Large Blue Footballs

Moving

2011-02-08T06:22:00.001-08:00

This blog has moved to http://largebluefootballs.wordpress.com/

This site will remain.

Iranian regime rewrites the story of Esther

2011-01-10T07:20:00.000-08:00

Given that the Iranian regime sponsors denial of the twentueth centiry Holocaust, I guess it shouldn't surprise us that the regime is now rewriting the Purim story. Here.

Ernest Lloyd, 1913-2010

2010-12-22T14:12:00.001-08:00

A very sad day for the Messianic movement. Here.

Antisemitism: the anti-imperialism of fools

2010-12-13T08:30:00.000-08:00

Steve Silver with a brilliant piece, here. I believe that, as well as beiong a freelance investigative journalist, Steve Silver is also a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain. What is the world coming to, when an adherent to a transparently godless ideology has clearer thinking on antisemitism than some evangelicals?

"These things were written down for our instruction"

2010-01-13T04:26:00.000-08:00

So, can someone please tell me what lessons God's people are to draw from this passage? Genuine question.

UCU: A schizophrenic union?

2010-01-13T04:23:00.000-08:00

UCU will be marking Holocaust Memorial Day on 27 January. Does this mean UCU is now taking antisemitism seriously? I doubt it.

UCU: can the last one out, please turn out the lights

2009-12-10T04:46:00.000-08:00

For the last few years, my trade union has been obsessed with boycotting Israeli (and only ever Israeli) academics. In the process, it has treated legitimate concerns about antisemitism with contempt, click here for a long list of evidence. Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, UCU invited a man who has been charged with hate speech against Jews to strategise an anti-Israel boycott. As if that wasn't bad enough, senior figures within UCU have subsequently sought to justify this, here and here. Reasons to remain a member of UCU on a postcard, please.

The Independent still has Howard Jacobson - thank God

2009-12-08T00:05:00.000-08:00

Here.

A world of walls

2009-11-10T00:10:00.000-08:00

Execllent post from Harry's Place, here

EMEU: taking the ostrich approach towards antisemitism?

2009-11-09T04:54:00.000-08:00

You can read about Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding here. I have no particular problem with their mission statement - at least in principle; though the fact that they appear to be either unaware of or indifferent towards Israeli Messianic Jews, and implicitly condemn Israeli counterterrorism measures without condemning (or even mentioning) Palestinian terrorism gives me little confidence that EMEU has much more than a one-sided anti-Israel agenda. Anyway, they've got an executive briefing coming up, which you can read about here. You'll note that one of the speakers is Sami Awad of Bethlehem Bible College, whose radical anti-Zionist stance you can read about here, and of course Reverend Dr Stephen Sizer PhD, whose antisemitic (there is no other word for it) output I have written about in detail here and here. (Sizer has yet to make any adequate response whatsoever.) Let's hope the other speakers are a sight better, or the chances of the Executive Briefing furthering Middle East "Understanding" are slim indeed.

If the Bible took place in Europre and the BNP were in power

2009-10-27T09:22:00.000-07:00

Here

Future Israel conference

2009-10-27T08:40:00.000-07:00

A Future Israel Conference, based on Barry Horner's book of the same title, was recently concluded at Twin Cities Bible Church, St. Paul, US. Here is a link to the audio files.

http://www.futureisraelministries.org/future_israel.html

I haven't yet listened to it but can thoroughly recommend Barry Horner's book of the same title, here and here.

Wonders never cease

2009-10-21T04:29:00.000-07:00

A genuinely antiracist article on the Guardian's Comment is Free section that I actually agree with, here. (For why this is so amazing, see here)

Medieval style antisemitism in a modern European newspaper

2009-09-01T03:54:00.000-07:00

Engage on the blood libel in the Swedish (leftish!) daily Aftonbladet, here - this just beggars belief.

Some typically astute reflections from PetraMB here

Things that depress me

2009-08-14T00:53:00.000-07:00

Antisemitism in the mainstream UK media, here

Tom Gross on Fatah, Israel's "peace partner", here

A simple question to Daniel Blanche.

2009-08-07T03:14:00.000-07:00

Daniel Blanche works as a staff worker for the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship (UCCF).

Daniel has blogged approvingly about Ben White's book, Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner's Guide, here.

When I and others began to challenge Daniel about White's use of fake quotes, citation of Holocaust Denier Roger Garaudy as an authoritative source, and use of other dubious sources, Daniel pulled out of the debate.

I have twice posted the following question on this post on Blanche's blog. Twice it has been deleted. The question is as follows:

"Daniel: do you think it is acceptable for your friend Ben White to cite the Holocaust Denier Roger Garaudy as an authoritative source and to use fake quotes in his book?"

I have just posted my question for a third time. I await to see whether Blanche will answer, or will go on courageously deleting.

More White lies and Israeli 'apartheid'

2009-08-05T06:11:00.000-07:00

Here. I was chuffed to be linked to by Modernityblog and by Petra M-B.

A "tissue of lies"

2009-07-10T08:54:00.000-07:00

The anti-Zionist propagandist Ben White has just released a book called 'Israeli Apartheid: A Beginners' Predictably enough, this is gaining plaudits from all the usual suspects. For a detailed refutation of White's book, I recommend the essay by Jonathan Hoffman at http://blog.z-word.com/2009/07/lies-damn-lies-and-the-apartheid-analogy/.

This makes me ill

2009-07-07T01:51:00.000-07:00

http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/marwa-el-sherbini/

Four-year old abused by school racists

2009-07-04T01:43:00.000-07:00

Here. It makes my blood run cold.

A proud moment

2009-06-29T13:11:00.000-07:00

I am now officially part of the Powerful International Zionist Conspiracy.

Big questions for Stephen Sizer

2009-06-13T07:39:00.000-07:00

The Christian monthly Evangelicals Now recently featured a review of Ilan Pappe's book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. You can read the review, written by Mike Moore, here.

Stephen Sizer, took exception to the review and critiqued it here, in a post headed 'Holocaust Denial?'. For good measure, I have reproduced the whole of Sizer's critique (which includes comments from Ilan Pappe) in bold at the end of this post.

Where to begin with fisking Sizer's post? Here are a few thoughts.

1. The history

Sizer accuses Moore of denying the Palestinian Nakba. Moore doesn't: he questions whether the Palestinian refugees fled because of preplanned 'forcible expulsion'. Pappe (and Sizer) would have us believe that all of the Palestinian refugees fled because they were forcibly expelled as part of a preconceived, deliberate Zionist plan. Anyone with a fleeting knowledge of Israeli historiography will know that this is the line taken by the so-called 'New Historians', in contrast to the line taken by writers such as Ephraim Karsh or Sir Martin Gilbert, whom I will label as 'traditionalists'. Good examples of Karsh's work are available here and here. The thrust of the traditionalist line is that many if not most of the Palestinian refugees fled because they were commanded to do so by their own leaders, so that they would not get caught up in a war unleashed by the surrounding Arab states on the fledgling state of Israel. This view is supported, among other things, by Arab voices quoted in a Palestinian authority daily
and by statements such as these. Stephen Sizer and Ilan Pappe are invited to comment on how such candid statements by Arabs fit into their own thesis that the Nakba was All Israel's Fault.

2. Other views of Pappe

Let's move on to the response to Pappe by other historians. Karsh labels one of Pappe's previous books as 'disgraceful'. Yoav Gelber called him a 'charlatan'. Seth Frantzman accuses him of 'flunking history':
"As a work of scholarship, Pappé's book falls short, and it does so in a particularly damning way. He ignores context and draws far broader conclusions than evidence allows by cherry-picking some reports and ignoring other sources entirely. He does not examine Arab intentions in the five months between the U.N. endorsement of Palestinian partition and Israel's independence, nor does he consider the widespread public statements by Arab officials in Palestine and in neighboring states declaring their goal of eradicating the Jewish presence in Palestine. It is obvious why a polemicist such as Pappé would cleanse—so to speak—his narrative of any such references: To avoid doing so would strike at the core of the reality that he wishes to foist upon his readers, one which precisely inverts the historical record and turns a coordinated Arab attempt at ethnically cleansing Palestine of its Jews into a Jewish attempt at ethnically cleansing Arabs.

Pappé's writings may win plaudits among his new British peers, whose disdain for the state of Israel is legendary. But his disregard for the obligations of the historian and his indifference to academic integrity condemn his work to the realm of the polemic, not scholarship."

Perhaps most significantly, Pappe was also denounced in the strongest possible terms by Benny Morris, here, here and here: 'This truly is an appalling book. Anyone interested in the real
history of Palestine/Israel and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
would do well to run vigorously in the opposite direction.' This is important because Morris at one time 'walked a stretch together in uneasy
companionship [with Pappe]' . In short, it seems clear that Pappe is viewed with disdain by many of his own academic peers. Can Stephen Sizer tell us why, in light of all this, he himself is so keen to defend Pappe? What does he know that these professional historians do not?

3. Pappe's methodology

Echoing Efraim Karsh, Mike Moore referred to Pappe as a 'self-confessed post-modern relativist for whom historical research is a "backward-looking projection of political attitudes and agendas regardless of actual facts". Karsh's assessment derived, among other things, from the candid statement of Pappe in 'A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples' that

'My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the "truth" when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous. This book is written by one who admits compassion for the colonized not the colonizer; who sympathizes with the occupied not the occupiers.'

Yoav Gelber's comments are also worth re-reading, here.

In the light of such comments by both Pappe himself and by his peers, Sizer is again asked to explain his own fondness for Ilan Pappe. Whether or not Pappe refers to himself as 'post-modernist' seems irrelevant.

4. Tantura

Mike Moore wrote:

'[Pappe] repeats an allegation of the deliberate massacre of 200 Palestinians in the village of Tantura by the Jewish Alexandroni Brigade. Pappe's story relies heavily on a discredited doctoral thesis by Teddy Katz, a graduate of Haifa University, who was found to have 'gravely and severly' falsified his evidence. Nevertheless, in the Spring 2001 issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies, Ilan Pappe defended Katz, insisting that his conclusions were correct, even if his facts were not, since historical research need not be based on facts!'

When Sizer asked Pappe for his comments, Pappe replied 'Katz’s thesis is reliable but in any case it is not the basis for the Tantura affair, which is only two pages in the book, but my own research into the archives and oral history.'

On the allegations of the Tantura massacre, Yoav Gelber is worth quoting again, at length:

"Pappe reiterates endlessly that a massacre took place in Tantura. Unfortunately, saying it does not make it so. Reiterating slogans has nothing to do with historiography or truth. I have re-read the testimonies of the three Jewish witnesses alleged by Pappe to confirm the massacre (Ambar, Vitkon
and Lishansky) only to find that despite Katz's aggressive manner of questioning them (contrary to the teachings of all Pappe and Firro's authorities on oral history) they all denied the allegation.

Pappe's version of Sheikh Nimr al-Khatib's whereabouts in 1948 is absolutely baseless except for one fact - the Sheikh was indeed a member of the National Committee of the Arabs in Haifa until the attempt on his life. Al-Khatib's presence in Haifa later than 19/2/1948 (the date of the attempt), however, is not mentioned in any document. If Pappe has such a document as he claims, let him scan it and put it on the web. Since he regards the al-Khatib story as a cornerstone of his argumentation, his nonsense illustrates the validity of the entire case.

The General Staff's document in question is now on the web (see:
http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~censor/katz-directory), and the readers are invited
to look in it for a "mass grave" that Pappe now declares was mentioned by
the sender. A "minor" detail indeed."

If Teddy Katz thesis is indeed reliable, then why, according to Rikki Hollander, did the University of Haifa find fabrications and distortions of quotes in Katz’s work and disqualify the thesis, removing it from the university’s bookshelves? Again, according to Hollander, why did Katz insist under oath that he had been misunderstood and that he had never believed there was a massacre? And later write the following?

'After checking and re-checking the evidence, I am now certain beyond any doubt that there is no basis at all for the allegation that after Tantura surrendered, there was any killing of residents by the Alexandroni Brigade, or any other fighting unit of the IDF. I would like to clarify that what I wrote was misunderstood, and that I did not mean to suggest that there had been a massacre in Tantura, nor do I believe that there ever was a massacre at Tantura.'

Why does Ilan Pappe, and by extension Stephen Sizer, consider Katz' thesis to be reliable?

5. The comparison with Holocaust Denial.

Sizer heads the piece 'Holocaust Denial?' and comments that 'Thankfully it is a crime in some countries to deny the Holocaust. It is a shame that it is not yet a crime to deny the Palestinian Nakba, as Moore does.' In Sizer's mind, Moore's robust critique of Pappe is equivalent to denying the Holocaust. In light of all the above, it is clear that this is at best ludicrous and at worse downright scurrilous on Sizer's part. There is no possibility whatsoever of Holocaust Denial being a legitimate position to hold. Yet there is every possibility of there being alternative explanations for the Nakba than that advanced by Pappe and Sizer. To equate the two is a particularly obscene example of immoral equivalence on Sizer's part; almost as obscene as labelling a picture of Israel's security barrier with the caption 'Arbeit macht frei.'

6. Sizer's alternative

As an alternative to Mike Moore's review, Sizer instead suggests Stephen Lendman's 'much more balanced review' at Global Research here. I'll leave it to others to decide whether or not the review is balanced, but one wonders why Sizer is directing people to a website which speculates on whether 9/11 was an inside job. One also wonders why he considers Stephen Lendman to be a reliable source of information: Stephen Lendman is a regular contributor to Ziopedia.org, a website which aims to 'to demask and expose Zionist crimes and Jewish supremacism as our contribution to the fight against the "Jew World Order".' Has Stephen Sizer not learnt his lesson about encouraging others to read material written by antisemites?

7. Pappe & the neo-Nazi newspaper

Mike Moore wrote, 'Pappe's anti-Israel bias is so extreme that he recently gave an in-depth interview to the German anti-Semitic neo-Nazi paper National Zeitung, in which he repeated his charges against Israel.'

When asked about this by Sizer, Pappe responded:

'The interview in Germany. I gave a press conference that was published also in that newspaper. On the day the interview appeared there I published a special note to all the German press that I deplore and rebuke the positions of this newspaper and have nothing in common with its agenda and views.'

I'll leave it to others whether this (translation into English available here) is an 'in-depth interview' given to a specific newspaper or a general press conference given to many journalists which somehow ended up in the National Zeitung. The question in any case remains: why would a neo-Nazi newspaper be interested in Pappe's work in any event? What is Pappe doing to make his work useless to antisemites? The same questions can, of course, be asked of Stephen Sizer, a man who gave an interview to American racist Mark Dankof (apparently arranged by his publisher) and whose own work is so admired by a variety of antisemitic and white supremacist sites. (Interestingly, both Sizer and Lendman are feted by the Revisionist Clarion.)

8. Conclusions

The last time I wrote an in-depth critique of Sizer, he responded by insisting that he shares Jewish concerns about the rise of antisemitism and that he is working to defeat it. Is he working to defeat antisemitism by linking to Stephen Lendman, by comparing a critique of a revisionist historian with Holocaust Denial and by defending a man who is admired by a German neo-Nazi newspaper? Methinks Rev Sizer needs to work a little harder yet.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sizer's post is reproduced in full below. All hyperlinks are in Sizer's original.

Holocaust Denial?

I was saddened but not surprised to read Mike Moore cynical ‘review’ of Professor Ilan Pappe’s “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” in last month’s Evangelicals Now.

Don't get me wrong. EN is a fine newspaper. I subscribe, as does our church. I read it avidly. I even contribute occasionally when asked. I just find it a little strange to read such a one sided and wholly negative 'review' of a book by a Jewish author about the Palestinian Nakba reviewed by a pro-Zionist Christian in an evangelical paper. Was the review commissioned or more likely sent unsolicited and used to fill a gap? I'll give EN the benefit of the doubt.

Thankfully it is a crime in some countries to deny the Holocaust. It is a shame that it is not yet a crime to deny the Palestinian Nakba, as Moore does.

The simple fact is that one in four refugees in the world today, according to the United Nations, is a Palestinian. Where did they come from? Over 500 towns and villages erased from the map of Palestine in 1948-1949.

Far from “leaving no trace” as Moore suggests, there are over 5 million Palestinian refugees registered with the UN today who still have the keys and title deeds to their homes in what is now Israel. (see here and here for more information)

I took the liberty of asking Professor Pappe to respond to the specific criticisms which Moore makes. He replied:

1. The interview in Germany. I gave a press conference that was published also in that newspaper. On the day the interview appeared there I published a special note to all the German press that I deplore and rebuke the positions of this newspaper and have nothing in common with its agenda and views.

2. I did not say that I am using oral histories instead of military archives, half of the book is based on the latter!, I am using them in conjunction. I do have my doubts on the reports of the IDF, as one would and should have about them today.

3. The basis for the allegation of expulsion in the first five chapters of the book are based on the Israeli military archives not on a post modernist notions. I never declared myself to be a post modernist and I am not a post modernist scholar.

4. Katz’s thesis is reliable but in any case it is not the basis for the Tantura affair, which is only two pages in the book, but my own research into the archives and oral history.

5. Finally, none of the professional Israeli historians refute that the half of Palestine’s population was expelled, they do not share the shame that I feel about it.

Evangelicals Now is highly regarded for its factual reporting and balanced book reviews. Mike Moore’s review was neither.

You can read the review and decide for yourself here

Stephen Lendman has written a much more balanced review for Global Research here

Watch Ilan Pappe on the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine here

Ilan Pappe's website
And here is one of the best sites for maps showing the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Why we must reclaim antiracism from the far left

2009-06-12T14:53:00.000-07:00

David T on Unite against Fascism's dismal record on antisemitism, here. See also here and here

"See no evil" Part III: Israel, anti-Zionism, antisemitism, and British evangelicals

2009-06-03T11:26:00.000-07:00

For Part I, see here
For Part II, see here

Part III: why is Dick Lucas, respected evangelical leader, going to speak at Stephen Sizer's church? When will senior evangelical leaders start taking Sizer to task for all these things?

Is the problem that British evangelicals don't know, or that they don't think antisemitism matters?

Oh, and in relation to this post of Rev Sizer's, Stephen Sizer might consider why neo-Nazis took to Ilan Pappe so much, as David Hirsh quite properly asked here. Of course, Rev Sizer could also ask why neo-Nazis like his own output so much, but on past form he is more likely to refuse to engage with the majority of the points I make, and threaten me with police action.

The lunatics take over the UCU asylum - again

2009-05-27T14:13:00.000-07:00

Another year, another entirely predictable attempt by the national congress of my trade union, the University and Colleges Union, to exclude Israeli, and only Israeli, academics from British campuses. David Hirsh chronicles developments here. Some points to note:

- the boycott motion was passed in defiance of democratic norms, here and here

- the boycott motion was passed despite clear legal advice that it would be illegal, indeed the Socialist Worker Party-led National Executive decided to suppress the legal advice, here

- Proponents of the boycott motion included Tom hickey, who has in the past spoken in front of a reading list featuring the work of Holocaust Denier Roger Garaudy; the Holocaust falsifier Haim Bresheeth; Mike Cushman, who circulates antisemitc emails; and Sean Wallis, who also appears to embrace antisemitic conspiracy theories.

- A proposed amendment to investigate antisemitism-related resignations from the union was voted down.

- And, of course, the party driving the boycott motion is the Socialist Workers' Party, a group whose explanation of the Holocaust omits any reference to Jews and which has in the past promoted the openly antisemitic Gilad Atzmon.

A motion which is aimed at helping the Palestinians, which expresses 'legitimate criticism' of the policies of the Israeli government and which is in no way antisemitic? Don't believe a word of it.

FOOTNOTE: it would be lovely if the church was different from the world in this respect. But, since the Anglican boycott drive is spearheaded by a man who, for all his pretty words, police threats and protestations to the contrary, has yet to provide any decent response whatsoever to the well-documented charges against him - sadly this is very much not the case.

How to wreck a trade union

2009-05-14T09:22:00.000-07:00

Modernityblog sums up the latest anti-Zionist and thoroughly antidemocratic shenanigans in UCU here. It truly beggars belief.

Getting under George Galloway's skin

2009-05-14T09:20:00.000-07:00

As Gene says here, people really should do this more often...

"See no evil" Part II: Israel, anti-Zionism, antisemitism, and British evangelicals

2009-05-12T12:03:00.000-07:00

(For Part I, see here.)

Stephen Sizer commends the Pope for repudiating antisemitism, here. But when will evangelicals take Stephen Sizer to task for apparently circulating antisemitic emails, accusing those who are concerned about antisemitism of acting in bad faith, slipping into antisemitic rhetoric about 'the lobby', citing or cooperating with Holocaust deniers, turning a blind eye to Israeli pain and citing various other dubious sources, the interview he gave to American racist Mark Dankof (apparantly arranged by IVP USA!), using openly antisemitic language in a national newspaper, insulting the memory of those who died in the Holocaust, subtly insinuating Israeli complicity in 9/11, rewriting history and misrepresenting those he disagrees with? (Not to mention threatening those who dare to criticise him with police action, whilst himself manifestly failing to engage with most of the points put to him.) No time soon, it would seem, since Sizer was recently asked to speak at the London School of Theology. Whatever evangelicals may think of Sizer's theology and politics, the fact that they continue to give him a platform tells me that evangelicals either aren't aware of these aspects of Sizer's writings, or think that they just don't matter. For shame.

Stephen Sizer on anti-Semitism

2009-05-01T13:27:00.000-07:00

"I repudiate anti-Semitism unequivocally. Anti-Semitism is a form of racism," Stephen Sizer said."

Oh, really?

Two must-read pieces

2009-05-01T13:18:00.000-07:00

When the CST say “Seven Jewish Children” is antisemitic, it is time to take the charge seriously, here

David T on the fight against anti-Semitism, here: "There are some who are prominent within anti-Zionism who are also opponents of anti-semitism. Andy Newman, and even George Galloway, have been fierce in their condemnation of anti-Jewish racism. Yet, when it comes to the crunch, they’re enthusiastic “neverthelessers”. You can’t cheer on Hamas - hand money over to Hamas, even - but either ignore or attempt to explain away their genocidal antisemitism, and still claim to be an anti-racist."

The revival* of Russian antisemitism?

2009-04-04T17:00:00.000-07:00

Russia expels four rabbis in a year, here

* Assuming, that is, that it ever died in the first place...

Debunking the Nazism-Israel comparison

2009-04-04T16:54:00.000-07:00

Excellent piece by Norm Geras, here

Warning signs

2009-03-30T09:46:00.000-07:00

Two quite brilliant, if chilling, pieces on the resurgence of antisemitism in Britan

Howard Jacobson, here

Eve Garrard, here

How to convince people that you are not antisemitic

2009-03-21T04:35:00.000-07:00

If Melanie Phillips wrote an article which accused me of hoping that would Israel would disappear and of giving interviews to, endorsing or forwarding material from American white supremacists and Holocaust deniers, I guess there are a number of things I could do.

Firstly, I could try to deny its factual accuracy. I could say that I categorically deny any position that threatens Israeli sovereignty. That might be tricky, though, because when I was in Iran not so long ago, I reportedly said this:

"Asked to comment on the United Nations requirement to repatriate the Palestinian refugees to their homeland, he said that repatriation of Palestinians to their own territory will be effective in retaking their own country, because, when the Palestinian refugees come to their home, they will form majority of the population and would form a multi-ethnic state including Jews, Muslims and Christians."

[UPDATE: Stephen Sizer says this report misquotes what he said.]

I could also insist that I "have never knowingly, to use her words, ‘given interviews to, endorsed or forwarded material from American white supremacists and Holocaust deniers’." That would leave someone needing to explain the existence of various emails apparently sent out by me, including:

this one which contains commentary by Holocaust Denier Michael Hoffmann II
this one containing an article by conspiracy theorist Michael Collins Piper
not forgetting this one containing an article by one Ted Pike ("an outspoken critic of ADL's evil Jewish leadership") taken from the website of conspiracy theorist Jeff Rense
Oh - and not forgetting this one either, seemingly sent out by me to the Holocaust Denier Israel Shamir, on first name terms, asking him to cooperate with me.
Oh - and also this email which seems to have come from me and which ended up in the inbox and on the blog of former National Front leader Martin Webster. (Of course, I can't control who signs up for my mailings or where they end up... but why is Martin Webster so keen on what I have sent?)

As for the radio interview, that would leave me and my publisher with a bit of explaining to do as well.

Next, I could slip into one of my old favourites, "the Livingstone Formulation". Not for the first nor even for the second time, I could suggest that someone is raising the spectre of antisemitism in an dishonest effort to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policies - specifically, I could write this -

"Is [Melanie Phillips' piece aiming] to deflect attention from Israel’s recent wanton killing spree in Gaza? Or was it written out of frustration at the decision of the Church of England Synod to divest its shares in Caterpillar? Or just part of the wider Zionist lobby targetting Barak Obama’s new Administration? Or is it perhaps a precursor to an imminent pre-emptive attack against Iran? Lets hope not otherwise it won’t be the libel or calumny we are debating but whether her friends who seem anxious for Armageddon are right after all."

It would seemingly not concern me that repeatedly accusing Jewish people of raising the spectre of antisemitism as a dishonest ploy to stifle criticism of Israel's policies might in itself be an antisemitic claim (because it implies that the [usually] Jewish people who do it are dishonest), nor that they might be doing so because, in light of those emails which seem to have left my outbox (not to mention my subtle insinuation of Israeli complicity in 9/11 or my repeated use of dubious sources), they might in fact have good reasons for doubting my philosemitic credentials.

Thirdly, I could lapse into conspiracy theory, suggesting [as above] that Melanie Phillips' piece is part of the wider plans of the wicked Zionist lobby working on both sides of the Atlantic to target Obama's administration, to instigate a pre-emptive attack against Iran, and to discredit Chas Freeman (and me). Again, it would seemingly not overly concern me that the myth of an all-powerful Zionist lobby controlling American policy is just that - a myth. And, like the Independent, I might find it difficult to convince people that I really do emphasize the difference between the "Zionist lobby" and the older antisemitic trope of a "Jewish lobby", because in the past I have specifically written that Dole & Clinton were cowed by the "Jewish Lobby". It would of course help me to gush over the work of Mearsheimer and Walt (which I refer to as "dynamite"), even though numerous commentators have challenged its claims, notably Alan Dershowitz who pinpoints numerous factual errors and who summarises it as "the newest - and oldest - Jewish conspiracy". Too bad that Dennis MacShane, someone who knows a bit more about government than me and whose work I have promoted on my own blog, demolishes the work of Mearsheimer and Walt, summarising it as "smears against Jews", concluding with the telling comment that "Jews, Israel and the fabled 'lobby' did not exist in any papers I saw or discussions I had as a government minister." (MacShane, Globalising Hatred - The New Antisemitism, pp. 137 & 138)

Fourthly, I could encourage my hearers to combat racism: I could urge them to "Support the United Nations Durban Review Conference to be held in Geneva in April. The Durban Review Conference, to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, 20-24 April 2009, will evaluate progress towards the goals set by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa, in 2001. The Review Conference will serve as a catalyst to fulfilling the promises of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action agreed at the 2001 World Conference through reinvigorated actions, initiatives and practical solutions, illuminating the way toward equality for every individual and group in all regions and countries of the world." It would seemingly not occur to me, and certainly not to my hearers, that the Durban 2001 conference turned into a cesspit of antisemitism (sorry! - "legitimate criticism of the policies of the Israeli government"), nor that numerous observers, including veteran anti-apartheid campaigner Benjamin Pogrund, consider that the 2009 conference will be little better, nor of course that one of the goals set in 2001 (point 65 of the Durban and Declaration and Programme of Action) was this: "We recognize the right of refugees to return voluntarily to their homes and properties in dignity and safety, and urge all States to facilitate such return". Would that be a call for the Palestinian right of return, long recognised as a euphemism for Israel's destruction? Whoops!

Finally, I could turn to the Bible. In critiquing statements allegedly made by Israeli military rabbis [which, if accurately reported, this blogger would also condemn], I could ask this question:

"One has to ask which rabbinate? Perhaps the one the Apostle John refers to in the Book of Revelation 2:9-10, 3:9?"

This would be ironic, seeing as I devote a lot of my time to criticising those who see the Bible as predicting events in the modern-day Middle East. It would also be a bit silly, seeing as the people referred to in those passages were based in first-century Smyrna and Philadelphia respectively. It would also be tricky exegetically, since both groups apparently "claim[ed] they were Jews but [were] not" - suggesting they may in fact have been Gentiles claiming to be Jews (something which has parallels in later history) - but who ever heard of a non-Jewish Israeli rabbi? It could also be a PR disaster for me, because a simple Google search shows how that phrase in Revelation has been and still is misused by antisemites today, whilst one of the leading works on left-wing anti-Semitism shows how the trope of Satanic or Satan-worshipping Jews has a long and inglorious history. And I wouldn't want anybody to accuse me of being antisemitic, would I?

When anti-Zionism become anti-Semitism...

2009-03-18T04:19:00.000-07:00

... in Holland, here - note especially the chants of "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas" at about 1:05.

Beware the new axis of evangelicals and Islamists

2009-03-06T05:32:00.000-08:00

Melanie Phillips, here. One of her subjects, Stephen Sizer, shows how much he really cares about antisemitism by suggesting, here, that one can combat racism by supporting "the United Nations Durban Review Conference to be held in Geneva in April. The Durban Review Conference, to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, 20-24 April 2009, will evaluate progress towards the goals set by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa, in 2001." You can have a look at the kind of goals set in 2001 here. Benjamin Pogrund, a veteran of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, has little confidence that the Durban Review will be any different. Anyone who really cares about racism would, not for the first time, be well-advised to do the exact opposite of what Reverend Sizer suggests.

Mainstreaming of antisemitism: blood libel and conspiracy theory in the Daily Mirror

2009-03-06T05:12:00.000-08:00

Here.

Combatting anti-Zionism and antisemitism in the Chinese-speaking world

2009-03-03T04:11:00.000-08:00

hkseagull.wordpress.com

When anti-Zionism becomes anti-Semitism II

2009-02-26T15:30:00.000-08:00

In South Africs, here

According to Colonel Gadaffi, here (yes, a world leader really does believe Israel is responsible for Darfur)

The London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism

2009-02-20T09:40:00.000-08:00

http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/the-london-declaration-on-combating-antisemitism/

Let’s see the ‘criticism’ of Israel for what it really is

2009-02-18T04:34:00.000-08:00

Howard Jacobson on contemporary antisemitism here - it is devastatingly brilliant.

As is Norm Geras' piece on accusations of war crimes made against Israel, here

When anti-Zionism becomes anti-Semitism

2009-02-06T10:16:00.000-08:00

In Venezuela, here and here.

In Iceland, here

In Britain, here and here.

In South Africa, here

in Italy, here

Why did Egypt shelter Nazis? - here

When anti-Zionism becomes anti-Semitism

2009-02-06T09:55:00.000-08:00

In Venezuela, here and here.

In Iceland, here

In Britain, here and here.

In South Africa, here

in Italy, here

Why did Egypt shelter Nazis? - here

Worst wave of hate for quarter of a century

2009-01-16T04:49:00.000-08:00

From the Jewish Chronicle

Anglo-Jewry is in the middle of the worst outbreak of antisemitism in Britain since the Community Security Trust started keeping records a quarter of a century ago.

Since the start of the Israeli offensive into Gaza on December 27, more than 150 incidents across the country have been recorded.

CST director of communications Mark Gardner said: “Antisemites are using an overseas conflict as an excuse for their racism, and this should be clearly condemned by all sectors of society. In particular, we are seeing the inevitable antisemitic impact of many years of anti-Israel hysteria, in addition to an enraged response to TV and newspaper images of this conflict.”

There have been assaults on individuals, an arson attack on a synagogue, dozens of incidents involving hate mail, emails and threatening and abusive telephone calls and many daubings and graffiti.

Communal leaders have been involved in a flurry of political activities this week, meeting Foreign Secretary David Miliband on Monday and Communities and Local Government secretary Hazel Blears on Tuesday.

Jeremy Newmark of the Jewish Leadership Council and Jon Benjamin of the Board of Deputies, said: “The community should feel reassured that their concerns are being clearly and regularly articulated at the heart of government during these difficult times.”

One aim of the meetings was to persuade the government to speak out about the startling rise in antisemitism. The only mention by a minister had been a letter from Mr Miliband to Board of Deputies president Henry Grunwald last Friday, in which he said: “I am alarmed at the attempts of extremist voices in the UK to use the conflict to legitimise antisemitic sentiments. I remain concerned by reports of this rhetoric manifesting itself in violent acts and threats against UK synagogues and the Jewish community.”

On Tuesday, the CST, in a deputation with the Board and the Jewish Leadership Council, presented Ms Blears and junior minister Sadiq Khan with a dossier of the incidents. They outlined their concerns about security, particularly near schools and campuses.

After the meeting, Ms Blears said: “The government strongly condemns the increase in antisemitic incidents and understands the fears and concerns of the Jewish community in Britain. British Jews, like all communities, must be able to live their lives free from fear of verbal or physical attack.”

On Wednesday, Ms Blears sent a letter to all synagogues in Britain saying that the government would not “tolerate racists and trouble-makers disrupting our local communities” and that “international events, however distressing, provide no justification for violence”. She said it was “important to recognise, and to build on, the excellent interfaith work and dialogue that both the Muslim and Jewish communities have developed in recent years”.

A young Orthodox man was viciously beaten after last Wednesday’s pro-Israel rally in what is perhaps the most serious incident.

Daniel Lowe, from Hendon, a bearded Orthodox Jew who wears a kippah, was a founding member of MuJewz, the Muslim-Jewish dialogue group at Oxford University. He had attended last Wednesday night’s pro-Israel rally in Kensington and was on his way to visit friends nearby afterwards when he was attacked.

He said: “As I was about to knock on their door, someone behind me said hello.” He turned to find two men of Asian appearance, one wearing a Palestinian flag on his jacket, the other wearing a keffiyeh. “They asked me where I had been. When I told them it was none of their business, they punched me in the head, pushed me to the ground and kicked me.”

Mr Lowe said the attack made him even more determined to attend Sunday’s Trafalgar Square event: “Jews shouldn’t be attacked for expressing their views in public.”

On Tuesday, a gang of Palestinian supporters forced their way into the offices in central London of the Israel lobbying organisation Bicom after a man called saying he was delivering a parcel.

Eight men and women — one armed with a loudhailer — shouted at and intimidated staff, ripped out computer cables, cut telephone lines and threw leaflets out of the windows.

One staff member said: “They were very aggressive, and asked whether we were Jewish and why we were supporting Israel. It was very frightening.”

It is understood that detectives at Westminster are investigating the criminal damage and viewing CCTV footage of the incident.

Bicom chief executive Lorna Fitzsimons said: “The vandalism and thuggery at our offices and against my staff this morning was utterly reprehensible. Bicom is a pro-peace organisation that promotes understanding and dialogue, often promoting moderate Palestinian voices for the sake of a speedy and peaceful resolution to the conflict in the Middle East.”

Both Marks & Spencer and John Lewis contacted suppliers this week to ask whether goods they stocked originated from Israel.

But both companies insisted that they were regular routine calls and that the timing was coincidental.

On Saturday, three protestors were arrested after occupying an Israeli-owned cosmetics store in central London.

The protestors chained themselves to the door of the Ahava store in Covent Garden, forcing it to close for around five hours. They also hung a banner in the window accusing the company of “funding Israeli war crimes in Gaza”.

A protest in Belfast on Saturday by pro-Palestinian campaigners against a stall selling Israeli products is being investigated by police as a racially motivated incident. Video footage posted on the internet showed the Sea Spa stall, which sells Dead Sea cosmetics, being deluged with leaflets from a balcony above as demonstrators shouted “Boycott Israeli goods”.

In Bristol, one man was arrested after about 30 pro-Palestinian protestors entered a city centre branch of Marks & Spencer, filled their trollies with Israeli produce and then refused to pay.

Birmingham City Council failed to agree a statement on the Middle East crisis after a debate on Tuesday. Both the ruling Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition and the Labour opposition had released statements before the meeting supporting an immediate ceasefire, but could not resolve their differences. A discussion document supporting sanctions against Israel had been presented by four out of the 120 city councillors, from the Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative and Respect parties. But it was not tabled as a resolution, nor was any vote taken.

A speech by Muslim academic Azam Tamimi, who spoke at last Saturday’s anti-Israel rally, shouting: “We’re all Hamas now,” has been reported to the police.

A CST spokesman said it had taken “numerous enquiries” about whether the speech breached anti-terrorism legislation.

“The CST will do its utmost to ensure that the police are made aware of our community’s concerns. We have been asked about a speech at last Saturday’s anti-Israel rally that may breach glorification of terrorism legislation. This will be passed to police for their consideration and possible investigation.”

Israeli sources confirmed this week that a planned flying visit by Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu to London had been postponed after Downing Street failed to give him the opportunity of a meeting with Gordon Brown.

Playing with fire (again)

2009-01-15T06:01:00.000-08:00

It is no great surprise that Stephen Sizer's blog, in recent days, has featured a series of posts stridently critical of Israel's campaign in Gaza. Nor is it any great surprise that there is little comparative criticism of Hamas, nor any great expression of compassion for the 1,000,000 Israelis now within range of Hamas rockets (not even the 2,000 Israeli Messianic Jews now within range). I have in the past blogged on Sizer's apparent blindness to Palestinian terrorism and to Israeli pain, and little on his blog persuades me to change this assessment.

I have also blogged and written in the past about Sizer's use of dubious sources and loose language. Sizer claims to take these criticisms on board, which makes this post of his surprising. I have reproduced Sizer's post in full, in bold, at the end.

Not only is Sizer relying on reports of a conversation which he himself admits is disputed, but notice how he introduces the post. "For all the speculation about the power of the Israel Lobby, the conversation between George W. Bush and Ehud Olmert is a candid insight into perceptions of power, if not their reality also." Not only is Sizer casual about introducing the classic antisemitic myth of "Jewish power" into the debate, but he is also linking to a highly dubious source, the article in the London Review of Books by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt on the alleged power of "The Israel Lobby". For those who are unfamiliar with this article, it was an edited version of a "Working Paper" which later became a full-length book. A collection of rebuttals can be accessed here. Particularly devastating is ALan Dershowitz's response, here.

Here is a key extract (emphasis added) from Dershowitz's well-referenced piece:

"This particular lobby – which the authors [like Sizer] ominously capitalize and reference with the definite article ("the Lobby") – uses the undue influence of Jews in America to get the United States to do the "fighting, dying … and paying" for wars that are not in its own interest, causing American soldiers to die for Israeli interests.It was "the Lobby" that, according to Walt and Mearsheimer, drove the United States into the war against Iraq,and threatens to drive us into a war against Iran.In other words, real Americans are being killed because other Americans, whose primary loyalty is to the Jewish nation, are manipulating America’s political, media, academic and cultural leaders, as well as ordinary American citizens. American Jews who support Israel – even in a critical way – are thus being disloyal to the United States by placing the interests of a foreign state above the interests of their own country.

If these charges sound familiar, it is because, as I will show, they can be found on the websites of extremists of the hard right, like David Duke, and the hard left, like Alexander Cockburn. They appear daily in the Arab and Muslim press. They are contemporary variations on old themes such as those promulgated in the notorious czarist forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

, in the Nazi and America First literature of the 1930s and early ’40s,and in the propaganda pamphlets of the Soviet Union.

In essence, the working paper is little more than a compilation of old, false, and authoritatively discredited charges dressed up in academic garb. The only thing new about it is the imprimatur these recycled assertions have now been given by the prominence of its authors and their institutional affiliations. As David Duke observed: "The Harvard report contains little new information. I and a few other American commentators have for years been making the same assertions as this new paper."It "validates every major point I [Duke] have been making."It should have been easily predictable – especially to "realists" – that their "Harvard report" would be featured, as it has been, on neo-Nazi and extremist websites, and even by terrorist organizations, and that it would be used by overt anti-Semites to "validate" their paranoid claims of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy."

I would encourage LBF readers to read the whole of Dershowitz' piece to see how he substantiates this damning indictment of Mearsheimer and Walt.

This of course leads to the question of why Sizer is linking to M & W, without the slightest critical comment. Isn't Sizer supposed to be repudiating antisemitism? Most readers of his blog will be unfamiliar with the rebuttals of M & W and may not recognise the antisemitic undertones to their piece. But Sizer is regarded as a leading scholar on Christian Zionism, and insists that he "repudiates anti-Semitism". If he repudiates anti-Semitism, it follows that he recognises antisemitism and knows what it sounds like: he cannot play the naive innocent. So again, why the irresponsible language about the "power" of the "Israel Lobby"? Why the irresponsible link to Mearsheimer and Walt? Isn't Sizer supposed to be repudiating antisemitism?

The stakes are high. Anyone with half a brain can see that a strident anti-Zionism is increadingly fuelling antisemitic violence and incitement: see here, here and here for a few recent examples. It is also fuelling anti-Christian violence. It follows that Israel's critics need to be scrupulously careful about the language they use and the sources they cite. It seems to me that Sizer, once again, is not being careful enough. For shame.

(The text of Sizer's post follows.)

For all the speculation about the power of the Israel Lobby, the conversation between George W. Bush and Ehud Olmert is a candid insight into perceptions of power, if not their reality also.

The Independent Newspaper carried the story of Olmert's conversation with Bush on page 20 of their early edition today but then edited it out of the later edition.

Here is the version of the disputed conversation taken from today's Guardian

"Israel and US offer differing reports on UN resolution abstention

Israeli PM Ehud Olmert claimed he had called George Bush to override US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice.

by Ewen MacAskill in Washington guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 13 January 2009

The US and Israel offered conflicting accounts today over alleged Israeli intervention to prevent the US voting for a United Nations ceasefire resolution last week, a move that apparently left the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, humiliated.

The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, speaking at a meeting in Ashkelon in southern Israel last night, claimed that he had been forced to call George Bush, the US president, to override Rice. According to Olmert, Rice had been planning to vote with the other members of the security council for the resolution. But the resolution was passed with 14 votes for, and one abstention. Olmert, in a speech in Hebrew, is reported to have said:

"When we saw that the secretary of state, for reasons we did not really understand, wanted to vote in favour of the UN resolution ... I looked for President Bush and they told me he was in Philadelphia making a speech. "I said, 'I don't care. I have to talk to him now'. They got him off the podium, brought him to another room and I spoke to him. I told him, 'You can't vote in favour of this resolution.' He said, 'Listen, I don't know about it, I didn't see it, I'm not familiar with the phrasing.'"

Olmert said: "He gave an order to the secretary of state and she did not vote in favour of it - a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organised and manoeuvred for. She was left pretty shamed and abstained on a resolution she arranged."

Gordon Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said today: "I've seen these press reports. They are inaccurate." Olmert's version coincides with the one offered up by other members of the security council the day after the vote. It is also known that Rice had been planning a press conference before the vote but abruptly cancelled it to take a call from Bush."

Reuter's version of the conversation speaks of Olmert, "Pouring on political bravado in a speech late Monday..." Their article concludes: "Olmert, under police investigation over alleged corruption, resigned as prime minister in September but is serving in a caretaker capacity until a new government is formed after Israel's February 10 parliamentary election."

Enough said.

Double Standard Watch: Israel's actions are lawful and commendable

2009-01-05T00:16:00.000-08:00

Must-read article by Alan Dershowitz, here

Israel launches ground offensive

2009-01-03T10:06:00.001-08:00

This piece is from Harry's Place.

The IDF ground offensive into Gaza is more reminiscent of Jenin than Grozny.

If Israel wanted to do a Grozny (the city that was essentially leveled and turned into a ghost town by Russian bombing and artillery fire in the war against the Chechens), it could manage this fairly easily. After all, Gaza is a relatively small, compact, sealed-off strip of land. Of course this would be accomplished at the cost of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilian casualties, but it would likely put an end to the rocket attacks on southern Israel. However for the vast majority of Israelis this is morally unacceptable.

By contrast in 2002, as part of its operation against Palestinian fighters in the West Bank, Israel did not launch a massive and indiscriminate air assault. Instead it sent troops into Jenin. The result was between 50 and 60 Palestinian deaths, almost all of them fighters (not the massacre of 500 originally reported and eagerly believed by so many). But the Jenin operation also cost the lives of 23 Israeli soldiers.

That is to say, Israel sacrificed the lives of its own sons to avoid massive casualties among Palestinian non-combatants.

That’s the aim of the ground assault: to destroy and secure Hamas positions that could not be struck from the air without a high risk of civilian casualties, even if it endangers the lives and safety of Israeli soldiers.

The case against boycotting Israel

2008-12-16T04:38:00.000-08:00

David Hirsh of Engage, here and here. (I've posted the second one previously but not the first one.) Required viewing for anyone who thinks there is no connection whatsoever between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, and those who subsume "demonisation" and "campaigns for boycott, divestment and sanctions" into the brave, virtuous category of "criticism".

The Longest Hatred 28

2008-12-12T03:02:00.000-08:00

More than 60 years after the Holocaust, Jews are still being murdered simply for being Jews. Here.

The great embarrassment

2008-12-12T01:16:00.000-08:00

Shhhh, keep this quiet, don't tell anyone, but Jesus was a (wait for it) Jew, who was born in (careful, is anyone listening?), Bethlehem. But don't say this too loudly, and certainly don't sing any songs about it, because it would be frighteningly embarrassing to have to acknowledge this when Palestinians are being persecuted by those horrible Jews. After all, that would complicate our relationships with the wider community (particularly the trendy anti-Zionist left) wouldn't it, and that has to be a higher priority than singing Biblical and historical truths, right? And, while we're at it, we'd better rip out all the references to Israel and Jews and Jewishness in the New Testament as well, there'll only be a page or so left but hey, it will be worth it so that we can show how relevant and with it we really are. In the process, we can rip out other bits of the Bible we don't like, and then people will really listen to us. Merry Christmas everyone!

Evangelicals Now, Israel, and "balance"

2008-12-11T04:42:00.000-08:00

Following the frankly shocking article by David Rushworth-Smith in last month's Evangelicals Now, which I wrote about here, the latest edition contains an article by one Colin Nevin entitled "Should Christians support Israel?"

I'm not sure he actually answers the question, but it is certainly a good article. It contains much of what I would see as a solid Christian position on the question: an accurate summary of the reestablishment of the state of Israel and its subsequent struggle for survival; an acknowledgement of the terrible sufferings of the Jewish people throughout history, often at the hands of professing "Christians"; and an outline of a theological position which I believe it is possible even for amillenialist, non-dispensationalist, non-loony British conservative evangelicals to hold, namely that the state of Israel, for all of its flaws and challenges, is in fact a fulfilment of biblical prophecy and part of God's plans to save "all Israel".Given the strength of the evangelical anti-Zionist lobby in conservative circles, it is impressive that the editor has published Nevin's article and he deserves credit for this.

But does this mean that the editor has complied with the recommendation in paragraph 179 of the Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Committee on Anti-Semitism that the media should "show sensitivity and balance in their reporting of international events and recognise that the way in which they report the news has significant consequences on the interaction between communities in Britain." In printing the Nevin article, good though it is, has EN now achieved "balance" in its coverage of the Arab-Isareli conflict?

Well, no.

Let's revisit some of the most glaring errors, untruths and distortions from David Rushowrth-Smith's piece. Here they are:

- The false claim that the Palmach was a "jewish-zionist terrorist organisation"

- the convenient omission of any mention of Arab terrorism either between 1920 and 1948 or at any other point

- the failure to distinguish between "Israel", "Gaza" and "the West Bank" and the failure to blame the correct parties for any relative lack of freedom of religion in those places

- the ludicrously false claim that there were no Jews in the area between 70 AD and 1948

- the claim that in 1948 land was "stolen from the legal owners" and that the Palestinian refugees were "herded out": while that was true in some cases, it is also the case that many fled because they were encouraged to do so by their own leaders.

- the omission of any mention of the Jewish refugees from Arab lands

- the fact that Mr Rushworth-Smith sought to bolster his "arguments" by citing Ilan Pappe (known for his fraudulent scholarship and for granting an interview to a neo-Nazi newspaper), Norman Finkelstein (known as the 'neo-Nazis' favourite Jew' and also known for his fraudulent scholarship) and Jeff Halper (likewise known for his fraudulent scholarship and radical anti-Israel agenda).

It follows that, for EN to truly "balance" this piece it would require a truly horrible article which might say some or all of the following transparently false statements:

- "All Palestinians are terrorists"

- "All of Israel's problems are down to the Palestinians and none have ever been caused by the mistakes of her own leaders"

- "Prior to 1948, there were no Arabs in what became Israel"

- "During Israel's War of Independence, no Palestinians at all were forced to leave their homes by the Jewish forces"

- "Israel is a perfect state and has never done anything wrong"

- "The Palestinians have no right at all to a state of their own, however small, and ideally they should all be forced to leave their homes"

The author of such a piece might seek to bolster his "arguments" by citing, say, the racist Israeli settlers who referred to Arabs as "sand niggers", or perhaps the late Meir Kahane, who founded the Israeli Kach party. (His agenda was to induce Arabs in the West Bank to leave by offering them compensation, or alternatively by forcing them to leave. If you've not heard of Kahane or Kach, that might be because in 1985, the Knesset passed an amendment to Israel's Basic Law, barring "racist" candidates from election.The Israeli High Court declared Kahane to be unsuitable for election. That's one of many reasons why its wrong to describe Israel as an apartheid state.)

Now, clearly, it would be deeply wrong for EN to commission or publish such a piece. So then, what should EN do to rectify the calumnies of David Rushworth-Smith? Clearly, it should acknowledge the various errors and distortions and apologize. This has not yet happened. Nor have any letters challenging David Rushworth-Smith been published.

Interestingly, a box in the letters page says that “the editorial policy of EN not to reply to abusive letters sent to the office”. This is probably a reference to strongly worded emails sent to the editor responding to the Rushworth-Smith article. Yet this stance has not stopped the editor from publishing a quite astonishingly aggressive (and abusive) letter from Jonathan Castro, entitled "Creationist idiots!", which attacks young age creationists with terms such as “nonsense”, “rubbish”, “quack” theories, incredible ignorance, “mind-boggling stupidity and wilful ignorance”, and the very serious charge that Ken Ham “and his ilk” are all liars! Is there a double standard at work here?

So where does this leave us? At present, EN has not apologized for, or acknowledged its error in publishing an article which encouraged Christians to apologize for the creation of the world's one Jewish state, replete with historical falsehoods and citations from fraudulent scholars and known antisemites.

And so, for the time being, my view of EN will remain sadly dim. At best, EN is promoting an unbalanced, one-sided view of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is one of several factors serving to alienate Messianic Jews from British evangelical churches. At worst, it is sadly representative of those British evangelicals who are not only embracing theological and political anti-Zionism, but are also, doubtless unwittingly, turning a blind eye to the evil of genuine antisemitism in their midst. For shame.

To argue that Palestine fuelled the massacre in Mumbai is preposterous

2008-12-10T04:37:00.000-08:00

Howard Jacobson, with typical brilliance, here.

UCU drops proposed boycott of Israeli academics

2008-12-10T04:36:00.000-08:00

This is good news. Here and here.

Harry's Place on Stephen Sizer

2008-12-10T03:57:00.000-08:00

Here.

The case against boycotting Israel

2008-12-03T04:18:00.000-08:00

David Hirsh of Engage speaks in typically impressive manner, here. It is about 7 minutes long and is required viewing for anyone who maintains that anti-Zionism is always entirely separate and distinct from anti-Semitism.

Stephen Sizer and Leeds University 2

2008-12-01T08:54:00.000-08:00

I'm going to give this post of Stephen Sizer's a second fisking because, the more I read it, the more repellent it becomes. I can't improve on Bernard Harrison, but there are other points which need mentioning.

The first thing to notice is how Sizer describes the motion being considered by Leeds University Students' Union. According to Sizer, the motion will "label anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism and silence pro-Palestinian groups on campus". It won't. The motion is here, read it. It is a proposal that Leeds University adopts the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism, the full text of which is included in the motion.

Note that the Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Committee on Anti-Semitism ["the Report"] recommended that this definition be adopted and promoted by the government and law enforcement agencies so, in inveighing against this definition, Sizer is already putting himself beyond one widely-recognised boundary on thinking about antisemitism. Note too that Sizer is pleading on behalf of the Socialist Workers' Party, an organisation whose explanation of the Holocaust doesn't mention Jews and which has promoted the openly antisemitic Gilad Atzmon. I'm all in favour of free speech, but this is nevertheless concerning. For whom will Sizer plead next?

Now read the Working Definition again, noting how carefully nuanced it actually is.

The bit which Rev Sizer seems to have a problem with is the bit that suggests that there can be some occasions when criticism of Israel may in fact be antisemitic. Here is what it says, emphasis added:

"Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards b requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel."

"However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic."

Note how carefully nuanced it all is: "taking into account the overall context", "could include", and "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic."

This will leave plenty of scope for pro-Palestinian groups to criticise Israel without being anti--Semitic: if they level criticism against Israel similar to that which could be made against any other country in the world, if they are factually accurate, and if they are careful with the language they use. Stephen Sizer would have us believe, though, that the motion will label anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism and silence pro-Palestinian groups. This is not only a misrepresentation of the motion (which, incidentally, Sizer himself does not link to) but seems to indicate an unwillingness on Sizer's part to think through the issues. In a typical expression of the Livingstone Formulation, Sizer is claiming that the spectre of antisemitism is being raised disingenuously in order to silence criticism of Israel. He is either unwilling or unable to think through whether there might in fact be a genuine case that antisemitism is a problem which needs tackling. Rather than "Zionists" shouting "Antisemitism!" to stifle debate about Israel, what is actually happening here is that Stephen Sizer is shouting "Israel!" in order to avoid a genuine and necessary debate about antisemitism. Why?

The piece on Sizer's blog goes on to say, sceptically, that "The motion claims, without providing any supporting evidence, that “Anti-semitism is increasing significantly both across the country and within universities and student unions.”

Perhaps Sizer hasn't read Section 6 of the Report, entitled "Antisemitism on Campus". Here's an extract from para 203:

"Tensions and incidents on campus often peak around students’ union votes concerning Israel and Zionism. In 2002 the University of Manchester Students’ Union proposed a motion that anti-Zionism or criticism of Israel was not antisemitism, and that Israeli goods should be boycotted. The Jewish Representative Council of Greater Manchester told us that a leaflet from the General Union of Palestinian Students, quoting from a neo-Nazi propaganda forgery entitled ‘Prophecy of Benjamin Franklin in Regard of the Jewish Race’, was distributed amongst students queuing up to vote. The leaflet reproduced historic antisemitic slander describing Jews as vampires, and warning that unless they

were expelled from the United States they would enslave the country and control its economy. Further incidents occurred following the defeat of the motion – a brick was thrown through the window of a Jewish student residence and a poster bearing the words “Slaughter the Jews” was pasted on its front door. A knife was stuck in the door of another Jewish student’s residence."

Or perhaps Sizer hasn't read pages 16-18 of the Community Security Trust's 2007 Report, which says this: "The 59 incidents recorded by CST in 2007 in which the victims were students, student bodies or academics represent a considerable rise from the 18 incidents recorded of that type in 2006, 11 in 2005 and 21 in 2004. It is most likely that this rise (228 per cent from the 2006 figure) is largely because of better reporting of incidents to CST."

Examples cited in the report include:

A Jewish student was handing out leaflets outside a student union debate at Manchester University when an Arab student called him “You Jewish bastard.” When challenged, the Arab student and said: “Whoops, I mean you Israeli bastard” and walked off.
Swastikas were drawn on posters advertising Jewish Book Week at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London.
“Mossad caused 9/11” and “Fight the Jewish terrorists” were written on a desk at Leeds Metropolitan University.

Sizer would seemingly have us believe that this is illusory. Why? Perhaps its because the first and last examples I've cited above, like the extract from para 203 of the Report, give very clear examples of how there are times when anti-Zionism very definitely can spill over into antisemitism. But Stephen Sizer seems to believe that the two are always entirely distinct and we must fight any attempts to suggest otherwise. Why?

So what do we have? We have a representative of the state church, and a professing antiracist evangelical, doing the following:

- twisting the words of the motion to make it say something different to what it actually says

- rejecting a widely accepted definition of antisemitism

- pleading on behalf of an organisation whose track record on antisemitism is notoriously poor

- minimising the reality of ongoing and increasing antisemitism on British campuses.

- denying the fact that yes, sometimes anti-Zionism can very definitely be antisemitic.

This should shock us, but it doesn't surprise me. Despite his frequent claim that he repudiates antisemitism, Sizer uses antisemitic language to describe supporters of Israel, invokes antisemitic conspiracy theories, cites antisemitic sources, asks Holocaust Deniers to cooperate with him, sends out antisemitic material to others, and carries links to the far right on his website. And yet British evangelicals still laud and applaud him. For shame.

Stephen Sizer and Leeds University

2008-11-30T08:38:00.000-08:00

Stephen Sizer is campaigning on his blog against Leeds University adopting the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism. He may have copied this piece from the Electronic Intifada website.

According to this motion there were 21 antisemitic incidents affecting Leeds students last year, and there have been more so far already this year, so for Stephen Sizer to be standing against a measure which seeks to counter this trend is disturbing at best. Why is an Anglican vicar campaigning against a measure which seeks to protective wellbeing of Leeds University's large Jewish student population? Isn't Rev Sizer supposed to be countering antisemitism? Doesn't he insist that he is antiracist? (Oh, and, if Rev Sizer is so concerned about freedom of speech, why did he disable comments on his blog when people criticised him?)

Bernard Harrison has answered the Electronic Intifada piece with devastating brilliance on the Engage website, here. I can't really do better than copy Harrison's piece, below. I've underlined or italicised my favourite bits.

On Friday November 28, the Leeds University student union will be considering a resolution to adopt the EUMC's working definition of anti-Semitism, in order to fight growing anti-Semitism at that university.

The Leeds student Palestinian support group has protested the motion, in a statement which has appeared on the Electronic Intifada, and has been picked up by other blogs.

The main claim made by this statement is that the definition of anti-Semitism arrived at by the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) is so unreasonably restrictive that, “if adopted, the motion will shut down debate on the extent to which Israel should label itself as a state for the Jewish people as opposed to a state for all its citizens, such as the Unitied Kingdom or other liberal democracies.”

One could object straight away that this “objection” is in the form of a complex question, that ancient logical trick of which the stock example is “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Israel is not a “Jewish state”, nor does it “label itself” as one, which is hardly surprising, since it is Israel’s many enemies who think it in their interest to so “label” it. Unlike many countries in the Middle East and elsewhere, Israel is neither a religious nor an ethnic monoculture. Its present population is 7,337,000, of which only 75.5% are Jewish. The reminder are Israeli Arabs (1447,000) or non-Jewish immigrants and their children (318,000). All these people enjoy full rights of citizenship.

Nor do the logical confusions implicit in this brief but brainless sentence end there. Even if Israel were to all intents and purposes a religious or ethnic monoculture, that in itself would not establish that it was not a liberal democracy. Since plenty of liberal democracies are, to all intents and purposes, monocultures of one type or the other, the two issues are not only separate, but have no bearing whatsoever on one another. And in any case, Israel is a liberal democracy.

But (leaving aside the demonstrable lousiness, as arguments, of the “arguments” in question), one would have thought, anyway, that someone who complains that the observance of a restriction on anti-Semitism will deprive him of his best arguments is more or less hanging a notice round his neck saying “Look at me! I am an anti-Semite!”

This thought has clearly filtered through to the authors of the Leeds PSG statement, who have accordingly looked around for some means of neutralizing it. One knows very well, speaking as a non-Jew with a beady eye for his fellow non-Jews, that the best way of clearing oneself of a charge of anti-Semitism is to get a Jew to do it for one (which is why, among other things, Hitler and his friends found the writings of Otto Weininger so convenient.) For whatever reasons (and many at least, are perfectly respectable ones, for which one should feel at least some sympathy) supportive Jewish voices are seldom lacking on these occasions, nor are they on the present one. The authors of the PSG statement abandon independent argument after their fourth paragraph, the heart of which I quoted above, and instead turn for succour to three Jewish organizations with well-run websites, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, European Jews for a Just Peace, and Jews Against Zionism.

Of these, the last is an organization of Orthodox Jews whose objections to Zionism are religious rather than political. Their stance on anti-Semitism is the traditional Orthodox one that it is a punishment imposed on Jews by (as they would write the word) G-d, for their faithlessness in falling away from strict observance of the Mitzvot, a faithlessness of which the establishment of the State of Israel is merely the most blatant instance. Whatever one might want to say about this position, one thing that is clear is that it has no bearing whatsoever on the adequacy or inadequacy of the EUMC definition. A voice from the interior of another moral universe, it simply has no business being cited in this debate.

Of the other two organizations, the best attack on the adequacy of the EUMC definition is mounted by Jews for justice for Palestinians, whose page on the subject can be accessed here.

The page contains a letter sent to the EUMC in 2005, raising various concerns about the definition. If any succour is to be found for the authors of the Leeds PSG statement, one would suppose, it will be here. But the level of argument operating here is, if anything, weaker than that in the PSG statement itself.

The letter opens with a complaint to the effect that EJJP was not among the Jewish organizations consulted by the EUMC in the lengthy process which resulted in the drawing up of its definition. Public bodies do tend to decide, however, and on the whole have a right so to decide, who they think it worthwhile to include in their consultations. What the EJJP has to show, therefore, is that the EUMC made a serious error in leaving them out. In order to show that, it must provide telling grounds for regarding the definition which emerged from these putatively defective consultations as itself defective. This the EJJP sets out to do in the second part of its letter, headed “On content”. Unfortunately the three main (bulleted) objections set out in this turn out all to be non-sequiturs of one sort and another. Here they are:

1. The definition asserts that it is anti-Semitic to deny Jews, alone of all the nations of the world, the right to self-determination. To this the EJJP replies that not all Jews “equate self-determination with Zionism”, citing the Orthodox tradition, Buber, and sections of the current Israeli left, as instances. This is clearly factually correct, but equally clearly irrelevant to the issue. Even if some members of a nation do not desire national self-determination, it is still an instance of prejudice to deny that nation a right to self-determination, unless one holds that no nation has a right to self-determination, which in practice no-one does.

2. The definition says that one form of anti-Semitism consists in “applying double standards by requiring of it behaviour nor expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” The EJJC retort is that “This is a formulation that allows any criticism of Israel to be dismissed on the grounds that it is not applied to every other defaulting nation at the same time.” This seems simply to misunderstand the force of the EUMC’s point. That point is not that it is prejudicial to criticize a nation for a criminal act unless one simultaneously mentions every other nation whose record is so stained. It is, rather, that it is prejudicial to criticize a nation for acts which in the case of any other nation would not be considered criminal. Clearly this formulation places no restraint whatsoever on any deserved and non-prejudicial criticism of Israel.

[contrary to the claim in the piece copied by Sizer that "the motion will shut down an area of perfectly legitimate debate."]3. The EUMC definition says that it is anti-Semitic to hold Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the state of Israel. The EJJP replies that “This is the flipside of a position frequently expressed by Prime Minister Sharon and many Zionists, that refuses to make any distinction between the interests of Israel and those of Jews worldwide.“ This reply is vitiated by the difficulty of attaching a clear meaning to the phrase “is the flipside of”. If it means that Sharon and some unnamed collection of Zionists are guilty of the conduct identified as anti-Semitic by the EUMC in this clause, then plainly it is false. Saying that the existence of Israel serves the interests of Jews worldwide is clearly not the same thing as saying that Jews worldwide share responsibility for the actions of the state of Israel. The first claim is very possibly true; the second is not so much false as conceptually incoherent: one might as well argue that because I am British I share responsibility for Gordon Brown’s recent nationalization of two British banks, and am therefore liable to be sued by the shareholders. One cannot conduct any intelligible politics on the basis of this kind of inane drivel.

Given the feebleness of the arguments brought against it by people very anxious to discredit it, in short, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the EUMC definition deserves to be adopted by the Leeds student union, not least in view of the level of anti-semitic incidents and intimidation of Jewish students on campus recorded by its supporters. Let us hope that the vote goes in favour of Motion 4.

[This piece was written for Engage by Bernard Harrison, E. E. Erickson Professor Emeritus at the University of Utah, formerly a professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex, and author of The Resurgence of Anti-semitism: Jews, Israel and Liberal Opinion.]

More people who don't check Stephen Sizer's sources or scholarship

2008-11-30T08:18:00.000-08:00

Here and here. This is a real shame, since both John Stott and Rico Tice are good people who have given great leadership to British churches.

Some of Stephen Sizer's fans: do they not check his sources and scholarship?

2008-11-27T10:49:00.000-08:00

Here and here, see my concerns here and here. Sizer quotes known antisemites in his writings and rewrites history to a degree that is simply ludicrous. Why do otherwise intelligent people take him so seriously?

The obscene Israel-Nazi analogy

2008-11-10T22:34:00.000-08:00

Two really good pieces:

David Hirsh on the abuse of Kristallnacht memory (by a bishop), here

The (obscene) analogy between Gaza and the Warsaw Ghetto - Petra Marquardt-Bigman - I loved this quote:

"it's a safe bet to predict that the planned three-day fact finding tour will avoid finding some important facts, such as the fact that, with the help of Iran and Syria, Hamas has organized some 20,000 armed forces and accumulated a formidable arsenal including long-range rockets, advanced anti-tank weapons, and some 80 tons of explosives."

Extracts from email to Stephen Sizer

2008-11-05T04:06:00.000-08:00

Dear Rev Sizer

I have just read your latest blogspot: http://stephensizer.blogspot.com/2008/11/weird-and-wacky-theology-israel-and.html

For your information, my Large Blue Footballs blog has never been anonymous, my name "James" appears on the right hand side. My surname can be found by clicking through some of the links. By the way, thanks for the free publicity, I often worry that not enough people read my posts.

Both the BMJA website and the LMF website have criticisms of you which are public and not anonymous. The only person who seems to have any interest in hiding anything is you: you would really prefer that people didn't know about your email contact with Israel Shamir or those antisemitic articles you sent out to the Palestinian Orthodoxy group, or your use of openly antisemitic language ("people in the shadows") in a national newspaper. Shouldn't you be apologizing and repenting for this, not trying to stifle those who happen to disagree with you? Sorry Stephen, but the language you use, the sources you cite and the company you keep leave me very far from convinced that you are not antisemitic....

If you are going to put controversial material into the public domain, you have to accept that you will be criticised in the public domain. It seems to me that you are trying to stifle free speech. If you don't want to be criticised, stop writing.

I really don't care if you name me on your blog. I am proud to be a Messianic Jew, and I am proud to be someone who loves my own people, my Messiah and the State of Israel. I am not a dispensationalist, I do not support Israel uncritically, and I contribute to relief projects for Palestinian Christians. I would be proud to be named by you as someone who stands against what in my opinion is your flawed theology, your rewriting of history, your callous indifference to Israeli pain, and your use of classic antisemitic tropes under the cover of "anti-Zionism".

Regards

James

Who is silencing whom?

2008-11-04T05:12:00.000-08:00

"Powerful Zionist lobby" stifled, here.

Questions for Stephen Sizer

2008-10-27T02:00:00.000-07:00

Dear Reverend Sizer,

If you are reading this, would you care to comment on this email which you sent, on first name terms, to a certain Israel Shamir in September 2004, asking him to cooperate with you in your anti-Zionist activities? Would you further care to comment on the fact that the same Israel Shamir elsewhere opines that "We must deny the concept of Holocaust without doubt and hesitation, even if every story of Holocaust down to the most fantastic invention of Wiesel were absolutely true", who assures us that "Nobody has to be a Jew, and as their crimes in Palestine multiply, it is imperative not to be one", and who is described by Times journalist Stephen Pollard as "an extreme anti-Semite"?

Oh, and should you perhaps care to preface your answer with "some of that material postdates my Sept 2004 email to Israel Shamir", perhaps you could answer me this: were you aware that some pro-Palestinian activists had disassociated themselves from Israel Shamir a full THREE AND A HALF YEARS previously? (Quote: "We do not have any need for some of what Israel Shamir is introducing into the discourse on behalf of Palestinian rights, which increasingly includes elements of traditional European anti-Semitic rhetoric.")

Perhaps you can also answer me this: why were you emailing Israel Shamir at the same time as you were presumably researching for your December 2005 book "Christian Zionism: Roadmap to Armageddon?" in which you claim that you desired to "repudiate anti-Semitism" (p. 261)? Rev Sizer, how do you square your desire to repudiate anti-Semitism with your documented links with Israel Shamir?

Just in case you're struggling for answers, let me help you out with a couple of suggestions:

(1) You knew that Shamir was a virulent anti-Semite, but chose to network with him anyway. If this is the case, then how do you expect people to believe you when you say you repudiate antisemitism?

(2) You did not know that Israel Shamir was a virulent anti-Semite, even though this had been made abundantly clear three-and-a-half years earlier. If this is the case, then how do you expect people to take you seriously as a scholar?

I can see no third alternative: perhaps you can suggest one?

I await your answers with great interest.

Email to editor of Evangelicals Now

2008-10-24T14:22:00.000-07:00

Dear Dr Benton

I started writing this email at 12:05 on Friday morning. I was so angry at the article by David Rushworth-Smith in the latest EN that I could not sleep. I will try to write in measured and calm tones, but you need to know how disappointed, enraged, sickened and offended I am at this article and your decision to publish it. I am now seriously questioning why I bother continuing to subscribe to your newspaper.

It is well-known that evangelicals have differing views on the politics and theological significance of the modern state of Israel. In your June edition, you gave 25 words to one side:

"May saw the 60th anniversary of the setting up of the state of Israel, which many evangelical Christians see as a fulfilment of biblical prophecy." [This was an addendum to the article entitled "Israeli government awards British preacher," on page 3 if memory serves me right.]

Your latest edition gives a whole page to someone who takes an extreme opposing position, a position which borders on racism. I have included links and sources so that you can establish the accuracy of these strong words for yourself.

The very title and presupposition of the article is that the anniversary of the state of Israel should not be celebrated but mourned, indeed it is something for which Christians should apologise. According to the EUMC Working Defintion of Antisemitism , denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination is antisemitic. The entire tone of the article is that it would be better if the state of Israel did not exist: does Mr R-S wish such a fate on any other nation in the world? Would he really prefer the world's one Jewish state not to be? Would he prefer that Jews fleeing postwar Europe had remained homeless, or remained as prey for the antisemitic vultures of "Christian" Europe?

In his first sentence, Mr Rushworth-Smith refers to unspecified "Jewish believers" who have signed a statement saying they would not celebrate Israel's 60th anniversary. This is flawed on numerous grounds. Firstly, the phrase "Jewish believers" is often used as shorthand for "Jewish believers in Jesus". Mr R-S's words could therefore be read as suggesting that some Messianic Jews mourn rather than celebrate the state of Israel, something which (in my experience) is totally untrue and potentially libellous. If Mr R-S means Orthodox Jews he should say this, not use loose language carelessly. Secondly, this "argument by ethnic admission" is entirely fallacious: some Arabs celebrate the state of Israel, whilst a minority of Jewish people flirt with Holocaust Denial and the majority deny that Jesus is the Messiah: presumably Mr R-S does not subscribe to those positions. Thirdly, to use Jews to argue against the existence of the Jewish state is reminiscent of the tactics of the Nazis who played off Jews against other Jews. Fourthly, some anti-Zionist Jews, such as the maverick Orthodox group Neturei Karta, have participated in Ahmadninejad's Holocaust Denial conferences. Does Mr R-S want Christians to follow their example in this as well?

In the penultimate paragraph in the second column, Mr R-S refers to the Palmach/ Hagannah as a "Jewish Zionist terrorist organisation". In fact it was set up in 1921 to defend Jewish settlement against attacks by Arab raiders and later became the Israel Defence Forces. (Source: Martin Gilbert, Israel: A History [Doubleday, 2008], p. 47. Sir Martin Gilbert is one of the country's leading historians and the official biographer of Sir Winston Churchill.) For much of the time the Palmach distanced itself from the (genuine) terrorist groups which Mr R-S mentions, the Irgun and the Stern Gang.

Mr R-S's treatment of the "golden years" says nothing, but nothing, about Arab terrorism in the period from 1920-1948. There were riots and attacks on Jewish settlements throughout the period, and there were attacks on the British as well: did these have no impact at all on Christian activities? Needless to say, Mr R-S says nothing about Arab terrorism anywhere else in the article either. There is no context given to current Israeli security measures (the tanks in one photo and the security barrier in another, captioned "the new gate out of the walled enclosure called Bethlehem"). The security barrier was built to stop Israelis being killed, and has been demonstrably successful: 431 Israelis were killed in 137 suicide bombings between September 2000 and the completion of the northern and most of the Jerusalem sections of the wall, 100 in March 2000 alone. After the completion of the wall in the north, there was not a single terrorist attack across that section. By December 2004, the number of suicide attacks launched from the West Bank had fallen by 84% in less than two years. (Figures from Sir Martin Gilbert's updated Israel, A History, p. 631.) Since Mr R-S neither mourns these Israeli dead nor condemns (or even acknowledges) their killers, am I entitled to conclude that he has no objection to Israelis being murdered?

The section entitled "Freedom of Religion" is simply shocking, not least because of Mr R-S' failure to distinguish "the State of Israel" from "Gaza" (which is ruled by Hamas) and the "West Bank" (which is governed by the Palestinian Authority). It is well-known that Arab Christians in Israel proper enjoy full freedoms, and Evangelicals among them cooperate with Messianic Jews in evangelism. In Gaza the situation is different because Hamas is a violent Islamist group responsible (among other things) for the murder of the owner of a Christian bookshop. In the West Bank, it is well-documented that the Christian population is suffering and declining because of pressure from the Palestinian Authority: Israel is not to blame. But one would not know this from Mr R-S's version of events.

Mr R-S says that "evangelical believers in the Holy Land suffer so badly." Yes, of course Arab Evangelicals are suffering as a result of the conflict, but so too are Israeli Messianic Jews, at least two of whom have been killed in suicide bombings. Why is Mr R-S not expressing solidarity for them as well? Is he incapable of showing compassion for Israeli pain? Why does he not recognise that the number of Israeli Messianic Jews has risen from 12 in 1948 to 10-15,000 today? Is even that not something to celebrate?

Mr R-S makes the ludicrously false claim that there were no Jewish people in the land between 70 AD and 1948. In fact there was continuous settlement in Safed, Tiberias, Hebron and Jerusalem from biblical times onwards (see M Gilbert, The Routledge Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict [Routledge, 7th ed. , p. 2) and Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since 1880. Some (many?) of the missions and Christian groups he mentions in the first paragraph of his second column had the express aim of reaching the local Jewish population, as did the 1839 Palestine expedition of Robert Murray M'Cheyne and his friends.

Mr R-S's version of the history of the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948 is hugely distorted, referring to land being stolen from rightful owners. What actually happened was that the Jews accepted the UN's partition of the land whilst the Arabs rejected it, and proceeded to attack Jewish settlement in every part of Palestine. The Jews defended themselves (at a cost of 1% of Israel's population) and, in the context of this Arab-initiated war, between 550,000-900,000 Arabs fled their homes, for a variety of reasons, one of which was being encouraged to do so by their own leaders, not being "herded out" as Mr R-S puts it. It is also well-known (and was pointed out in an article in EN by Tony Higton in 2000) that more Jews fled from Arab countries in 1948 than Arabs fled from what became Israel. Why does Mr R-S show no compassion for these Jewish refugees, most of whom settled in Israel because they had nowhere else to go?

Finally, and most disgracefuuly, R-S cites Jeff Halper, Ilan Pappe and Norman Finkelstein as respected Jewish academics. In fact, all three have been exposed as fraudulent scholars on numerous occasions:

Halper: see here, here and here

Pappe is a postmodern revisionist historian who has himself admitted that facts are unimportant, see:

Efraim Karsh, Pure Pappe
Seth J. Frantzman, Flunking History
Ilan Pappe has also participated in propaganda hoaxes.

Earlier this year, Pappe gave an interview to a German neo-Nazi newspaper: SO HOW DARE MR RUSHWORTH-SMITH CITE HIM AS A CREDIBLE SOURCE?

As for Norman Finkelstein, he has been referred to as "the Nazis' favourite Jew", his book The Holocaust Industry can be found reproduced on Nazi websites the world over. You can get a flavour for his writings by looking at these links:

Deborah Passner, Norman Finkelstein�s Fraudulent Scholarship
Paul Bogdanor, The Scholarship of Norman Finkelstein
Steven Plaut, DePaul University�s Moment of Truth
Alan Dershowitz, Finkelstein�s Bigotry

Noam Chomsky�s disciple Norman G. Finkelstein dismisses the Holocaust as an extortion racket against Germany, says that Jews run America, compares Israelis with Nazis, justifies al-Qaeda, champions Hezbollah, speaks alongside Hamas supporters and gives interviews to Holocaust deniers.

Some of Finkelstein's work is tantamount to Holocaust Denial: again, WHY IS MR RUSHWORTH-SMITH CITING HIM? For a comprehensive demolition of Finkelstein's "scholarship" on the Holocaust and on Israel, Mr R-S would do well to read the relevant chapter of E Alexander & P Bogdanor (eds.), The Jewish Divide over Israel: Accusers and Defenders (Transaction Publishers, 2006, pp. 135-161).

Dr Benton, I do not expect you to have a comprehensive grasp of the nuances and sources of Israeli historiography. I would however hope that you would have a sufficient grasp of current events to recognise that Rushworth-Smith's article is massively one-sided and relentlessly blind to Israeli pain.

Whether Mr Rushworth-Smith likes it or not, it is a fact that there are British and Israeli Messianic Jews in British evangelical churches. Most if not all believe that Israel has the right to exist and defend itself. Some of my family live in Israel and are protected by the wall which the likes of Mr Rushworth-Smith can only demonise. I know at least one Israeli believer, at least one British Messianic Jew, and at least one Gentile who has an Israeli wife who have stopped subscribing to EN because of its perceived anti-Israel bias. If you give 25 words to one side of the debate and (however unwittingly) a whole delegitimising, demonising, flawed and polemical page to the other, you do very little to change their minds. Do you really want to drive Messianic Jews away from mainstream evangelicalism? If so, keep right on. If you don't (and I know that you don't), you owe it to them to rethink your editorial policy on the Middle East conflict - drastically.

...
James

Sari Nusseibeh rejects the one-state solution

2008-10-21T10:28:00.000-07:00

Here. An important contribution, particularly when some anti-Zionists seem to be champing at the bit for the eradication of the world's one Jewish state.

This makes me ill

2008-10-20T05:14:00.000-07:00

Here. "Given Haider's anti-Semitic and xenophobic views, and taking into account that he represents a rallying point for Europe's radical right, it was an astonishing show of political solidarity as Austria's heads of state and political parties paid tribute to him."

I spent a year in Joerg Haider's Austrian stronghold of Klagenfurt as a student, 11 years ago now. I recall his stridently racist views, which in those days were mainly directed towards Slovenian immigrants. I don't remember him expressing openly antisemitic views at the time. The fact that, after his death, he drew plaudits from across the political spectrum, makes me sick. I hope, I really really really hope, that Austrian Christians took the opportunity to be different and to distance themselves from his odious views. God does not rejoice in the death of the wicked and neither should we, but we should also strive to avoid even the appearance of evil: and feting an openly racist politician as a hero is most certainly that.

Christian "Peace" Groups Ally Themselves with Advocate of Genocide

2008-10-20T02:34:00.000-07:00

"Five Christian peace groups are embracing Hitler's heir, Mr. Ahmadinejad, the world's foremost advocate of genocide, terrorism and death to the West. It is an association with someone who is as close as we can get to a real live Devil, and an association, which these five Christian groups should be called upon to explain. These five Christian groups call into question their very nature and you have to wonder if they should use as their symbol the swastika rather than the cross."

SNP direct public money to Hamas front group

2008-10-14T05:53:00.000-07:00

Here. If, like me, you are enraged, do email your MP - whether you are based in Scotland or not.

Karsh on Morris

2008-10-03T02:45:00.000-07:00

Efraim Karsh of the University of London reviews the latest offering of Israeli "New Historian" Benny Morris here. It's not really complimentary.

The ever-helpful Paul Bogdanor adds the following:

"Morris' new book is almost as misleading as its predecessors... e.g. he blames Israel for most of the atrocities in 1948. This is based on his estimate that enemy atrocities killed c300. Actually Israel lost 1,162 civilian dead (Arye Naor, "Israel's 1948 War of Independence as a Total War," Journal of Contemporary History, 43:2, 2008, p254). Nearly all died in indiscriminate enemy attacks. In July 1948 alone, terror bombing raids against Tel Aviv killed 142 Israelis, mostly civilians."

Why does Stephen Sizer misrepresent Zhava Glaser?

2008-10-02T04:10:00.000-07:00

[Quotes from Stephen Sizer are in blue. Quotes from other sources are in red.]

In Zion’s Christian Soldiers? (IVP: 2007) at p. 118, in a section headed “The case for rebuilding the temple”, Stephen Sizer writes the following:

Orthodox Jews believe that a temple is necessary for them to offer sacrifices once again to make atonement for their sin. This is why religious Jews pray three times every day that ‘the Temple be rebuilt speedily in our days’. They claim the Torah, or the Law of Moses, ‘obligates the Jewish nation to rebuild the Temple whenever it becomes possible to do so (Ex. 25:8)'.

Some Messianic Jews (that is, Jewish believers in Jesus) are also sympathetic to the idea that a temple is necessary for Jews to atone for their sins. Visit the Jews for Jesus website and you can read an article by Zhava Glaser, where she asks rhetorically,

Though some rabbis might minimize the revealed system of worship and its requirements, can the individual Jew neglect what God says? Can there be a ‘proper’ Judaism without a priesthood, an altar, a sacrifice and a place on earth where God meets the individual?

The answer to Glaser is obviously ‘no.’ This is also the reason why some Christian Zionist organizations celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem each year…

(emphasis mine)

So Sizer is using the Glaser article to generalise about “some” Messianic Jews. (Rev Sizer makes similar claims about "Messianic Judaism" in this radio interview, at about 18:35. Personally, I have never yet met a Messianic Jew who believes a temple is needed for Jews to atone for their sins.)

In his book, Sizer makes it sound as if Glaser is in agreement with Orthodox Jews who pray for the temple to be rebuilt. This is a serious matter, since Sizer later (rightly) says that "to advocate the rebuilding of the temple is heresy" (p. 130).

The Zhava Glaser article from which Sizer quotes is available at http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/8_3/rituals

The material quoted by Sizer comes from the penultimate paragraph. Immediately after the words Sizer quotes, Glaser writes this:

Isn't it ironic that it takes the New Testament to tell of the new altar, the everlasting sacrifice and the new high priest through whom gentiles as well as Jews are made holy?

When Messiah came as high priest of the good things that are already here he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made…He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption." (Hebrew 9:11,12)

(emphasis mine)

Zhava Glaser makes it crystal clear that a temple is not necessary for Jews to atone for their sins. But who would ever know this from Rev Sizer's characterization of her argument?

Why does Stephen Sizer misrepresent Zhava Glaser in this way?

Why did his publishers not pick up on this?

Have none of the numerous influential Christian leaders who endorse Sizer's book picked up on it either?

Melanie Phillips on American Jews

2008-09-12T03:35:00.000-07:00

Here. With some interesting asides on evangelicals and Jews for Jesus.

Strictly kosher

2008-09-08T03:28:00.000-07:00

Moshe and Rabbi Abraham are feeling peckish after the Erev Shabbat service and nip into the Chinese takeaway on the way home. The Rabbi isn't sure what is and isn't kosher so he goes for a safe option - fish and chips. He then watches and listens incredulously as Moshe orders prawn crackers, spare ribs, and sweet and sour pork.

The food arrives and, once they have left the takeaway, the Rabbi can scarcely contain himself. "What are you doing ordering all that stuff? Whatever next - bacon sandwiches on Yom Kippur?"

Very calmly, Moshe replies, "Were you watching and listening as I placed my order?"

"Of course I was," replied the rabbi, "I was standing right next to you."

"Well then," said Moshe, "It's not a problem, is it? It was under supervision."

CST Report on Antisemitic Discourse in 2007

2008-08-31T07:05:00.000-07:00

Just came across this and haven't yet read it, looks to be well-researched, which of course makes it all the more disturbing.

Some call it a miracle

2008-08-29T06:17:00.000-07:00

Encouraging CBN report on Israeli Messianic Jews, here

Kicking replacement theology into touch

2008-08-25T03:45:00.000-07:00

You can listen to my recent sermon on Ephesians 3 here

UCU circulates a link to David Duke's website

2008-08-23T01:14:00.000-07:00

Here. Can anyone give me a good reason not to resign for UCU now?

The SWP sinks even lower than usual

2008-08-20T23:54:00.000-07:00

Here. I am entirely unsurprised.

New resource on media reporting on Israel

2008-08-18T01:33:00.000-07:00

Check out Just Journalism

How to demonise people who support Israel

2008-08-14T06:19:00.000-07:00

Really great piece by Jeremy Newmark of the Jewish Leadership Council here

Selah

2008-08-01T06:40:00.000-07:00

This blog will now be resting for a few days. As ever, there's lots of good new stuff on the Engage website, well worth checking out.

The ingrained evangelical supersessionist assumption...

2008-07-30T23:20:00.000-07:00

Here.

When left-wing anti-Zionism becomes right-wing antisemitism

2008-07-29T05:11:00.000-07:00

Here and here.

The more you ignore him, the closer he gets

2008-07-28T02:06:00.000-07:00

Morrissey beats the boycott, here and here.

“See no evil?”: Israel, anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism, and British evangelicals

2008-07-22T23:09:00.000-07:00

My article in the most recent edition of the British Messianic Jewish Alliance's Chai magazine is available here

77% of Israeli Arabs would rather live in Israel than in any other country in the world

2008-07-22T22:59:00.000-07:00

Here. I don't suppose it's an article which the anti-Zionist left will be making too much of.

Sometimes I almost like Gordon Brown

2008-07-21T01:12:00.000-07:00

Here

Just sickening

2008-07-14T05:19:00.000-07:00

From THE WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE, July 7, 2008

"Iranian calls for the destruction of Israel are almost routine these days. But for a former official of the Islamic Republic to call for the destruction of the Jewish state in the city where the Holocaust was planned adds a repugnant twist – especially as the German government sponsored the event that gave the man from Tehran a Western stage."

Read the rest of it Here

The club of tyranny

2008-07-14T05:17:00.000-07:00

Melanie Phillips on the UN's shocking double standards, here

The double Nakba

2008-07-14T05:16:00.000-07:00

Irwin Cotler on both 1948 refugee tragedies, here

Letter to Evangelicals Now on behalf of the BMJA

2008-07-14T05:11:00.000-07:00

[In response to this review]

Sir,

Many things could be said in response to Alec Motyer's review of Israel, God's Servant by David Torrance and George Taylor in July's EN. However we are particularly troubled by Dr Motyer's assertion that he "still cannot find any 'Jews' in the Old Testament". It is disturbing that a man of Dr Motyer's calibre can make such a statement. It seems to us, from the context of the whole review, that by 'Jews' Dr Motyer does not simply mean "rabbinic Judaism", but that he means "the Jewish nation" as a whole. If he does not find 'Jews' in the Old Testament, whom does he find?

It is a worrying development for Messianic Jews amongst many others to read such statements from a respected leading theologian. We know some will accuse us of being hysterical for bringing up the Holocaust; however the truth is that in Nazi Germany, it became common place for theologians to argue that the characters and writers of the Bible were not Jewish. For example, German Protestants established the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church Life, where Jesus himself was turned into an Aryan. A dejudaized hymnbook Grosser Gott Wir Loben Dich was published in 1940 and was commercially successful, followed by Die Botschaft Gottes, a dejudaized New Testament. 100,000 copies of each were published in the first edition. An ethnically-cleansed catechism, Deutsche mit Gott: Ein deutsches Glaubensbuch was also published.

We are sure that Dr Motyer's phrase does not spring from the same hateful motivation and we are not accusing him of antisemitism; it is nevertheless unfortunate. We have members of our Alliance who escaped Nazi Germany who therefore find such comments chilling and deeply offensive - as do we.

Stephen Sizer outdoes himself

2008-07-04T05:09:00.000-07:00

Stephen Sizer is a radically anti-Zionist British evangelical, whom I have blogged about previously here, here, here and here. Follow those links and you should get a feel for Sizer's agenda and methodology. Even by his standards, though, the extract below, from an article on his website responding to this blog post by Irene Lancaster, takes some beating:

Regarding the fallacious assertion that Israel was attacked in 1967 – I would refer you to the confessions of Prime Minister Moshe Sharett (in his personal diary), General Mordicai Hod, Commander of the Israeli Air Force, General Haim Herzog, former head of Israeli Military Intelligence and Head of State, and Foreign Minister Abba Eban that Israel precipitated the 1967 war for their own purposes. Israeli’s survival was not at stake. Mordechai Ben-Tov, for example, admitted “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori, to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.” Similarly, even Menachim Begin admitted, “We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him (Egypt).” [my emphasis]

Yes, Sizer actually claims that Israel's existence was not threatened in the run-up to the 1967 war: a statement with which no serious historian would agree. Consider the following crucial bits of information from Michael Oren's book Six Days of War (Penguin, 2002):

The war decision of the Israeli cabinet, drafted by Dayan and passed by a 12-2 vote, was that

the armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan are deployed for a multi-front attack that threatens Israel's existence. It is therefore decided to launch a military strike aimed at... preventing the impending assault. (pp157-8). Cf:-

p86: "It is now a question of our national survival" (Yitzhak Rabin)
p87: "The Arab states will interpret Israel's weakness as an excellent oppportunity to threaten her security and her very existence" (Aharaon Yariv)
p134 "The question isn't free passage but the existence of the people of Israel." (Ariel Sharon)

The same book also includes a photograph of Israelis digging trenches in the run up to the war. Presumably Sizer believes this was a cunning Zionist hoax to hoodwink the watching world.

No serious historian would claim that Israel's existence was not at stake in the run-up to the 1967 war. Sizer refers to alleged entries in the diary of Moshe Sharrett but, since Sharret died in 1965, these apparent confessions would seem to require an explanation beyond even Rev Sizer's powers of imagination. Regarding Mordechai Ben-Tov, Sizer omits to mention that he was a Knesset Member for Mapam, a miniscule Stalinist party controlled by the KGB. Ben-Tov was so slavishly loyal to Stalin that he had supported the Doctors Plot:-

"Bentov argued that revolution is cruel by nature, and therefore we must not rush to condemn events such as the infamous Doctors’ Plot, in which nine Russian Jewish doctors were arrested on false charges of plotting to murder top government officials." (See http://www.azure.org.il/magazine/magazine.asp?id=377)

As for the Begin quote, Sizer strangely omits Begin's next sentences: This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of National Unity then established declared unanimously [sic]: we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.*

The selective quotation says a lot about Sizer's ethics and methodology. Why do so many people take him seriously?

[I should say that I sent this material by email to Sizer a few weeks ago. He responded but declined to comment on any of these points.]

* The quote comes from a 1982 Jerusalem Post article. Jerusalem Post's online archive only goes as far back as 1989 but I have a PDF copy of the relevant speech on my computer. If you would like to see it, let me have an email address and I'll send it to you.

Israel shows Britain the way?

2008-07-04T00:36:00.000-07:00

It's not often that I come across anything of great interest in The Law Society Gazette (I know this may seem hard to believe), but this article by Joshua Rozenberg caught my attention. It seems that various English law lords and appeals judges have visited Israel's Supreme Court and have met Israeli judges on visits to London. Presumably, this is because English judges feel they might have something to learn from how the Israeli Supreme Court operates, and how it deals with claims brought by campaign groups and residents of the West Bank and Gaza. Something to chew on for those who would like to see a complete exclusion of Israelis from the cultural, academic and legal life of the planet.

Jewish stuff in this month's Evangelicals Now

2008-07-02T02:44:00.000-07:00

Alec Motyer reviews Torrance and Taylor's Israel, God's Servant, here. I guess it was as positive a review the book was ever going to get in EN, which is, after all, supersessionist at heart.

There was also an artticle on the recent burning of New Testaments at Yehuda Or, but this article has not been reproduced on EN's website.

More on the boycott movement

2008-07-01T01:02:00.000-07:00

The left's hypocrisy over Zimbabwe, here

Eve Garrard (of Keele University) has written a terrific letter of resignation from the Universities and Colleges Union, here. I suspect she won't be the last. "The Union purports to be antiracist: it asserts that 'racism is widespread throughout further and higher education', and that the 'UCU is opposed to race discrimination in whatever form it takes'. But it doesn't seem to be opposed to current race discrimination against Jews (except when it can be safely attributed to Nazis), and it does seem to believe that the UCU itself is entirely free of the racism which it regards as so widespread elsewhere. It appears to be impervious to the possibility that its own practices are open to question under that heading. Its peevish and self-satisfied response to criticism from the All-Party Inquiry into Anti-Semitism was a salutary example of this, as was the Union's flat refusal to meet the OSCE Special Representative on combating anti-Semitism. Its officials declared that they were too busy to meet the Representative. Perhaps Union personnel should announce that they're opposed to race discrimination in whatever form it takes, except when they're really busy. Even when it is pointed out to the Union, in the clearest possible terms, that its proposed actions constitute institutional discrimination against Jews, it is so determined to persist in those actions that it spends very large sums of its members' money trying to find out if there is some way in which it can single out the Jewish state for hostile attention and still remain within the law."

Good news for a change

2008-06-30T03:24:00.000-07:00

Boycott hit by a wave of collaborations, here

Jewish Groups welcome Presbyterians' move towards balance, here

The Modern Version of the Blood Libel

2008-06-27T04:59:00.000-07:00

Melani Phillips on the Mohammed Al-Dura affair, here

Thoughts on (what some people claim isn't) the boycott campaign

2008-06-27T02:33:00.000-07:00

Here.

Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

2008-06-23T05:59:00.000-07:00

Ynet news article, here

Howard Jacobson on the boycott

2008-06-19T06:12:00.000-07:00

Have a listen, here - it's about 10 minutes long, funny, and devastatingly brilliant.

UNRWA: Barrier to Peace

2008-06-16T06:08:00.000-07:00

(From this site)

UNRWA: Barrier to Peace
Jonathan Spyer
Perspectives Papers No. 44, May 27, 2008
May 28, 2008

Executive Summary: The United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) was created under the jurisdiction of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), with the unique responsibility of solely aiding the Palestinians. Due to this special status, the UNRWA perpetuates, rather than resolves, the Palestinian refugee issue, and therefore serves as a major obstacle toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like no other UN body, UNRWA's definition of refugees includes not only the refugees themselves, but also their descendents. Moreover, refugees keep their status even if they have gained citizenship. UNRWA employs teachers affiliated with Hamas and allows the dissemination of Hamas messages in its schools. The Hamas coup in Gaza of July 2007 has resulted in a Hamas takeover of UNRWA facilities there. Therefore, UNRWA's activities require urgent action. The Agency should be dissolved and its services transferred to more appropriate administering organizations.

Background

Millions of refugees worldwide - over 130 million since the end of World War II - have come under the responsibility of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which aims to resettle and rehabilitate refugees. On December 8, 1949, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 302, establishing an agency dedicated solely to "direct relief and works programs" for the Palestinian Arab refugees - UNRWA (United Nations Relief Works Agency) - making it a unique body.

UNRWA exists in order to perpetuate, rather than to resolve, the Palestinian refugee issue. No Palestinian has ever lost his or her refugee status. There are hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees and their descendants who are citizens of Jordan, for example - yet as far as UNRWA is concerned they are still refugees, eligible for aid. UNRWA, over the past 60 years, has transformed itself into a central vehicle for the perpetuation of the refugee problem, and into a major obstacle for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Problem of Definition

When UNRWA first began counting refugees in 1948, it did so in a way without precedent - seeking to maximize the number of those defined as refugees. UNRWA counts every descendant of the original refugees as a refugee themselves - leading to an increase of 400 percent in the number since 1948.

This was a politically motivated definition to imply that either Palestinians would remain refugees forever or until the day that they returned in a triumph to a Palestinian Arab state that included the territory where Israel existed. If they built lives elsewhere, even after many generations - decades or centuries - they still remained officially refugees. In contrast to other situations around the world, other refugees only retained that status until they found permanent homes elsewhere, presumably as citizens of other countries.

Moreover, refugee status was based solely on the applicant's word. Even UNRWA admitted its figures were inflated in a 1998 Report of the Commissioner General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (July 1997-30 June 1998): "UNRWA registration figures are based on information voluntarily supplied by refugees primarily for the purpose of obtaining access to Agency services and hence cannot be considered statistically valid demographic data."

Fostering Conflict

In October 2004, then UNRWA Commissioner General Peter Hansen publicly admitted for the first time that Hamas members were on the UNWRA payroll, adding, "I don't see that as a crime. Hamas as a political organization does not mean that every member is a militant and we do not do political vetting and exclude people from one persuasion as against another." Consequently, taxpayers' money in countries where Hamas was legally defined as a terrorist organization, like the United States and Canada, was being illegally used to fund Hamas-controlled activities.

Hanson's view that Hamas was a normal political organization whose doctrines did not interfere with the governance and education of Palestinians remains the position of UNRWA. This has been so even when Hamas has committed violence against other Palestinians. After the organization seized Gaza by force in July 2007, UNRWA immediately indicated to Hamas that it was eager to get back to providing its services. Nothing was changed in its procedure or performance after the takeover.

A graphic demonstration of this issue was the death of Awad al-Qiq in May 2008. Qiq had a long career as a science teacher in an UNRWA school and had been promoted to run its Rafah Prep Boys School. He was also the leading bombmaker for Islamic Jihad. He was killed while supervising a factory to make rockets and other weapons for use against Israel, located a short distance from the school. Qiq was thus simultaneously building weapons for attacking Israeli civilians while indoctrinating his students to do the same. Islamic Jihad did not need to pay him a salary for his terrorist activities. The UN and the American taxpayer were already doing so.

The increasing numbers of UNRWA teachers who openly identify with radical groups have created a teachers' bloc that ensures the election of members of Hamas and individuals committed to Islamist ideologies. Using classrooms as a place to spread their radical messages, these teachers have also gravitated to local Palestinian elections. Thus, UNRWA's education system has become a springboard for the political activities of Hamas. For example, Minister of Interior and Civil Affairs Minister Saeed Siyam of Hamas, was a teacher in UNRWA schools in Gaza from 1980 to 2003. He then became a member of UNRWA's Arab Employees Union, and has headed the Teachers Sector Committee. Other notable Hamas graduates of the UNRWA education system include Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and Abd al-Aziz Rantisi, the former Hamas chief.

Fostering Dependency

UNRWA's budget has been supported by many countries of which the United States and Western countries have been the largest contributors. In 1990, UNRWA's annual budget was over $292 million, and by 2000 it had increased to $365 million. Despite this seemingly significant rise, however, actual allocations among the various refugee camps has decreased - compounded by a very high birth rate and burgeoning camp populations. Refugees were discouraged from moving out and had the incentive of being on welfare if they remained.

Per capita spending among refugees in camps thus declined from $200 in services per year per refugee in the 1970s to about $70 currently. This situation has been most evident in Lebanon, where the government provides little if any additional assistance to the Palestinians.

UNRWA provides jobs to a large number of Palestinians (it has a full time staff of 23,000). While the UN High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) and the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) avoid employing locals who are also recipients of agency services, UNRWA does not make this distinction. UNRWA thus keeps a large population of refugees and their descendants in a permanent state of welfare dependency, financed by the western taxpayer. In so doing, it acts as a barrier to attempts to make the refugees into productive citizens. Bureaucracies have a tendency to become self-perpetuating. In the case of UNRWA, this tendency is exacerbated by the fact that the organization's raison d'etre is the preserving of a refugee problem, rather than finding a solution for it.

Conclusion

The UN erred when it created a UN body devoted exclusively to one refugee population and with a modus operandi contradicting that of all other relief institutions. Four steps are required to bring the international approach to the Palestinian refugee issue in line with standard practice on similar situations.

First, UNRWA itself should be dissolved. Second, the services UNRWA currently provides should be transferred to other UN agencies, notably the UNHCR, which have a long experience with such programs. Third, responsibility for normal social services should be turned over to the Palestinian Authority. A large portion of the UNRWA staff should be transferred to that governmental authority. Fourth, donors should use the maximum amount of oversight to ensure transparency and accountability.

Dr. Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya Israel.