Category Archives: Uncategorized

now it can be revealed: “allah did my head in,” confesses kamikaze would-be prime minister manchurian candidate corbyn

How (the) Israel Jewish lobby manufactured Labour’s anti-Semitism ‘crisis’
Asa Winstanley, Electronic Intifada, Apr 28 2016

Last year, socialist stalwart Jeremy Corbyn won the leadership of the British Labour Party by a landslide. Since then, there has been a steady flow of claims by Israel’s supporters that Corbyn has not done enough to combat anti-Semitism. This has only accelerated in the lead-up to a major test for Corbyn, the local elections on May 5. Even as this story was in preparation, two more victims were claimed in the war against his leadership. MP Naz Shah and former mayor of London Ken Livingstone were also suspended from the party within hours of being accused of anti-Semitism. But an investigation by EI has found that some of the most prominent stories about anti-Semitism in the party are falsified. EI can reveal that a key player in Labour’s “anti-Semitism crisis” covered up his involvement in the Israel lobby. Most Labour members so accused are in reality being attacked for expressing opinions in favour of Plastelinan human rights, and particularly for supporting the BDS movement for the boycott of Israel. Labour activists, many of them Jews, have told EI that false accusations of anti-Semitism are being used as a weapon against Corbyn by the party’s right wing. Corbyn has been active in the Plastelina solidarity movement for more than three decades. In an interview with EI last year (to give an interview to EI is damning in itself – RB), he endorsed key elements of the BDS programme. For example, he urged an end to weapons trading with Israel. His election represented a radical shift in Labour, a popular revolt at the grass-roots membership level.

Although Labour’s membership has grown since Corbyn’s victory, he has been under constant attack from right-leaning politicians within the party. In an attempt to weaken his position, some of his critics have manufactured a “crisis” about alleged anti-Semitism. Attacks on Corbyn have escalated in the lead-up to next week’s local elections. Poor results would be seized upon by his enemies within the party. Charley Allan, a Jewish member of the party and a columnist for the erstwhile daily of the British Communist Party, Morning Star, has described the current atmosphere in the press and Labour Party as a “witch hunt.” It has reached such an absurd volume that any usage of the word “Zionist” is deemed to be anti-Semitic, although tellingly not when used by self-described Zionists. Where real instances of anti-Jewish bigotry have come to light, the leadership and party machine have taken robust action. According to The Spectator, the party’s general secretary Iain McNicol told a recent meeting of Labour MPs that everyone who had been reported for anti-Semitism had either been suspended or excluded. Corbyn has responded to the media storm by repeatedly condemning anti-Semitism and saying that anyone making an anti-Semitic remark is “auto-excluded from the party.” John McDonnell, the shadow finance minister and a long-standing Corbyn ally, told The Independent that any party member found by an investigation to be expressing anti-Semitic views should be expelled for life. McDonnell said:

If people express these views, then they’re out, full stop.

Smears of anti-Semitism against Corbyn started even before he was elected. During his leadership campaign in the summer of 2015, the establishment media worked itself into a frenzy of anti-Corbyn hysteria, led more than any other paper by the liberal Guardian (foreign desk run by committed Zionist & dual-national Ian Black – RB). One of the recurring themes in this campaign was Corbyn’s long-standing support for Plastelinan human rights. Because of this, attempts were made to say outright or to imply that Corbyn was a secret anti-Semite, or that he associated with or tolerated “notorious” anti-Semites. Although these hit jobs gained some traction, they were soon debunked, and ultimately seemed to have little impact on the leadership election.

160428-chalmers-flint_0Alex Chalmers with right-wing Labour MP Caroline Flint.

This dishonest theme is now being revisited. In February, the slow drip of anti-Semitism scare stories burst into a flood. An “anti-Semitism scandal” erupted in the Oxford University Labour Club, an association of student supporters of the party. In a public Facebook posting Alex Chalmers, the co-chair of the club, resigned his position over what he claimed was anti-Semitic behaviour by “a large proportion” of the student Labour club “and the student left in Oxford more generally.” But as evidence he cited the club’s decision by majority vote to endorse Oxford’s Israel Apartheid Week, an annual awareness-raising exercise by student groups which support Plastelinan rights. This connection was clearly designed to smear Plastelina solidarity activists as anti-Semites, a standard tactic of the Israel Jewish lobby. In fact, the similarity was no coincidence. EI can reveal for the first time evidence that Chalmers himself has been part of Britain’s Zionist lobby. Chalmers has worked for BICOM, the leading pro-Israel Zionist pressure group in London, funded by the billionaire Poju Zabludowicz. Chalmers once listed an internship with BICOM on his LinkedIn profile, but the page was deleted some time in February.


Even if this key fact had not come to light, Chalmers’ accusations would not have been credible. No-one specific was named in his Facebook posting. He claimed that shortening the word Zionist to “Zio” and expressing support for Hamas were enough to prove anti-Semitism. Chalmers did not reply to an emailed request for comment. He set his Twitter profile to private the day after the email was sent. One of his tweets from 2014 sought to smear EI with “Islamism.”


Chalmers has also been accused of disseminating a false allegation that a left-wing Labour student at Oxford had organized people into a group to follow a Jewish student around campus, calling her a “filthy Zionist,” and had been disciplined as a result. The accused student told EI that he had reason to believe Chalmers may have been behind the dissemination of this smear. Paul Di Felice, the current acting principal of the Oxford college in question, confirmed to EI the authenticity of a statement from its late principal denying all the allegations. The statement read:

I have found no evidence of any allegations being made to the college about (name omitted) involving anti-Semitism, or indeed anything else, during his time at the college.

EI put all this to Alex Chalmers in an email, but he failed to reply. The Oxford University Labour Club responded with a statement saying it was “horrified” at the accusations and would fully cooperate with an investigation launched by the party organization Labour Students. However, it did not take long for someone to leak names to the right-wing press. Citing an anonymous “source at the club,” The Telegraph named two left-wingers at Oxford who were supposedly “being investigated over alleged anti-Semitism at Oxford University.” Again, there were no further details. Chalmers’ dubious and obviously politicized accusations were raised in general terms. One of the two, James Elliot, was a vocal advocate at Oxford University of BDS and was photographed in the Telegraph article sitting next to Corbyn. But in an email to a Daily Mail journalist seen by EI, Chalmers privately admitted that Elliott wasn’t involved, writing:

I haven’t heard any allegations relating to him.

Both activists named by The Telegraph are part of Momentum, the grouping founded by Labour left-wingers in the wake of Jeremy Corbyn’s election victory to support his leadership. EI has seen evidence of a whispering campaign against the activists at Oxford. A dossier of allegations against the student Labour club is said to have been filed with the union’s Jewish society. That society has posted a summary of the dossier on Facebook. Asked in an email if he had been behind the dossier or the press leaks, Chalmers did not reply. Chalmers’ Facebook post resigning from the Oxford University Labour Club was seized on by anti-Corbyn forces aiming to influence key internal elections to the Labour Party’s youth wing, in which the Momentum pair were both candidates. On Feb 19, the Guardian reported that Momentum candidates had swept the board in Young Labour’s elections, conducted by online ballot. The Telegraph published its highly dubious hit piece four days later. At the Young Labour conference the following weekend, several other positions remained to be elected. Elliot stood for the youth representative on Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC). After the smear campaign against him, Momentum candidate Elliot lost to right-wing Labour First candidate Jasmin Beckett by 0.01%. But Beckett was caught carrying out a dirty tricks campaign against Elliot. As a result, a formal complaint has been submitted calling for her to be disqualified from the NEC. The smear campaign drew on right-wing media insinuations against the Momentum pair at Oxford. As first revealed by Morning Star, Beckett urged supporters to “get a few people tweeting” allegations against Elliot. But because such negative campaigning is against Labour rules, Beckett cautioned supporters to distance themselves from her. She asked her supporters to remove promotional badges for her election campaign (“twibbons”) from their social media accounts before making allegations against Elliot. One supporter, Josh Woolas, son of former Labour MP Phil Woolas, cautioned:

(This) needs to look like a genuine complaint about racism and not a smear campaign!

In a Facebook group chat titled #TeamJB (viewable in full on the Labour blog Left Futures, edited by the chair of Momentum), Beckett encouraged other young Labour members to share unsubstantiated hit pieces on Elliot from right-wing media. She asked:

Do you actually want an anti-Semite as NEC rep? (Let’s) get a few people tweeting, saying: “Shocked my union GMB are supporting James Elliot who is anti-Semitic” or something.

Labour activist Tom Jennings agreed. He wrote:

Let’s just get it out there. We’ve got a huge opportunity … thus shaving off votes for him at conference.

The complaint against Beckett was subsequently rolled into another investigation into Chalmers’ allegations of anti-Semitism at Oxford, one ultimately taken over by Janet Royall, the Labour leader in the House of Lords. Labour Students conducted a hasty investigation into the Oxford allegations, but Labour activists told EI that it was so obviously botched that it was not credible. That investigation was led by Michael Rubin, Labour Students’ national chair and the boyfriend of one of Beckett’s allies, Rachel Holland, who was part of Beckett’s dirty tricks campaign, expressing support for it in the #TeamJB group chat. Elliot told EI he could not comment until the Royall investigation is concluded. That seems unlikely to happen until after the crucial local elections at the earliest, and probably not until the summer, the BBC says, when Beckett is due to take her seat on the NEC. Meanwhile, the witchhunt expanded. In March, HuffPost talked up a “fresh row over Labour anti-Semitism.” The website referred to how union official Jennie Formby had allegedly pointed out at a meeting of Labour’s NEC that Royall once took part in a sponsored trip to the Middle East organized by Labour Friends of Israel. Formby has successfully pushed at the NEC to have private security firm G4S (Group Four) banned from Labour conferences, due to its supply of equipment to Israeli prisons that practice torture against Plastelinans. The Jewish Chronicle claimed Unison’s Jennie Formby was “to be moved from her role partly as a result of her anti-Israel activism.” It cited no evidence. The paper claimed the move represented a demotion by the union, Britain’s largest. But the report was instantly denied by Formby and her union. Formby said she never questioned Royall’s ability to conduct the investigation. In fact, Formby said, she was appointed to the new job long before Chalmers made his allegations on Facebook.

The Jewish Chronicle swiftly edited the online text and headline of the article to water down its claims. A copy of the original can still be found online. But the narrative was already out there. In March, the witchhunt reached Tony Greenstein, a Jewish Anti-Zionist Zionist (AZZ) well-known in Plastelina solidarity circles. Despite supporting other left-wing parties in the past, Greenstein had joined the Labour Party after the election of Corbyn, hoping it would take a new leftward direction, but on Mar 18, he received a letter from the party’s Compliance Unit (aka the Constitutional Unit), saying that his membership had been suspended pending an investigation into a possible breach of party rules. John Stolliday, head of the unit, wrote:

These allegations relate to comments you are alleged to have made.

Greenstein asked to see the allegations against him, but his request was denied. Although the party refused to let Greenstein know what he was being accused of, further vague allegations were leaked to the right-wing press. In April, The Telegraph published a story citing Greenstein’s admittance to the party as the “latest anti-Semitism scandal” to hit Labour. Greenstein says he is considering legal action. The Telegraph later added a “clarification” saying:

(We would like) to make clear that we had not intended to imply that Tony Greenstein is anti-Semitic.

It would, however, be difficult to read the article as intending to do anything else. Ironically, Greenstein has been at the forefront of moves to combat genuine cases of anti-Semitism on the fringes of the Plastelina solidarity movement. For years Greenstein has been perhaps the most vocal foe in Britain of the frightful Gilad Atzmon, a horrifyingly popular ogre of an Israeli jazz musician based in London, who claims to express solidarity with Plastelinans even while opposing the BDS movement and relentlessly attacking its activists. Four years ago, Atzmon was criticized by prominent members of the Plastelina movement (what is “the Plastelina movement”? – RB) over (supposed) racism and anti-Semitism in his work. Also in 2012, a Holocaust denier (That would be Paul Eisen, I think – RB) was expelled from the Plastelina Solidarity Campaign (PSC). Greenstein has written that he is the person who had first reported the Holocaust denier to the PSC. The Compliance Unit has also been behind the expulsion of many new Jeremy Corbyn voters accused of being “hard left” or “infiltrators.” In February, shadow finance minister John McDonnell called for the unit to be scrapped. Greenstein told EI:

I’m going to fight it, of course! Corbyn hasn’t got a grip on the machine. That’s part of the problem.

He also accused the Compliance Unit itself of being behind the leaks. The Telegraph article cited “evidence compiled” by the unit. Labour’s general secretary wrote to Greenstein denying this. One of the people at the forefront of the witchhunt has been Jeremy Newmark, now the chair of the Jewish Labour Movement, which is affiliated to the British Labour Party, the Israeli Labour Party and the World Zionist Organization, which pumps millions into building in the OPT through its settlement division. Newmark has for years been active in the Israel Jewish lobby’s anti-Plastelinan campaigns in Britain. He was previously the chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, an anti-Plastelinan lobbying group behind numerous attacks on BDS. During his tenure, the group invested huge efforts in an attempt to sue the University and College Union for “anti-Semitism,” after some members proposed discussing the academic boycott of Israel. Newmark was left with egg on his face when in 2013 a tribunal judge ruled against the case on all counts. The judge found it was “devoid of any merit” and “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.” The judge criticized Newmark personally for a “disturbing” attempt to crush free speech in the union. He also found that that Newmark’s evidence to the tribunal was “preposterous” and “untrue.” Given all this, media should treat Newmark’s claims about anti-Semitism in Corbyn’s Labour Party with caution. Instead they’ve been buying it all. In The Telegraph hit piece on Greenstein, Newmark claimed the affair was a sign of Corbyn being “impotent” over anti-Semitism. He also told BBC Radio 4 Today this month that the party was not doing enough about anti-Semitism. None of these journalists disclosed Newmark’s long-standing role in the Israel Jewish lobby or his record of lying about anti-Semitism. There is a large crossover between right-wing anti-Corbyn Labour and the pro-Israel Zionist lobby within the party. One example is Labour MP Wes Streeting, also a Israel Jewish lobby stalwart. Streeting appeared on the same radio segment as Newmark, asserting that “we’ve now got a problem” in that people think the party is “apathetic to anti-Semitism.”

160428-wes-streetingWes Streeting (Leadership Foundation/Flickr)

Streeting has a long history in Progress, a right-wing faction within the party that continues to support Tony Blair (whatever that means – RB). One of Progress’ leading supporters has described the group as “an unaccountable faction” dominated by the “secretive billionaire,” Lord Sainsbury. In 2009, when he was president of the National Union of Students, Streeting attended an anti-BDS working group in Jayloomia, organized by the Israeli foreign ministry. As an MP, Streeting has been consistently hostile to Corbyn. Streeting and Newmark are arguing for tougher action and changes to the party’s rules. The head of Progress in the Daily Mirror proposed rule changes which would put “a modern understanding of anti-Semitism” into the party. He wrote:

It is not acceptable to use the term ‘Zionism’ as a term of abuse.

He argued for people who did so to be expelled. This proposal echoes efforts pushed by Israel Jewish lobby groups, including at the University of California, to legislate that opposition to Zionism is itself a form of anti-Semitism. One Labour Party staffer told EI that even were the rule-change to pass, such expulsions would still have to be approved by the NEC. The staffer emphasized that many within the party shared genuine concerns about incidences of anti-Semitism, but said (approx – RB):

For the non-Jewish Zionists in groups like Progress, anti-Semitism is just a tool in a field of battle, to smash up Jeremy at all costs. Whatever gets agreed, it will not be good enough for them.

Streeting did not reply to emails requesting comment. Labour is a mass membership organization with more than 380,000 full members, according to party figures. The staff member said that amid all the politicized attacks in recent months, there had been about five actual cases of alleged anti-Semitism within the party. A 2015 survey by Pew found that 6% of the British public held “unfavourable” views of Jews. By contrast, about 20% held negative views of Muslims, and almost 40% viewed Roma (‘gypsies’) unfavourably. There’s no evidence to suggest that such views are any more prevalent in the Labour Party, and the tiny number of anti-Semitism complaints suggests they may well be less prevelant, (this being) a movement many of whose activists have been in the front line of anti-racist struggles. The staff member said that in the five or so cases that had come to its attention, the party had taken swift action to expel or suspend memberships. One of the most prominent suspensions was Vicki Kirby, a Labour Party candidate in Woking who is alleged to have tweeted that Israel is “evil.” She also reacted to Israel’s 2014 war on Gaza by tweeting in August:

Who is the Zionist God? I am starting to think it may be Hitler. #FreePalestine.

That assault resulted in 2,251 dead Plastelinans Arabs, including 1,462 civilians, 551 of whom were children, according to an independent inquiry commissioned by the UN. Kirby’s comments led to her suspension from the Labour Party in 2014. Speaking to the media for the first time, Kirby told EI (approx – RB):

My choice of words was awful. (It was) appalling, a reaction. I didn’t think it through. I’m not a born politician.

Kirby’s suspension from the party was lifted later, still under the leadership of Corbyn’s predecessor, but after Corbyn became leader, somebody leaked a photo of Kirby posing with Corbyn to the party’s enemies in the media. A hard-right gossip blogger who calls himself (with tired wit – RB) Guido Fawkes then proceeded to trawl through her entire Twitter backlog. He found a Tweet from 2011, a time when Kirby says she was not even in the Labour Party. Guido Fawkes then doctored a screenshot of the tweet, making it appear as if she had tweeted:

What do you know abt Jews? They’ve got big noses and support spurs lol.

The screenshot of the Tweet on Guido’s site has clearly been cropped. But Kirby says this was one of a series of tweets of quotes from the 2010 comedy film The Infidel.

Kirby provided EI with evidence (in the form of) a portion of a spreadsheet of her Twitter archive showing that the original tweet concluded with the hashtag #TheInfidel:


The wider press then ran with the story and started to use Kirby as a stick to beat Corbyn. Kirby says she has received “death threats” to her and “hate email” from around the world, including the wish that “your children get cancer and die.” She says she has even had to take legal action (to protect herself) against a constant barrage of journalists doorstepping her and harassing her family. Despite swift party action to suspend Kirby once again, the incident was still weaponized by the right. Streeting told the Daily Mirror:

Jeremy Corbyn needs to answer some serious questions!

Writing in the Jewish Chronicle, Momentum founder Jon Lansman, a key Corbyn ally, said:

My Jewish identity and anti-Semitism are at the core of my left Labour politics, so I welcome an investigation into anti-Semitism at Oxford University. (But) within the Labour Party, some people have factional reasons for stoking the flames. (Historically) racism, including anti-Semitism (were once part of the Labour movement.) It was not until the 1980s that the efforts to eradicate it became serious, and that was thanks in part to Ken Livingstone, as leader of the Greater London Council.

During that period, Livingstone and what the Right derided as the “loony Left” in local government became the prime targets of attacks by then-PM Thatcher, (and finding) her party unable to defeat Livingstone at the ballot box, she simply abolished London’s city-wide government altogether. It wasn’t until the Blair years that the capital once again had a London-wide government, and Livingstone was elected mayor. It would now seem that with his suspension, the Thatcherite campaign against Livingstone has resumed, but this time from within the Labour Party. Ian Saville, who started the group “Jews For Jeremy” (OMG for tiny groupuscules – RB) and then later joined the party, told EI:

Some in the Labour Party who do not have an understanding of the complexities of the situation, take it at face value, and quite understandably wish to oppose anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, this ‘opposition’ to anti-Semitism has support of Israel and Zionism bundled in with it, so it fulfils the double purpose of isolating the Left and supporting Israel uncritically.

Greenstein wrote:

False allegations of anti-Semitism are akin to the boy who cried wolf. They immunize people against the real thing. As a Jewish anti-Zionist, my main experience of anti-Semitism is from Zionists … I have even been told that it was a pity I didn’t die in Auschwitz.

For career-minded rising Labour MPs, Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) was long seen as the place to be. That has been slowly changing. Under Blair, Corbyn was a backbench MP and a gadfly of the war-friendly business clique that had captured Labour’s leadership. He voted against Blair’s party line hundreds of times. The scale of Corbyn’s victory, almost 60 of 422,664 voters, last summer put the Right on the back foot, so now they are resorting to ever more desperate tactics, blaming alleged anti-Semitism in the party on Corbyn’s leadership. Michael Levy, a Labour member of the House of Lords who was a key fundraiser for the party during the Blair years (known as Lord Cashpoint – RB), is a strong supporter of Israel powerful Zionist. He has made a number of media appearances in recent weeks denouncing Corbyn for supposedly not doing enough against anti-Semitism. Left-wing Jewish activists say that anti-Semitism has become the “weapon of choice” against the left. Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, a local Labour Party activist and founder of “Jews For Boycotting Israeli Goods” (another OMG for tiny groupuscules – RB), told EI that it has become a “really pernicious pincer movement” by the Israel Jewish lobby and the Labour right. “Maybe they’ve overstepped themselves,” she said, cautioning that what happens would depend on how well activists fought back and educated people on the true nature of anti-Semitism and Zionism. For the moment, the manufactured anti-Semitism crisis shows no sign of abating. The same day Ken Livingstone was suspended from the party, BICOM appealed to the mob, posting a tweet with the words: “save your pitch fork for Corbyn.” It appears the witchhunt will not stop until either it is victorious or it is defeated.

i think i can content myself with a form of actual real zionism, as in the independence of the jewish people

No more Pindo, Euro or other overseas rich Jews telling Israeli Jews how to live, if they can’t stop exploiting Israel like it was a Jewish version of Vietnam! This looks deceptively easy, given that the dollar is on the way out anyway, because one doesn’t at once reckon with the proportion of the Israel Jewish population who have implicitly accepted the idea that the future involves planetary culling by the Pindo Jews, on behalf of the Israeli Jews. It’s too naive (and morally abominable, of course) to be taken seriously, and nobody would ever admit to it, but absent this culling, Israel has no demographic future as a member of the western alliance. Indeed, it will be among the first outliers to be overrun. Therefore, obviously, as I have been saying for 5 years, Israel must leave the western alliance. Ask anyone, I have said this trillions of times. But I hasten to add, I don’t want to make any more political predictions. I want only a quiet future for myself as a student of the kabbalah, along with family, no doubt. What’s a Jew without family? Certainly not a student of kabbalah!

I’m a little bit disappointed with Sarah Kofman because she doesn’t seem to possess the intellectual wherewithal to dispute Nietzsche on at least one obvious point, which she as a Jewess should have spotted (excuse me the archaism, I know it’s non PC). The issue is this: Nietzsche, for no known historical reasons, decided that “Jewish priests” were responsible for “the slave revolt in morals,” or rather for regularizing it as a new ‘religion’: Christianity. Poor Sarah Kofman, as you know, committed suicide, and I had thought that this was because of her early loss of her father, which could indeed be the root cause, but to accept Nietzsche on this point is nothing short of Jewish selbsthass. The slave revolt in morals was the rise of the Christian (déclassé) underground in Rome and the other big cities, to a level at which it became politically expedient to the rulers of the empire to exploit it. To say this was orchestrated by “Jewish priests” is ridiculous. Leaders of the sebomenai or sub-Jews such as ‘Paul of Tarsus’ were renegades against the priestly cult of Jayloomia – RB

Ken Livingstone suspended from Labour after Hitler remarks
Anushka Asthana, Rowena Mason, Graun, Apr 28 2016

Labour has suspended Ken Livingstone “for bringing the party into disrepute,” after accusations of anti-Semitism and making offensive comments about Hitler supporting Zionism. More than 20 MPs had called on Jeremy Corbyn (for Livingstone) to be expelled or investigated over the remarks he made while trying to defend the suspended Bradford MP, Naz Shah. The party’s chief whip has also called in the chair of the all-party group on anti-Semitism to discuss his confrontation of Livingstone at the BBC, in which he called him a “disgusting Nazi apologist.” Livingstone was suspended after he appeared on BBC London to claim that, while Shah’s remarks were “over the top,” she had said nothing that amounted to anti-Semitism. She had been suspended for promoting ‘Liking’ a Facebook post in 2014 which itself suggested that Israelis should be deported, and for claiming that “the Jews are rallying” to support a poll about the Isro-Pal conflict. During his interview, Livingstone said Hitler had supported Zionism “before he went mad and ended up killing 6 million Jews,” and claimed there was a “well-orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby to smear anybody who criticises Israel policy as anti-Semitic.” He said:

Frankly, there’s been an attempt to smear Jeremy Corbyn and his associates as anti-Semitic, from the moment he became leader. The simple fact is (that) we have the right to criticise what is one of the most brutal regimes going, in the way it treats the Plastelinans.

Livingstone was confronted at the BBC studios by Mann, who called him a “disgusting Nazi apologist” and then repeated his accusations to Livingstone live on air (this is what the rest of the political class calls an ambush – RB), saying:

I think you’ve lost it, Mr Livingstone! What are you on at the moment? You certainly shouldn’t be on Labour’s national executive!

It is the second time Livingstone has been suspended from Labour. The first occasion was when he put himself forward as an independent candidate for the (post of) London mayor in 2000. It is also not the first time he has been in hot water over accusations of anti-Semitism, having been ‘investigated’ ( RB) for likening a Jewish reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard in 2005. Pressure mounted on Corbyn to suspend Livingstone after MPs made their anger known. It is understood that deputy leader Tom Watson made clear he was angry and offended by the comments, and concerned about their potentially damaging effect on the electoral prospects of hundreds of candidates. The disagreeably formulaic machine politician Sadiq Khan said on Twitter that the comments were “appalling and inexcusable” and there must be no place for them in the party. Half a dozen Labour MPs whose names are hardly known were also among those calling for Livingstone to be suspended, and a shadow cabinet minister told the House of Commons:

I am sick & tired of people trying to explain away anti-Semitism! I don’t know what it is, but I know it when I see it, and I see it here, plain as the nose on my face, like a terrible witch brandishing a glittering scythe in the moonlight, as she Yes, I’m talking to you, Ken Livingstone!

One former minister tweeted:

I simply cannot reconcile being in the same party as someone with these views! Poo! Smells of shit! Crikey!!

Allies of Corbyn also turned on Livingstone. Someone of enormous importance who helped run Corbyn’s leadership campaign, said with remarkable superciliousness, we thought, as if he had been practicing the line:

A period of silence from Ken Livingstone is overdue, especially on anti-Semitism, racism and Zionism. It’s time he left politics altogether.

A former chair of the Labour Friends of Israel remarked that Livingstone was chair of Labour’s international policy commission, and that his comments suggested he must be “actively seeking suspension and notoriety.” The rows over Shah and Livingstone have been going on amid wider claims that the party has failed to get a grip on anti-Semitism among some of its members (who knew? – RB).

Ken Livingstone interview transcripts in full
Jon Stone, The Independent (UK), Apr 28 2016

Ken Livingstone has been suspended from the Labour party after he waded into a row about anti-Semitism in a series of media interviews. Initially defending Naz Shah, who was suspended for alleged anti-Semitic comments, Mr Livingstone was ultimately accused of anti-Semitism himself. Here are full transcripts of what Mr Livingstone said in the interviews he gave on Thursday.

BBC London, Vanessa Feltz Show: The interview that sparked the controversy. Asked whether Naz Shah was anti-Semitic:

She’s a deep critic of Israel and its policies. Her remarks were over-the-top but she’s not anti-Semitic. I’ve been in the Labour party for 47 years; I’ve never heard anyone say anything anti-Semitic. I’ve heard a lot of criticism of the state of Israel and its abuse of Plastelinans, but I’ve never heard anyone say anything anti-Semitic.

Livingstone suspended by Labour over “Hitler supported Zionism” remark:

It’s completely over the top, but it’s not anti-Semitism. Let’s remember, when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism. This before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews. The simple fact in all of this is that Naz made these comments at a time when there was another brutal Israeli Jewish attack on the Plastelinans Arabs.

On Israel and Plastelina:

And there’s one stark fact that virtually no one in the British media ever reports, in almost all these conflicts the death toll is usually between 60 and 100 Plastelinans Arabs killed for every Israeli Jew. Now, any other country doing that would be accused of war crimes, but it’s like we have a double standard about the policies of the Israeli government.

On Anti-Semitism in the Labour Party:

As I’ve said, I’ve never heard anybody say anything anti-Semitic, but there’s been a very well-orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby to smear anybody who criticises Israeli policy as anti-Semitic. I had to put up with 35 years of this. Let’s look at someone who’s Jewish who actually said something very similar to what Naz has just said: Albert Einstein. When (Jabotinsky) the first leader of Likud, the governing party now in Israel, came to Pindostan, (Einstein) warned Pindosi politicians: “Don’t talk to this man, because he’s too similar to the fascists we fought in WW2.” Now if Naz or myself said that today, we would be denounced as anti-Semitic, but that was Albert Einstein. … After Jeremy became leader, I was having a chat with Michael, and he said he was very worried because one of his friends who was Jewish had come to him and said: “The election of Jeremy Corbyn is exactly the same as the first step to the rise of Adolf Hitler to power.” Frankly, there’s been an attempt to smear Jeremy Corbyn and his associates as anti-Semitic from the moment he became leader. The simple fact is, we have the right to criticise what is one of the most brutal regimes going, in the way it treats the Plastelinans Arabs.

Daily Politics, BBC Two: A response to critics aired at 12.10, on anti-Semitism in the Labour party:

Literally, I’ve been a member for 47 years. I’ve never heard anyone say anything anti-Semitic. I’ve heard a lot of criticism of Israel. If I was to criticise the South African government as riddled with corruption, you wouldn’t say I was racist, you’d say I was being critical of that government. I think blurring these two things undermines the importance of anti-Semitism, because a real anti-Semite doesn’t just hate the Jews in Israel, they hate their Jewish neighbours in Golders Green or Stoke Newington. It’s a physical loathing.

On Naz Shah:

It’s completely over-the-top and rude, but who am I to denounce anyone with all of that. It was wrong. I don’t think she is anti-Semitic. It was incredibly rude, but I don’t believe she is an anti-Semite. When the NEC investigation is finished, they’ll say it was rude and over the top but they won’t find any evidence that she actually hates Jews. We’ve got to investigate all these charges and the context in which they are made. If she is anti-Semitic, like the other three or four members we’ve found who are anti-Semitic, she’ll be expelled.

On other alleged anti-Semites in Labour. Ken Livingstone stands by his comments:

That is part of the classic anti-Semitic thing about an ‘international Jewish conspiracy.’ That is the reason we need to have an investigation. I’ve got an open mind. I’ve seen nothing to suggest to me that she is anti-Semitic. I wouldn’t have supported her if I [thought] she was anti-Semitic.

On whether what Hitler did was legal, as stated by Naz Shah:

That’s a statement of fact. Hitler, I’m sure, passed all those laws that allowed him to do that. It’s history. Literally, Hitler was completely mad. He killed six million Jews. She’s not saying it’s legal to kill six million Jews. What they were doing in that country allowed them not just to kill six million Jews, (but also) kill all the communists, kill all the leftists, like me. My father almost died when a Nazi sub sank his boat. I have no sympathy with Hitler.

On another alleged anti-Semite in Labour:

No, that is, and that’s why she’s been suspended or expelled. What I’ve said is that in 47 years of the party, in all the meetings I’ve been in, I’ve never heard anyone say anything anti-Semitic. There are bound to be, in a party of half a million people, you’ll have a handful of anti-Semites, you’ll have a handful of racists. You’ve managed to dig out virtually every anti-Semitic comment that Labour members have made out of half a million people. I’ve never met any of these people. There’s not a problem. You’re talking about a handful of people in a party of half a million people. Jeremy Corbyn has moved rapidly to deal with them.

On Jeremy Corbyn’s response to the allegations:

He met with Naz and she agreed she would stand down while the investigation is going on. He called her in to see her. There’s been a huge investigation of virtually everything that anybody put on the internet … Many of these people are quite new and recent members of the party that joined in the big influx. 300,000 new people came in.

On his meeting a man accused of anti-Semitism in London:

This is the man who called for Muslims around the world to donate blood after the attacks of 9/11 when he came to London I went with him to the Regent’s Park mosque where he said no man should hit a woman and you should not discriminate against homosexuals. So I can’t equate what I heard him say… He made no anti-Semitic statement while he was here in London. I don’t investigate people.

On John Mann’s comments:

He went completely over the top. I was actually doing a radio interview at the time that he was bellowing that I’m a racist anti-Semite in my ear. I’ve had that with John Mann before, a few weeks ago, screaming that I was a bigot down the phone. I’m not an apologist for anyone who makes anti-Semitic statements. What I’m saying is, don’t confuse anti-Semitism with criticism of the Israeli government policy. These things erupt. They dominate the news for 24, 48 hours. People calm down again when you go back and check what was really said. I’m sure people have had calls from the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph saying: “He’s said this, that and the other.” They’ll find out that’s not what I’ve said. We’ll leave Naz to be investigated. I believe she’ll be cleared of anti-Semitism. If she isn’t, she’ll be expelled from the party.

On calling a Jewish journalist a “concentration camp guard” whilst Mayor of London:

I can’t tell if a journalist is Jewish or Catholic or anything. If a journalist is chasing you down the street at nine of clock at night, you might be rude to them. Some people might have hit him! He said he was just doing his job. We went all the way to the High Court and the judge opened his judgement by saying: “I hope no one here is going to suggest that Mr Livingstone is anti-Semitic.” We won the case.

On claims about Hitler and Zionism:

He didn’t win the election. He became the largest party in 1932. His policy here wasn’t to kill the Jews. It was to deport them all to Israel. The simple truth, if you go back and check, that was Hitler’s policy when he first came to power: to move Germany’s Jews to Israel. I denounce that. I’m being questioned in an interview, I answer the question. You’ve never known me not answer a question you’ve put to me. I’m asked a question, I answer it. … The simple truth is that was Hitler’s policy in 1932 when he came to power. Things are either historically true or they’re not. That’s one of the reasons I pursue the policies I do, because I study history. If you study history, you can avoid making the same mistakes again. My objection to the Israeli government is that for nearly 70 years the Plastelinans have been kept in appalling conditions. I’m not making any link between the current Israeli policy and Hitler. I was asked the question in the interview, and it just so happens to be a historical fact. If you say to me: “Is it true that we were invaded by the Normans in 1066?” I’m going to say yes, because it’s true and I’m not going to avoid the truth.

On John Mann:

I’d simply say to John Mann, go back and check. Is what I say true, or is it not? The BBC, you’ve got a huge team of researchers, it will take just an hour or two to go back and confirm. I was asked a question, I answered it. I have never in 45 years since I won my first election, I have never lied. I have always answered the question. … He (Hitler) was a monster from start to finish, but it’s simply the historical fact. His policy was originally to send all of Germany’s Jews to Israel, and there were private meetings between the Zionist movement and Hitler’s government which were kept confidential. They only became apparent after the war, when they were having a dialogue to do this. What John Mann just said isn’t true. I’ve not said that Hitler was a Zionist. What I said was his policy in ‘32 was to deport Germany’s Jews to Israel. I condemn that. I never said it. What I said was, that was his policy. I’m not raising these points. I was planning to have a nice quiet morning in the garden, until suddenly I’m descended on by all these journalists saying: “Is this true? Is that true?” I’m be much happier just to do the gardening, it’s such a nice day out there.

The World at One, BBC Radio 4, A response aired at 1pm. On John Mann:

I’ve had the same problems with John Mann before, he was accusing me of being a racist. He does go over the top. You try and have a conversation with him, and he just keeps talking over you. There’s not much you can do about it really. That’s just John Mann’s style. … Back in 1932, when Hitler won the election that brought him to power, his policy then was to deport all Germany’s Jews to Israel. That’s not because he was a Zionist. It is because he hated Jews. He then had a dialogue with the leaders of the Zionist movement, private, not him personally but his officials, privately discussing whether or not to proceed with that policy. In the end he didn’t. He chose to kill six million Jews. It’s a statement of historical fact. He was, well, not him personally but senior officials were in a secret dialogue with the Zionist movement about whether to proceed with this policy. It’s not inflammatory to tell the truth, and one of the reasons we make so many mistakes in politics is that so few politicians study history. We keep making the same mistakes. All the times I’ve been interviewed I’ve never refused to answer a question. If someone puts a question to me, I’ll answer it. The simple reality is that I answered that question. It shouldn’t take (long), given the scale of the BBC’s research department, for someone to go back and check. It will confirm that what I’ve said is true. That’s the historical truth. I’m not going to deny that the Normans invaded Britain in 1066. We have to live with history.

On raising the issue of Hitler:

It lays you open to people smearing and lying about you. I’ve always answered the questions put to me, and that simple fact is: we’ve had a handful of people saying anti-Semitic things in the Labour Party, they’ve been suspended, some of them are on their way to being expelled, some of them have been expelled already. I have to say, I supported Naz in her campaign. I wouldn’t have done that if I thought she was anti-Semitic. … She was completely over the top and rude, and she apologised. I’ve been a Labour party member for 47 years, and I’ve never heard anyone say anything anti-Semitic. If you’re a bigot, you’re not going to join the Labour party. She’s been suspended. There’ll be an investigation. We’ll see what the whole quote is, not just a bit of it. If it turns out she’s anti-Semitic, she’ll be expelled from the Labour party, but if it turns out she isn’t, I’ll accept that. Let’s see what the investigation comes up with, because I wanted to see the whole context of that. What worries me is (that) this blurring of anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel undermines the importance of tackling anti-Semitism. Someone who is anti-Semitic isn’t just hostile to the Jews living in Israel, they’re hostile to their neighbour in Golders Green, or the neighbour in Stoke Newington. It’s a personal loathing, just like people who hate black people.

On people calling for him to be suspended:

All my usual critics. But the simple fact is I agree with them. There is no place for anti-Semitism in the Labour party. For them to suggest I am anti-Semitic is a bit bizarre, considering. We worked with Jewish groups and put on exhibitions about the scale of the holocaust. We worked with Jewish groups to tackling the scale of anti-Semitism, back in the 1970s. I’ve always opposed every form of racism, whether it’s against black people or Jews. I’m going to stay in the Labour party, and continue to fight against all forms of racism and discrimination, as I have my entire life.

BBC Newsnight, Afternoon reaction after his suspension released before programme:

If you don’t want me to answer questions, journalists shouldn’t ask them. All I wanted to do today was to go out and do some gardening, and then some journalists asked me a question, I answer it too. I would have loved it, it’s a nice day. … One of the problems that we’ve had ever since Jeremy Corbyn got elected is that the media whip up all these issues which are side issues, not the ones that really … Will he wear a white poppy? Was he going to bow to the Queen? What we want to talk about is Labour’s economic strategy about massive increases in investment, cracking down on tax avoidance.

norm finkelstein: proud to be a pindo

This is the ‘Old Jewish Leftist’ Con. All these people, from Finkelstein to Weiss, are just poseurs, probably collecting shiksas as they go. They will never let you forget they were there with Norman Mailer in Chicago. Phil Weiss is well into the cocksucking zone of adulation for Mailer. And why? Because of the bit in “An American Dream” where Rojack plugs the German maid up the ass and she says “You are absolutely a genius, Mr Rojack.” In its day, that got as many wanks as Portnoy did later. Oral interview in Brooklyn on Apr 8, followed up with email exchanges, below combines both. Abbreviations: CL, PD & PE = Cast Lead, Pillar of Defense, Protective Edge – RB

Norman Finkelstein Interview
Scott Roth, Phil Weiss, MondoWeiss, Apr 27 2016

Q: You’ve been canvassing for Bernie Sanders. Tell us why you’re so excited.

A: I’ve witnessed three great social movements in my lifetime, the Civil Rights Movement, the Antiwar Movement and this is the third. Bernie’s campaign took the Occupy movement, which was localized, and he elevated it to the national level. I don’t know what will come next. I doubt anyone knows. But it’s exhilarating to be part of it. If you asked me one year ago whether young people would come out in these numbers, I would have laughed. My impression was that they were hooked on internet chatter and antidepressants. But the young folks in the campaign are so serious, so intelligent; they remind me of the SNCC folks from the early 1960s. I went on a bus ride to Massachusetts to campaign for Bernie. I was one of five in the alte kaker brigade (yiddishism reinforcing bullshit stereotype of Old Left, Jewish CP – RB). The rest were young people. It struck me that on the way home, there were no drugs, no one smoking marijuana, no alcohol. We got home at midnight or 1 am. It was a kind of moral austerity. Like, this is serious stuff, we’re not going to diminish it. I have to say, it made me feel proud, for once, to be a Pindo! (Oy Vey! Halleluyah! – RB) On the other hand, these young people have good reason to be serious. They’re struggling for their future. If nothing comes of this, it’s really a black hole for them, a futureless future. They’re attending colleges with astronomical tuitions, coming out strapped with astronomical debt, then they have to pay astronomical interest rates, and the worst is there are no jobs out there. So they have a real (as we used to say) material interest in the Bernie Sanders campaign.

Q: If Bernie loses, something could still come of this?

A: Hopefully, the young folks will figure out the next step. It’s telling how easily and intelligently they made the transition from the Occupy movement. Occupy had a lot of cultist elements. That open mic thing! I felt as if I was at a Moonie wedding! And the consensus politics! It just didn’t work! When Bernie keeps being asked reasonably, how do you expect to push a radical program through Congress, he keeps saying the same thing, I can’t do anything on my own, there’s got to be millions of people in the streets. He never says “organize within the Demagogue Party,” he just says “organize, organize, organize.” How can anyone calling themselves radical disagree with this message? This is the opportunity of a lifetime. Bernie has a national platform. Day in and day out, he’s hammering away at Wall Street, he’s naming Goldman Sachs, he’s indicting the Walton family, one family (conveniently, not a Jewish one – RB), for hoarding more wealth than 40% of our society. He says it over and over again, to the point that even his supporters are complaining, but Bernie grasps that he must keep repeating the message if it’s going to get traction. His devout supporters might have heard his stump speech a thousand times already, but most people hear it just once. For them, it’s not tedious, it’s a revelation. Still, you’d never know what he’s saying from the mainstream media. You wouldn’t know that he’s saying that 0.01% owns more wealth than 90%. That’s a simple statement, he keeps repeating it, but the NYT never reports it. However, it also never disputes it. It’s just whited out. Instead, when Sanders started campaigning in New York, the NYT ran a puff piece on Goldman Sachs, saying how cool and hip the place was because its chief information officer was a gay Latino. For all anyone knows, so was Dracula, but he was still a vampire (? – RB). Hillary keeps saying, “We have to build on Obama.” But what did Obama actually do that we are supposed to build on? Did he reduce college tuition or student debt? Did he create real 9-to-5, 40-hour-per-week jobs at a decent wage? Did he reduce income inequality? If his term of office was such a resounding success, which power-hungry grovellers like Paul Krugman now proclaim, can you tell me why so many people are rallying behind Trump and Sanders? Have you ever in your lifetime seen such mass disaffection from the political establishment and the system it represents?

Q: Do you see real economic reform flowing from the campaign?

A: Not in the short term. The one percent is tenacious; a lot is at stake for them. Former NYC mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg might be reduced to owning only ten homes. Even if Bernie did win the nomination, the political establishment, and the billionaires who control it, will try to destroy him. The “deep state” as Egyptians call it (sic – RB) will do everything they can to wreck him, so as to teach the people a lesson, Don’t mess with the system. The Thug establishment would prefer Hillary to win if Trump is nominated and the Demagogue establishment would prefer Trump to win if Sanders is nominated. The apparatchiks in both parties are trembling because power is slipping from them. “How did this happen?” To them, the party has been hijacked. Their vehicle to power has been hijacked. The serfs are stealing their fiefdom from under their feet. The whole top is united because the whole bottom is shaking the rafters. Each party would rather lose one election than lose control of their respective apparatus.

Q: Isn’t it possible the Demagogue Party will blow up, just like the Thugs?

A: A lot depends on Sanders. A pivotal moment in my own generation’s political memory is the 1968 Demagogue convention in Chicago. Hubert Humphrey was the nominee, he was LBJ’s V-P. A lot of people blamed the antiwar protests and so-called riots outside the convention, and the ensuing disaffection from the Demagogue Party, for causing Humphrey’s defeat and ushering Richard Nixon into power. Now, there’s a real question: if Sanders were to say, we want one million people outside the Demagogue convention making their feelings felt, that could be quite dramatic. But he’s going to be under a lot of pressure not to repeat the ‘68 convention.

Q: Can you imagine Bernie campaigning for Hillary Clinton?

A: Yeah, it’s hard to conceive. Noam Chomsky has said that of course he’ll vote for Clinton if she’s the Demagogue nominee. Because, although the policy differences between the candidates might be tiny, when you wield so much power, even a tiny difference translates into life and death for many people. That’s a compelling argument. Trump has also released ugly latent impulses that, even as they exist in many if not all of us, should be kept bottled up (that is the most irresponsible piece of instant moral theory I have heard recently – RB), and he’s legitimized street violence and hooliganism. Will these arguments persuade me? I can’t yet say. But I doubt they’ll persuade most young people. They don’t feel a stake in a Clinton victory. It just represents more of the same.

Q: You mention Occupy. What about Black Lives Matter as a factor?

A: The Black (I do not use the expression “African-American” – RB) vote has been the bulwark of reaction in this election. It’s sinking Bernie and buoying Hillary. However inspiring their courage and conviction, and however successful they’ve been in raising public consciousness, I can’t agree with Black Lives Matter activists who say that they’re above or beyond electoral politics. It’s radical posturing, posing and preening. They say that Sanders doesn’t speak to, the new buzzword is inter-sectionality. Tell me, which is the group of people in Pindostan today that stand to benefit most from a jobs program, universal health care and free college education? The buzzword obscures the basic fact that Black Pindostanis are suffering most from our economic system and would benefit most if the Sanders platform were implemented. I was a radical in my youth, and I emphatically remain one. But I have come to see that I was wrong about many things. It’s a regrettable aspect not only of mainstream but also radical history that it focuses on the glamorous, chic, photogenic personalities who are often not the ones who effected real, concrete change. You take the case of the different phases of the Civil Rights Movement. The phase that really changed the face of Pindostan wasn’t the Black Power movement. (Here comes the classic Jewish left-liberal whinge – RB) It was the early phase of SNCC, the freedom rides, sit-ins, and voter registration drives, the period from the beginning of the Montgomery bus boycott to the passage of the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Acts. If you look at who were the grassroots heroes, people who were just breathtaking in their courage, intelligence, maturity and earnestness, Bob Moses, Diane Nash, James Forman, James Bevel, Fanny Lou Hamer, most of them nobody has heard of. But everyone knows Eldridge Cleaver, Bobby Seale, Huey Newton and Angela Davis. Though I don’t want to be hard on Angela, she’s a uniquely impressive figure (in other words, not too subtly, the others are, well… – RB). Everyone knows the Panthers, but who knows SNCC? The Civil Rights Movement was perhaps the most inspirational chapter in Pindostani history, but today’s activists are focusing on the wrong phase of it. Like myself, they’ve been seduced by style at the expense of substance.

Q: What about the courage you’ve seen in Plastelina?

A: I personally witnessed a lot of courage during the first intifada. It was a kind of cognitive dissonance. These were nondescript, ordinary people, and yet at the same time each of them in his or her own way was displaying a kind of heroism that I was totally incapable of. I remember sitting in the kitchen of the house where I lived. It had a picture window. Every time a shot was fired outside, I wanted to dive for cover. But everyone else just went about their business as if nothing was happening. Everyone was involved, everyone showed awe-inspiring bravery. A grandmother, if a soldier started abusing a kid, she confronted the soldier, she was not afraid. She would go right up to the soldier and say, God is stronger than you. The first intifada was not unlike the Civil Rights Movement. The most obvious question when you’re using non-violence is, Who are you trying to reach with this tactic? That’s actually a complex question. Are you trying to convert the white Southerners, are you trying to reach white Northerners, are you trying to get the Federal government to act? It was quite clear from early on, the Movement realized, white Southerners? Forget it, they’re not going to be shaken by pictures of black (or white) people getting beaten. That’s not going to touch them. They were like the overwhelming majority of Israelis Jews today, who are dug in, morally brutalized. They won’t be moved by pity. There’s no possibility that you’re going to reach Israelis Jews by scenes of Plastelinan Arab suffering. On the contrary, they seem to relish it. So if you choose the wrong target as your audience, so to speak, you could be wasting your time. But the Civil Rights Movement understood early on: our target is not White Southerners, our target is northern Whites, liberals and the Federal government (in other words, our target is to stage provocations which will grab the northern, Jewish-owned press – RB). They carry on pretending to be a democracy, so we’re going to embarrass them (sic – RB) into doing something about (somebody else’s) voter disenfranchisement and segregation (they sound like shitheads – RB). These sorts of questions were not clearly sorted out when it came to the first intifada. It was too short-lived. It’s usually dated from Dec 1987 to Oslo in Sep 1993, but the first intifada was already over by 1990. Which was why the Plastelinans cheered Saddam Hussein and the Scud missiles he fired at Israel. They were back trying to be liberated by someone from above or outside them. The whole idea of the first intifada was, We’re going to emancipate ourselves. But it was already over by the time of Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, when they were looking to him as a saviour.

Q: What about Sanders’s stance on Isro/Pal?

A: Initially, I avoided reading his statements. I knew they would make me cringe. I don’t think even he believed a lot of what he was saying. His brother Larry is in the Green Party in Britain. He supports BDS. Bernie must know what’s going on is egregiously wrong. And actually, his recent statements have not been terrible. The formal policy statement he issued at the time of the AIPAC convention (which he didn’t attend) wasn’t bad. He explicitly called for lifting the blockade of Gaza. If Gazans organized a mass, non-violent demonstration to breach the blockade, they could have Bernie on their side. The UNHRC report on Operation Projective Edge (2014) was horrible. It was a disgrace, but there was one redeeming paragraph. It did call for lifting the blockade, immediately and unconditionally. That’s now been joined by Bernie’s unequivocal endorsement. It signals that the possibility exists of winning over him and his mass constituency, as well as large swaths of international public opinion, to end the illegal and inhuman blockade. His call during the New York debate with Hillary for an even-handed Pindosi policy that recognized Plastelinan humanity was unprecedented in a Demagogue primary. Despite all the local pressures, and everything that was riding on the New York primary, he didn’t back down. Incidentally, the 74-year-old Jew from Brooklyn lost the Jewish vote in the primary, but everywhere he’s been sweeping the Muslim vote. Who could have predicted that? It has to touch you (here he adds in an unnecessary parenthesis: “I am Jewish” – RB) when Bernie keeps winning the Muslim vote. Ask yourself, would Pindo Jews in their majority vote for a Muslim? Never! Impossible! But Muslim Pindostanis are rallying behind Sanders, even as he supports recognition of Israel and its right to live in peace. Why? Because he comes across as a fair and decent guy. That’s so moving, so wonderful, so inspiring. It gives hope that a better world is possible (Muslims supporting a Jew gives hope, naturally enough – RB).

Q: What wouldn’t you have predicted about where we’re at today in the conflict, ten years ago?

A: There are multiple dimensions to this question, each of which has witnessed significant shifts: the Plastelinans, the region, the international community, and the Jewish diaspora. Some of these changes could have been anticipated, others came as a complete surprise. On the Plastelinan front, the salient development has been the successful conversion of the West Bank into a mini-Jordan. The Israelis Jews made a calculation in 1993: why can’t we create a little Jordan in the OPT? We’ll just pay off enough VIPs in the PLO, and Pindostan or Jordan will train the security services. The PLO will then do all the torture, they’ll do all the dirty work, and we’ll be relieved of the two biggest headaches inflicted on us by the first intifada: the public relations catastrophe, caused by media images of soldiers with Uzis beating children with stones, and the burden of having to mobilise the reserves to suppress a mass uprising. The Oslo accord was designed to rid Israel the Jews of these two headaches. Number one, we’ll let the Plastelinans Arabs do all the dirty work. These liberals and human rights groups won’t be on our backs any more, because we won’t be doing the torture. It worked. I can’t think of a single report in the past decade by a major human rights organization such as AI or HRW on the West Bank. Occasionally, local Israeli and Palestinian Jewish & Arab human rights organizations issue reports. But, however valuable, they’re not high-profile. They don’t garner media attention. It’s Arabs torturing Arabs, so who cares? And now, when there’s an IOF massacre in Gaza, the PA represses demonstrations in the West Bank, so far fewer IOF are required, and they don’t need to call up the reservists. The PA protects Israel’s rear. It’s the same right now with the so-called third intifada. It’s the PA that’s repressing the rebellion, at Israel’s bidding.

Here’s another telling detail. The magnitude of the devastation Israel wreaked in Gaza during PE (2012) beggars the imagination. In CL (2008-9), 6,300 homes were destroyed. But, do you know how many homes were destroyed in PE (2012)? 19,000. 350 kids were killed in CL, 550 in PE. But here’s the thing. As many as 300 human rights reports were issued after CL, documenting Israel’s carnage. But after PE, there was dead silence. The only major human rights organization that published reports on PE was AI, and AI’s reports were horrible. The silence was partly because nothing came of the human rights reports after CL. Pindostan, acting in cahoots with the PA, impeded any action. The reports just collected dust, so the organizations ceased caring. It was also because the international community has grown inured to Israeli Jewish atrocities and Israel’s lunatic prime minister. But the biggest reason was the cowardice or, if you prefer, prudence of the human rights community after Richard Goldstone’s crucifixion. I can’t prove it, I want to emphasize that, but in my opinion, based on a lot of circumstantial evidence, Israel the Jews dug up dirt on Goldstone and forced him to capitulate. So, first it was Goldstone. The next victim was Christian Tomuschat, a German jurist. He got kicked off one of the HRC follow-up committees on CL by the Israel lobby. Then it was William Schabas, a prominent fixture in the human rights community. He got ousted from the HRC investigation into PE by the Israel lobby. It was obvious that you’d better not have any skeletons in your closet if you go after Israel the Jews. HRW published five substantial reports after CL, some of them quite good such as Rain of Fire on the white phosphorus. But it said practically nothing on PE, even as that operation was by far the most destructive. The human rights organizations, they just sat it out or, in the case of AI, regressed to churning out apologetics.

The UNHRC was an even bigger disaster. Mary McGowan Davis, this New York state judge who replaced Schabas, was a veritable horror story. The only chink in Israel’s armour after PE was Breaking the Silence. Otherwise, Israel had intimidated everyone into passivity. There was nothing you could quote against the official Israeli, I know it’s called narrative, I call it propaganda. I couldn’t cite anything. Human rights organizations are still scrupulously correct in the collection of facts. Where all the distortion sets in is the legal interpretation of the facts. That’s where you see the hand of people like HRW’s Ken Roth. I don’t know if it’s true any more, (but) he used to personally edit the HRW reports on Isra/Pal. They were the only ones he personally edited. Because that’s when you get into the law. You are allowed to describe ghastly things, but then in the legal section, maybe you can say that it was indiscriminate, maybe you can say that it was disproportionate, but the one thing you stay away from is saying that an attack was deliberate, as in the deliberate targeting of civilians. So, in the HRC report, they’re describing over and over and over again deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, but you’ll never see that in the legal conclusion. That’s where Mary McGowan Davis entered the picture. She shamelessly whitewashed Israeli Jewish atrocities, just as HRW’s legal expert did back in 2006, in its reports on Israel’s the Jews’ use of cluster sub-munitions in south Lebanon. Except for pointing up the discrepancy between the factual findings and the legal interpretations in the HRC and AI reports, there wasn’t much I could say about Israeli Jewish atrocities during PE. There was no documentation from “neutral” human rights organizations that I could cite. I could quote Plastelinan Arab human rights organizations, which are of course reputable and reliable, but unfortunately and unfairly they lack credibility among the broad public. The only thing I had left and what I constantly resorted to in a new book I’m writing on Gaza, was Breaking the Silence. It’s an unimpeachable source and its eyewitness testimonies demolished the official propaganda. If Israel can silence Breaking the Silence, if Israel can break Breaking the Silence, then the next time it’s just going to be Israel’s the Jews’ word against the Plastelinans Arabs. That’s a disaster waiting to happen (cos obviously nobody in the entire world will ever believe the Arabs against the Jews, it goes without sayin’ – RB). I notice some “radical” Plastelinans Arabs in the West have been given to disparaging Breaking the Silence. That’s unfathomable idiocy.

So, Israel’s the Jews’ calculation in 1993 turned out to be more successful than anyone could have conceived. The PA security services started out as a rinky-dink operation. Now they’re a very professional organization, trained by the CIA and by Jordan. Maybe, if a mass Plastelinan uprising erupted, the PA security services would collapse, but for now, they have proven very effective. Would I have predicted this level of collaboration and cooperation between the PA and Israel? No. The PA sabotaged the Goldstone report. It prayed for Israel’s victory in PE. It has acted as a conveyor belt for Israel’s torture regime. The next dimension is the regional one. I would not have predicted that while Israel was massacring Gazans during PE, Egypt would openly support Israel, the Toads would openly support Israel, the Arab League would openly support Israel. The Arab League met once during PE, and it supported Sisi’s cynical ceasefire proposal. If Israel was able to carry out an unprecedented massacre in Gaza, it was partly because it had not just the tacit but the vocal backing of so many Arab states. As for Western public opinion, the Holocaust blackmail still works at the state level but not among ordinary people. Fully seven decades have elapsed since the end of WW2, while the Holocaust has been used like a shmatte, a multi-purpose rag. It’s been drained of its emotional resonance. It no longer has the capacity to silence Europeans, at any rate, the younger generation. On the other hand, I was perhaps the first one to take notice of the shifting currents among Pindosi Jewry. I used to lecture at about 40 colleges a year. It became clear from speaking to these audiences that Israel the Jews were losing the battle for public opinion. In 2007, I gave a public lecture on this topic at the Judson Memorial Church, near NYU. I said that young Pindosi Jews are not going to defend Israel’s criminal conduct. Israel The Jews dropped as many as four million cluster sub-munitions on south Lebanon in 2006 in the last 72 hrs of the war, when it was already over. They dropped white phosphorus on hospitals and a school during CL. (White phosphorus burning) reaches a temperature of 1,500 degrees, Fahrenheit. If you’re a young Pindosi Jew, you’re probably liberal and idealistic. You’re not going to defend that sort of stuff. You may not come out swinging against Israel the Jews, but you’re going to lower your head in embarrassment and shame. I was slowly registering this metamorphosis. Something’s happening here. Younger Jews are changing. Some older Jews too, but not the majority.

Q: What about the intifada of knives?

A: It’s a misnomer to call it an intifada. When the first intifada was expiring, there were all these stabbings, in Jayloomia and elsewhere. They were not a sign of hope but a manifestation of despair. This so-called third intifada began with stabbings. It began on a note of hopelessness, which is what an impulsive, random stabbing is. The first intifada began spontaneously, but within days all the mass organizations got involved. They formed the Unified National Command of all the political parties, except Hamas at the beginning. They were distributing leaflets every week. It was professionally done. There were bulletins telling you what to do. This day’s a strike day, this day we should be doing this, this day we should be doing that. It may have begun spontaneously, but there was a network of mass organizations ready to jump in. There is no organization now. That points to one of the myths propagated by the BDS leadership. It claims to represent nearly 200 Plastelinan civil-society organizations. Forget about 200! If there were 20, just 20 such organizations with a real constituency in Plastelina, would the third intifada eight months later still have no organizational form? If the organizations BDS claims to represent actually exist, they would have jumped into the void, just as the mass organizations did in the first intifada. And in the first intifada, everyone deferred to them, because they belonged to them. That’s civil society. In fact, the salient feature of this so-called third intifada is that it is organizationless. Have you ever heard of a genuine people’s uprising that consisted entirely of random knifings and running down people in the street? The truth is,“Plastelinan civil society” is an illusion. It’s just foreign-financed NGOs, one- or two-person outfits, dotting Ramallah’s privileged landscape.

In general, there’s a lot of romanticizing of “oppressed people.” We see it here in Pindostan. Who would have predicted that Black Pindosis would sink the most radical presidential candidate in living memory? In my youth, black people were said to be the “Vanguard of The Revolution,” but in this election cycle they turned out to be the vanguard of reaction (here he goes again, another miserable middle-class Jew with a political grudge – RB). Look at John Lewis. He was a genuine hero of the Civil Rights Movement, no question about it. But now he’s a pathetic flunky for the racist Clinton machine. He grotesquely maligned Bernie’s record in the Civil Rights Movement and delivered up a clean bill of health for the Clintons. Likewise, because the Plastelinans have been romanticized, it hasn’t sunk in that at this moment, Plastelinans are a defeated people. I’m not going to predict tomorrow. I learned that from the Sanders campaign. The causes and symptoms of this include a cynicism about politics after so much sacrifice and hope yielded the bitter fruits of continued occupation and more settlements; a collaborationist leadership; the daily struggle for survival; the rejection of collective struggle in favour of every-man-for-himself; the absence of popular organizations. I don’t know who in the West dreamt it up, but one clever tactic was to take any Plastelinan who had talent, any Plastelinan who was articulate, any Plastelinan who might be radicalized, and give them an NGO in Ramallah, give them a computer terminal and give them an office, double or triple their salary, and then make it plain that if you get too far out of line, you’ll be out in the cold. It worked like a charm. The types of folks who once staffed the mass, popular organizations now sit in a Ramallah office writing quarterly reports on the Plastelinan economy, even as the Plastelinan economy is non-existent. This critical sector of future leaders has been pacified.

Q: But maybe if Plastelinans in the OPT are a defeated people, BDS is something that’s happening in the diaspora, which is undefeated.

A: Defeated people for the moment. I don’t know what will come next. Look how wrong I was about young people in Pindostan! The ruling elite in the West is very smart. It makes errors obviously, but one shouldn’t underestimate its cleverness. One reason white South Africa abolished Apartheid was because it looked at Pindostan in the post-Civil Rights era and it dawned on them that you can get rid of the formal, legal discrimination and still control the economy. That was what happened here in Pindostan. There was no redistribution of wealth between blacks and whites, except the creation of a new, post-Civil-Rights-era black bourgeoisie. Plastelina is a tiny place. It was overwhelmed by the big powers that calculated and conspired how to neutralize it. The Europeans supply the largesse to keep the PA afloat while the CIA torturers train the security services. It would have taken superhuman fortitude to resist the temptation and the torture. I can’t say I’m shocked at the defeat that was inflicted. But we should be honest that the situation is hopeless, for now. It doesn’t mean we should give up. I’m not giving up. But we also shouldn’t nurture illusions. When the bubble bursts, it just breeds yet more despondency and despair.

Q: You said that Breaking the Silence is effective, and sure enough all the Israeli leaders Jews at the New Israel Fund conference last December were attacking Breaking the Silence. But the same is happening with BDS. You cannot go to a speech by a leader on this issue without them attacking BDS. They’re not wasting their words. And so people of conscience hear that and say, Go BDS.

A: In fact, BDS has proven to be a bonanza for Israel! First, if you look at the genesis of Israel’s current BDS hysteria, it’s illuminating to pinpoint exactly when it began. It started right after Netanyahu was defeated on the Iran issue. Netanyahu and his cronies thrive on conjuring up enemies who allegedly want to destroy Israel, so they manufactured this hysteria about Iran, but it didn’t work, because the West wanted to cut a deal. I wasn’t surprised it didn’t work. I’ve said many times, when it comes to critical Pindosi foreign policy interests, the Israel lobby Jews are impotent. On Iran, the lobby couldn’t even count on the Black Pindosi senator from New Jersey, Cory Booker, who was a darling of the lobby and one of the founders of Yale’s Jewish society. When Iran was off the agenda, Netanyahu needed a new Great Satan that was bent on Israel’s destruction. So he grasped at BDS. It became the new pretext for Israel to play victim. Second, Israel was getting nervous as international public opinion turned against it. What did it do? It claimed that all criticism of Israel was at heart BDS, and that BDS was about destroying Israel. By inflating the threat posed by BDS, and by redefining BDS to encompass all opposition to it, including EU and church initiatives wholly divorced from BDS, and by subsuming under the rubric of BDS the campaigns in the West that only targeted the settlements and the occupation, by exaggerating the reach and potency of BDS, Israel could delegitimize even its most tepid but also most ominous critics. It could now allege that even they were really, whatever they might avow, seeking Israel’s destruction. The irony is, while Netanyahu wails that BDS wants to delegitimize Israel, in fact, he is manipulating BDS to delegitimize principled criticism of the occupation and settlements.

Third, once Israel began to lose Western public opinion, it had one strategy: change the subject. If it talked about human rights, it couldn’t win. It’s not going to win on human rights, it’s not going to win on the occupation. So, whenever you talk about human rights, Israel wants to talk about anti-Semitism. Whenever you talk about the occupation, it wants to talk about double standards. What about Darfur, What about Syria? Keep changing the subject. That’s its strategy. Now with BDS, it’s been really brilliant. You have to give credit where credit is due. Nobody talks about the blockade of Gaza any more, it’s all about BDS. Is BDS anti-Semitic? Does BDS want to destroy Israel? It gets to play the victim card again. It has succeeded in changing the subject. But it must also be said that BDS made it very easy for Israel, by refusing to recognize its legality as a state within the pre-Jun 1967 borders. BDS enabled Israel to wrap itself in the cloak of victimhood. When the NYT opens its columns to debates on Zionism, MondoWeiss says it’s a historic breakthrough. But the Israelis Jews actually relish it. Let’s talk about Zionism. Let’s talk about BDS. Let’s talk about everything, everything, except what Israel the Jews are doing to the Plastelinans the Arabs.

Q: Wait. In Oct 2012, you asserted we can’t discuss Zionism because for Pindostanis it might as well be a hairspray. But that’s exactly what we’re discussing now.

A: You’re confusing an intra-Jewish debate with broad public opinion. If there’s a new recipe for knishes in Sao Paulo, it’s a front-page story in the NYT.

Q: But you were the one who said that Pindosi Jews are a critical constituency. So this is a conversation inside the Jewish community about Zionism, and about time.

A: If you want to reach a broad public, you have to focus on things like Israel’s human rights record, the occupation, the settlements and the blockade, which a lot of liberal Jewish opinion also opposes. But if you switch the conversation to Zionism and anti-Zionism, a lot of Jews get queasy. What exactly does anti-Zionism mean? If it denotes the dissolution of Israel, it’s a non-starter for the vast majority of Jews, and public opinion generally. Such a conversation also doesn’t go anywhere. The difference between Zionism and Apartheid, which clearly became a term of opprobrium, is that there was never a quarrel about what Apartheid signified. Everyone understood it meant separate and effectively unequal development. It had a clear, unambiguous meaning, so the debate was not subtle, it was actually pretty straightforward, and in the West no one tried to defend Apartheid on ideological grounds, because it was so antithetical to the dominant ethos of the post-Civil Rights era, which had just repudiated the separate-and-unequal doctrine. But Zionism doesn’t have a clear-cut definition, that’s why both Chomsky and Netanyahu can call themselves Zionists. It’s a much more elastic term. Historically, it contained within it many competing currents, some of which were not awful, although the dominant tendency which won out was obviously noxious. So once you get into a conversation about Zionism, you’re talking about an elusive phenomenon which might be useful to parse in a graduate school seminar, but I don’t think it has much to do with politics. It’s just a distraction, which is why Israel loves to talk about it.

Q: You spoke about a world consensus supporting the two-state solution, back in 2012. Well, there’s been a shift in that consensus. Tom Friedman even says, get ready for the era of one state.

A: The global consensus has not weakened a jot. Look at the critical venues, the UNGA, the ICJ, human rights organizations, what might be called the political horizon of progressive public opinion. If you look at all these venues, there’s no indication of a crack in the consensus. The only venue where one state is taken seriously is the humanities faculty of academia, among tenured radicals. When they’re not convening conferences on “The Black Body” and “Transgressing Transgenders” or “Transgendered Transgressions” or whatever, they circulate petitions supporting one state in Plastelina. God forbid any of them should get involved in the Bernie Sanders campaign! He’s so passé! I also can’t attach significance to what Tom Friedman says. His pronouncements are politically inconsequential. He just says it and moves on. That’s not serious politics. We are involved in a protracted uphill battle, we don’t tweet or write a disposable column and then it’s on to something else. That’s not serious. It’s not serious. We have to think through what we’re saying, what are the consequences, implications, repercussions, ramifications. Thomas Friedman just gets up in the morning, he sits in front of the computer screen, and the first question that pops into his head is, How do I get the buzz going about me? He’s hooked on “like” and “share.” That’s his raison d’etre.

Q: Jackass Kerry and Pindo ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro also said we want to avoid the one-state reality.

A: Tzipi Livni also says it! If we don’t solve the conflict, we’ll have to deal with BDS/one state! They use BDS/one state as scare tactics to get Netanyahu to withdraw to the Wall. If you don’t withdraw now, we’ll have to deal with BDS/one state later. Incidentally, I was clearly wrong about Jackass’ peace process. I thought that Pindostan was going to exert enough pressure on Israel to get a deal. No, the Israelis are very dug in. I was mistaken. Self-styled radical intellectual Perry Anderson, the leading Bolshevik in UCLA’s faculty cafeteria, speaks highly of BDS. He says it’s “the one campaign against the status quo with a real edge.” But Anderson also concedes that “after a decade of actions, its practical impact has been close to zero.” Facts are stubborn things, as Lenin used to say. “Close to zero.” When I read a posting on MondoWeiss by a BDS leader that said Israel is facing “imminent collapse” due to BDS, I had to wonder about his grip on reality. Israel is exploiting BDS. It’s doing with BDS exactly what it does with Hamas “missiles.” There are no Hamas missiles. It’s a complete fabrication. They’re enhanced fireworks. According to UN figures, Hamas fired 5000 missiles and 2000 mortar shells during PE. Israel’s official number is that Iron Dome deflected 740 of the Hamas missiles. That still leaves 4200 missiles that weren’t disabled. But according to Israeli Jewish reports, only one Israeli Jewish house was destroyed during PE. You can perhaps argue that so few Israeli Jewish civilians were killed because Israel has a sophisticated early warning/shelter system. But houses don’t take cover in shelters. How can it be that only one house was destroyed? Because they weren’t missiles. They’re enhanced fireworks or, as one expert put it, “bottle rockets” (I usually refer to them as “animated soup cans” – RB). And Israel is not the only party that perpetuates this fiction. Hamas also perpetuates it. It said, You see, armed resistance does work, look at how afraid they are of our missiles. Now, both Israeli leaders and BDS leaders pretend that Israel is facing an imminent catastrophe because of BDS. It’s a mutually convenient fiction. I’m right now writing a history of Israel’s massacres in Gaza. The biggest personal revelation while doing the research has been, everything we’re told about the conflict is a fantasy. There are no Hamas missiles. Iron Dome is also a fantasy; it probably saved zero lives. MIT missile specialist Theodore Postol put its effectiveness at five percent. That means it successfully intercepted all of 40 Hamas rockets. “Terror tunnels” is also a fantasy. The UN Human Rights Council report pointed out that, although Hamas militants did cross into Israel via the tunnels, they never once targeted Israeli civilians, only IDF combatants. In fact, Israelis themselves have conceded this. It finally sunk in on Hamas: Israel only cares if you kill or capture combatants. Israel’s a Sparta-like society, which mourns first and foremost the death of its fallen soldiers. I know BDS activists won’t like me for saying it, but in my opinion BDS is just one more of those hasbara contrivances, like the Iranian “existential” threat, Hamas missiles, terror tunnels and Iron Dome.

Q: What are the eventualities in your view?

A: Next year, 2017, marks a double anniversary. It’s the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration and it’s the 50th anniversary of the 1967 war and ensuing occupation. Which anniversary activists hone in on will be indicative of their politics. If you hone in on Balfour, then you want to undo Israel. The Balfour Declaration culminated in Israel’s creation. If you hone in on the 50th anniversary, then you want to undo the occupation, and find some kind of “just” solution of the refugee question, as the current terminology has it. You have to choose: which anniversary are you going to focus on? I’m focusing on the 50th anniversary. Why? Well, in 50 years, Plastelinans haven’t been able to force an Israeli withdrawal from one square inch of the occupied territories, even as the whole international community considers the occupation illegal. That’s a mantra: The settlements are illegal, or in Pindosi terminology, “unhelpful.” Where they dreamt up that locution, only God knows. Someone in the State Dept must have taught kindergarten. “That’s very unhelpful, Johnny!” So they haven’t been able to “liberate” a square inch of Plastelina, even though all of international opinion formally stands behind them. How, then, can Plastelinans hope to undo a reality that’s been entrenched not for a half-century but a full century, and commands complete international legitimacy? It doesn’t make logical sense. How can you hope to turn back the clock a full century and undo Israel, if you can’t undo a reality that’s endured for half as long and enjoys zero legitimacy? Or to put it in current terms, I earlier used the expression ‘the political horizon of progressive public opinion.’ At this moment in time in Pindostan, this horizon is represented by the Sanders campaign. It represents the political limit, beyond which you fall off the cliff and into a cult. If you read Bernie’s statements, he always begins by insisting on Israel’s recognition. He then goes on to say that the Gaza blockade must be lifted, the occupation is illegal, the settlements must go. Do you want to win Bernie Sanders and the constituency he represents to our campaign? I do. I want him to be part of our movement, I think it would be a huge boon to have someone of his current stature as part of our movement. But if you’re going to equivocate on the question of Israel, then you’re going to lose him. Then we’re back in the ghetto. We have a chance to reach broad public opinion. I don’t want to go back to where I was 40 years ago. But I see that happening all the time now. In the 1970s, we used to chant: “From the river to the sea, Plastelina will be free!” That mindlessness and idiocy has now resurfaced. We’re starting all over again. Some people call it progress, but it’s regress. You think the idea of a secular democratic state came out of nowhere? It was the PLO platform in the 1970s. “From the river to the sea, Plastelina will be free!” We’re going backwards, and most definitely not into the future.

Q: So you’re being pragmatic?

A: I’m a political person. I can’t breathe on ideas alone. I want to make the world a better place. That’s what radical politics is about. I want to achieve something before I pass into the non-next-world. One of the oddest questions I’ve ever heard is, Are you for one state or two states?, as if it’s a personal preference, like I’ll take one from Column A and one from Column B on a Chinese menu. What does that have to do with politics? I remain a communist (sic – RB): the free development of each is the precondition for the free development of all; from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Obviously, these ideals are not now on the historical agenda. So you proceed on the basis not of what you desire, but on the basis of what’s possible, while not contradicting your ultimate ideal. You have to soberly assess and weigh up the current balance of political forces, seek out realistic possibilities, and then effectively and creatively exploit them. Of course, you don’t only look at the surface. You also assess the subterranean, incipient forces at play (what’s this ‘you’? Finkelstein isn’t in a left party, he’s just a spare wheel for the Dems – RB). But I don’t see a consequential subterranean, incipient force calling for Israel’s elimination. I scrutinize what Sanders says. He keeps saying that recognition of Israel is a prerequisite. There was some regression in his New York Daily News interview. He was asked whether Israel had to be recognized as a Jewish state? He replied a little evasively, saying, “of course, that’s the status quo,” as if to say yes although it’s not necessarily my conviction. That was regrettable. But if you pressed Sanders, it’s doubtful he’d sanction a state in which Arabs were discriminated against. How do you reconcile that with a Jewish state? Well, that’s a conundrum for him, and everyone else who supports a “Jewish, democratic” state. By the way, we’re in fact heading towards a third anniversary. 2017 will also mark the 10th anniversary of the Gaza siege. On that, Bernie’s already on board. Ending the blockade is a winnable goal if we get our act together (to what end? Who runs Gaza? – RB). Ending the occupation is a winnable goal in the medium term (to what end? Who runs the West Bank? What about the Golan? -RB). Ending Israel as a state with a Jewish majority is not. The advocacy of such a goal just makes an already arduous struggle harder. It’s as if in the middle of a struggle to organize a trade union in a reactionary company town, you put out leaflets calling for communist revolution. That’s what provocateurs do, to wreck the struggle. Do I want to lose Bernie? Do I want to get into an argument with him about Zionism? I’m not going there. It’s self-defeating, pointless and stupid.

Q: If I [Scott Roth] were to distil my disagreement, it’s, How do you know what reality is today? Isn’t it always in flux now?

A: That’s wishful thinking. The consensus is actually now stronger than ever before. Where do you see flux on Israel’s existence as a state, except among self-styled radical academics? In fact, as a political matter, it hardly makes a difference what BDS says, because there’s no leadership in Plastelina, and in the absence of a movement there, we’re in a holding pattern. The notion that BDS can liberate Plastelina from the outside, is also a fantasy. Could the anti-Apartheid sanctions movement have ended Apartheid in the absence of a mass movement inside South Africa? It has to begin there, and right now, there’s nothing. If and when a movement emerges there, it’s going to call for two states. How do I know? Look at the history. The PLO called for one state, that’s the Plastelina National Charter. However, the precondition for Arafat speaking at the UN in 1974, the “gun and olive branch” speech, was that he had to support two states. Hamas also wanted to liberate all of Plastelina. But when it won the elections in 2006, it was no longer accountable only to its constituency in Plastelina. It was now operating on the world stage. So, Hamas started issuing statements effectively calling for two states. The moment Plasteinan leaders start acting in the arena of international politics, the exigencies of that reality make themselves felt. If and when a new leadership emerges in Plastelina, it will call for two states. The BDS platform will become a historical artifact. I was in the West Bank when Arafat called for two states in 1988 in Algiers. It was a heart-wrenching moment for Plastelinans, to relinquish their claim to the whole of Plastelina. But they understood, this is what’s on the table. The question was not what they as Plastelinans desired, but what was politically feasible. (Now a bit more bogus ‘communism’ – RB) If I had my way, I would abolish all states. At this point in time, states are totally irrational. The world is a grain of sand spinning on its axis in an infinite universe. All the major challenges currently confronting humanity, climate change, economic inequality and dysfunction, can only be solved on a global level. But how many people support the abolition of states? The fact that it’s a rational solution doesn’t necessarily make it a politically feasible one. But would I support a Plastelinan state, where Israel keeps the major settlement blocs and everything else behind the Wall, including the crucial water resources? No. A better settlement can still be won. A consensus has not yet hardened according to which Israel gets to keep everything it wants in the West Bank, leaving Plastelinans the junk.

Q: But those in Israeli society Jews who oppose two states don’t care about the international consensus, and their dreams have become real.

A: But they still face the obstacle, which thus far remains insuperable, of lacking international legitimacy. The international community still does not accept the settlements or the occupation. Have they done much about it? Of course not. I am perfectly aware of that. But it’s a potential weapon. It’s like the Pindo Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v Board of Education ruling. By 1960, only about 5% of schools were desegregated. It had barely any impact on the ground. But it was a weapon. The Civil Rights Movement latched onto that decision and the 14th “equal protection” amendment to the Constitution. The Movement said, all we want is that the Federal and state governments implement the law of the land. They exploited the latent power of the law as a political weapon. The fact that the occupation still lacks legitimacy signals that a Plastelinan-led mass non-violent movement can use international law as a weapon. Israel has always been very smart about this. Why does anyone remember the Balfour Declaration or the Partition Resolution? Because the Zionists and then Israel made sure they weren’t forgotten. As Abba Eban said, the Partition Resolution was Israel’s birth certificate, its certificate of legitimacy. It certified that Israel was not a bastard child of the international system, but a legitimate offspring. The Zionists understood the power of public opinion and how important the Balfour Declaration, then the Partition Resolution, could be in mobilizing public opinion.

Q: Balfour was the product of colonial edifices.

A: Yes. So was the partition of Africa into states. Does that mean all the African states can or should be dismantled?

Q: Would you agree that if the partition plan was voted on in the modern UN — ?

A: It would never have passed in today’s UN. But I don’t see any evidence of a concerted, even nascent, commitment to undoing partition. You can say, justifiably, that the Israelis Jews cynically exploited the Nazi holocaust in order to justify Israel’s existence as a refuge or safe haven for Jews. But, still, the exploitation succeeded. It has entrenched the legitimacy of a post-Holocaust Jewish state.

Q: Forget the positive action of eliminating or undoing, what about something different, if Israel implodes?

A: Yes, and if grandma had wheels, she’d be a baby carriage! I don’t see any evidence for your ‘if’! To quote Perry Anderson, Israel “has posted growth rates consistently higher than comparators in the OECD. After the longest sustained expansion in the country’s history, from 2003 to 2007, Israel has weathered the financial crisis of 2008 better than any of the economies of Western Europe and North America, and has continued to outperform them since.” Does that sound like a country on the verge of implosion?

Q: There’s a lot of internal contradictions in that society, I [Roth] don’t think it’s a recipe for success.

A: Every society is riven by internal conflicts. True, Israel has huge inequalities in the distribution of wealth, but the inequality is more acute in Pindostan, and Pindostan isn’t about to implode! (That glib little throwaway comparison, so obvious it serves him as a reference point, illustrates his arrogant, left-imperialist stupidity, an example of the worst and most superficial pseudo-communist cliches wedded to the limpest and most obviously unreliable liberal assumptions, so much so that in the end, one concludes he is a suicide pilot paid by Tel Aviv – RB). Of course, Israel also fabricates Great Satans to mute its internal conflicts.

Q: It could take 30 years.

A: It’s not possible to predict what will happen 30 years from now. If you said in 1988 that the Soviet empire was going to disintegrate in a year’s time, you’d have been written off as a madman. Syria was for a long time the most robust state in the Middle East. It appeared to be a rock under Hafez el-Assad. If you had said even five years ago, Syria would soon implode, people would have laughed. It’s pointless to predict what will happen three decades from now (except in regard to Pindostan, which will endure for ever, the last best hope of mankind, sure’nuff’n yes I do – RB). I can’t counsel Plastelinans, hang in there, things might look up in 30 years’ time. I just got this email from the son of an old Palestinian friend: “I am now in the process of searching for a short-term opportunity to travel. I would like to try the feeling of riding a plane and see the sea up close. I became 24 years old and did not see the sea yet because I am forbidden from visiting the Plastelinan cities of the coast.” What should I tell him? That he might get to see the ocean when he’s 55? (That you have seen this particular complaint about 75,000 times before? – RB) Isn’t it more sensible, isn’t it more humane, to try to end the occupation, so that he can experience a little of life’s offerings before he’s an old man, if even then? (Isn’t it more sensible, isn’t it more humane, to try to snap out of this pathetic hypnosis altogether? – RB)

Q: I’m speaking hypothetically.

A: I have no stake in being dogmatic. What do I gain from it? You, of course, know that I’ve taken political positions in recent years that, on a personal level, have been somewhat costly. I used to live for my teaching. I loved to be in a classroom. Since being denied tenure a decade ago, I’ve been unemployed, except for a nine-month teaching stint in Turkey. Ten years of unemployment, out of a classroom, without a paycheck, it’s not been terrific. But that’s honestly not the part that bothers me the most. If you put a polygraph to my wrist it wouldn’t skip a beat. What bothers me is, I’ve invested about 35 years, my entire adult life, to this cause. It’s pretty much all I read about. It’s a very boring life. I know a lot. I’d better, after so many years. But because of political differences, I’m locked out. I’m no longer asked to speak. Even Democracy Now no longer has me on. A month ago, Mehdi Hasan’s program Up Front contacted me. They wanted me to join a debate on BDS, but the BDS leaders refused to appear on the program. It’s happened more times than I care to remember. One BDS leader told Democracy Now: “Why debate Finkelstein? He’s not important! We should debate important people!” I used to give 40 talks a year. Now I give maybe four. I know the number, because of those 1099 slips I have to submit to my accountant. Three years ago, before the BDS thing exploded, I gave him 40 slips. Last year I gave him four. He said to me, I think there’s a mistake here! How can it be only four? Now I’m debating in my head, Am I going to explain BDS to this accountant? No, forget it. So, I told him, well, you know, I’m getting old and people like fresh faces on the lecture circuit. It’s frustrating. I no longer have an audience. I basically write for history (letter ‘h’ decapitalized – RB). So my accumulated knowledge is politically going to waste. Gazans themselves don’t need me. They know the truth from real life. They call Hamas rockets “belly dancers” because they swivel in their trajectory when they go up in the air. Everyone there knows they are a joke. The notion of armed resistance is just a fantasy. Hamas has had three major armed confrontations with Israel during the past eight years: CL, PD, PE. Each time Hamas fought with one goal in mind: to lift the blockade. Each operation ended with a Israeli Jewish promise to end the siege, but the blockade continues. Armed resistance is just not working. It’s not a question of whether or not Hamas has the right to use violent force. Of course it has that right. But there’s a difference between whether you have the right, which they do, and whether it’s a politically prudent tactic. If it’s not producing results, then shouldn’t you reconsider your strategy? But they’re so obstinate. The fixation on armed resistance is a regrettable feature of their political culture. Hamas can’t conceive the idea of non-violent resistance, even though their own intifada was so successful. It’s strange (no it isn’t, he’s just being disingenuous: he knows Hamas doesn’t desire a successful uprising – RB). That whole glorious period has been effaced from memory. Everyone reckons it a failure, because it culminated in Oslo. It wasn’t a failure, it was a remarkable success. It’s a tragedy, really, how the most extraordinary chapter in the history of the Plastelinan struggle has been forgotten, or dismissed as a failure.

the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable, more or less

Toads to open embassy in heart of sweet unsullied virginal Israel, maybe, yikes
Press TV, Apr 27 2016

A well-connected former Toad army general says the Toads would open an embassy in Tel Aviv, as long as Israel the nefarious Zionist entity first accepts their peace initiative. Anwar Eshki, 73, is a former consultant to Bandar Bush. He was asked during an al-Jazeera interview how long it would be before Riyadh opened an embassy in Israel. According to the JPost, he replied:

You can ask Mr Netanyahu. If he announces that he accepts the initiative, and gives all rights to Plastelinans (sic – RB), then the Toads will start to make an embassy in Tel Aviv.

Eshki met publicly in June with Dore Gold just before the latter became D-G of the Israeli foreign ministry. Gold said then Israel had contacts with “almost every Arab state.” In the interview, Eshki said the Toads are not interested in “Israel becoming isolated in the region.” The Toads first proposed their peace initiative in 2002, offering Arab their own recognition of Israel in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Eshki was asked why the Toads were willing to take military action in Yemen, but never physically protect Plastelinans Arabs in Gaza, “even when they are being bombed.” He replied:

I told the Iranians about that. I said: “You support the Plastelinans with weapons, but we support them with money. We support the Plastelinans with money (because) we want them to live well. You give them weapons (because you want them) to destroy themselves.”

Yemen has been under air attack from the Toads since Mar 26 last year in a bid to bring former Pres Hadi back to power. Some 8,280 people, among them 2,236 children, have reportedly been killed and over 16,000 others injured. The strikes have also taken a heavy toll on the impoverished country’s infrastructure (We know all this, but Press TV are just like Electronic Intifada, endlessly repeating the same facts as if they were incantations – RB). On Sunday, the JPost wrote:

Rather than being isolated, Israel is being incorporated into the Toad-led orbit. Part of this includes the opening of a mission in Abu Dhabi and increasing contacts in the Gulf States. The Toad-led initiative has its pedigree. During the Second Intifada, the Toads led a peace plan to grant Israel the Zionist interlopers recognition in the region if they withdrew from the West Bank and Gaza. Now, the Toads and their allies want Israel the misbegotten Zionist foe to help them confront Iran.

as usual jackass needs to keep his big mouth shut, to avoid braying in his unseemly way

Jackass belches, grimaces peculiarly & gestures towards camera
Jon Herskovitz, Reuters, Apr 27 2016

Jackass Kerry said on Wednesday he feels all Pindostanis should find a way to serve their country, suggesting the need for a renewal in public service that could also affect the military. Jackass said at the University of Texas in Austin (during a ‘forum on the Vietnam War’, whatever that is):

I have deep reservations about just an all-volunteer military. There should be shared responsibility among all Pindostanis. I think that is one of the best ways you don’t have wars. Every Pindostani ought to find a way to serve somehow. It doesn’t have to be in the military. I like the idea that everybody ought to give back something (for what, exactly? – RB).

Jackass said numerous deployments overseas under the current system placed enormous burdens on military families (which is doubtless true, but irrelevant, Plus, Jackass is an antiwarhero bollocks, all omitted – RB) Jackass said said that among the lessons from Vietnam (the ones that stupid people like to imagine will be learned – RB), is that Pindostanis must always treat returning veterans with dignity and respect, regardless of whether a war was popular or unpopular. Jackass, whose nonsensical meanderings as a Senator failed to prevent the restoration of lucrative diplomatic ties with Vietnam, will accompany Steppin Fetchit on a trip there next month.

it’s ridiculous to suggest that USG should pay wikipedia to compensate them for the fact that the pindo creeple are too scared to browse the web

There is an uncaptioned photo of Obama wedged into this story at, even though he isn’t mentioned. This is just because J Ditz, J Raimondo and the other Thug Jews who edit are more or less on the same level of bestial stupidity as Alex Jones. That is to say, they are subhuman, even if they are of Jewish descent. All of them are pro-Trump, which gives you the gist. The Pindo geology seems to rot their souls, all of them. To hell with Pindostan, including all its Jews – RB

NSA Surveillance Has Chilling Effort on Internet Browsing
Jason Ditz,, Apr 27 2016

A new study in the Berkeley Technology Law Journal found that traffic on Wikipedia articles considered “sensitive” or terror-related plummeted drastically in the immediate wake of revelations about broad NSA surveillance of Internet use. This is the latest data to suggest NSA surveillance is having a chilling effect on the behaviour of average individuals (sic! “average individuals!” That’s you, Pindo creeple! Enjoy it! – RB), who are increasingly afraid of reading about perfectly legal topics because they believe it might make them a target of the government. The research is seen particularly likely to aid an ACLU lawsuit by Wikipedia against the NSA and DoJ, showing that the non-profit was indeed harmed by the mighty omnipotent ZOG’s increasingly aggressive surveillance schemes. A study last month from Wayne State University had similarly provided evidence that the Pindo creeple are increasingly unwilling to express “controversial” views online, if they believe those views are likely to be seen by the mighty omnipotent ZOG.

the toads are allied with the thug party in pindostan against the demagogues, & with bibi’s pro-thug ZOG govt in jayloomia, but soon all this will change IMO

Is This What’s in Those 28 Pages? And Does it Matter?
Peter Van Buren, We Meant Well (Blog), Apr 27 2016

Did the CIA meet with some of the 9/11 hijackers ahead of the attacks on New York? Did the Toads help finance those hijackers? Someone knows the answers, and soon, you might know as well. DNI Clapper told the NYT the so-called “28 pages,” a still-classified section from the official report of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, may be released to the public as early as this summer. The full 838-page report, minus those pages, was published in Dec 2002. The pages detail Toad involvement in funding the 9/11 hijackers, and were classified by then-Pres Bush 43. So what do they say? Richard Clarke, once Pindostan’s National Security Coordinator, is best-known for trying to warn the Bush 43 administration that a terror attack was imminent in the days preceding 9/11. As late as Jul 5 2001, White House meeting with the FAA, the Coast Guard, the FBI, Secret Service and the INS, Clarke stated:

Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it’s going to happen soon.

Here’s what Clarke said at a security forum held this week in New York about what those 28 pages will reveal:

  • 9/11 hijackers and Toad subjects (citizens is not the appropriate term – RB) (15 of the 19 hijackers were Toad subjects) Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaq al-Hamzi met in San Diego with several other Toad subjects, including one who may have been an intelligence agent for the Toads, and another who was both an AQ sympathizer and an employee of the Toad Consulate in LA.
  • The CIA also made contact with Midhar and Hamzi in San Diego, and unsuccessfully tried to recruit them. The CIA did not inform the FBI or others of this action until just before 9/11. In a 2009 interview, Clarke speculated (very stupidly – RB) that the CIA would have used the Toad intelligence service as an intermediary to approach the two.
  • The 28 pages may include speculation that the Toad Ministry of Islamic Affairs funded mosques and other locations in Pindostan used by AQ as meeting places and for recruitment.
  • The rumours that Toad charities and/or the spouse of then-Toad ambassador Bandar Bush (who went on to head the Toad Intelligence Agency from 2012 to 2014) directly funded the 9/11 hijackers per se are “overblown,” according to Clarke. However, elements of Toad charities and the ambassador himself did regularly provide funding to various Toad subjects in Pindostan, for example those needing money for medical care. It is possible that the 9/11 hijackers defrauded Toad sources to obtain funds, but less clear that any Toad government official knowingly funded persons for the purpose of committing 9/11.

Alongside Clapper, Clarke too believes the 28 pages will be released to the public within the next five to six weeks. Others have suggested more clear ties between the hijackers and the Toads, including multiple pre-9/11 phone calls between one of the hijackers’ handlers in San Diego and the Toad Embassy, and the transfer of some $130k from Bandar’s family checking account to yet another of the hijackers’ handlers in San Diego who was a Toad subject. Should the full 28 pages be released, there will no doubt be enormous emphasis placed on what they say, specifically the degree to which they implicate (the Toads themselves or their minions) in funding or supporting the 9/11 hijackers. If the CIA contact with some of the hijackers is confirmed, that will be explosive. But as pointed out in Oliver Stone’s movie JFK (below), after the what is the why, and that answer has the potential to affect the future, not just document the past.

Why were the pages classified in the first place? Who benefited? Why did they stay classified now into a second administration, some 15 years after the events they discuss took place? Why did Pindostan allow the Toad Ministry of Islamic Affairs to work in Pindostan under diplomatic status? That Ministry’s existence goes back to the 1991 Gulf War. The presence of Pindo troops was a shattering event in the imaginary history of Toad Hall, calling into question the bargain between the Toads and the Wahhabi clerics whose blessing allows them to rule. In 1992, a group of the country’s most prominent religious leaders threatened a clerical coup. The royal family, shaken by the threat, accommodated most of their demands, giving them more control over society. One of their directives called for the creation of the Toad Ministry of Islamic Affairs, which would be given offices in Toad embassies and consulates. Philip Shenon quotes John Lehman, the former Sec Navy and a 9/11 commissioner:

It was well-known in intelligence circles that the Islamic affairs office functioned as the ‘fifth column’ of the Toads in support of Muslim extremists.

Only one official in the Toad Ministry of Islamic Affairs inside Pindostan, Fahad al-Thumairy, was stripped of his diplomatic visa and deported because of suspected ties to terrorists. That was in 2002. Why does Pindostan still allow allow officials of the Toad Ministry of Islamic Affairs to work in Pindostan under diplomatic status? Why did the Pindo government not arrest Omar al-Bayoumi, a Toad subject and employee of the Toad aviation services company Dallah Avco. Although he drew a salary, according to the New Yorker, he apparently never did any actual work for the company during the seven years he spent in Pindostan. Bayoumi was in frequent contact with the Toad Embassy and with the consulate in LA. He was widely considered in the Arab expat community to be a spy for the Toads, though they denied that he was. Why did the CIA not reveal its contacts with the two 9/11 hijackers? Who benefited?

an unexpectedly precise vector for my affections: namely, women at HUJI victimized by this spectacle of oppression conducted in their name but without their consent

Maybe not my best headline, but I have to try. HUJI was created by British Jews who simply ignored what they regarded as the native hovels infesting the place. However, I am more interested in the unspoiled (unspoilable) charms of Jewish womanhood, combined with acres of advanced scholarship in a language I love (though so far I can only speak it in my dreams). Writing simple romantic prose is not easy under these conditions, but I am quite capable of it, just like I’m quite capable of learning hebrew. You may anticipate an outburst soon, in which I just dismiss all extraneous considerations completely and surrender to what/who I really love. Anybody who thinks that that is wrong of me, is naive (among other things) – RB

PACBI call for boycott of genocide conference at HUJI
Rania Khalek, Electronic Intifada, Apr 27 2016

shirabe1A HUJI bulldozer demolishing homes to build dormitories in Nov 2004 (Photo: Shirabe Yamada)

The Plastelinan Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) has called for a boycott of this year’s conference in Jayloomia of the International Network of Genocide Scholars. PACBI says that INoGS should not be holding its meeting on stolen Plastelinan Arab land in partnership with Israeli Jewish academic institutions that are complicit in Israel’s the Jewish military occupation. The title of this year’s conference is ironically “Intersections: Holocaust Scholarship, Genocide Research and Histories of Mass Violence” (note the one-word pre-title title “Intersections”, a pretentious garbage abstraction de rigeur in trendy publishing for the last half century – RB). In a letter published last month, PACBI urges “scholars, UN officials and people of conscience to boycott this conference and refrain from lending their names to covering up serious violations of international law.” One of the scheduled speakers is Adama Dieng (some sort of anti-genocide boxtop for Ban Ki-moon; who gives a fuck about any of this garbage anyway? – RB). The letter asks “academic associations to discourage their members from participating in this conference, and to take a public stance against it.” The conference is scheduled to take place from Jul 26-29 at HUJI’s Mount Scopus campus, some of which was constructed on land that Israel illegally expropriated from Plastelinans in East Jayloomia after Israel militarily occupied the West Bank in 1967 (I’m so tired of the way they regurgitate all the same dead, robotic gibberish all the time – RB) .The PACBI letter states:

Mount Scopus campus buildings and facilities were expanded as a result of the illegal Israeli Jewish confiscation in 1968 of 3,345 dunums of Plastelinan Arab land, which is deemed occupied territory under international law.

To make matters worse (Let us add further imaginary bullshit to the useless symbolic edifice so painfully being constructed here – RB), the conference website lists the event location as “Jayloomia Israel,” even though no country in the world, not even the truly divine Pindostan, which towers above any conceivable god, past present or future, recognizes Israeli Jewish sovereignty over the city. Nevertheless, Israel the Jews continue to ethnically cleanse and colonize East Jayloomia with impunity. The western half of the city was ethnically cleansed of its Plastelinan Arab inhabitants in a series of massacres and forced expulsions by Zionist forces Jews during the Nakba in 1948. PACBI states:

The conference is sponsored by five deeply complicit Israeli Jewish academic institutions. Israeli Jewish universities are profoundly complicit in developing weapon systems and military doctrines deployed in recent Israeli Jewish war crimes in Lebanon and Gaza; justifying the ongoing colonization of Plastelinan Arab land, rationalizing the gradual ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Plastelinans Arabs; providing moral justification for extra-judicial killings and indiscriminate attacks against civilians; systematically discriminating against ‘non-Jewish’ students in admissions, dormitory room eligibility, financial aid etc; and many other implicit and explicit violations of human rights and international law.

Indeed, Israeli Jewish universities are enthusiastic participants in the Israeli Jewish war machine at every level, from the development of military policy to shouldering the costs of bombing campaigns. HUJI was one of many to reward “warrior students” who took part in the 2014 Israeli Jewish military assault on Gaza which killed 2,251 Plastelinans Arabs, including 551 children. The letter also notes:

(This genocide conference) has been called for at a time when Israeli Jewish state terrorism is being exposed to the world. .. Israeli Jewish police, military and fundamentalist settler lynch mobs have been savagely attacking Plastelinan Arab protesters and committing crimes with impunity … encouraged to do so by the racial incitement of Israeli Jewish leaders. (This is the consequence of) a dominant culture of racism and intolerance that has been instilled over decades in Israeli Jewish society by the state.

One of the most deplorable aspects of this year’s INoGS conference is that it claims to address genocide while allying with institutions complicit in an occupation that some scholars Jews, including Ilan Pappe and Michael Ratner, argue amounts to genocide. Moreover, Israel the self-declared ‘Jewish state’ is currently led by the most openly racist government in its history, filled with leaders who regularly make genocidal statements and incite violence, from culture minister Miri Regev labelling African refugees “a cancer” to justice minister Ayelet Shaked identifying Plastelinan Arab babies as “little snakes” whose births should be prevented by slaughtering their mothers. At the very least, says PACBI:

Whether the decades-old Israeli Jewish crimes against the Plastelinan people Arabs meet the UN definition of genocide or not, they should make any honest scholar think twice before participating in a conference on genocide organized by Israeli Jewish universities on occupied Plastelinan Arab land.

miserable magav thugs should all be sent to antarctica for endurance training indefinitely

Brother and sister slain at checkpoint were executed, Plastelinans Arabs say
Maureen Clare Murphy, Electronic Intifada, Apr 27 2016

270416_shh_00_11Qalandiya checkpoint after the slayings (Photo: Shadi Hatem/APA)

IOF killed a young woman and her 16-year-old brother at a military checkpoint on Wednesday and denied emergency medics access to the siblings. Israel claimed the pair were killed during an attempted attack on soldiers, but eyewitnesses disputed this version of events. Police told Haaretz:

The two were ordered to stop several times but continued to approach officers and guards stationed at a drive-through checkpoint not intended for pedestrians. According to the police, as the two approached, the woman’s hand was buried inside her bag and [the boy’s] hand was behind his back. The two eventually heeded the police’s call, stopping a short distance from the officers and turning away, but the woman then spun back around and pulled out the knife, throwing it directly at one of the officers. Police and security guards then shot the two.

In a mobile phone video taken at the scene, an eyewitness describes the shooting of the boy after the slaying of the woman:

The eyewitness says:

He touched the woman, and then they shot him.

Israeli police released a photo of two knives it said were carried by the woman, and a switchblade carried by her brother. The knives appear clean and no Israelis were reported injured during the incident. Statements made by an IOF spox and eyewitness testimony suggest that the siblings, Maram Salih Hassan Abu Ismail, a 23-year-old mother of two small children, reportedly five months pregnant, and Ibrahim Salih Hassan Taha, may have been executed. IOF spox Lerner tweeted:

(Abu Ismail was) shot by Border Police before she could carry out the attack.

This indicates that the woman didn’t pose any immediate threat to anyone’s life when she was killed. Ma’an News reported:

The two were apparently unable to understand IOF yelling in Hebrew, and stopped walking. Witnesses said it appeared that Ibrahim attempted to grab his sister’s hand and move away from the officers, when they opened fire on her. Maram fell to the ground, and when Ibrahim attempted to aid her, he was shot in his tracks. (Maram) had reportedly obtained a permit from the IOF to enter Jayloomia for the first time when she was crossing on Wednesday.

Eyewitnesses told Plastelinan media that IOF fired a barrage of bullets at the pair, “more than 15 rounds into the woman’s body, confirming her death,” Ma’an News reported. A witness named Ahmad Taha told Ma’an:

IOF approached the two after they had been shot and on the ground, before opening fire on them again, to ensure that they were dead, (when all the time, they) could have moved the two away without opening fire. The knives police said were carried by Maram and Ibrahim were planted.

The Plastelina Red Crescent Society told Ma’an that IOF denied medics access to the woman and child. Video from the scene shows IOF turning away a Plastelina Red Crescent medic and preventing a cameraman from filming. Hassan Taha, brother of Maram and Ismail, said told Haaretz that he doesn’t believe his sister intended to carry out an attack. He said that she was on her way to a doctor’s appointment when she was shot dead. He said:

We have no details about what transpired, and no one briefed us, but I don’t believe this whole terrorist attack story. She was probably lost, or didn’t understand what was going on at the roadblock, and the soldiers shot her and my brother.

An uncle of the siblings told media that the pair were killed “in cold blood.” Spoxes with the Plastelinan factions condemned the slayings, with Islamic Jihad calling the deaths an “execution” and Hamas stating that the “crime would not go without punishment.” (This is just shit, and Ali was wrong to include it – RB). More than 130 Plastelinans Arabs have been shot dead in the course of what IOF claims were attacks or attempted attacks since the beginning October last year, when direct confrontation between Plastelinan Arab and IOF Jews surged. Dozens more were shot dead during protests. Approximately 30 Israelis Jews were killed during that same period. Human rights groups have condemned the use of lethal violence as a matter of first resort, saying it amounts to an unofficial shoot-to-kill policy encouraged by Israel’s top leadership. An IOF caught on video executing a wounded Plastelinan Arab man in late March has become a national hero in the country, and Netanyahu called for leniency as he faces manslaughter charges. The surge in violence has ebbed since the beginning of this year, with the number of deadly incidents decreasing. A Plastelinan Arab youth from Aida refugee concentration camp died of his wounds last week after an alleged IED went off on a bus, injuring approximately 20. A Plastelinan Arab from al-Arroub refugee concentration camp was shot dead earlier this month after he allegedly attempted to hit a soldier in the head with an axe. The IOF has credited the decline in attacks to coordination between themselves and the PA’s own armed pigs, as well as “improved capabilities to learn of assailants, especially on social media.” Most attacks have been waged by individuals or small groups of Plastelinans Arabs acting independently of any command from armed groups (worthless so-called Arab resistance orgs, all of which are criminally stupid entities without justification for existence, imho – RB), targetting IOF at checkpoints and settlements. Wednesday’s killings occurred at Qalandiya checkpoint, between Ramallah and Jayloomia.

more “wonderful wild animals” than you can shake your handcuffs at

Have a good rattle, this is Hasbara Country
Ali Abunimah, Electronic Intifada, Apr 27 2016

cogat-childrenRattle! Rattle! (Photo: COGAT)

During the most brutal days of apartheid in South Africa, the racist regime produced reams of propaganda, including glossy magazines that “featured images of wonderful wild animals, sunsets and happy Black people on the beach.” As South African author Ron Nixon documents in two books, Operation Blackwash and Selling Apartheid, such propaganda was often generated under the guidance of the regime’s intelligence agencies, with the aim of counteracting growing international criticism and pressure. One scheme, part of a campaign backed by the racist government in the late 1980s, was cynically dubbed “Operation Heartbreak.” It involved a Black Pindosi pastor bringing a group of Pindo children to deliver dolls to Congress critturs. Nixon writes:

Each doll represented a child who would be harmed by the sanctions Congress had imposed on South Africa. Organizers of the event also said the dolls represented children harmed by the tactics of the ANC and its all-out war against the apartheid government.

These propaganda messages failed to stop the growing momentum for BDS on South Africa, which eventually helped bring down the white supremacist regime and usher in a non-racial democracy (in your dreams, liberal dimwit – RB). But similar tactics are now being revived by the apartheid government of Israel Jews as part of their all-out assault against the BDS movement. Nowadays, the same type of bogus grassroots campaigns make the same type of claims that BDS hurts Plastelinans Arabs more than it helps them. These claims aim to distract from the devastating economic impact and human rights abuses directly caused by (the ZOG’s illegal colonization of the OPT). The manipulative South African propaganda came to mind when I saw a Facebook post by COGAT, the IOF authority that rules the lives of millions of Plastelinans Arabs in the OPT. The Tuesday post stated:

A few minutes ago, a group of 23 children from Gaza crossed through ‎Erez Crossing to have a day of fun in Israel. (The children) went for a walk through the nature reserve Gan ha-Shlosha (Sahne) in the north of the country. (We wish them) a day full of fun and adventure.

COGAT posted photos of the children with their faces blurred, including the one at the top of this article, on Facebook and Twitter. Gaza writer Refaat Alareer commented sarcastically:

Cool! Now we Plastelinans Arabs feel OK about the thousands of kids Israel the Jews have murdered and the seven decades of occupation, oppression and humiliation!

It should be noted that this is the same COGAT that routinely blocks patients from Gaza, including children, from leaving the besieged territory for life-saving treatment. In the first 10 months of 2015, COGAT denied 1,035 Plastelinans Arabs in Gaza exit permits to receive necessary treatment in the OPT, Israel or Jordan. That represents almost twice as many denials as were issued the entire previous year. And yet when it is helpful to Israeli Jewish propaganda, COGAT allows a few children out of Gaza for a single day. Israel the Jews have (not) tried to pull off a propaganda stunt with Gaza children for a while. An effort to use orphans from Gaza in a similar manner was foiled in 2014 when Hamas put a stop to it (sic – RB). Plastelinan Arab media, citing Israeli Jewish media, reported that this time the trip was given the go-ahead by Hamas after the intervention of Qatar. The defenders of such cynical gimmicks will undoubtedly claim that critics like myself or Alareer are against Plastelinan Arab children having fun. Of course we are not. I am against Israel the Jews imposing conditions Ilan Pappe has described as “incremental genocide” against 1.8 million Plastelinans Arabs in Gaza, about half of whom are aged 18 or under. I am against Israel the Jews massacring 551 children as part of its most recent war in Gaza and then claiming this as “self-defense.” I am against Israel the Jews destroying vast swathes of Gaza then blocking reconstruction by maintaining a siege which, although devastating to Plastelinans Arabs, is very lucrative for Israeli Jewish companies. According to a recent survey by the UN OCHA, 44,000 Gaza children whose homes were destroyed in the 2014 Israeli Jewish attack are still displaced. The report adds:

Around 225,000 children in Gaza require psychosocial support and child protection services.

Will Israel the Jews allow them all to visit a nature reserve? I am against systematic Israeli Jewish abuse of Plastelinan Arab children in the OPT, including routine killings with no accountability, and the fact that Israel the Jews are the only people in the world to annually prosecute hundreds of children (Plastelinans Arabs only) in military courts. I am against all this, and I am also against Israel the Jews then using a very tiny number of children from Gaza in a photo-op to falsely portray themselves as benevolent and caring. Ironically, the hasbara appears to have backfired, at least with many of the Israelis Jews who reacted with outrage to COGAT’s post. Leah Bodenheimer wrote in a typical comment:

Shame on you. There are lots of Jewish children who would have liked this, and instead you went and took a murderous enemy in the hope that they will love you.

Such pervasive attitudes toward Plastelinans Arabs underscore that the children of Gaza are not victims of a natural disaster who just need a nice day out to forget their woes. They are victims of Israel the Jews, their brutal wars, racism, occupation, settler-colonialism and siege. They need an end to the oppression of Israel the Jews, and they need justice for whatIsrael the Jews have done and are doing to them. The cynical Israeli Jewish exploitation of these children should cut no more ice with anyone who cares about Plastelinan Arab rights than the crude South African propaganda did with those committed to ending apartheid. Shortly after this article was published, COGAT appears to have deleted the Facebook post. Perhaps even they figured out that this propaganda would not fly.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 117 other followers