference between Judaism and Zionism. Most Gentiles don't know).

Footnote:

I have just viewed a 15-minute trailer for Mustafa Barghouti's documentary Our Story. It contains some details which I think invite the conclusion that Israel's occupation is not only illegal but wicked. The whole documentary should be essential viewing for all Jews everywhere. And I hope that Jews who do see it will be enraged enough to make common cause with Mick Davis and others with the integrity and courage who are speaking out.

(2) Isi Leibler attacks leading British Jew (CEO of Xstrata) for criticism of Netanyahu

Isi Leibler: The de-Zionization of Anglo Jewry

Candidly Speaking: The de-Zionization of Anglo Jewry

By ISI LEIBLER 

Thu, Dec 2, 2010       25 Kislev, 5771     

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=196652
http://israelinsider.net/forum/topics/isi-leibler-the-dezionization

Chaim Weizmann would turn in his grave were he aware of the public attacks on the Israeli government by some in the UK Jewish leadership.

Mick Davis, the South African-born chief executive of the powerful mining group Xstrata, is chairman of Anglo Jewry's United Jewish Israel Appeal (UJIA) – the principal fund-raising institution for Israel of the UK Jewish community.

He also heads a body known as the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC) – essentially comprised of a group of wealthy British Jews and their acolytes who, by virtue of their financial largesse, assume a dominant influence on many levels of communal life. The power represented by their collective wealth enables them not to be accountable to anyone and few would dare question their policies.

Anglo Jewry has been blessed in the past with rich philanthropists, many of whom were also endowed with wisdom. Despite his immense wealth and access to the most important leaders in the land, Sir Moses Montefiore was devoted to his people and, far from radiating hubris or arrogance, generated respect and love.

In striking contrast, Mick Davis, also known as "Big Mick," displays characteristics associated with the nouveau riche, akin to the behavior of some of the Russian- Jewish oligarchs. His opinions are rarely challenged and he contemptuously rejects the suggestion that holding a communal role in any way precludes him from publicly expressing views which would normally be considered incompatible for anyone occupying such a position.

Needless to say, Davis is fully entitled to say whatever comes to his mind. Nobody seeks to deprive him of freedom of expression.

Many Jews are critical of Israeli governments.

But for a person holding senior public office in a major Diaspora community to indulge in crude public attacks on Israeli leaders and relate to Israel's security requirements in relation to their impact on his image in non-Jewish circles is surely bizarre and utterly unconscionable.

While occupying the role of chairman of the UIJA in a country in which hatred of Israel and anti-Semitism have reached record levels, Davis brazenly incites his fellow Jews to criticize Israel.

RESIDENT IN London, he had the chutzpa to berate the Israeli prime minister "for lacking the courage to take the steps" to advance the peace process, arguing that "I don't understand the lack of strategy in Israel." He also employed the terminology of our enemies, predicting an "apartheid state" unless Israel was able to achieve a two-state solution – unashamedly blaming Israelis rather than Palestinians for being the obstacle to peace.

His sheer arrogance was best demonstrated in his most outrageous remark: "I think the government of Israel has to recognize that their actions directly impact on me as a Jew living in London, UK.

When they do good things, it is good for me; when they do bad things, it is bad for me. And the impact on me is as significant as it is on Jews living in Israel... I want them to recognize that."

Aside from implying that Israel is responsible for the anti-Semitism he is encountering, Davis is effectively warning that when considering defense issues which may have life-or-death implications for Israelis, the government must be sure not to create problems for him in his non- Jewish social circles. From his London mansion, he blithely brushes aside suicide bombers, rockets launched against our children and the threat of nuclear annihilation because his gentile friends might complain about the behavior of his Israeli friends.

Jonathan Hoffman, vice president of the UK Zionist Federation (one of the few Anglo-Jewish leaders courageous enough to criticize Davis), expressed outrage that the UIJA chairman could make such a remark. "We are not aware that Hampstead is within range of Iranian or Hamas missiles, nor that its residents have to send their children to the IDF for three years," he said.

It is telling that over recent years, Davis has not been renowned for condemning the shameful policies of British governments in relation to Israel. And it is no coincidence that immediately after the UK abstained from the UN vote on the Goldstone Report, Davis chaired a JLC reception at which former foreign minister David Miliband was the key speaker. On that occasion, the "outspoken" Davis felt constrained not to express a single word of complaint or disappointment at the perfidious behavior of the British government in relation to this issue.

Admittedly, Davis' latest outburst is neither intellectually challenging nor persuasive.

But emanating from a Jewish "leader" in the anti-Semitic UK environment in which campaigns to boycott and delegitimize Israel are at an all-time high, and at a time when Israel is under siege and fighting for its existence, it surely represents a level of unprecedented vulgarity.

IN ANY self-respecting Diaspora Jewish community, Davis would have been obliged to tender his resignation immediately after making such outrageous remarks.

Not so in sunny London.

Instead of condemning him, the Anglo-Jewish establishment groveled. Many even seemed delighted that one of their leading spokesmen had distanced himself from what many of them may regard as the unsavory government which the people of Israel had democratically elected.

With the exception of Jewish National Fund head Samuel Hayek, not a single member of the JLC criticized Davis.

The president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Vivian Wineman, said, "Mick Davis is entitled to make his remarks – there are a wide range of views in the country and in Israel on these issues."

Simon Hochhauser, president of the Orthodox United Synagogue and a JLC trustee, may one day regret and feel ashamed for having stated that "there is nothing in the quoted comments I would disagree with."

Former UIA chairman Brian Kerner said that he was "broadly supportive" of the views expressed by Davis, but questioned voicing them in public because "it is only picked up by our enemies, distorted and used against us."

Harvey Rose, chairman of the Zionist Federation, also agreed with "much" of the position expressed by Davis, noting that "how Israel is perceived in the UK has a direct bearing on our comfort levels in Britain."

The non-Orthodox groups, some of whom had always been inclined against Zionism, applauded Davis as "a remarkable leader and a true Zionist leader."

Anglo-Jewish leaders share a long tradition of burying their head in the sand, avoiding confrontation and displaying a determination not to rock the boat under any circumstances. One of their leaders actually wrote in The Jerusalem Post, proudly boasting how their pro-Israel advocacy approach was based on "whispering" rather than "shouting."

Today, by lacking the courage to challenge the propriety of one of its most senior "leaders" indulging in coarse public condemnations of Israel, the trembling Israelite establishment has further undermined the standing of the UK Jewish community.

When one proudly recalls the outstanding contribution of British Jews to the development of Zionism, and the role played by leaders of the caliber of Chaim Weizmann, one is left with a sense of profound sadness. The Anglo- Jewish Zionist pioneers would turn in their graves were they aware of the irresponsible behavior of those who have currently assumed the mantle of leadership of their community.

ileibler@netvision.net.il

(3) Race "hate speech" should be a criminal offense - Education alone won't end racism: Colin Tatz

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/education-alone-wont-end-racism-20100908-150ls.html

Education alone won't end racism

Colin Tatz

September 8, 2010

{caption} The 2005 Cronulla riots were widely seen as racially motivated. Photo: Wade Laube {end}

Racism has been around for a very long time. By 1945 the world had had enough of the consequences of slavery, American segregation, European colonialism, South African apartheid and the race ideologies of the Axis powers. A fresh United Nations declared racism illegitimate.

Yet racism thrives. It demeans, maims and kills. If, repeat if, we are serious about combating racism, why do we have so much trouble making it not just illegitimate but illegal and punishable?

Australian efforts have been hamstrung by three factors: first, we based our federal and state anti-discrimination statutes on the British Race Relations Act of 1965 (albeit amended and strengthened); second, we believe we have the same free speech jurisprudence as the Americans; third, we are convinced that educating people out of their racism is a better strategy than penalising it.

The original British statute essentially provided a complaints commission and, at best, a modest £100 fine for incitement to racial hatred. Racism was seen as a form of [social/mental] illness needing treatment. Society, therefore, needed a "curative" and therapeutic approach aimed at private conciliation between discriminator and discriminatee, counselling where needed, and public education that racism is "not nice".

We embraced all this in the federal Racial Discrimination Act 1975. There was no criminalising of racist behaviour. Al Grassby, the first community relations commissioner, stated often enough that his job was to conciliate a complaint "rather than judge it". "This helps the person to understand and clarify his/her own feelings and provides an opportunity to relate to a sympathetic agent of the community and the government"! Punitive powers would come only when conciliation and negotiation failed. The New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act of 1977 (amended in 2005) is another counselling-minded offshoot of the British model.

The Racial Hatred Act 1995 extended the Racial Discrimination Act by allowing complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about racially offensive or abusive behaviour: it prohibits racist graffiti, wearing Nazi insignia, making racist speeches, placing racist posters or stickers, or being racially abusive in a public place. It isn't a police matter: it is simply a complaints-based mechanism for people who feel aggrieved or vilified, a way of getting the abuser to desist from such behaviour and to compensate in some circumstances.

Social critic Phillip Adams contended that this was the wrong law in the wrong time in the wrong country. It would destroy free speech by punishing people "for ... words", "for saying things".

Wrong premise: words do, indeed, have meaning and power; words influence actions and create reality. Neither racism nor its ultimate form, genocide, occur in the absence of words. Racist policies and ideologies are formulated, articulated, justified, legitimated, disseminated and adopted — through words. Only the final step, implementation, is physical.

Free speech is not an absolute right that permits gross intimidation and hate propaganda. To put the right of a person to express hatred and contempt ahead of the right of a victim to be protected from its effect is, in itself, an expression of racism. Hate speech must be assessed against the real harms it inflicts — unless we persist with the philosophy that the intimidated must learn to be tolerant of their intimidation and the abused be tolerant of their abuse.

Despite the First Amendment of the American constitution, there have always been, and always will be, limits on speech. The late justice Lionel Murphy phrased it well when he said that "free speech is only what is left over after due weight has been accorded to the laws relating to defamation, blasphemy, copyright, sedition, obscenity, use of insulting words, official secrecy, contempt of court and parliament, incitement and censorship".

Most free speech advocates claim that hate and incitement material should be handled by education, not legislation. Education is purveyed as the magic cure-all. Racism is not the result of illness or ignorance; most often it is enjoyment of the expression of contempt or hatred. Barrister and judge Ron Merkel, QC, has asserted that "the educative path has been shown to be successful wherever it has been tried and achieved". With respect, as his learned friends would say, there is not a scintilla of evidence to show that race-education programs have ever diminished, let alone eradicated, prejudiced mindsets or overt racist behaviour.

In his "protest against the monstrous infamy that is anti-Semitism", the eminent German historian Theodor Mommsen said: "You are mistaken if you believe that anything at all can be achieved by reason . . . it is useless, completely useless." So it is with all such hatreds.

As to the hearts and minds people, we do well to recall the origins of that phrase. During the Vietnam war, president Richard Nixon's triumphal slogan was "winning the hearts and minds" of the Vietminh people. The phrase has become the battle cry of those who sell educational condoms as the "way to go" on these issues. We need to consider the full Nixonian statement: that if you squeeze them by their genitals, their hearts and minds will follow.

Legislation is not a question of enforcing "political correctness". It is a proper use of law to indicate to society that there is a point beyond which both the expression and then the acting out of racist prejudice is not acceptable. Wrongful acts rather than wrongful thoughts deserve sanction. Sanction is what makes us abide by basic rules that allow us to live in some amity.

Colin Tatz is visiting fellow in the College of Arts and Social Sciences at the Australian National University.

24 comments

As commendable was his work with Aboriginal issues and anti racism generally, earlier in his work, Colin seems to be implying the need for our government to 'enforce' better, our anti racism legislation.

This seems to be parallel with an increasing number of human rights organisations at the state level and other bodies involved with anti discrimination. Pardon the pun, but where will this all lead? To a deracinated Australian identity?

SH | .... - September 09, 2010, 8:25AM

A fairer more well educated society would be less likely to produce racism especially if governments and business refused to import migrants in an effort designed to undercut local employment and reduce the basic wage. In Australia we now have a class society where many millionaires have built their exotic mansions staffed with their houseboys and girls enabled by various forms of immigration and a large amount of homeless are on the street. We don't need more legislation but we need more efforts put in to harmonise society rather than elongating the gap between the rich and the poor. Legislation won't stop the rot from within.

lynne | lismore - September 09, 2010, 8:49AM

This is an awful idea. Firstly, as a member of a previously vilified and sometimes discriminated minority (gay man), I can't think of any easier way to make bigots style themselves into martyrs than by criminalising hate speech.

Colin's move, while motivated by noble means to further erase racism and other prejudices, would seem to encourage the genuinely extreme racists (i.e. Australia First types, not those making off-colour racial jokes) to flout these laws in an effort to gain attentiony to their cause, while simultaneously gaining sympathy as a victim of heavyhanded "big brother" laws.

This also seems to follow a worringly familiar authoritarian path where 'thought police' enforce what thoughts and opinions are acceptable or considered deviant within the populace. Perhaps Colin should take a trip to North Korea, or alternatively read about the abuse of power under Josef Stalin or the National Socialists, to see the logical conclusion of such heavy state interference into the hearts and minds of their citizens.

ajb | Canberra - September 09, 2010, 8:51AM

Who gets to define 'racism'? We don't need mind police, only actions should be punished. Restricting freedom of speech and moving the goalposts on the definition of racism eliminates political opposition and enforces a single political ideology, not good in a democracy. ...

(4) AIPAC spy scandal: Rosen says AIPAC approved of the receipt of classified information

From: IHR News <news@ihr.org> Date: 24.11.2010 02:00 AM

The Washington Post
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/11/ex-aipac_official_got_670000_from_private_donors.html

Posted at 2:00 PM ET, 11/19/2010

Ex-AIPAC official got at least $670,000 from donors

By Jeff Stein

The latest episode of the AIPAC spy scandal turned sordid last week, with the pro-Israeli lobby releasing its deposition of fired official Steven J. Rosen in which he confesses he engaged in extra-marital sex and watched pornography on his office computer.

But largely buried beneath such tawdry details was an admission arguably far more damaging to Rosen's drive to prove the organization ruined his professional life: that major Jewish donors supported him with hundreds of thousands of dollars during the four years after his dismissal in May 2005.

Lawyers for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, argue that such financial support, as well as continuing references to Rosen as an influential figure in Middle East policy circles, shows that his firing hasn't materially affected his life.

Indeed, many of the dozen benefactors Rosen named, including entertainment mogul Haim Saban and Slim-Fast billionaire Daniel Abraham, are also major donors to AIPAC, which fired him after the Justice Department charged him with illegally giving classified information to Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler and an Israeli Embassy official.

During his Sept. 22 deposition, AIPAC's lawyer alleged that Rosen had received "over $1 million in gifts or severance or payments of benefits between '05 and '09." Rosen detailed gifts that amounted to $670,000.

One philanthropist "bundled" about $200,000 for him, Rosen said. Saban gave $100,000 to him, his wife and children. Another supporter, philanthropist Lynn Schusterman, paid off Rosen's daughter's $18,000 college loan, he said. In all, about a dozen supporters gave him $670,000, according to his testimony, which AIPAC released last week.

The payments stopped in 2009, Rosen says, when the government dropped its case against him and another AIPAC official, saying it couldn't make an espionage case against them.

During its deposition of Rosen, AIPAC's lawyer Thomas L. McCally clearly tried to make his confessions of pornography and philandering the central issues in his dismissal. Rosen shot back that he had "witnessed" AIPAC's executive director Howard Kohr "view... pornographic images on AIPAC computers," as well as "his secretary do it repeatedly, and call people over to see it, including Howard Kohr." He said he "witnessed other members of staff do it," too.

Kohr did not respond to a request for comment on Rosen's pornography allegation. AIPAC spokesman Patrick Dorton declined to comment on that allegation but said his suit had no merit.

Rosen portrays the pornography issue as a red herring, contending that government attorneys stampeded the organization into firing him by playing its officials a selectively edited portion of a wiretapped conversation that made him look like he knew he was illegally trafficking in classified Pentagon documents.

Within hours, the organization announced it was firing Rosen because such alleged behavior "did not comport with standards that AIPAC expects of its employees."

Rosen says his actions were common practice at the organization. He said his next move is to show that AIPAC, Washington's major pro-Israeli lobbying group by far, regularly traffics in sensitive U.S. government information, especially material related to the Middle East.

"I will introduce documentary evidence that AIPAC approved of the receipt of classified information," he said by e-mail. "Most instances of actual receipt are hard to document, because orally received information rarely comes with classified stamps on it nor records alerts that the information is classified."

But Rosen said he would produce "statements of AIPAC employees to the FBI, internal documents, deposition statements, public statements and other evidence showing that [the] receipt of classified information by employees other than [himself] ... was condoned … for months prior to being condemned in March 2005 after threats from the prosecutors."

AIPAC, he said, "will make denials. The jury will have to decide who is telling the truth -- I am."

No comments:

Post a Comment