Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism

In Academia hedging is advised and “In 1914 the people in Britain thought …..”, becomes, “The evidence would appear to suggest that in 1914 many British people thought …..”, “will happen”, becomes “might happen”, or “could happen” and academic caution is required. Wooly thinkers are discouraged and the analogy comparing the social scientist’s brain to a dung heap, which states that if you leave both long enough, something will grow, loses its relevance. However, not so with the daily drivel.

Philip Johnston’s article, in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph,“The best cure for anti-Semitism is to stop pretending we’re all guilty”contends that there is an increase in anti-Semitism in the UK and that this increase is due to immigration. Now, being quite certain that most people are not anti-Semitic and don’t consider themselves to be anti-Semitic,  Mr Johnston makes about as much sense as those pseudo academics, who write things like, “people in ancient Rome thought …..”, when he refers to “all”, but it gets worse when he bases this nonsense on the fact that:

“In 2014, the number of anti-Semitic incidents recorded by the Metropolitan Police was more than double the previous year’s, and they rose 60 per cent in 2015. Partly this is because the police are taking the offence more seriously. Many acts of abuse are racist comments made on the internet.”

There is no attempt to inform us what the actual figures are and there is no attempt to tell us the nature of the crimes, apart from many of them being “racist comments made on the internet”. There isn’t even any emphasis on the fact that the Metropolitan Police are limited to Greater London. However, Mr Johnston moves on and asserts this alleged increase in anti-Semitism comes from the influx of  “Muslims and eastern Europeans, where the religious and cultural roots lie deep.”

Nevertheless, it is when he expands on the reasons for this alleged Muslim antipathy towards Jews that the real reason for this disgraceful piece of writing becomes clear and we are not only told that this hatred is fostered by a “well-established cultural dislike that is exacerbated by the unresolved Palestinian question,” but that it is also accompanied by “ostensible criticism of the Israeli government”, which turns into “anti-Zionism and, by extension, into anti-Semitism masquerading as legitimate political comment.”

“Ostensible” criticism of the Israeli government and it doesn’t matter that what is really being talked about is someone taking someone else’s land, it doesn’t matter that there has been an ongoing ethnic cleansing since 1948, it doesn’t matter that illegal settlements are being built on illegally occupied land to complete that ethnic cleansing and it doesn’t matter that crimes are being committed on an almost daily basis by Israel.

We are certainly not “all” guilty of anti-Semitism. Moreover, in this part of Europe it is difficult not to be aware of the hell on earth which anti-Semitism led to. However, that awareness should contribute to us speaking out not only against the crimes that Israel has been perpetrating uninterrupted since 1948, but also against anyone who glibly refers to, “muslims and eastern Europeans” as some sort of designated “other”, as the outsider, the scapegoat. In Europe we really have been there before.


Final Word on the SNP Conference

And what was the SNP conference all about for me? Well, there were the two fringe meetings arranged by the ‘SNP friends of Palestine’ and there was Nicola Sturgeon’s opening speech, the reminder that there is a lot of uninformed blah-blah-blah in the world of politics, even if the “wha’s like us” mob can still be tempered by the sensible realpolitik which appeared to dicate the party leader’s opening and closing speeches.

Get allies in the House of Commons and elsewhere to prevent a hard Brexit taking place and, if this strategy ultimately proves unsuccessful, then there will be ‘Indyref2’. In other words a pragmatic gaining of brownie points in the world of politics, accruing more and more devolved powers and, should the Brexit not produce a viable modus vivendi, the “wha’s like us” mob can flood the polling booths.

More importantly, of course, the hard Brexit will give supporters of independence the opportunity to sway those who are still sitting on the fence and all the more so once the implications of losing access to the free market become obvious. There might even be those who would argue that this morning Mrs Sturgeon and the SNP are in a win-win situation. If a week is a long time in politics, then the next few months are going to be particularly interesting.

Palestine, Symptoms and Causes

cropped-maps-53Final day of the SNP conference and ego’s attention was focused on the ‘Friends of Palestine’ fringe meeting on Israel’s flouting of international law in the West Bank. One of the speakers repeated the same little anecdote from the Medical Aid for Palestine meeting a couple of days previously about an irrelevant meeting he had had with Arafat about 25 years ago along with his unreserved praise for the confidence trickster Shimon Peres, while the other speakers, with the exception of Hugh Lanning from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, almost competed with him when it came to giving voice to an array of platitudes, even if they did, at least, appear to have their hearts in the right place.

The theme appeared to be that we have to concentrate on justice now and not on the history. The Palestinian Right of Return was mentioned, but it was put into a context where it might be recognised and applied as a trade off in final status negotiations, although UN Resolution 194, which guarantees that right, is reaffirmed regularly in the UN General Assembly.

And there we have the problem; very often good people are doing good and very necessary work. However, it really didn’t start with the building of illegal settlements, it didn’t even start with the illegal occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. It started with the Zionist project. The oxymonic Jewish democracy has to be called what it is and Israel has to be held for account not only for the crimes which are being perpetrated on a daily basis, but indeed for an ongoing ethnic cleansing which began in 1948.

That ethnic cleansing appears to be reaching its conclusion and while the symptoms still have to be addressed, it is important to get to the root cause of this cancer. Until that happens there can be no justice for Palestine and it is time for all those with their hearts in the right place and, who knows, maybe even the “anecdotal man”, to recognise this.


The SNP Conference in Glasgow

In Glasgow for the SNP conference and what a broad church the party appears to be. Obviously, my inclination was to drift towards the “friends of Palestine” stand in the exhibition hall, and I did. The socialist group got my attention and I even exchanged a word with a Rangers fan who was showing off the Scottish Cup – and on current form he possibly represents as close as anyone who has an affinity with Rangers is going to get to that particular trophy this year – and I had a little tête–à–tête with the representatives of the anti NATO, anti nuclear war, and anti trident, people.

Still, there was also a little motley crew of Zionists selling themselves as a “peace for everyone in the Middle East” group and when it was pointed out that their prefered two-state solution for historical Palestine was real pie in the sky stuff considering the on the ground reality in an illegally occupied and rapidly disappearing country there wasn’t going to be a lot of discussion apart from a few ridicoulous soundbites such as, “we have to start somewhere”. Yes, we do “have to start somewhere” and how about a proper democracy for all the people in the illegally occupied territories, in Israel within the green line, and compensation and citizenship for all of those people who had their land taken away from then?

However, the bigger politics, in the context of this conference, were happening elsewhere and I took myself off to hear Nicola Sturgeon’s speech and the essence of that is contained in her saying:

“I am determined that Scotland will have the ability to reconsider the question of independence – and to do so before the UK leaves the EU – if that is necessary to protect our country’s interests. So I can confirm today that the Independence Referendum Bill will be published for consultation next week.”

Yes, strange bedfellows on the independence train, perhaps, but it would be nice if it were to soon reach its’ destination and if that were to culminate in a democratic and socialist society that might even be a little bit less susceptible to the Zionist drivel that just seems to be here, there, and everywhere.  However, while indepenence increasingly appears more and more likely, that other final hope really does smack of wishful thinking.

Trip to Scotand and two articles in today’s ‘Financial Times’

Over in Scotland for a few days with the intention of taking in the SNP Conference, which starts on Thursday. The flight over and the train up to Glasgow gave me the chance to take advantage of the plethora of free newspapers which Lufthansa makes available at the airport and the first thought on reading Stefan Wagstly’s article in ‘The Financial Times’ on how the West German justice ministry was full of erstwhile Nazis was “old news”, which, of course, it was is to some extent.

Of course, this phenomena could also be observed in any given ministry in the “Bonner Republik . Nevertheless, what actually surprises is the extent to which this was so, at least in the Ministry of Justice and possibly in the other ministries too, when Mr Wagstyl writes that up to “76% of officials in the West German justice ministry after 1945 had been Nazis, according to a new official history that highlights how former party members protected each other long after the second world war.” Again, however, it might also be expected that most of the qualified legal professionals in Germany after 1945 had qualified between 1933 and 1945 and that not joining the NSDAP had not really been an option for most of them, if it was at all possible. Yes, maybe not quite “old news”, but really just an exercise in filling the daily drivel with some interesting trivia.

More interesting were the comments on the latest Trump vs Hillary debate and especially eye-catching was the candidates responses to someone in the audience asking what they respected most about each other? Here, Clinton praised Trump’s children for being devoted and able and Trump returned the “compliment” by saying that although he disagreed with her, he found Hillary to be a fighter and that he liked her fighting spirit.

Now, if one of Trump’s children were to attack his views that would be praiseworthy and the evidence would really suggest that what we have here are two very two very focused little Trumps, who, like daddy, are totally concentrated on themselves and, perhaps, their inheritance. As for Hillary being a “fighter” ….. well, Donald, the fighters are the men and women who get directly involved in Mrs Clinton’s wars and who often lose life or limb in the process.

Therefore, if Donald Jnr and Ivanka had the intelligence to see what their father really represented and if they had the balls to rebel against him that would be worthy of respect and …. well, if Hillary wasn’t such a coward and someone who lets other people die for the sake of her career, it might even be possible to shrug off her sanctimonious hypocrisy. However, isn’t it interesting that these two can actually voice any sort of mutual respect, when really any enlightened, sane person would find it difficult to regard their very presence on the planet with anything other than disdain.




Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

Of course, Tony Blair is not quite the nincompoop that Boris Johnson is; indeed, with Tony the evidence would appear to suggest that what we have is more of a couch case, something for a headshrinker to earn a few brownie points on, and maybe there is a wee boy in there who was not quite as privileged as his school chums?

Not so, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, who was a very privileged schoolboy, but who, as far as the old grey matter is concerned, really does appear to be at least mildly retarded. Res ipsa loquitur” (the thing speaks for itself) he is reported to have said when asked to explain his love of Latin. Yes, the thing does indeed speak for itself and, perhaps, it is time to let Boris do some of the talking and as this upper-class twit’s gaffs are an almost daily occurrence, perhaps we should go for two of the most recent.

Now, umpteen years attending hooray henry “educational” institutions might have drilled a few Latin lexical chunks into his tiny brain, but it certainly didn’t facilitate a worthwhile knowledge of the planet.  That is why, while it might be that he has had a little tête-à-tête with Tony regarding the work being done by the fromer PM’s Africa Governance Initiative, it is more likely that his belief that Africa could do with some British values started to take root in primary school. Still, always the believer that our being in society determines our consciousness, I see that as almost to be expected. However, when the British Foreign Minister refers to Africa as “that country” it really is time to question the sanity of a system which allows this idiot to hold any sort of office. Of course, thisi might be nothing more than a slip of the tongue, parapraxis ergo a freudian slip, and maybe Boris is just about to follow Tony onto that couch.

Academic caution is, however, advised and being consistenly the absolute idiot, not only do we know what we get with Boris, we also know …. Well, he is really just an idiot and there he was a few weeks ago saying it would be a “fantastic thing” if Britain had a “more sensible system” for dealing with migration between Britain and its “true friend”, Australia. Great no freedom of movement in Europe, but in Boris’s mad, mad, world, the Brits get to recolonise Africa, which in a sense they are doing anyway, and maybe even allow freedom of movement between them and their “true friends” ……. No need to speculate on who these “true friends” are?



Time to get Tony Blair in front of the ICC

“Tag der Deutschen Einheit” (German Unity Day) and a public holiday to celebrate the 1990 treaty which sealed the formal reunification of the country. It is a sort of Sunday on top of Sunday and a day where all the shops are closed.

Sitting in a kebab place, one of those little eateries which might constitute this part of the world’s equivalent to the British “greasy Spoon”, and the entertainment is being provided by the character not too far from me who is putting money simultaneously into two money eating machines. However, with no web access at home, I am determined to use this coffee supping, online, break to put down a couple of reflections.

And so it is back to John Wight’s article, which was mentioned in the post from the day before yesterday, and the bit where he quotes Christopher Hitchens referring to Hillary “killary” Clinton by saying that: “She and her husband haven’t met a foreign political donor they don’t like and haven’t taken from.” and if that is what she is doing when she is not in power, the mind boggles at what she might be doing once she holds office!

Well, of course, you can do a little bit real research into Bill’s time in the Oval Office, or take a serious look at Hillary when she was Secretary of State to find that out. Or, alternatively, you can read about, or watch something on, a “variation of the theme”, the alter ego, and there we are back to Tony Blair and why not give George Galloway’s ‘The Killings of Tony Blair’ a once over and maybe take a peek into Francis Beckett’s ‘Blair Inc.: The Man Behind the Mask’ . “A once over”, “a peek into” and I was talking about research. Well, let’s face it an academic chewing of the cud, a profound cognitive processing, of these criminal clowns, is hardly required.

Interesting bit in the book though where an employee from ‘The Office of Tony Blair’ takes exception to Francis Beckett allowing himself to be interviewed in George Galloway’s film. That exception appears to be based on the title of the film, which Mr Beckett says refers to the financial killings Blair has made since leaving office. Good one, Francis, and that explanation is most certainly a loophole of sorts, but really are we not also thinking about the bigger, much bigger crime?

The fact is that Blair, like Hillary and Bill Clinton, is bankrolled totally by an array of unsavoury characters. Indeed, when we look at those who have Blair on their payroll, it should hardly be surprising that this particular pompous, sanctimonious, hypocrite was capable of his very own crimes against humanity. Now, I for one don’t think that it is the Inland Revenue who should be prosecuting Mr Blair, but rather, time, perhaps, to get Tony in front of the ICC?