Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef says non-jews should no be allowed to live in israel & then complains about so called “anti-Semitism”

Sephardi chief rabbi says non-Jews forbidden from living in the Land of israel 

MEANWHILE Chief rabbi urges Netanyahu to speak out against US anti-Semitism …

Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef argues that Jewish law prohibits non-Jews from living in Israel unless they have accepted Noachide laws, adding that some non-Jews live in Israel to serve the Jewish population.

Israel's Chief Sephardi Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, 2015.Israel’s Chief Sephardi Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, 2015. Lior Mizrahi

“Official” UK anti-Semitism definition gets two-finger salute from legal experts

April 03, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Stuart Littlewood

The enemies of free speech were having a whale of a time – until this week. Britain’s political parties, further education establishments and BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) groups had been bludgeoned into silence on Israel’s crimes by a bogus definition of anti-Semitism formally adopted and deployed by government, police and assorted pro-Israel pimps, stooges and creeps.

Their bully-boy tactics have now been upset by Free Speech on IsraelIndependent Jewish VoicesJews for Justice for Palestinians and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, who asked top legal experts for an opinion on this sinister farce.

Wilfully flawed definition

The root cause was been an exceptionally silly, non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism issued by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) as follows:

Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee accepted the IHRA definition subject to the inclusion of two caveats:

  • It is not anti-Semitic to criticise the government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.
  • It is not anti-Semitic to hold the Israeli government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.

The Select Committee recommended this amended definition be “formally adopted by the UK government, law-enforcement agencies and all political parties, to assist them in determining whether or not an incident or discourse can be regarded as anti-Semitic”. The government agreed but dropped the caveats, saying they weren’t necessary.

Definition “too vague to be useful”

Eminent human rights lawyer Hugh Tomlinson QC has sharply criticised the definition.

Firstly, it wasn’t a legally binding definition so didn’t have the force of a statutory one. And it couldn’t be considered a legal definition of anti-Semitism as it lacked clarity. Therefore, any conduct contrary to the IHRA definition couldn’t necessarily be ruled illegal.

Secondly, the language was far too vague to be useful as a tool, and it was “most unsatisfactory for the government to adopt a definition which lacks clarity and comprehensiveness”. In Tomlinson’s view, the government’s decision to adopt the IHRA definition was simply a freestanding statement of policy – a mere suggestion as to a definition of anti-Semitism that public bodies might wish to use. No public body was under an obligation to adopt or use it, or, given the unsatisfactory nature of the definition, should be criticised for refusing.

He warned that if a public authority did decide to adopt the definition then it must interpret it in a way that’s consistent with its statutory obligations. In particular, public authorities cannot behave in a manner inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Freedom of expression applies not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that “offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population”. Unless, of course, they amount to a call for violence or a justification of violence, hatred or intolerance.

A further obligation put on public authorities is “to create a favourable environment for participation in public debates for all concerned, allowing them to express their opinions and ideas without fear, even if these opinions and ideas are contrary to those defended by the official authorities or by a large part of public opinion, or even if those opinions and ideas are irritating or offensive to the public”.

So, in Tomlinson’s opinion the IHRA Definition does not mean that calling Israel an apartheid state that practises settler colonialism, or advocating boycott, divestment or sanctions (BDS) against Israel, can properly be characterised as anti-Semitic. Furthermore, a public authority seeking to apply the IHRA definition to prohibit or punish such activities “would be acting unlawfully”.

Government’s “naive stance”

Retired Lord Justice of Appeal Sir Stephen Sedley also weighed in with advice, criticising the IHRA working definition for lack of legal force. “At the same time, it is not neutral: it may well influence policy both domestically and internationally.”

He added that the right of free expression, now part of our domestic law by virtue of the Human Rights Act, “places both negative and positive obligations on the state which may be put at risk if the IHRA definition is unthinkingly followed”. Moreover, the 1986 Education Act established an individual right of free expression in all higher education institutions “which cannot be cut back by governmental policies”.

According to Sedley, the IHRA definition is open to manipulation. In his view, “what is needed now is a principled retreat on the part of government from a stance which it has naively adopted in disregard of the sane advice given to it by the Home Affairs Select Committee”.

Many objections to this “official” anti-Semitism definition, and the way it is used, are underpinned by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which says:

  • Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
  • The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Also, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights bestows on everyone “the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. All such rights, of course, are subject to the usual limitations required by law and respect for the rights of others.

Attempt to bury UN report on Israeli apartheid

Perhaps university vice-chancellors and party leaders will now find the backbone to resist the bluster and intimidation of the pro-Israel lobby, especially after the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) produced a report (on 15 March) establishing what most of us have known for donkey’s years: that Israel is a thoroughly nasty apartheid regime.

The report was authored by Richard Falk, Professor of International Law and Practice Emeritus at Princeton University and a former UN human rights rapporteur for the Palestinian territories, and Virginia Tilley, Professor of Political Science at Southern Illinois University. It established on the “basis of scholarly inquiry and overwhelming evidence, that Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid”. Such was the fuss kicked up that it has been withdrawn from UN websites.

But don’t worry, you can read it in full here. If short of time skip to the Conclusions (page 52), which include:

The authors urge the United Nations to implement this finding by fulfilling its international responsibilities in relation to international law and the rights of the Palestinian people as a matter of urgency, for two reasons.

First, the situation addressed in the report is ongoing… In the case of Israel-Palestine, any delay compounds the crime by prolonging the subjugation of Palestinians to the active practice of apartheid by Israel. Prompt action is accordingly imperative to avert further human suffering and end a crime against humanity that is being committed now.

Secondly, the extreme gravity of the charge requires prompt action. Since the 1970s, when the international campaign to oppose apartheid in southern Africa gathered momentum, apartheid has been considered in the annals of the United Nations and world public opinion to be second only to genocide in the hierarchy of criminality.

This report accordingly recommends that the international community acts immediately, without waiting for a more formal pronouncement regarding the culpability of the state of Israel, its government and its officials for the commission of the crime of apartheid…

The authors of this report conclude that the weight of the evidence supports beyond a reasonable doubt the contention that Israel is guilty of imposing an apartheid regime on the Palestinian people. The prohibition of apartheid is considered “jus cogens” in international customary law. States have a separate and collective duty (a) not to recognise an apartheid regime as lawful; (b) not to aid or assist a state in maintaining an apartheid regime; and (c) to cooperate with the United Nations and other states in bringing apartheid regimes to an end [my emphasis]. A state that fails to fulfil those duties could itself be held legally responsible for engaging in wrongful acts involving complicity with maintaining an apartheid regime.

Another excellent piece of work by Richard Falk, for which he’ll get no thanks. As many of you know, he is himself Jewish.

By arresting its co-founder, Omar Barghouti, israel has confirmed BDS as a strategic threat

By arresting its co-founder, Israel has confirmed BDS as a strategic threat

Omar Barghouti

It is now one week since the Israeli authorities arrested Omar Barghouti, a co-founder of the Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment (BDS) movement in Palestine. His arrest follows years of intimidation and threats by various state agencies. If the purpose is to isolate and silence Barghouti, his arrest was, at best, short-sighted and counterproductive. BDS, meanwhile, is already a Palestinian-inspired global movement, which will be impossible to stop.

Although Israeli President Reuven Rivlin described the BDS movement in May 2015 as a “strategic threat”, when it was launched back in July 2005, officials dismissed the campaign as a poor attempt to imitate the international boycott which played a pivotal role in dismantling the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa. That disparaging belief no longer exists. The mere fact that the country is spending millions of dollars every month to collect data and counter BDS at home and abroad, is in itself a measure of how seriously the Israelis now view it.

By resorting to high-handed tactics of repression and intimidation, Israel is doing the ultimate disservice to its own cause. Unwittingly, it has, by such measures, created the perfect conditions for BDS to grow and attract supporters the world over, for it does not take much to convince open-minded people about the need for BDS.

Policies that deny basic freedoms and human rights are inherently repulsive to the sense of justice of reasonable human beings.

Today, those who support BDS are driven by values of equality and fairness, as well as recognition of a shared humanity. This is why they find the denial of full equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel so repugnant; why they demand an end to the military occupation of Palestinian territories captured in 1967; and why they ask why the Palestinians who were expelled by Jewish militias in 1948 are not allowed to exercise their legal right of return to their homes. There is nothing conspiratorial or bigoted about this. The latter is, after all, a right that is recognised internationally.

If nothing else, it is the continued denial by Israel of all Palestinian rights that has fuelled the BDS movement. On every continent, minority and disadvantaged communities, churches, labour unions and human rights organisations are supporting this non-violent campaign because they are convinced it is part of their own self-preservation.

Gone are the days when celebrity A-listers, entertainers and sports personalities give their unqualified support to Israel. Today, such support is conditional; it will only be given when Israel respects the dignity of the Palestinian people. Under no circumstances can today’s celebrities be seen to endorse or legitimise discrimination openly, irrespective of the perpetrator. There is simply no moral or legal justification for discrimination of any kind, least of all the state-sanctioned manifestation that we see in Israel.

As cruel as it may sound, Omar Barghouti’s arrest was inevitable; not because of any criminal activity on his part, but because of the longstanding threats made against him. Last year, Amnesty International expressed concern for his safety and liberty after a number of Israeli ministers issued veiled threats against Barghouti at an anti-BDS conference in Jerusalem on 28 March.

BDS Movement

One threat which was especially grotesque was that made by Minister of Transport, Intelligence and Atomic Energy Yisrael Katz, who called on Israel to engage in “targeted civil eliminations” of BDS leaders with the help of its murderous intelligence agencies. Amnesty said that the term alluded to “targeted assassinations”, which is used to describe Israel’s policy of targeting members of armed Palestinian groups.

The Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) has no doubt about the motive for the arrest of its co-founder; it is all about repression. The BNC pointed out that the current investigation, which includes a travel ban, was not coincidental, coming just weeks before Barghouti was scheduled to travel to the US to receive the Gandhi Peace Award jointly with Ralph Nader in a ceremony at Yale University.

Would the BDS movement collapse if Omar Barghouti is imprisoned or assassinated? Of course not. The legal, political and human rights similarities between the Palestinian reality and that which existed in apartheid South Africa are so blatant that they would not go unnoticed or unchallenged anywhere in the civilised world.

To date, none of the measures adopted by Israel to combat the BDS have succeeded. Whether it is the banning of activists from entering Palestine, the creation of special dirty tricks units to discredit activists, or their imprisonment, all are methods that were tried in South Africa where they proved to be wholly inadequate and inconsequential. On the contrary, they only succeeded in drawing ever more attention to the unjust and criminal nature of the apartheid system.

Rest assured that the results will be the same in Palestine, with or without the physical presence and great efforts of Omar Barghouti. By turning him into a cause célèbre, Israel has confirmed that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign is indeed a strategic threat.

“Greater israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East


Global Research, April 01, 2017
Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc. 3 March 2013

The Infamous “Oded Yinon Plan”. Introduction by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research Editor’s Note

The following document pertaining to the formation of “Greater Israel” constitutes the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government,  the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment. (article first published by Global Research on April 29, 2013).

In recent developments, President Donald Trump has confirmed his support of Israel’s illegal settlements and his opposition to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, which confirms the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.  

According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”  According to Rabbi Fischmann,  “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”

When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing wars on Syria and Iraq, the war on Yemen, the process of regime change in Egypt, must be understood in relation to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East. 

The latter consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of an Israeli expansionist project. 

Bear in mind this design is not strictly a Zionist Plan, it is an integral part of US foreign policy, namely Washington’s intent to fracture and balkanize the Middle East.

“Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates. According to Stephen Lendman, “A near-century ago, the World Zionist Organization’s plan for a Jewish state included:

• historic Palestine;

• South Lebanon up to Sidon and the Litani River;

• Syria’s Golan Heights, Hauran Plain and Deraa; and

• control of the Hijaz Railway from Deraa to Amman, Jordan as well as the Gulf of Aqaba.

Some Zionists wanted more – land from the Nile in the West to the Euphrates in the East, comprising Palestine, Lebanon, Western Syria and Southern Turkey.”

The Zionist project supports the Jewish settlement movement. More broadly it involves a policy of excluding Palestinians from Palestine leading to the eventual annexation of both the West Bank and Gaza to the State of Israel.

Greater Israel would create a number of proxy States. It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of  Iraq and Saudi Arabia. (See map).

According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in a 2011 Global Research article,   The Yinon Plan was a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East:

“[The Yinon plan] is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.

The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.

Greater Israel” requires the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states.

“The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation…  This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.” (Yinon Plan, see below)

Viewed in this context, the war on Syria and Iraq is part of  a process of Israeli territorial expansion.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 06, 2015, updated April 1, 2017

The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

Translated and edited by

Israel Shahak

The Israel of Theodore Herzl (1904) and of Rabbi Fischmann (1947)

In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”

Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”


Oded Yinon’s

“A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”

Published by the

Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc.

Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982

Special Document No. 1 (ISBN 0-937694-56-8)

Table of Contents

Publisher’s Note1

The Association of Arab-American University Graduates finds it compelling to inaugurate its new publication series, Special Documents, with Oded Yinon’s article which appeared in Kivunim (Directions), the journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization. Oded Yinon is an Israeli journalist and was formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry of Israel. To our knowledge, this document is the most explicit, detailed and unambiguous statement to date of the Zionist strategy in the Middle East. Furthermore, it stands as an accurate representation of the “vision” for the entire Middle East of the presently ruling Zionist regime of Begin, Sharon and Eitan. Its importance, hence, lies not in its historical value but in the nightmare which it presents.


The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation.


This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme. This theme has been documented on a very modest scale in the AAUG publication,  Israel’s Sacred Terrorism (1980), by Livia Rokach. Based on the memoirs of Moshe Sharett, former Prime Minister of Israel, Rokach’s study documents, in convincing detail, the Zionist plan as it applies to Lebanon and as it was prepared in the mid-fifties.


The first massive Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978 bore this plan out to the minutest detail. The second and more barbaric and encompassing Israeli invasion of Lebanon on June 6, 1982, aims to effect certain parts of this plan which hopes to see not only Lebanon, but Syria and Jordan as well, in fragments. This ought to make mockery of Israeli public claims regarding their desire for a strong and independent Lebanese central government. More accurately, they want a Lebanese central government that sanctions their regional imperialist designs by signing a peace treaty with them. They also seek acquiescence in their designs by the Syrian, Iraqi, Jordanian and other Arab governments as well as by the Palestinian people. What they want and what they are planning for is not an Arab world, but a world of Arab fragments that is ready to succumb to Israeli hegemony. Hence, Oded Yinon in his essay, “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980’s,” talks about “far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967” that are created by the “very stormy situation [that] surrounds Israel.”


The Zionist policy of displacing the Palestinians from Palestine is very much an active policy, but is pursued more forcefully in times of conflict, such as in the 1947-1948 war and in the 1967 war. An appendix entitled  “Israel Talks of a New Exodus” is included in this publication to demonstrate past Zionist dispersals of Palestinians from their homeland and to show, besides the main Zionist document we present, other Zionist planning for the de-Palestinization of Palestine.


It is clear from the Kivunim document, published in February, 1982, that the “far-reaching opportunities” of which Zionist strategists have been thinking are the same “opportunities” of which they are trying to convince the world and which they claim were generated by their June, 1982 invasion. It is also clear that the Palestinians were never the sole target of Zionist plans, but the priority target since their viable and independent presence as a people negates the essence of the Zionist state. Every Arab state, however, especially those with cohesive and clear nationalist directions, is a real target sooner or later.


Contrasted with the detailed and unambiguous Zionist strategy elucidated in this document, Arab and Palestinian strategy, unfortunately, suffers from ambiguity and incoherence. There is no indication that Arab strategists have internalized the Zionist plan in its full ramifications. Instead, they react with incredulity and shock whenever a new stage of it unfolds. This is apparent in Arab reaction, albeit muted, to the Israeli siege of Beirut. The sad fact is that as long as the Zionist strategy for the Middle East is not taken seriously Arab reaction to any future siege of other Arab capitals will be the same.

Khalil Nakhleh

July 23, 1982


by Israel Shahak


The following essay represents, in my opinion, the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states. I will comment on the military aspect of this plan in a concluding note. Here I want to draw the attention of the readers to several important points:


1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze’ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha’aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the “best” that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: “The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi’ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part” (Ha’aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.


2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author’s notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the “defense of the West” from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.


3. It is obvious that much of the relevant data, both in the notes and in the text, is garbled or omitted, such as the financial help of the U.S. to Israel. Much of it is pure fantasy. But, the plan is not to be regarded as not influential, or as not capable of realization for a short time. The plan follows faithfully the geopolitical ideas current in Germany of 1890-1933, which were swallowed whole by Hitler and the Nazi movement, and determined their aims for East Europe. Those aims, especially the division of the existing states, were carried out in 1939-1941, and only an alliance on the global scale prevented their consolidation for a period of time.


The notes by the author follow the text. To avoid confusion, I did not add any notes of my own, but have put the substance of them into this foreward and the conclusion at the end. I have, however, emphasized some portions of the text.

Israel Shahak

June 13, 1982


A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties

by Oded Yinon

This essay originally appeared in Hebrew in KIVUNIM (Directions), A Journal for Judaism and Zionism; Issue No, 14–Winter, 5742, February 1982, Editor: Yoram Beck. Editorial Committee: Eli Eyal, Yoram Beck, Amnon Hadari, Yohanan Manor, Elieser Schweid. Published by the Department of Publicity/The World Zionist Organization, Jerusalem.


At the outset of the nineteen eighties the State of Israel is in need of a new perspective as to its place, its aims and national targets, at home and abroad. This need has become even more vital due to a number of central processes which the country, the region and the world are undergoing. We are living today in the early stages of a new epoch in human history which is not at all similar to its predecessor, and its characteristics are totally different from what we have hitherto known. That is why we need an understanding of the central processes which typify this historical epoch on the one hand, and on the other hand we need a world outlook and an operational strategy in accordance with the new conditions. The existence, prosperity and steadfastness of the Jewish state will depend upon its ability to adopt a new framework for its domestic and foreign affairs.


This epoch is characterized by several traits which we can already diagnose, and which symbolize a genuine revolution in our present lifestyle. The dominant process is the breakdown of the rationalist, humanist outlook as the major cornerstone supporting the life and achievements of Western civilization since the Renaissance. The political, social and economic views which have emanated from this foundation have been based on several “truths” which are presently disappearing–for example, the view that man as an individual is the center of the universe and everything exists in order to fulfill his basic material needs. This position is being invalidated in the present when it has become clear that the amount of resources in the cosmos does not meet Man’s requirements, his economic needs or his demographic constraints. In a world in which there are four billion human beings and economic and energy resources which do not grow proportionally to meet the needs of mankind, it is unrealistic to expect to fulfill the main requirement of Western Society, 1 i.e., the wish and aspiration for boundless consumption. The view that ethics plays no part in determining the direction Man takes, but rather his material needs do–that view is becoming prevalent today as we see a world in which nearly all values are disappearing. We are losing the ability to assess the simplest things, especially when they concern the simple question of what is Good and what is Evil.


The vision of man’s limitless aspirations and abilities shrinks in the face of the sad facts of life, when we witness the break-up of world order around us. The view which promises liberty and freedom to mankind seems absurd in light of the sad fact that three fourths of the human race lives under totalitarian regimes. The views concerning equality and social justice have been transformed by socialism and especially by Communism into a laughing stock. There is no argument as to the truth of these two ideas, but it is clear that they have not been put into practice properly and the majority of mankind has lost the liberty, the freedom and the opportunity for equality and justice. In this nuclear world in which we are (still) living in relative peace for thirty years, the concept of peace and coexistence among nations has no meaning when a superpower like the USSR holds a military and political doctrine of the sort it has: that not only is a nuclear war possible and necessary in order to achieve the ends of Marxism, but that it is possible to survive after it, not to speak of the fact that one can be victorious in it.2


The essential concepts of human society, especially those of the West, are undergoing a change due to political, military and economic transformations. Thus, the nuclear and conventional might of the USSR has transformed the epoch that has just ended into the last respite before the great saga that will demolish a large part of our world in a multi-dimensional global war, in comparison with which the past world wars will have been mere child’s play. The power of nuclear as well as of conventional weapons, their quantity, their precision and quality will turn most of our world upside down within a few years, and we must align ourselves so as to face that in Israel. That is, then, the main threat to our existence and that of the Western world. 3 The war over resources in the world, the Arab monopoly on oil, and the need of the West to import most of its raw materials from the Third World, are transforming the world we know, given that one of the major aims of the USSR is to defeat the West by gaining control over the gigantic resources in the Persian Gulf and in the southern part of Africa, in which the majority of world minerals are located. We can imagine the dimensions of the global confrontation which will face us in the future.


The Gorshkov doctrine calls for Soviet control of the oceans and mineral rich areas of the Third World. That together with the present Soviet nuclear doctrine which holds that it is possible to manage, win and survive a nuclear war, in the course of which the West’s military might well be destroyed and its inhabitants made slaves in the service of Marxism-Leninism, is the main danger to world peace and to our own existence. Since 1967, the Soviets have transformed Clausewitz’ dictum into “War is the continuation of policy in nuclear means,” and made it the motto which guides all their policies. Already today they are busy carrying out their aims in our region and throughout the world, and the need to face them becomes the major element in our country’s security policy and of course that of the rest of the Free World. That is our major foreign challenge.4


The Arab Moslem world, therefore, is not the major strategic problem which we shall face in the Eighties, despite the fact that it carries the main threat against Israel, due to its growing military might. This world, with its ethnic minorities, its factions and internal crises, which is astonishingly self-destructive, as we can see in Lebanon, in non-Arab Iran and now also in Syria, is unable to deal successfully with its fundamental problems and does not therefore constitute a real threat against the State of Israel in the long run, but only in the short run where its immediate military power has great import. In the long run, this world will be unable to exist within its present framework in the areas around us without having to go through genuine revolutionary changes. The Moslem Arab World is built like a temporary house of cards put together by foreigners (France and Britain in the Nineteen Twenties), without the wishes and desires of the inhabitants having been taken into account. It was arbitrarily divided into 19 states, all made of combinations of minorites and ethnic groups which are hostile to one another, so that every Arab Moslem state nowadays faces ethnic social destruction from within, and in some a civil war is already raging. 5 Most of the Arabs, 118 million out of 170 million, live in Africa, mostly in Egypt (45 million today).


Apart from Egypt, all the Maghreb states are made up of a mixture of Arabs and non-Arab Berbers. In Algeria there is already a civil war raging in the Kabile mountains between the two nations in the country. Morocco and Algeria are at war with each other over Spanish Sahara, in addition to the internal struggle in each of them. Militant Islam endangers the integrity of Tunisia and Qaddafi organizes wars which are destructive from the Arab point of view, from a country which is sparsely populated and which cannot become a powerful nation. That is why he has been attempting unifications in the past with states that are more genuine, like Egypt and Syria. Sudan, the most torn apart state in the Arab Moslem world today is built upon four groups hostile to each other, an Arab Moslem Sunni minority which rules over a majority of non-Arab Africans, Pagans, and Christians. In Egypt there is a Sunni Moslem majority facing a large minority of Christians which is dominant in upper Egypt: some 7 million of them, so that even Sadat, in his speech on May 8, expressed the fear that they will want a state of their own, something like a “second” Christian Lebanon in Egypt.


All the Arab States east of Israel are torn apart, broken up and riddled with inner conflict even more than those of the Maghreb. Syria is fundamentally no different from Lebanon except in the strong military regime which rules it. But the real civil war taking place nowadays between the Sunni majority and the Shi’ite Alawi ruling minority (a mere 12% of the population) testifies to the severity of the domestic trouble.


Iraq is, once again, no different in essence from its neighbors, although its majority is Shi’ite and the ruling minority Sunni. Sixty-five percent of the population has no say in politics, in which an elite of 20 percent holds the power. In addition there is a large Kurdish minority in the north, and if it weren’t for the strength of the ruling regime, the army and the oil revenues, Iraq’s future state would be no different than that of Lebanon in the past or of Syria today. The seeds of inner conflict and civil war are apparent today already, especially after the rise of Khomeini to power in Iran, a leader whom the Shi’ites in Iraq view as their natural leader.


All the Gulf principalities and Saudi Arabia are built upon a delicate house of sand in which there is only oil. In Kuwait, the Kuwaitis constitute only a quarter of the population. In Bahrain, the Shi’ites are the majority but are deprived of power. In the UAE, Shi’ites are once again the majority but the Sunnis are in power. The same is true of Oman and North Yemen. Even in the Marxist South Yemen there is a sizable Shi’ite minority. In Saudi Arabia half the population is foreign, Egyptian and Yemenite, but a Saudi minority holds power.


Jordan is in reality Palestinian, ruled by a Trans-Jordanian Bedouin minority, but most of the army and certainly the bureaucracy is now Palestinian. As a matter of fact Amman is as Palestinian as Nablus. All of these countries have powerful armies, relatively speaking. But there is a problem there too. The Syrian army today is mostly Sunni with an Alawi officer corps, the Iraqi army Shi’ite with Sunni commanders. This has great significance in the long run, and that is why it will not be possible to retain the loyalty of the army for a long time except where it comes to the only common denominator: The hostility towards Israel, and today even that is insufficient.


Alongside the Arabs, split as they are, the other Moslem states share a similar predicament. Half of Iran’s population is comprised of a Persian speaking group and the other half of an ethnically Turkish group. Turkey’s population comprises a Turkish Sunni Moslem majority, some 50%, and two large minorities, 12 million Shi’ite Alawis and 6 million Sunni Kurds. In Afghanistan there are 5 million

Shi’ites who constitute one third of the population. In Sunni Pakistan there are 15 million Shi’ites who endanger the existence of that state.


This national ethnic minority picture extending from Morocco to India and from Somalia to Turkey points to the absence of stability and a rapid degeneration in the entire region. When this picture is added to the economic one, we see how the entire region is built like a house of cards, unable to withstand its severe problems.


In this giant and fractured world there are a few wealthy groups and a huge mass of poor people. Most of the Arabs have an average yearly income of 300 dollars. That is the situation in Egypt, in most of the Maghreb countries except for Libya, and in Iraq. Lebanon is torn apart and its economy is falling to pieces. It is a state in which there is no centralized power, but only 5 de facto sovereign authorities (Christian in the north, supported by the Syrians and under the rule of the Franjieh clan, in the East an area of direct Syrian conquest, in the center a Phalangist controlled Christian enclave, in the south and up to the Litani river a mostly Palestinian region controlled by the PLO and Major Haddad’s state of Christians and half a million Shi’ites). Syria is in an even graver situation and even the assistance she will obtain in the future after the unification with Libya will not be sufficient for dealing with the basic problems of existence and the maintenance of a large army. Egypt is in the worst situation: Millions are on the verge of hunger, half the labor force is unemployed, and housing is scarce in this most densely populated area of the world. Except for the army, there is not a single department operating efficiently and the state is in a permanent state of bankruptcy and depends entirely on American foreign assistance granted since the peace.6


In the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Egypt there is the largest accumulation of money and oil in the world, but those enjoying it are tiny elites who lack a wide base of support and self-confidence, something that no army can guarantee. 7 The Saudi army with all its equipment cannot defend the regime from real dangers at home or abroad, and what took place in Mecca in 1980 is only an example. A sad and very stormy situation surrounds Israel and creates challenges for it, problems, risks but also far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967. Chances are that opportunities missed at that time will become achievable in the Eighties to an extent and along dimensions which we cannot even imagine today.


The “peace” policy and the return of territories, through a dependence upon the US, precludes the realization of the new option created for us. Since 1967, all the governments of Israel have tied our national aims down to narrow political needs, on the one hand, and on the other to destructive opinions at home which neutralized our capacities both at home and abroad. Failing to take steps towards the Arab population in the new territories, acquired in the course of a war forced upon us, is the major strategic error committed by Israel on the morning after the Six Day War. We could have saved ourselves all the bitter and dangerous conflict since then if we had given Jordan to the Palestinians who live west of the Jordan river. By doing that we would have neutralized the Palestinian problem which we nowadays face, and to which we have found solutions that are really no solutions at all, such as territorial compromise or autonomy which amount, in fact, to the same thing. 8 Today, we suddenly face immense opportunities for transforming the situation thoroughly and this we must do in the coming decade, otherwise we shall not survive as a state.


In the course of the Nineteen Eighties, the State of Israel will have to go through far-reaching changes in its political and economic regime domestically, along with radical changes in its foreign policy, in order to stand up to the global and regional challenges of this new epoch. The loss of the Suez Canal oil fields, of the immense potential of the oil, gas and other natural resources in the Sinai peninsula which is geomorphologically identical to the rich oil-producing countries in the region, will result in an energy drain in the near future and will destroy our domestic economy: one quarter of our present GNP as well as one third of the budget is used for the purchase of oil. 9 The search for raw materials in the Negev and on the coast will not, in the near future, serve to alter that state of affairs.


(Regaining) the Sinai peninsula with its present and potential resources is therefore a political priority which is obstructed by the Camp David and the peace agreements. The fault for that lies of course with the present Israeli government and the governments which paved the road to the policy of territorial compromise, the Alignment governments since 1967. The Egyptians will not need to keep the peace treaty after the return of the Sinai, and they will do all they can to return to the fold of the Arab world and to the USSR in order to gain support and military assistance. American aid is guaranteed only for a short while, for the terms of the peace and the weakening of the U.S. both at home and abroad will bring about a reduction in aid. Without oil and the income from it, with the present enormous expenditure, we will not be able to get through 1982 under the present conditions and we will have to act in order to return the situation to the status quo which existed in Sinai prior to Sadat’s visit and the mistaken peace agreement signed with him in March 1979. 10


Israel has two major routes through which to realize this purpose, one direct and the other indirect. The direct option is the less realistic one because of the nature of the regime and government in Israel as well as the wisdom of Sadat who obtained our withdrawal from Sinai, which was, next to the war of 1973, his major achievement since he took power. Israel will not unilaterally break the treaty, neither today, nor in 1982, unless it is very hard pressed economically and politically and Egypt provides Israel with the excuse to take the Sinai back into our hands for the fourth time in our short history. What is left therefore, is the indirect option. The economic situation in Egypt, the nature of the regime and its pan-

Arab policy, will bring about a situation after April 1982 in which Israel will be forced to act directly or indirectly in order to regain control over Sinai as a strategic, economic and energy reserve for the long run. Egypt does not constitute a military strategic problem due to its internal conflicts and it could be driven back to the post 1967 war situation in no more than one day. 11


The myth of Egypt as the strong leader of the Arab World was demolished back in 1956 and definitely did not survive 1967, but our policy, as in the return of the Sinai, served to turn the myth into “fact.” In reality, however, Egypt’s power in proportion both to Israel alone and to the rest of the Arab World has gone down about 50 percent since 1967. Egypt is no longer the leading political power in the Arab World and is economically on the verge of a crisis. Without foreign assistance the crisis will come tomorrow. 12 In the short run, due to the return of the Sinai, Egypt will gain several advantages at our expense, but only in the short run until 1982, and that will not change the balance of power to its benefit, and will possibly bring about its downfall. Egypt, in its present domestic political picture, is already a corpse, all the more so if we take into account the growing Moslem-Christian rift. Breaking Egypt down territorially into distinct geographical regions is the political aim of Israel in the Nineteen Eighties on its Western front.


Egypt is divided and torn apart into many foci of authority. If Egypt falls apart, countries like Libya, Sudan or even the more distant states will not continue to exist in their present form and will join the downfall and dissolution of Egypt. The vision of a Christian Coptic State in Upper Egypt alongside a number of weak states with very localized power and without a centralized government as to date, is the key to a historical development which was only set back by the peace agreement but which seems inevitable in the long run. 13


The Western front, which on the surface appears more problematic, is in fact less complicated than the Eastern front, in which most of the events that make the headlines have been taking place recently. Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precendent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today. 14


Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization. 15


The entire Arabian peninsula is a natural candidate for dissolution due to internal and external pressures, and the matter is inevitable especially in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of whether its economic might based on oil remains intact or whether it is diminished in the long run, the internal rifts and breakdowns are a clear and natural development in light of the present political structure. 16


Jordan constitutes an immediate strategic target in the short run but not in the long run, for it does not constitute a real threat in the long run after its dissolution, the termination of the lengthy rule of King Hussein and the transfer of power to the Palestinians in the short run.


There is no chance that Jordan will continue to exist in its present structure for a long time, and Israel’s policy, both in war and in peace, ought to be directed at the liquidation of Jordan under the present regime and the transfer of power to the Palestinian majority. Changing the regime east of the river will also cause the termination of the problem of the territories densely populated with Arabs west of the Jordan. Whether in war or under conditions of peace, emigration from the territories and economic demographic freeze in them, are the guarantees for the coming change on both banks of the river, and we ought to be active in order to accelerate this process in the nearest future. The autonomy plan ought also to be rejected, as well as any compromise or division of the territories for, given the plans of the PLO and those of the Israeli Arabs themselves, the Shefa’amr plan of September 1980, it is not possible to go on living in this country in the present situation without separating the two nations, the Arabs to Jordan and the Jews to the areas west of the river. Genuine coexistence and peace will reign over the land only when the Arabs understand that without Jewish rule between the Jordan and the sea they will have neither existence nor security. A nation of their own and security will be theirs only in Jordan. 17


Within Israel the distinction between the areas of ’67 and the territories beyond them, those of ’48, has always been meaningless for Arabs and nowadays no longer has any significance for us. The problem should be seen in its entirety without any divisions as of ’67. It should be clear, under any future political situation or military constellation, that the solution of the problem of the indigenous Arabs will come only when they recognize the existence of Israel in secure borders up to the Jordan river and beyond it, as our existential need in this difficult epoch, the nuclear epoch which we shall soon enter. It is no longer possible to live with three fourths of the Jewish population on the dense shoreline which is so dangerous in a nuclear epoch.


Dispersal of the population is therefore a domestic strategic aim of the highest order; otherwise, we shall cease to exist within any borders. Judea, Samaria and the Galilee are our sole guarantee for national existence, and if we do not become the majority in the mountain areas, we shall not rule in the country and we shall be like the Crusaders, who lost this country which was not theirs anyhow, and in which they were foreigners to begin with. Rebalancing the country demographically, strategically and economically is the highest and most central aim today. Taking hold of the mountain watershed from Beersheba to the Upper Galilee is the national aim generated by the major strategic consideration which is settling the mountainous part of the country that is empty of Jews today. l8


Realizing our aims on the Eastern front depends first on the realization of this internal strategic objective. The transformation of the political and economic structure, so as to enable the realization of these strategic aims, is the key to achieving the entire change. We need to change from a centralized economy in which the government is extensively involved, to an open and free market as well as to switch from depending upon the U.S. taxpayer to developing, with our own hands, of a genuine productive economic infrastructure. If we are not able to make this change freely and voluntarily, we shall be forced into it by world developments, especially in the areas of economics, energy, and politics, and by our own growing isolation. l9


From a military and strategic point of view, the West led by the U.S. is unable to withstand the global pressures of the USSR throughout the world, and Israel must therefore stand alone in the Eighties, without any foreign assistance, military or economic, and this is within our capacities today, with no compromises. 20 Rapid changes in the world will also bring about a change in the condition of world Jewry to which Israel will become not only a last resort but the only existential option. We cannot assume that U.S. Jews, and the communities of Europe and Latin America will continue to exist in the present form in the future. 21


Our existence in this country itself is certain, and there is no force that could remove us from here either forcefully or by treachery (Sadat’s method). Despite the difficulties of the mistaken “peace” policy and the problem of the Israeli Arabs and those of the territories, we can effectively deal with these problems in the foreseeable future.



Three important points have to be clarified in order to be able to understand the significant possibilities of realization of this Zionist plan for the Middle East, and also why it had to be published.


The Military Background of The Plan

The military conditions of this plan have not been mentioned above, but on the many occasions where something very like it is being “explained” in closed meetings to members of the Israeli Establishment, this point is clarified. It is assumed that the Israeli military forces, in all their branches, are insufficient for the actual work of occupation of such wide territories as discussed above. In fact, even in times of intense Palestinian “unrest” on the West Bank, the forces of the Israeli Army are stretched out too much. The answer to that is the method of ruling by means of “Haddad forces” or of “Village Associations” (also known as “Village Leagues”): local forces under “leaders” completely dissociated from the population, not having even any feudal or party structure (such as the Phalangists have, for example). The “states” proposed by Yinon are “Haddadland” and “Village Associations,” and their armed forces will be, no doubt, quite similar. In addition, Israeli military superiority in such a situation will be much greater than it is even now, so that any movement of revolt will be “punished” either by mass humiliation as in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or by bombardment and obliteration of cities, as in Lebanon now (June 1982), or by both. In order to ensure this, the plan, as explained orally, calls for the establishment of Israeli garrisons in focal places between the mini states, equipped with the necessary mobile destructive forces. In fact, we have seen something like this in Haddadland and we will almost certainly soon see the first example of this system functioning either in South Lebanon or in all Lebanon.


It is obvious that the above military assumptions, and the whole plan too, depend also on the Arabs continuing to be even more divided than they are now, and on the lack of any truly progressive mass movement among them. It may be that those two conditions will be removed only when the plan will be well advanced, with consequences which can not be foreseen.


Why it is necessary to publish this in Israel?

The reason for publication is the dual nature of the Israeli-Jewish society: A very great measure of freedom and democracy, specially for Jews, combined with expansionism and racist discrimination. In such a situation the Israeli-Jewish elite (for the masses follow the TV and Begin’s speeches) has to be persuaded. The first steps in the process of persuasion are oral, as indicated above, but a time comes in which it becomes inconvenient. Written material must be produced for the benefit of the more stupid “persuaders” and “explainers” (for example medium-rank officers, who are, usually, remarkably stupid). They then “learn it,” more or less, and preach to others. It should be remarked that Israel, and even the Yishuv from the Twenties, has always functioned in this way. I myself well remember how (before I was “in opposition”) the necessity of war with was explained to me and others a year before the 1956 war, and the necessity of conquering “the rest of Western Palestine when we will have the opportunity” was explained in the years 1965-67.


Why is it assumed that there is no special risk from the outside in the publication of such plans?

Such risks can come from two sources, so long as the principled opposition inside Israel is very weak (a situation which may change as a consequence of the war on Lebanon) : The Arab World, including the Palestinians, and the United States. The Arab World has shown itself so far quite incapable of a detailed and rational analysis of Israeli-Jewish society, and the Palestinians have been, on the average, no better than the rest. In such a situation, even those who are shouting about the dangers of Israeli expansionism (which are real enough) are doing this not because of factual and detailed knowledge, but because of belief in myth. A good example is the very persistent belief in the non-existent writing on the wall of the Knesset of the Biblical verse about the Nile and the Euphrates. Another example is the persistent, and completely false declarations, which were made by some of the most important Arab leaders, that the two blue stripes of the Israeli flag symbolize the Nile and the Euphrates, while in fact they are taken from the stripes of the Jewish praying shawl (Talit). The Israeli specialists assume that, on the whole, the Arabs will pay no attention to their serious discussions of the future, and the Lebanon war has proved them right. So why should they not continue with their old methods of persuading other Israelis?


In the United States a very similar situation exists, at least until now. The more or less serious commentators take their information about Israel, and much of their opinions about it, from two sources. The first is from articles in the “liberal” American press, written almost totally by Jewish admirers of Israel who, even if they are critical of some aspects of the Israeli state, practice loyally what Stalin used to call “the constructive criticism.” (In fact those among them who claim also to be “Anti-Stalinist” are in reality more Stalinist than Stalin, with Israel being their god which has not yet failed). In the framework of such critical worship it must be assumed that Israel has always “good intentions” and only “makes mistakes,” and therefore such a plan would not be a matter for discussion–exactly as the Biblical genocides committed by Jews are not mentioned. The other source of information, The Jerusalem Post, has similar policies. So long, therefore, as the situation exists in which Israel is really a “closed society” to the rest of the world, because the world wants to close its eyes, the publication and even the beginning of the realization of such a plan is realistic and feasible.

Israel Shahak

June 17, 1982 Jerusalem

About the Translator

Israel Shahak is a professor of organic chemistly at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights. He published The Shahak Papers, collections of key articles from the Hebrew press, and is the author of numerous articles and books, among them Non-Jew in the Jewish State. His latest book is Israel’s Global Role: Weapons for Repression, published by the AAUG in 1982. Israel Shahak: (1933-2001)


 1. American Universities Field Staff. Report No.33, 1979. According to this research, the population of the world will be 6 billion in the year 2000. Today’s world population can be broken down as follows: China, 958 million; India, 635 million; USSR, 261 million; U.S., 218 million Indonesia, 140 million; Brazil and Japan, 110 million each. According to the figures of the U.N. Population Fund for 1980, there will be, in 2000, 50 cities with a population of over 5 million each. The population ofthp;Third World will then be 80% of the world population. According to Justin Blackwelder, U.S. Census Office chief, the world population will not reach 6 billion because of hunger.

 2. Soviet nuclear policy has been well summarized by two American Sovietologists: Joseph D. Douglas and Amoretta M. Hoeber, Soviet Strategy for Nuclear War, (Stanford, Ca., Hoover Inst. Press, 1979). In the Soviet Union tens and hundreds of articles and books are published each year which detail the Soviet doctrine for nuclear war and there is a great deal of documentation translated into English and published by the U.S. Air Force,including USAF: Marxism-Leninism on War and the Army: The Soviet View, Moscow, 1972; USAF: The Armed Forces of the Soviet State. Moscow, 1975, by Marshal A. Grechko. The basic Soviet approach to the matter is presented in the book by Marshal Sokolovski published in 1962 in Moscow: Marshal V. D. Sokolovski, Military Strategy, Soviet Doctrine and Concepts(New York, Praeger, 1963).

 3. A picture of Soviet intentions in various areas of the world can be drawn from the book by Douglas and Hoeber, ibid. For additional material see: Michael Morgan, “USSR’s Minerals as Strategic Weapon in the Future,” Defense and Foreign Affairs, Washington, D.C., Dec. 1979.

 4. Admiral of the Fleet Sergei Gorshkov, Sea Power and the State, London, 1979. Morgan, loc. cit. General George S. Brown (USAF) C-JCS, Statement to the Congress on the Defense Posture of the United States For Fiscal Year 1979, p. 103; National Security Council, Review of Non-Fuel Mineral Policy, (Washington, D.C. 1979,); Drew Middleton, The New York Times, (9/15/79); Time, 9/21/80.

 5. Elie Kedourie, “The End of the Ottoman Empire,” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 3, No.4, 1968.

 6. Al-Thawra, Syria 12/20/79, Al-Ahram,12/30/79, Al Ba’ath, Syria, 5/6/79. 55% of the Arabs are 20 years old and younger, 70% of the Arabs live in Africa, 55% of the Arabs under 15 are unemployed, 33% live in urban areas, Oded Yinon, “Egypt’s Population Problem,” The Jerusalem Quarterly, No. 15, Spring 1980.

 7. E. Kanovsky, “Arab Haves and Have Nots,” The Jerusalem Quarterly, No.1, Fall 1976, Al Ba’ath, Syria, 5/6/79.

 8. In his book, former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said that the Israeli government is in fact responsible for the design of American policy in the Middle East, after June ’67, because of its own indecisiveness as to the future of the territories and the inconsistency in its positions since it established the background for Resolution 242 and certainly twelve years later for the Camp David agreements and the peace treaty with Egypt. According to Rabin, on June 19, 1967, President Johnson sent a letter to Prime Minister Eshkol in which he did not mention anything about withdrawal from the new territories but exactly on the same day the government resolved to return territories in exchange for peace. After the Arab resolutions in Khartoum (9/1/67) the government altered its position but contrary to its decision of June 19, did not notify the U.S. of the alteration and the U.S. continued to support 242 in the Security Council on the basis of its earlier understanding that Israel is prepared to return territories. At that point it was already too late to change the U.S. position and Israel’s policy. From here the way was opened to peace agreements on the basis of 242 as was later agreed upon in Camp David. See Yitzhak Rabin. Pinkas Sherut, (Ma’ariv 1979) pp. 226-227.

 9. Foreign and Defense Committee Chairman Prof. Moshe Arens argued in an interview (Ma ‘ariv,10/3/80) that the Israeli government failed to prepare an economic plan before the Camp David agreements and was itself surprised by the cost of the agreements, although already during the negotiations it was possible to calculate the heavy price and the serious error involved in not having prepared the economic grounds for peace.

The former Minister of Treasury, Mr. Yigal Holwitz, stated that if it were not for the withdrawal from the oil fields, Israel would have a positive balance of payments (9/17/80). That same person said two years earlier that the government of Israel (from which he withdrew) had placed a noose around his neck. He was referring to the Camp David agreements (Ha’aretz, 11/3/78). In the course of the whole peace negotiations neither an expert nor an economics advisor was consulted, and the Prime Minister himself, who lacks knowledge and expertise in economics, in a mistaken initiative, asked the U.S. to give us a loan rather than a grant, due to his wish to maintain our respect and the respect of the U.S. towards us. See Ha’aretz1/5/79. Jerusalem Post, 9/7/79. Prof Asaf Razin, formerly a senior consultant in the Treasury, strongly criticized the conduct of the negotiations; Ha’aretz, 5/5/79. Ma’ariv, 9/7/79. As to matters concerning the oil fields and Israel’s energy crisis, see the interview with Mr. Eitan Eisenberg, a government advisor on these matters, Ma’arive Weekly, 12/12/78. The Energy Minister, who personally signed the Camp David agreements and the evacuation of Sdeh Alma, has since emphasized the seriousness of our condition from the point of view of oil supplies more than once…see Yediot Ahronot, 7/20/79. Energy Minister Modai even admitted that the government did not consult him at all on the subject of oil during the Camp David and Blair House negotiations. Ha’aretz, 8/22/79.

 10. Many sources report on the growth of the armaments budget in Egypt and on intentions to give the army preference in a peace epoch budget over domestic needs for which a peace was allegedly obtained. See former Prime Minister Mamduh Salam in an interview 12/18/77, Treasury Minister Abd El Sayeh in an interview 7/25/78, and the paper Al Akhbar, 12/2/78 which clearly stressed that the military budget will receive first priority, despite the peace. This is what former Prime Minister Mustafa Khalil has stated in his cabinet’s programmatic document which was presented to Parliament, 11/25/78. See English translation, ICA, FBIS, Nov. 27. 1978, pp. D 1-10.

According to these sources, Egypt’s military budget increased by 10% between fiscal 1977 and 1978, and the process still goes on. A Saudi source divulged that the Egyptians plan to increase their militmy budget by 100% in the next two years; Ha’aretz, 2/12/79 and Jerusalem Post, 1/14/79.

 11. Most of the economic estimates threw doubt on Egypt’s ability to reconstruct its economy by 1982. See Economic Intelligence Unit, 1978 Supplement, “The Arab Republic of Egypt”; E. Kanovsky, “Recent Economic Developments in the Middle East,” Occasional Papers, The Shiloah Institution, June 1977; Kanovsky, “The Egyptian Economy Since the Mid-Sixties, The Micro Sectors,” Occasional Papers, June 1978; Robert McNamara, President of World Bank, as reported in Times, London, 1/24/78.

 12. See the comparison made by the researeh of the Institute for Strategic Studies in London, and research camed out in the Center for Strategic Studies of Tel Aviv University, as well as the research by the British scientist, Denis Champlin, Military Review, Nov. 1979, ISS: The Military Balance 1979-1980, CSS; Security Arrangements in Sinai…by Brig. Gen. (Res.) A Shalev, No. 3.0 CSS; The Military Balance and the Military Options after the Peace Treaty with Egypt, by Brig. Gen. (Res.) Y. Raviv, No.4, Dec. 1978, as well as many press reports including El Hawadeth, London, 3/7/80; El Watan El Arabi, Paris, 12/14/79.

 13. As for religious ferment in Egypt and the relations between Copts and Moslems see the series of articles published in the Kuwaiti paper, El Qabas, 9/15/80. The English author Irene Beeson reports on the rift between Moslems and Copts, see: Irene Beeson, Guardian, London, 6/24/80, and Desmond Stewart, Middle East Internmational, London 6/6/80. For other reports see Pamela Ann Smith, Guardian, London, 12/24/79; The Christian Science Monitor 12/27/79 as well as Al Dustour, London, 10/15/79; El Kefah El Arabi, 10/15/79.

 14. Arab Press Service, Beirut, 8/6-13/80. The New Republic, 8/16/80, Der Spiegel as cited by Ha’aretz, 3/21/80, and 4/30-5/5/80; The Economist, 3/22/80; Robert Fisk, Times, London, 3/26/80; Ellsworth Jones, Sunday Times, 3/30/80.

 15.  J.P.  Peroncell  Hugoz,  Le  Monde,  Paris  4/28/80;  Dr.  Abbas  Kelidar,  Middle  East  Review,  Summer  1979;

Conflict Studies, ISS, July 1975; Andreas Kolschitter, Der Zeit, (Ha’aretz, 9/21/79) Economist Foreign Report, 10/10/79, Afro-Asian Affairs, London, July 1979.

 16. Arnold Hottinger, “The Rich Arab States in Trouble,” The New York Review of Books, 5/15/80; Arab Press Service, Beirut, 6/25-7/2/80; U.S. News and World Report, 11/5/79 as well as El Ahram, 11/9/79; El Nahar El Arabi Wal Duwali, Paris 9/7/79; El Hawadeth, 11/9/79; David Hakham, Monthly Review, IDF, Jan.-Feb. 79.

 17. As for Jordan’s policies and problems see El Nahar El Arabi Wal Duwali, 4/30/79, 7/2/79; Prof. Elie Kedouri, Ma’ariv 6/8/79; Prof. Tanter, Davar 7/12/79; A. Safdi, Jerusalem Post, 5/31/79; El Watan El Arabi 11/28/79; El Qabas, 11/19/79. As for PLO positions see: The resolutions of the Fatah Fourth Congress, Damascus, August 1980. The Shefa’amr program of the Israeli Arabs was published in Ha’aretz, 9/24/80, and by Arab Press Report 6/18/80. For facts and figures on immigration of Arabs to Jordan, see Amos Ben Vered, Ha’aretz, 2/16/77; Yossef Zuriel, Ma’ariv 1/12/80. As to the PLO’s position towards Israel see Shlomo Gazit, Monthly Review; July 1980; Hani El Hasan in an interview, Al Rai Al’Am, Kuwait 4/15/80; Avi Plaskov, “The Palestinian Problem,” Survival, ISS, London Jan. Feb. 78; David Gutrnann, “The Palestinian Myth,” Commentary, Oct. 75; Bernard Lewis, “The Palestinians and the PLO,” Commentary Jan. 75; Monday Morning, Beirut, 8/18-21/80; Journal of Palestine Studies, Winter 1980.

 18. Prof. Yuval Neeman, “Samaria–The Basis for Israel’s Security,” Ma’arakhot 272-273, May/June 1980; Ya’akov Hasdai, “Peace, the Way and the Right to Know,” Dvar Hashavua, 2/23/80. Aharon Yariv, “Strategic Depth–An Israeli Perspective,” Ma’arakhot 270-271, October 1979; Yitzhak Rabin, “Israel’s Defense Problems in the Eighties,” Ma’arakhot October 1979.

 19. Ezra Zohar, In the Regime’s Pliers (Shikmona, 1974); Motti Heinrich, Do We have a Chance Israel, Truth Versus Legend (Reshafim, 1981).

 20. Henry Kissinger, “The Lessons of the Past,” The Washington Review Vol 1, Jan. 1978; Arthur Ross, “OPEC’s Challenge to the West,” The Washington Quarterly, Winter, 1980; Walter Levy, “Oil and the Decline of the West,” Foreign Affairs, Summer 1980; Special Report–“Our Armed Forees-Ready or Not?” U.S. News and World Report 10/10/77; Stanley Hoffman, “Reflections on the Present Danger,” The New York Review of Books 3/6/80; Time 4/3/80; Leopold Lavedez “The illusions of SALT” Commentary Sept. 79; Norman Podhoretz, “The Present Danger,” Commentary March 1980; Robert Tucker, “Oil and American Power Six Years Later,” Commentary Sept. 1979; Norman Podhoretz, “The Abandonment of Israel,” Commentary July 1976; Elie Kedourie, “Misreading the Middle East,” Commentary July 1979.

 21. According to figures published by Ya’akov Karoz, Yediot Ahronot, 10/17/80, the sum total of anti-Semitic incidents recorded in the world in 1979 was double the amount recorded in 1978. In Germany, France, and Britain the number of anti-Semitic incidents was many times greater in that year. In the U.S. as well there has been a sharp increase in anti-Semitic incidents which were reported in that article. For the new anti-Semitism, see L. Talmon, “The New Anti-Semitism,” The New Republic, 9/18/1976; Barbara Tuchman, “They poisoned the Wells,” Newsweek 2/3/75.


To allege antisemitism against Ken Livingstone discredits the term

To allege antisemitism against Ken Livingstone discredits the term

1) Ken Livingstone: Ken Livingstone to appear before the Labour Party’s National Constitutional Committee;
2) Labour HQ: Notice of charges and suspension from holding office or representing the Labour Party, General Secretary of the Labour Party Iain McNicol lays out the charge sheet;
3) Ken Livingstone: Witness statements from Jenny Manson, Jonathan Rosenhead, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, Walter Wolfgang, Diana Neslen

London Mayor, Ken Livingstone, looks out across London after an interview at his headquarters on London’s South Bank, October 3, 2006. He told Haaretz that more Jews had become conservative as they grew richer. Antisemitic, a true fact, or tactless? Photo by Bloomberg

Ken Livingstone to appear before the Labour Party’s National Constitutional Committee

Press Release from Ken Livingstone
March 28, 2017

On Thursday this week (30 March) Ken Livingstone will be appearing before the Labour Party’s National Constitutional Committee (NCC) to answer the charge that he engaged in conduct ‘grossly detrimental’ to the Party when he publicly defended the Labour Party against charges of anti-Semitism in 2016.

In April 2016 Ken Livingstone conducted a series of radio and TV interviews in which he defended the Labour Party, its Leader Jeremy Corbyn and a Labour MP Naz Shah, against what he believed were false allegations regarding anti-Semitism.

In an interview Ken Livingstone was asked a question relating to the legality of what Hitler did in Germany. Ken briefly responded about events over the years 1932 to 1945. In his remarks he referenced the period when the Nazi government and German Zionists had an agreement (The 1933 Transfer Agreement) over the emigration of Jews to Palestine. This led to his suspension from the party.

It has taken a whole eleven months of suspension before a hearing of the NCC has been mounted.

Ken Livingstone denies breaking any Labour Party rule. Ken Livingstone is not being accused of antisemitism at this week’s Labour Party NCC hearing. However, some of his detractors are trying to smear him as such. Ken Livingstone has been falsely accused of claiming that Hitler was a Zionist – something he neither believes nor would say.

Ken Livingstone is a forthright opponent of antisemitism, having fought against it his entire political career. Both as Leader of the Greater London Council in the 1980s and as London Mayor in the 2000s, Livingstone helped resource the fight against racism and anti-Semitism. He also ensured there was support for Jewish community organisations and cultural events.

In these interviews on radio and TV in April 2016 Ken Livingstone’s principal objective was to defend the Labour Party against false allegations of anti-Semitism. He had no intention to cause offence to anyone and has said he is sorry if his remarks did cause offence.

The Labour Party have refused to holding this hearing in public, despite the request of Ken Livingstone’s lawyers.

Defending Ken Livingstone at the hearing will be the barrister Michael Mansfield QC. Mr Mansfield is President of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers and is well known for representing a series of high profile miscarriage of justice cases in the 1980s, and many families over the last 40 years seeking justice for fatalities at the hands of the state, right through to Hillsborough.

Ken Livingstone’s solicitor is Imran Khan, well known for representing the family of Stephen Lawrence.

Five Jewish members of the Labour Party are appearing before the Labour Party NCC hearing, to defend Ken Livingstone.

Ken Livingstone said: ‘I have broken no Labour Party rule. I am being attacked by the right-wing of the Labour Party because I support Palestinian human rights and strongly back our Leader Jeremy Corbyn. There is no real evidence against me so hopefully the Labour panel will dismiss the charge against me. Only a biased and rigged jury could find against me.‘

Former member of Labour’s National Executive Committee Walter Wolfgang, who will be a witness for Ken Livingstone, said:

As a Jewish member of the Labour Party, who escaped Nazi Germany in 1937, I take the issue of anti-Semitism extremely seriously. Ken Livingstone has an outstanding record of fighting against racism and anti-Semitism. This hearing into Ken’s actions is a travesty.‘

Diana Neslen, also a witness for Ken Livingstone, said:

‘I am a British Jew with experience of violent antisemitism against my own family and challenge the lazy assumption that support for Israel and being Jewish are synonymous. In fact it is not helpful for the interests of Jewish people to be identified with the present policies of the State of Israel. And it is profoundly wrong to label as antisemites those who support the Palestinians. I did not find Ken Livingstone’s remarks either offensive or antisemitic.‘

Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, a further witness for Ken Livingstone said:

‘Ken Livingstone is being pilloried because he is a prominent figure on the left of the Labour Party who has actively defended it from attacks based on false allegations of antisemitism. As a Jewish person who supports Palestinian human rights, I reject the notion that criticism of Israel and Zionism is necessarily antisemitic. Those who allege antisemitism against Ken Livingstone discredit the term. His track record in public office is a clear testament to his commitment to supporting the Jewish community and fighting racism in all its forms, including antisemitism.‘

Notice of charges and suspension from holding office or representing the Labour Party

The Labour Party,
Head Office
Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QT

Dear Mr Livingstone

16 February 2016

By letter dated 28 April 2016 you were notified that you were suspended from holding office or representing the Labour Party, and were ineligible to attend Labour Party meetings or seek office or be considered for selection as a candidate, pending the outcome of an internal Party investigation (see Tab1 of the Exhibit Bundle (“the Bundle”) enclosed herewith).

You were interviewed on 16 May 2016 by the Labour Party’s Head of Disputes and Discipline, Katherine Buckingham at which she asked you about the many comments you made in the media, in relation to antisemitism within the Labour Party, and social media posts published by Ms Shah (see Tab 2 of the Bundle).

Following that interview, Ms Buckingham drew up a report (see Tab 3 of the Bundle), recommending that the National Executive Committee (“NEC”) refer your case to a hearing of the National Constitutional Committee (“NCC”) for possible disciplinary action.

On 5 July 2016, the NEC’s Disputes Panel considered Ms Buckingham’s report, and agreed to refer the matter to a hearing of the NCC, pursuant to Chapter 6, clause 1, paragraph 1A of the Labour Party Rule Book 2016 (“the Party Rules”) (see page 3 of Tab 4 of the Bundle).

This letter sets out the charges against you to be considered by the NCC, and includes a summary of the facts and evidence relied on in relation to each of those charges.

1. It is necessary briefly to set out the background to the charges against you. Prior to her election as a Member of Parliament, Ms Shah posted the following material on Face book:

(1) On 29 July 2014 Ms Shah published a post encouraging individuals to vote in a poll run bythe Daily Mirror. The poll asked readers to vote on whether they agreed with Lord Prescott’s view that Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza. Ms Shah commented in her post:

“The Jews are rallying to the poll at the bottom and there are now 87% disagreeing and 13% agreeing.” (see “Post 2″ at page 3 of Tab 5 of the Bundle).

(2) On 5 August 2014 Ms Shah published a post which included the following text beneath a map of the United States of America with the State of Israel superimposed upon it (see Post1″ at page 1 of Tab 5 of the Bundle)


Israelis are most loved by Americans.
Americans will welcome Israelis with open arms into their homes.
America has plenty of land to accommodate Israel as its 51st state.
Israel can have a real safe Jewish state surrounded by friendly states.
America will no longer have to spend £3 billion tax payer money per year for Israel’s defense. [T]he transportation costs will be less than 3 years of defense spending.
Palestinians will get their land back
Middle East will again be peaceful without foreign interference.
Oil prices will go down, inflation will go down, whole world will be happy. “

Within the above post Ms Shah added an icon of a smiling face, and stated ‘Problem solved’.

In reply to a comment on this post which stated that ‘A more realistic solution might be [a] one state solution where Muslims njews live ad [sic] equal in a democratic state. Similar to South African solution’, Ms Shah commented that the ‘Only problem with that is Israel would need to return all the land and farms it has stolen and give the Palestinians rights which is not possible’. As a result, she indicated that she would lobby the President of the United States (Barack Obama) and the Prime Minister (David Cameron) to adopt the idea (see “Comments on post 1″ at page 2 of Tab 5 of the Bundle).

(3) On 5 September 2014 Ms Shah published a post containing an image of Martin Luther King with the text “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal”, above which she had commented “#APARTHEID ISRAEL” (see “Post 3″ of Tab 5 of the Bundle).

2. The above posts were republished by the Guido Fawkes political blog on Tuesday 26 April 2016. Ms Shah admitted that she was responsible for the posts and stated that she would be making a full apology. On the same day, Ms Shah stepped down as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell MP.

3. On Wednesday 27 April Ms Shah made a full apology to the House of Commons (see Tab 6 of the Bundle). In that apology, she stated: p2 The Labour Party (( … I hope you will allow me to say that I fully acknowledge that I have made a mistake and I wholeheartedly apologise to this House for the words I used before I became a member. I accept and understand that the words I used caused upset and hurt to the Jewish community and I deeply regret that. Antisemitism is racism, full stop … I truly regret what I did and I hope, I sincerely hope, that this House will accept my profound apology”.

4. This apology was accepted by the Leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn MP. On 27 April 2016, Ms Shah was suspended from the Labour Party pending further investigation. On 5 July 2016, the suspension was lifted in light ofMs Shah’s apology and her obvious and deep regret caused by her words to the Jewish community.

5. Ms Shah accepted, implicitly in her apology to the House of Commons and expressly in an interview with BBC Radio 4’s “The World At One” programme (see Tab 7 of the Bundle), that the content of her posts was antisemitic.

Relevant Party Rules:

6. I set out below relevant provisions of the Party Rules, which state, as far as material: (1) In relation to the aims and principles of the Labour Party, under Chapter 1 (“Constitutional Rules”):

(a) The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party that seeks to create a community where people live together freely “in the spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respecf’ (chapter 1, clause IV, paragraph 2.A);

(b) The Labour Party works for a society that “delivers people from the tyranny of … prejudice” (chapter 1, clause IV paragraph 2.B). (2) As the administrative authority of the Labour Party, the NBC is responsible for ensuring an equal opportunities policy is in place; that the “Labour Party reflects the communities it serves”; and that ”policies practices and procedures enshrine principles of equalities, inclusion and diversity”. The NBC ((confirms the policy of promoting equality, tackling under representation and not unfairly discriminating against anyone including on the basis of gender, age, race, sexual orientation and gender identity, disability or religious beliefs” (chapter 1, clause VIII, paragraph 3 .N).

(3) Under Chapter 2 (“Membership Rules”):

(a) ((To be and remain eligible for membership, each individual member must: (A) accept and conform to the constitution, programme, principles and policies of the Party” (chapter 2, clause 1, paragraph 6.A);

(b) ((No member of the Party shall engage in conduct which in the opinion of the NEC is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the Party … ” (chapter 2, clause 1, paragraph 8)

(4) The NCC has duties and powers including to determine by hearing or otherwise such disciplinary matters as are presented to it by the officers of the Labour Party on the instructions of the NEC: chapter 1, clause IX, paragraph 2.B. The process for determining such disciplinary matters is set out in Appendix 6 to the Party Rules.

List of Charges:

7. The charge against you is that you engaged in conduct that in the opinion of the NEC was prejudicial and/or grossly detrimental to the Labour Party (chapter 2, clause 1 paragraph

8. The particulars of the charge are set out below.

(i) In media interviews between 28 April 2016 and 30 April 2016 you repeatedly denied that social media posts made by Ms Shah were antisemitic, and repeatedly sought to minimise their offensive/scurrilous nature by stating that they were merely criticism of Israeli policy at a time of conflict with the Palestinians, and by alleging that scrutiny over her conduct was merely an extension of an apparent smear campaign to undermine and disrupt the leadership ofJeremy Corbvn MP.

8. On Thursday 28 April 2016 you appeared on LBC Radio with the presenter Ian Dale (see Tab 8 of the Bundle). You stated that you didn’t think that what Ms Shah had said was antisemitic but was ‘over the top and offensive’. Ms Shah’s posts were a bit of criticism of Israel and Israel’s supporters at a time -let’s not forget this- in that horrendous conflict … “, and that in the context of events in Gaza it was understandable why people go over the top” (emphasis added).

9. You repeated these comments later that day on BBC London. During an interview with the presenter Vanessa Feltz, you stated that the above social media posts made by Ms Shah in 2014 were not antisemitic, but were ‘over the top’ (see Tab·9 of the Bundle), and were made at the time of ‘another brutal Israeli attack on the Palestinians’ . .

10. You repeated the view that Ms Shah’s remarks were not antisemitic in an interview on the “Daily Politics Show” on the BBC on 28 April2016 (see Tab 10 of the Bundle), and again an in interview with LBC Radio on 30 April2016 (see Tab 12 of the Bundle).

11. In your interview with LBC Radio on 30 April 2016, you said that ‘what this is all about is actually the struggle of the embittered old Blairite MPs to try and get rid of Jeremy Corbyn. They want to whip this issue up.’ You repeated the same point on several further occasions during that interview.

12. It is widely accepted and obvious that Ms Shah’s posts were antisemitic and offensive. Indeed, as stated above, Ms Shah herself accepted that her comments were antisemitic. So, too, did the spokesman for Jeremy Corbyn MP.

13. The references to a “solution”, “transportation”, and “rallying” in relation to the State of Israel use language connected with the atrocities committed against Jewish people in and by Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 40s, which is deeply offensive. Similarly, comparing modem day Israel to Nazi Germany (see “Post 3″ of Tab 5 of the Bundle) and making express reference to Hitler is deeply offensive, provocative and highly insensitive to the Jewish families who suffered great loss at the hands of Hitler and Nazi Germany. It diminishes the atrocities committed in and by Nazi Germany against the Jewish people, and suggests that the acts of Israel can be equated to those of the regime responsible for the Holocaust.

This contravenes the definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the Labour Party (see the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition at Tab 13 of the Bundle).

14. You have yourself stated that ‘ethnic cleansing of Jews would be antisemitic’ (see Q217 at page 55 of Tab 14 of the Bundle; this tab being the Home Affairs Select Committee Oral Evidence: The Rise of Antisemitism, HC 136 on 14 June 2016). In her posts, Ms Shah was expressly supporting the relocation of Jews from Israel to the United States. Ms Shah was not merely rejecting the Two-State solution to the Israel-Palestine situation (which represents Labour Party policy), something which you have stated that you too support [see Q87 at page 31 of Tab 14 of the Bundle), but was even rejecting the One-State solution.

Ms Shah was not simply using or referencing an academic study which showed that ‘it would be cheaper if all Israel’s Jews moved to America because America spends something like $3 billion a year supporting the Israeli state’ [1.Your words to the Home Affairs Select Committee (see Q98 at page 33 of Tab 14 of the Bundle)] She was advocating that removal and said that she would recommend it to the President of the United States and the British Prime Minister.

[Note from JfJfP postings editor: It was not an academic study. It was a map commissioned by Jewish Professor Norman Finkelstein which Naz Shah copied without attribution. Finkelstein was making an ironic point – given the $millions sent to Israel by the US it would be cheaper to move Israel to the US as the 51st state. Nobody but the JfJfP postings editor bothered to find this out. Why did the Labour Party, with its staff, not make the same effort?

Labour’s frazzled response to antisemitism charges

15. Nor was Ms Shah ‘simply saying’ (as you stated to LBC Radio on 28 April2016) that ‘at the – end of the Second World War, that an awful lot of Jewish survivors of the horrors of the Holocaust would much rather have been absorbed into Britain or America, they didn’t particularly want to go to a semi -desert and start growing olive trees’. As was rightly pointed out to you by the interviewer: ‘That’s nothing to do with this argument here’. –

16. That being so, any repeated refusal to recognise the antisemitic nature of those remarks on the part of senior office-holders of the Labour Party is itself likely to prejudice the Party by causing dismay among the Jewish community and indeed Labour supporters and members more generally.

17. As a former Mayor of London, and as an elected member of the NEC repeatedly called upon to represent and speak on behalf of the Labour Party publicly, the very highest standards of ethics and professionalism are expected and required from you. Given the sensitivity of the subject matter, obvious care needed to be taken to appreciate exactly what Ms Shah had posted/written, and to respond to it appropriately. In that context, the following conduct of yours was prejudicial and grossly detrimental to the Labour Party:

(1) Appearing in the public arena, and repeatedly denying the obvious truth that Ms Shah’s posts were antisemitic, which their author herself accepted;

(2) Describing Ms Shah’s statements as doing “some silly things”, as “a bit of criticism of Israel and Israel’s supporters”, and as “understandable”, albeit “over the top”, all of which appear to be attempts to minimise their highly offensive and/or antisemitic nature.

(3) Alleging that scrutiny over Ms Shah’s conduct was merely an extension of an apparent smear campaign to undermine and disrupt the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn MP, when – on its face- her statements were highly offensive and/or antisemitic in nature.

ii) In a media interview on BBC London with Vanessa Feltz on 28 April 2016 you made further comments about Hitler and Zionism, which you have subsequently repeated on a number of occasions.

18. As referred to above, on 28 April 2016 you appeared on a radio broadcast show on BBC Radio London with Vanessa Feltz (see Tab 9 of the Bundle). During that interview, Ms Feltz referred toMs Shah as having ‘talked about relocating Israel to America; about what Hitler did being legal and she talked about the Jews (rallying’. She used the word Jews not Israelis or Israel.’ She then asked you whether ‘You didn’t find that to be antisemitic’.

In response you stated that: “It’s completely over the top but it’s not antisemitic. Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this was before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews. “ (Emphasis added)

19. The comments about Hitler’s “policy” and that he was “supporting” Zionism had no connection to the question that was being asked by Ms Feltz. They did not explain whether or not what Ms Shah had said and done was antisemitic as had been asked of you.

20. Further, you repeated those remarks, or the gist of those remarks, on a number of subsequent occasions, including on 28 April2016 in an interview on “The World at One” (see Tab 11 of the Bundle); and on 30 April 2016 in an interview with LBC Radio (Tab 12 of the Bundle).

21. Many people found those comments to be offensive including those within the Labour Party, in communities the Party seeks to represent and among those who represent the Jewish community (see paragraphs 97, 100-101, 113 and 119 of Tab 15 of the Bundle, the statement of Jeremy Newmark on behalf of the Jewish Labour Movement at Tab 16 of the Bundle, and the witness statement of Gill Campbell at Tab 17 of the Bundle).

22. You deliberately introduced Hitler’s alleged support for Zionism into the discussion with Ms Feltz, in the knowledge that, or reckless as to whether, it would cause offence to members of the Jewish community.  As evidence of your longstanding knowledge of the potential for discussion of relations between Hitler and Zionism to cause widespread offence in the Jewish community, see for example the discussion at pp. 221-223 of your autobiography (You Can’t Say That”, Faber and Faber 2011), [p.223]

In so doing, you have acted in a way which is prejudicial and/or grossly detrimental to the Labour Party.

24. Further or alternatively, it should have been clear to you that to state that Hitler ‘supported’ Zionism, particularly in a context where Israeli government policy was criticised, was likely deeply to offend the Jewish community by implying a connection between Nazism and/or Fascism and the existence and/or policies of the State of Israel.

25. In so stating, you have acted in a way which is prejudicial and/or grossly detrimental to the Labour Party. (iii) You have refused to apologise for the comment you made about Hitler’s a support” for Zionism, and have repeatedly attempted to justify it on the grounds of historical accuracy.

26. You have refused to apologise for your remark about Hitler ‘supporting’ Zionism, and indeed have sought to justify it on the basis of its alleged historical accuracy. Your refusal to apologise, and repeated attempts to justify your remark, have further prejudiced and/or caused gross detriment to the Labour Party with the effect of diminishing the aims and principles of the Labour Party as defined above which you agreed to abide by through your membership.

27. In your interview with LBC Radio on 30 April2016 you were repeatedly invited to apologise or express any regret for your comment3 , and you pointedly refused to do so (see Tab 12 of the Bundle).

28. Further, you have sought to justify your remark on the grounds of historical accuracy. You did this inter alia in: (1) Your interview on BBC2 on the “Daily Politics Show” on 28 April2016 (see Tab 10 of the Bundle); (2) Your interview on BBC Radio 4 on “The World at One” on 28 April2016 (see Tab 11 of the Bundle); and (3) Your interview with LBC on 30 April2016 (see Tab 12 of the Bundle).

29. The repeated attempt to justify your comment on the basis that it was historically accurate is prejudicial and/or grossly detrimental to the Party in and of itself.

30. The historical accuracy, or otherwise, of whether Hitler ”was supporting Zionism” in 1932 is not the central issue for these purposes (although, for the avoidance of doubt, it is not accepted that this characterisation is historically accurate. As stated above, to assert that Hitler “supported” Zionism, in a context where Israeli government policy is criticised, is likely to deeply offend the Jewish community by implying a connection between Nazism, Fascism and the State of Israel.

Repeatedly to attempt to justify the comment on the basis of historical accuracy only compounds that offence, by evincing an apparent lack of awareness of, or concern for, the Jewish community’s justified sensitivity at such an implication . Yours sincerely


Witness statements

Statement from Jenny Manson

I understand that Ken Livingstone is accused of being offensive when he publicly defended Naz Shah MP in April 2016. I also understand that he is being accused of being offensive for referring to the Transfer Agreement between the Nazi government and German Zionist Federation in the 1930s.

These actions by Ken were not offensive, nor antisemitic in any way, in my view. I am Jewish and have been a member of the Labour party since 1969. I was Labour’s Parliamentary Candidate for Hendon North in 1987 and I was a Labour Councillor from 1986 to 1990 on Barnet Council.

I am 68 years old and remain an active Labour member. I am currently a member of Finchley and Golders Green CLP General Committee. My family has personal knowledge of the violent antisemitism in eastern Europe in the twentieth century. My mother came from the Ukraine, which she had to leave in 1919 to escape the pogroms against Jewish people. She lived in Palestine for ten years and then moved to Britain where she settled after marrying Raphael Salaman, a member of a long established Anglo- Jewish family. His mother was prominent in the early Zionist movement in the UK .

In my working life as a Tax Inspector I saw a (very) few instances of anti-Semitism, such as the characterisation of ‘Jewish Accountants’ as accountants who skated close to the edge. I have never witnessed any instances of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Anti-Semitism has to be treated as a serious issue, which is entirely separate from the different views people take on Israel and Zionism.

20 March 2017

* * * * *

Statement from Jonathan Rosenhead

I am a Jewish member of the Labour party, who grew up in a thoroughly Zionist family in Liverpool. Along with my many Jewish friends I did not and do not find Ken Livingstone’s public defence of Naz Shah MP in April 2016 as in any way offensive, or indeed making as any concession to antisemitism. Nor do I consider Ken Livingstone’s comments about the Transfer Agreement between the Nazi regime and European Zionists, though not perhaps expressed as elegantly as they might have been, to be in any way antisemitic or offensive.

Charges of antisemitism need to be assessed against a consensual standard. Antisemitism has been well understood for many generations as to do with hatred of Jews as Jews. The IHRA definition, recently adopted by the UK government, is a seriously flawed attempt to extend the general loathing of the crime of antisemitism to interdict entirely non-racist criticism of Israel. It is deeply unhelpful as a means of combating hostility to Jewish people.

It would be a tragic mistake if the Labour Party were to find Ken Livingstone guilty of conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the Party.

I am an Emeritus Professor of Operational Research at the London School of Economics. My Labour Party involvement extends over many decades, including membership in Sheffield, South Kensington, Hammersmith, and currently in Hackney South and Shoreditch. I have been a GC member in three of these, and was a Labour Party Parliamentary candidate in the 1960’s.

14 March 2017

* * * * *

Statement from Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi

I am a 64 year old member of Chingford and Woodford Green Labour Party, brought up in a staunch Labour Jewish household in Manchester. I have no hesitation in stating that the remarks for which Ken Livingstone has been castigated have caused me no offence whatsoever. Nor do I regard comments he made in April 2016 in defence of Naz Shah, or in reference to the relationship between Zionist leaders and the Nazi party in the 1930s, as in any way antisemitic.

As someone of 100 percent Jewish heritage, with many like-minded family members, I cannot accept the current enthusiasm for alleging that criticism of Israel and Zionism is directed at Jews. None of the remarks or actions attributed to Ken Livingstone demonstrate any antisemitic intent or motivation.

I would go further. To allege antisemitism against Ken Livingstone discredits the term. To find him guilty of conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the party on the basis of the charges laid against him would, in my view, bring the party into disrepute among its members and supporters and fair-minded members of the public, especially those from the BAME communities whose cause he has championed over many years.

14 March 2017

* * * * *

Statement by Walter Wolfgang

I am a Jewish member of the Labour Party and was a member of its National Executive Committee from 2006 to 2008. I regard antisemitism as an extremely serious issue. I am 93 years old. I was born in Germany in 1923. My family were persecuted by the Nazis. In 1937, at the age of 13, I left Germany and came to live in Britain. It was the strength of my commitment to Judaism and Jewish ethical values of human equality which caused me to join the Labour Party in 1948.

The Nazis embraced this vile ideology of antisemitism and exterminated six million Jews. Allegations of antisemitism should be made only when people express hostility to Jewish people because they are Jewish. Such allegations should not be made when this is not the case. It is not antisemitic to hold or express views about the government of Israel or about Zionism.

Ken Livingstone has an outstanding record of fighting against racism and antisemitism. Labour’s National Constitutional Committee hearing into Ken’s actions is a travesty. His public defence of Naz Shah MP in April 2016 was not offensive and did not involve him in making any concession to antisemitism.

Ken Livingstone’s remarks in April 2016 about the Transfer Agreement were broadly correct. Hitler was in favour of Jews leaving Germany for Palestine. The agreements reached between the Nazis and some Zionists are simply indisputable facts. Advocacy of Jews leaving for Palestine was made by some Jews who were Zionist, some non-Jews who were anti-Semitic, by some non-Jews who were friendly and some who were indifferent to Jews.

Antisemitism is hostility to Jews because of religion, race or ethnicity. It is nothing else. Many Jews, Zionist and non-Zionist – including myself – disagree with the present policy of the Israeli government. It is evident that Livingstone is being attacked because he supports the Palestinians, and not because he is either offensive or antisemitic. He is not guilty of any conduct detrimental to the Labour Party. His suspension was unjustified. Any further disciplinary action would bring the party into disrepute.


* * * * *

Statement from Diana Neslen

I am a Jewish member of the Labour party. I am 77 years old and have been a member on and off since the 1980s, possibly the 1970s. I am currently a delegate to Ilford South CLP General Committee. I have been an active anti-racist campaigner for many years, having been among other things the Chair of the Redbridge Race Equality and Community Council.

Personally I am very much aware of the nature of extreme antisemitism. My own family has had experience of violent antisemitism. My son was attacked by a member of an antisemitic party. The offender was jailed for three years. While the offender was in prison we were subjected to antisemitic phone calls that included threats from his supporters.

Over the years I have spent a lot of time with people who survived the 1930s/40s crimes of the Nazis and am familiar with the history of 1930s Germany and the Transfer Agreement involving the Nazi government and the Yishuv in Palestine. I consider it important that charges of antisemitism are judged against a clear objective definition of antisemitism.

It is antisemitic to treat all Jews as one cohesive group who all support Israel.

I also believe that antisemitism must be fought alongside all other forms of racism that are on the rise. The threat is from the resurgent Right, not from activists campaigning for Palestinian rights. It is also important to recognise that support for Israel and being Jewish are not synonymous. There are many non-Jews living in Israel. Many Jews identify completely with Israel, even though they do not live there and feel personally offended when Israel is criticised. However there are many Jews in the world that do not identify with Israel and its governments’ policies.

There are many non Jews who identify as Zionists and support Israel. In fact there are many antisemites who support Israel. It is antisemitic to treat all Jews as one cohesive group who all support Israel. In 2013 the Daily Mail used classical dog- whistle themes to attack Ed Miliband, the then Jewish Labour leader. The themes were that his father ‘hated Britain’, was a foreigner and a Marxist. Jews as Jews are often portrayed as foreigners and Marxists, in classical antisemitic attacks, the better to distance them from the body politic.

The Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council had little or nothing to say about this. Labour has a responsibility to treat antisemitism very seriously and not abuse the meaning of this vile anti-Jewish ideology by misapplying the term to those who support the Palestinians. So Labour’s attitude to antisemitism should not be determined by organisations within the Jewish community whose loyalty to Israel makes them unable to recognise the difference between angry denunciations of Israel and attacks on Jewish people.

Some of these organisations are also hostile to the Labour Party. For example, the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews called for Jewish people to vote Conservative in the 2015 General Election. I do not believe that Ken Livingstone’s public defence of Naz Shah MP in April 2016 was offensive or that it involved any concession to antisemitism. In fact in spite of her public apology, I do not regard what Naz Shah wrote on her Facebook page as antisemitic.

I also consider that Ken Livingstone’s remarks in April 2016 about the 1933 Transfer Agreement were not in any way antisemitic. They are based on evidence compiled by Edwin Black in the book The Transfer Agreement. It would be a mistake if the Labour Party found Ken Livingstone guilty of conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the Party.’

The misuse for political purposes of the concept of anti-semitism

Abuse of the term ‘antisemitism’

Sir Stephen Sedley (born 1939), is a British lawyer. He worked as a judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales 1999-2011 and is currently a visiting professor at the University of Oxford. He became a QC in 1983, was appointed a High Court judge in 1992,and in 1999 was appointed to the Court of Appeal as a Lord Justice of Appeal. He was a Judge ad hoc of the European Court of Human Rights and a Member ad hoc of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
His father was Bill Sedley (1910–1985), of a Jewish immigrant family, who operated a legal advice service in the East End of London in the 1930s. Bill Sedley founded the firm of lawyers of Seifert and Sedley in the 1940s with Sigmund Seifert and was a lifelong Communist.

Stephen Sedley slams IHRA (mis)definition

Speech given by distinguished retired Appeal Court Judge Sir Stephen Sedley on 27 March at a meeting in the House of Lords

Free Speech on Israel
March 27, 2017

The purpose of this meeting is to draw attention to a growing concern about the misuse for political purposes of the concept of anti-semitism. The misuse in question is the conflation of criticism of Israel with hostility to Jews. Its political purpose is to prohibit or inhibit discourse or action inimical to the state of Israel.

There are two distinct backstories to the catch-all meaning of antisemitism with which this meeting is immediately concerned.

One is the longstanding, and largely successful, endeavour to segregate antisemitism from racism. It has for a good many years been part of Zionist discourse to contend that racism is one thing – based on concepts of genetic inferiority – and antisemitism another, based on historical and theological as well as genetic factors. This is not the place to pursue the argument, save perhaps to note that anti-semites do not as a rule worry about whether their targets are observant, orthodox or secular Jews: their spleen is directed at members of a race.

The other backstory is the Zionist claim to represent all the world’s Jews – a claim welcomed by Islamic extremists. Nothing suits Islamic fundamentalism better than the idea that all Jews are equally implicated in the excesses of Zionism. The claim depoliticises Zionism and legitimises jihadist anti-semitism.1

Against this already dangerous backdrop, we are now looking at the no doubt well-intentioned but naïve adoption by our executive government of a protean definition of antisemitism which is open to manipulation and capture by the background interests I have mentioned. In this regard I would go rather further than Hugh Tomlinson does in his careful and well-reasoned Opinion. The governing proposition that antisemitism is “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews” carries the clear implication that it may equally be expressed in other, unspecified, ways.

As Hugh Tomlinson says, this passage is vague and confusing; but I am not sure that the critique should stop there. It seems to me that its open-ended formulation has a thought-out purpose: to bring within the pale of antisemitism perceptions of Jews – possibly but not necessarily of all Jews – which fall short of hatred. While this may legitimately cover familiar antisemitic slanders about greed, clannishness and so forth, it is also capable of embracing perceptions of Zionism which are the subject of legitimate debate and disagreement.

Is there a single entity capable of being characterised as “the Jewish people”? Am I obliged to regard myself as bound by ethnicity to people like Benjamin Netanyahu?

That this is part of the intended reach is now becoming evident. One of the adopted examples is “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavour.” This passage bristles with controversial assumptions. Is there a single entity capable of being characterised as “the Jewish people”? Am I obliged to regard myself as bound by ethnicity to people like Benjamin Netanyahu? Then, assuming that there is such an ethnic entity, from where does it derive a collective right to self-determination capable of defeating the right to self-determination of other peoples, above all the Palestinian people? There have been many Jews – my father was one – who long before 1947 opposed the Zionist project on the ground that Jewish exceptionalism was exactly what antisemitism needed.

Lastly, accepting as one must that the state of Israel, whatever has been argued in the past about its right to exist, is a geopolitical ‘fact on the ground’, why are people, including many Jews, not entitled, without being branded antisemitic, to regard it in its present form as both a colonialist and an apartheid state? The demand that criticism, to be legitimate, must be ‘similar to that levelled against any other country’ assumes that there are other countries which behave like Israel. There may well be, but how can this properly be a precondition of any criticism?

I will not travel over the consequential legal ground that Hugh Tomlinson so ably traverses. It is sufficient to emphasise these points:

The adoption by government of the IHRA’s “working definition” does not clothe it with any legal force. At the same time, it is not neutral: it may well influence policy both domestically and internationally.

No policy, however, can be adopted or used in defiance of the law. The Convention right of free expression, now part of our domestic law by virtue of the Human Rights Act, places both negative and positive obligations on the state which may be put at risk if the IHRA definition is unthinkingly followed. And s. 43 of the 1986 Education Act, while passed to deal with very different kinds of controversy, vouchsafes an individual right of free expression in all higher education institutions which cannot be cut back by governmental policies.

What is needed now is a principled retreat on the part of government from a stance which it has naively adopted in disregard of the sane advice given to it by the Home Affairs Select Committee.

1 For my part I am critical of the ECtHR’s judgment in CICAD v Switzerland, because it failed to recognise that the offending article, with its assertion that “when Israel is exposed … it is Judaism that is exposed at the same time” was a classic attempt to taint all Jews with Israel’s violations of human rights. Its author in my view had been rightly accused of antisemitism.

How israel’s apartheid affects land and housing ownership

Land Day 2017: Israeli authorities persist in discriminatory land housing policies against Arab-Palestinian citizens

Israel continues to sell property belonging to Palestinian refugees, place Palestinian land on the market for mass housing construction in West Bank settlements.

To mark the 41st Land Day, 30 March 2017, Adalah examined the most recent data and found that the Israel Land Authority (ILA) and the Ministry of Construction and Housing persist in their discriminatory policies against Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel in “state land” allocation policy. Examining data concerning land tenders published in 2016 by the ILA both in the State of Israel and in the territories occupied since 1967, Adalah also found that the ILA and the ministry also continue to place Palestinian land on the market for mass housing construction in illegal settlements in the 1967 Occupied Territories, and sell property belonging to Palestinian refugees, thereby further obstructing the likelihood for their right of return and land restitution
In the course of 2016, the ILA published tenders for the construction of 49,903 housing units in Jewish towns (not including 5,528 housing units in mixed cities with both Arab and Jewish populations). In addition, 4,524 housing units in the illegal settlements across the Green Line (West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights). By contrast, it published tenders for only for 4,151 housing units in Arab communities in Israel (6.4 percent), although the number of inhabitants in these towns and villages is more than double the number of settlers living in the 1967 Occupied Territories (approximately 1.5 million Arab citizens of Israel, 90 percent of whom live in Arab localities as compared with over 606,000 Jewish settlers).
In addition, Israel published tenders for the construction of 49 industrial zones in 2016; five were in settlements, and nine of the tenders were published for industrial zones in Arab communities. In addition, 42 tenders for the sale of properties belonging to Palestinian refugees were also published, in contravention of international law


%d bloggers like this: