Tuesday, March 15, 2016

786 UK Lobby claims Boris Johnson; targets Corbyn for mixing with Paul Eisen, a 'holocaust denier'

UK Lobby claims Boris Johnson; targets Corbyn for mixing with Paul
Eisen, a 'holocaust denier'

Newsletter published on 22 December 2015


(1) Labour MP Sir Gerald Kaufman claims 'Jewish money' has influenced
Conservatives
(2) Kaufman is Jewish; UK Lobby likens his comments to Protocols of Zion
(3) Boris Johnson: Plugging into Jewish Networks the Key to Success for
Ambitious Politicians
(4) Boris Johnson to become Foreign Secretary, in exchange for
campaigning for Britain to stay in EU
(5) Boris Johnson will be made Foreign Secretary after he quits as
London Mayor
(6) Boris Johnson declares fealty to the Lobby: ‘I am a passionate Zionist’
(7) Boris Johnson worked on a kibbutz; dismisses claims of 'ethnic
cleansing' of Palestinians
(8) New Labour turned to Jewish Donors to avoid dependence on the Unions
(2007)
(9) UK Lobby targets Corbyn for associating with Paul Eisen, a
'holocaust denier'
(10) But Lobby fails to mention that Eisen is Jewish, and motivated by
compassion for Palestinians
(11) Jeremy Corbyn and the Jews - by Gilad Atzmon
(12) Corbyn condemns Kaufman claims over 'Jewish money' influencing
Tories on Israel
(13) In Clear Sight of Yad Vashem  - by Paul Eisen
(14) Paul Eisen: every example of Jewish suffering is used to justify
the crimes of Israel
(15) Martin Buber: causeless hatred ... is bound to bring complete ruin
upon us ... while we babble and rave about being the "People of the
Book" and the "light of the nations"

(1) Labour MP Sir Gerald Kaufman claims 'Jewish money' has influenced
Conservatives


http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/148290/labour-veteran-sir-gerald-kaufman-claims-jewish-money-has-influenced-conservativ

Labour veteran Sir Gerald Kaufman claims 'Jewish money' has influenced
Conservatives

By Josh Jackman and Sandy Rashty, October 28, 2015

Veteran Labour MP Sir Gerald Kaufman has accused Israel of fabricating
the recent knife attacks in the country and claimed the Conservative
Party has been influenced by “Jewish money”.

Speaking at a Palestine Return Centre event in Parliament on Tuesday,
Sir Gerald said that the British government had become more pro-Israel
in recent years.

He said: “It’s Jewish money, Jewish donations to the Conservative Party
– as in the general election in May – support from the Jewish Chronicle,
all of those things, bias the Conservatives.

“There is now a big group of Conservative members of parliament who are
pro-Israel whatever government does and they are not interested in what
Israel, in what the Israeli government does.

“They’re not interested in the fact that Palestinians are living a
repressed life, and are liable to be shot at any time. In the last few
days alone the Israelis have murdered 52 Palestinians and nobody pays
attention and this government doesn’t care.”

Sir Gerald, Father of the House of Commons, then told the audience of 45
people that the Israeli government had made up the recent spate of
violent attacks in order to allow it to “execute Palestinians”.

The Manchester Gorton MP said “a friend of mine who lives in East
Jerusalem” had emailed him with the accusations about Israel fabricating
the attacks.

Sir Gerald then read from the letter: “More than half the stabbing
claims were definitely fabricated. The other half, some were true, the
others there was no way to tell since they executed Palestinians and no
one asked questions.

“Not only that, they got to the point of executing Arab-looking people
and in the past few days they killed two Jewish Israelis and an Eritrean
just because they looked Arab.

“They fabricated a stabbing story to justify the killings before they
found out they were not Palestinians.”

Sir Gerald has not responded to a JC request for a comment on his remarks.

The comments were recorded by blogger David Collier.

Mr Collier said of the experience: “What was it like? It took a while to
digest. Yes, you pick up straight away on the 'Jewish money' comment,
but as he rolls into the influence this has on the Conservative Party
and how this plays out on foreign policy, you start questioning as to
whether you are really hearing this.

"Is someone really pushing this, in Westminster, in 2015? And nobody in
the room raised a protest. How did I feel? It was sickening.”

Sir Gerald's fellow Labour MP Andy Slaughter, who also spoke at the
event, distanced himself from the remarks.

Mr Slaughter, the Shadow Minister for Human Rights, said he had spoken
about British foreign policy at the meeting but had been unaware of Mr
Kaufman’s remarks until the JC raised them. He said: “I am responsible
for what I say; I am not responsible for what anyone else says.

“I would not endorse those comments. If you showed me that and said
would you agree with that, I would say ‘no’.

“Obviously I would not endorse or be associated in any way with those
comments.”

A spokesman for the Palestine Return Centre also distanced the group
from Sir Gerald’s comments but refused to rule out inviting him to speak
at a future event.

He said: “Sir Gerald said what was on his mind. We did not have any
control over what he said. We have often had events with Sir Gerald, but
we have never had him saying anything like this. We do not tolerate
antisemitism whatsoever.

“We understand the difference between antisemitism and criticising
Israel. We can’t tolerate any antisemitism. What [Sir Gerald] said is
representing his own view.”

Sir Gerald caused controversy earlier this year when he said that Israel
uses the Holocaust to justify murdering Palestinians.

In 2011 he apologised after greeting fellow Jewish MP Louise Ellman by
muttering “here we are, the Jews again" when she rose to speak in the
Commons.

A Labour Party spokesman said: “The views as reported do not reflect the
views of the party.”

He would not comment on whether the party would reprimand Sir Gerald or
ask him to resign.

John Mann, Labour MP for Bassetlaw and chair of the All-Party
Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, said: “These are the
incoherent ramblings of an ill-informed demagogue.”

Labour MP Ruth Smeeth, vice chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group
Against Antisemitism, echoed the call for action to be taken by the
party. She said: “I think that these are not just unfortunate, but these
are disgraceful remarks from the Father of the House and they cannot go
unanswered.”

Louise Ellman, Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside, said: “These are
despicable statements which support antisemitic conspiracy theories, and
Gerald should withdraw them immediately.”

Mark Gardner, director of communications at the Community Security
Trust, said: “The language invites antisemitic interpretation about
Jews, money and controlling politicians; and the belated hand wringing
from others in the room is meaningless if they did not actually protest
when the remarks were made.”

Board of Deputies president Jonathan Arkush said: “We condemn Sir
Gerald’s outrageous comments. We challenge him to travel to Israel
immediately to ride around with the emergency services and to see for
himself whether it is possible to fabricate knife attacks when victims
are lying on the ground with blood pouring from their wounds.

"We also invite the Labour Party to initiate disciplinary proceedings to
investigate his disgraceful words.”

Martin Rathfelder, Sir Gerald’s election agent, said: “I’m quite sure he
won’t [resign]. Why would he?

“To say that the Conservative Party has been taking Jewish money isn’t
antisemitic. Is that antisemitic? If Jewish people give the Conservative
Party money, which no-one is suggesting they haven’t, they probably
expect something in return, don’t they?

“Gerald really doesn’t care what anyone who doesn’t live in Gorton
constituency thinks. If anyone in Gorton constituency would say that, he
might be concerned, but no-one in the constituency appears to have been
quoted.”

When asked about the allegations which Sir Gerald made that Israel had
fabricated stabbing attacks, Mr Rathfelder said: “Is it untrue? Again,
nobody in your article said it wasn’t true.

“There are lots of people in Gorton constituency who worry about
Palestine, but when Gerald was accused of being antisemitic in the past,
it was never by anyone who lived in the constituency, at least as far as
I’m aware.

"I’ve had complaints about him saying things that were said to be
antisemitic, but never someone who was a voter in the constituency.”

(2) Kaufman is Jewish; UK Lobby likens his comments to Protocols of Zion
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/will-jeremy-corbyn-condemn-gerald-kaufmans-comments-about-jewish-money-influencing-the-tories/

Will Jeremy Corbyn condemn Gerald Kaufman’s comments about ‘Jewish
money’ influencing the Tories?

John R. Bradley

{photo}
Hamas member Aziz Dweik, of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC)
walks with Gerald Kaufman MP (Photo: Getty) {end}

29 October 2015

Sir Gerald Kaufman is Jewish, which he seems to use as an excuse to make
claims that would, ordinarily, be denounced as anti-Semitic. He has made
this a trademark of his career but on Tuesday night, Sir Gerald – now
Father of the House of Commons – outdid himself. In an extraordinary
speech he allegedly discussed the influence of ‘Jewish money’ over the
Conservative party. He also claimed that, according to an email he had
received, ‘half’ of the Palestinian knife attacks in Israel over recent
weeks have been ‘fabricated’ as an excuse to execute Palestinians, and
that the small-circulation weekly newspaper The Jewish Chronicle has
biased the Conservatives.

Speaking at an event organised by the Palestine Return Centre on Tuesday
evening, Sir Gerald – infamous for his ‘Here we are, the Jews again’
comment during a 2011 parliamentary debate on Israel when fellow Labour
MP Louise Ellman rose to speak – drew on every last trope in the book: a
Jewish-controlled media; a wealthy cabal of Jews buying off the
political establishment; blood-thirsty Jews jumping at every opportunity
to murder the innocent. Some felt that all that was missing was a
reference to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Yesterday, after a recording of the remarks was made public, four of
Britain’s prominent Jewish organisations – the Board of Deputies, the
Campaign Against Antisemitism, the Jewish Leadership Council and the
Community Security Trust – expressed their outrage and demanded that Sir
Gerald’s comments be investigated. Today calls for his resignation will
grow, but as of now he has remained silent. The Spectator has requested
comment from Sir Gerald’s office, but has yet to hear back. When asked
by The Jewish Chronicle about the allegations that Israel had fabricated
stabbing attacks, Martin Rathfelder, Sir Gerald’s election agent, merely
asked in turn: ‘Is it untrue?’ Here, again, we see the classic
conspiracy theory mindset at work: the impossibility of contradicting
the argument presented as clear proof of its legitimacy.

Sir Gerald’s host, the Palestine Return Centre, is a proscribed
terrorist group in Israel, with links to Hamas and the Muslim
Brotherhood, and has been dubbed Hamas’s political wing in the UK,
although, the group denies any Hamas links. But even the Palestine
Return Centre has distanced itself from his remarks, saying that they
cross the line between criticism of Israel’s foreign policy and what
might be interpreted as anti-Semitism. That is a distinction Labour
leader Jeremy Corbyn – friend of Hamas, Hezbollah and hate preachers –
has often made to contextualise his own support for the Palestinians.
Now he has the perfect opportunity to demonstrate that such a
distinction is not a smokescreen by unequivocally condemning Sir
Gerald’s speech and calling for his immediate resignation.

(3) Boris Johnson: Plugging into Jewish Networks the Key to Success for
Ambitious Politicians


http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/12/the-friends-of-boris-johnson-plugging-into-jewish-networks-as-the-key-to-success-for-ambitious-politicians/

The Friends of Boris Johnson: Plugging into Jewish Networks as the Key
to Success for Ambitious Politicians

Francis Carr Begbie

Occidental Observer

December 19, 2015

There are two pilgrimages which any ambitious British Conservative
politician should undertake if he wants to seriously improve his chances
of getting the top job. One is to Israel to be pictured with wearing a
skull cap at the Western Wall.

The second is to the most exclusive Jewish charity event in the London
social calendar. The Norwood Trust banquet is one of the most glittering
social occasions in London. Under the chandeliers, networkers rub
shoulders with likes of Elton John, Simon Cowell, Tom Jones, Sir Andrew
Lloyd Webber, Sir Philip Green and anyone who is anyone in British Jewry.

It was on this august occasion last month that the Mayor of London Boris
Johnson addressed the assembled notables and as usual charmed, amused
and entertained the huge crowd at London’s Grosvenor Hotel. For “Boris,”
as he is universally known, it was the latest in a long strategy of
letting Britain’s most powerful ethnic community know that they can
count on him. He followed that up last week with a trademark witty
denunciation of Donald Trump’s proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration.

“The only reason I wouldn’t go to some parts of New York is the real
risk of meeting Donald Trump.” It was a response that delighted the
British chattering classes. Typical Boris! A suitably witty quip from a
man regarded as humorous as he is unkempt, and a celebrity among the
ranks of anonymous political suits.

Probably only the Prime Minister himself enjoys more name recognition
than London’s Mayor. Journalist, broadcaster, author and most of all,
politician, the showbiz crowd-pulling power of “Boris” crosses party
boundaries.

His tousle-haired, blonde charm is legendary and he has buckets of that
most elusive political quality “likeability.” Part of the appeal is the
stuttering,  affable, upper-class buffoon act which seems cribbed
entirely from the role Hugh Grant played in the film Four Weddings and a
Funeral. The ‘act’ is not just his persona.  In fact he was christened
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson and is called ‘Al’ by his family;
“Boris” is a kind of stage name.

Deeply concealed though, is the driving ambition. His rivalry with David
Cameron may have its roots in their school days at Eton or university at
Oxford. Although a few years apart, it was Boris Johnson who struck most
as “the man most likely to.” Their relationship has caused so much
speculation it was even turned into a TV drama.

In the event, Cameron became Prime Minister while Boris was given the
consolation prize of Mayor of London and used it to raise his profile
even higher. Some thought he may have given up his plans for the top job
when Cameron was so decisively re-elected last May but Boris’s ambition
burns more fiercely than ever. How do we know?

Well, there is the ceaseless defence of the City of London — Britain’s
bankers have no greater supporter than Boris. And then there is the
informal campaign group and fan club dubbed the “friends of Boris” which
seems to be on permanent stand-by.

But no Conservative politician can reach the top without the approval of
the Jewish financial elite in Britain. And Boris has embarked on a
long-term campaign of “signalling” to them that could not have been more
blatant if he had hired a Goodyear advertisement blimp. There is the
insistence that he is a “one-man melting pot” because he was born in New
York and has French, Jewish, English and Turkish blood. There is the
adulatory Winston Churchill biography. An addition to the vast Churchill
lexicon is not exactly what the world needs, but it is a not-so-subtle
pointer that the neocon agenda in general and Zionist foreign policy in
particular, are safe with him.

There was the unlikely “row” over a trip to Palestinian areas which
caused headlines when it was cancelled due to his pro-Israel remarks.
There was the tearful visit to Yad Vashem.  There was his dismissal of
Israel’s critics as “snaggle toothed lefties.” There was his repeated
insistence, trotted out again only this week, that he will continue to
stand up for Israel after his Mayorship ends.

And then there are his new associates. At the last Norwood banquet
Johnson was seen congratulating the newly-appointed President of the
Norwood charity, former political lobbyist Lord Jonathan Mendelsohn.
They bump into each other a lot. They were hobnobbing when Boris
addressed a dinner at north London’s most prominent local synagogue with
the Chief Rabbi. And at a tech conference Boris shared the stage with
Lord Mendelsohn’s high-powered wife. Nicola Mendelsohn is the most
powerful Facebook executive outside the USA and husband and wife are
often described as a “power couple” .

It is hardly surprising that he should be seen conferring with a
well-connected political fixer from the powerful Jewish community.  What
is surprising is that Lord Mendelsohn is a serving House of Lords
spokesman for — and member of — the Labour Party.

A former Labour Friends of Israel chair and trustee of the Holocaust
Education Trust, he was a key link man between Number 10 Downing Street
and the business community, and he personally fund-raised for both Blair
as well as his successor Gordon Brown. After working for Blair for some
years, he launched his lobbying company LLM almost immediately after
Labour was elected in 1997. It quickly gained a reputation which has
been memorably summarised by the influential Guido Fawkes website thus:

In Westminster there is no murkier business than lobbying and of all the
sleazy lobbyists there is no sleazier firm than LLM — Lawson, Lucas,
Mendelsohn. Famous for cash-for-access scandals, representing opposing
sides on legislation and generally being the scummiest lobbying firm in
the Westminster village with coincidentally the closest links to New Labour.

At 10 Downing Street in the early nineties, Jonathan Mendelsohn and his
mentor Michael Levy were quite the fund-raising doubles-act. It was a
time when the Jewish business community moved into a driving role in the
building up of New Labour and this led to snide media references to the
“Kosher Nostra.” As a revealing article in the Guardian noted:

New Labour elevated a pre-existing Jewish network to national importance
— and therein lies the problem. The Jewish community has long preferred
to attempt to influence the political process through discreet advocacy
and relationship building rather than through public demonstrations and
campaigning. This discretion is rooted in long-standing concerns to be
seen as good British citizens, to not show ingratitude to the
“hospitality” of this country. British politics since the 1990s has
witnessed a paradoxical process in which lobbying has become ever more
important to government, yet ever more the object of public suspicion.

Wealthy Jewish backers did not want their bankrolling of the party
revealed because it did not look good. This presented an interesting
problem for Labour’s fundraisers. So, various wheezes were dreamed up by
which the identity of donors could be concealed. One was to disguise
donations as “loans” to the party, a second was hand-outs to favoured
think-tanks or charities, and a third was the use of third-party proxies
in whose name donations were made.

And Mendelsohn’s own lobbying firm LLM was dragged into the mire time
and again. There were the newspaper exposés revealing practices that
looked suspiciously like cash-for-access. There was the time that LLM’s
client, the — Jewish owned — Tesco supermarket chain donated £12 million
to Labour’s The Dome arena project. This coincided with the dropping of
a proposed car park tax that could have cost Tesco £20 million.

Mendelsohn’s company became embroiled in another sleaze row when he was
Labour’s chief fund raiser. On his watch it turned out that
approximately £650,000 of donations were channelled through three third
party “proxies” in a manoeuvre designed to conceal the identity of a
Jewish millionaire.  Despite calls for the lobbyist’s head  over this
one, the Labour Party decided to believe Mendelsohn’s pleas that it had
nothing to do with him.

Then there was the sleazy gambling machine episode. Britain underwent a
gambling boom in the nineties. The spread of a new generation of
highly-addictive gambling machines netted huge profits for operators —
but were also a scourge in poorer, more vulnerable communities. Poverty
advocates, including the Salvation Army, campaigned for tighter
controls. This should have been a sensitive issue for a Labour Party
which was still masquerading as a defender of the poor.

Blair’s government did eventually act, but all it was interested in was
grabbing a bigger slice of the gambling machine profits through
taxation. At the time the huge Jewish-owned betting shop chain Ladbrokes
was seeking to reduce its exposure to this tax.[1]

To fight the proposed tax, Ladbrokes retained LLM whose lobbying
strategy was later leaked and gave an eye-opening glimpse into a murky
world indeed.  It revealed that LLM’s campaign involved a lobbying blitz
targeted at ministers, MPs and civil servants. The campaign was notable
for the lavish hospitality showered on these upstanding government
servants, including  trips to continental race courses. The leak
derailed one of the civil servant’s job applications to join Ladbroke’s
parent company. His name was Gideon Hoffman.

LLM’s lobbying strategy paid off and the Labour government’s plan to tax
the gambling machines was quietly dropped.  Instead of controlling the
industry, the new Gambling Act paved the way for Britain’s first
super-casino (eight more are planned).

Boris Johnson also has no compunction about being pictured with another
figure from the sleazy world of fund raising — Lord Michael Levy who was
a bag man for Tony Blair. From the moment he entered parliament Tony
Blair was an enthusiastic member of Friends of Israel. But it was at a
dinner party at the home of an Israeli diplomat in 1994 that Blair, the
newly appointed leader of the Labour Party, met the man who was to
bankroll his private office when he reached Number 10.  Michael Levy was
a wealthy former record label owner who again, was seen as a gatekeeper
to the wealthy Jewish figures whose names pop up again and again on the
board of large charities — he was a former chair of Jewish Care, a
member of the Jewish Agency World Board of Governors, and a trustee of
the Holocaust Educational Trust.

Potential donors would be invited for tennis at his palatial “hacienda”
style home where Tony Blair would join them for a set or two. Levy would
then proceed to ask the guests for donations after Blair had left.

When Blair became Prime Minister, Levy’s efforts paid off big time. Levy
was subsequently ennobled as Lord Levy and then appointed as a ‘special
envoy’ to the Middle-East, leading predictably to the development of a
strong pro-Israel line. This drew much critical comment as Levy had both
a house and business in Israel and Levy’s son Daniel used to work for
the former Justice Minister of Israel. The fact that Levy acted as a
fundraiser for former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak cast further
doubt on his capacity for impartiality.

But it all ended in tears, scandal, and police investigations. Lord Levy
was arrested by police three times on suspicion that cash was being
exchanged for peerages. (Predictably, police could not make the
allegations stick and law officers decided not to prosecute.)

Each row seemed to have common characteristics.  They involved Jewish
businessmen, deception and apparent willingness to go to great lengths
to achieve their goals, knowing that they had friends in high places in
case things went wrong. There is no suggestion that Levy and
Mendelsohn’s connections and access to Jewish funds gave them immunity,
but it was striking how they emerged, if not smelling of roses, then
unscathed, after each row.

Since then both men have prospered.  After leaving politics without a
stain on his reputation, Lord Levy is still glad-handing and schmoozing
on behalf of his favourite Jewish charities. Lord Mendelsohn sold his
company for £10 million and is now a Labour shadow minister in the House
of Lords.   At his induction he was accompanied by old friends and
allies Lord Levy and Lord Greville Janner, the alleged pederast, who
himself, of course, is no stranger to controversy.

Boris Johnson is doubtless quite aware of all this and is using it to
ascend the corridors of power by taking full advantage of Jewish
political consultants. Even his successful campaign to become President
of the Oxford Union was won only with the help of a Jewish adviser who
was to become a prominent political consultant in the US, Frank Luntz —
which reminds us that a similar situation obtains in the US, except that
Donald Trump’s candidacy is notable for eschewing the usual bowing and
scraping before Jewish money.

Boris will step down after the next Mayoral elections are held in May.
As his successor to the Mayorship, he is grooming another fellow Old
Etonian, Zac Goldsmith, whose marriage to a Rothschild heiress
represented a union of two of world’s wealthiest Jewish banking dynasties.

And curiously enough it is the Jewish and banking constituencies which
may be most important if he tries to lead the Conservative Party. If he
does make a bid for the top job, you can guarantee that Boris Johnson
will have done his best to make sure he has all the right friends in the
right places.

[1] Ladbrokes was owned by a controversial Jewish businessman and
philanthropist called Cyril Stein who lost his gaming licences in the
early eighties after a regulator decided he was not a “fit and proper
person.”

(4) Boris Johnson to become Foreign Secretary, in exchange for
campaigning for Britain to stay in EU


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12/19/boris-johnson-foreign-secretary_n_8845504.html

Boris Johnson To Become Foreign Secretary Next Year In Exchange For EU
Support, According To Report

The Huffington Post UK  |  By Paul Vale

Posted: 19/12/2015 17:38 GMT Updated: 19/12/2015 17:59 GMT

Boris Johnson is being lined up as Britain’s next foreign secretary,
according to a report by The Telegraph. The newspaper said David Cameron
is to hand the Uxbridge MP the top government position once his role as
mayor ends next May.

Giving Boris foreign office would be a way to ensure his support in the
upcoming EU referendum, according to Tory sources. Johnson, who in
recent years has flirted with Euroscepticism, would replace current
minister Philip Hammond, who this week was at the UN in New York to
agree a peace roadmap for Syria.

Although Johnson currently attends cabinet meetings as part of the
government, the former journalist does not have a ministry to run. The
move would benefit Boris by allowing the ambitious mayor to position
himself as a frontrunner for the Tory leadership, competition for the
current favourite to replace Cameron at the end of this parliament,
Chancellor George Osborne.

Following talks in Brussels this week on a renegotiated EU deal for
Britain, Cameron hinted that the long-awaited referendum on Britain’s
membership would likely be held next June.

Despite Cameron’s optimism, the PM has failed to win any major
concessions from his EU counterparts, particularly on his demand to stop
in-work benefits for migrants for up to four years, a move decried by
other EU leaders as “discriminatory.”

Last week, Boris spoke out on a petition calling for Republican
presidential frontrunner Donald Trump to be banned from entering Britain
over his comments calling for a Muslim travel ban. Though Boris said
Trump should be allowed entry into the UK, the London mayor said Trump's
"stupefying ignorance" proved he was "clearly out of his mind."

(5) Boris Johnson will be made Foreign Secretary after he quits as
London Mayor

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson/12056110/Boris-Johnson-could-be-made-foreign-secretary-to-boost-leadership-credentials-after-he-quits-as-London-Mayor.html

Boris Johnson could be made foreign secretary to boost leadership
credentials after he quits as London Mayor

A senior source close to Prime Minister David Cameron said he was
considering handing him a prime Government role like foreign secretary
in a bid to ensure he campaigns for Britain to stay in the EU

Boris Johnson is in the running to succeed Philip Hammond as foreign
secretary Photo: Getty Images

By Christopher Hope, Matthew Holehouse and Steven Swinford

10:00PM GMT 18 Dec 2015

David Cameron is considering making Boris Johnson foreign secretary
within months as part of a bid to ensure he campaigns to keep Britain in
the European Union, The Telegraph can disclose.

The Prime Minister has discussed the possibility of sending Mr Johnson
to the Foreign Office when he stands down as Mayor of London in May,
friends of Mr Cameron have said.

It would allow Mr Johnson to “position himself” ahead of a potential run
for the Conservative Party leadership against George Osborne, the
Chancellor.

The disclosure comes as Mr Cameron on Friday signalled that the in-out
referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU will be held next year.

But he prompted fury from Conservative eurosceptics by saying at the end
of a crucial Brussels summit that he “firmly believes” Britain’s future
remains in the EU, despite his renegotiation not yet being complete.

(6) Boris Johnson declares fealty to the Lobby: ‘I am a passionate Zionist’

‘I am a passionate Zionist,’ declares Boris Johnson

http://www.jewishnews.co.uk/boris-johnson-zionist/

August 7, 2014

London Mayor Boris Johnson has been on a kibbutz

In the heat of a debate about Gaza this week, London Mayor Boris Johnson
declared himself “a Zionist” on morning radio, before distancing himself
from Israel’s actions, which he called “disproportionate”.

Speaking on LBC, Johnson said: “I am a passionate Zionist. I am a
supporter of Israel. I believe in its existence. I’ve been on a kibbutz
for heaven’s sake.”

Pressed on Prime Minister David Cameron’s refusal to criticise Israel’s
actions in the Gaza Strip, he added: “I can’t for the life of me see how
this can be a sensible strategy.

“I think what has been happening in Gaza is disproportionate. I think
it’s ugly and tragic and I don’t think it will do Israel any good in the
long-run.”

(7) Boris Johnson worked on a kibbutz; dismisses claims of 'ethnic
cleansing' of Palestinians


http://www.jewishnews.co.uk/exclusive-interview-boris-johnson-world-would-be-impoverished-without-israel/

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW – Boris Johnson: ‘World would be ‘impoverished’
without Israel’

November 12, 2015

Boris Johnson has insisted the world would be “impoverished” without the
existence of Israel and acknowledged a “violent response” would be
required if London came under attack in a similar way as Israeli
communities have from Gaza.

News Editor Justin Cohen interviewing Mayor of London Boris Johnson

The mayor of London’s comments came in an exclusive interview with the
Jewish News during his three-day trade mission to Israel and the
territories, during which he sought to further develop trade ties and
repeatedly attacked moves to boycott the Jewish state.

After plans for the mission were first revealed in the Jewish News two
and a half years ago, he joked that the trip was “thanks to you because
you kept badgering me” about when he would fulfil the pledge.

The visit came on the back of a doubling of bilateral trade over the
past five years and after more Israeli firms had listed in London than
any other country.

Joined by a delegation of representatives from 15 London tech firms
looking to connect with counterparts in the startup nation, Johnson
kicked off the visit at the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange where he hailed
Israel’s hi-tech prowess as “an absolute education”.

  It is “inestimable” how much poorer the UK and world would be without
Israeli innovation, he told this newspaper.

“It’s an incredible country that’s changed out of all recognition since
I worked on kibbutz 30 years ago. I’m here because of that economic
change,” he said. “Israel has been responsible for everything from USB
memory sticks to all sorts of apps that are of great value. The country
has played a huge role in computing generally and the whole tech
explosion. But it’s more fundamental than that: the world would be
greatly poorer without Israel. The world would be impoverished without a
state – for all its faults and all the the criticisms you can level – is
far and away the most free, open, democratic in this neighbourhood. It’s
a great thing and we need to preserve that.”

He said it didn’t bother him “at all” that the visit was not universally
applauded on Twitter, where many reacted to posts about the trip with
messages about settlements and claims of “ethnic cleansing” of the
Palestinians, some even taking issue with his use of the word democracy.

He said: “I fully expected it. I think people – not unreasonably – apply
very different standards to Israel than they do to other places in the
world because it’s a free democratic country. There’s a high level of
expectation. That means there are double standards. People will
criticise Israel for things they ignore in other countries. That doesn’t
altogether exculpate Israel or successive Israeli governments from some
of the failings we’ve seen. There’s no question everyone wants to see
more progress in trying to reach an accommodation with the Palestinians.
All it takes is leadership. Abba Eban said the Palestinians never miss
an opportunity to miss an opportunity – that’s been the case over a long
time. Let’s hope the current leadership of the Palestinians and Israel
can turn it around.” Asked if Benjamin Netanyahu could be doing more to
move towards a settlement, he added: “That’s not something I can easily
comment on.” [...]

Posted by ZF UK – Zionist Federation on Wednesday, 11 November 2015

(8) New Labour turned to Jewish Donors to avoid dependence on the Unions
(2007)


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/dec/06/noconspiracyhere

No conspiracy here

Keith Kahn-Harris

The Jewish angle on the Labour donations scandal sheds an interesting
light on the party's funding mechanism, but is not evidence of a
sinister cabal

Thursday 6 December 2007 19.00 AEDT

The lead story in last week's Jewish Chronicle revealed the apprehension
felt by some leading Jewish communal figures at the prominent
involvement of two Jewish people, David Abrahams and Jon Mendelsohn, in
the current Labour party funding controversy. The majority of people
involved in the scandal are not Jewish, but coming soon after Lord
Levy's involvement in the "cash for honours" inquiry, the involvement of
more Jews in public scandals provokes understandable concern in the
Jewish community.

Given the long history of conspiracy theories featuring Jewish cabals
and conspiracies, given the stereotypes of money-grubbing Jewish
businessmen, Jews are acutely sensitive to anything that would confirm
peoples' worst impressions of the Jewish community. Indeed, an earlier
Jewish-linked scandal - the conviction of the "Guinness Four" in 1990 -
sparked snide media references to the "kosher nostra". Even if Abrahams
and Mendelsohn are only two players in a wider scandal, their Jewishness
stands out.

While it would be absurd and hateful to see the events of the last
couple of weeks as evidence of a sinister Jewish conspiracy, it would
also be wrong to claim that the Jewishness of the protagonists in this
and the previous funding controversy was entirely incidental to it. On
the contrary, to understand the controversy, you need to understand the
Jewish contexts in which Michael Levy, David Abrahams and Jon Mendelsohn
operate.

The UK Jewish community of less than 300,000 people boasts an
astonishingly varied and complex array of welfare, educational, cultural
and other organisations, to say nothing of its several hundred
synagogues. While not as wealthy as some imagine, British Jews are
largely middle class and sophisticated networks of philanthropy ensure
that Anglo-Jewish institutions are well provided for. Michael Levy came
to prominence outside the business world as a fundraiser and
philanthropist for Jewish causes, most notably Jewish Care, the communal
welfare organisation. Similarly, David Abrahams has given generously to
a range of Anglo-Jewish charities.

While Jews have always been involved in the Labour party in significant
numbers (and since the 1980s in the Conservative party too), the
importance of Jewish donors to New Labour dates to the mid-1990s. The
New Labour project stood or fell on its ability to build a donor base
that would allow the Blair-Brown axis to avoid dependence on the unions.
It is easy to see the attraction that Michael Levy held for Tony Blair
when they met in 1994. Here was a man who was not just rich and generous
in his own right, but who had ready access to a network of other
potential donors. Levy was an integral part of "the project" not because
of some sinister Zionist-inspired quest for influence, but because he
offered skills honed and contacts made during his Jewish funding-raising.

New Labour elevated a pre-existing Jewish network to national importance
- and therein lies the problem. The Jewish community has long preferred
to attempt to influence the political process through discreet advocacy
and relationship building rather than through public demonstrations and
campaigning. This discretion is rooted in long-standing concerns to be
seen as good British citizens, to not show ingratitude to the
"hospitality" of this country. British politics since the 1990s has
witnessed a paradoxical process in which lobbying has become ever more
important to government, yet ever more the object of public suspicion.
Regardless of the truth or falsehood of the allegations against Abrahams
and Mendelsohn, they have fallen victim to the distrust that has
surrounded lobbying and private political donations since the early 90s.

It is intriguing to note that both the British Jewish communal
organisations and British political parties are increasingly reliant on
a small number of "high value" donors. This is only a problem if those
donations buy disproportionate influence. In the Jewish community the
influence of a small number of very wealthy philanthropists is
considerable and the same faces appear repeatedly on the boards of major
Jewish charities. At the same time, the influence of communal grandees
is counter-balanced by the community's vibrant grassroots volunteer
culture, in which large numbers of British Jews ensure that the
community's institutions can function. In contrast, the Labour party has
seen its volunteer corps decimated in recent years in part as a direct
result of the leadership's desire to curb the influence of the
grassroots. There is little effective counterweight to the influence of
major donors. Moreover, whereas bought influence in the Jewish community
brings immaterial benefits such as kudos and self-esteem, bought
influence in political parties can - potentially at least - bring very
real material benefits.

Philanthropy can be driven by the very worst and the very best
motivations. We do not yet know and we may never know into what category
David Abrahams political philanthropy falls. It is possible though that
the structures of the British Jewish community may bring out the best in
David Abraham and in other Jewish philanthropists, whereas the
structures of the Labour party may well have brought out the worst. Jews
do not corrupt politics - if anything, politics corrupts Jews.

(9) UK Lobby targets Corbyn for associating with Paul Eisen, a
'holocaust denier'


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/17/jeremy-corbyn-british-jews-labour-palestine-jewish

It’s vital for Jeremy Corbyn to establish a working relationship with
British Jews

Keith Kahn-Harris

The Labour leader’s passionate support for Palestinian causes has
worried many. He now needs to build bridges

{photo}
‘Jeremy Corbyn’s victory has been received with shock and even horror by
substantial sections of British Jewry.’ Photograph: Andy Hall for the
Observer
{end}

Friday 18 September 2015 00.29 AEST Last modified on Friday 18 September
2015 17.52 AEST

Jeremy Corbyn’s intray is filled with a daunting array of challenges
resulting from a victory that even he probably thought inconceivable
when his campaign started. So it would have been understandable had he
not accorded top priority to one of those challenges: how to relate to
Britain’s 300,000 Jews.

Related: Jeremy Corbyn says antisemitism claims 'ludicrous and wrong'

Yet in the tumultuous days after victory, his camp did apparently float
the possibility of what some sources described as a “minister for Jews”
(later upgraded to a minister for minority faiths).

This hasn’t happened – some say it was never even considered – and
probably will never happen. But it does show that, at some level, some
sections of the Corbyn campaign, and perhaps Corbyn himself, recognised
a need to reach out to the Jewish community.

The problem is clear. As surveys have shown, the majority of British
Jews are Zionists, albeit with varying degrees of enthusiasm for the
current Israeli government. While many Zionists believe there need be no
inherent tension with Palestinians – envisaging, at least in theory, a
state of Israel existing alongside a state of Palestine – the passionate
activism of Palestinian supporters, particularly their frequent support
for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) and a “one-state” solution,
is unnerving to many.

But the concern isn’t just about defending Israel. After spikes in
antisemitic incidents during Israel’s recent wars, as well as terrorist
attacks on Jewish targets in France and Denmark, concern about
antisemitism has risen among British Jews.

Corbyn’s outspoken support for the Palestine Solidarity Campaign,
together with his frequent appearing on platforms with, and alleged
support for, Islamist and other controversial speakers who have espoused
antisemitic and even Holocaust-denying views (such as in the cases of
Raed Salah and Paul Eisen respectively), has inevitably meant that his
victory has been received with shock and even horror by substantial
sections of British Jewry.

It is clear that accusations that he is tolerant of antisemitism have
been deeply wounding to him personally and to many of his supporters. He
also has many Jewish supporters who are at the forefront of defending him.

It may have been that the “minister for Jews” idea was simply a way of
solidifying his support among his Jewish defenders. I hope, though, that
it was a recognition that Corbyn needs to reach out beyond his existing
Jewish supporters to those who are much more suspicious. It was
ill-thought out to be sure – the phrase has sinister resonances, as the
only societies that have “ministers for Jews” are those that think they
have a Jewish problem, although it may have been part of a poorly
phrased floating of a proposal for a minister for faith minorities – but
it could indicate a genuine desire for a rapprochement.

So why does Jeremy Corbyn need to start building bridges with those
sections of the British Jewish community that will find it difficult to
trust him?

If any reconciliation is possible, it will need to begin quietly and out
of the glare of the media

The main reason is this: to be a potential national leader of a
multicultural nation, it’s a very bad idea to be so alienated from a
majority of any British minority. While no leader of any political party
can reasonably aspire to garner votes from the majority of every
minority, a prospective party of government must at the very least be
able to have a dialogue with all minorities and listen seriously to
their concerns.

In short, it’s probably too much to ask that most British Jews will ever
be Corbynites, and that Corbyn will in return find Zionism to be
anything other than problematic. But it shouldn’t be too much to ask for
cordial and businesslike relations to be established with Jewish groups.
There are also reasons to think that this might be possible.

First of all, at least some Jewish communal organisations do accept the
need to establish some kind of relationship with Corbyn. The Board of
Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council issued curt but not hostile
statements that publicly expressed their desire to meet him. The heads
of both organisations have also expressed willingness to “engage”,
whilestill making clear that they have concerns.

Second, the Jewish relationship with the Labour party is so long and
deep that it is going to be difficult for Corbyn’s leadership to avoid
dealing with at least some Jewish detractors within his own party.
Jewish Labour party members may, in fact, be able to find some way of
mediating between Corbyn and the Jewish community. Intriguingly, Luciana
Berger – MP for Liverpool Wavertree and a previous director of Labour
Friends of Israel – is now serving as shadow minister for mental health.
I would not envy her the competing tensions she will have to mediate,
but she may prove to be a crucial figure.

If any reconciliation is possible, it will need to begin quietly and out
of the glare of the media, with the seriousness that dialogue and
conflict resolution require. There is clearly a great deal of hurt and
suspicion on both sides and it’s going to take time to address.

I am suggesting to my fellow members of the British Jewish community
some ways in which it might try to build bridges to Corbyn. Both Jeremy
Corbyn and his detractors share one belief: they agree that antisemitism
is wrong and unacceptable. They may differ profoundly on what
constitutes antisemitism, but there is at least something to build on.
It’s not much, but it is something.

(10) But Lobby fails to mention that Eisen is Jewish, and motivated by
compassion for Palestinians


http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/8/18/the-kingmaker

The Kingmaker

August 18, 2015

By Gilad Atzmon

Paul Eisen, until a week ago anonymous as far as most Brits were
concerned, is now a kingmaker. The UK Jewish Lobby is convinced, for
some reason, that the nature of Eisen’s relationship with Labour’s
leading candidate Jeremy Corbyn will determine the future of this country.

As we witness the most important political debate in Britain for
generations being hijacked by the Zionist media and ‘Jewish
sensitivities’, the time is ripe to ask: who is Paul Eisen?

Eisen has been described by the Jewish press and its acolytes as an
‘anti Semite’ and a ‘holocaust denier’, but peculiarly, no one mentions
that Eisen is actually a Jew who sometimes even speaks ‘as a Jew’.

Eisen’s ‘crime’ seems obvious - he doesn’t adhere to the Zionist
orthodox Shoah narrative. But Eisen doesn’t dispute the fact that German
National Socialism despised the Jewish race, he doesn’t dispute the mass
deportation of Jews, he doesn’t condone German National Socialist racism
against Jews and others. Eisen doesn’t dispute the fact that many Jews
died under the Nazi regime in some horrid and unfortunate circumstances.
However, Eisen is sceptical on issues to do with the homicidal nature of
the Nazi operation. He is not convinced that the Germans used gas
chambers as a death factory. [...]

Eisen was tormented (as a Jew) to find out that the Israeli Holocaust
museum Yad Vashem was erected on the lands of Ayn Karim, a ethnically
cleansed Palestinian village
<http://www.palestineremembered.com/Jerusalem/Ayn-Karim/>. Eisen was
tortured when he realised that Yad Vashem was built in proximity to Deir
Yassin, a Palestinian village that was erased along with its inhabitants
in a colossal cold-blooded massacre by Jewish paramilitaries in 1948
<http://www.palestineremembered.com/Jerusalem/Dayr-Yasin/>.

Just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the newly born
Jewish state wiped out a civilization in Palestine in the name of a
racist Jewish nationalist ideology. It is this vile cynicism that turned
Eisen into a denier – a denier of the primacy of Jewish suffering. In
his eyes, if the Jews could commit the massacre in Deir Yassin after
Auschwitz, the holocaust must be denied because it failed to mature into
a universal ethical message.

(11) Jeremy Corbyn and the Jews - Gilad Atzmon
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/8/17/jeremy-corbyn-and-the-jews

Jeremy Corbyn and the Jews

August 17, 2015

By Gilad Atzmon

The relationship between Jeremy Corbyn and British Jews can be
summarized into a brief observation:

While Corbyn’s success represents a hugely popular shift within British
political thinking, the orchestrated Jewish campaign against him is
there to suggest that once again, Jews set themselves against the people
they dwell upon.

The vastly growing popularity of Jeremy Corbyn amongst Brits can be
easily explained. Following decades of cultural Marxist, divisive
Identiterian politics and Zionist-Neocon domination within the British
Left, Corbyn brings along a refreshing ideological alternative. Corbyn
seems to re-unite the Brits. He cares for the weak. He opposes
interventionist wars. He represents the return of the good old left as
opposed to New Labour’s affinity with big money, choseness  and
exceptionalism. He cares for the students and the youth. He thinks about
the future and promises to undo the damage created by Blair and Cameron.
But as Britain sees the rise of a hugely popular ideological movement,
many Jewish institutions see Corbyn as an arch enemy. They would prefer
to see him gone and have used nearly every trick in the book to
discredit him.

In the last few days we have noticed a tidal wave of Jewish
institutional opposition to Corbyn. First it was the Daily Mail that
attempted to throw Zionist mud in the direction of the man who is
destined to take over what is left out of the Labour party.
Surprisingly, not a single British media outlet picked the Mail’s dirt
for a few days. Eventually the notorious Zionist Jewish Chronicle had to
take the gloves off just ahead of Sabbath and lead the battle against
the emerging socialist leader.

In the weekend the Jewish Chronicle (JC) outlined its problems with
Corbyn while claiming to “speak for the vast majority of British Jews…
expressing deep foreboding at the prospect of Mr Corbyn’s election as
Labour leader.”

Apparently, on behalf of ‘the vast majority of British Jews,’ The JC
wanted to know whether it is true that Corbyn donated money to Dier
Yassin Remembered (DYR), an organisation that was founded to commemorate
the brutal massacre of an entire Palestinian village by right wing
Jewish paramilitary fighters in 1948. I guess that the tens of thousands
who joined the labour party in the last weeks just to support the first
true British labour ideologist for generations were delighted to learn
that their favourite candidate supported DYR and truly opposes Zionist
barbarism.

On behalf of the “vast majority of British Jews” the JC demanded to be
fully informed about the non-existent relationship between Corbyn and
British DYR chairman Paul Eisen. The JC didn’t approve of the connection
between Corbyn and pro-Palestinian Rev Stephen Sizer either. Corbyn was
also asked to clarify his association with the Hamas, the Hezbollah and
Palestinian cleric Raead Salah. I guess that the JC editorial would like
to define the list of kosher ‘friends’ eligible for British elected
politicians. Until this happens, the message that is delivered by the
Brits is lucid: it is actually Corbyn’s firm stand on justice and his
ability to befriend true freedom fighters and humanists which makes him
into the most popular politician in Britain at the moment.

If someone in the JC fails to read the picture, I will outline it in the
clearest form. British people are expressing a clear fatigue of
corrupted party politics as much as they are tired of Zionist
interventionist wars. They are begging for a change, they demand
equality and the prospect of a better future and a leader with ethical
integrity. Whether Corbyn can provide these qualities, time will tell.
But the British yearning for a radical change has been formally established.

Disrespectfully and outrageously, in the open and on behalf of “the vast
majority of British Jews”, the JC set an ultimatum to the most popular
man in British politics.

“If Mr Corbyn is not to be regarded from the day of his election as an
enemy of Britain’s Jewish community, he has a number of questions which
he must answer in full and immediately.”

One would expect the JC editorial to learn something from Jewish
history. Those British Jews who insist to speak ‘on behalf’ of their
people should at least pretend to uphold some minimal respect to British
good manners.

The JC, however, admitted that Corbyn ignored them for over a week – “No
response has been forthcoming” from Corbyn or his office, the JC wrote.
  Though I do not have any reason to believe that Corbyn has a cell of
hatred in his body, I wouldn’t like to see him bowing to Jewish
political pressure. What we need is a firm British leader dedicated to
equality, justice, peace and British interests instead of just another
Sabbos Goy and servant of the Lobby as well as big money.

(12) Corbyn condemns Kaufman claims over 'Jewish money' influencing
Tories on Israel


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-condemns-unacceptable-kaufman-claims-over-jewish-money-influencing-tories-on-israel-a6719731.html

Jeremy Corbyn condemns 'unacceptable' Kaufman claims over 'Jewish money'
influencing Tories on Israel

Labour whips have raised the issue with Gerald Kaufman

Jon Stone

Tuesday 3 November 2015 16:00 BST |

Jeremy Corbyn has criticised one of his MPs for making “unacceptable”
claims that money from Jewish donors had influence the Conservatives’
policy on Israel.

Gerald Kaufman, who is himself Jewish, had said “Jewish money, Jewish
donations to the Conservative Party” had led to a pro-Israel “bias” in
the Conservatives.

Mr Corbyn, a longstanding critic of Israel, said Labour whips had been
ordered to speak to Mr Kaufman about the comments.

“Last week’s reported comments by Sir Gerald Kaufman about the Jewish
community, the Conservative party and Israel are completely unacceptable
and deeply regrettable,” he said in a statement.

“Such remarks are damaging to community relations, and also do nothing
to benefit the Palestinian cause. I have always implacably opposed all
forms of racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and will continue to do so.

“At my request, the Chief Whip has met Sir Gerald and expressed my deep
concern.”

READ MORE

   Jeremy Corbyn answers critics' 'ludicrous and wrong' anti-semitism

   Jewish leader warns that anti-Semitism in Europe is "like the 1930s"

   Netanyahu may not be a popular choice, but beware those who use his

After the news was announced, Simon Johnson, the chief executive of the
Jewish Leadership Council, said:

“The fact that Mr Corbyn has distanced himself from Sir Gerald’s
despicable comments is in itself a welcome intervention. We await a
response from the Chief Whip as to whether any further disciplinary
action will be taken and, of course, if Sir Gerald will apologise.”

The initial remarks made by Mr Kaufman led to groups including the Board
of Deputies of British Jews writing to Labour’s whip’s office requesting
disciplinary action.

The comments were made at a meeting in Parliament last Tuesday.

Mr Corbyn was criticised by the newspaper the Jewish Chronicle during
the Labour leadership campaign for apparently associating with people
with allegedly anti-Semitic views.

He was also heckled by a supporter of Israel during the Labour Party
conference at a reception run by the Labour Friends of Israel.

(13) In Clear Sight of Yad Vashem  - by Paul Eisen
http://www.deiryassin.org/byboard18a.html

In Clear Sight of Yad Vashem (January 2003) By Paul Eisen

"The central part of Deir Yassin is a cluster of buildings now used as a
mental hospital. To the east lies the industrial area of Givat Shaul; to
the north lies Har Hamenuchot (the Jewish cemetery), to the west, built
into the side of the mountain on which Deir Yassin is located is Har
Nof, a new settlement of orthodox Jews. To the south is a steep valley
terraced and containing part of the Jerusalem Forest. On the other side
of that valley, roughly a mile and a half from Deir Yassin and in clear
view of it, are Mount Herzl and Yad Vashem."
- Dan McGowan, "Remembering Deir Yassin"

Deir Yassin is as important a part of Jewish as it is of Palestinian
history. Deir Yassin, coming in April 1948, just three years after the
liberation of Auschwitz in January 1945, marks a Jewish transition from
enslavement to empowerment and from abused to abuser. Can there ever
have been such a remarkable shift, over such a short period, in the
history of a people?

Deir Yassin also signalled the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians
leading to their eventual dispossession and exile and was just one
example of a conscious and premeditated plan to destroy the Palestinians
as a people in their own homeland. For the fifty-odd years since the
establishment of the state of Israel, successive Israeli governments
whether Labour or Likud, and whether by force as at Deir Yassin, or by
chicanery as at Oslo and Camp David, have followed the same policy of
oppressing and dispossessing Palestinians to make way for an exclusively
Jewish state. Even now, when Israel could have peace and security for
the asking, Israeli governments persist in their original intention of
conquering the whole of Palestine for the use of the Jewish people
alone. And all this was done, and is still being done, by Jews, for Jews
and in the name of Jews.

But should we, as Jews, feel ourselves culpable? After all, these are
the crimes of Zionists not of Jews committed in a different place and
time. Are we, Jews who were not there, who were not even born at the
time, to feel responsible for these deeds? And anyway, not all Jews
committed these crimes, so surely not all Jews need accept responsibility?

But Zionism and the state of Israel now lie at the very heart of Jewish
life and so many Jews have benefited from the associated empowerment. So
many Jews, even if unaffiliated officially to Zionism, have still
supported it in its aims. Indeed, almost the entire organised Jewish
establishments throughout the western world, in Israel, Europe and North
America have used their power, influence and, most importantly, their
moral prestige to support Israel in its attempts to subjugate the
Palestinians. And not only have they offered their support for these
crimes. These same groups and individuals are also telling the rest of
the world that it's not really happening, that Israel is not the
aggressor, that Israel is not trying to destroy the Palestinian people,
that black is white. And not only do they deny this reality, anyone who
dares say otherwise is branded an anti-Semite and excluded from society.

This militarization and politicisation of Jewish life, this silencing of
dissent, this bowing down before the God of the state of Israel, is this
the tradition that was handed down to us, and what does this leave us to
pass on to our children? If we are really honest with ourselves, should
we not, as suggested by Marc Ellis, replace every Torah scroll, in every
ark, in every synagogue in the Jewish world, with a helicopter gunship?
Because, as Ellis says, "what we do, we worship".

That the relationship with the Palestinian people is fractured is
self-evident, but what of the relationships within our own community and
the relationship with our own history and tradition? Are these also not
affected? And how does one repair a fractured relationship? As with an
old friend whom one has offended, but to whom one has never acknowledged
the offence, surely only the absolute truth will do.

So, for the sake of the future of Jewish life, there can only be one
solution - a complete and full confession that what we Jews have done to
the Palestinian people is wrong and what we are doing to the Palestinian
people is wrong, and, with that confession, a resolve, as far as is
possible, to put the matter right.

And where better to begin than at Deir Yassin - the scene of the crime
against the Palestinian people, the place of transition from enslavement
to empowerment and from abused to abuser? For Deir Yassin, in clear
sight of Yad Vashem, the symbol of our own tragedy, is the symbol of the
tragedy visited by us on another people. Where better to begin this
process of confession and restitution?

But will they come? Will Jews come to commemorate Deir Yassin? For the
overwhelming majority, the answer is a resounding "no". Jews will not
come to Deir Yassin. Jews will not confess to the Palestinian people.
For most Jews, commemoration of Deir Yassin is tantamount to siding with
the enemy, to conspiring to destroy Israel and the Jewish people. Buoyed
up by their own propaganda and blinded by their sense of innocence and
victimhood, most Jews will not join with Palestinians in commemorating
Deir Yassin.

But there is a fringe of Jews who do not take this view, Jews who do not
share this vision of the Jewish establishments. These Jews, who
generally make up what is known as the "Peace Camp," do not wish to see
the complete destruction of the Palestinian people but, instead, wish to
come to some kind of accommodation with them. These Jews, whilst also
uneasy about coming to Deir Yassin, will at least talk about it. What of
them?

These Jews will often say, "Yes, we will join Palestinians in
commemorating Deir Yassin when Palestinians join us in commemorating
Maalot" or "We will remember Deir Yassin when Palestinians remember the
more recent Sbarro Pizza Bar bombing", We then point out that we don't
commemorate Deir Yassin because it was a massacre. (If we did, we would
be commemorating every day of the week, every week of the year since
there were plenty of massacres, on both sides) We commemorate because
Deir Yassin is a symbol of the Palestinian catastrophe rather as Anne
Frank is a symbol of the Holocaust. After all, as Anne Frank was just
one child so Deir Yassin was just one village.

So then these Jews say, "Okay, we shall commemorate Deir Yassin when
Palestinians commemorate Auschwitz". To this we have to say, "Yes, but
Palestinians didn't do Auschwitz to us; we did do Deir Yassin to them".
These Jews also don't want to admit that what they have done to the
Palestinians is wrong, and what they are doing to the Palestinians is
wrong. Nor do these Jews really want to make restitution to the
Palestinians. These Jews, just like those who flatly refuse to come to
Deir Yassin and make no apologies, these, more moderate Jews, also want
to assert their power. But, unlike the others, they want to keep their
innocence as well. And this is not easy. At one time they simply told
themselves that it had never happened, but now, largely thanks to the
new Israeli historians, this is no longer possible. So they dress it up
in what Professor Walid Khalidi has called "the sin of moral
equivalence". They say, "This is not a case of one people trying to
destroy another, of a victim and a perpetrator; this is a conflict, a
conflict between two rights and both sides have suffered terribly. If
only both sides would understand each other's suffering, all will be
well." So these Jews say that they will come to Deir Yassin and, once
there, will say to Palestinians, "Okay, we've suffered; you've suffered,
let's talk". To which we have to say, "No, it's not we've suffered,
you've suffered, let's talk"; it's "We've suffered and we've caused you
to suffer; NOW let's talk". Deir Yassin is surely about peace and
reconciliation, but the peace cannot be the peace and quiet for the
victor to go on robbing the victims, and the reconciliation cannot be
the reconciliation of the victims reconciling themselves with their
victim-hood.

But for those few Jews of conscience who do make it to our
commemorations, for that tiny remnant who do wish to remember and to
confess, what will they find? First, they will encounter a people and a
narrative that they may never have met or heard before. For most Jews,
Palestinians remain stereotyped as biblical shepherds, refugees or
terrorists, and their story is largely unknown. To encounter the
Palestinian community, as so many Jews did for the first time at our
London commemorations, is to encounter a community not only human and
diverse, but, most importantly, so very like their own.

They will also be witness to Palestinians remembering their own tragedy.
For many Palestinians, particularly those old enough to have been
present at the events being remembered, Deir Yassin commemorations can
be very emotional. Silently to accompany these people as they remember
their tragic history is, for any Jew of conscience, a deeply moving
experience.

Thirdly, and so importantly, they will encounter a story of
dispossession and exile so reminiscent of their own. For any Jew, the
Palestinian father who was dragged out of his home in Deir Yassin, as
re-enacted at the London 2001 commemoration, could so easily have been a
surrendered ghetto fighter in Warsaw 1941, and that bourgeois Madame, in
her now-bedraggled fur coat trudging the road out of Jaffa and into
exile, was nothing if not a Berliner boarding a train for Riga in 1942.

Finally, they will have the opportunity and the privilege to say, loud
and clear, with no ifs and buts, "what we have done to the Palestinian
people is wrong and what we are doing to the Palestinian people is
wrong. Let us now work together to put it right."

Paul Eisen

Paul Eisen is the London-based director of Deir Yassin Remembered
paul@eisen.demon.co.uk

(14) Paul Eisen: every example of Jewish suffering is used to justify
the crimes of Israel

http://www.righteousjews.org/article19.html

Speaking the Truth to Jews

  By Paul Eisen

What Israel and Zionism have done, and are doing, to the Palestinians is
indefensible, yet so many Jews defend it. How and why do they do this?
And why does the rest of the world seem complicit and unable to speak out?

The Original Sin

Many arguments can be advanced in favour of a Jewish state in Palestine,
from the simple right of the Jewish people to national
self-determination, the right of Jews to return to their ancestral
homeland, and the need of a suffering and persecuted people for a haven
where they can be safe and secure.

Jews can define themselves as they wish. If they feel themselves to be a
nation, then they are a nation. But, in accordance with the dictum, that
'your freedom to swing your arm ends where your finger touches my nose',
it is when this self-definition impinges on others that the problems
begin. It is then that others may ask whether this Jewish sense of
nationhood-often an emotional and religious matter based on a perceived
sharing of history and even of destiny-can ever be realised politically.
What it boils down to is this: Jews, like any other people, may have the
right to establish and maintain a state of their own, but, do Jews have
the right to establish and maintain a state of their own in Palestine,
already the home of the Palestinians? All this may, and will be argued,
but what is beyond dispute is that, for Jewish national
self-determination and statehood, it is the Palestinians who have paid a
terrible price.

By 1947-48, Palestinians had been reduced to a state of anxiety and
insecurity, and in 1948, when the State of Israel was established, a
traditional Palestinian society was no match for its democratic,
egalitarian and fiercely ideological foe. As a consequence, an entire
way of life was obliterated. At least 750,000 Palestinians were driven
from their homes and into exile, more than 450 of their towns and
villages were destroyed or pillaged and people who had lived a settled
life for generations ended up either in tents in Lebanon, Syria or
Jordan, or as a bereft and traumatised diaspora in every corner of the
earth.

Nor was all this an unintended by-product of war. Although the idea that
the Palestinians just 'ran away' has, in the main, been dispelled, we
are still left with many stories, obfuscations and downright lies about
where responsibility lies for this ethnic cleansing. The critical issue
now centres on the question of intentionality.

The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, like most instances of ethnic
cleansing, was intentional, premeditated and planned. But we need not
bother looking for direct documentation. Although there is mounting
evidence for the desires and intentions of the Zionist leadership to
cleanse the land of Palestinians, the architects of the Nakba left no
'smoking gun'. There was no written order, because there was no need for
a written order. Like other instances of ethnic cleansing, the expulsion
of the Palestinians was done on 'understandings'. As Ilan Pappé has
noted, every local Haganah commander, and all the men under their
command at every village and town, knew exactly what was required.
Sometimes a few shots in the air would be sufficient, and sometimes a
full-blown massacre was needed. However, the result was always the same.[1]

This was the original sin. Since then, the sin has been compounded many
times over, as Israel has continued its assault on Palestinians and
Palestinian life. From border raids and massacres to the occupation and
the settlements, to the slaughter of 20,000 in Lebanon, through
provocations, closures, expulsions, demolitions, arrests, torture and
assassinations, right up to the chicaneries of Oslo and the Roadmap
where Palestinians were to be bamboozled into going into their cage
quietly, Israel and Zionism have sought to destroy the Palestinians, if
not always physically, then certainly as a people in their own land.

"...While we babble and rave…"

     "...Only then will the old and young in our land realise how great
was our responsibility to those miserable Arab refugees in whose towns
we have settled Jews who were brought from afar; whose homes we have
inherited, whose fields we now sow and harvest; the fruits of whose
gardens, orchards and vineyards we gather; and in whose cities that we
robbed, we put up houses of education, charity and prayer while we
babble and rave about being the 'people of the Book' and the 'light of
the nations!'" (Buber/Chofshi).[2]

For a relatively small number of Jews, support for what is being done to
the Palestinians is a relatively easy matter. God gave the land to the
Jews, the Palestinians are Amalek, and if they will not submit to Jewish
rule they must, and will, be destroyed. Just like those Germans who
relinquished Nazism only when the Russians were on the streets of
Berlin, such Jews will abandon their militant, eliminationist Zionism
only when the options finally close down. [...]

Many Jews, now aware of the injustice associated with the establishment
of Israel, but still unable to relinquish their belief in Israel's
essential innocence, have congregated around the slogans: "End the
occupation!" and "Two states for two peoples!" That there is no
'occupation', and that there will never be a true Palestinian state on
the West Bank and Gaza, are simply denied.

The long-term Zionist strategy for the conquest of Palestine was always
to wait for what Ben-Gurion called 'revolutionary situations', meaning
situations which would provide cover under which the take-over of
Palestine could be completed. The first of these 'revolutionary
situations' presented itself in 1947 and 1948, when, under the cover of
the conflict, 78 percent of historic Palestine was transformed into
Israel. Another such situation presented itself in 1967.

Israel in 1967 was not the innocent party threatened with annihilation
by the Arab states (though its population probably thought it was).
Israel had been preparing for such a war for years. Neither was Israel's
victory anything other then totally expected by anyone who was even a
little bit in the know. Like the 1947-48 conflict, the war of 1967 was
an opportunity gladly taken for the take-over of the remaining 22
percent of Palestine. This was the fulfilment of Zionism's historic
mission. ...

To talk about 'a cycle of violence' in the Middle East between Israelis
and Palestinians is to commit the sin of 'moral equivalence.'[3]

Conceived in the Israeli and Jewish peace camps, taken up by the
mainstream and pretty much the entire solidarity movement, and now
underpinning all acceptable discourse on Israel and Palestine, is the
notion that the conflict in Israel/Palestine is not the brutal
dispossession and oppression of one people by another, but a tragic
conflict between two equal, but conflicting rights. [...]

But it is not true that neither has heard the other's story.
Palestinians have heard the Zionist story ad nauseam, and they have
certainly heard enough about Jewish suffering. It is not, then, both
sides that need to listen: it is Israelis, and Jews who need to listen.

But, as is heard so often from inside the Jewish and Israeli peace
camps, both sides have a point of view, and both sides must be heard;
both sides have suffered, and right or wrong is never on one side only.
This, of course, is true, but did these same Jews, then struggling
against apartheid and now campaigning for the 'justice' of a
disempowered statelet for Palestinians on a mere remnant of what was
once their homeland - and many were the same Jews - say then that we had
to see both sides of the picture? They did not. They acknowledged that
white South Africans were as deserving of peace and prosperity as black
South Africans, but they never lost sight of who was the victim and who
was the perpetrator. [...]

Even for the least observant Jew, Jewish identity is a complex and
resonant issue, and Jewishness may be experienced a long way from the
synagogue, the yeshiva, or any other formal aspect of Jewish life.
Jewish history, inextricably linked with Judaism, is also the bedrock of
many secular Jews' sense of Jewish identity. The founders of modern
political Zionism, as secular a bunch as one could meet, still had a
powerful sense of their history, and even destiny, with all the
inevitable emotional and religious overtones. For many of them, and
certainly for many of the Jewish masses who offered their allegiance,
the founding of a Jewish state in Palestine was, if not overtly
religious, still profoundly emotional and spiritual.

Many of the founding fathers of the modern state defined themselves as
socialists. Unable to choose between their socialism and their Zionism,
they tried to combine the two, believing that Zionism and Socialism
could go hand in hand in building a Jewish state, founded on principles
of equality and social justice, an absurdity really, since the one stood
for universal principles and the other for Jewish ethnic interests. The
motto of Hashomer Hatzair (The Young Guard), which formed the core of
the 'left-Zionist' Mapam party, "Le tzionut, le sozialism ve le achvat
amim" ("For Zionism, socialism, and internationalism") is significant in
that Zionism always came first. [...]

But there was another Zionism: Cultural or Spiritual Zionism that
envisioned a Jewish community, a spiritual, religious and cultural
centre in Palestine, living in peace and equality with the Palestinians.
These voices of bi-nationalism, led by such as Ahad Ha'am, Martin Buber
and Judah Magnes, were small in number and increasingly marginalised. In
retrospect it is hard to see that they had any effect on Zionist policy,
or made much difference to present-day Zionist ideology. [...]

It is understandable that Jews might believe that their suffering is
greater, more mysterious and meaningful than that of any other people.
It is even understandable that Jews might feel that their suffering can
justify the oppression of another people. What is harder to understand
is why the rest of the world has gone along with it. That Jews have
suffered is undeniable. But acknowledgement of this suffering is rarely
enough. Jews and others have demanded that not only should Jewish
suffering be acknowledged, but that it also be accorded special status.
Jewish suffering is held to be unique, central and most importantly,
mysterious.

Jewish suffering is rarely measured against the sufferings of other
groups. Blacks, women, children, gays, workers, peasants, minorities of
all kinds, all have suffered, but none as much as Jews. Protestants at
the hands of Catholics, Catholics at the hands of Protestants, pagans
and heretics, all have suffered religious persecution, but none as
relentlessly as Jews. Indians, Armenians, gypsies and aborigines, all
have been targeted for elimination, but none as murderously and as
premeditatedly as Jews.

Jewish suffering is held to be mysterious, and beyond explanation.
Context is rarely examined. The place and role of Jews in society -
their historical relationships with Church and state, landlords and
peasantry - is hardly ever subject to scrutiny, and, whilst non-Jewish
attitudes to Jews are the subject of intense interest, Jewish attitudes
to non-Jews are rarely mentioned. Attempts to confront these issues are
met with suspicion, and sometimes hostility, in the fear that
explanation may lead to rationalisation, which may lead to exculpation,
and then even to justification.

The Holocaust, "the ultimate mystery"

The stakes in this already fraught game have been raised so much higher
by the Holocaust. Is the Holocaust 'The ultimate mystery, never to be
comprehended or transmitted', as Elie Wiesel would have us believe?[5]
Are attempts to question the Holocaust narrative merely a cover for the
wish to deny or even to justify the Holocaust? Was Jewish suffering in
the Holocaust greater and of more significance than that of anyone else?
Were the three million Polish Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis
more important than the three million Polish non-Jews who also died?
Twenty million black Africans, a million Ibos, a million Kampucheans,
Armenians, aborigines, all have perished in genocides, but none as
meaningfully as the six million Jews slaughtered in the only genocide to
be theologically named, and now perceived by Jews and the rest of the
Western world to be an event of near religious significance.

Whether there is anything special about Jews is not really relevant.
What is relevant is that a large part of the Western world, even the
most secular part, seems to believe that there is, or are not confident
enough in their disbelief to say so. Similarly, whether the world
believes that Jewish suffering is qualitatively and quantitatively
different from all other suffering is also irrelevant. The fact is that
most people seem compelled to agree that it is, or to remain silent.

Christianity occupies a central place in Western culture and experience
and Jews occupy a central place in the Christian narrative, so it is no
surprise that Jews and Jewish concerns receive a lot of attention. The
Western world, though largely secular but still Christian in its
cultural foundations, seems at times obsessed with Jews, and unable to
see them for what, in the words of Richard Rubenstein, they may well be,
"a people like any other whose religion and culture were shaped so as to
make it possible for them to cope with their very distinctive history
and location among the peoples of the world."[6] Jewish life seems at
times to be at the very heart of Western concerns. And this goes way
beyond the religious contexts. From Jewish history, stories of struggle
from the Hebrew Bible, such as the Exodus from Egypt, have become
paradigms for other people's struggles and aspirations. The emigration
of Jews from Eastern Europe into their Golden Land in America has become
as American a legend as the Wild West. Jewish folklore and myth,
stereotypes of Jewish humour, food, family life-all are deeply woven
into the fabric of Western, particularly American, life.

Christian attitudes towards Jews are complex and contradictory: Jesus
was born a Jew and died a Jew, and yet, traditionally, His teachings
supersede those of Judaism. Jesus lived amongst Jews, His message was
shaped by Jews, yet He was rejected by Jews, and, it has been widely
believed, died at the behest of Jews. So, for many Christians, Jews are
both the people of God and the people who rejected God, and are objects
of both great veneration and great loathing. Jewish suffering at the
hands of the Christian majority is a matter of great shame and guilt.
Yet still, in the minds of some Christians, and possibly buried deep
within many more, are notions that the suffering of Jews is, for the
killers of a God, deserved. This ambivalence is reflected in the secular
world too, where Jews are widely admired for their history and
traditions and for their creativity and success, yet are also regarded
with some suspicion and dislike for their exclusivity and supposed sense
of their own 'specialness'. Jews seem either loved or hated, and, now
since the Holocaust, publicly at least, they seem loved, or at least if
not loved, then certainly, indulged.

During much of their history in Europe Jews were persecuted, culminating
most recently in the slaughter in the death camps. The relationship
between that ultimate slaughter and the centuries of antisemitism that
preceded it, the relationship of the Church to that antisemitism, and
the intensity and duration of persecutions of Jews throughout history,
all of this is appropriate for examination. The nature of those
persecutions may also be investigated, and even the possible collusion
by Jews themselves in their own victimhood, all may be subject to proper
scrutiny. But, just as in the struggle between Israelis and Palestinians
there can be no argument about who are the victims and who are the
perpetrators, there can be no doubt that, for much of their history in
Europe, Jews were victims. Western society, both Christian and secular,
bears a heavy responsibility for Jewish suffering, and this
responsibility is now rightly being taken very seriously indeed.

But what, when these legitimate feelings of responsibility are employed
to conceal rather than reveal the truth? What, when Christian and other
responsibility for Jewish suffering is used to justify the oppression of
another people? What, when even the issue of who is the victim and who
is the perpetrator becomes confused, when yesterday's victim becomes
today's perpetrator, and when today's perpetrator uses its past
victimhood to justify its present abuse of another people? [...]

This article is a chapter in Speaking the Truth about Zionism and
Israel, edited by Michael Prior and published by Melisende (London)
March 2004.

(15) Martin Buber: causeless hatred ... is bound to bring complete ruin
upon us ... while we babble and rave about being the "People of the
Book" and the "light of the nations"


http://www.wrmea.org/jews-for-justice/the-origin-of-the-palestine-israel-conflict-jewish-criticism-of-zionism.html

The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict
Jewish Criticism of Zionism

"Martin Buber—'Only an internal revolution can have the power to heal
our people of their murderous sickness of causeless hatred...It is bound
to bring complete ruin upon us. Only then will the old and young in our
land realize how great was our responsibility to those miserable Arab
refugees in whose towns we have settled Jews who were brought here from
afar; whose homes we have inherited, whose fields we now sow and
harvest; the fruits of whose gardens, orchards and vineyards we gather;
and in whose cities that we robbed we put up houses of education,
charity, and prayer, while we babble and rave about being the "People of
the Book" and the "light of the nations"'...

Martin Buber on what Zionism should have been

"The first fact is that at the time when we entered into an alliance (an
alliance, I admit, that was not well defined) with a European state and
we provided that state with a claim to rule over Palestine, we made no
attempt to reach an agreement with the Arabs of this land regarding the
basis and conditions for the continuation of Jewish settlement.

This negative approach caused those Arabs who thought about and were
concerned about the future of their people to see us increasingly not as
a group which desired to live in cooperation with their people but as
something in the nature of uninvited guests and agents of foreign
interests (at the time I explicitly pointed out this fact).

"The second fact is that we took hold of the key economic positions in
the country without compensating the Arab population, that is to say
without allowing their capital and their labor a share in our economic
activity. Paying the large landowners for purchases made or paying
compensation to tenants on the land is not the same as compensating a
people. As a result, many of the more thoughtful Arabs viewed the
advance of Jewish settlement as a kind of plot designed to dispossess
future generations of their people of the land necessary for their
existence and development. Only by means of a comprehensive and vigorous
economic policy aimed at organizing and developing common interests
would it have been possible to contend with this view and its inevitable
consequences. This we did not do.

"The third fact is that when a possibility arose that the Mandate would
soon be terminated, not only did we not propose to the Arab population
of the country that a joint Jewish Arab administration be set up in its
place, we went ahead and demanded rule over the whole country (the
Biltmore program) as a fitting political sequel to the gains we had
already made. By this step, we with our own hands provided our enemies
in the Arab camp with aid and comfort of the most valuable sort—the
support of public opinion—without which the military attack launched
against us would not have been possible. For it now appears to the Arab
populace that in carrying on the activities we have been engaged in for
years, in acquiring land and in working and developing the land, we were
systematically laying the ground work for gaining control of the whole
country." - Martin Buber, quoted in "A Land of Two Peoples" ed. Mendes-Flohr



No comments:

Post a Comment