Barbarians at the gates

They don't just want to abolish Israel. They don't just to impose censorship on the academic community. They want a world where you won't even be able to play music unless you sign up to their politics (and - if you have the misfortune to be a Jew from Israel - do public penance for living in the most evil country on the planet).

I don't suppose any of these political onanists, these self-important tossers (angry? You bet.) has ever thought for a moment of disrupting a concert by Chinese musicians. Or Russian musicians. Or North Korean musicians. Or Burmese musicians. Or Serbian musicians. Or Sudanese musicians. Or Iranian musicians. Or Cuban musicians. Or Zimbabwean musicians. But of course, of course, of course nobody must in their wildest dreams imagine that they are in any shape or form, in the slightest of slight degrees, anti-Semitic. Goodness me, no. Nobody is these days, are they?

(via)

You can't criticize...

Lots of important stuff at Harry's Place and Engage on goings-on in the academics' 'trade union' UCU. Also here.

Telling, isn't it, that the 'you can't criticize Israel without being accused of anti-Semitism' brigade turn out to to be the ones who react to criticism by trying to gag the critics?

I've not infrequently had wistful thoughts about an academic career, but I'm very glad I'm not one of those faced with the decision whether to stay and fight in this increasingly vile snakepit or turn their backs on it. Good luck to all the fighters for left-wing decency, whether they're carrying on the struggle inside or outside.

'To be a Jew is to be a supplicant'

Meanwhile, in Britain's universities and colleges it's open season for the offending and excluding of Jews armed only with letters of resignation. I've just caught up with this from Norm. Read it and weep.

Engagement with an open mind

[note: this is a re-posting of an earlier post, slightly amended for personal reasons]

Engage has a piece by a Catholic who spent several years as a Palestine Solidarity Campaign activist, but was led by a discussion with Jon Pike and David Hirsh of Engage to the realization that the boycott campaign represented a demonization of Israel with racist overtones. Consequently she has resigned from the PSC. Read her story.

What I find striking about her account is the sense of a finely woven net of anti-Zionist propaganda which, once you fall into it, will ensure that you simply never hear a reasoned exposition of the other side of the story. This is precisely the impression I got when having a fairly heated debate with the EAPPI volunteer at my church on Sunday. Things which I had assumed he was deliberately downplaying turn out to be, apparently, completely off his radar. He seemed, for instance, genuinely surprised at the suggestion that the post-1948 exodus of Jews from Arab countries was comparable in scale to that of Palestinians from Israel. He thought that Jews had been living in perfect harmony in Iraq until Mossad started planting bombs to scare them away. Baghdad pogrom, 1941, 180 dead minimum? He'd never heard of it. Though you can bet your bottom shekel that he's heard of Deir Yassin.

As the writer says:-

'Throughout my exploration of the Palestinian situation, I learnt very little about the Palestinian mandate for Palestine, the demands of their resistance, the philosophy behind it, their attitudes to the reciprocal rights of Jews. Considering how much time I had spent submerged in their side of the story, I was surprisingly ignorant of their claims, attitudes and choices of resistance. What I was well versed in was their suffering and who was to blame.'

I think there's probably still quite a lot that the writer and I wouldn't see eye to eye about. Nevertheless she has clearly seen the same warning lights flashing that I first saw around the time she was getting involved in the PSC. It's not easy to change someone's mind about an issue where passions run so high, or to let your mind be changed. Respect to all involved in this model of engagement.

On being critical

I don't think there's anyone whose mind I envy more than the guy who wrote this:-

'The other thing that seemed worth saying related to that now classic formulation - "It is not anti-Semitic to be critical of Israel." I wasn't concerned to make the no less classical rebuttal - "Of course being critical of Israel doesn't necessarily mark you out as an anti-Semite, but it doesn't necessarily mark you out as not one either." Enough already with who is or who isn't. What I wanted to address was something different - how the glamour word "anti-Semite" has transfixed both parties to this semantic tussle, when the real issue is what we mean by "critical".

'Reader, only think about it: was ever a tiny word sent on such a mighty errand, or to put it another way, was ever such a massive job of demolition done by so delicate an instrument. Critical - as though those who accuse Israel of every known crime against humanity, of being more Nazi than the Nazis, more fascist than the fascists, more apartheid than apartheid South Africa, are simply exercising measured argument and fine discrimination.

'I know a bit about being critical. It's my job. Being "critical" is when you say that such-and-such a book works here but doesn't work there, good plot, bad characterisation, enjoyed some parts, hated others. What being critical is not, is saying this is the most evil and odious book ever written, worse than all other evil and odious books, should never have been published in the first place, was in fact published in flagrant defiance of international law, must be banned, and in the meantime should not under any circumstances be read. For that we need another word than critical.'

'So try replacing it with whatever that word or words might be and have a look at how the statement bears up now. "It is not anti-Semitic to defame or curse or stigmatise or revile or execrate or anathematise or with malice aforethought misrepresent Israel." You might think that veers a touch too far in the opposite direction, but you take my point. Put back the inordinacy of reprehension hidden behind the pretend even-handedness of fair-seeming little "critical" and you see why those who oppose the boycott and other such traducements smell a rat.'

Howard Jacobson, who else? Read it all - that's an order.

(or watch this YouTube clip of his speech to the Engage meeting on 11 July)

NUJ fightback

I'm not managing a lot of posting just lately, but I certainly can't ignore the wonderfully heartening fightback by National Union of Journalists members against the motion to boycott Israeli goods which was narrowly carried by their national conference. ITN, the Observer and a big chunk of the BBC have all come out against. Say what you like about the British media (and, yes, I quite often do like) there plainly still is such a thing as professionalism at its upper levels, and professional journalists understand that their job is to report the news that then enables the rest of us to make decisions about who, if anyone, we want to boycott.

As for singling Israel out for a boycott - a country that's open and democratic enough for this kind of thing to happen - here's a fascinating insight into the kind of company which the kind of people to whom this makes sense (specifically, the by now grossly misnamed Socialist Workers Party) are happy to keep. Based on my past experience of Trot politics I should have known better than to imagine that, just because a handful of these creeps can swing a conference vote, they are remotely representative of the membership.

Talking of Trots, I see that a fulsome endorsement from the Gorgeous One was not sufficient to save Tommy Sheridan's seat in the Scottish Parliament. Never mind, now he'll be able to spend more time with his Scrabble set.

Returning to serious politics, all the links come directly or indirectly from Engage, who are clearly doing sterling work in the fight against the boycott. Much more power to their elbows.

Happy Birthday!

On Christian Hate?'s first birthday there is, after all, something to celebrate. I trust Anglicans for Israel will forgive me for pillaging their posting in its entirety:-

Church of Scotland rejects boycott

We are pleased to announce that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland has accepted a motion which calls upon the Foreign Secretary to use her influence both as the representative of Her Majesty’s Government and in co-operation with her colleagues within the EU to encourage HAMAS to issue a statement accepting Israel’s right to exist.

But there’s more: the whole motion explicitly recognised Israel’s right to security, rejected a boycott and called for economic engagement with both sides.

We congratulate the General Assembly for having the courage to stand against the militants and, naturally, we recommend that Anglicans seek to emulate the good sense displayed by the Church of Scotland.

Hopefully the motion will have incorporated these six principles drawn up by the Kirk's Church and Society Council:-

• The Church condemns unequivocally all acts of terrorism and violence, which are designed primarily to bring a civilian population into a state of fear.


• The Church supports, without reservation, the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign nation with secure, internationally recognised, legal borders.


• The Church supports the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and similarly to exist in a viable nation within secure, internationally recognised, legal borders.


• The Church recognises the particular problems associated with the thrice Holy City of Jerusalem. In particular, recognising that much of Israel/Palestine has sites of special religious importance to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, a solution to the problems of the area cannot be achieved without consideration of the issues of access and security to the sites of Jerusalem being resolved satisfactorily for all concerned.


• The Church condemns forcefully statements made by nations, organisations or individuals which are inconsistent with the above principles. Current examples of this are seen in the inflammatory and divisive statements made by the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (denying the Holocaust and urging that Israel be driven into the sea).


• Finally, the Church believes that the problems of the area are not easily solved, and urges nations and international agencies, notably HM Government, the EU and the United Nations, to work together to re-start negotiations. The problems in the Holy Lands are such that, if we hold back, are likely only to get worse.

I think I can happily endorse every word here. Note particularly the explicit and unequivocal condemnation of terrorism; the unreserved upholding of Israel's right to exist, coupled with forceful condemnation of those who call it into question; and (praise the Lord!) the recognition that 'the problems of the area are not easily solved'.

All this is particularly pleasing because a document presented to the 2004 General Assembly, and remarks made last year by the outgoing Moderator, David Lacy, were so grossly dismissive of the terrorist threat to Israel that they moved me to describe the Kirk as institutionally anti-Semitic. If it is guided in future by the principles listed above, this charge can safely be withdrawn.

What I hope this indicates is that the churches contain a majority of people of goodwill who, though they may be temporarily swayed by the one-sided advocacy of a minority of leftist activists if it goes unchallenged, are nevertheless open to a more balanced perspective. Let's hope that proves to be true of NATFHE as well.

Unhappy Birthday

Christian Aid claims to uphold Israel's right to exist. The declared aim of Hamas is to put an end to Israel's existence. Why, then, is Christian Aid effectively engaging in advocacy for Hamas?

'Christian Hate?' celebrates its first birthday today. Time for a big Thank You to everyone who has given me much-needed encouragement me by quoting, linking, commenting, mailing or just reading. Please don't ease up on the support, because sites like this one are, if anything, needed even more now than they were a year ago (though it's not all bad news - see the next post).

I started blogging to oppose the anti-Israel bias of Christian Aid. I've broadened my focus since then in response to developments such as the divestment campaign in the Anglican Communion, but Christian Aid gives as much cause for concern as ever. My question above is prompted by the 'Parliamentary briefing on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories' which the charity issued on 28 April.

First, under the rubric 'who runs the country?', a word on the fact that such a document exists at all. Christian Aid gets a hefty slice of its funding from the state, and here it is spending its cash on lobbying the legislators who are supposed to be elected to control the state. Is this not a case of the tail trying to wag the dog in a somewhat less than democratic way? The late, great Sir Humphrey Appleby would have appreciated the arrangement, though doubtless feeling that the truly classy mandarin does his or her own twisting of politicians' arms, rather than outsourcing the job to middlepersons as the DfID seem to be doing here.

That's just an aside, being in the nature of the funny old game called Politics - and not even I would suggest that CA made the rules. The content of the briefing is my main concern. Advocacy for Hamas: an overwrought exaggeration surely? Put it to Christian Aid and they will say that their advocacy is solely for ordinary Palestinians faced with poverty. But let's look at the devil in the details.

The anti-Israel spin is blatant from the first sentence onwards...

'Since the beginning of April 2006 more than 20 Palestinians have been killed, with an average of 150 Israeli shells falling on the Gaza Strip every day from the air, sea and land. On 17 April ten Israelis were killed by a suicide bomb in Tel Aviv.'

Israeli shells fall on Gaza, but no rockets launched from Gaza fall on Israeli villages. Fatality figures invite us to conclude that Israeli state violence is twice as bad as Palestinian terrorism, eliding any moral distinction between terrorist attacks whose aim is to kill civilians and military retaliations against the terrorist organizations, in which civilians are certainly killed far too often but are not the targets. Throughout the briefing Israel is reproached for anything it does to defend itself against terror (shelling, border closures, the separation barrier, denying funds to Hamas) as if this were always merely a pretext for heaping misery on the Palestinians. We get the usual glib formula:-

'While Israel has legitimate security fears, this does not justify its policy of collective punishment against people living in Gaza.'

And once again the question of how Israel should address its 'legitimate security fears' (in plain English, how it should go about protecting its citizens' lives from murderers) goes unanswered. Unless the following qualifies as an answer:-

'The Quartet powers, including the European Union, have rightly voiced their horror at the Tel Aviv bombing, as has Christian Aid. They correctly call upon the Palestinian Authority (PA) to do everything within its power to confront militant groups and bring about an end to such attacks.'

Some might feel the fact that a 'militant' (the word 'terrorist' is not part of CA's vocabulary) group is running the PA, and mobilizing its paramilitaries against the security forces, makes this rather less likely than it would otherwise be, but the briefing offers no assessment.

For good measure, we also get a straightforward lie:-

'During Israel’s elections, the country’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, spoke openly of both annexing the Jordan Valley and continuing Israel’s policy of acting unilaterally.'

Claims that Olmert talked about annexing the Jordan Valley abound on pro-Palestinian sites (also at the scrupulously unbiased BBC). Their basis is a TV interview which he gave on 7 February. But what did he actually say? MSNBC reports thus:-

'Olmert did not mention the string of small settlements in the Jordan valley. Instead, he said, “It is impossible to abandon control of the eastern border of Israel,” he said, without referring to Israeli sovereignty or the string of small settlements there.'

- and similarly, on 9 March this exchange occurred up in an interview he gave to the Israeli press:-

'And the Jordan Valley?

'"In any case, our security border will be along the Jordan. There are strategic considerations for this that we cannot relinquish."'

(via this by no means Israel-friendly site)

So Olmert considers that the border along the Jordan is strategically important for Israel's ability to defend itself (and who will say he is wrong?) and therefore wants to maintain military control there. But as regards annexing territory along the valley, here is how the Jerusalem Post commented on the second interview:-

'He pointedly did not sign off on remarks made Saturday night by Avi Dichter, No. 5 on Kadima's list, that the settlement blocs that Israel would retain also included the Jordan Valley, Ofra-Beit El, Karnei Shomron-Kedumim, and Kiryat Arba-Hebron.

'Olmert made clear that Dichter's remarks should not be seen on par with the broad guidelines that he himself set. "Dichter is perhaps a candidate to be in the next government, depending on how things develop, but he is not poised to be prime minister," Olmert said. '

- whilst an AP report says of the first interview:-

'he did not refer directly to Israel maintaining sovereignty or settlements there, leading some analysts to speculate that Olmert might consider making the valley a special security zone.'

CA is at liberty to think Olmert misguided in planning anything short of a full withdrawal, and equally to suspect him of having a hidden agenda. It does not have the right to represent him as having 'spoken openly' of annexing an area constituting a quarter of the West Bank, when this is simply untrue. If the claim was made in good faith based on sloppy research, I can only suggest CA tightens ups its act before it sends out any more parliamentary briefings.

So far, it's just the old story of anti-Israel bias. But something more is evident now that was less clear (at least to me) a year ago: to describe CA's bias as pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel in a broad sense is no longer adequate. Consider the views expressed here:-

'Meanwhile in Strasbourg, Mr Abbas said in an interview with AP that Hamas "can't survive" if it continues to ignore international demands that it refrain from violence and recognise Israel. "They should adapt to international standards, they should be part of the international community. Without that I don't think they can survive, I don't think they can deliver," he said. Mr Abbas added: "Whether it is reasonable to expect a change or not we have to give them a chance. They've been in office less than a month and a half. They should take their chance." '

Hamas is ignoring international standards and must adapt to them: clear demands from the PA President, which true friends of the Palestinians, committed to a two-state solution, should be able to endorse. They are not endorsed anywhere in CA's briefing. Instead, its central concern is that Hamas and its supporters should not suffer the consequences of failing to adapt which Mr Abbas predicts. For practical purposes, it is the international community which should adapt to Hamas. And this in spite of the fact that the demands addressed to Hamas - drop the violence and recognize Israel - correspond to CA's professed official position.

David Aaronovitch has written in the Times that 'the Palestine Liberation Organisation is no longer the organisation of choice for fashionable leftists, having been replaced by the Islamic Resistance, better known as Hamas'. The briefing reveals CA as dedicated followers of fashion. In a document which is replete with criticism of Israel, not a single word is critical of Hamas. In place of any demands addressed to Hamas, we find this piece of Hamas-friendly humbug:-

'[The suspension of funding for the PA] also sends out the message that democratic Palestinian elections are open only to political parties approved and sanctioned by the international community.'

It does nothing of the sort. The elections were obviously open to Hamas, and Palestinians exercised their right to vote for it. Now donor governments are exercising their right to decline to bankroll an organization whose policies and activities they consider fundamentally unacceptable. A vote for Hamas was a vote to do without the funding. CA effectively demands for the Palestinians the right to be both beggars and choosers, even when the choosing denies Israeli Jews the basic choice of living in their own state. Sorry, but that's not the way it works.

Imagine if a British general election brought the British National Party to power. The international community might well react in ways that severely dented British living standards. Would CA criticize the international community, or would they feel that the blame lay fairly and squarely with the racist extremists of the BNP and the people who voted for them?

The briefing makes much of the poverty resulting from the funding crisis, and that the situation is critical is clearly not in dispute. My problem is with the way it manipulates the poverty issue for purposes which are flagrantly political.

Here is the passage that really gives the game away:-

NGOs are not replacement service providers
Palestinian non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are concerned that donor countries are attempting to use them as replacement service providers to the Palestinian population. In a statement they warned that: ‘Efforts by certain international bodies to use Palestinian NGOs to implement their political agendas and bypass the Palestinian Authority are rejected outright.’
They also rejected ‘attempts to influence the civil sector to assume a governmental apparatus role…’
Christian Aid does not believe that NGOs should act as a substitute for the PA, whether to provide social services, run government ministries and public systems or to pay civil servants’ wages. According to the fourth Geneva Convention the duty to meet the basic needs of those living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is that of the occupying power, namely the state of Israel.

Again, the demand is for beggars to be choosers. Palestinian NGOs are naturally entitled to reject the role of service providers (how far this rejection reflects the influence of Hamas within their ranks is another question). But then they are hardly in a position to complain if the governments offering to fund the services decide that if they can't give their cash away on their own terms they'd rather not do so at all. CA's only concern, one might think, should be that services should reach the poor people who need them, whatever the delivery mechanism. Think again! The passage quoted reveals a quite different, and eminently political, agenda: the imperative to shore up the authority of the Hamas-run PA.

There is a pragmatic case to be made that the Israelis should deal with Hamas in their own best interests, lest still worse organizations take its place. Jonathan Freedland has argued this in the Guardian. I'm not convinced. Apart from anything else it smacks altogether too much of 'we need to talk to Herr Hitler in case he loses out to somebody really unpleasant'. The immense boost which it would give to Hamas's prestige might or might not serve to reduce the appeal of Islamic Jihad and al Qaida. A more predictable consequence would, it seems to me, be the fatal undermining of Mahmoud Abbas. Realistically, there are no better Palestinian leaders than him waiting in the wings, and it would be folly to cast him adrift unless and until he becomes a spent force in any case.

Be that as it may, I believe it is a case that can be made in good faith. But it is a very different case from the claim that Israel is morally obliged to bankroll an organization committed to its destruction, and that the Palestinians are entitled to be insulated from the consequences of supporting such an organization. That is the claim advanced by CA's briefing, and it is absurd. Israel is entitled to safeguard its own existence no matter how many Palestinians vote against it.

In conclusion, here is another CA golden oldie:-

'In previous publications, Christian Aid has demonstrated how occupation is the underlying cause of Palestinian poverty.'

On one level, this is just crassly simplistic. The causes of Palestinian poverty are many and complex. Some reach back long before 1967, some have come into play much more recently. Some involve Israeli actions, some involve the actions of the Palestinians themselves, their leaders and their allies. Some very significant causes fall under the heading of the refusal of Palestinians to live at peace with their neighbours, and the election victory of Hamas now constitutes one of these.

But at a deeper level this assertion has implications that make it worse than crass and simplistic - implications that make Christian Aid undeserving of aid from Christians. At this point let us remind ourselves that Hamas upholds the authenticity of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Haven't the Jews been the 'underlying cause' often enough already?