Jewish student groups: the 1985 banning campaign
Posted on Sunday 7 March, 2010
Filed Under Israel
A MOMENT from my past has just caught up with me. Last week I received an email from Dave Rich of the Community Security Trust, the Jewish-led charity that monitors anti-semitism in Britain.
Rich informed me that the CST is currently researching the campaign conducted 25 years ago - with the involvement of at least some Socialist Worker Student Society branches – to get campus Jewish societies disbanded, on the grounds that they were ‘racist’. Such a stance is in obvious contrast to SWSS’s overtly friendly attitude towards comparable Islamist-dominated Muslim student groupings over the last period.
He added, quite correctly, that I had spoken in support of a resolution to scrap the JSoc at a meeting of City of London Polytechnic students’ union in 1985. Yep, that long-haired skinny Trot kid on the platform was me. What’s more, Rich requested a meeting to talk about this episode.
Now, I am aware that the CST is held in some suspicion by many on the Jewish left, who dismiss it on grounds of its self-appointed nature. I am also bewildered that anybody has kept records of such minutiae, decades after the event.
But throughout my journalistic career, I have often written articles contrasting the actions of present-day politicians with what they said and did as college radicals. Therefore logical consistency dictates that the I should apply the standards I apply to others to myself.
So I will be getting together with Rich at some point in the week ahead. I have his assurance that the object of the exercise is not to paint me as some kind of swivel-eyed anti-semite.
In brief, I was in 1985 a member of both the Socialist Workers’ Party and City Poly SWSS, and as such, had no qualms about arguing for SWP politics. Nor can I claim to have been an ingenue; I was a young man of 24, overly booked up on Marxist theory, and well aware of what I was doing. But I was too far down the food chain to know whether hostility towards the JSoc flowed from a national or a purely local inititive.
My attitude had very much been shaped by the war in Lebanon three years earlier, especially the Sabra and Shatila massacre. So I saw things in black and white.
Zionism, I then believed, was a form of racism. Self-evidently, no student union should permit a racist student group to function under its auspices. Ipso facto, City Poly JSoc had to go.
This is not a position I now hold. I am, of course, still critical of the state of Israel from a leftwing socialist perspective, and remain convinced that a democratic secular state is the only basis on which lasting peace is possible in the Middle East.
But I have had the benefit of the intervening years to think things through. In particular, I have read Theodor Herzl’s ‘The Jewish State’, the founding manifesto of Zionism. Clearly it is a nationalist work, and I excoriate nationalism in 2010 as I did in 1985. However – and crucially, in this context – ‘The Jewish State’ is equally clearly not a book premised on racism or Jewish supremacism.
Although it would be wrong to call Zionism a racist doctrine per se, that adjective may fairly be applied to some components of the current political leadership of Israel, who define themselves primarily as Zionists. On top of that, the establishment of the state of Israel represents, in historic terms, an injustice against the Palestinian people.
Just to complicate this picture, the borderline between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism is sometimes illegitimately crossed by sections of the far left. But by the same token, supporters of Israel frequently conflate the terms for base polemical advantage. While I now consider my support for the JSoc ban a gross mistake, I remain on balance an anti-Zionist.
In short, I guess I am not expecting a meeting of minds when I do get together with Mr Rich. I naturally hope we can have a reasoned exchange of views. But some differences, as they say, are too important to split.
UPDATE: I have slightly amended the original text of the post in the light of comments below from johng, who insists that the SWP did not co-ordinate a national attack against JSocs. He is evidently better placed to comment on this than I am. But the line taken by City Poly SWSS is beyond dispute.
<<Go back
Comments
197 Responses to “Jewish student groups: the 1985 banning campaign”
Leave a Reply
In 1977, I moved a (successful) motion at Bradford University students union, which described Zionism as a form of racism. I recall heated arguments with members of SWSS, who wanted this to lead to no-platforming Jewish societies. They were particularly incensed that I argued that No Platform was a tactic rather than a principle. In the end, they agreed not to move this as an amendment. I have no way of knowing if this was a national or local SWSS policy.
In the 1980s, I debated a member of UJS at a student union meeting in Sunderland poly; I’m almost certain that this was at the invitation of the SWP, rather than the Palestine society. As far as I recall, the situation at Sunderland was that there were two groups which called themselves the Jewish Society; one had explicitly called itself the Jewish and Israel Society, in order too challenge the SU opposition to Zionism. The proposal was never to “ban” a society, but rather to deny any SU funding for activities in support of Israeli aggression, or in support of Zionist racism.
And, for the benefit of Modernity particularly, Tony Greenstein and I were the “fine Jewish socialists” who organised the picket of Bookmarks when Atzmon spoke there. We need no lessons in the need to distinguish between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.
The ‘Zionism is Racism’ campaign was an immense success on the part of the USSR and its allies, the Arab League and the grotesque mob of begging-bowl despotisms of the Afro-Asian bloc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379
Even the Japanese – desperately eager for MidEast contracts – abstained.
Eventually, of course, some of the nations concerned saw the error of their ways and recanted.
However, in Student Unions the length and breadth of the British Isles [the Hiberno-Brittanic Isles to some] Arabs, Muslims, deranged Lefties and a few self-hating Jews managed to get the resolution echoing the UN Resolution passed.
By 1991, with the Cold War over, times had changed in the UN:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_46/86
It’s instructive to compare the two maps.
My own view is that all the democracies should have cut off every dime, pennny, centime and yen they gave in bakshhesh [and/or Jizyah] to such hellholes as XXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXX until and unless their leaders publicly recanted and begged the Israelis’ forgiveness.
“I do not, myself, actually believe that any members of the Royal Family have been abducted and sexually molested by extraterrestrial aliens, but I really think that substantial sums of publim money should be spent on an enquiry to clear up the issue once and for all.”
This is from those awful people at SPIKED:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8191/
Ronald Rance,
“We need no lessons in the need to distinguish between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.”
I’m sorry to say that you do. Just because you were born Jewish doesn’t mean that you understand anything about Jewish history and culture. It does not mean that you can’t be antisemite either.
“And, for the benefit of Modernity particularly, Tony Greenstein and I were the “fine Jewish socialists” who organised the picket of Bookmarks when Atzmon spoke there. We need no lessons in the need to distinguish between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.”
Marvellous, then Roland could you as a long-term socialist, trade unionist and activist make an effort to explain to Skidmarx what is racist about the Offal libel?
And you could explain why anyone calling for an inquiry into the supposed ‘harvesting of Haitian earthquakes survivors by Israelis for nefarious purposes’ echoes the anti-Jewish racism embedded in the Ritual Murder allegation, and should be rejected.
Further, Roland, you might want to become an adviser to the Stop the War Coalition and help them spot even the most obvious anti-Jewish racism on their web site as they clearly can’t do it on their own
There is a pressing need for many socialists, such as skidmarx, to educate themselves on the topic of anti-Jewish racism and I can think of no better tutor than Roland.
There may be a pressing need for modernity to learn some proportion.
If Jenny Tonge had said that there was a Jewish conspiracy to kidnap gentile children in order to drink their blood, that would be anti-semitism.
In fact she called for an inquiry into allegations that Israelis had been harvesting organs of Haitian orphans so that the baseless nature of the allegation might be exposed.
Can you really not see a difference?
Roland Rance claims that he and Tony Greenstein “need no lessons in the need to distinguish between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.”
It can of course be mentioned that both Tony Greenstein and Roland Rance were on the editorial board of the magazine RETURN which was banned by the National Union of Students for antisemitism.
“called for an inquiry into allegations … so that the baseless nature of the allegation might be exposed.”
I refer the honorable respondent to the reply I gave some posts ago… (For those who cannot recall, it was ‘Wtf?’)
Yes, a motion to ban the distribution of Return Magazine was indeed passed on the final day of an NUS conference in the early 1990s. This was after the UJS argued that it was antisemitic on the basis of alleged quotes either not actually taken from the magazine, or cited in the magazine but originally taken from that antisemitic rag the Jewish Chronicle.
It just goes to show how warped a mind that Roland Rance has, and how little he understands about antisemitism that he can refer to the Jewish Chronicle as “that antisemitic rag.”
The truth is that it was the NUS that banned RETURN and not UJS. Is Roland Rance now trying to pretend that UJS controlled the NUS?
In fact not only did the then president of the NUS, Maeve Sherlock, denounce RETURN as antisemitic but the ban was supported by the next NUS President, Stephen Twigg (who went on to become a Labour MP.). Moreover, it was not just Labour students on the NUS executive that supported this ban, but also NUS executive members from the Trotskyite Socialist Organiser.
If Roland Rance has forgotten these facts, I suggest he checks the editorial of RETURN No. 4 (September 1990) where these facts are detailed. (For clarification it is not detailed in RETURN that Stephen Twigg went on to became a Labour MP.)
While I am on this subject, it can also be noted that Roland Rance was a signature supported of BAZO (the British Anti-Zionist Organisation) that Tony Greenstein was very active in. BAZO literature was also banned from the NUS for antisemitism.(Jewish Chronicle, January 2, 1981).
The Chairman of BAZO was Dr. George Mitchell, who had been banned from Strathclyde Union and according to a news report in the Jewish Chronicle,(August 24,1979) “Dr Mitchell attended a Jewish Society meeting at Strathclyde and took photographs of those present, threatening to send the pictures to Beirut.”
It can also be noted that in 1982, there was an attempt to ban the Jewish society at Middlesex Polytechic in a motion “against all Zionist institutions.” At that debate, Tony Greenstein was arguing in favour of the motion. (Jewish Chronicle December 3, 1982)
Moreover, in 1986, there was no Jewish society at SOAS. A motion was proposed “to treat Zionism equally with other forms of racial discrimination.” Tony Greenstein also spoke in favour of that motion. A day before the motion a Jewish student made an enquiry to the student union President to see if he could set up a Jewish society. The President informed the Jewish Chronicle that although he had yet to decide what the policy meant in practice, he thought that a Zionist society would not be tolerated. (Jewish Chronicle October 31, 1986).
“In fact she called for an inquiry into allegations that Israelis had been harvesting organs of Haitian orphans so that the baseless nature of the allegation might be exposed.”
Hold on, skidmarx,
You’re saying she doesn’t believe in these ludicrous allegations, but feels there is a need for an inquiry, implying that she holds some sympathy for the Israelis and wants the whole matter cleared up?
Is that really what you are saying?
Not very plausible as it, really
But let’s look at a parallel, suppose the Daily Mail calls for an inquiry into the racist allegation that “immigrants cause HIV”, would you support such a call for an inquiry, just a clear matters up?
Or would you, as a socialist realise that it would legitimises the allegation in the first place?
And further, you would surely understand that pandering to such racism is not something that anyone intelligent should do?
Well? what would you do, Skidmarx, it faced with a Daily Mail call for an inquiry? Agree with it or not?
Which is it?
Dan Judelson – maybe you had a point. Doesn’t mean that Jenny Tonge is an anti-semite or that she should be forced to give up her position as health spokeswoman as a result,or that the StWC should not defend her as it would seem obvious that the reason she is being pursued is her support for the Palestinian cause.
By the way,an anyone tell me if she is still calling for such an inquiry?
modernity – answer the question. Can you really not see that what Jenny Tonge said,(and still more the StWC) is a whole number of steps removed from a mediaeval blood libel?
Skidmarx,
I will certainly answer your question, but you don’t do anyone the courtesy of troubling to see the bleeding obvious or answering our questions, as to your views.
I think it is ludicrous to suggest that Jenny Tonge is concerned with the real issue here, she is no more a friend of the Israelis than Arthur Scargill is of Margaret Thatcher.
I suppose her desire in pushing this forward was to perpetuate the allegation, but whatever it was, socialist should have no truck with it.
Further, socialist should realise the nature of racism and how it mutates, evolves and have the wits to see the connections.
Of course, if you are a literalist and not terribly well versed in anti-Jewish racism then, Skidmarx, you might argue the toss eternally.
But most people here I think have seen thru the ludicrous nature of these allegations, why anyone would want to be connected with them and how they relate to wider anti-Jewish themes.
It is a pity that you can’t.
So having answered your question, please do answer mine:
“But let’s look at a parallel, suppose the Daily Mail calls for an inquiry into the racist allegation that “immigrants cause HIV”, would you support such a call for an inquiry, just a clear matters up?
…
Well? what would you do, Skidmarx, it faced with a Daily Mail call for an inquiry? Agree with it or not?”
modernity – you haven’t answered the question.I’ll re-state it:
Can you really not see that what Jenny Tonge said,(and still more the StWC) is a whole number of steps removed from a mediaeval blood libel?
A simple yes or no would be sufficient.
This may come as a huge shock, so prepare yourself, sit down, take a few deep breaths: I don’t pay much attention to the Daily Mail.
I hope that answers your question.
you don’t do anyone the courtesy of troubling to see the bleeding obvious or answering our questions, as to your views.
When you’re talking about yourself, “I” and “My” tend to make things clearer than “You” and “Your”.
“you haven’t answered the question.I’ll re-state it:
Can you really not see that what Jenny Tonge said,(and still more the StWC) is a whole number of steps removed from a mediaeval blood libel?”
No, it is not, and I have said it is the issue of ritual murder, which is a bit more subtle.
Again, by calling for an inquiry Jenny Tonge is, in fact, amplifying the initial allegations and so is the StWC, thus being complicit in furthering anti-Jewish racism.
Now will you do the courtesy of answering my question?
I do not for a moment myself actually believe that Baroness Jenny Tonge is a vampire capable of flight on those warm summer nights with a full moon or that she flies around Finchley and Golders Green draining blood from the carotid arteries of those Jewish children who foolishly sleep with their windows open, but I feel – and I am sure that many will agree with me – that there should be a lengthy public enquiry at vast public expense to get the facts straight.
Can anyone get an amusing rumour started about, say, George Galloway? Oh, wait … barrels of oil, wasn’t it?
Skidmarx: seeing as no-one else will say it: yes I *do* think thyat Baroness Tongue has passed over from legitimate criticism of Israel into anti-semitism.
And Bill Corr: ” George Galloway? Oh, wait … barrels of oil, wasn’t it?”
Yup, Bill it was. Never satisfactorily explained. But then, the millionaire Galloway has done well in the bourgeois courts. One day, I’m sure, justice will catch up with him…asw it did his hero Saddam.
I don’t particularly want to answer for Jenny Tongue but there have been not merely allegations, but an acceptance of the fact that Israeli doctors have been harvesting organs, not least those of Palestinians. Whether there has been a racial flavour to this is for others to judge, but the allegations in respect of Palestinians are credible.
And they are even more credible given that Orthodox Rabbis who believe in the biblical injunction of smiting every Amalekite, yea every man, woman and suckling child and infant, are included in these allegories that refer specifically to the Palestinians and non-Jews. I refer for example to the Military Chief Rabbi who condemns those who would show mercy to the civilian population.
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2009/11/yet-more-nazi-rabbis-but-you-wont-hear.html
Or the report in Israeli newspapers on Friday that half, indeed over half, Israeli Jewish high school children are opposed to equal rights for Arabs.
That is the context in which all these things are being discussed.
To deal with the frivolour first, i.e. Mad Mikey. Yes Return was banned by NUS Executive. Why? Because Zionist groups try to ban anything they disagree with and in Israel they resort, as in the case of Rachel Corrie, to killing their opponents.
The question is not whether something is banned, after all the Nazis were quite good at banning books and magazines, as to why the magazine was banned.
Now enough of the trivial.
There is no comparison between Sunderland Polytechnic and the SWP’s attitude to Islamic societies. At Sunderland those behind the ‘banning’ it was the banning of an overtly Zionist society also wanted a non-Zionist Jewish society. In other words it was political. I think they were wrong and I said so at the time. It failed to understand why the No Platform tactic was and had to be selective and applied only to fascists.
But the Zionists on here are the last to complain. Zionist groups like UJS, as Mikey boasts, have repeatedly used No Platform to ban their opponents so I suggest to David Osler that he remembers this when he talks to the representative of the Community Security Trust.
But the Community Security Trust has picked up on what Dave said 25 years ago because it is essentially an intelligence front for Israel. It’s opposition to anti-Semitism is a cover for opposition to Zionism. And it manipulates statistics of ‘anti-Semitism’ for its own purposes.
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2010/02/proof-that-community-security-trusts.html
Like most Zionist groups these days it belongs to the Zionist Right. And that means that it sees its job as stopping anti-Zionist Jews attending Jewish and Zionist events.
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2010/02/cst-thugs-violently-eject-2-jewish.html
If I were you Dave I’d also take a tape recorder to stop you being misquoted by these people.
Oh and I’m always grateful for Mikey’s comments on anti-Semitism and anti-fascism. He told me he once went with his family on a stroll against fascism 30 years ago! Indeed this hedge fund guru, according to his Zionist mates, is an expert on how to fight fascism.
Are we to take it, then, that Comrade Greenstein thinks that the allegastion of “hrvesting” is credible?
He says: “I don’t particularly want to answer for Jenny Tongue but there have been not merely allegations, but an acceptance of the fact that Israeli doctors have been harvesting organs, not least those of Palestinians. Whether there has been a racial flavour to this is for others to judge, but the allegations in respect of Palestinians are credible.
“And they are even more credible given that Orthodox Rabbis who believe in the biblical injunction of smiting every Amalekite, yea every man, woman and suckling child and infant, are included in these allegories that refer specifically to the Palestinians and non-Jews. I refer for example to the Military Chief Rabbi who condemns those who would show mercy to the civilian population.
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2009/11/yet-more-nazi-rabbis-but-you-wont-hear.html”
So: Comrade Greenstein, you really *do* believe that then “harvesting” allegation is true? Or that it just *might* be true? Or that you don’t care, because any stick to beat Zionists with is OK by you?
“I don’t particularly want to answer for Jenny Tongue but there have been not merely allegations, but an acceptance of the fact that Israeli doctors have been harvesting organs, not least those of Palestinians.”
Do you have any documented proof that Israeli doctors harvested the organs of anyone in Haiti?
If you would look a lot closer to home, you’ll see that the British have a long history of this, namely the Alder Hey Children’s Hospital.
But few people would try to construct a racist slander out of it, to suggest that the British were ghouls or went around the world plucking the organs out of unsuspecting victims.
So it is the racist nature of these accusations that is the important issue for socialists.
Naturally people who have an unhealthy attitude towards Israelis, or believe them to be the very worst people in the world will be drawn to such nauseating allegations and will believe the very worst, but that is just prejudice and bigotry, which socialists should aim to avoid.
http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/the-guardian-brits-harvest-organs/
Tony Greenstein is a fine one to talk,
On the one hand he claims that he is opposed to the banning of Jewish societies yet as I have mentioned in 1982 he specifically spoke in favour of a motion at Middlesex Polytechnic “against all Zionist institutions” which could have directly led to the banning of the Jewish Society and in 1986 he spoke at SOAS for a motion that would have prohibited a Jewish Society being set up that would have been affiliated to the Union of Jewish Students, a Zionist body.
Greenstein claims that RETURN was banned by the NUS executive because “Because Zionist groups try to ban anything they disagree with.” I have already stated and made clear that those on the NUS Executive that were in favour of banning that disgusting rag including those aligned with the National Organisation of Labour Students (NOLS) and those aligned with Socialist Organiser, a Trotskyite entryist organisation into the Labour party.
But then again Greenstein has not explained his involvement with BAZO (and he was very active in that organisation as he was on the Executive). It can be noted that BAZO and the National Union of Iraqi Students (NUIS) are known to have conducted at least one joint meeting. According to UJS, NUS banned NUIS for “intimidation of Jewish and non-Jewish students.” (Jewish Chronicle, November 28, 1980). NUS were so concerned about NUIS activities that in 1983 they compiled a report for Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe, asking him to investigate the organisation. According to The Times (July 28 1983), this report detailed “violence, stabbings and beatings.” This violence from NUIS had dated back to 1979. NUIS were of course closely aligned with the Iraqi Ba’ath Party.
As for Tony Greenstein trying to pretend that he is some kind of anti-Fascist, I think it is useful to note the words of Vicky Phillips from 1986, the then President of NUS: His involvement with Anti-Fascist Action “brings the whole organisation into disrepute.”
The allegations of organ harvesting first arose in Aftonblet, a Swedish newspaper. I have no opinion of them but if the allegations are credible then they should be investigated.
I quote below from a post from an Israeli human rights worker on another list, Rachel Gior.
Jonathan Cook is a very reputable writer and Electronic Intifada is second to none.
As to believing anything about Israel, I think that’s better than someone – Jim Denham – who has no criticism whatsoever of Zionism or the Apartheid state there. When we are told that Palestinians in israel are a ‘demographic problem’ when half Israeli high school students believe Arab Israelis should not have equal rights then you get the flavour of the society that Denham and the frankly reactionary Ezra are defending.
Any society which openly and deliberately starves a population of over a million for years on end, subjecting them to cruel collective punishment, which then mercilessly bombs schools and civilian areas with white phosphorous and other experimental weapons is capable of virtually anything.
I agree with Modernity. It is the racist aspect of the allegations which is important and the answer to the original question is I don’t know but I’m not prepared to give the torturers and murderers ANY benefit of the doubt.
It is normally the case in racist settler societies that the most outrageous crimes for the benefit of the superior races are perpetrated.
I note that neither Denham nor Mikey see fit to comment on the military rabbis who give injunctions to kill civilians. Or indeed the rabbis who say that you should not save a non-Jew on s abbath with respect to the Palestinians or who openly say that a Jewish life is worth more than a non-Jew.
Israel Shahak, the late Israeli professor and human rights activist, a former inmate of Belsen and a childhood survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto called this process nazification. As did the winner of the Israel prize the late religious scholar and professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz.
So maybe our Zionists could explain why the Israeli military employes these rabbis to instill courage in the hearts of its soldiers?
I don’t need to explain anything to Mad Mikey Ezra whose allegations found their way on to David Aaronovitch’s blog and were promptly the subject of a successful libel action!
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2009/04/humiliation-of-david-aaronovitch.html
And nor do I take lessons from the collaborator and drinking partner of Gilad Atzmon. See the bottom of this post
Tony Greenstein
‘See “Accountability and the organ theft controversy”
By Jonathan Cook, The Electronic Intifada, 5 September 2009
The essence of it is that while there isn’t conclusive evidence, there are well-based suspicions, and a serious need for investigation and accountability.
Best,
Racheli.
The hyperventilating by Israel’s leaders over a story published in a Swedish newspaper last month suggesting that the Israeli army assisted in organ theft from Palestinians has distracted attention from the disturbing allegations made by Palestinian families that were the basis of the article’s central claim.
The families’ fears that relatives, killed by the Israeli army, had body parts removed during unauthoriZed autopsies performed in Israel have been overshadowed by accusations of a “blood libel” directed against the reporter, Donald Bostrom, and the Aftonbladet newspaper, as well as the Swedish government and people.
I have no idea whether the story is true. Like most journalists working in Israel and Palestine, I have heard such rumors before. Until Bostrom wrote his piece, no Western journalist, as far as I know, had investigated them. After so many years, the assumption by journalists was that there was little hope of finding evidence — apart from literally by digging up the corpses. Doubtless, the inevitable charge of anti-semitism such reports attract acted as a powerful deterrent too.
What is striking about this episode is that the families making the claims were not given a hearing in the late 1980s and early 1990s, during the first intifada, when most of the reports occurred, and are still being denied the right to voice their concerns today.
Israel’s sensitivity to the allegation of organ theft — or “harvesting,” as many observers coyly refer to the practice — appears to trump the genuine concerns of the families about possible abuse of their loved ones.
Bostrom has been much criticized for the flimsy evidence he produced in support of his inflammatory story. Certainly there is much to criticize in his and the newspaper’s presentation of the report.
Most significantly, Bostrom and Aftonbladet exposed themselves to the charge of anti-semitism — at least from Israeli officials keen to make mischief — through a major error of judgment.
They muddied the waters by trying to make a tenuous connection between the Palestinian families’ allegations about organ theft during unauthorized autopsies and the entirely separate revelations this month that a group of US Jews had been arrested for money-laundering and trading in body parts.
In making that connection, Bostrom and Aftonbladet suggested that the problem of organ theft is a current one when they have produced only examples of such concern from the early 1990s. They also implied, whether intentionally or not, that abuses allegedly committed by the Israeli army could somehow be extrapolated more generally to Jews.
The Swedish reporter should instead have concentrated on the valid question raised by the families about why the Israeli army, by its own admission, took away the bodies of dozens of Palestinians killed by its soldiers, allowed autopsies to be performed on them without the families’ permission and then returned the bodies for burial in ceremonies held under tight security.
Bostrom’s article highlighted the case of one Palestinian, 19-year-old Bilal Ahmed Ghanan, from the village of Imatin in the northern West Bank, who was killed in 1992. A shocking picture of Bilal’s stitched-up body accompanied the report.
Bostrom has told the Israeli media that he knows of at least 20 cases of families claiming that the bodies of loved ones were returned with body parts missing, although he did not say whether any of these alleged incidents occurred more recently.
In 1992, the year in question, Bostrom says, the Israeli army admitted to him that it took away for autopsy 69 of the 133 Palestinians who died of unnatural causes. The army has not denied this part of his report.
A justifiable question from the families relayed by Bostrom is: why did the army want the autopsies carried out? Unless it can be shown that the army intended to conduct investigations into the deaths — and there is apparently no suggestion that it did — the autopsies were unnecessary.
In fact, they were more than unnecessary. They were counterproductive if we assume that the army has no interest in gathering evidence that could be used in future war crimes prosecutions of its soldiers. Israel has a long track record of stymying investigations into Palestinian deaths at the hands of its soldiers, and carried on that ignoble tradition in the wake of its recent assault on Gaza.
Of even greater concern for the Palestinian families is the fact that at around the time the bodies of their loved ones were whisked off by the army for autopsy, the only institute in Israel that conducts such autopsies, Abu Kabir, near Tel Aviv, was almost certainly at the centre of a trade in organs that later became a scandal inside Israel.
Equally disturbing, the doctor behind the plunder of body parts, Prof. Yehuda Hiss, appointed director of the Abu Kabir institute in the late 1980s, has never been jailed despite admitting to the organ theft and he continues to be the state’s chief pathologist at the institute.
Hiss was in charge of the autopsies of Palestinians when Bostrom was listening to the families’ claims in 1992. Hiss was subsequently investigated twice, in 2002 and 2005, over the theft of body parts on a large scale.
Allegations of Hiss’ illegal trade in organs was first revealed in 2000 by investigative reporters at the Yediot Aharonot newspaper, which reported that he had “price listings” for body parts and that he sold mainly to Israeli universities and medical schools.
Apparently undeterred by these revelations, Hiss still had an array of body parts in his possession at Abu Kabir when the Israeli courts ordered a search in 2002. Israel National News reported at the time: “Over the past years, heads of the institute appear to have given thousands of organs for research without permission, while maintaining a ‘storehouse’ of organs at Abu Kabir.”
Hiss did not deny the plunder of organs, admitting that the body parts belonged to soldiers killed in action and had been passed to medical institutes and hospitals in the interests of advancing research. Understandably, however, the Palestinian families are unlikely to be satisfied with Hiss’ explanation. If the wishes of a soldier’s family were disregarded by Hiss, why not Palestinian families’ wishes too?
Hiss was allowed to continue as director of Abu Kabir until 2005 when allegations of a trade in organs surfaced again. On this occasion Hiss admitted to having removed parts from 125 bodies without authorization. Following a plea bargain with the state, the attorney general decided not to press criminal charges and Hiss was given only a reprimand. He has continued as chief pathologist at Abu Kabir.
It should also be noted, as Bostrom points out, that in the early 1990s Israel was suffering from an acute shortage of organ donors to the extent that Ehud Olmert, health minister at the time, launched a public campaign to encourage Israelis to come forward.
This offers a possible explanation for Hiss’ actions. He may have acted to help make up the shortfall.
Given the facts that are known, there must be at least a very strong suspicion that Hiss removed organs without authorization from some Palestinians he autopsied. Both this issue, and the army’s possible role in supplying him with corpses, needs investigation.
Hiss is also implicated in another long-running and unresolved scandal from Israel’s early years, in the 1950s, when the children of recent Jewish immigrants to Israel from Yemen were adopted by Ashkenazi couples after the Yeminite parents had been told that their child had died, usually after admission to hospital.
After an initial cover-up, the Yeminite parents have continued pressing for answers from the state, and forced officials to reopen the files. The Palestinian families deserve no less.
However, unlike the Yemenite parents, their chances of receiving any kind of investigation, transparent or otherwise, look all but hopeless.
When Palestinian demands for justice are not backed by investigations from journalists or the protests of the international community, Israel can safely ignore them.
It is worth remembering in this context the constant refrain from Israel’s peace camp that the brutal, four-decade occupation of the Palestinians has profoundly corrupted Israeli society.
When the army enjoys power without accountability, how do Palestinians, or we, know what soldiers are allowed to get away with under cover of occupation? What restraints are in place to prevent abuses? And who takes them to task if they do commit crimes?
Similarly, when Israeli politicians are able to cry “blood libel” or “anti-semitism” when they are criticized, damaging the reputations of those they accuse, what incentive do they have to initiate inquiries that may harm them or the institutions they oversee? What reason do they have to be honest when they can bludgeon a critic into silence, at no cost to themselves?
This is the meaning of the phrase “power corrupts,” and Israeli politicians and soldiers, as well as at least one pathologist, demonstrably have far too much power — most especially over Palestinians under occupation.
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). His website is http://www.jkcook.net.
* * *
Mikey, can you provide us with the criminal record of this Bugger-Rance. Is he on spent conviction like greenie l or is he just an ordinary liar?
Gilad Atzmon | 03.12.07 – 8:00 pm | #
——————————————————————————–
I have been very busy digging up stuff on Tony Greenstein – Roland Rance will have to wait for another day.
Mikey | 03.12.07 – 8:53 pm | #
‘Mikey, I hope you do not mind me saying that, but your contribution for the pls solidarity movement is priceless. It is crucial that we all know about the racist record of this Greenpiss, a man who was banned time after time for being a racist and an anti Semite!
I really want to believe that this revolting violent man will feel some shame and take some time off to think about it all. But I doubt it.’
Gilad Atzmon | 03.04.07 – 10:46 am | #
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/thecutter/117192641046077827/
Again, again, I believe that Zionists like you can cope with philosophical thinking because Zionism is a Jewish ideological stand. RK, Ben Gurion and later Begin and Shmuel Tamir were operating within different interpretation of the very the same ideology. The political and legal aspects are nothing but a cover up of the real meaning of this saga.
You can cope with it, Greenie and Brenner can’t.
However, Good luck with Greenie and thanks for all the info you gave us about this low being.
Peace is the way forward
G
Gilad Atzmon | 03.08.07 – 4:02 pm |
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/thecutter/117192641046077827/
‘Mikey, I hope you do not mind me saying that, but your contribution for the pls solidarity movement is priceless. It is crucial that we all know about the racist record of this Greenpiss, a man who was banned time after time for being a racist and an anti Semite!
I really want to believe that this revolting violent man will feel some shame and take some time off to think about it all. But I doubt it.’
Gilad Atzmon | 03.04.07 – 10:46 am | #
You will not wish to meet a more ardent anti Zionist than myself but if you can’t see that the allegations of harvesting cross the line into anti semitism then re education camp might be the best place for you my comrades.
So on that specific point I agree with Modernity, Denham, Mikey. On almost everything else they have said in this thread I very much disagree with them.
But I am in my comfort zone disagreeing with tossers like them, but when individuals on my side of the political divide indulge in this kind of degenerate nonsense I start to think the movement needs a purge or two.
If harvesting does go on and I wouldn’t put it past the wealthy to use the poor in this way then I am sure it would be more widespread than one country and should be uncovered. Those involved (if anyone is invloved) should face Saddam like ‘justice’.
Skidmarx,
You still haven’t answer the point:
““But let’s look at a parallel, suppose the Daily Mail calls for an inquiry into the racist allegation that “immigrants cause HIV”, would you support such a call for an inquiry, just a clear matters up?
…
Well? what would you do, Skidmarx, it faced with a Daily Mail call for an inquiry? Agree with it or not?””
Racist allegations, eh?
Like it or not, there IS a link between Third World immigration into Western Europe and the Anglosphere and the spread of various nasty diseases and infections … but the subject is a major taboo and nobody in a position of authority would dare to mention it aloud for fear of sudden career death.
I see Tony Greenstein does not have anything to say about his activities at Middlesex Polytechnic where he was speaking for a motion that could have directly led to the JSoc being banned, nor does he have anything to say about the time he spoke for a motion at SOAS that would have prevented there from being a JSoc in the first place. He also does not comment about his activities with BAZO , but he does mention David Aaronovitch and that reminds me -
I quote below from an article by Cathal O’Connor in the Guardian (March 17, 1988):
“There are also instance when Zionism is used as a code word for Judaism. A few years ago, the president of the National Union of Students, David Aaronovitch, a non-Jew, was the victim of the campaign of forged letters, which alleged that he was in the pay of the Israeli Embassy in London. The British Anti-Zionist Organisation, which published these letters, claimed that Aaronvitch had a Zionist name. There is, of course, no such thing as a Zionist name, only a Jewish sounding name.”
In fact the attacks on David Aaronovitch by BAZO were hysterical. They published a picture of him with his name and then the caption “Remember his name, remember his face.”
The forged letter that BAZO published together with some of this hysterical attack can be seen in Against Zionism! Journal of BAZO-Palestine Solidarity, (Vol II, Number 3, n.d. circa, 1980).
In a letter that Greenstein had published in the New Statesman(December 10, 1982), Greenstein admitted that he has been on the Secretariat of BAZO and therefore one of its most important members.
One wonders what Greenstein has to say about these attacks, that the organisation that he was closely associated with carried out, against David Aaronovitch.
On HIV/AIDS, Third World immigration and the Obama Administration:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/01/us_lifts_hivaid.php
From a doubleplusungoodthinkful source.
Well? what would you do, Skidmarx, it faced with a Daily Mail call for an inquiry?
Ignore it?
“Can you really not see that what Jenny Tonge said,(and still more the StWC) is a whole number of steps removed from a mediaeval blood libel?”
No, it is not, and I have said it is the issue of ritual murder, which is a bit more subtle.
Where does Jenny Tonge make any accusation of ritual murder? And how can you ignore the whole number of ways in which what she said is removed from a mediaeval blood libel? It seems that when accusing people of the worst kind of anti-semitism, facts are not your friend.
Skidmarx,
Exactly, it is fascinating that you can see the racism in a hypothetical Daily Mail called for an inquiry, but you can’t see it when Baroness Tonge calls for an inquiry into something which she acknowledges is baseless.
So you can see one, but you can’t see the other.
How peculiar.
For what it is worth, and as Dave says on his update post, we had a friendly chat over a coffee last week. I am glad that Dave found my questions to be fair and I found his answers to be very helpful and enlightening.
As I explained to Dave when he brought up the subject, I have no objection to people like Tony Greenstein adopting a position that his hostile to Jewish establishment organisations like CST. This is their politics and there is a long tradition of internal Jewish dissent. What I do object to is when they make up absolute b*ll*cks about us. Such as:
[CST] manipulates statistics of ‘anti-Semitism’ for its own purposes.
There is absolutely no evidence for this, because it is not true. On Greenstein’s own blog the only evidence he offers is an email that he wrote himself to CST, and the fact that he hadn’t had a reply. The example he offers of a “real anti-Semitic incident that CST conflate[s] with anti-Zionism” is a photograph of a swastika daubing outside a synagogue in Manchester. He is so ignorant that he doesn’t realise that the daubing was first spotted by a CST volunteer, who took the photo he has used and reported it to CST!
CST’s statistics and reports are recognised and cited by several police forces and government departments, the US State Department, the OSCE, the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency and various other bodies, all of whom have read our reports and found them to be credible. I appreciate that this doesn’t mean much to a revolutionary socialist like Greenstein. Tony, I don’t know if you have read our latest antisemitic incidents report (on our website) but it explains in some detail how (a) we don’t automatically record everything reported to us as an incident, but in fact reject around a third because they do not show evidence of antisemitism, and (b) we distinguish between antisemitic incidents and anti-Israel activity.
There is ample evidence from the UK and elsewhere that the number of antisemitic hate crimes has risen steadily in recent years, and went through the roof last year. It is a strange kind of anti-racist whose response to this is either to dismiss the evidence or make excuses for the perpetrators. This is behaviour I would expect from a racist, not an anti-racist. But then for Greenstein opposing Israel drowns out everything else.
As for this:
it is essentially an intelligence front for Israel
If I was feeling less charitable I would accuse you of propagating conspiracy theories. But I would rather just laugh at the bizarre world you inhabit.
Dave Rich is concerned (and rightly so) that Tony Greenstein said that the CST is “is essentially an intelligence front for Israel.” This sort of thing is not new. In RETURN No. 4 (September 1990), the very same Tony Greenstein alleged, “the Union of Jewish Students… act as paid and unpaid informers for Mossad.”
It is a strange kind of anti-racist whose response to this is either to dismiss the evidence or make excuses for the perpetrators.
I would think so to. Though to challenge the evidence is not necessarily to dismiss it.
it is essentially an intelligence front for Israel
It wouldn’t greatly surprise me if the Israeli state made use of the extensive allied populations it has here and in the US. When the US do this it’s considered bizarre conspiracising to talk of the CIA, when governments unfriendly to the West do it it is a huge security threat to us all.
David Aaronovitch, a non-Jew,
He’s apparently becoming more Jewish
There are also instance when Zionism is used as a code word for Judaism.
This seems to work the other way . When anyone complains about the Jews displacing Palestinians, that’s called anti-semitism, when the talk is of Israelis or Zionists, that’s using code words.
Skidmarx,
I don’t understand you, you’re supposed to be an antiracist.
So if the CST publishes facts and figures on racial attacks on Jews would you dismiss it merely as a supposed “front”?
Are the facts and figures of racial attacks towards Jews to be dismissed or taken seriously, which is it?
Please give us your view.
modernity – if you can read,read my last comment again and report back where I said that CST reports should be dismissed.Do the words “I would think so to” have some meaning opposite to the obvious one that I’m not aware of?
On Aaronovitch, here’s a comment on a liberal conspiracy thread:
I wonder if you would call Aaronovitch a ‘zealot’ if he wasn’t a Jew?
skidmarx,
I am asking you straight questions, and you seem (and I could be wrong) to either sneer at other people’s points, not understand them, or are unwilling to speak of your own views on these matters.
You probably don’t know this, but the CST is the main organisation which correlates facts and figures on racial attacks on Jews in Britain.
Now given all of that, do you believe the figures released by the CST are any less valid?
Yes or No?
As for David Aaronovitch, why are you as a socialist vexed about his ethnicity, one way or the other?
Now given all of that, do you believe the figures released by the CST are any less valid?
I don’t know, I haven’t even looked at them let alone made a close study of them. I do pass a Jewish school most days with a security guard permanently on duty, which I assume wouldn’t be the case if there wasn’t a need for it.
As for David Aaronovitch, why are you as a socialist vexed about his ethnicity, one way or the other?
I’m not vexed.
Skidmarx,
If you are not vexed by David Aaronovitch’s ethnicity, then *why* make it a talking point as you previously wrote:
“David Aaronovitch, a non-Jew,
He’s apparently becoming more Jewish”
I’m really curious about what kind of intelligence the CST is supposed to be supplying to Israel which isn’t already in the public domain. I’ve heard of one far left group (can’t remember which one) who used to supply intelligence to Iran about Iranian exiles, but what could the CST do for Israel? What’s it supposed to be spying on? Or is it supposed to be more of a propaganda wing?
KB asks a valid question.
I guess people like Dave Rich and organisations like the CST perform a similar function to Islamophobia watch for example. The likes of Jim Denham of course wouldn’t think twice about throwing the most ridiculous accusations and criticisms at that group and this always goes unchallenged by the likes of Modernity and his ilk.
People like Modernity are sensitive to every level of anti Semitism from the most blatant far right poison to the more subtle forms highlighted in this thread (this is absolutely the right position). He of course fails to extend this to anti Muslim prejudice. He only highlights the higher level blatant form of anti Muslim prejudice because this fits in with his political beliefs; he and his ilk actually justify and promote this more subtle level of racism against Muslims. In that way Modernity and his ilk are very much the wrong people to lecture others on racism and anti racism. And that goes for many more people like him. The more they do it the more it exposes their own hypocrisy.
I can hardly believe that people can still remember the ins and outs of this debate, but here goes.
When I arrived at college in 1989 there was still a great deal of animosity to SWSS from my local UJS and support for SSiN from them for the part SO/AWL had played in defeating SWSS motions to have them banned.
There were SWSS people (who are now in Galloways respect) who in 1990 at my college wanted to revive the idea of extending no platform to the UJS.
In lancaster it did seem to take longer for the national line to reach swss so it’s likely that whatever johng says was decided as early as 1985 took a good few years to filter up. I wonder did the SWP write something criticising the sunderland banning- I never saw it if they did.
“In that way Modernity and his ilk are very much the wrong people to lecture others on racism and anti racism.”
I am pointing out racism, if you don’t like it, don’t complain.
I have pointed out anti-Muslim racism on my blog many times.
My views on this subject are very clear, and don’t need misrepresenting by people who can’t take the trouble to read by blog.
And this is the problem I find in these discussions, they either become overly personalised and miss the political points, or become a political pissing competition.
That I think is part of the purpose of these “contributions”, to detract from the political issues.
And one major political issue which is rarely discussed on the Left is anti-Jewish racism, that I think is a problem as evidenced above.
I don’t see it as my role to respond to the allegation of the sad fruitcake that Mikey is. Nor do the allegations merit any response. Apparently I spoke to a motion THAT COULD HAVE led to a JSoc being banned and a motion at SOAS THAT WOULD HAVE led to….
Absurd. I am asked to comment on hypothetical scenarios from a redbaiting Zionist McCarthyite. Perhaps though Mikey could explain why it is that Gilad Atzmon, a known anti-Semite (except to the CST’s Mark Gardener – see letter of last week to the New Statesman where Gardener contrasts Atzmon favourably to John Pilger).
“I see Tony Greenstein does not have anything to say about his activities at Middlesex Polytechnic where he was speaking for a motion that could have directly led to the JSoc being banned, nor does he have anything to say about the time he spoke for a motion at SOAS that would have prevented there from being a JSoc in the first place. ”
I have to confess that when I spoke in favour of occupation at Brighton Polytechnic the motion could have led to the stringing up of the Director of the Polytechnic for having jeopardised the safety of overseas students. Unsurprisingly it didn’t!
I also don’t need any lessons from Dave Rich, having opposed the fascists of the NF/BM and BNP for 35 years in the wake of either indifference or worse, and consistent opposition, from the Zionist Union of Jewish Students and others. Whilst UJS (and this is the only accurate bit of Mad Mikey’s posts) repeatedly tried to No Platform me and Jewish anti-Zionists like Roland Rance we faced a situation at Sussex University where the J-Soc and its President, David Cohen, OPPOSED No Platform for actual fascists (though trying to prevent me speaking – unsuccessfully I might add!).
Dave Rich tells us that ‘CST’s statistics and reports are recognised and cited by several police forces and government departments, the US State Department, the OSCE, the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency and various other bodies, all of whom have read our reports and found them to be credible.’
Err quite. The very same police forces which are bastions of racism (the Met and Manchester in particular), the US State Dept. no less (fresh from justifying torture of its opponents) and the EU FRA which drew up a definition of anti-Semitism that indeed conflates it with anti-Zionism. Its ‘Working Definition’ has been repeatedly used to smear anti-Zionists with the label of anti-semitism so let’s see how anti-semitism manifests itself the following definitions of the EUMC:
‘Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.’
‘Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.’
‘Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.’
‘Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.’
1. If the first example is true then most of the Jews who went to their deaths in the holocaust were anti-semitic! Because Polish Jews in their overwhelming majority voted for that anti-semitic party, the Jewish Bund in 1938, who organised self defence against anti-semitism. In fact the idea that Jews form a separate nation, and are thus entitled to self-determination, is an anti-semitic idea to its roots.
2. The applying double standards canard, i.e. expecting Israel not to torture its prisoners or steal the land of those living under occupation may be double standards to some but to others of us they are an example of civilised standards.
3. Drawing comparisons between Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. So when deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai threatened the Gazan population with a “little Shoah” shortly before the attack on Gaza a year ago, was he being anti-semitic? Or when Israeli soldiers form ‘Auschwitz commandos’ or ‘Mengele Squads’ or Palestinian/Iranian leaders are compared to Hitler or ‘Arabs to the Gas Chambers’ are sprayed on the Apartheid Wall, is this the sort of anti-semitism that Dave Rich speaks of?
Fact is that there are too many comparisons between Nazi Germany and Israel today. ‘Death to the Arabs’ the favourite chant of Liebermann’s party and many others reminds me of certain other places. Maybe Dave Rich thinks this is a Sunday school chant.
4. As for holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s actions. Well yes it is anti-semitic but who can blame people for this when Israeli leaders and the Board of Deputies of British Jews exert every sinew of their body to show that British and other Jews support Israeli’s latest blitzkrieg? If those who hold British Jews responsible for Israel’s actions are anti-Semitic then so too are the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
And this is the point that Dave Rich misses. Apart from the fact that there is no independent oversight of CST’s statistics, the fact is as they admit the majority of incidents of anti-semitism last year were related to Gaza. People blaming Jews for what had happened. This is indeed regrettable, but when Jews like myself are regularly called traitors and worse, because we don’t identify as kith and kin with Israel’s actions, who can blame Asian kids for verbally castigating Jews with responsibility for what Israel has done?
Because the jibe of ‘Jewish self-hater’ the same charge that the Nazis made against anti-fascist Germans, they literally hated their nation and race, implies that ALL Jews should support Israel and not, as I’ve often been told, wash their dirty linen in public.
That is not anti-semitism. Anti-semitism is what the BNP and the fascists are about. Holding that the Jews constitute a separate race and conspiracy against the goys. That they are especially talented at making money and swindling non-Jews out of it (as Mikey’s friend Gilad Atzmon argues).
Anti-semitism today is a form of marginal prejudice. Violent attacks against Jews are almost non-existent now. It is as many have observed a golden age for Jewry. So what are these accusations all about? To be blunt – defence of Israel. When the NF was the major component of British fascism and was attacking Jews as Jews we organised anti-fascist committees up and down the land and then the ANL was formed when it was a mass movement circa 1977-8. And what was the reaction of the Board of Deputies and its student wing, UJS? To deny that there was any problem. It’s all the invention of the left they said. And then they added, and it is anti-Zionism that bothers us most. Our main enemy is the SWP not the fascists and just like in the 1930’s when the Board told Jews to stay at home during the Battle of Cable Street they advised Jews to keep their heads down.
And finally why I don’t trust the CST one iota is that they see as one of their main tasks excluding anti-Zionists, socialists and even non-Zionist Jews like the Jewish Socialists Group from attending Jewish events like Jewish Film Weeks. A few weeks ago 2 Jewish anti-Zionists were physically removed from a meeting David Bellamy was supposed to address for asking what were deemed hostile questions. Not interrupting or trying to disrupt the speakers like Jonathan Hoffman but asking questions. So yes. CST which has been criticised by Liberty precisely on these grounds is not to be trusted.
Oh yes, CST has denied what was independently witnessed, so that just proves they are liars. And if they lie about something like this then how can one trust their statistics?
According to the book ‘By Way of Deception’ by Victor Ostrovsky, who served in Mossad for 3 years, there are 2,000 helpers/informers who Mossad can rely on in London. Of course such behaviour imperils the safety of all Jews. And it takes no great leap of faith to realise that CST plays its part in this, not least given the preference they have for employing ex-members of the Israeli armed forces. I have absolutely no doubt that CST are an intelligence gathering front for the Israeli state.
As for UJS, a Palestinian student leader who was on NUS Executive, Reem Abdelhadi, had no doubt that the harassment she experienced and the questions she was asked entering and leaving Israel, including her detention, related to information that only UJS could have supplied. Given that UJS has never once criticised the Occupation, despite its spurious talk of ‘mutual recognition’ and its dedication to defending Israel, from all criticism, I have no doubt that they inform on Palestinians political activities. Not once did they issue a statement calling on Israel not to harass Palestinian students or to open Palestinian universities. They UJS have also sought to remove any Jew from a position in a J-Soc who isn’t a Zionist so, to go back to Sunderland, it was wrong tactically but had nothing to do with anti-Semitism.
The fact that CST and UJS keep extensive files on their anti-Zionist opponents says all that anyone needs to know about these organisations.
Tony Greenstein
Skidmarx,
Can you see any prejudice or the undertone of racism in these comments:
1. “The pro-Israeli lobby has got its grips on the western world, its financial grips.”
2. “The government and media has worked mightily to keep the American people from fully realizing that the Zionist domination of our politics and support for the murderous Israeli regime…”
Well, Skidmarx?
Perhaps Lieberman means that there are lots of Arab countries and that the Arabs-with-Israeli-citizenship might, after all, be happier living in one or another of them rather than being the envied subsidised ‘fat Arabs’ – as the Jordanians call them – of Galilee and so on.
Tony Greenstein is being disingenuous. Consider how the banning of J-Socs and attempted banning was often carried out in practice. A motion was put to the student union arguing that “Zionism is racism” and the motions re-iterated student union policy that there was “No platform for racists and fascists.” The implication was clear – the J-Soc, which affiliated to the Union of Jewish Students and was therefore a Zionist organisation, would be “no platformed” – in effect, banned. Tony Greenstein spoke on behalf of these motions. He fully knew how these motions were being used but still made it his business to travel to student unions far away from Brighton, to speak in favour of such motions.
This is not all from Greenstein. Even more worrying is the text of a letter that Nigel Savage, Vice-President, University of Sussex Union, sent to Frank Howard, Executive Member, NUS, on October 7, 1982.
“[Tony] Greenstein attacked a member of the Sussex delegation to NUS Conference (April 1981), was forcibly restrained by Graham Nicholas (then a Vice-President here), and was ultimately removed from the conference floor on the instructions of David Aaronovitch, who at the same conference, as I understand it, effectively banned both Greenstein and his organisation, BAZO, for ‘blurring the line between anti-zionism and anti-semitism.’
Last week as I understand it, Greenstein led the intimidation of a Brighton Polytechnic student, Brian Conn, who left his Jewish Society stall at Freshers Fair in tears and thoroughly afraid, and who has not returned to the Poly since.
Last night you shared a platform with Mr. Greenstein. The meeting in question produced a motion so violent and one-sided as to lead a number of Jewish students coming into my office today to protest, register their complaint, or confess to being just plain scared.”
A PDF of a scan of this letter can be seen on line at the following address:
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/antisemitism/greenstein/sussex.pdf
The following is from an article entitled, “Students Being Intimidated,” written by Jenni Frazer and published in the Jewish Chronicle, on October 22, 1982:
“Mr Neil Stewart, the president of the National Union of Students, has given an undertaking to adopt ‘as strong a position as my predecessor against those who attempt to blur the line between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, or those who intimidate or attempt to ban Jewish students from putting their case on the campuses.’
His statement followed a complaint from students after a stormy meeting at Sussex University, at which Mr Tony Greenstein, chairman of the Labour Committee on Palestine, and former activist in the British Anti-Zionist Organisation (Bazo), appeared on the same platform as an NUS executive member under the auspices of the Student Union Campaign Group.”
I can go on. There is plenty of this stuff.
modernity – If you are not vexed by David Aaronovitch’s ethnicity, then *why* make it a talking point as you previously wrote
I didn’t raise it, Mikey did.And while he quotes from an article claiming DA as an example of anti-zionists using zionist as a codeword for Jewish, it seems more than reasonable to point out that the reverse occurs.
As to your latest quotes, if I cared I’d ask you to tell us what the context is,but a fool can ask more questions than a thousand wise men can answer.
Tony Greenstein, you really are a fool.
Mark Gardner’s letter to the NS contrasted Pilger unfavourably with Atzmon precisely because Atzmon is as you say a “known antisemite”. In fact Atzmon describes himself as “a proud self-hating Jew” – his phrase, not mine.
Anyway, I knew you hadn’t read our Antisemitic Incidents Report, which does not claim that the majority of incidents of anti-semitism last year were related to Gaza. If you did read it then go back and read it again a little closer.
Anti-semitism today is a form of marginal prejudice. Violent attacks against Jews are almost non-existent now.
This shows just how out of touch you are with the experiences of many British Jews today. Things are not as bad as some people make out – it is not the 1930s re-run or anything like it – but to claim that antisemitism has virtually no impact on Jewish life is head in the sand stuff.
It is antisemitic for random British Jews to be beaten up or abused because they are Jewish. It makes no difference if the attacker does it because they hate Israel, or because they think Jews run the banks, or for any other reason. Most British Jews feel a basic emotional connection to Israel, whatever their precise political views. They should be able to express this in a democracy without being physically attacked or racially abused. First you say that these attacks are antisemitic but really it’s the fault of the Board of Deputies. Then you say they are regrettable but not antisemitic. As I said earlier, it is a strange kind of anti-racist who makes excuses for people who carry out racist attacks.
And finally why I don’t trust the CST one iota is that they see as one of their main tasks excluding anti-Zionists, socialists and even non-Zionist Jews like the Jewish Socialists Group from attending Jewish events like Jewish Film Weeks. A few weeks ago 2 Jewish anti-Zionists were physically removed from a meeting David Bellamy was supposed to address for asking what were deemed hostile questions. Not interrupting or trying to disrupt the speakers like Jonathan Hoffman but asking questions.
This is just more nonsense. We provide security at hundreds of events every year, including many political events at which a wide range of views are expressed, with no problems. In the case you mention, we removed the people at the request of the organisers because they were disrupting the meeting. That’s all. I know that (unsurprisingly) they say they weren’t being disruptive. Obviously the organisers of the meeting felt otherwise. CST’s main job is protecting British Jews from external physical threats and internal Jewish rows of this sort are frankly a distraction for us and a bit of a pain. But then it is typical of the egocentrism of Jewish anti-Zionists that you imagine that we spend our days thinking about ways to obstruct you and your friends.
Be honest Tony, the reason that you don’t like CST is that we are part of the Jewish establishment and you are anti-establishment. It is about what we are, not what we do. That’s fine, it’s your politics and you are entitled to it. But there is absolutely nothing we could say or do to change your view of us so don’t pretend otherwise. Even if we took a big CST banner on an anti-Israel demo you would suspect us of something or other. But then most Jews would never go on a demo alongside people waving Hizbollah flags – the organisation that perpetrated the worst antisemitic atrocity since the Holocaust in Argentina in 1994 – or supporters of Hamas which quotes the Protocols in its charter and regularly spews out vile antisemitic propaganda to justify killing Jews. Or does travelling halfway round the world to blow up a Jewish community centre not count as antisemitism, if the perpetrators weren’t wearing swastika armbands and jackboots?
According to the book ‘By Way of Deception’ by Victor Ostrovsky, who served in Mossad for 3 years, there are 2,000 helpers/informers who Mossad can rely on in London. Of course such behaviour imperils the safety of all Jews. And it takes no great leap of faith to realise that CST plays its part in this, not least given the preference they have for employing ex-members of the Israeli armed forces. I have absolutely no doubt that CST are an intelligence gathering front for the Israeli state.
Sorry but you are in loopy conspiracy land now. And for the record, the vast majority of CST volunteers are ordinary British Jews of the sort that you seem to have absolutely no empathy or sympathy for whatsoever.