Tuesday, 7 August 2018

Time for Corbyn to stand up to his detractors and the manufactured media 'crisis'

As the media manufactured 'crisis' of antisemitism within Labour reaches 'fever pitch', it really is time for Jeremy Corbyn to end the futile appeasement and confront those determined to break him.

An entire herd media have now converted what should be a manageable 'problem' for Labour into a 'major issue', turned it into a 'political furore', and helped elevate it to an 'existential crisis'. 

In typical 'concerned' pose, Toby Helm at the Observer/Guardian 'laments' Labour's 'failure to be getting on with the important issues': 
Instead, the past week has seen Labour monopolise the headlines for all the wrong reasons. The only issue on which it has made waves is the interminable and increasingly tortuous row over antisemitism in its own ranks, and the resulting near-total breakdown in its relations with the British Jewish community.
In effect, the media create, generate and hype the headlines, then blame Corbyn for 'monopolising' them.

This, in turn, encourages even more shrill headlines, readily fed by the coup-makers, such as Tom Watson with his fatuous claim that the party is about to “disappear into a vortex of eternal shame and embarrassment.” All too dutifully, the Guardian continue reporting this cringing hyperbole without question.
Lamentably, much of the media onslaught against Corbyn has been given added impetus by a 'woke left' supposedly there to defend him. Leading this element is Owen Jones. Following Corbyn's deeply-mistaken Guardian article, apparently intended to reassure his detractors, Jones rushed to laud him: 
Corbyn telling the anti-Semitic fringe where to go. And as he says: “Anyone who denies that this has surfaced within our party is clearly actually wrong and contributing to the problem.
In truth, it's people like Jones who are contributing to the problem for Corbyn, by giving the charges against him and Labour even more undue airing and 'significance'. All of which only helps in distracting attention from the associated aim of the Corbyn-destroying lobby: protecting Israel and negating Palestinian rights.  

As Ali Abunimah responds to Jones: 
Everyone can agree that racist “fringe” is not welcome in party like . But target of Israel lobby’s fake anti-Semitism smear is not a fringe that was always already marginal but rather mainstream support for Palestinian rights/opposition to Israeli racism and apartheid
Echoing Jones, Aaron Bastani and others, Barnaby Raine employs similar seemingly well meaning, yet deeply problematic, language in talking-up the "battle" and "war" against antisemitism inside Labour and the wider society. We can, Raine insists, criticize Israel/support Palestine, while 'tackling the scourge' of antisemitism. 

In a searing response (39:19 into video), Norman Finkelstein dismisses Raine's 'walking and chewing gum at the same time' line. And Finkelstein is, indeed, correct here in refusing to accept the very premise of Labour's 'deep problem' with antisemitism, and the language of 'battle' and 'war' being used to 'eradicate' and 'stamp it out'. 

This kind of vocabulary only gives added weight and encouragement to those making such contrived claims of an 'endemic problem' and 'crisis' within Labour. And it's all to no avail in helping to protect Corbyn. As Finkelstein knows all too well, these pro-Israel organisations and lobby groups will never be satisfied. They want nothing less than Corbyn's political scalp. For Finkelstein, Corbyn should simply tell the truth, say what's right, and face them down, rather than engage in the utterly mistaken appeasement he turned to in his Guardian piece.

The immediate wave of hostility to Corbyn's article is proof positive that nothing will get in the way of the lobby's determination to remove him. As the Jewish Labour Movement declared
Today, other than another article bemoaning a situation of the party’s own making, nothing has changed. There is no trust left. We find ourselves asking once again for action, not words.
Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle, also joined the immediate condemnation:
So Corbyn’s great move is a piece in the Guardian saying our worries are overheated rhetoric and all would be well if only we could just talk. And not a word of contrition about anything except process. He really is shameless
As Iain Macwhirter concluded, in response to Pollard's brutal dismissal:
This confirms that there is nothing that Corbyn could conceivably say that would satisfy his pro-Israeli critics. Any concession will be seen as a confirmation of anti-semitic perfidy. [You] can’t appease a smear campaign.
Likewise, the party's mistaken capitulation to 'sacred figures' like Margaret Hodge only serves to embolden the entire Friends of Israel lobby.  

Rather than the kind of useless political 'triangulation' urged by Jones and the Momentum playmakers, and in assertive resistance to the unforgiving plotters around the Jewish Labour Movement, Corbyn should adopt the more direct and progressive guidance of Jewish Voice for Labour.     

In a brilliant stand-your-ground article, taking apart the entire liberal-posturing narrative and craven media compliance, Manchester Jewish Action for Palestine also articulate the central issues here:
As Jewish people in Manchester, England, we resent the despicable racism shown towards the Palestinians by Guardian stalwarts such as Jonathan Freedland, Polly Toynbee, Jessica Elgott, Eddie Izzard, Nick Cohen, Marina Hyde and Gaby Hinsliff among others, all saturating comment sections on mainstream news websites with attacks designed to bring down the UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, and to protect Israel from accountability. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Anti-Semitism definition guidelines the Labour Party are correctly omitting, are designed by Israeli propagandists to aid their many mass lobby attempts to stop international solidarity with the Palestinians and to deny Palestinians the right to express the nature of Israel’s 70 years of violence and racism towards them. We call on everyone to see that creating a largely-mythical anti-Semitism ‘crisis’ in the Labour Party is one of the few tools left to ailing and desperate establishment hacks wanting to smear Corbyn and maintain UK support for Israel, no matter how many Palestinians the Israeli army slaughters, or how many houses, schools, and hospitals Israeli jets destroy in Gaza. In the face of this, Zionist groups with a history of uncritical support for Israel claim that Corbyn presents an existential threat to British Jews? This is obscene, hypocritical scaremongering.
I urge everyone to read this full, exemplary piece. In similar vein, I commend the superb, and timely-titled, article by Lindsey GermanThere’s only one way to stop the witch-hunt against Jeremy Corbyn – stand up to it.  

Thursday, 12 July 2018

World Cup window on Russian realities and British hypocrisy

With an outstandingly successful World Cup in Russia now drawing to a close, the praise and enjoyment of so many global visitors contrasts with the awkward and hypocritical absence of British dignitaries.

Despite the England team lasting out till the semi-finals, neither Theresa May, her ministers or any member of the royal family attended the event.

Lamentably, nor did any member of the opposition - a perhaps more understandable avoidance by Jeremy Corbyn given the hateful media and political backlash he would have inevitably faced.

The official government reason for the boycott, we're reminded, was the 'Novichok attacks'.

May and Home Secretary Sajid Javid have placed Russia directly responsible for the poisoning of five individuals in and around Salisbury, including, now, the sad death of Dawn Sturgess.

With the police now treating this as a murder inquiry, linked to the original poisoningsDefence Secretary Gavin Williamson wasted no time in raising the political stakes, again pointing the finger at Russia“The simple reality is that Russia has committed an attack on British soil which has seen the death of a British citizen. That is something that I think the world will unite with us in actually condemning.”

Yet, to date, not a single piece of substantive evidence has been provided to the public proving any such "simple reality".

The actual truth behind this whole murky affair may be a long time emerging, But it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to see the propaganda opportunity for Britain in its efforts to vilify Putin and Russia. And what could have been more 'timely' than this latest tragic development right in the middle of Russia's showcase World Cup?

Whatever one's view of Putin, is there anyone in this situation less likely to order such 'attacks', or wish for such adverse publicity? One can only imagine Putin's displeasure in discovering that some 'in-house' or errant element had carried out such actions 'on his behalf' or for 'Russia's benefit'. 

One of the more facile variations put forward here is that Putin does these kind of things just to 'sow confusion', or to encourage 'multi-conflicting' narratives to keep the Western public 'fixated on Russia'. All part of the 'Putin playbook', all-knowing liberals tell us. Again, the resort to slogan charges rather than evidence-based proof.

Beyond such limp conjecture, any half-savvy member of the public could come up with half-a-dozen more plausible scenarios and set of motivations. 

Alongside the UK state's unproven story of Russian culpability sits the vacuous conformity of British journalism. Any 'quality' media would be all over this story, seeking to mine the deeper truths. Instead, an effective silence prevails. Where are all the Pulitzer-spirited investigations?

This should be a golden moment for investigative journalism. Yet, there's been little more than sheep-like repetition of government statements and, shamefully, obedient adherence to government D-Notice-type prohibitions on reporting about the Skripals. 

It also now transpires that Newsnight's senior diplomatic correspondent Mark Urban met with Sergei Skripal on several occasions in 2017, before he was poisoned. What, we may reasonably wonder, as Craig Murray does, was the 'scope' of Urban's 'research', and why does his 'understanding' of the Salisbury events seem to fit so closely with the official line?

It's remarkable how readily the BBC accept and amplify the standard narrative. Even while security correspondents like Frank Gardner mention competing explanations, there's no serious scrutiny of the UK's deeply suspect claims, silences and omissions.

British deceit and subterfuge over Salisbury is matched only by the hypocrisy of its selective support for other brutal states. Imagine if the World Cup finals, with English or other UK participants, were being played in Saudi Arabia or Israel. Would we be seeing such 'moral' non-attendance?

Unlike the unverified claims against Russia over Salisbury, here are two states with decisively proven records of murdering innocent civilians in Yemen and Gaza. Yet there's been no major condemnation of the slaughter carried out by these regimes. Nor will our lofty media pursue and expose the dark part the UK plays in such killing, through arming, training and placating them.

Britain condemns Russia's human rights record, but would never employ the same language or punishments against Israel or Saudi Arabia. What's the likelihood of UK/Western sanctions being placed on these serial violators of international law?

In similar vein, Britain castigates leaders like Assad for 'killing his own people'. Yet, why is the ill-treatment of one's 'own' populace deemed so much more heinous than the bombing and killing of foreign 'others'? Does this not count as abuse of human rights? Is this not part of any country's human rights record?

Continuing its imperialist crimes, Britain has recently helped murder a million souls in Iraq, left Afghanistan in chaos, bombed Libya back to the dark ages, and fueled regime change catastrophe in Syria.

It's not only the UK's backing of sundry despots, it's Britain's own murderous conduct around the globe that renders it unfit to lecture anyone on human rights. And it's a measure of the ever-assumed 'but we're the good guys' mantra in the West that you will almost never see or hear that description of Britain as a criminally active rogue state even suggested by our deeply-conditioned media.

Citing the shrill UK media commentary and coy insinuations over Russia's rights to host the event, Media Lens noted: "It would never occur to a Daily Mail/Guardian journalist that Britain and its leading allies might be considered 'less enlightened corners of the world', given their staggering record of selecting, installing, arming and otherwise supporting dictators in 'less enlightened corners', including Saudi Arabia as it devastates famine-stricken Yemen."

While Russia is being isolated and boycotted, the perpetrators of vast Western war crimes are approved and celebrated.

The BBC's Jeremy Vine and the Guardian's Andrew Rawnsley have just conducted expansive interviews with Madeleine Albright, in which she warned about the dark forces of fascism, Putin and the 'threat to Nato'. Yet, neither found time to challenge 'Maddy' on Nato's own aggressive build up across the Baltic and Balkan states, or its criminality in places like Libya. 

Nor did Vine or Rawnsley  think it appropriate to mention Albright's own high criminal part in the elimination of half a million Iraqi children.

While such villains are feted, anyone questioning the prevailing anti-Russia narrative is deemed a 'Putin apologist'. Such is the darkening climate of liberal McCarthyism. For Media Lensthe Guardian's own gushing editorials on Nato suggests "a corporate newspaper that has now fallen under a kind of ideological military occupation." 

Following Russia's elimination from the World Cup, Nato tweeted its own approval that the four remaining sides were all from Nato states.

In this 'Manichean World Cup', it's 'our' team of 'benign Nato protectors' up against the 'malign Russian menace'.

Inconveniently, while a posturing British establishment and Nato-friendly media have snubbed and demonised Russia, the World Cup has offered fans and observers much more positive insights on Russian life and society. 

England manager Gareth Southgate also seemed averse to the pre-contest scaremongering, offering high praise to Russia over its well organised tournament and hospitable treatment of his team.  

Bringing commendably balanced comment and illuminating images from Russia, Alex Thomson
offered this further key reminder over the poisoning story back home: "Worth noting at this point that the British Govt has yet to provide any evidence connecting Novichok poisoning of Skripals to the Russian Govt, still less the latest contamination."

Thomson also tweeted a moving image of Volgograd (once Stalingrad), in commemoration of the millions of Russians sacrificed in the heroic battle against Nazi Germany: "And at the setting of the sun we might pause and remember Stalingrad. To no other place on earth does humanity owe such a debt."

Here, at least, was a welcome window on the real complexities of Russia, past and present, rather than the 'looming threat' posed in David Dimbleby's pre-World Cup propaganda piece, Putin's Russia, in which he warned: "these are dangerous times for Russia, and dangerous times for Russia are dangerous times for us." 

As England prepared for their semi-final match against Croatia, a jingoistic Independent pondered the 'diplomatic problem' for the English players having to shake hands with Putin if they made it to the final.

Imagine the same media writing about the dilemma for those players having to meet with Theresa May on their return, a leader currently assisting in the annihilation of Yemen.

With England, rather than 'football', coming home, media-hyped 'English expectation' and 'English entitlement' has now given way to more reflective 'English valiance'. England at play, it seems, is England at war, all part of the same metanarrative of an imperious, mystical and righteous nation, even in defeat: 'our game', 'our bravery on foreign fields', 'our right' to decide who is friend or foe.      

Again, though, it's worth remembering just how much a grandstanding elite and toxic media help feed such notions of 'English exceptionalism'.  

It's good, and all too human, to get caught up in the passion of the 'beautiful game'. Nor should we be in any doubt about the obvious connections between sport and politics, notably the ways in which they are most often used to serve powerful interests and ideas. The point is to understand how we are being played.

In a welcome tweet, Gary Lineker has taken Boris Johnson to task for jumping on the political bandwagon by hailing England as returning heroes, reminding us that, as Foreign Secretary, he had actually pushed for England's withdrawal from the contest. 

As this most memorable World Cup reaches its exciting end game, the 'noble absence' of the British establishment will have been no loss to the wider-watching world. Hopefully, it will have helped highlight their gross hypocrisy and the enduring crimes of the British state.   

Monday, 4 June 2018

Honour murdered Palestinian medic Razan al-Najjar by boycotting Israel

Sometimes the sheer wickedness, the unfathomable cruelty, of Israel's crimes leaves one grasping for words.
Razan Ashraf Abdul Qadir al-Najjar
The murder of 21 year-old Palestinian volunteer medic Razan al-Najjar by an Israeli army sniper isn't the first unspeakable act committed by this heinous state. And we surely know it won't be the last. 

129 civilians, including 15 children, have now been killed, and over 13,000 more shot and injured, since the start of the Great Return protests in Gaza. The International Committee of the Red Cross has now dispatched "two teams of war surgeons and medical supplies to Gaza to shore up a healthcare system it said was on the “brink of collapse.”" The ICRC say 1,350 gun shot victims now require complex multiple surgery.

Like those medics, Razan was committed to saving, rather than taking, lives.

Unlike conscientious people like Razan, Israel's 'first response' is to murder and maim rather than assist and heal. This 'most moral army' is engaged in acts of merciless state terror, killing relentlessly, systematically, without compunction, mowing down unarmed people at will. 

This is a regime not only impervious to world opinion, but able to brush aside futile statements of 'international concern', knowing that, without any prospect of serious legal or political sanction, it can continue to murder with complete impunity.    

The killing of Razan as she and other medics ran, hands in air (see video), to give medical attention to a wounded Palestinian is not just the criminal act of one cowardly soldier. It's another high war crime committed by a state on the rampage, slaughtering and terrifying in brazen defiance of every international law and convention, all aided by the criminal complicity of its key allies and a media obfuscating the truth of Israel's villainy.

Thus has the BBC consistently hidden Razan's and other Palestinian killing behind the spurious headlining of "Gaza violence" and "Gaza border clashes", rather than as acts of wilful state murder.

Multiple other media reports have followed the same whitewashed narrative of 'violent clashes', 'deathly confrontations', and Israel's 'promise to investigate'

Disgracefully, here's how the Guardian headlined Razan's murder: "Palestinian woman shot dead during protest near Gaza fence."

The cold brevity of such words: the decontextualising of a state crime; the dehumanising of an imprisoned people; the depersonalising of a young woman, a daughter, a sister, a mother, a friend, a giver of aid, a saver of life, a precious human being.

This is all too typical of the standard, anodyne referencing of Palestinians, an Orwellian violence of language in itself, serving to deflect and anonymise their existence, their suffering, their deaths.

Even media use of 'conflict' here is a power-serving distortion, playing all too easily into the default liberal, and Israeli-preferred, 'two-sides' narrative. 

This is not a 'conflict'. It's a one-sided mass assault on a continually oppressed people, an ongoing ethnic cleansing, an unremitting settler-colonial project, an inhuman subjugation. There is no 'conflict' here. There's an illegal occupation, an illegal siege, an illegal imposition of settlements, an illegal apartheid wall, and, as we've seen in Gaza, more illegal slaying of civilian lives by one of the most heavily militarized states in the world. 

Alongside all the predictable denials and mitigation over Razan's murder, there have also been disgusting words of 'condolence', such as this shameless statement from Confederation of Friends of Israel Scotland (CoFIS facebook page): "This is a very sad loss of this brave lady's life. must be made to stop inciting these riots. They - Hamas - are causing loss of life, damage of property, unrest, violence ..."

Yes, it's always Hamas. One can only think of what Razan's bereft family will make of such words. Like other parts of the rearguard Israel lobby, CoFIS can only but affect 'regrets' over such indefensible killings. Frustratingly, they can't find anything with which to blame Razan herself. And, of course, they would never countenance blaming the actual killers, the Israeli state, and calling for its prosecution. But they will always find a way of invoking the 'controlling hand' of Hamas, even though it had no formal role in the calling of these protests, even though this is so obviously an historic movement of Palestinians freely massing in desperate protest at their inhuman incarceration.

The lobby know very well that Razan lived and died as the very embodiment of that duty-driven demonstration, coming to the aid of her fellow people in their demand for justice. But none of that can ever be admitted.

Here's what CoFIS's associate group, Glasgow Friends of Israel, had to say about the murder of Razan al-Najjar (at their facebook page):

That's right, nothing. Zero. A blank space of silent evasion.

But Razan's death too, no doubt, falls under the same relentless GFI claim that such killing and suffering is all the fault of Hamas, and that all actual evidence to the contrary, from international observers, medics and human rights groups, is part of some contrived "Pallywood" act. It really takes some kind of special mendacity and perverse insensitivity not only to deny and deflect Israel's crimes, but to blame the victims and scoff at Palestinian suffering.

Another measure of GFI's twisted evangelism and racist inhumanity can be seen in this (GFI facebook) comment:
"Israeli children are taught to love. Sadly Palestinian children are only taught to hate."

Again, it's hard to comprehend what kind of mindset could produce such ugly fabrication and racist branding - all part of GFI's consistent protection of Israel's apartheid state. And to think that CoFIS/GFI had the audacity to join - shamefully, uncontested by its organisers - a recent Stand Up to Racism march.

Just as there will be many more state-instructed killings, so too will come more zealous lies and concoctions from Israel's Hydra-headed lobby, more crass denials, more spurious excuses, more hollow words of 'concern'. 

There will also be more high political hand-wringing and fake media context, a negation and marginalisation of Palestinian life as 'unworthy other'. 

As Razan's family grieve, as we try to comprehend the callousness of her taking, remember that there can never be proper justice for her and all those other murdered and maimed Palestinians without meaningful action to stop this barbaric, apartheid state. 

All those elevated words of condemnation are futile unless they are matched by resolute decisions to oppose, indict and boycott Israel.

Wednesday, 21 March 2018

Israel's racist front groups must be resisted, not placated or wished away

A march through Glasgow last weekend organised by Stand Up to Racism (SUTR) has caused some considerable debate among a number of campaign groups and individuals. At issue was the attempt by pro-Israel lobby group Confederation of Friends of Israel Scotland (CoFIS) to participate in the demonstration.

Understandably, and not uncommon to many left/progressive exchanges, this matter has generated no small amount of divisive feeling. However, that should not deter us from fair, critical comment and constructive reflection. In that spirit, I'd like to address three main aspects of this issue.   

1. The problem with CoFIS's participation in this event.
2. The mistakes SUTR made in their response to this situation.
3. How it could have been better handled, and other lessons to be drawn.

1. The first things to note is that SUTR did not specifically 'invite' CoFIS to this demonstration. Many people within and supportive of SUTR also issued comments on CoFIS, ranging from dislike to outright rejection. Many expressed a wish for CoFIS not to be on the rally.

However, the key problem here lay not in such non-invitations or individual reservations, but in SUTR's refusal to issue a formal statement rejecting CoFIS as an organisation. In this sense, SUTR did 'provide' an implicit 'invitation' to CoFIS.

It was the specific absence of any clear statement from SUTR declaring CoFIS unwelcome that compelled all main Palestinian solidarity groups and other bodies to register their concerns and objections. 

Another thing that should be clarified here is that no Palestinian solidarity group has ever called for Jews to be banned or removed from this or any other event. Any such call would be abhorrent. Even if such stewarding was logistically possible, it would be utterly wrong, and quite clearly anti-Semitic.

Again, the specific question here concerns the standing of a particular organisation, one which openly supports, approves and campaigns for a racist, apartheid state, the very forms of institutional discrimination which SUTR profess to be standing against.

CoFIS are not being opposed because of the religious affiliation of their members (many of whom are, in fact, Christians as well as Jews) but because of their support for Israel and its racist/apartheid oppression of Palestinians.

Beyond CoFIS's own well-peddled narrative, this is not an issue about Jews, it's an elementary issue about human rights: the right not to be a victim of racism/apartheid; and the right to resist any organisation which openly supports a state, military and civil apparatus dedicated to the perpetuation of that racist/apartheid treatment.

A cursory look at CoFIS's reactionary literature (much of it provided by right-wing bodies Stand With Us and Christians United for Israel), social media postings, campaigning postures and deceitful banners claiming to be 'pro-Palestinian' is enough to see what this organisation really represents.

Beyond any reasonable mitigation, it's very hard to understand how SUTR could have been unaware of CoFIS's zealous pro-Israel status, and how completely antithetical those positions should be to SUTR's own supposed aims and values.

A key claim aired by SUTR was that its movement encompasses people of many political positions, and that the theme of the march - resisting Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and standing up for refugees - could not include Palestine as a 'defining' point, or that it 'didn't fit the criteria'.

This is not only a straw man argument, with regard to the obvious diversity of political opinions, but a more troubling evasion of SUTR's supposed objectives.

Of course, even on a demonstration such as this, there will be many diverse views held by participating individuals. But, again, it's the presence of a particular racist-supporting organisation that matters here.

Groups like the Scottish Defence League insist they are not racist, that they are 'merely defending national interests'. Would SUTR defend the right of such an organisation to march with them? Of course not. They understand precisely what this organisation represents, and would shun them as hostile interlopers.

The same principle applies to CoFIS. Why didn't SUTR look at what this organisation really represents, and act accordingly?

If one accepts that Israel is an apartheid/racist state - as every major Palestinian solidarity group, and many civil and political others, do - then this is the criterion against which CoFIS participation in an SUTR event most certainly should be judged.

Some SUTR advocates also argue that these kind of marches, in continued opposition to Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and purging of refugees, is the best way to support oppressed Palestinians.

This, again, is feeble mitigation. The idea that Palestinians will take any kind of comfort from such 'solidarity' is not only risible but deeply patronising. SUTR's failure to issue any formal disapproval of an organisation working consistently against Palestinian rights is the very last kind of 'support' Palestinians need.

One need only consider the group of Palestinian firefighters in Scotland last week, courtesy of the FBU, who felt unable to join a march that included a CoFIS organisation banner and Israeli flags, all visible and humiliating symbols of their oppression.

It should also be noted that to be seen standing alongside such images risks interpretation by other Palestinians as collaboration.

What's really at the heart of SUTR's positioning here is a fear of being labelled anti-Semitic. And this is why it's so important for bodies like SUTR not to fall for that mendacious narrative.

Progressive people and organisations should be under no illusions about the power and resources of Israel's lobby machine in its relentless determination to smear opponents and distort the issue. That's why they should be particularly alert to front groups like CoFIS trying to build respectable cover for their racist/apartheid supporting activities.

2. As the issues and implications over this march began to surface, a number of solidarity groups and others began making representations to SUTR. These included Scottish Friends of Palestine, Association of Palestinian Community - Scotland, Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and Scotland Against Criminalising Communities (SAAC).

In addition, Glasgow Palestine Human Rights Campaign (GPHRC) expressed their objections, pointing out that, as a street body, it has been raising public awareness (with leaflets and other information) about CoFIS, and its associate group Glasgow Friends of Israel (GFI), since their appearance over two years ago.

An SUTR steering meeting was convened the week before the march to discuss a motion calling for SUTR to oppose CoFIS's participation. That motion, presented by SUTR affiliate SAAC, was subsequently rejected.

A demonstration outside of this meeting was held by the Revolutionary Communist Group (RCG), which had raised early warnings of SUTR's refusal to issue a statement rejecting CoFIS.

Despite having a close interest in the issue, GPHRC, as a non-SUTR affiliate, was not allowed access to the meeting.   

In recognition of all these growing concerns, the UK-wide Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) had also written to SUTR. Besides its conciliatory tone, it's important to note here the PSC's specific detailing of CoFIS as "the most offensive propagators of anti-Palestinian narratives", and calling this to the attention of SUTR.

Here's the exchange:
Earlier this week, PSC wrote to and held direct conversations with Stand Up to Racism (SUTR) about our concerns at the likely participation of the Confederation of Friends of Israel Scotland in the SUTR Glasgow march this Saturday. Yesterday we received a formal response. Both PSC’s letter and the SUTR response can be read below. 
PSC agrees with all of the sentiments contained within the SUTR Scottish steering committee statement. However, it does not address the concerns we raised about the participation of the Confederation of Friends of Israel Scotland in the Glasgow march.  It is our view – based on the Confederation’s  policies,  beliefs  and behaviours in Scotland, as set out in our letter, that their participation will necessarily  undermine the core message of the march and the important work that SUTR does. We would hope, even at this stage, that SUTR would make a clearer statement to address the concerns that have been raised. However, in the absence of any reassurances that Palestinians and their friends and supporters will not face a hostile environment if they attend the march, regrettably we cannot advise our members in Scotland to participate in an event whose core aims we very much support. 
We remain committed to an ongoing discussion with SUTR to resolve these issues so that we can work together on shared policies in combatting racism, islamophobia and anti-Semitism in the longer term. 
Letter from PSC: 
We wanted to follow up our telephone conversations with a written note about our concerns over the presence of the Confederation of Friends of Israel Scotland on the SUTR Glasgow march on Saturday. 
We are aware that a range of groups in Scotland including Scottish Friends of Palestine and SNP Friends of Palestine have raised their worries about the participation of the Confederation. These include the fact that this places Palestinians – including a group of Palestinian firefighters currently being trained by the FBU – in a hostile environment on a march they had intended to a join. 
Whilst we understand that SUTR want to build a broad coalition of partners wishing to fight racism – including anti-Semitism, a brief visit to the Facebook page of the Confederation reveals them as propagators of the most offensive anti-Palestinian narratives. These include denying the Palestinian Nakba and posting material stating that no Palestinian villages and towns were destroyed prior to and after the establishment of the state of Israel; denying the status of Palestinian refugees and posting an article from the CEO of AIPAC which states that any Palestinian state is incompatible with Israel’s security. The Confederation is also part of a campaign to have student activism on UK campuses under the banner of ‘Israel Apartheid Week’ closed down. The Confederation has links with groups in the UK who – alongside Britain First and the EDL – have attempted to disrupt PSC marches and meetings. 
We understand that the Confederation has framed its desire to attend within the context of an opposition to anti Semitism and that there is a concern that to indicate that their presence is not welcome will leave organisers open to the charge of anti-Semitism.There are many definitions of racism, but to promote prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against people of a different race, ethnicity or culture, as the Confederation does, must surely give you as organisers cause for concern.We would hope that there could be a clear statement that all of those organisations participating in a SUTR march need to stand on a platform of opposition  to all forms of racism – which includes resistance to or, at the very least,  not supporting the policies and laws of any state that are clearly racist. As organisers, we would hope that you would agree that anyone who cannot sign up to these basic principles would not be welcome and that behaviour designed to intimidate other participants will not be tolerated.We would hope it is not too late for such a statement to be issued. Notwithstanding this, after the events of this weekend, we would wish – as the PSC – to have a more detailed conversation with SUTR about the long term strategy to address these issues. 
Ben Jamal, PSC Director, and Hugh lanning, PSC Chair. 
SUTR Response 
Dear Ben and Hugh, 
For your information the SUTR Scottish Steering Committee unanimously agreed the following statement: 
Stand up to Racism is a broad coalition comprising many civic organisations, refugee and migrant communities, as well as trade unions, political organisations and individuals. The key criteria are opposition to the rising tide of racism, Islamophobia, Antisemitism and the scapegoating of refugees and migrants. If you support these principles please come and join us on M17.
Signatories: Scottish Trades Union Congress, Unison Scotland, Unite the Union Scotland, Educational Institute of Scotland, University and College Union Scotland, Scottish Labour Party, Church of Scotland, Justice and Peace Scotland, Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, Scottish Refugee Council, Muslim Council of Scotland, Scottish Faiths Action For Refugees, Show Racism The Red Card, City of Edinburgh Unison, Glasgow City Unison, Unison South Lanarkshire, Edinburgh College EIS-Fela, Unite Scottish Housing Associations branch, Unite NHS Ayrshire &; Arran, Unite GPM and IT Branch, Unite Glasgow retired members, MEND, Afghan Human Rights Foundation, Social Work Action Network, The People’s Assembly Scotland, Govanhill Baths Community Trust, Glasgow Campaign to Welcome Refugees, Govanhill Against Racism, Maryhill Integration Network, Perth Against Racism, Women for Independence Glasgow, Scottish Jews For A Just Peace, PCS Scotland, RMT Scotland, FBU Scotland, Interfaith Glasgow. 
We urge the Palestine Solidarity Campaign to join us. 
As can be seen, SUTR's response here amounts to no more than a reiteration of their rigid 'criteria', list of affiliates and call to join the march. It made no effort to engage the PSC's substantive points.

With no indication of SUTR addressing these concerns, or shifting its position, every major Palestine solidarity group withdrew their support for the march. 

Besides the PSC's call, a boycott of the march was advocated by Scottish Friends of Palestine, Association of Palestinian Community - Scotland, Glasgow Palestine Human Rights Campaign, Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, the Muslim Council of Scotland, an ad hoc group of Jewish anti-racists, and SAAC. The Communist Party (Scotland) also announced its non-participation in rejection of CoFIS and in support of Palestinians. 

Consequently, SUTR's demonstration went ahead without the participation of an entire pro-Palestinian movement, Scotland's official Muslim organisation, and a number of other political/civil bodies. That, by any reasonable measure, is a significant loss to a body seeking to build a unified anti-racist movement. 

CoFIS did attempt to participate in the march, but were successfully slowed down and held back from the rally's main body by a commendable pro-Palestine grouping from West Dunbartonshire, carrying an imaginative representation of Israel's apartheid wall. The RCG also took a leading role in stalling CoFIS from marching.  

3. Many questions, thus, have to be asked about SUTR's failure to engage the wide concerns over CoFIS's presence, its fear of being falsely labelled/smeared as anti-Semitic, and its apparent inability to handle the issue in more principled and unifying ways.

So, what else might SUTR have done here?

Rather than the decision taken, SUTR could have followed the approach of Artists for Palestine UK (AFP).

In response to a 2017 Edinburgh 'Shalom' festival, organised by CoFIS and GFI, AFP issued a clear statement exposing CoFIS as a front organisation for the promotion of 'Brand Israel', and defender of Israel's apartheid/racist state.

Like AFP, SUTR were not obliged to approach CoFIS on the matter. AFP did not write directly to CoFIS. Rather, they made their position clear in an open letter signed by multiple figures, including Ken Loach and Paul Laverty, stating: "We call for a boycott of the misnamed "Shalom Festival", which promotes, not "peace", but the apartheid State of Israel and its occupation."

SUTR could have issued a similar-styled statement denouncing CoFIS and its attempted participation on their march.

People reading AFP's statement and article were helpfully informed about CoFIS's real agenda, and the case for Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) as a public counter-measure.

SUTR could have adopted that same approach - even without approving BDS.

Specifically, SUTR could have made a clear public statement saying that it had:

Looked closely at CoFIS as an organisation. 
Felt deeply concerned about its aggressive pro-Israel positions.
Realised that CoFIS was using the SUTR demonstration as a vehicle for its own agenda.
Feared that CoFIS was intent on dividing SUTR and Palestinian solidarity groups.
Concluded that CoFIS support for Israel's apartheid/racist state was incompatible with SUTR's own aims and values.
Stated that CoFIS, as an organisation, was not welcome at any SUTR event.

Having issued this open statement, CoFIS would, in turn, have had to consider whether it still wished to participate in such an event. If it decided not to, complaining that it had been excluded for anti-Semitic reasons, SUTR only had to repeat and defend their statement, rejecting this spurious claim. If CoFIS did appear at the march, SUTR would have been under no obligation to try and enforce their removal. Again, the statement deploring CoFIS as an organisation, and the reasons behind their attempted participation, would have been sufficient.

Others, within or beyond the march, would have been equally free to express their own peaceful opposition to such participation.

Any 'adverse' media fallout could, likewise, have been used to re-state SUTR's position, insisting that, as a hostile body and apartheid/racist-supporting organisation, CoFIS did not adhere to SUTR's own basic tenets. Rather than fear the publicity this might generate, SUTR and supporting organisations could have used the opportunity to reaffirm their common opposition to racism, and to bodies that openly, or as front groups, seek to defend Israel's racism/apartheid.

It's not intended here to castigate those SUTR associates with a long history of supporting Palestinian rights. It is, however, appropriate to ask that they now reflect carefully on SUTR's deeply misguided conduct, and its own damaged standing as an anti-racist organisation.  

This issue, and SUTR's dismal mishandling of it, should serve as a wider lesson to those who think that the pro-Israel lobby can be ignored, placated or simply wished away. 

You can't stand up to racism while turning your eyes from Israel's daily apartheid, and the organisations working to disguise it.

The evidence should be glaringly obvious to SUTR and any other body proclaiming serious anti-racist credentials.

While Palestinian child Ahed Tamimi's cruel incarceration and trial, over a minor slap, continues in a closed-door military court, an Israeli soldier has had his 18-month sentence for murdering a wounded Palestinian cut by a third.

An Arab family seeking to buy a piece of land in an Israeli town is refused permission by the mayor, fearing it would not be in keeping with its 'Jewish-Zionist nature'.

Palestinian workers are herded and crushed like caged animals on their way to menial work in Israel.

These are but small samples of Israel's routine racist crimes and apartheid practices, all of which CoFIS openly denies. 

It's remarkable to think that, as Israel's inhuman treatment of occupied, bombed and imprisoned people intensifies, an anti-racist group here in Scotland could be so reticent and fearful in standing up to an organisation defending those very racist crimes.  

As the building of real solidarity for Palestinians continues in Scotland, it's to be hoped that SUTR come to understand the need for true, decisive resistance to racist state apologists like CoFIS.

Tuesday, 13 March 2018

Stand up to Israel and its front campaigns

Israel is becoming increasingly isolated, as worldwide criticism mounts over its illegal Occupation, siege of Gaza and apartheid crimes, unleashing, in turn, an even more furious backlash from Israel and its global defenders.

In particular, rising support for Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) has prompted new reactionary responses from the Israeli state and an increasingly strident lobby.

Condemnation of Donald Trump's incendiary speech endorsing Jerusalem as Israel's capital has only intensified Israeli propaganda and lobby hubris.

This is evident in the many fabrications against Palestinian children, notably the branding of Palestinian child Ahed Tamimi as a 'terrorist' for slapping a soldier. Ahed and her mother, imprisoned just for filming the incident, have had their trial, before a closed door military court, continuously delayed, as Israel weighs up how to impose its harshest punishment.

Those damning Ahed also have to deal with the awkward fact that an Israeli soldier had just shot her 15-year-old cousin, Muhammad Tamimi, removing part of his skull. In a further vindictive act, Muhammad, awaiting vital surgery, was again arrested in a night raid and forced to confess he had sustained his injury from a bike fall. Even after his doctors had shown medical proof of the shooting, an unapologetic lobby continue maligning the Tamimi family.    

It's all part of a relentless hasbara, seeking to control the narrative and intimidate anyone inclined to criticise Israel. US comedian Sarah Silverman was also denounced for urging fellow Jews to stand up for Ahed. The lobby even turned on Gary Lineker for daring to question Israel's brutal treatment of children.

With Netanyahu approving a new $75 million "public relations commando unit" to counter BDS, the lobby is now using every form of threat and distortion. With further menacing intent, Gilad Erdan, Israel's minister of strategic affairs, is leading a "black-ops" campaign against BDS.

Heading a growing list of artists endorsing BDS, noted musician Roger Waters has felt the lobby's fiercest wrath, with pressure on sponsors and legal threats to close down his shows. Admirably, Waters remains unfazed.

New Zealand singer Lorde has also experienced intense lobby intimidation after refusing to play Israel. Two young women, one Jewish, one Palestinian, who sent a letter asking Lorde to support BDS are being sued by pro-Israel legal group, Shurat HaDin.

Alongside 'Brand Israel', and paying students for hasbara trolling, online Palestine activists are now being censored as part of the pretext corporate clampdown on 'fake news'. Glenn Greenwald notes how Facebook executives approved Israel's requests to delete huge numbers of pro-Palestine accounts. 

Unlike the raging hysteria over 'Russiagate', Western media aren't rushing to report Israel's dark meddlings.

Escalating fears over BDS and Israel's declining image has also placed the US lobby on heightened political alert. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and Anti-Defamation League (ADL) are leading an extensive attack on BDS through The Israel Anti-Boycott Act, legislation opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union as a violation of First Amendment rights.

Jonathan Cook notes that what's "special about the Israel lobby in the US – an amalgam of hawkish Jewish leadership organisations and messianic Christian evangelicals – is the fear it exploits to silence critics. No one wants to be labelled an anti-Semite."

Stand With Us are part of that same right-wing network, running multiple pro-Israel campaigns, and opposing Anti-Apartheid Week. It has been "accused of anti-Muslim propaganda and encouraging a militant Israeli and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East." 

The group was widely criticised after one of its media advisers wrote a virulent article disparaging common support between oppressed Palestinians and black protesters in Ferguson. The author was defended by Hen Mazzig, another Stand With Us associate with rabid right-wing views. 

The same US lobby have also launchedvociferous attack on Al Jazeera's forthcoming exposé of US lobby activity.

In the UK, Al Jazeera's previous undercover investigation has already revealed key connections between lobby bodies and the Israeli Embassy. With Priti Patel's recent 'family holiday' in Israel, and co-lobbyist Lord Stuart Polak, also now exposed, Conservative Friends of Israel are now ratcheting-up the fear, as in Michael Gove's shrill warnings on Palestine activists' "dark and furious energy". 

The enduringly Blairite Labour Friends of Israel remain on-message too, with Emily Thornberry delivering a speech to LFI "that could have been written by a pro-Israel lobbyist".

And the lobby's relentless smearing of Jeremy Corbyn for 'harbouring anti-Semitism' goes on, no matter how much he denounces such tendencies. 

Jonathan Cook also shows here how Owen Jones engaged lobby insiders, the Jewish Labour Movement, further serving to subvert Corbyn.

Encouragingly, newly-founded Jewish Voice for Labour now provide a strong counter to JLM's smear agenda, while Jews For a Just Peace have declared their support for BDS.

However, all this pressure on Israel has spurred other zealous lobbying.  

One group pursuing that kind of mission here is the Confederation of Friends of Israel Scotland (CoFIS), an avowedly pro-Israel organisation masquerading as 'pro-peace' street campaigns. This includes Glasgow Friends of Israel (GFI).

Besides evangelising for Israel and whitewashing its crimes, CoFIS consistently attack and smear Palestine solidarity groups.

Ignoring multiple UN resolutions and international law, CoFIS defends Israel's illegal acts, refusing to back key Palestinian rights and claims to full statehood. It approves Israel's apartheid wall, blames Israel's mass killing in Gaza on Hamas, and fails to condemn Israel's shooting and incarceration of children. It consistently applauds Netanyahu. It hails Trump and his recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. It denounces BDS and artists like Roger Waters. And it insists on Ahed Tamimi being punished as a 'terrorist'. 

Much of the literature CoFIS hands out to the public comes from the same visceral US right-wing group, Stand With Us.

Director Ken Loach, writer Paul Laverty, and actor Tam Dean Burn were among signatory Artists for Palestine UK who, in 2017, opposed CoFIS's "misnamed “Shalom Festival”, which promotes, not “peace”, but the apartheid State of Israel and its occupation." 

Their letter stated that the Festival, organised by CoFIS founder Nigel Goodrich and GFI's Sammy Stein, and endorsed by Stand With Us, was "part of the State of Israel’s attempts to counter BDS. It claims to support “peaceful coexistence” in Israel/Palestine, while whitewashing Israel’s violations of Palestinian rights."

CoFIS claim to be 'anti-racist', while denying the inhuman effects of the Occupation, the calamity of Gaza, and Israel's colonial settlements. This mirrors the very same deception Israel has peddled for generations with its contrived 'peace process', using every opportunity to extend the settlements, imprison Gaza, and deepen its racist treatment of Palestinians.

CoFIS has no support from Palestinian civil society. While it speaks of 'shared interests' and 'open dialogue', drawing in virtue-signalling liberals and unwary progressives, serious observers see this 'pro-peace' line for what it is: a cynical charade and continuous stalling exercise, serving to normalise Israel's land thefts, and prioritise its 'security concerns'. As with BDS, meaningful solidarity remains focused on real strategic action, helping to expose the multiple fronts and guises of Israel's lobby.

People of conscience, whatever their background or religious beliefs, should reject any organisation which seeks to approve and defend Israel's apartheid state. And they should be particularly alert to any group which seeks to conceal their real purpose through stealth insertion into parliamentary life, mainstream parties or civil movements. 

If we accept that, as with South Africa, apartheid is racism, there should be no place for Israel-protecting bodies like CoFIS within any authentic anti-racism event or demonstration.

Rejection will, inevitably, be met with the same lobby backlash. But leftists should defend their position with principled argument rather than capitulate for fear of being falsely labelled. There's no placating or appeasing this lobby. 

Campaigns which help hide Israel's mass crimes have to be resisted with moral resolve and tactical intent. You cannot stand up to racism while lying down to Israel's apartheid.

*(This is an abbreviated version of my previous blog article.)