It was refreshing to read that the Israeli Foreign Ministry has responded to critical mouthings from EU Foreign Policy chief Catherine Ashton with a good serving of their own.

Under the heading Government slams Ashton’s meddling 

It was first noted that Ashton issued a statement saying she was “concerned by the conviction of 39-year-old Abdallah Abu Rahma in an Israeli military court on charges of incitement and organizing and attending demonstrations.

The Israeli response included:

1. “in Israel, where even those who openly support Hamas and Hizbullah enjoy freedom of speech, such accusations sound particularly hollow. Moreover, interfering with a transparent legal procedure of a democratic country is not just highly improper, but is hardly consistent with promoting European values.”

2. If Ashton wanted to replace Abu Rahama’s lawyers, she should say so. “Otherwise she should respect the ruling of the Israeli justice system, and refrain from casting aspersions on a legal system that is lauded world wide by its peers.”

3. Ashton’s statement “probably reflects that internalization of the anti-Israeli discourse that denies any merits or any legitimacy to Israeli democracy and its institutions.”

and

4. what made Ashton’s comments even more “open to ridicule” was that she found time to criticize Israeli justice, while ignoring troubles at home, such as the “curious release” by a Scottish court of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, a year ago and the highly controversial ongoing expulsion of scores of Roma from France to Romania.

The defence/offence aphorism is variably attributed to Machiavelli, Mao, Carl von Clausewitz and Jack Dempsey. 

I found myself associating Ashton with clowns from a circus of the same name

Noam Chomsky has caused a great deal of angst among the “progressive leftists”,  through his lukewarm support of the BDS movement.

Indeed, it has thrown the anti-Israel brigade into a real tizz.

Jeffrey Blankfort, described as growing up in a “non-Zionist Jewish home”  is most put out by Chomsky’s insufficiently anti-Israel fulminations.   Khalil Bendib conducted an interview with Chomsky, (which doesnt seem to be archived) which led to much angst.  Some of his remarks and a longer opportunity for critique by Ali Abunimah and Blankfort are here.

Chomsky even goes to the extent of calling (shock horror)  some of the BDS ’s hypocrites .. and bemoans BDS actions that are “feel good” and not “do good”.  He particularly is critical of Americans who favour boycotts of Israel but not of the U.S. .. and calls them hypocritical.

There’s got to be something funny about aging leftist Jews (plus the occasaional Palestinian) arguing as to who is the most Pro-Palestinian - “yes I am, no you’re not”.   I particularly liked Jeffrey Hammond’s article here   where he demolishes Blankfort’s efforts to demolish Chomsky.  The letter writing that follows the article is fast and furious,  and if you are strong enough you’ll find that after the first few hundred posts, Blankfort can’t resist and gets into a bit of mudslinging.

One of the letter writers provides an example  - “Your critics of Chomsky on the boycott issue are so hypocritical and misleading. Especially since the Professor agrees on some of these sanctions as long as they don’t hurt Palestinians (eg: boycott of an Israeli university that is fighting Israeli tactics, hence trying to help Palestinians). Sanctions would be useless if hypocritical, it’s pretty simple if you listen to the argument he makes. Don’t give ammunition to the opposition by supporting the wrong sanctions. He even gave you an example of a University to boycott, but it would be very sensitive that some people of this University are good people.   To the ethnic loyalty question, it seems your bias opinion did not allow you to listen to Chomsky’s answer. “It is a factor insofar as i does not conflict with dominant US interests”. When Israel goes against US interest like they did in 2005 while trying to reach a deal with China for arm exports, US stopped them and got them to apologise.”

Is there honour among thieves or is it a Train Wreck?

Tony Judt’s illness and recent death has reopened discussion of his anti-Zionist viewpoint.  The Jerusalem Post had an editorial overview here.

As the article states: “The London-born Judt – who passed away on Friday at the age of 62 at his home in Manhattan, after being diagnosed two years ago with Lou Gehrig’s disease – produced remarkably lucid and readable studies of 19th and 20th century social history. However, it was the New York University lecturer’s polemical essays and public statements against Zionism, and his rejection of the legitimacy of the Jewishness of the State of Israel, that thrust him onto the public stage.

In a much-cited October 2003 essay in The New York Review of Books, here Judt called to dismantle the state and to replace it with “a single, integrated, bi-national state” between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea – a recipe for national suicide for the sovereign Jewish entity.

This categorical rejection of Zionism put him in a class with other contemporary Jewish intellectuals of the Diaspora such as Jacqueline Rose, Michael Neumann and Joel Kovel, who have chosen to single out Israel for opprobrium that is rarely, if ever, directed at other countries that choose to adopt unique religious or cultural-based nationalities.

At the center of Judt’s attacks on Israel was a stubborn refusal to accept the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in a distinctly Jewish state. In the above-mentioned article, entitled “Israel: The Alternative,” Judt posited that Israel artificially imported “a characteristically late-19th-century separatist project into a world that has moved on, a world of individual rights, open frontiers and international law.”

For Judt, an “ethno-religious” state that provides special privileges to its Jewish citizens – such as the Law of Return – and seeks to preserve its Jewish character through Jewish symbols, is an anachronism “in an age when that sort of state has no place.”

Yet Judt applied totally different rules when he scrutinized nationalism outside of the Israeli context. In A Grand Illusion? An Essay on Europe, Judt acknowledged that the nation-state was “the only remaining, as well as the best-adapted, source of collective and communal identification.”

With all the desire for a supranational framework that provides universal equality, and eradicates the bigotry and discriminations of cultural and religious distinctions that cause war and strife, argued Judt, there is no substitute for the social cohesion and communal identification provided by a unique national identity.

Therefore, a “truly united Europe” is so unlikely that it would be “unwise and self-defeating to insist upon it.” As a result, Judt was extremely pessimistic about attempts to create a politically homogeneous Europe devoid of borders and cultural distinctions.  For Israel, by contrast, the time has come to “move on,” “to think the unthinkable,” to replace the Jewish state with “a single, integrated, bi-national state of Jews and Arabs,” in his vision. For Judt, European particularism was an undeniable fact, but the Jewish variety was outdated.

WHY THE double standard? Irrational prejudices are difficult, if not impossible, to fathom, belonging as they do to the murky realm of the psyche.

.. what really seemed to have bothered Judt was his subjective feeling that, as an identifiable Jew, he was somehow being represented by Israel.  “The behavior of a self-described Jewish state affects the way everyone else looks at Jews,” wrote Judt. His solution? Do away with the Jewishness of the state.”

Other critiques and articles about Judt are here, here, here, here, here and here.
 

Turning to Israelis, a detailed article entitled “The Sad Status of Israeli Radicalism”was recently published by Assaf Sagiv, the Editor in Chief of Azure here  It provides a good perspective - and emphasising that the pre 1967 boundaries are not regarded by the radicals as the legimitate ones.  Instead they call into question the entire validity of Israel. 

Sagiv critiques the views of the radicals in a clear and compelling way.

The Blank Pages of the Age blog has a disturbing piece medicins sans SHAME  about the depths of anti-Israel bias and hypocrisy stooped to by Medicins sans frontiers. 

An explanatory article from Haaretz is here.

As the Blank Pages of the Age blog states:

I received a copy of the following via email:-

The Chief Operational Officer,
Medcins Sans Frontiers
-Australian Office
-New York Office

Dear Sir/Madam

When my daughter wed in July 2006, in lieu of gifts she asked for donations to be made to Doctors without Borders / Medcins Sans Fontiers as our family had always supported the Group.

Well, I have a regret. 

 I’ve just read  a presentation by Alan Dershowitz - http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/moonbats_against_israel_posted_by  which you too should read and think about. 

Doctors Without Borders erected borders when it comes to Israeli doctors who flew to the Congo to treat 50 local villagers who had been severely burned.   The Israeli volunteers worked around the clock, treated the burn victims and trained local doctors to perform skin grafts, and donated tons of medical equipment.   But  Doctors Without Borders refused to work with the Israeli medics and para medics and treated them “as though we were occupiers.” - quoted one Israeli medic.

 Dr. Marie Pierre Allie, President of the French branch of the organization, said that Israel’s self defense actions in Gaza were actually worse than the Darfur genocide in the Sudan.   Only a blind moonbat could even make such a comparison!  

MSF has an apparent  problem with one democratic Jewish State  but  is quite at ease with the existence  and actions of 56 dysfunctional & corrupt Islamic states.

As one critic has put it well, “These are Doctors With Borders - but without scruples.”

Perhaps you may wish to check out  http://theredhunter.com/2009/04/doctors_without_borders_running_cover_for_terrorists.php . - or just Google <”Doctors without Borders” Israel> and you will get more confirmation of the reactions around the world. 

My family will no longer donate to Doctors without Borders ( Medcins sans Frontiers) until this cynical, hateful and bitter culture towards Israel  - which obviously emanates from the top, ceases. 

I shall disseminate this email as widely as I can and shall ask recipients to forward it on also.

……………………….

Doctors with Hypocrisy,  Doctors without scruples, Doctors without shame!  What a disgrace when supposed healers (heelers?) behave like this -  and they have the CHEEK to call themselves Doctors without borders!! 

However you like to address them - next time you receive a letter requesting a donation from Medicins sans frontiers,  send it back enclosing a copy of the Haaretz article and a “Please explain”.   The Red Cross ended up pulling their heads in regarding anti-Israel bias,  maybe this doctors outfit will also have a rethink.

When some anti’s tried to picket an Ahava store in Maryland,  the response from the pro-Israel community was to give the store the best economic boost and sales ever, as reported here.

It was a reminder of another excellent “egg on your face” response to an attempted boycott demonstration in Canada from last year here.

It hasn’t taken too long to see appeasement rhetoric emerge from new British PM, David Cameron.  On his recent trip to Turkey, Cameron was effusive to his hosts and aggressively critical of Israel.  Melanie Phillips bemoans the sorry state Britain is being lowered to here.  

As Phillips says “Israel is the litmus test of decency in political discourse. Those who attack Israel are invariably on the wrong side of the global fight to defend civilisation against its destroyers. Not just because of Israel’s place on the geopolitical map. It is because the animus against Israel is based on a wholesale repudiation of reason and the embrace instead of irrationality, bigotry, lies and moral inversion. Defence becomes attack, victim becomes victimiser, right becomes wrong; and vice versa. It is the deranged discourse of Islamic fanaticism and of the Israel-bashing left that marches beneath its black banners. And now it is Cameron’s discourse too.  It is astounding to hear a Conservative Prime Minister mouth such infantile leftism. If it weren’t for Obama’s example, it would be unbelievable that any serious politician could spout such drivel. But here surely is the key to all this. Recently, Cameron declared that Britain was “the junior partner [to America] in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis.”  In 1940, of course, America had not yet even entered the war and Britain alone held fascism at bay. So how could Cameron have said something so unbelievably ignorant? Can he really be that stupid?”

Daphne Anson also analyzes Cameron’s actions and finds them wanting.  She writes “David Cameron is not a Conservative.  He is a smooth unprincipled opportunist, and, moreover, one who appears to bear the impression of the last man to sit upon him.” 

Robin Shepherd is equally critical  when he writes of Cameron’s comments:

“The kindest explanation is that he is simply being careless and on reflection would probably have wanted to add that Israel is of course entitled to be careful about which Gazans it lets into Israel. But careless talk costs lives and Cameron or his advisers should be aware that it is precisely because they want the option of sending waves of suicide bombers into Israel that Hamas has been so vocal in calling for its people to be allowed into Israel without restriction.

A harsher explanation of what is at work here is that Cameron has constructed his political personality around a desire to be seen as the kind of Conservative who is palatable to “progressive” opinion — a desire which has been redoubled by joining the Left-leaning Liberal Democrats to form a coalition government.

For the purposes of this discussion, this means going soft on terrorism, going quiet on Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism and, of course joining forces with the great global campaign of deligitimisation of the State of Israel. Hence the Gaza as a “prison camp” rhetoric and hence the absence of any reference whatsoever to Hamas’s terroristic ambitions or its vile anti-Semitism.”

Sad, really.  However, is it overly optimistic to hope that, since it is still early in his prime ministership, things may yet improve?   A cynical view would be that President Obama is outsourcing the critique of Israel to Cameron, for this period prior to the US elections.

The Ausralian Council of Churches seem to have caught the bug - as described by Henry Benjamin in J-wire here..

The Council media release included the following:

“During its 7th triennial Forum last week, the National Council of Churches in Australia (NCCA) announced it will continue to add its voice to the call for an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestine and condemning all acts of terrorism. In solidarity with Palestinian Christians, the NCCA asks its member Churches and the wider Australian community to consider a boycott of goods produced by Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Rev Tara Curlewis, General Secretary of the NCCA said “We are asking the member Churches of the NCCA to consider boycotting particular goods produced in Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It is hoped that such actions will liberate the people from an experience of injustice to one where a just and definitive peace may be reached.”

ECAJ President Robert Goot’s responding letter (see the article) included:

“We are astounded that despite a long-standing dialogue partnership between our two organisations, and between our organisation and many of your constituents, you nevertheless saw fit to pass the above-mentioned resolution without giving us any notice whatsoever that you were proposing to do so, and without at least giving our community an opportunity to be heard on the matter as a part of your deliberations. It would defy credulity to suggest that these omissions were merely an oversight on your part.  As recently as last month we exchanged correspondence with your President, the Most Reverend Michael Putney, in which we provided a detailed critique of a similar resolution which had been passed by Queensland Churches Together (again, without the slightest attempt having been made by them to hear the other side of the argument).  At your written invitation, one of the ECAJ’s Vice Presidents, Dr Anita Shroot, attended the NCCA Forum on 10 July 2010 to convey a message of goodwill to our Christian friends on behalf of our organisation and the Jewish community. With the appearance at your forum of a representative of the Jewish community fresh in your memory, how could it not have occurred to you before passing the resolution in question to let us know what you were proposing to do and to give us an opportunity to be heard?  Elementary fairness demanded no less.  Try to imagine your own feelings if the situation had been reversed.

That brings me to the text of the resolution.  I note that, inter alia, it calls on member churches of the NCCA to “consider” boycotting certain Israeli products.  Asking people to “consider” an issue usually means asking them to weigh arguments both for and against a particular viewpoint.  We therefore assume that you are encouraging member churches also to hear arguments against a boycott, and not only arguments in favour.  In an article published yesterday, world-renowned Biblical scholar, Professor Amy-Jill Levine (see here), characterised the Kairos document, on which your resolution is expressly based, as “a failure of moral witness”.  I would add that your resolution’s simplistic call for “an immediate end to the blockade” of Gaza, if implemented, would result in a renewal of weapons shipments to Gaza into the hands of Hamas which is committed to the destruction of Israel and the further shedding of blood, which will be on the hands of those who urge such a policy.  Tara, we feel that we have been badly let down by people we have long thought of as our friends. The NCCA’s unthinking and ill-considered resolution has revived painful memories for Jews in Australia of earlier times in Europe when Churches allowed themselves to be swept up in the tide of popular prejudices against the Jewish people. I now formally request an opportunity to present a detailed critique of the resolution to the Executive of the NCCA and look forward to your early reply.” 

While the reply from Robert Goot is a good one, one wonders how interested the Council truly is in dialogue.

The Australian Christians Supporting Israel organisation has its own salient perspective on the Council’s machinations.

The arguments follow in line with our recent posting of “Madness in some Methodists”  where the Jewish Board of Deputies of Britain poked huge holes through the anti-Israel position.

The Council of Churches also bring to mind a posting a while back here when we discussed what it means to be a hypocrite or as Bob Marley says, Dip for diplomatic, ‘Yp for hypocratic.

David Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, and Senior Associate of St Antony’s College, Oxford University, has written an excellent article here addressed to the chorus of compulsive critics of Israel. 

It includes the lines : “Your narrative is pre-cooked, airtight and impervious to reason. It’s filled with a hatred of Israel that eludes logical explanation, a blindness that shuts out any contrary evidence.
For you, Israel can do no right other than to close up shop and call it quits, while the Palestinians, your hallowed victims on a pedestal, can do no wrong.  Strikingly, all this is done in the name of such vaunted values as democracy, legitimacy and an end to occupation.”

The article is worth reading; The CCC - chorus of compulsive critics - tie in well with the LLL (Leftist Islamist Alliance), the barrage of which has unfortunately influenced many LL (latte liberals).  Also, the DDD of inappropriate criticism of Israel - double standards, demonization and delegitimisation.

Professor Irwin Cotler gave the Annual Gandel Oration earlier tonight (21st July) in Sydney. 

In the introduction to his superb talk,  Prof Cotler stated that he was particularly pleased to be in Sydney , the home of the late Professor Julius Stone, who  was one of his legal mentors, and a giant in the field of international law.

While traditional or classical anti-Semitism (AS) denied rights of Jews to live normal lives in their community, the new form of AS is a global, virulent and potential lethal attempt to deny the Jewish people the right to live as an equal member of the nations.  While new AS is initially directed more at groups than the individual Jew,  it will, however, also lead to attacks on the individual.

In 2002, Eli Weisel  identified the urgent danger that AS posed, in a way that he had not felt since 1945.  But it never disappeared, and Jean Paul Sartre said that if the Jew did not exist, antisemites would have to invent him.  Cotler further noted that AS cannot be fought or won by Jews alone.

As he focused on the new AS, Cotler noted that there are not yet good indicators and measures, in contrast to those available for classical or traditional AS.  Cotler identified 6 indices drawn from international law and able to be understood in academic terms, not just viscerally.

Genocidal antisemitism – this is the most lethal – a toxic convergence of AS with state sanctioned incitement to genocide.

This is exemplified by Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric and underpinned by the Iranian pursuit of the atom bomb.  The goal of wiping Israel off the map is buttressed by support such as “As the Imam says” , descriptions of Israel as a cancerous tumour, and denial of the Holocaust with an attempt to create a new one.   Hamas and Hezbollah also have genocidal objectives, supported by religious fatwas akin to Salman Rushdie.  The sanctions are against Jews, and an execution writ against a people; the Jewish nation being the only one to which the threat of genocide is directed.

Political antisemitism

This denies Israel right to exist to start with, a denial of self determination that is accorded to other nations.

Ideological or Racialist antisemitism

Laundered under the protective cover of the struggle against racism , this form of AS is pernicious. Durban 1 was a horrific and Orwellian example of this approach where Israel is seen as the new antiChrist

Many like Cotler who attended Durban 1 in 2001 were psychologically scarred by the aggression they witnessed, including the cries that the” struggle against racism in the 21^st century is to dismantle the Jewish state, which is  apartheid and Nazi.”  What hypocrisy!  And what an insult to those who indeed helped dismantle apartheid in South Africa!   This ideologic approach posits that Israel is a crime against humanity and that there is a moral responsibility to destroy it.

Legalised antisemitism

AS is conducted under protective cover of the UN, with decision making in the Human Rights Council being a mockery;  of the first 33 resolutions, 26 were against Israel, and not one against Sudan, Iran.   Since there is a permanent agenda against Israel (item 7) for every meeting of this council, Israel is indicted using this “lawfare” even before the meeting begins.

Globalisation of Boycotts

It began in the UK, and has spread to include academics and trade unions.  In practice, it singles out Israel and its supporters for demonization.  On student campuses, Israel is often seen as “the poster child for the poisoner of the wells.”  For students who want to identify with campus culture, it is often anti-Israel, and building a coalition with other groups can be difficult. Cotler powerfully asked -  who are the real racists?  It is up to academics to see that free speech is not just reserved  for the haters, but also to prevent intimidation of Jews and other supporters of Israel.

Old- new Protocols of the Elders of Zion

While it has been well established that the original Protocols was a Tsarist forgery, the idea  has been reenergized, with Jews accused of being responsible for all things evil - the Danish cartoons, the Popes criticism of Islam, Darfur,  Sept 11^th, spreading AIDS and Swine Flu among Palestinians.  The Swedish journalist accusation of Israelis stealing organs is just one example of a lie with long legs

In concluding, Cotler suggested that a new template needs to be developed to combat the new AS. He provided several legal approaches to combat the new AS.  He noted that Genocide occurred not because of the machinery but because of state sanctioned culture of hate. To combat that, there is an annual commemoration of the Holocaust in Canada parliament, teaching people to be custodians of memory.  He encouraged Australia to join an International task force on education related to the Holocaust. 

Cotler acknowledged the Holocaust survivors who showed the moral capacity to move forward despite the evil they had witnessed.  Just as we can’t afford to be silent about Darfur, we need to point out that the new antisemitism is also  an assault against the values that we care about.  

Cotler is truly a giant on the world stage in the identification of, and fight against the new Antisemitism. 

An interesting piece in the Guardian recently from an Englishman, Robert Fowke, here sees him trying to analyze why HE is both obsessed with the Israel-Palestine conflict, and is urbanely anti-Israel.

The letter writers form the usual line-up of pro and anti, but the arguments used are worth reading, providing a perspective, indeed, into why the 421 or so letter writers are obsessed with the subject.

The subtitle of the article is “why do so many of us pick away at the conflict like it’s a giant scab”