Main menu:

Recent posts

Categories

Archives

Donate

To help keep HP running

 

Or make a one-off donation:

It’s Not All Bad News for Jewish Students on American Campuses

With the endless spats of anti-Semitism within our major political parties and a constant stream of “anti-Zionist” claptrap coming out of universities on both sides of the Atlantic, it’s nice to hear some good news about being Jewish on campus:

A recent Brandeis University study of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment on American college campuses finds information completely un-shocking to anyone who’s ever talked to more than three Jewish students: an overwhelming majority do not see their campus as “hostile to Jews.”

The author distills the following from the Brandeis study:

1. 95 percent feel safe on campus

The majority of Jewish students polled said they hadn’t experienced anti-Semitism on campus and didn’t see their campus as “hostile to Jews.” Over 95 percent of Jewish students polled say they feel safe on campus.

2. Hostile remarks? Yes. Hostile environment? No.

The majority of Jewish students polled said they had heard “hostile remarks toward Israel.” However, the majority of students at three out of the four schools did not characterize their campus as a “hostile environment toward Israel.” At University of Michigan, 51 percent of Jewish students saw their campus as hostile toward Israel.

3. Low support for academic boycott of Israel

Support for an academic boycott of Israeli scholars and universities is scarce. Academic boycotts weren’t widely supported among Jewish and non-Jewish students at any of the four institutions — with the highest percentage at 12 percent at Brandeis University. (It’s interesting — and possibly telling — that surveyors chose not to measure support for economic divestment from Israel.)

4. They have other things on their minds

Israel and other Jewish issues weren’t pressing concerns for the majority of Jewish students polled. Topics like race, mental health and sexual assault were ranked higher by a majority of students at all four schools.

Unmistakably, anti-Semitism is on the rise around the globe, so it is a positive sign that so few American Jewish students feel their campuses are unsafe.

Having said that, Hailey Levien recounts her experiences being ostracized that are far too common. Recounting bullying she received online and in person for her assertion that anti-Semitism was a problem in left-wing circles, she noted:

What left me feeling the most stuck was the irony of it all. I was being marginalized for implying that I was marginalized. In standing up for my identity as a Jewish person – which, according to my bullies, comes with no legitimate oppression – I was supposedly crying wolf. When in actuality, these individuals came to my workplace to single me out, a form of marginalization, in order to argue that Jewish people are not a group that gets singled out.

She goes on to ask questions many of us have uttered in the last few decades:

So, how can we, young American left-wing Jews, continue to cultivate communities for ourselves? How can we be allies to one another in moments when we feel isolated from both the activist community and the more conservative Jewish community? How can we encourage non-Jews to be our allies when it poses a risk to their social status in left-wing circles? How can we emphasize that extremism – both on the left and right – ultimately pushes people who care out of the conversation and eventually leads to their silence? Given these challenges, how can we excite other young American Jews to invest in a better Israel by fighting for democracy and justice in our homeland? And how can we make space for ourselves as a marginalized identity (despite many Jews’ white-passing privilege) in an era of identity politics on the left?



Sad Day for Jewish Community

The Jewish Chronicle has published a story claiming that Jeremy Newmark the head of the Jewish Labour Movement had;

“deceived the organisation out of tens of thousands of pounds and misled charities about the cost of projects he worked on.”

It’s a shame for the people who, if the allegations are proven, donated money to the organisations he was responsible for.

Newmark came close to representing Golders Green as an MP at the last general election.


Michael Calderbank; Corbyn Confidante, Co-Editor Red Pepper and Antisemite?

Yesterday Jeremy had a meeting with some “friends”.

These included Malia “Zionist outpost” Bouattia, Ken “never intended to deny the Holocaust” Loach, John “Inminds” McDonnell and co-editor of Red Pepper Michael Calderbank.

Calderbank (centre in the below pic), who describes himself as a ‘socialist’ and is a ‘Parliamentary Researcher for trade unions’, was chairing the manifesto discussion and launch of the book; For The Many: Preparing Labour for Power

It turns out that Calderbank has some pretty strident views on what Jews are allowed to call antisemitism and whether Jews living in the West Bank should expect to be killed. Here is a selection of his own words;

Apparently if you work for the Israeli embassy you can’t talk about antisemitism or work for a Jewish organisation without being a part of the Israel/Zionist/Jewish conspiracy;

But hey it’s OK because Calderbank actually speaks for Jewish people so there’s no need to let their actual views get in the way;

David Ward’s comments on the Holocaust were apparently clumsy yet absolutely on point so far as he’s concerned;

The obligatory Nazi – Zionism comparison that all Corbyn’s mates seem to make;

He just can’t help but attack the Jewish Labour Movement;

What antisemitism? Not me mate some of my best friends are self hating Jews;

But his fiance, who also happens to be on Labour’s powerful ‘conference arrangement committee’, can’t possibly share his views…

Update:


Middle East Monitor’s Asa Winstanley Alleges Jews Allied with Nazis

This is a cross-post from The Zionist

Writing on the former Deputy Head of the Muslim Council of Britain Daud Abdullah’s website, Asa Winstanley argues there was an alliance between Nazis and Zionists.

He follows this up with a number of assertions about Israeli policy today and Zionist policy during the Second World War. Little of this bears up to scrutiny. In an article entitled Israel welcomes Nazis while banning pro-Palestinian Jews Winstanley portrays Nazis and Zionists as co-conspirators in the Holocaust;

“An alliance with anti-Semites has been a crucial strategy of Zionist ideology ever since the late 19th century. It started with anti-Semitic Protestant Christian Zionists and later expanded to the Nazis.”

Bearing in mind all of the antisemitism Zionist Jews are receiving at the moment it’s worth tackling the arguments raised by Winstanley in his article and putting the issues he raises to bed.

First is Winstanley’s explanation of the Haavara agreement;

“The agreement facilitated the emigration to Palestine of some Jews with their wealth in return for the World Zionist Movement calling off its boycott of Germany.”

The agreement did facilitate the emigration to Palestine of German Jews but it wasn’t in return for calling off the boycott. As a source Winstanley offers this link. Had he read the source he provides he’d have known this. From the Jewish virtual library (Winstanley’s source);

The transfer weakened the boycott of German goods declared by many Jewish organizations around the world, and thus met with considerable opposition. The controversy was settled at the Zionist Congress in Lucerne (1935) which decided by a vast majority in favor of the transfer and placed the Haavara under the supervision of the *Jewish Agency

The Haavara agreement saved 60,000 German Jews from the grip of the Nazis. The worldwide boycott of Germany called for by Jewish organisations was feared by the Jews of Germany who were concerned the Nazis would take their revenge on the Jews they had close to hand. The Haavara Agreement was controversial when first adopted but was later enlisted wholeheartedly by the Zionist Congress of 1935 as a way of allowing German Jews to escape Germany.

It’s worth noting a speech by League of Nations High Commissioner for Refugees James G McDonald at the 1935 Zionist Congress;

A month after the Haavara agreement was ratified the Nazis introduced the Nuremberg Laws effectively removing German Jews from the German populace and paving the way for their extermination. Thanks to the Haavara agreement at least some Jews managed to escape into Palestine.

Then Winstanley says;

It is worth comparing the fury of pro-Israel lobbyists and supporters over Ken Livingstone with their silence or active defence of Israel’s modern day alliance with fascists and neo-Nazis.

Israel has no alliance with Fascists and neo-Nazis. Furthermore one isn’t sure what “alliance” he’s speaking about because he doesn’t say.

He goes on;

“It’s important to defend Livingstone’s right to talk about the historical facts relating to extreme right-Zionist collaboration not least because an alliance with anti-Semites has been a crucial strategy of Zionist ideology ever since the late 19th century. It started with anti-Semitic Protestant Christian Zionists and later expanded to the Nazis.”

Lets take this in two parts;

First Livingstone’s right to talk about whatever he wants has never been in question. What Winstanley means is Livingstone should have the right to make antisemitic statements without any consequences. Fortunately the Labour Party felt differently. Unfortunately they suspended him for a couple of years rather than expelling him from the Party.

Second; no Zionism has never had a “strategy” of making an “alliance” with antisemites. In fact ‘Zionism’ didn’t exist in this format in the first place. There is no sentence you can use that has Zionism doing anything. Zionism is an ideology shared first by a few hundred, then a few hundred thousand then a few million people. There was no one monolithic Zionist group that had a strategy or made alliances that spoke for every Zionist in the world and Zionism itself never did anything other than offer an ideology of national liberation to the Jewish people.

To then argue that;

“It started with anti-Semitic Protestant Christian Zionists and later expanded to the Nazis.” Is to smear the entirety of the national liberation movement of the Jewish people.

“Even the leader of the Israeli Labour Party welcomed Trump’s ascension to the White House.”

Yes the leader of Israel’s Labour Party congratulated Trump on his election.

Most of the extreme-right groups in the world today are supporters of Israel, while the government of Israel is in cahoots with its right-wing counterparts in Poland and Hungary, which have encouraged Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism.

At the moment Israel and Poland are not on particularly good terms after the government of Poland instituted a new piece of legislation;

“Put forward by the ruling right-wing Law and Justice Party, the bill would make it a crime to accuse Poles of being complicit in the Holocaust, punishable by up to three years in prison.”

Hardly surprising that this caused a diplomatic row between Israel and Poland. With one Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman reported as saying;

“Israel views with utmost gravity any attempt to challenge historical truth,” an Israeli foreign ministry spokesman, Emmanuel Nahshon, tweeted on Thursday after the senate vote. “No law will change the facts.” Israel “adamantly opposes” the bill’s approval, he said.

Regarding Israel’s relationship with Hungary it is worth quoting at length the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s statement concerning a meeting between himself and Netanyahu in July last year;

We all know, and His Excellency, the Prime Minister, also knows that there is a sizable Jewish minority living in Hungary. I made it very clear to the Prime Minister that their security, being Hungarian citizens that they are, will be fully guaranteed by the Hungarian state. I’ve also made it very clear to the Prime Minister that the Hungarian government has a zero tolerance policy against all forms of anti-Semitism. I have also shared with the Prime Minister that there is a renaissance of Jewish life here in Hungary today. And this is something that we are proud of. We believe, we think that the renaissance of Jewish life is a substantial contribution to the common achievements of the Hungarian nation quite clearly.

We also mentioned, touched upon history. Well, when you have a meeting of this sort, this is not something that is inevitable, but it’s also perhaps desirable that we discuss history. So I told the Prime Minister that we are aware of the fact that we have quite a difficult chapter of history behind us. And I wanted to make it very clear to him that the Government of Hungary, in a previous period, committed a mistake, even committed a sin, when it did not protect the Jewish citizens of Hungary.

I want to make it clear that it is our belief that every single Hungarian government has the obligation to protect and defend all of its citizens, regardless of their birth and origins.During World War II, this was something, a requirement that Hungary did not live up to, both morally or in other ways. And this is a sin, because we decided back then, instead of protecting the Jewish community, to collaborate with the Nazis.

I made it very clear to the Prime Minister that this is something that can never, ever happen again, that the Hungarian government will in the future protect all its citizens.

Then Winstanley wrote;

Despite Israel’s claim to be a bulwark against anti-Semites, the historical and current reality is that the Zionist regime has never cared about anti-Semitism globally. Or more accurately, it actually encourages and benefits from anti-Semitism. When there were anti-Jewish attacks in France, Netanyahu visited the country, claimed to be the Prime Minister of all Jews and called for French Jews to “come home” to Israel. The Jews in the synagogue where he was speaking responded by singing the French national anthem. Netanyahu, it seemed, apparently wanted the “Islamic State” fanatics responsible for the anti-Semitic attacks to succeed in their aims of ridding France of its Jewish citizens.

Let’s pull this apart;

1. Despite Israel’s claim to be a bulwark against anti-Semites, the historical and current reality is that the Zionist regime has never cared about anti-Semitism globally.

Israel is a majority Jewish country it doesn’t “claim to be a bulwark against antisemites” it is a country where there is little to no antisemitism by virtue of the nature of the populace. Furthermore if there hadn’t been any antisemitism globally Zionism would never have come into existence. Antisemitism is the force that brought Zionism and by extension Israel into being, antisemitism is what drove Jews to Palestine in the first place and Middle Eastern antisemitism is what strengthened the nascent state of Israel when, in the wake of Israel’s War of Independence, the defeated states expelled their Jews.

This moves us neatly on to;

Or more accurately, it actually encourages and benefits from anti-Semitism. When there were anti-Jewish attacks in France, Netanyahu visited the country, claimed to be the Prime Minister of all Jews and called for French Jews to “come home” to Israel.

Winstanley turns logic on its head. Because Israel has turned mass migration to its shores into an advantage (not without a great deal of hardship) therefore antisemitism must be caused by Israel. It will be interesting to note whether Winstanley blames Germany for ISIS on the basis of the fact that it has admitted one million refugees.

Jews from countries around the world have been lucky to have a place they can go to escape antisemitism. The Yazidis and the Kurds are in no doubt as to the necessity of such a homeland. It’s to Israel’s credit that it remains prepared to accept such large numbers of desperate people despite the economic difficulties the country faces for their absorption.

Next he said;

When there were anti-Jewish attacks in France, Netanyahu visited the country, claimed to be the Prime Minister of all Jews and called for French Jews to “come home” to Israel. The Jews in the synagogue where he was speaking responded by singing the French national anthem.

Bizarrely for Winstanley the part of this episode isn’t that French Jews were murdered it was Netanyahu’s visit to the synagogue to comfort the community in the wake of the tragedy. Look how Netanyahu was received and decide for yourself how he was treated;


Winstanley doesn’t let up however;

Netanyahu, it seemed, apparently wanted the “Islamic State” fanatics responsible for the anti-Semitic attacks to succeed in their aims of ridding France of its Jewish citizens.

Unless Winstanley is in contact with ISIS and has access to a plan the rest of us know nothing of he might wish to take note that ISIS just murdered Jews in France, they didn’t express some wish to merely remove them from the country. Perhaps he also wishes to castigate French Jews leaving for the UK or blame the UK for antisemitic attacks in France since Jews are moving there too.

Then he moves onto the Jews of the Middle East;

The Jews of Iraq, who mostly left in 1950, claim that attacks on their community were actually a plot by Israeli agents to drive them out of the country and head for Israel.

No they don’t.

Iraqi-born Israeli historian Avi Shlaim once recounted that, despite the fact that he’s yet to find evidence in the state archives for this, all of his Iraqi relatives believe that the bombings were carried out by Zionist agents, not Iraqi Arabs. Whoever was behind the bombing campaign, Israel certainly benefited from it.

See a video below of Iraqi Jew Edwin Shuker discussing his escape from Iraq and arrival in the United Kingdom via Israel. Thankfully there is an Israel prepared to come to the aid of Jews when the rest of the world just shuts its eyes. He says;

“We dreamt of being expelled”

The anti-Semitic tendency stretches all the way back to the origins of Zionism. As Theodor Herzl himself predicted, “The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.” He could have been talking about the situation today.”

Again turning cause and effect upside down Winstanley argues that Zionism is antisemitic rather than that it is the product of antisemitism. This argument is the equivalent of arguing that Martin Luther King was a racist who exacerbated racial tensions in the United States in order to make his own movement more popular.

Moreover, Israeli moves extend this trend. As writer Natasha Roth put it in +972 Magazine recently, the Israeli government’s blacklist banning 20 activist and human rights groups which support BDS, the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, means that Israel has banned Jewish leftists, while welcoming Nazi groups.

Israel has not welcomed any Nazi groups. Israel has banned people (including some Jews) from entering into the country. Winstanley quotes the following from Roth’s article in +972;

“While Jews who support the boycott movement are now barred from visiting the country,” she wrote, “members of Nazi-allied organisations and anti-Semitic political parties continue to be allowed into Israel — including at the invitation of government officials.”

Note that in Winstanley’s quote of Roth’s piece she writes “Nazi — allied organisations” and in Winstanley’s piece he has jumped to “Nazi groups”. Facts matter, accuracy matters.

In Roth’s article which Winstanley uses as a source, she admits that there is no contact between Israel and any of these parties whose history is tainted by antisemitism. Once again it appears that Winstanley isn’t reading the sources he’s using to justify his own argument;

As with the Freedom Party of Austria, Israel officially refrains from direct contact with the FN due to its history, but nonetheless allows its members into the country.

It’s important to note that neither Roth nor Winstanley are taking issue with Israel banning people from the country. Their concern is that the people holding political ideologies they approve of are being banned while others aren’t. Winstanley takes issue with Boycott Divestment and Sanctions activists being denied entry into Israel. He says;

The BDS movement, on the other hand, has made it clear that it is an anti-racist movement, opposed to all forms of bigotry, including anti-Semitism. That is why there are so many Jews in the movement, and why it continues to attract support, much to the chagrin of Israel and its right-wing support base.

The Israelis are more interested in actions than words. They remember when “hundreds of Jews were trapped inside a synagogue” until “police units were sent to rescue them” in 2014 by these so-called peace activists.

They remember riots in London outside the Israeli embassy in 2008 when a sea of Free Palestine banners were waved by the same people who were throwing barricades at police.

Winstanley himself is a member of the Boycott Divesment and Sanctions movement yet instead of attacking Israeli government policy (as one might expect from a Pro Palestine activist) he spends all his time writing articles that play to the grossest antisemitic stereotypes.

As said earlier in this article facts matter. It matters that Winstanley distorts the truth, it matters that he attacks Zionism and that he attempts to dictate the meaning of the terms ‘antisemitism’ and ‘Zionism’. It matters that he offers sources that don’t support the arguments he’s making when he’s fact checked. It is poison like his, that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny which is causing Jews in the UK so many problems today.

At last count his article had been shared on Facebook just under 700 times. The people who read that article will be less educated about Zionism than they were if they had read nothing at all. They will feel angry and frustrated about a global situation that exists only in his imagination.

We need to fight this false messaging, to use facts to counter the fiction written about Israel as a part of the Bully Demonise and Slander campaign being perpetuated against Israel or else the only truth that will matter is the one Winstanley makes up.


Feminism in Israel | Fathom 19 OUT NOW!

Feminism in Israel is a special issue of Fathom journal that brings together the voices of 22 women from across Israeli society. Secular and religious, academic and activist, Jewish and Arab, Israeli and Palestinian, together they offer a new map of women’s experience in contemporary Israel, and new insights into the changing structures of oppression women face today, the patterns of resistance they have developed to fight for equality in the Knesset and in civil society, the distinctive role played by women in the promotion of peacebuilding and a shared society, and the present state and future potential of Israeli feminism.

Three framing essays begin the collection. Dahlia Scheindlin asks if the forward march of women in Israel has been halted, noting the profound challenge to feminism posed by a resurgent religiosity that rejects women’s equality, while Einat Wilf unearths the surprising affinities of anti-feminism and anti-Zionism. Elham Manea, addresses two central obstacles to women’s equality in the Arab and Muslim word: authoritarian governance and Islamist ideology. She also reflects critically on ͚the failure of many western progressives, including many western feminists, to support oppressed Arab and Muslim women.

Embodying the refusal to accept any reversal of equality for Israeli women are Aliza Lavie MK, Chairwoman of the Knesset Subcommittee on Trafficking and Prostitution, and Rachel Azaria MK, of Kulanu. Both detail their involvement in ongoing reform fights within the Knesset. Their determination is matched in the sphere of civil society by many of our contributors, including the young activists of Darkenu: Israel’s Moderate Majority.

The distinctive role of women in peacebuilding is examined in several essays and interviews. Rabbanit Tirza Kelman reflects on the recent visit by national-religious leaders to Northern Ireland and the lessons she drew from that peace process for peacebuilding between Israelis and Palestinians. Sarai Aharoni ciritically evaluates the much-discussed ‘women and peace hypothesis’. She also offers a detailed and critical analysis of the high hopes invested in UN resolution 325 to engender Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking efforts, and the rather disappointing results.

The shifting patterns of women’s inclusion and exclusion from the Israeli public square is the bitterly contested subject addressed by Miriam Zalkind and Michal Gera Margaliot of the Israeli Women’s Network. Yofi Tirosh also raises the alarm about the threat to equality from religiously inspired sex-segregation in Israel’s public institutions. Rachel Tevet Vizel, ‘gender advisor’ to the IDF Chief of Staff from 2011 to 2017, addresses these concerns. She sets out first the dilemmas – how to successfully integrate women into the IDF at the same time as the national-Religious and ultra-Orthodox conscripts, and how to attend to the imperative of equal-opportunity as well as the imperative of winning wars – before defending the coherence and balance of the resulting middle way, as embodied in the Joint-Service Ordinance she helped to draft.

Different kinds of challenges to the unequal position of women within strands of Orthodoxy are set out. Elana Maryles Sztokman, author of The War on Women in Israel: A Story of Religious Radicalism and the Women Fighting for Freedom, and the former Executive Director of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance contributes a sparkling personal essay about her decision to leave Orthodoxy and train as a Reform Rabbi. Pnina Pfeuffer, a Haredi feminist, sets out how the combination of rapid social, economic and cultural change in Israel, as well as the revolution of the internet and social media, are beginning to create openings for the emergence of a new and exciting Haredi feminism.

Arab and Palestinian perspectives are not neglected. Fida Nara and Sarit Larry of Mahapach-Taghir, a feminist Jewish-Palestinian organisation, set out the organisation’s unique and truly innovative blend of critical pedagogy, feminism and Jewish-Palestinian partnership for social justice. Palestinian-Israeli Samah Salaime of Arab Women in the Center (Na’am in Arabic) maps the causes of the appalling gender-based violence against Arab women in Israel, and suggests the changes needed to combat it, from a revolution in Israeli state policy and practice to a cultural revolution in Arab society. West Banker Huda Abu Arqoub Director of the Alliance for Middle East Peace (ALLMEP) and a leading supporter of Women Wage Peace, spoke to the editors about the challenges faced by a Palestinian feminist engaged in conflict-resolution activism.

Professor Alan Johnson, for the editors


Brave Iranian women continue fight against forced hijab

An important point that is too often neglected: There are women in Iran and elsewhere who choose to wear the hijab but firmly (and bravely) insist that other women should not be forced to do so.

Update: Surely this woman remembers what it was like in Iran before the forced hijab.


Roshan Salih – Champion of Holocaust Deniers

The self-styled “journalist” Roshan Salih is troubled by Holocaust denial. Very troubled. You see, some people really don’t like it and speak up about it. Ashitha Nagesh, for example, writing in Metro.

This is infuriating. Salih knows what is really going on:

So now you know. Holocaust denial is not a horror. Those whose who loathe it are the real problem. They are “Zionist” agents.

Antisemites are disgusting. Roshan, though, is in a class of his own, the antisemites’ antisemite.

For his next trick, perhaps he could interview former KKK leader and racists’ racist David Duke, long a favourite of his employers, the poisonous Iranian propaganda channel RePress TV.


CST Annual Antisemitism Stats – It’s a Bit Worse

CST recorded 1,382 antisemitic incidents nationwide in 2017, the highest total CST has ever recorded for a calendar year. This is a 3 per cent increase from the 1,346 incidents recorded during 2016, which was itself a record annual total. The previous record high was in 2014, when CST recorded 1,182 antisemitic incidents.

CST has recorded antisemitic incidents since 1984.

A further 872 reports of potential incidents were received by CST in 2017, but were not deemed to be antisemitic and are not included in this total of 1,382 antisemitic incidents. Many of these 872 potential incidents involved suspicious activity or possible hostile reconnaissance at Jewish locations; criminal activity affecting Jewish people and buildings; and anti-Israel activity that did not include antisemitic language, motivation or targeting.

The high incident levels throughout 2017 continued the pattern of 2016 in which high incident numbers were sustained by a combination of factors, including an increase in all forms of recorded hate crime and publicity regarding alleged antisemitism in the Labour Party. These factors may have caused higher levels of incident offending as well as encouraging more reporting of antisemitic incidents from victims and witnesses in the Jewish community. This differs from previous record highs, in 2014 and 2009, when conflicts in Israel and Gaza acted as sudden trigger events, that led to short-term, identifiable ‘spikes’ in incident numbers.

The record total in 2017 saw over 100 antisemitic incidents recorded every month from January to October inclusive. This continued an unprecedented pattern of monthly totals exceeding 100 incidents for 19 consecutive months from April 2016. In comparison, monthly totals only exceeded 100 incidents on six occasions in the ten years preceding April 2016. Monthly incident totals did decline towards the end of 2017, with 89 incidents in November and 78 in December, but they remain roughly double the level they were at five years ago.

You can read the full report here.

The CST’s own blog post on their 2017 figures can be read here.


Antisemitic Ad at UCL?

This poster has been put up on campus at University College London:

Just over a year ago UCL faced a riot when Israeli speaker Hen Mazzig attempted to speak to a group of students.

There was another protest when he returned last Thursday after being invited back by the University. As a result you’d think UCL might want to avoid any more antisemitism controversies.

Nah.

Bizarrely the UCL Marxist society uses an image that bears no relation to the event it’s ostensibly advertising; Trump and Jerusalem: How to Stop Imperialism:

those who click through to the Facebook Event will see a short blurb written in the “about” section, I’ve reproduced it here:

The current events in the Middle East are one of the focal points for Marxists to come back on the question: “what’s wrong with capitalism?” Notoriously, the meddling of the West in giving Palestinian territory to Israel demonstrates the sheer brutality and carelessness of the states we live under; it sheds the fig leaf of imperialist domination that is the “democracy” of richer nations.

The UCL Marxist Society invites the Friends of Palestine Society, and all who care for the oppressed peoples in Palestine, to discuss the effects of Trump and the type of society that endorses his actions on the region. We stand in solidarity with those who suffer from this infantile meddling!

Comrades may find this article by Hamid interesting before attending:
https://www.socialist.net/trump-s-jerusalem-declaration-the-real-face-of-capitalism.htm

Here are some other images of the Israeli animal pulling the American handler along:

Update:


Fathom 18 | Jewish votes and British foreign policy: The 1930 Whitechapel by-election

At the Whitechapel and St. George’s by-election on 3 December 1930 Jewish voters directly influenced British policy on Palestine, effectively ending the Labour Government’s hopes of implementing the Passfield White Paper, which outlined plans for the Palestine Mandate over the next decade. Labour won the by-election primarily because Poale Zion, the Jewish labour movement, had obtained concessions from the Government with regard to their proposals in return for mobilising the Jewish vote in support of the Labour candidate. Ronnie Fraser, author of a forthcoming study of the British trade union movement and Israel, tells the story.

PASSFIELD AND PALESTINE

The Passfield White Paper was the Labour government’s response to the Shaw inquiry into the August 1929 disturbances in Palestine. Shaw recommended that the government issue a clear statement of the policy they intended to pursue in Palestine, revise immigration policy ‘with the object of preventing a repetition of the excessive [Jewish] immigration of 1925 and 1926’ and announce an enquiry into the possibilities of land development in Palestine.

The White Paper stated that while the British government did intend to fulfil its obligations to both Arabs and Jews, treating them both equally in Palestine, the development of a Jewish national home in Palestine was not considered central to the British Mandate. It also proposed that in future the Jews would need the approval of the British authorities before purchasing any additional land.

The Arabs saw the White Paper as vindication for their demands to halt Jewish immigration and land sales whilst the Jews viewed it as the British government reversing their support for the Balfour Declaration and the aims of the Mandate. There was an immediate international outcry which claimed that the proposals in the White Paper flouted the Mandate and demanded its withdrawal. The Zionists considered that the tone of the White Paper was decidedly anti-Jewish as it criticised both the Histadrut and the Jewish Agency for promoting the employment of Jewish-only labour. The primary aim of the Histadrut was the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine and all its activities were executed with this goal in mind. As the Histadrut was responsible for bringing Jewish immigrants to Palestine and finding work for them it promoted from 1928 onwards a Jewish-only labour policy. When it lent money or leased land for agricultural enterprises, it often inserted clauses insisting on the hire of Jewish labour only. With the booming economy in Palestine in the early 1930s this policy was only partially successful, but became more effective after 1936 when the political situation changed with the Arab general strike and rebellion. READ MORE.