Greens Engage

Barkingside 21 draws attention to violence against Christians in Pakistan, and the peculiar British selectivity about international matters.

“On Wednesday 12th August the BBC reported on “Sectarian violence hits Pakistani town” an event that took place on 1st August. However, it was tucked away in the South Asia news section and was not deemed significant enough for the main world news page. It is an event that has gone largely un-noticed in the UK media and on the blogosphere. Even a post on the subject published on our own Red-i forum was withdrawn an hour or so later.”

It was brought to my attention by a local activist who happens to be a Pakistani Christian and he attended the protests outside 10 Downing Street and later outside the Pakistani Embassy in London. Also, as far as I can tell, not reported on mainstream media.

The story has been picked up since, [after I prodded an email discussion list] and Adrian gives a far more eloquent summary than I could, so just go and read that.”

Peter Tatchell, Green Party spokesperson on human rights, won the Observer Ethical Awards‘ Campaigner of the Year.

On Harry’s Place, Brett puts it well.

See Harry’s Place.

“From the river to the sea Palestine will be free” is about as unambiguous as it can be.

That and the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Peter Cranie is the prospective Green MEP candidate for the North West.

Still time to belatedly point to his Comment is Free piece, which begins:

“As 4 June approaches, a serious threat hangs over British politics. BNP leader Nick Griffin is a candidate in the North West England Euro election. If he is elected, this will be the biggest step forward for the far right in British history.

Anti-racist votes in the North West region for Labour, the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives will certainly count. No one can dispute this, as those parties will claim seven out of the eight regional seats. But it’s the eighth seat that Griffin is aiming for. Calling on everyone to once again get out and vote for red/yellow/blue simply won’t work on voters already disillusioned with the Westminster parties. But those few extra thousand votes could keep the Greens ahead of the BNP – and that is the scenario with the best chance of keeping Griffin out.”

In a recent piece on March 2nd Caroline Lucas put forward two incompatible positions.

First she put forward her support for dialogue with Hamas as long as Hamas recognises Israel:

“If the Palestinians can put together a government of genuine unity, based on tolerance, pluralism, and a commitment to previous peace process agreements that include the recognition of Israel, then it is the responsibility of the international community to accept it – regardless of whether or not it contains members of Hamas.”

Then she called Israel’s security barrier an “apartheid wall”.

The barrier was a response to terrorist bombers of the Second Intifada who deliberately targeted and killed hundreds of Israeli civilians inside Israel. Inside Israel (with some important exceptions, but with things moving in the right direction) Arab/Palestinian Israeli citizens, Jews and other minorities have equal rights. However, Israel’s conduct in its occupation of Palestinian lands and its dealings with Israeli settlers on the one hand and Palestinians on the other, are inherently racist. The separation and vastly different circumstances of Israeli settlers and Palestinians are blatantly obvious and appalling. The security barrier, while a response to terrorist incursions, was routed in such a way that it took in quantities of Palestinian land outside the Green Line. This deprived many Palestinians of their livelihoods. For example, the Palestinian village of Qalqilya, a longstanding site of attacks on Israel at its narrowest part (just 12km across), has become an encircled with a single Israeli-staffed passage to the outside world.

However, the term “apartheid wall” communicates a view that Israel and Palestine are, or should be, a single country, and this being the case, the barrier constitutes apartheid. I don’t think that Caroline Lucas tends to say that all borders constitute apartheid – only Israel’s.

It doesn’t make any sense to support recognition of Israel while in the same breath subtlely invalidating its existence. It’s no more possible to espouse peace without engaging seriously with the threats against Israel than it’s possible to espouse peace while turning a blind eye to the ongoing Israeli settlement activity.

Eco-socialist and author of the other-worldly ‘Overcoming Zionism’, ‘The Enemy of Nature‘ and other works,  Joel Kovel’s sayings and writings have featured on various occasions into the Green World. He is a considerable influence on Green anti-Zionism, who “understand[s] the desire to smash Zionism” and considers Israel an “abomination” which itself constitutes an occupation.

He has lost his job at Bard College or it lost him – the occasion for a number of retrospectives, including from the man himself (as many anti-Zionists with conspiracy beliefs do when things don’t go their way, he believes it was political rather than professional), a response from Judeosphere, this piece from Ignoblus:

“I once saw Kovel speak at my local lefty book shop. I attended with my wife. It’s perhaps worth noting that, while she’s become sympathetic to the concerns of Zionists since knowing me, she is not herself a Zionist and continues to view the creation of Israel as a mistake. She was quite struck with the absolute absence of any discussion of antisemitism and even put off by the repeated assertions that antisemitism was irrelevant to the discussion. The only reference to the Holocaust -something that really can’t be ignored in a discussion of Zionism- was to claim that it was a myth that Israel’s existence was necessary to prevent another Holocaust.

Further, he continually referred to his own book as “banned.” That was a blatant lie. In fact, his book was on sale at that very shop. The truth is that distribution of his book was suspended while the University of Michigan Press reviewed it’s relationship with Pluto Press. It was Pluto Press which published Kovel’s book, but using UM Press’s name. UM Press decided Kovel’s book was terrible and that they needed to sever their relationship to Pluto Press in order to protect their own reputation. However, when they reached that conclusion, they continued publishing Kovel’s book, citing academic freedom. So, rather than banning the book, UM Press continued to publish what they saw as an obviously inferior work. In his narcissistic rant about being let go from Bard, he continues to refer to the episode as “book burning.”

Although he never used words like “conspiracy” or “cabal,” Kovel’s version of history also contained many, many details that strongly suggested a conspiratorial worldview. For instance, he attributed US support for the creation of Israel monocausally to Jewish funding for Truman’s presidential campaign. Never mind that Truman had been a vocal ally to Zionism long before running for President.

Given the similarity between his organization’s name, The Committee for the Open Discussion of Zionism (CODOZ), to the blatantly antisemitic Committee for the Open Discussion of the Holocaust (CODOH), I find it difficult to ignore the possibility that these were intentional dogwhistles. Perhaps he’s really that ignorant of antisemitism that he doesn’t know to avoid such things (like Juan Cole’s recent advocacy for an America First movement), but then I think it’s still a revelatory Freudian slip. His sense of victimization and the hands of some powerful, vaguely defined (but constantly growing) group supposedly out to silence him is the same category of mistake -is the same funtionally- as antisemitism.

So, had Bard actually dismissed Kovel for his views -not his advocacy of a one-state solution, but his (borderline?) conspiratorial views on the power of Zionists- I’d probably support them in that. But they didn’t. They cut him to save money.”

That’s most of the post, but go there anyway.

According to student harassment advisor and Green Andrew Collingwood, who played with allegations of antisemitism as part of his political campaigning about Palestine.

He can’t have noticed that most campus antisemitism today emanates from anti-Zionists and their Palestine solidarity campaigns. Campaigning on behalf of Palestinians doesn’t have to be like that, but in Britain it often is.

In common with many people who are accused of racism, Andrew Collingwood is deeply upset and offended that he’s been called racist, and views it as an attempt to smear him on account of his Palestine Solidarity Campaign work.

But even some members of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign think that the PSC is too comfortable an environment for antisemitism – it has been for years. The cartoon wasn’t out of the ordinary.

One student in the comments:

“If something racist were to happen to me on campus, I honestly feel there would be no one I could go to.”

Many others want the people with concerns to get over it. But if you’re going to ask people who feel themselves subject to racism to get over it, you may as well write off the racism part of the harassment advisory service.

Nobody has to turn a blind eye to this, do they.

Update: And nobody should turn a blind eye to hate mail received by Andrew Collingwood. Sending hate mail is deplorable, futile, self-indulgent, and often extremely frightening for the recipient. Andrew Collingwood does not deserve hate mail. He deserves to be argued with, straight. Send hate mail and not only have you lost the argument but you’ve given up on persuading somebody.

On Comment is Free, Peter Tatchell says:

“It is therefore disturbing that significant sections (not all) of the left are flirting with Hamas. During the January protests in the UK against Israel’s barbaric bombardment of Gaza, there were frequent pro-Hamas chants and placards. “We are all Hamas now!” some marchers yelled. At one rally in Hyde Park, speakers on the main stage urged “Victory to Hamas!” and received tumultuous cheers of approval (with only a few boos).

I am tired of hearing leftwingers defend Hamas on the grounds that it was democratically elected. So what? The Israeli leaders are democratically elected but that does not make their war in Gaza right. A democratic mandate is not, by itself, sufficient to secure legitimacy for the government in Gaza – or anywhere else. If democratically elected governments violate human rights they forfeit their legitimacy, as in the case of Britain when it was torturing and assassinating Irish republican suspects in the 1970s and 80s.”

…

Another favourite left and liberal justification of Hamas is that it is less corrupt than its Palestinian rivals in Fatah and that it organises social programmes for the poor. You could say the same about the Nazis, compared to the indulgence and incompetence of some Weimar Republic leaders. No, a few good works do not exonerate Hamas. Yes, their critique of Fatah nepotism, pocket-lining and thuggism has some truth. But the alternative they are offering is far worse.”

Read it all.

(It’s not as if Peter Tatchell is the only one and he’s not constructing an argument to end Israel’s existence it’s not so worrying, but… for those diminishing few of us who aren’t international law experts it would be helpful if when calling Israeli military leaders war criminals, authors would to link to the articles of the Geneva Convention in question and to trustworthy commentary on how Israel’s actions relate to these. I haven’t seen this, to date. Regretting civilian deaths is one thing. Saying they were needless is another. Saying they were war crimes is very serious indeed. And calling them war crimes as confidently as most people are doing makes a trial kind of redundant…)

Back in 2004 when Sheik Yusuf Al Qaradawi was giving his blessing to suicide bombings, Peter Marshall observed on Newsnight: “Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi is, it’s worth reiterating, deemed an authority on these matters, generally seen, we’re assured and reassured, as mainstream”. If Ken Livingstone was trying to exert a moderating influence when he welcomed Al Qaradawi with a big hug as an “honoured guest” in 2004, the strategy was a failure. Al Qaradawi  hosts the popular Al Jazeera programme “Shariah and Life” from where he pronounces on and incites against not just Israel, but explicitly Jews, gay people, women, and other groups.

He’s not allowed into Britain.

After noting earlier unambiguous statements by Qaradawi on Al Jazeera, David T reproduces a translation which nobody – even those who are eager to defend Qaradawi – seems to dispute. The Holocaust was a divine punishment for Jews, Jews are Allah’s enemy, Al Qaradawi would like to shoot Jews as a jihadi:

“Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers.
[...]
January 28, 2009:
To conclude my speech, I’d like to say that the only thing I hope for is that as my life approaches its end, Allah will give me an opportunity to go to the land of Jihad and resistance, even if in a wheelchair. I will shoot Allah’s enemies, the Jews, and they will throw a bomb at me, and thus, I will seal my life with martyrdom. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds. Allah’s mercy and blessings upon you.”

Al Qaradawi is one of the clerics issuing fatwas on the shoddy and obviously racist Innovative Minds Israel boycott site, known as InMinds. Obviously racist because the first link in the menu – FAQs – leads to a page containing the following statement: “Whilst it is true that the cancerous zionist entity has got its tentacles hooked into numerous markets and economies – sucking each one to nourish itself, but this is no excuse for us not to do anything.” You could take out the word “zionist”, substitute “Jewish”, and the imagery would be identical to that which prevailed in publications like Der Stürmer in the run-up to the Holocaust.

Also obviously racist because, like Qaradawi, it uses Jews and Israelis interchangeably. The same FAQ page: “And Jewish groups such as B’Tselem and Gush Shalom have launched their own boycott Israeli goods campaigns”. There is no B’Tselem and Gush Shalom outside Israel, nor within Israel are either of them “Jewish groups”. And they aren’t in on the boycott – that’s just false.

Obviously racist because it repeatedly generalises about Muslims and denies the political diversity of Muslims. This is clearest on the fatwa page which attempts to enshrine the boycott as a quintessentially Muslim act.

And obviously racist because of the dangerous distinctions between Zionist and Jew decreed by these clerics – to the effect that the Jews who think that Israel should exist are Zionists and fair game: “The issue of the Jews is quiet separate from that of the Zionists, if the Muslims are victorious over the Zionists, the latter will meet the same fate as the deposed shah” (he was expelled from his homeland, lived his last years in fear of extradition, and died in exile).

It is imperative, as a political party which has decided to boycott Israel, that we put clear political distance between ourselves and organisations like InMinds. The difficulty here is that there is no firewall between what Greens stand for and what InMinds stands for. This allows InMinds to use the Green Party as part of its own racist boycott campaign. Some Greens have used InMinds as part of their boycott campaign.

Greens need to recognise that this is a negative association and take the relevant measures. Clearly, action against Israel attracts people who hate Jews, and they may have cameras and blogs. But given the spike in antisemitism directly related to the loudest (though most futile) forms of Palestine activism, isn’t it time – if it wasn’t already – to be explicit and specific in taking a stand against antisemitism?

Update: David T again responding to a commentator who argues that Al Qaradawi is a moderate pluralist prone to only the odd bit of hatred.

I hope those Greens who castrated our motion on contemporary antisemitism last conference read yesterday’s Guardian editorial:

“The government has also recognised that there are “specific indications that, unlike other forms of racism, antisemitism is being accepted within parts of society instead of being condemned.” The left fought a long and honourable battle for racial equality, but some within its ranks now risk sloppily allowing their horror of Israeli actions to blind them to antisemitism.”

See also Mark Townsend in today’s Observer.

Not that you should want to criticise Israel in particular (there is, after all, a whole world of violence going on out there and the intensity of interest in Israel is seriously weird in itself) but just to restate the obvious: it is easy to criticise Israel without implicating Jews.