One of the more disturbing antisemitic crimes of recent times is approaching a resolution:

A Polish court has convicted three men for stealing the infamous “Arbeit Macht Frei” sign from the former Auschwitz death camp last December.

The trio were given jail sentences ranging up to two-and-a-half years.

The court in Krakow said the men had admitted the theft, and so the case did not have to go to trial.

Two other Poles remain in custody over the theft of the 5m (16ft) wrought-iron sign, which was quickly recovered and found cut into three pieces.

It had been half-unscrewed, half-torn from above the memorial site’s gate.

The authorities in Stockholm said last week that a Swedish former neo-Nazi, who allegedly instigated the theft, will be extradited to Poland to face trial.

 

A new CST publication, Perspectives on antisemitism (pdf), brings together the thoughts and ideas of some of the members of CST’s Advisory Board about antisemitism, racism, society and CST’s work.

Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks:

Antisemitism may begin with Jews, but it never ends with them. The reason is that, in essence, it is hatred of difference – of those who, like Jews, do not fit the stereotypes of normality, whose faith or colour or culture or history is not that of the majority. Yet difference is the essence of our humanity. It is what makes each person, each group, unique and therefore irreplaceable. So an assault on Jews is an assault on our shared humanity, and a danger to us all.

Chief Constable Peter Fahy:

Hate crime is a complex policing issue, not least because its root causes are often more complex than a simple theft or assault. Reducing hate crime demands education and a change of attitude; things which sometimes take generations to achieve.

Sir Walter Bodmer:

…there is no biological justification for racial categorisation, and so for racial discrimination at the individual level simply according to a person’s origins. We should all be treated as individuals, whatever our particular origins or genetic make-up. Racism and antisemitism, or any other discrimination based on a person’s origins, simply have no objective rationale.

Baroness Verma:

Communities can change considerably when the message of peace starts early and remains a thread by which we all are tied. Impacts of what happens in other places will always play a role in our lives, but to what extent we use it as a lever for progress or destruction lies in our hands.

Sir Martin Gilbert:

Churchill was once asked to say what he thought the future had in store. He answered, wisely: ‘The future, though imminent, is obscure.’

CST has to penetrate that obscurity with a bright light. We are all of us the safer as a result of its efforts.

On 2 March I posted an article expressing concern about John Pilger: and, more importantly, about what would appear to be the repeated failure of his publishers at the New Statesman to moderate or edit his rhetoric concerning Zionism and Jews. 

I summarised my concerns in a letter to the New Statesman. They had the decency to publish (most of) it as follows

Having correctly demanded public decency about Muslims and Islam (15 February), the NS keeps publishing John Pilger’s feverish rhetoric against Jews and Zionism (”Listen to the heroes of Israel”, 1 March).

Pilger lambasts “the murderous, racist toll of Zionism” and approves Gilad Atzmon depicting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a recent essay as being “at the heart of the battle for a better world”. Atzmon states: “Considering Zionism is a murderous, racist, expansionist ideology, it is natural to stress that people who are affiliated with Israel and Zionism must be removed immediately from any political, government, military or strategic posts and so on.”

Nevertheless, Atzmon stresses that he doesn’t mean Jews, unlike Pilger, who asserts “[Atzmon's] fellow Jews in western countries . . . whose influence is crucial, are still mostly silent . . . it renders them culpable should their silence persist”. Pilger must know that Jews have extensive and bloody experience of their tiny number being collectively blamed for preventing the birth of a better world. In any other context, NS editors would recognise such claims of mass culpability as racist.

Regrettably, they cut the ending 

Furthermore, when citing Rami Elhanan as his hero, Pilger should consider this: “I am a Zionist in the sense that I deeply believe that the Jewish people, like any other people in the world, deserve their right to self-determination, in their ancient homeland…the only way out of this endless cycle of violence, is the “Two states” solution”. The author? Rami Elhanan.

Pilger can have his own mass Jewish culpability; Elhanan’s empathy; or Atzmon’s Zionist exclusion. But surely not all three.

Even more regrettably, someone at the New Statesman saw fit to put “On Israel” as the title of my letter. In its own small way, this epitomises much of the current disconnect between Israel’s critics and the bulk of the Jewish community. My letter was about the danger of antisemitism. It was not about Israel. That much will have been obvious to the vast majority of Jewish readers: but why the New Statesman missed that simple fact is a hugely more complex and contentious matter.

Meanwhile, this week, Pilger criticises Australian media magnate, Rupert Murdoch. According to Pilger

Across Australia, he owns almost 70 per cent of the capital city press, the only national newspaper, Sky Television, and much else. Welcome to the world’s first murdochracy.

Pilger’s article explores the consequences of this “murdochracy” upon Australia and her citizens, one of which is

The message is undisguised militarism promoting the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Thus, Prime Minister Rudd says, absurdly, that the military is Australia’s highest calling.

Such false flags are flown for Israel, which sees a stream of Australian journalists sponsored and paid for by Zionist groups. The result is apologetic reporting of murderous actions that evokes the great appeasers such as Geoffrey Dawson, editor of the Times, in the 1930s.

I confess that Zionist financial control of Australian journalists is not one of my specialist subjects.  Still, I am worried as to what Pilger means by “Zionist groups“: and even more worried as to what his readers will think he means by such a loose expression.

Does he mean Zionist as in the sense of his “hero” Rami Elhanan?

I am a Zionist in the sense that I believe that Jewish people, like any other people in the world, deserve their right to self-determination

 Or does he mean “Zionist” as Gilad Atzmon uses it?

I would urge NASA to join in and to make a special effort to find a suitable alternative planet for the Zionist homeland in outer space or even in another galaxy. The Galactic Zionist project would signify the immediate move from ‘promised land’ to ‘promised planet’…

…In a planet of their own the galactic Zionists wouldn’t need to oppress anyone, they wouldn’t ethnically cleanse either, they wouldn’t have to lock the indigenous people in concentration camps, for there won’t be any indigenous people around to abuse, starve, murder and cleanse.

One thing that we can be grateful for is that Pilger, as a principled anti-racist campaigner, most certainly does not mean Zionist in the sense of merely substituting it for the word Jew. After all, if he meant that, then Zionist groups paying for journalists would sound horribly similar to the old antisemitic theme about Jews running the media. 

Still, if Pilger and his publishers at the New Statesman were more alive to the corrosive effects of linguistic imprecision, then we wouldn’t have the same old story in every edition.

This is a guest post by Danny Stone, Director of the Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism

For a long time now I have been buying Q magazine. I saw it as an in-depth, broader publication than the NME which I also enjoy.

I had been saving it for some light reading before bed and finally got round to looking at this months issue before bed on Tuesday. I had been particularly keen to read the feature article on the pop sensation Lady GaGa, I didn’t know much about the story behind her eccentric appearance and was interested to learn more.

I was one column through the article when the author, Sylvia Patterson, started to describe the singer’s appearance:

She stares straight at you with enormous brown eyes, bewitchingly younger and prettier in the flesh, with a glorious Jewish nose.

I couldn’t bring myself to read the rest of the article and put it down in disgust, only picking it up the next morning to a) check that I had read it right and b) try and get past it and satisfy my original intention of learning about Lady GaGa.

There were certain questions I find I ask myself – rightly or wrongly – in these cases. So I consulted with colleagues on whether I was being over-sensitive – the general consensus was not – although it is fair to say there was some uneasiness with the level of my objection. So, on consideration, I decided to write to the magazine and was given the email of the editor-in-chief Paul Rees. I noted my concern, the offence I had taken and the laziness of the stereotyped description. There were two points I made which I felt were of particular concern:

• It is irrelevant what Lady GaGa’s cultural or religious heritage is, the use of the word ‘Jewish’ to describe someone’s nose is classic ethnic antisemitism.
• Would a similar description applied to any other ethnic minority have passed the edit? You can imagine the crass examples I might have cited?

My email finished by asking that Q prints an apology and avoids such careless stereotyping in the future.

To Paul Rees’ credit, he replied very quickly reassuring me that the comment ‘wasn’t meant in a derogatory way, but as something celebratory, hence the use of the word ‘glorious’’. He went on to explain ‘It is used in the same way as we’d use ‘glorious Roman nose’ as a description.’

He apologised profusely and, given I thought his words to be genuine and that he had noted my concern (and was unlikely to let it go through again) I said I accepted  but noted my continuing concern. He thanked me for my understanding.

This is one that will continue to eat away at me. Maybe I should have notified the Press Complaints Commission, or sent him an email back pushing for a printed apology but I don’t think, on this occasion, I would have succeeded. Ultimately, this is a music magazine where similar comments are unlikely to appear often, if ever, and they’ve said sorry…

What I find very hard to come to terms with is that in 2010, ‘glorious Jewish nose’ can pass the edit of a successful magazine article. Perhaps more sad is my (and others) lack of certainty on whether I should have felt offended and taken action.

Well, I cannot read such words as anything but derogatory and whilst I don’t want to be part of any language police, I do want to tackle such stereotyping which feeds a wider carelessness in our use of language about Jews. For all those that want to join, well, bless you.

A meeting was held in Parliament on Tuesday, organised by the Stop The War Coalition (STWC), Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and the British Muslim Initiative (BMI), to protest about the fact that people who committed crimes on the anti-Israel demonstrations in January 2009 have received what they consider to be heavy sentences. The meeting was also “supported” by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).

According to Andrew Murray of the Stop The War Coalition, “This is political justice for a political purpose of the most brazen sort. These sentences are extraordinary for the crimes alleged to have been committed. Every single protest had some degree of police harassment beyond the scale we have had before.”

According to the Liberal Democrat Baroness Miller, “people’s right to protest should be recognised by the courts and I think they have not caught up with what is a new attitude to legitimate protest.”

One of the main speakers at the meeting was George Galloway, who condemned the British police for what he considered to be unduly rough treatment of demonstrators. Yet Galloway works for Press TV, which is owned and run by the Iranian regime – which has in turn killed large numbers of political protestors in Iran in the past year. The idea that STWC’s meeting was called to defend democratic rights for all is a rather sick joke.

The website of the Manchester branch of STWC carries a report of the meeting, written by one of their supporters. According to this report, the meeting decided on the following set of demands:

• Release all those already in prison
• Drop all charges
• Hold an independent enquiry into the policing of the demonstrators
• Hold an independent review of all complaints raised against the police from the demonstrations
• End the criminalisation of the Muslim community
• Defend the right to peacefully demonstrate

(my emphasis).

If this is an accurate record of the official position of the meeting organisers then it is, frankly, a disgrace. Calling for all charges to be dropped goes much further than questioning the sentences: it is a call for complete immunity. Any responsible organisation whose activities led to over 70 arrests for violence ought to be undergoing a serious bout of introspection and a review of their working methods, to try to ensure that the same thing does not happen again. If not, then you have to question whether they should be allowed to organise similar events in future.

The right to peacefully demonstrate is indeed a fundamental right in any democracy, but the only people undermining it are the ones who think it should include the right to throw missiles at policemen and smash up branches of Starbucks. The idea that this kind of violence represents “a new attitude to legitimate protest” that the rest of us are just a bit slow to catch on to is farcical.

David Aaronovitch has it right:

In January 2009 someone sent me a link to footage taken at one of the Gaza protests in London. Taken by a demonstrator, and 10 minutes long, it showed a thin cordon of policemen being, in effect, chased from the edge of Trafalgar Square to the Hyde Park end of Piccadilly.

For the entire distance, men with faces covered were throwing traffic cones, sticks and anything that came to hand at the retreating officers, while shouting “Run, you f**** cowards!” The only time this mantra changed was when the police, briefly, put up a fight, when the shout became “you racist bastards!”

I don’t know whether it was at this demo, or a subsequent one, that a crowd laid siege to the Israeli Embassy, an occasion that ended in the trashing of a Starbucks and battles between police and demonstrators, who used metal crash barriers and sticks as weapons. When I saw those scenes I knew – as an old demo-person – that, if caught, someone would go to prison.

The CPS guidelines lay out “aggravating and mitigating factors” in sentencing for public order offences. Aggravating factors include a setting in a “busy public place”, a large group, people put in fear, injuries/damage, violence towards the police and disguises (ie faces covered). The only mitigation would be the impulsive nature of the action.

Sure enough, a number of those convicted of taking part in these disturbances have received short jail terms. The result has been a triumphant yell of “Islamophobia” from parts of the old Left.

The most egregious example was provided by Seumas Milne in the Guardian. In an article characterised by more than the usual amount of elision, evasion, lack of evidence and amnesia, Milne asserted that the sentences confirmed that “young British Muslims” were being singled out for “special treatment in the land of their birth”.

In a comment on this piece, the former MCB spokesman Inayat Bunglawala drew a parallel between the “disproportionately stiff sentences” given to “young Muslims”, and the immunity of Israeli officials from arrest in Britain.

It is clear from the original footage that those who took part in violence at the Gaza protests were operating under the assumption that their “anger” created some kind of impunity. But the British state has never allowed such a feeling to persist. Were the officers who were accused of brutality towards Countryside demonstrators in 2004 ruralophobes? Or, when they arrest EDL anti-Muslim thugs, are they Islamophobiaophobes?

Of course not. So whatever the intentions of Messrs Milne and Bungawala, their words are practically incitements to further violence.

I don’t know precisely which videos David Aaronovitch saw last January, but they are likely to be similar to the ones below, all of which are from anti-Israel demonstrations in January last year:

STWC and the rest must take people for complete fools, to argue that their supporters should be able to attack police officers and destroy random shops without being prosecuted, while self-righteously claiming to be defending the right to peaceful protest! Generations of political protestors, and football fans for that matter, could have told them that attacking the police is not a cost-free exercise. I doubt there are many ordinary members of the public who have any sympathy with those violent demonstrators who now find themselves before the court.

But there is something more dangerous at work here than an infantile refusal to take responsiblity for their own misbehaviour. Underlying these complaints is the idea that events in Gaza somehow legitimised or excused the violence in London; that there is a continuum between the prosecution of violent British protestors and the non-prosecution of Israeli politicians, and that all are parts of the same wider conflict. This is the same kind of thinking that fed the wave of violence and intimidation against British Jews in January last year. It is irresponsible and dangerous, and  it has to stop.

Ernst Zundel, veteran Holocaust Denier and the author of The Hitler We Loved And Why, was released from Mannheim Prison in Germany on Monday after serving five years for Holocaust Denial. He was greeted by a small gathering of friends and supporters, as you can watch here (Zundel appears after about 5 mins):

You won’t be surprised to see that Michele Renouf was present and gave Zundel a big bunch of flowers to celebrate his freedom.

If you had been at all taken in by the BNP’s efforts to rebrand away their neo-Nazi, Holocaust denying heritage, you might be surprised to see BNP Advisory Council member Richard Edmonds taking photos of Zundel as he emerges (at about 7:10, with glasses, a bald patch and a dark green jacket). Edmonds’ presence is confirmed by a report on Zundel’s website [warning: link to offensive website].

The 11 February 2010 edition of the New Statesman, ‘Everything You Know About Islam Is Wrong’ was devoted to demanding clarity, precision and understanding in the way that the media and public discuss issues concerning Muslims, Islam, political Islamism and extreme Jihadist terrorism. Its editorial stated

 Fear and ignorance are a toxic combination, and myths and misconceptions abound.

Any hopes, however, that the New Statesman would heed its own advice when it came to representations of Zionism appear to have been dashed with its publication of John Pilger’s latest rhetorical assault on Zionism, Israel and “Jews in western countries”.

When considering where fear, ignorance, myths and misconceptions can lead, the New Statesman and John Pilger need look no further than the current relatively high levels of antisemitic race hate attacks; and the manner in which in some extreme political circles, the word “Zionism” has increasingly become synonymous with a global conspiracy variously headquartered in Washington and / or Jerusalem, supported by co-conspirators in New York, London, Paris and other western power centres.

This global “Zionist” conspiracy is dedicated to the pursuit of oppression, war and profit, and is therefore set against the rest of humanity. The conspiracy is concealed, but reveals itself in its alleged control of finance, politics and media. The conspiracy is not exclusively staffed by Jews: but (real) Zionism is a Jewish construct and Jews are of course its likeliest adherents – and are therefore the ones who get it in the neck when people physically attack these dastardly Zionists. Jews have heard all of this before and have suffered from it all before. The themes of hidden Jewish conspiracy, wealth and power lie at the core of antisemitism and were codified within the notorious Tsarist forgery “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.

Where once the mythical antisemitic image of “the Jew” ran rampant, now we have the image of “the Zionist”. Arguments rage over whether or not this image of “the Zionist” is legitimate, mythologised, antisemitic, or whatever. The issue is made yet more complex by the fact that many dedicated anti-Zionists self-define as philosemitic: they are fighting Zionism because it is in the best interests of Jews that Zionism is defeated. (Never mind the details of this argument, such as what would have happened to European Jewry in the 1940s had they been able to flee to Israel.)

Regardless of the endless philosophising and the irrelevant ivory tower distinctions, at street level two things are very clear:

1. If Zionism is depicted in exclusively hateful terms, then all Zionists will be hated.

2. Large numbers of Jews self-define as Zionists. (In the REAL sense of the word.)

 It follows, therefore, that when mainstream media, journalists and political activists write about Zionism and Jews, that they should do so with caution and precision. One of the worst failures to do so was the infamous 14 January 2002 edition of the New Statesman which depicted a golden Star of David piercing a supine Union Jack, with the headline “A kosher conspiracy?”. Beneath this headline, the cover read “John Pilger and Dennis Sewell on Britain’s pro-Israeli lobby”.

Grudgingly and belatedly, the New Statesman apologised for its cover: but neither this, nor its rightful concern for clarity of reporting in Muslim-related issues, has prevented the magazine from running numerous further articles by John Pilger in which he vociferously condemns Zionism. This most recent edition and article, however, keenly illustrate the choices that both Pilger and the publication need to make when it comes to defining just what they mean by Zionism: and what they mean by anti-Zionism. Get it wrong and they place themselves at the service of antisemites. Get it right and they do the rest of us favour.

The latest article is entitled “Listen to the heroes of Israel”, and the heroes in question are Rami and Nurit Elhanan. Pilger writes

Whenever I am asked about heroes, I say Rami and his wife, Nurit, without hesitation.

The Elhanans helped found Parents Circle. This is a joint initiative by Israelis and Palestinians who have tragically lost loved ones in the lengthy conflict between their respective peoples. Parents Circle website states

 Parents Circle – Families Forum (PCFF) is a grassroots organization of bereaved Palestinians and Israelis. The PCFF promotes reconciliation as an alternative to hatred and revenge.

Pilger’s article, however, is not about reconciliation. Rather, it is furiously anti-Israel and anti-Zionist: premised upon quotes from the Elhanans; and the dreadful stories of two child casualties of the conflict, Smadar Elhanan and Abir Aramin.

CST is not concerned with Pilger’s criticism of Israel, but the conclusion of his article goes far further than this. It ends with a blanket condemnation of Zionism; approvingly quotes Gilad Atzmon; and warns that the silence of Jews “renders them culpable”. He writes as follows

…proof of the murderous, racist toll of Zionism has been an epiphany for many people; justice for the Palestinians, wrote the expatriate Israeli musician Gilad Atzmon, is now ‘at the heart of the battle for a better world’.

However, his fellow Jews in western countries, such as Britain and Australia, whose influence is critical, are still mostly silent, still looking away, still accepting as Nurit said ‘the brainwashing and reality distortion’.

And yet the responsibility to speak out could not be clearer, and the lessons of history – family history for many – ensure that it renders them culpable should their silence persist. For inspiration, I recommend the moral courage of Rami and Nurit.

As explained here at Times Online Blog by Oliver Kamm and here at Z Word Blog by David Adler, Pilger’s depiction of Atzmon as merely an “expatriate Israeli musician” beggars belief. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of Atzmon’s writings will immediately appreciate the ludicrous and self-defeating irony of writing “fellow Jews” in relation to a man who has such an extreme and elaborate hatred of Zionism, along with an apparent rejection of his own Jewish identity and “Jewishness”.

Next, we have Atzmon’s actual assertion, so warmly quoted by Pilger, that “justice for Palestinians” is “now at the heart of the battle for a better world”. It is not uncommon for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be cited as emblematic of the global struggle between oppressed and oppressor, but it is another matter entirely for Pilger to go from this to laying the collective blame for the conflict at the feet of world Jewry: “fellow Jews in western countries…still mostly silent…renders them culpable should their silence persist”.

Jews have extensive and bloody experience of what happens to them when they are collectively blamed for preventing the birth of a better world. It is deeply troubling that a journalist and activist of Pilger’s reputation and knowledge seems impervious to such matters. Why the New Statesman should uncritically publish such material is another, but not unrelated matter. Ignorance? Excessive anti-Israel fury? Lack of concern for mainstream Jewish – potentially “Zionist” – worries? Probably an unthinking combination of all three.

Where, however, did Pilger find this particular quote from Atzmon? As mentioned above, it is not an uncommon claim, but a Google search of Atzmon and “now at the heart of the battle for a better world” suggests that it is taken from Atzmon’s article of 19 February 2010, entitled “The Tide Has Changed”. It includes the following paragraph – and even if this is not the actual source of Pilger’s quote, it gives a decent indication of Atzmon’s perspective on these matters. By wicked coincidence, the 2nd and 3rd sentences would have fitted gloriously with the infamous New Statesman ‘kosher conspiracy?’ front cover

The truth of the matter is tragic. The British political system is paralysed by the Israeli Lobby. Like in the USA, British national interests are sacrificed for the sake of dirty Zionist cash. If Britain wants to liberate itself from the Zionist grip and have any prospect of a future, it must move fast and clean the entire list of Zionist infiltrators from its political ranks, Government offices and strategic positions. I am not talking here about Jews. By no means do I mention ethnicity or race. I am talking here about a political and ideological affiliation. Considering Zionism is a murderous, racist, expansionist ideology, it is natural to stress that people who are affiliated with Israel and Zionism must be removed immediately from any political, government, military or strategic posts and so on.

Finally, the next time that Pilger and his publishers repeat their blanket condemnations and demonisations of Zionism, they should very seriously contemplate: do they mean Zionism as explained above by Atzmon – or do they mean Zionism as it is basically understood and felt by millions of Jews throughout the world. For Jews at least,  there is a vital distinction between the two positions: and if neither Pilger nor the New Statesman can grasp that fact, then things are even worse than many of us had feared.

To help them decide, they can contrast Atzmon’s above description with that of Pilger’s hero Rami Elhanan, explaining why he himself is a Zionist (despite his criticism of Israeli politics and actions). It is taken from the “I am a Zionist” section of his powerful and impassioned autobiographical article, “Turning Pain into Hope”

I am a Zionist

I am a Zionist in the sense that I deeply believe that the Jewish people, like any other people in the world, deserve their right to self-determination, in their ancient homeland. Now, that brings very big and problematic questions. What does it mean to be Jewish? What are the real Jewish values? What makes one a Jew? What does it mean having a Jewish State?

Being Jewish is part of me. I’m a Jew as my eyes are green. It’s a destiny and an identity which I cannot escape. It’s because of the my own history, my forefathers, my roots, and because of the fact that I fill deep emotional connection to this people that was murdered and persecuted and victimized throughout history. Never the less, I believe that this huge and successful revolution of the Jewish people in the form of its national liberation organization, the Zionist movement, was accompanied with some great mistakes. The idea of “a land without people for people without a land” was terribly wrong and totally blind. Even so, I think you can not correct one evil or a wrong by creating other evil and more wrong. Today after all the blood that was spilled and the heavy price that was paid by the two sides, all the mistakes, all the brutality by the two sides the only way out of this endless cycle of violence, is the “Two states” solution…