Questioning Jewish Progressive Wisdom

November 02, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

 There is an element of truth in the above…

There is an element of truth in the above…

By Gilad Atzmon

Earlier this week the Jewish Forward reported on Monday’s counter-Trump demonstration in Pittsburgh.

“They came in their thousands, singing Jewish songs and folksy protest anthems … (they were) holding signs denouncing Donald Trump as ‘President Hate.’”

I think it is not a clever move for leftist Jewish groups to declare that Trump is to blame for the terror attack in Pittsburgh. In fact, some might see it as irresponsible, and a response that could easily provoke further harassment and violence.

Most disturbing to me about the Jewish progressives’ response to Trump’s visit was the blunt dishonesty reflected in the signs and announcements of the protestors and organisers.

According to the Forward one sign read,

“you know who else was a nationalist? Hitler.”

Hitler was indeed a nationalist but so was Churchill, Gandhi, Herzl and even the 52% of the Brits who voted for Brexit. Nationalism isn’t the problem: Racism is.  Accordingly, we tend to believe that it was racism that drove Hitler’s discriminatory ideology. But the ‘progressive’  Jewish groups who opposed Trump this week aren’t free of racism. They themselves are operating as racially exclusive political groups. I have said it many times before. I struggle to see a categorical difference between Aryans only and Jews only clubs. To me, both are equally racist.

“Speakers from Bend the Arc, the progressive Jewish group that organised the march, castigated Trump and what they saw as his complicity in the attack, allegedly perpetrated by an anti-Semite who shared Trump’s anti-refugee views.”

It is comforting to learn that  Jewish progressives support some refugees; do they also support the Palestinian refugees?

Israel has prevented the ethnically cleansed Palestinians from returning  to their land for more than 70 years.  The Jewish State’s record on refugees and asylum seekers is appalling. But it seems the progressive Jews at Bend the Arc have little to say about that. I searched Bend the Arc’s web site and didn’t find any denouncements of the Jewish State’s anti refugee policies.  Maybe in the Jewish progressive universe one rule applies to the Jewish State and another rule to the sea of Goyim.

Noticeably,  the Bend the Arc event was not the only protest in town: A previous rally event had been held nearby, organized by the leftist Jewish group IfNotNow in collaboration with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and other groups.

“We know Trump is responsible for violence in our city,” IfNotNow and DSA organizer Arielle Cohen told the Forward. “ Trump has been the enabler-in-chief.” I fail to see the evidence that supports Cohen’s strongly worded accusations. And I wonder whether the decision makers at IfNotNow and JVP grasp the danger they may inflict on their communities by making such provocative accusations.

It is interesting to contrast this reaction to that of the members of the African American congregation that was targeted in 2015 by Dylann Roof, a self-professed racist shooter, who killed 9 people who had invited him into their bible study. After the shooting, Mr. Roof was unrepentant but the reaction of the victims and their families contrasts sharply with the progressive reaction to the Pittsburg massacre.

At Mr. Roof’s bond hearing, the victim’s relatives spoke directly to Roof. “You took something very precious from me”  Nadine Collier, the daughter of Ethel Lance said. “But I forgive you. And have mercy on your soul.”

“I acknowledge that I am very angry,” said the sister of DePayne Middleton-Doctor. “But one thing that DePayne … taught me that we are the family that love built. We have no room for hating, so we have to forgive. I pray God on your soul.”

Each speaker offered Roof forgiveness and said they were praying for his soul, even as they described the pain of their losses. Not one speaker blamed political leaders or anti Black sentiment. They correctly saw Roof as the culprit, even as they compassionately prayed for him. There is much to admire in the congregation’s reaction. It was the opposite of inflammatory, intended to calm the situation.

If the goal is to unite America, to bridge the divide and calm things down, probably equating your president with Hitler and accusing him of the hate crimes of others is the worst possible path to choose.

 

Advertisements

«إسرائيل» والتطبيع: الجولان في كفّة والخليج في كفّة

انتفاضة تُسقط «الانتخابات»: لا «مجالس إسرائيلية» في الجولان

أكتوبر 31, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– كان واضحاً المسعى الأميركي الإسرائيلي من ترتيب الزيارات الخليجية الصاخبة لكبار المسؤولين الإسرائيليين، يختالون بنشوة المنتصر بين المساجد والقصور، أن لا أفق سياسي فلسطيني يسمح بتحقيق حلم جاريد كوشنر بنجاح ولي العهد السعودي بتأمين الشريك الفلسطيني الوازن للتوقيع على التنازل عن القدس وحق العودة. وأن هذه الزيارات الاستعراضية المهينة للحكومات الخليجية التي شاركت في ترتيبها، لن تغير في حقيقة أن مصير القضية الفلسطينية والتوازنات التي تؤسس عليها لا يزال بيد الفلسطينيين، وأن المال الخليجي والنفوذ العربي يشتغلان عندما يواكبان مزاجاً فلسطينياً يمثل على الأقل نصف الفلسطينيين، فتمّ استعمال الشراكة الخليجية التطبيعية تعويضاً عن انسداد الأفق أمام الخطوات المرتجاة التي صارت أبعد فأبعد، بقوة الثبات الشعبي الفلسطيني الذي أغلق الأبواب على القادة واحتجزهم في مربع لا يمكنهم تخطّي حدوده. والتعويض التطبيعي جوهري بالنسبة لكيان الاحتلال في لحظة قلق وجودي على مستوى الرأي العام في كيان الاحتلال، وفي قلب حرب نفسية عنوانها كي الوعي وصناعة الوعي تدور رحاها بين قادة الكيان وقوى المقاومة، عنوانها الصراع بين معادلتين، واحدة تقول للمستوطنين كيانكم إلى زوال فلا تطمئنوا، وتقول للشعب الفلسطيني وشعوب المنطقة، ولّى زمن الهزائم وجاء زمن الانتصارات، وأخرى تقول للمستوطنين ها نحن قد أصبحنا كياناً طبيعياً من كيانات المنطقة فلا تقلقوا، وتقول لشعوب المنطقة وللفلسطينيين لا جدوى من المكابرة فالاعتراف بإسرائيل كأمر واقع يحقق النجاح بين الحكام العرب.

– القياس لاختبار المسار التطبيعي وتأثيره في جبهتي المواجهة العربية والإسرائيلية يكون في الميدان الشعبي وكيف يتصرّف، وهو تحت تأثير تلقي المشاهد التطبيعية، وقد جاءنا طازجاً من الجولان، حيث كانت مناسبة الانتخابات المحلية التي ينظمها كيان الاحتلال، وتشمل القرى والبلدات العربية السورية المحتلة، ومثلها قرى وبلدات عربية فلسطينية محتلة في الجليل، وفيما شهدت قرى وبلدات في الجليل مواجهات مع شرطة الاحتلال رفضاً للانتخابات، شهد الجولان انتفاضة شاملة منعت إجراء الانتخابات، تعبيراً عن التمسّك بالهوية السورية العربية، ورفضاً للتطبيع مع كيان الاحتلال، وخرجت وسائل الإعلام الإسرائيلية تقول إن أنصار الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد ربحوا الجولة على إسرائيل داخل الجولان، رغم أن بعض الذين صرّحوا بتمجيد انتفاضة الجولان أرادوا تغييب الهوية السياسية للعرب السوريين المنتفضين في الجولان كمتمسكين بدولتهم ورئيسهم وجيشهم، ومعنى هذه الانتفاضة في الجولان في توقيت الزيارات التطبيعية، أن قوى المقاومة تربح جولة الحرب النفسية، وأن زيارات التطبيع تذهب هباء منثوراً، وأنه عندما وقف الجولان في كفّة والخليج في كفّة، ربح الجولان بالضربة القاضية.

– يعرف قادة كيان الاحتلال أن لا نفع يُرتجى من الاستقبالات الخليجية ما لم يتم صرفه سياسياً ومعنوياً داخل الأراضي المحتلة، سواء بين العرب أو بين المستوطنين. وهم اليوم يقولون إن عيون المستوطنين مسمّرة على قراءة حدث الجولان ويقولون ما نفع أن نزور عاصمة خليجية ولا نستطيع العودة لننام بأمان في الجغرافيا التي يقوم عليها الكيان، بينما يقول العرب في المناطق المحتلة إن الهوية العربية لا يمثّلها المطبّعون، وإنهم ينتمون فقط لمن يحمل راية المقاومة بين العرب ويفتخرون بهويتهم التي تجسّد هذه الروح، ولا يفتّ في عضدهم وثباتهم لا أمير ولا ملك ولا سلطان، فلهم عروبتهم ولنا عروبتنا.

Related Videos

Related Articles

المملكة المريضة

أكتوبر 22, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– ليس خافياً حجم الفضيحة الذي تسبّب به للعالم انكشاف درجة الانتماء العميق للسعودية إلى القرون الوسطى رغم طلاء الحداثة الذي حاولت بمعونة أصدقائها وحلفائها تغطية التخلف والتوحش اللذين تغرق فيهما. فالعالم متلعثم أمام عجزه عن الصمت وعجزه عن الكلام، حيث لا يريد أحد من الكبار أن يترك الغنيمة المالية التي تمثلها السعودية لسواه، بعدما لم يتبقّ فيها سواه، فقضية مقتل جمال الخاشقجي لم تفضح جديداً قديماً معلوماً عن السعودية، قدّمت الحرب على اليمن أمثالاً مضاعفة عنه، بتجويع متعمّد بلا رحمة لملايين اليمنيين، وبقتل منظم للمدنيين بكلّ قسوة ووحشية، لكن العالم أراد أن يغمض عينيه، ويتغاضى. قضية الخاشقجي فضحت حكومات الغرب التي وجدت لسانها مرتبكاً وعاجزاً عن الكلام، فصار ينطق بالتقسيط تحت ضربات الرأي العام المتحفز لطرح معادلة، أيّهما أهمّ مال السعودية لقاء الصمت على الجرائم والوحشية ورعاية الإرهاب أم حماية الأمن وتكريس منظومة قيَم تحكم العالم لحفظه، بعدما صار الجمع صعباً إن لم يكن مع كل يوم يمرّ يبدو مستحيلاً.

– قدّم الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب نموذجاً للجواب عن السؤال بقول علني، كان مرات مهيناً للسعودية ومرات مدافعاً عن رموز حكمها، عنوانه المال السعودي يستحق التضحية بالقيَم وبالمعايير والتعايش مع التوحش والجريمة والفساد، والإرهاب أيضاً طالما أنه قابل للتوظيف في حروب بات الغرب عاجزاً عن خوضها، ومقابل ترامب نهضت حملة عالية السقوف وغير مسبوقة بوجه هذا الدلع الذي تحظى به السعودية، والذي يشبه في غير مواضيع الحقوق الفلسطينية، الدلع الذي تحظى به «إسرائيل». فطالما السعودية لا تستخدم مالها أو المكانة الناجمة عنه والتسهيلات التي تحوزها بسببه لحماية الحقوق الفلسطينية، فهي تستحق دلالاً موازياً لـ «إسرائيل» في الصمت عن جرائمها بحق الفلسطينيين، كيف إذا وقفت السعودية بمالها وتوظيف مكانتها المستمدّة من استضافة الحرمين الشريفين، في ضفة تسويق التطبيع مع «إسرائيل» إلى حدّ إشهار التحالف معها تحت شعار العداء المشترك لإيران؟

– لا يختلف أصحاب الحملة التي تدعو لتقليم الأظافر السعودية مع ترامب في أمرين، الأول مواصلة الحماية المطلقة لـ «إسرائيل»، والثانية الارتياح لتخلي السعودية عن الحقوق الفلسطينية، لكنهم يطرحون من موقع المصلحة الأميركية العليا أسئلة جوهرية حول فاعلية وقيمة هذه الحماية للسعودية لدرجة الحديث عن تحوّلها عبئاً على المصالح والسياسات الغربية عموماً والأميركية خصوصاً، واعتبار قضية مقتل الخاشقجي فرصة لتدفيعها ثمن الفشل في الملفات التي تعهّدتها وفي طليعتها، الدفع بالصلح مع «إسرائيل» وفقاً لشرط التخلي عن القدس وحق العودة للاجئين الفلسطينيين بتقديم الشريك الفلسطيني في صفقة القرن، ومثلها تعهّدها الإمساك بصاحب القرار في باكستان كدولة إسلامية كبرى ومحورية ونووية، ومثلهما الفشل في العراق وسورية، بصورة بات كل المشروع الغربي والأميركي خصوصاً في المواجهة مع روسيا والصين وإيران مهدداً بالفشل، وصار ثمن التسويات وضع حدّ للدلع الذي تحظى به السعودية.

– المواجهة مستمرة وفقاً لحسابات لا ينتمي أي منها للخير والحق، أو للدفاع عن حقوق الإنسان والشعوب، بل بالتحديد للإجابة عن سؤال: هل ينبغي الآن وللمصلحة الغربية العليا، والأميركية خصوصاً، تقديم الحماية لولي العهد السعودي محمد بن سلمان، أم السير بتدفيعه ثمن مقتل الخاشقجي كعلامة على فتح ملف تقاسم صفقة القرن الكبرى، الدولة المريضة، كما سُمّيت في نهاية عمرها «الإمبراطورية العثمانية» بالرجل المريض؟

Related Videos

Related Articles

How a Map of Palestine Drove the American Neo-colonial Elite Mad

By Juan Cole
Source

I mirrored a map of modern Palestinian history that has the virtue of showing graphically what has happened to the Palestinians politically and territorially in the past century.

map-story-of-palestinian-nationhood.jpg

Andrew Sullivan then mirrored the map from my site, which set off a lot of thunder and noise among anti-Palestinian writers like Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, but shed very little light. (PS, the map as a hard copy mapcard is available from Sabeel.)

The map is useful and accurate. It begins by showing the British Mandate of Palestine as of the mid-1920s. The British conquered the Ottoman districts that came to be the Mandate during World War I (the Ottoman sultan threw in with Austria and Germany against Britain, France and Russia, mainly out of fear of Russia).

But because of the rise of the League of Nations and the influence of President Woodrow Wilson’s ideas about self-determination, Britain and France could not decently simply make their new, previously Ottoman territories into mere colonies. The League of Nations awarded them “Mandates.” Britain got Palestine, France got Syria (which it made into Syria and Lebanon), Britain got Iraq.

The League of Nations Covenant spelled out what a Class A Mandate (i.e. territory that had been Ottoman) was:

“Article 22. Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory [i.e., a Western power] until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.”

That is, the purpose of the later British Mandate of Palestine, of the French Mandate of Syria, of the British Mandate of Iraq, was to ‘render administrative advice and assistance” to these peoples in preparation for their becoming independent states, an achievement that they were recognized as not far from attaining. The Covenant was written before the actual Mandates were established, but Palestine was a Class A Mandate and so the language of the Covenant was applicable to it. The territory that formed the British Mandate of Iraq was the same territory that became independent Iraq, and the same could have been expected of the British Mandate of Palestine. (Even class B Mandates like Togo have become nation-states, but the poor Palestinians are just stateless prisoners in colonial cantons).

The first map thus shows what the League of Nations imagined would become the state of Palestine. The economist published an odd assertion that the Negev Desert was ’empty’ and should not have been shown in the first map. But it wasn’t and isn’t empty; Palestinian Bedouin live there, and they and the desert were recognized by the League of Nations as belonging to the Mandate of Palestine, a state-in-training. The Mandate of Palestine also had a charge to allow for the establishment of a ‘homeland’ in Palestine for Jews (because of the 1917 Balfour Declaration), but nobody among League of Nations officialdom at that time imagined it would be a whole and competing territorial state. There was no prospect of more than a few tens of thousands of Jews settling in Palestine, as of the mid-1920s. (They are shown in white on the first map, refuting those who mysteriously complained that the maps alternated between showing sovereignty and showing population). As late as the 1939 British White Paper, British officials imagined that the Mandate would emerge as an independent Palestinian state within 10 years.

In 1851, there had been 327,000 Palestinians (yes, the word ‘Filistin’ was current then) and other non-Jews, and only 13,000 Jews. In 1925, after decades of determined Jewish immigration, there were a little over 100,000 Jews, and there were 765,000 mostly Palestinian non-Jews in the British Mandate of Palestine. For historical demography of this area, see Justin McCarthy’s painstaking calculations; it is not true, as sometimes is claimed, that we cannot know anything about population figures in this region. See also his journal article, reprinted at this site. The Palestinian population grew because of rapid population growth, not in-migration, which was minor. The common allegation that Jerusalem had a Jewish majority at some point in the 19th century is meaningless. Jerusalem was a small town in 1851, and many pious or indigent elderly Jews from Eastern Europe and elsewhere retired there because of charities that would support them. In 1851, Jews were only about 4% of the population of the territory that became the British Mandate of Palestine some 70 years later. And, there had been few adherents of Judaism, just a few thousand, from the time most Jews in Palestine adopted Christianity and Islam in the first millennium CE all the way until the 20th century. In the British Mandate of Palestine, the district of Jerusalem was largely Palestinian.

The rise of the Nazis in the 1930s impelled massive Jewish emigration to Palestine, so by 1940 there were over 400,000 Jews there amid over a million Palestinians.

The second map shows the United Nations partition plan of 1947, which awarded Jews (who only then owned about 6% of Palestinian land) a substantial state alongside a much reduced Palestine. Although apologists for the Zionist movement say that the Zionists accepted this partition plan and the Arabs rejected it, that is not entirely true. Zionist leader David Ben Gurion noted in his diary when Israel was established that when the US had been formed, no document set out its territorial extent, implying that the same was true of Israel. We know that Ben Gurion was an Israeli expansionist who fully intended to annex more land to Israel, and by 1956 he attempted to add the Sinai and would have liked southern Lebanon. So the Zionist “acceptance” of the UN partition plan did not mean very much beyond a happiness that their initial starting point was much better than their actual land ownership had given them any right to expect.

The third map shows the status quo after the Israeli-Palestinian civil war of 1947-1948. It is not true that the entire Arab League attacked the Jewish community in Palestine or later Israel on behalf of the Palestinians. As Avi Shlaim has shown, Jordan had made an understanding with the Zionist leadership that it would grab the West Bank, and its troops did not mount a campaign in the territory awarded to Israel by the UN. Egypt grabbed Gaza and then tried to grab the Negev Desert, with a few thousand badly trained and equipped troops, but was defeated by the nascent Israeli army. Few other Arab states sent any significant number of troops. The total number of troops on the Arab side actually on the ground was about equal to those of the Zionist forces, and the Zionists had more esprit de corps and better weaponry.

[The nascent Israeli military deliberately pursued a policy of ethnically cleansing non-combatant Palestinians from Israeli-held territory, expelling about 720,000 of them in 1947-48, then locking them outside, bereft of their homes and farms and penniless.

Map6_RefugeesRoutes.gif

The final map shows the situation today, which springs from the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank in 1967 and then the decision of the Israelis to colonize the West Bank intensively (a process that is illegal in the law of war concerning occupied populations).

There is nothing inaccurate about the maps at all, historically. Goldberg maintained that the Palestinians’ ‘original sin’ was rejecting the 1947 UN partition plan. But since Ben Gurion and other expansionists went on to grab more territory later in history, it is not clear that the Palestinians could have avoided being occupied even if they had given away willingly so much of their country in 1947. The first original sin was the contradictory and feckless pledge by the British to sponsor Jewish immigration into their Mandate in Palestine, which they wickedly and fantastically promised would never inconvenience the Palestinians in any way. It was the same kind of original sin as the French policy of sponsoring a million colons in French Algeria, or the French attempt to create a Christian-dominated Lebanon where the Christians would be privileged by French policy. The second original sin was the refusal of the United States to allow Jews to immigrate in the 1930s and early 1940s, which forced them to go to Palestine to escape the monstrous, mass-murdering Nazis.

The map attracted so much ire and controversy not because it is inaccurate but because it clearly shows what has been done to the Palestinians, which the League of Nations had recognized as not far from achieving statehood in its Covenant. Their statehood and their territory has been taken from them, and they have been left stateless, without citizenship and therefore without basic civil and human rights. The map makes it easy to see this process. The map had to be stigmatized and made taboo. But even if that marginalization of an image could be accomplished, the squalid reality of Palestinian statelessness would remain, and the children of Gaza would still be being malnourished by the deliberate Israeli policy of blockading civilians. The map just points to a powerful reality; banishing the map does not change that reality.

Goldberg, according to Spencer Ackerman, says that he will stop replying to Andrew Sullivan, for which Ackerman is grateful, since, he implies, Goldberg is a propagandistic hack who loves to promote wars on flimsy pretenses. Matthew Yglesias also has some fun at Goldberg’s expense. [Otherwise, like most other major US institutions, our press is corrupt on this issue.]

People like Goldberg never tell us what they expect to happen to the Palestinians in the near and medium future. They don’t seem to understand that the status quo is untenable. They are like militant ostriches, hiding their heads in the sand while lashing out with their hind talons at anyone who stares clear-eyed at the problem, characterizing us as bigots. As if that old calumny has any purchase for anyone who knows something serious about the actual views of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu or . . . Avigdor Lieberman, more bigoted persons than whom would be difficult to find…

Smear and Shekels

October 04, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

smear and shaekels .jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

Haaretz reveals today that Canary Mission a Hasbara defamation outlet that was established to  “spread fear among undergraduate activists, posting more than a thousand political dossiers on student supporters of Palestinian rights,” is funded by one of the largest Jewish charities in the U.S.

According to Haaretz; the Forward, an American Jewish outlet,  “has definitively identified a major donor to Canary Mission. It is a foundation controlled by the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, a major Jewish charity with an annual budget of over $100 million.” We could have guessed the funding was from such an organisation. We somehow knew that it wasn’t the Iranian government or Hamas who sent shekels to the Zionist smear factory.  Haaretz continues, “for three years, a website called Canary Mission has spread fear among undergraduate activists, posting more than a thousand political dossiers on student supporters of Palestinian rights. The dossiers are meant to harm students’ job prospects, and have been used in interrogations by Israeli security officials.”

Canary Mission is indeed a nasty operation and far from unique. We have seen similar efforts within the Jewish institutional universe for some time. It might be reasonable to opine that smear has become a new Jewish industry. Consistent with the rules of economics, many new Jewish bodies have entered the profitable business, and these outlets have competed mercilessly with each other for donations and funds.

This is precisely a variation on the battle we have seen in Britain in the last few years. Almost every British Jewish institution joined the ‘Corbyn defamation’ contest, competing over who could toss the most dirt on the Labour party and its leader. The outcome was magnificent. Last week at Labour’s annual conference, the party unanimously expressed its firm opposition to Israel and took the Palestinian’s side.

Badmouthing is not really a ‘Zionist symptom.’ Unfortunately, it is a Jewish political obsession. In between its fund raisers, it seems that Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) invests a lot of energy in smearing some of the more dedicated truth tellers. Mondoweiss, another Jewish outlet, practices this game as well.

I, myself, have been subjected to hundreds of such smear campaigns by so called ‘anti’ Zionist Jews who were desperate to stop the circulation of my work on Jewish ID politics. But these frantic efforts only served to support my thesis that the issues to do with Israel and Palestine extend far beyond the Zionist/anti debate. We had better dig into the meaning of Jewishness and its contemporary political implications.

Once again the question is, why do self-identified Jewish activists use these ugly tactics? Why do they insist upon smearing and terrorising instead of engaging in a proper scholarly and/or political debate?

Choseness is one possible answer. People who are convinced of their own exceptional nature often lack an understanding of the ‘other.’ This deficiency may well interfere with the ability to evolve a code of universal ethics.

The other answer may have something to do with the battle for funds. As we learned from Haaretz, the Canary Mission is funded by one of the richest Jewish American funds. Badmouthing has value. ‘You defame, we send money.’  Unfortunately this holds for Zionists and ‘anti’ alike.

Crucially, in this battle, Jews often oppose each other.  Haaretz writes that the Canary Mission “has been controversial since it appeared in mid-2015, drawing comparisons to a McCarthyite blacklist.” And it seems that some Zionist Jews eventually gathered that the Canary smear factory gives Jews a bad name.

Tilly Shames, who runs the campus Hillel at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told the Forward that  “the tactics of the organisation are troubling, both from a moral standpoint, but have also proven to be ineffective and counterproductive,”

Shames said that Canary Mission’s publication of dossiers on students on her campus had led to greater support for the targeted students and their beliefs, and had spread mistrust of pro-Israel students, who were suspected of spying for Canary Mission.

This dynamic can be explained. My study of Jewish controlled opposition postulates that self-identified Jewish activists always attempt to dominate both poles of any debate that is relevant to Jewish interests. Once it was accepted that Palestine was becoming a ‘Jewish problem,’ a number of Jewish bodies became increasingly involved in steering the Palestinian solidarity movement. We then saw that they diluted the call for the Palestinian Right of Return and replaced it with watery notions that, de facto, legitimise Israel.

When it was evident that the Neocon school was, in practice, a Ziocon war machine, we saw bodies on the Jewish Left steer the anti-war call. When some British Jews realised that the Jewish campaign against Corbyn might backfire, they were astonishingly quick to form Jews for Jeremy that rapidly evolved into Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL). The battle over the next British PM became an internal Jewish debate. The rule is simple: every public dispute that is somehow relevant to Jewish interests will quickly become an exclusive internal Jewish debate.

Hillel activists see that Canary Mission is starting to backfire. Together with Forward and Haaretz, they have quickly positioned themselves at the forefront of the opposition.

Palestine, Israel & Alison Weir

 

Islamic Jihad Names New Leader: Ziad Nakhala

 

Islamic Jihad's deputy leader, Ziad al-Nakhala

September 28, 2018

Palestinian resistance group Islamic Jihad announced on Friday that Ziad Nakhala was named the movement’s new secretary-general, formally replacing former head Ramadan Abdallah Shallah, who has been suffering from serious health condition for months.

Palestine Today news agency quoted the resistance movement’s spokesman Daoud Shehab as saying that Nakhala was elected without a challenger.

The spokesman also announced names of nine officials who were elected members of the group’s politburo, noting that there are more other officials from Al-Quds and West Bank who were elected but did not mention their names for security reasons.

In a press conference on Friday, Shehab praised Shallah as a firm and devoted leader for the people of Palestine.

Shallah, one of the founders of Islamic Jihad, was chosen secretary general in 1995 after his predecessor, Fathi Shaqaqi, was martyred in an assassination operation attributed to the Israeli Mossad.

Source: Agencies

Related Videos

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: