War Crimes?

The past couple of weeks have seen the most atrocious claims of war crimes being made on the basis of soldiers' "testimony". Vast quantities of ink has been wasted and many miles of newsprint have carried these false allegations. The IDF did and investigation and found no crimes. Of course, some will say, the IDF would not uphold these allegations. In reality, the IDF has a robust investigation unit that actually does bona fide inquiries. However, if that is not accepted, look at what the person who reported these alleged "crimes" has to say:

"May our camp be pure." This is the watchword borne by my soldiers in the IDF, not only because this is how they've been educated by their commanders and their officers, but because this is the essence of their belief and their national heritage, a belief and heritage shared by and uniting us all: secular and religious, right and left, in the IDF and outside it. It is a source of pride and of confidence in our way, even in times of venomous attacks from every quarter - such as transforming a sensitive, personal discussion among combat soldiers back from the battlefield to mendacious claims of policies that involve so-called war crimes.

This is Danny Zamir speaking. His whole op ed can be read here. Danny Zamir is a scoialist Zionist and a major in the IDF. He was briefly imprisoned in the 1990s for refusing to guard settlers at Joseph's tomb. He is a man of principles - socialist principles and Zionist principles. His words should carry some weight.

A moment of reflection

The following poem is worth reflecting on.

I wrote in nineteen-forty that at need
I'd fight to keep the Nazis out of Britain;
And Christ! How shocked the pinks were! Two years later
I hadn't lived it down; one had the effrontery
To write three pages calling me a 'traitor,'
So black a crime it is to love one's country...
Your game is easy, and its rules are plain:
Pretend the war began in 'thirty-nine,
Don't mention China, Ethiopia, Spain,
Don't mention Poles except to say they're swine;
Cry havoc when we bomb a German city,
When Czechs get killed don't worry in the least,
Give India a perfunctory squirt of pity
But don't inquire what happens further East;
Don't mention Jews - in short, pretend the war is
Simply a racket 'got up' by the Tories.



George Orwell, 1943

With little effort at rewriting,

So black a crime it is to love one's country...
Your game is easy, and its rules are plain:
Pretend the war began in '[forty-eight],
Don't mention...[fill in the blank]
...
Cry havoc when we bomb a [Gazan] city
When [Jews] get killed don't worry in the least
.....

blogging the Hamas charter (2)

Continuing the project of blogging the Hamas charter, let's take a look at the first few articles in its charter.

Article 1 states that Hamas is an Islamic movement.

Article 2 states that "The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine."

Just so we're clear - the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 and has been centred on antisemitic hatred from the beginning. In cooperation with Yasser Arafat's close cousin, the notorious Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husseini (Hitler's chief Arab propagandist), the Brotherhood organized mass demonstrations in Egypt with slogans "Down with the Jews." As Matthias Kuentzel notes:

Their Jew-hatred was also inspired by Nazi influences: Leaflets called for a boycott of Jewish goods and Jewish shops, and the Brotherhood’s newspaper, al-Nadhir, carried a regular column on “The Danger of the Jews of Egypt,” which published the names and addresses of Jewish businessmen and allegedly Jewish newspaper publishers all over the world, attributing every evil, from communism to brothels, to the “Jewish danger.”

Documents seized from German sources during and after the second world war show that the Brotherhood received subsidies from the Third Reich for its activities. This is the organization that is still calling for Jewish boycotts, now dressed up in anti-Zionist and "human rights" language. Frankly, it is the same boycott with the same purpose. Leftist and trade union organizations need to understand the real origin of the boycott calls in order not to be misled and misused.

Articles 3, 4 and 5 are more reaffirmations of the Islamic basis of the movement.

We'll take a look at Article 6 next time.

American teachers' union rejects academic boycott

In a refreshing sign of the times, the American Federation of Teachers (which represents teaching professionals from elementary school to university and everything in between) rejected calls for an academic boycott:

"We believe academic boycotts were a bad idea in 2002 and are a bad idea now," AFT President Randi Weingarten said in a statement released Wednesday afternoon. "Academic boycotts are inconsistent with the democratic values of academic freedom and free expression."

Thank you, Randi.

Read the full story here.

blogging the Hamas charter

I think that foundational documents are vitally important in revealing the character of an organization. I do not think that such documents are entered into lightly. In fact, I am willing to treat the Hamas charter with the same seriousness as other foundational documents of other states or peoples - such as declarations of independence, constitutions, etc. It is important in looking at this document to understand that it was written in August 1988.

This blog entry is one a series exploring the Hamas charter with a view to exploring the worldview of the movement which currently controls Gaza and was responsible for the recent conflict. I think that an examination of its charter will say all that needs to be said.

Today, we look at the preamble. Included in the preamble are these two paragraphs:

When the idea was ripe, the seed grew and the plant struck root in the soil of reality, away from passing emotions, and hateful haste. The Islamic Resistance Movement emerged to carry out its role through striving for the sake of its Creator, its arms intertwined with those of all the fighters for the liberation of Palestine. The spirits of its fighters meet with the spirits of all the fighters who have sacrificed their lives on the soil of Palestine, ever since it was conquered by the companions of the Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, and until this day.

This Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), clarifies its picture, reveals its identity, outlines its stand, explains its aims, speaks about its hopes, and calls for its support, adoption and joining its ranks. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised.

You will note that the preamble is clear - it is intended to "clarify" what the organization stands for in order to attract adherents.

You will also note what Hamas is all about: "Our struggle with the Jews." Let there be no doubt that Hamas sees no distinctions between Israelis and Jews. Their stated objective is to continue until "the enemy is vanquished."

How could Hamas have such a view of the world? If we look elsewhere in the preamble we find this view of Muslims and the Jews and Israel:

"Ye [Muslims] are the best nation that hath been raised up unto mankind: ye command that which is just, and ye forbid that which is unjust, and ye believe in Allah. And if they who have received the scriptures [Jews] had believed, it had surely been the better for them: there are believers among them, but the greater part of them are transgressors. They shall not hurt you, unless with a slight hurt; and if they fight against you, they shall turn their backs to you, and they shall not be helped. They [Jews] are smitten with vileness wheresoever they are found; unless they obtain security by entering into a treaty with Allah, and a treaty with men; and they draw on themselves indignation from Allah, and they are afflicted with poverty. This they suffer, because they disbelieved the signs of Allah, and slew the prophets unjustly; this, because they were rebellious, and transgressed." (Al-Imran - verses 109-111).

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

So, the death of innocent Israelis and Jews is OK because Jews "are smitten with vileness..were rebellious and transgressed." And, in case anyone thought that Hamas was simply a political movement attempting to improve the conditions for the Arabs of Gaza and the West Bank, it is clear that Hamas' goal is the "obliteration" of Israel.

I will continue to work through the rest of this toxic charter for one reason and one reason only. I do not believe that peace can possibly begin to sprout in an environment as poisonous as the one created by an organization governed by such a charter. Hamas now controls a quasi-state with full command of the educational, governmental and military apparatus of this statelet. This does not bode well for peace.

The need to fight back

Once again, Eric Lee hits the nail right on the head. In his recent piece in Democratiya, he identifies one of the key problems in the current struggle within the labour movement - a lack of coordination among pro-Israel groups.

But it should not be the task solely for the Jewish community to combat rising anti-Semitism.

Trade unionists themselves, Jews and non-Jews, should be spearheading a globally-coordinated effort to fight back. They should be able to mount an aggressive campaign to make the case that Israel has the right and duty to defend itself, and that its main enemy (Hamas) is a fascist terrorist organisation and a natural enemy of the unions and the Left.

Odd alliances and worrying associations

The secretary of the Brazilian Labour Party, Valter Pomar, recently opposed an agreement between the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio De Janeiro and Tel Aviv University on the following grounds:

Pomar had contended that “this is not a time for such agreements”, and that
“Israel deserves the same treatment as South-African Apartheid regime”.
Pomar also claimed that the Israeli army used ‘Nazi practices’, so he was
now promoting boycott of Israel and its isolation.

Once again we see the willful attempt to deligitimize the Jewish state by association with the twin political evils of Nazism and apartheid. It is so sad to see the left and labour falling into this discourse. Martin Regg Cohn in today's Toronto Star hits the point on its head:

But what's the point of calling this apartheid – unless the motive is to
muddy the waters by reviving a bygone brand: the anti-apartheid struggle and the
glory days of boycotts that united idealists against South Africa's
state-sanctioned racism and its policy of shunting blacks into bantustans.

Worse, the same party signed a cooperation agreement with the Syrian Baath Party...? That's right, the same party that bombed the city of Hama in order to send a powerful message to the Muslim Brotherhood (of which Hamas is the Gaza branch). Apparently between 10,000 and 25,000 died in this attack in February 1982. These are troubling alliances.

Read the SWC report here: http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4441467&ct=6808091

Read the Star column here: http://www.thestar.com/article/599218

How should we stand for peace?

The following piece in the San Francisco Chronicle is worth reading. The author, Ishmael Khaldi, is the vice-consul for Israel in San Francisco. What he says here regarding the IAW activities in Berkeley is valid for the boycotters everywhere:

You are betraying the moderate Muslims and Jews who are working to achieve peace: Your radicalism is undermining the forces for peace in Israel and in the Palestinian territories. We are working hard to move toward a peace agreement that recognizes the legitimate rights of both Israel and the Palestinian people, and you are tearing down by falsely vilifying one side.

His closing words are particularly apposite:

If Israel were an apartheid state, I would not have been appointed here, nor would I have chosen to take upon myself this duty. There are many Arabs, both within Israel and in the Palestinian territories who have taken great courage to walk the path of peace. You should stand with us, rather than against us.

As trade unionists seeking peace in the middle east, we need to act against those who strengthen the forces of war and act against those seeking peace. Boycotters and "anti-apartheid" activists strengthen the hand of those who would make war and not peace. We need to proclaim this from the hilltops and, in the case of unions who have joined the ranks of the boycotters, take back our unions so they become a force for real peace in the region.

Is Hamas a peace partner?

It looks like the Fatah and Hamas may be trying to form a "national unity" government. Doing this will not mean that Hamas is ready to come to the peace table. Considering the fact that Hamas is committed to genocide and feels that

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavours. (Hamas charter, Article 13)

what does this mean?

Does this mean that Hamas desires a truce or ceasefire? Perhaps.

But, what does Hamas think a truce or ceasefire means? The term they use is "hudna" In a 2005 interview with Der Spiegel, Hamas spokesperson Mushir Al-Masri talked about a "hudna":

The hudna is part of the struggle. It is a new phase, a kind of rest period for our fighters.

The question that peace-seekers need to ask is: how do you move forward? It can't be with Hamas.

How do we then build peace in the region?

Irony is sometimes the only way to cope

The following is a lovely piece (now a few years old, but still sadly relevant) by Eric Lee that sets out the absurdity of the left aiding movements like Hamas. I will paste the start of the article below:

The decisions by major unions in the UK and Canada yesterday to promote peace in the Middle East by encouraging boycotts have come in for a lot of criticism. But I want to understand the reasons behind the decisions by the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) and the Ontario section of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) to boycott Palestinian products and academics.

The Canadian union's Ontario branch called for a policy of boycotts, divestment and sanctions against the Palestinian Authority until it recognises the Jewish people's "right to self-determination".

The rest can be read here.

Why is there this "confusion" about the academic boycott?

If you have been following the recent imbroglio involving Sid Ryan and the academic boycott, you will have noticed that Sid initially called for a boycott of Israeli academics unless they took the "right" side and condemned Israel. When this was rightly condemned as racist and intolerant and incompatible with academic freedom, Sid "clarified" the issue and insisted that he was only after an "institutional" boycott. However, we have seen this playbook before. In 2004-2006, to be exact. The PACBI call for an academic boycott was originally a call for the boycott of Israeli academics (unless they were "good" Israelis) which was then "clarified" as being an institutional boycott. Hmm. Inquiring minds want to know why this happens? Could it be a cynical attempt to garner more press and controversy? Never.

When is criticism of Israel antisemitic?

There is a myth that any criticism of Israel will be labelled antisemitic. As a longtime reader of Jewish and Israeli news sources, I know that that can't be true. Where does the line between legitimate criticism and antisemitism lie? I like Matthias Kuentzel's take on this in an interview:

Alan Johnson: In the UK the debate has become very confused. The lecturer’s trade union, the UCU, passed a resolution at its national conference that proclaimed ‘criticism of Israel cannot be construed as antisemitic’. When does legitimate criticism of Israel stop and antisemitism begin?

Matthias Küntzel: First of all this UCU resolution is unbelievably ridiculous. It is a historical fact that since the year 1921 there has been an antisemitic anti-Zionism in existence. Alfred Rosenberg wrote his first book against Zionism in that year, and it is completely antisemitic. Second, antisemitism has been a part of Europe for two millennia. And antisemitism is like a chameleon that changes its complexion over time as its environment changes. In such a deeply antisemitic world as Europe, it’s just common sense to look for the ways in which the establishment of a Jewish state would reshape antisemitic thinking. It’s logical to think that it would. In fact, it would be a kind of miracle if this were not the case!

The EU adopted a reasonable definition of antisemitism that includes the phenomenon of antisemitic anti-Zionism. It says that criticism of Israel becomes antisemitic 1) when Israeli policy is equated with Nazi practices or when symbols and images of long-established antisemitism are assigned to Israel; 2) When Israel’s right to existence is denied; 3) When a double standard applies and demands are made of Israel that would never be expected or demanded of another democratic state.

For instance, it is normal for a state to defend itself against rocket attacks from outside. You must give Israel the same right. Otherwise you are dealing with Israel in the same way antisemites deal with Jews. The way the attacks on Sderot are dealt with reminds me of how attacks on European Jews were dealt with in the Middle Ages. At that time also, it was very normal that Jews got punished and beaten, but if the Jew got up the courage to defend himself it was a big scandal. Today, the big headlines only come when Israel tries to defend itself against the rockets. The rockets themselves are treated as, well, normal.

London conference condemns antisemitism

The London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism is a product of the recent Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism held in London, England in February 2009. Point 25 of the declaration is interesting:

Education Authorities should ensure that freedom of speech is upheld within the law and to protect students and staff from illegal antisemitic discourse and a hostile environment in whatever form it takes including calls for boycotts.

It acknowledges that "calls for boycotts" can create a hostile environment. Well, we know that from the recent events at York University that this is true.

We cannot ignore genocide

This interview points out the obvious fact that we cannot ignore the commitment of Hamas to genocide. That Hamas is committed to genocide is evident in its charter. For leftists and trade unionists to ignore this commitment to genocide is either - 1) willful blindness or 2) a belief that the drafters of the Hamas charter don't really mean what they say. Neither of these two interpretations are particularly flattering. Yet, you never hear a condemnation of genocide? What's with that? One columnist has a view that is worth considering.

Welcome

This blog is written to provide ongoing discussion of the politics of the arab/israeli conflict from a labour perspective. Increasing numbers of Canadian union members are disturbed with the tendency of some within our unions to demonize Israel, most recently through the attempts to build a boycott. As a result, some members have created a website which offers fabulous resources for Canadian union members. This blog is an attempt to further build resources for unionists interested in a fair approach to the conflict.