The European Union Is Paying Palestinians for Not Working

December 16, 2013
by Michael Curtis


The European Union (EU) has not hesitated in making known its criticisms of the State of Israel and its suggestions for boycotts against some Israeli products.  Recently, the EU agency for combating racism has been unable to define the term “anti-Semitism” and has removed the working definition it adopted in 2005.  By contrast, the EU has turned a blind eye to the fact that it has knowingly been paying Palestinians for not working.


This information is revealed in a sober special report, no. 14, of the European Union’s  Court of Auditors published on December 11,  2013.  This special report covers the detailed story of the EU’s financial support, including direct support, to the Palestinian Authority (PA) that since 1994 has amounted to more than 5.6 billion euros.


The EU supports public services for the benefit of the Palestinian population, but the payment of non-performing civil servants does not serve this objective.  About 24% of those on the payroll of PA health and education ministries, some 60,000 people, are paid but not working.  They stopped reporting to their jobs when Hamas seized power in Gaza.


The new December report outlines the financial assistance given by the EU.  An interim association agreement on trade and cooperation had been signed in 1997 between the then-European community and the PLO on behalf of the PA.  Between 1994 and 2006, more than 2.7 billion euros were given to the Palestinians from the EU’s general budget


Another agreement was signed in 2005 between the EU and the Palestinians to support the political and economic reform agenda over the next few years.  Between 2007 and 2012, a further 2.9 billion euros was given from the EU’s general budget.


EU funding has increasingly come from the PEGASE (the French acronym for European-Palestinian Management and Socio-Economic Help), the mechanism launched in 2008 to support the Palestinian Authority, officially to help it until the overall political objective of a two-state solution is achieved.  It is the main instrument used by the EU to provide financial assistance directly from the EU budget.


The PEGASE Direct Financial Support (DFS) program, intended to meet recurring expenditures and give support to private-sector businesses,  has provided about 1 billion euros in funding to the PA from 2008 to 2012.  This is more than 10% of the PA’s annual revenue and has been an important aid in keeping the PA’s budget deficit down.  That overall budget deficit is  $1.7 billion, or 17% of GDP.


In addition, more than 1.3 billion euros was given from DFS.  The EU is the largest donor to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), having provided  789 million euros to support it.


The DFS funding resulted from the crisis caused by the temporary suspension of aid to the PA after the Hamas victory in January 2006.  A temporary international mechanism (TIM) was set up to ensure direct assistance to the Palestinian population, thus enabling the EU to bypass the Hamas-led government in the Gaza Strip.  Since 2008, the TIM has been replaced by the PEGASE mechanism.


The EU helps the PA meet its obligations to civil servants, pensioners, and vulnerable families; maintain essential public services; and improve public finances.  Part of the present problem is the number supported as part of “vulnerable families,” those living in extreme poverty in the West Bank and Gaza, which has increased from 44,000 in 2008 to 60,000 in 2012.  


The PEGASE program provides support for Palestinian development, for delivery of public services, and for essential  services such as fuel to the Gaza power plant to ensure sufficient electricity to people living in Gaza, a supply that has cost 183 million euros.  In a variety of ways, the EU has supported the Palestinian population in East Jerusalem, which it argues should be the capital of a Palestinian state.  In addition, the EU  provides some financial support for businesses destroyed or damaged during the Israeli “Operation Cast Lead” in 2008 to stop Hamas rockets attacking Israel.  About 22 million euros were given to 915 companies.


Criticism of the Palestinians is made politely in the report, but it is clear.  The financial relationship is increasingly in “need of an overhaul,” notably in relation to its civil service.  There has been little or no review of public service grades or pay scales. The report questions whether the PEGASE DFS aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA), which has been shown to be incompetent and perhaps corrupt with its finances, can now be sustained.


As a bow to political correctness, the report suggests that the continuing restrictions by Israel on the PA help cause overall fiscal difficulties, and that a way needs to be found to bring Israel to take the necessary steps to ensure that PEGASE DFS is effective.  But the evidence of the report itself shows that Israel’s actions have little to do with the plight of the Palestinians.  A major reason for this is that the number of Palestinian beneficiaries has been increasing while funding by outside donors has been decreasing.  Even the EU has decreased its support from 524 million euros in 2011 to 358 million in 2012.


Despite the large amount of money provided by the EU, the PA faced a severe budget deficit in 2012, which led to public finance management problems.  The delay in payment of salaries by the PA led to demonstrations and strikes among civil servants in September 2012.


The EU publicly supports a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and envisages the creation of a viable, contiguous, and democratic Palestinian state, living side by side with Israel in peace and security.  It recognizes some of the events that have set back the peace process.  The first occurred in January 2006, when Hamas defeated the Fatah party in the Palestinian parliamentary elections.  The EU understood that Hamas does not recognize Israel’s right to exist and indeed classifies it as a terrorist organization.


The de facto division of Palestinians occurred when fighting broke out between Fatah and Hamas in June 2007, and Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip.  The EU does not have a contract with Hamas, but it does try to help the Gaza population.  It would do even more by calling on Hamas to stop its terrorist activity and enter into negotiations with and officially recognize the State of Israel.

Michael Curtis is author of Jews, Antisemitism, and the Middle East.


Source:


Roosevelt, Ibn Saud, and American Jews

March 27, 2013

Andrew Bostom h/t Doc’s Talk:

This morning at AT, Professor Emeritus Edward Bernard Glick described his frank 1958 discussion with Eleanor Roosevelt regarding her husband, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s decision not to bomb the railway tracks connecting to the Nazi extermination camps for European Jews. Professor Glick also alludes to prevalent antisemitic attitudes in the State Department, and perhaps President Roosevelt, himself, whom he quotes as having stated to a prominent Jewish Congressman, “The Jews in America should know that they are tolerated here, but not more than that.

Roosevelt’s statement was in fact a crude retrogression from the attitudes expressed by America’s first President, George Washington. Following a visit to Newport, RI in August, 1790, and his warm reception by the local Jewish community, represented in a letter by Moses Seixas, George Washington wrote a moving reply to Touro’s congregation. Our first President rejected the idea of mere “tolerance” of Jews, embracing them as full, equal citizens of the nascent American nation, with complete freedom of conscience, and the guarantee of their personal security. Washington stated,
The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. [emphasis added]

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

Roosevelt made another particularly maleficent, if bizarre, statement revealing his visceral antisemitism during the seminal February, 1945 Yalta Conference between the American President, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. The President was scheduled to meet with Arabia’s despot King Ibn Saud immediately after the Conference. Alluding to this upcoming meeting with the Arabian despot, Stalin asked Roosevelt what concessions the President might make to Ibn Saud regarding Middle Eastern issues. As per two independent sources of archival documentary evidence (hat tip, Diana West), i.e., the minutes preserved in the Roosevelt Library in Hyde Park, New York, and the papers of then Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius (the latter reproduced in the recent M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein analysis, “Stalin’s Secret Agents—The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government,” p. 35),
The President [Roosevelt] replied that there was only one concession he thought he might offer and that was to give him [Ibn Saud] the six million Jews in the United States. [February 10, 1945]

Professor Glick warns, appropriately, about the pitfalls of American Jews’ blindly misguided reverence for Democratic Presidential “saviors,” such as Franklin Roosevelt, or Barack Obama, “whom Jews revered then [Roosevelt] as much as they lionize President Barack Obama now ,” despite their latent (or blatant) antisemitism, and the actions, or inactions, such attitudes may engender.
All Articles Copyright © 2007-2013 Dr. Andrew Bostom | All Rights Reserved
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage(For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

(Saudis remember FDR’s broken promise – Baltimore Sun) Roosevelt spelled out this promise in a letter to King Abdel Aziz Ibn Saud on April 5, 1945:
Your Majesty will recall that on previous occasions I communicated to you the attitude of the American Government toward Palestine and made clear our desire that no decision be taken with respect to the basic situation in that country without full consultation with both Arabs and Jews. … [D]uring our recent conversation I assured you that I would take no action, in my capacity as Chief of the Executive Branch of this Government, which might prove hostile to the Arab people.
…when Roosevelt made this promise about Palestine, it never occurred to Ibn Saud that another president could come along and break that promise.???????
But Roosevelt died a week after sending the letter to Ibn Saud.
Harry S. Truman, Roosevelt’s successor, came to office suddenly and unexpectedly.
Truman placed the United States forcefully and decisively in support of the partition of Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state in 1948. The sentiments of the king of Saudi Arabia were not considered important.
“I’m sorry, gentlemen,” Truman explained to worried Arabists. “But I have to answer to hundreds of thousands of people who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.”

(Saudis remember FDR’s broken promise – Baltimore Sun) The meeting took place in February 1945 aboard the USS Quincy, a destroyer, in the Great Bitter Lake of the Suez Canal, where Roosevelt stopped on his way home from the Yalta Conference with Churchill and Stalin.
Ibn Saud was brought to the rendezvous aboard the USS Murphy, a cruiser, along with an extraordinary cargo, though not nearly as strange as it might have been if the king had had his way. Ibn Saud had arrived at the dock with an entourage of about 200 men, plus quite a few women from his harem.
The captain of the Murphy was appalled. He warned the king’s entourage of problems that might arise with women aboard a naval vessel manned by a crew that had been at sea and at war for a long time. The women were left behind. The king brought a retinue of 48, including coffee servers, cooks and six huge Nubians with swords.


Manalapan, N.J. Overrun With Anti-Semitic Graffiti, Other Messages Of Hate « CBS New York

September 8, 2012

MANALAPAN, N.J. (CBSNewYork) — Just 10 days before the High Holidays a New Jersey community woke up to find swastikas and anti-Jewish graffiti all over town.
The photographs show the images neighbors woke up to in Manalapan on Thursday morning — swastikas on street signs, mailboxes, a cable box  and a sign saying “kill the Jews” on a picket fence, CBS 2’s Emily Smith reported Friday.
“I saw the commotion, swastika signs and ‘kill the Jews.’ I’ve been here 14 years, never seen anything like it,” resident Howard Weitz said.
At least 12 swastikas and other anti-Semitic symbols of hate appeared along Taylor Mills Road, a main residential street in town, and on several side streets, painted mostly in red.
Some believe the perpetrators did this to spread hate to the entire community. Western Monmouth County is home to tens of thousands of Jewish families served by several synagogues.
“I don’t know why that neighborhood in particular was targeted, but the whole area has been great for the Jewish community,” said Keith Krivitzky, executive director of the Jewish Federation.

Swastikas

Throughout Manalapan, N.J., swastikas were painted in red on mailboxes. signs and fences. (Photo: handout)

Krivitzky said he’s not sure who would do something like this.
“You don’t know. At the very least it’s a wake-up call and should be an educational opportunity to come together and say this isn’t tolerated, acceptable, not who we are and it isn’t welcome here,” Krivitzky said.
While most of the homes targeted belong to Jewish families, residents pointed out that anyone seeing a swastika anywhere should feel some pain and disgust — knowing it’s a message of hate and persecution.
The hate crime happened just one day after the Jewish Federation held a community-wide security preparedness training to help keep the High Holiday observances, a time of peace.


How Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez is Using Anti-Semitism to Maintain His Power—Against a Challenger Who Isn’t Even Jewish

June 13, 2012

Venezuelan opposition leader Henrique Capriles delivers a speech in Caracas on June 10, 2012 (Leo Ramirez/AFP/Getty Images) The Dispossessed (Tablet/By Matthew Fishbane) Hugo Chávez is ramping up his assault on Venezuela’s upper class, and now a rare Jewish paradise is squarely in his sights. Can it be salvaged? Four days ago, Henrique Capriles, the youthful governor of Miranda state in Venezuela, launched his campaign to rid the country of Hugo Chávez at the presidential election scheduled for October this year. Joined by thousands of supporters, the newly minted candidate led a six-mile procession through the capital city, Caracas. Their final destination was the office of the national election board, where Capriles formally registered his candidacy. The march showcased Capriles, whose Jewish origins have been mercilessly attacked by the Chavistas, as the anti-Chávez—not just figuratively, but literally as well. By marching for a long distance over a short space of time, Capriles wanted his fellow Venezuelans to see him as the picture of health, in marked contrast to the ailing Chávez. For more than a year now, Chávez’s physical condition has been subjected to the sort of rolling speculation typically reserved for dictators. Until Saturday, Chávez had released virtually no information about the terminal cancer he is widely believed to be suffering from. Then, one day before the Capriles march, he summoned journalists to his presidential palace to tell them, “I feel very good.” The following day, Chávez held a buoyant election rally of his own.
The rally didn’t disguise the fact that Chávez, who is currently serving his third term as president, has never looked so vulnerable. His failing health is only part of the story; in the six years that have passed since the last election, the country has become mired in poverty, violent crime, and corruption. Fired by the high price of oil, Venezuela’s principle export, Chávez lavished cash on social spending, while the underlying economy suffered from inflation and capital flight. These days, Venezuela looks less like a socialist version of Singapore and more like the Latin American equivalent of Zimbabwe. According to Sammy Eppel, the head of the Human Rights Commission of the Venezuelan Bna’i Brith and a frequent commentator on Venezuelan affairs, not even the 8 million beneficiaries of Chávez’s grandiose social justice programs, who combined make up nearly half of the electorate, can be relied upon to cast their votes for the commandante. Capriles, a moderate leftist who leads a coalition of 30 opposition parties, plans to capitalize on this uncertainty.
Yet in a country like Venezuela, where infrequent elections are the only glimmer of democratic hope in the face of a regime that has acquired the core features of a dictatorship, no opposition candidate can be considered a shoo-in. Most polls show Chávez comfortably in front; nonetheless, the regime has several options up its sleeve in the event of a Capriles victory.
There is the prospect of Chavismo without Chávez, whereby a handpicked successor continues the path of the revolution; Chávez’s daughter and brother are spoken of as possible candidates, as is current Foreign Minister Nicolás Maduro. There is the constantly swirling talk of a military coup, a measure that the country’s generals, who are immersed in drug trafficking worth hundreds of millions of dollars, might decide is a preferable alternative to being arrested and imprisoned by a democratic government. In addition, Chávez could follow the example of his close ally Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and simply steal the election. “We do not have an electoral arbiter,” I was told by Diego Arria, a leading opposition figure and former Venezuelan U.N. ambassador. “We have what I call the ‘Ministry of Elections of Mr. Chávez.’ And they will do whatever they have to in order to prevent a defeat.”
Lastly, and arguably most importantly, Chávez can marshal his extraordinary media and propaganda resources to pound away at Capriles’ reputation. Central to that effort is the demonization of Capriles as an agent of capitalism, gringoism, imperialism, and—critically—a concoction of conspiratorial tropes that point to the greatest lurking danger of all: “Zionism,” which for many is interchangeable with “Judaism.” As a recent headline in the weekly pro-Chávez rag Kikiriki so elegantly put it, “We are fucked if the Jews come to power.”
***
Henrique Capriles may be a devout Catholic, but he comes from Jewish stock. His mother’s family, the Radonskis, were Jewish émigrés from Poland; his great-grandparents were exterminated in the Treblinka concentration camp; and his grandmother spent nearly two years in the beleaguered Warsaw Ghetto. His father, meanwhile, is descended from the long-established Sephardic community on the Caribbean island of Curaçao. Although Capriles has expressed pride in his background, his family never considered themselves part of Venezuela’s diminutive Jewish community. For the purposes of the regime’s propaganda operation, that brooks no difference.
“The best opposition candidate for Chávez is Capriles,” said Sammy Eppel. “Any other candidate, like Diego Arria, would be different—they couldn’t call him a Zionist. But Capriles fits the bill perfectly.” Eppel points out that the cartoons lampooning Capriles in the Chávez-controlled press invariably feature him wearing a Star of David. And because Capriles is unmarried, the Chavistas can’t resist a homophobic swipe either; in many of these same cartoons, he wears a pair of pink shorts.
“There is no anti-Semitic tradition in Venezuelan culture,” asserts Daniel Duquenal, one of the few dissident bloggers in Venezuela. “But Chávez has been systematically developing anti-Semitism in Venezuela.” All of which is eerily reminiscent of “anti-Semitism without Jews,” a phenomenon that emerged in the eastern bloc and in certain Arab countries following the Second World War. Absent a numerically significant Jewish community, anti-Semitism becomes a largely ideological weapon, designed to stoke fears of shadowy outside forces hatching conspiracies.
What, if any, are the potential gains of such a strategy for Chávez? Diego Arria is adamant that while the regime is unambiguously anti-Semitic, its deployment of anti-Semitic discourse will yield few concrete advantages. “Capriles says, ‘I am a mariano, a follower of the Virgin Mary,’ ” says Arria, who attended school with Capriles’ father. “People in Venezuela do not see him as a Jew. I don’t believe that an anti-Semitic campaign will have much impact on the Venezuelan population.”
Contrastingly, Duquenal argues that the value of anti-Semitism lies outside the domestic arena, pointing to Chávez’s geopolitical calculations. Chávez has actively promoted a close commercial and political relationship with the mullahs in Iran. He has established himself as a loyal ally of Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad going so far as to dispatch 300,000 tons of diesel, which arrived on a Venezuelan freighter, La Negra Hipolita, two days before the gruesome massacre in the town of Houla. Last week, Chávez ended another long period out of public view by publicly welcoming a delegation from Belarus sent by that country’s dictator, Alexander Lukashenko, who plans to visit Caracas personally in a few weeks from now.
“Anti-Semitism has been created artificially because Chávez wants to align himself with radical regimes against the United States,” Duquenal said. “That’s the only logical explanation I can find for why Chavismo has deliberately decided to become an anti-Semitic political movement.” Continue reading: ‘The Jewish Problem’Both Duquenal and Sammy Eppel point to the enduring influence over Chávez of Norberto Ceresole, the late Argentinian fascist intellectual with whom he struck up a friendship. “Ceresole was like the parrot on Chávez’s shoulder,” Eppel says. “He wanted bring the far left and the far right together, and he persuaded Chávez that he was the man to do that.” Once Chávez, following Ceresole, aligned the dregs of fascism with those of communism, anti-Semitism became the ideological glue binding the Chavismo model of government, in which the relationship between the leader and his people is central, unencumbered by pesky interferences like an independent judiciary. It is no accident, Eppel believes, that the first chapter of a book by Ceresole extolling this model was titled “The Jewish Problem.”
Occasionally, the vulgar rhetoric of Venezuelan anti-Semitism has strayed into physical attacks. In January 2009, an armed gang stormed the Tiferet Israel synagogue in Caracas, spraying choice slogans like “Damned Israel, Death!” on its walls. This particular theme echoed a speech that Chávez delivered in China in 2006, in which he claimed that Israel had “done something similar to what Hitler did, possibly worse, against half the world.”
In a monograph published in April, “Chávez, The Left and The Jews,” the academics Claudio Lomnitz and Rafael Sanchez contend that in Chávez’s Venezuela, “politics and political life represent a kind of hand-to-hand combat between the ‘people,’ united by ‘love,’ and its enemies, united by hatred—the ‘ire’ that Ceresole imputes to the Jews.” Such cloyingly emotional, anti-rational politics are the perfect breeding ground for the fantasies about Jewish power that Chávez has actively promoted and that will doubtless be wheeled out against Capriles as the election approaches.
***
For Venezuela’s remaining Jews, these anti-Semitic fantasies underline their own harsh reality. Diego Arria describes the community as having been “decimated”; under Chávez, its numbers have declined from a height of 30,000 to just 9,000. Moreover, the Chavista bureaucracy seemingly delights in placing obstacles in the community’s way. Just before Passover this year, the interior ministry announced that extra sanitary permits would be needed if the importation of matzo, the unleavened bread consumed during the festival, was to be approved. And when the Jewish community needs to make official representations, its leaders are directed to the Foreign Ministry—proof, Sammy Eppel asserts, that the regime fundamentally regards Jews as aliens, not Venezuelan citizens.
All the indicators are that Venezuelan Jews will continue to leave the country, heading for more benign destinations like Colombia, Mexico, and Miami. “They are an integrated Latin community, so they go where there is a Latin culture,” says Eppel. “This isn’t a Polish shtetl.” It is possible that a Capriles victory will stem the tide of emigration, but even then, the years of destruction wrought by Chávez will remain a powerful push factor for Jews and non-Jews alike.
***


Nick Cohen, Colin Shindler and left antisemitism

June 10, 2012

Trotsky: heartfelt echoThe idea that only fascism is the cause of hate and that Communism stands apart from it is naive and ignorant. There are other reasons to hate someone other then their race. I could hate you because of the brand of shoes you wear and given power, your shoes could be the means of which I will attempt to divide you from a populist mob rampage or in the back rooms of a dictatorship. The great irony that we have accepted RACE as being the only prejudice humans can have… and yet it’s an artificial construct that can be taylor made for the elite. Of course you can change your shoes… or you can change your philosophy or religion… but what if you really liked those shoes?

…In the early 20th century, Eastern European Jews had two love affairs – with Communism and with Zionism. But the Communists betrayed them. The Hungarian intellectual, Arthur Koestler, compared his time as a Communist with the deception practised on Jacob when he slept with the ugly Leah instead of Rachel.
Early Communists didn’t want to be bothered with Jewish issues which, they thought, would be automatically resolved under socialism. By the 1920s, Stalin was using antisemitism to defeat his opponents in the party, many of whom were Jewish. One, Karl Radek, asked: “What’s the difference between Moses and Stalin? Moses took the Jews out of Egypt. Stalin takes them out of the Communist Party”.
By the 1930s, Stalin’s great opponent, Trotsky, had come to believe that Jews might well not assimilate after all. He began to speak of “the Jewish nation”. A socialist Zionist who met him in 1937 thought her words “penetrated deep into his heart, that he was glad to hear about a world from which he had dissociated himself”. She thought that “he was listening not like a man who placed himself above all nationality,” and that, “our great idea found an echo in his heart”. Trotsky’s biographer and disciple, Isaac Deutscher, a self-confessed “non-Jewish Jew”, later admitted that, had he urged Jews in the 1930s to go to Palestine, many, including his own family, would have been saved.
The non-Communist left was more sympathetic to Zionism. Ralph Miliband, father of Ed and David, insisted, in a long correspondence with a Belgian socialist, Marcel Liebman, that his kind of socialism did not preclude recognition of Jewish identity. “What right do the Jews have to be in Palestine… Their right stems from the fact that the world is what it is”. Perhaps there is no better answer.
(MORE)

(Simply Jews)stumbled across this, sort of, on the Standpoint website. It’s Nick Cohen’s review of Colin Shindler’s “Israel and the European Left”. Actually, (Simply Jews) was chasing down a link in a comments thread elsewhere, but what matters is that (Simply Jews) found it!(Nick Cohen, Colin Shindler and left antisemitism)
Cohen starts off with a set of general comments on the original ideological links between Communism and Zionism, before they became, in his own words, separated at birth. Then he comes to Shindler’s book. Almost his first direct comment on it is the following: “If [Colin Shindler] has not produced a secret history, then it is a history of a secret in plain view; an account of facts that are available but not discussed. After (Brian Goldfarb) interviewed him at Jewish Book Week, members of the audience said they had never before heard anyone examine the racist strain in left-wing thinking, even though it was there from the beginning.”
Of course, the readers of this and similar sites will not be at all surprised that this strain, as Cohen puts it, in left-wing thinking. If we weren’t aware, we wouldn’t be here in the first place. Anne’s opinions (another Israel based website, in English) was kind enough to post a longish article By (Brian Goldfarb) on the Jewish Book Week, including his reactions to the Shindler/Cohen session.

(How the Left Turned Against the Jews | Standpoint)”You cry out against Jewish capital, gentlemen?” cried one. “You are against Jewish capital and want to eliminate the stock manipulators. Rightly so. Trample the Jewish capitalists under foot, hang them from the street lamps, stamp them out.”
Ruth Fischer sounded like a Nazi. She used the same hate-filled language. She wanted to murder Jews. But Hitler would never have accepted her. Fischer was a leader of the German Communist Party. She made her small differences of opinion with the Nazis clear when she went on to say that her audience should not just trample Jewish capitalists to death, but all capitalists.
Unconcerned by the contradiction, Hitler said the Jews were at once a “Judaeo-Bolshevik” conspiracy and a capitalist conspiracy. In Fischer’s case, he was half right. The rabble-rouser who wanted to hang Jewish capitalists was a Jewish Communist, the sister of Hanns Eisler, who wrote music for some of Brecht’s early plays. Eisler and Brecht fled the Nazis in 1933. A sense of self-preservation triumphed over ideology, and they found permanent sanctuary in America rather than in Stalin’s Soviet Union. Hanns could not have been surprised when the House Committee on Un-American Activities demanded his deportation. He was a prominent Communist composer who worked for Hollywood, which the American Right considered a nest of reds. Eisler was perhaps more surprised to discover that his own sister Ruth was a witness for the prosecution when the McCarthyites arraigned him in 1947. Supporters of Stalin had denounced her as a “Left oppositionist” Trotskyist. She responded by not only going over to the “capitalist camp” but by providing evidence against Hanns, and against a second brother, Gerhart, who was a leading agent in the Comintern.(MORE)

(How the Left Turned Against the Jews | Standpoint)Shindler is a properly impartial historian, but when his beliefs show through he reveals himself to be a social democrat rather than an Israel-firster or man of the Right. The left-wing press won’t like it for the same reason Caliban did not like the sight of his face in the mirror.(MORE)Beyond the ideological divide lies the almost taboo nature of Shindler’s subject. Conventional wisdom does not regard Communism with the same abhorrence as fascism, even though if you want to be an accountant about it and add up the skulls of the dead, you will find that the Communists murdered many more people than the fascists did, began murdering before fascists came to power and carried on murdering after the fascists had gone. Yet few can bring themselves to see fascism and Communism as moral equivalents. Even Robert Conquest, who mapped the crimes of Stalin, and had been mocked by the know-nothing Left of his day as a Cold War fantasist, said he thought the Nazis were worse than the Communists. He couldn’t explain why, they just felt worse.

(How the Left Turned Against the Jews | Standpoint)The movements for Jewish self-determination and Russian Communism were twins separated at birth. The First Zionist conference met on August 27, 1897, to discuss the escape from anti-Semitic Europe to Palestine. The General Jewish Labour Bund held its first conference in Vilnius on October 7, 1897, to organise the Russian Empire’s Jews in a united socialist party. The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, from which the Bolsheviks split, held its first conference in March 1898. Naturally, the Bund sent delegates. For liberal and left-wing Europeans of the late 19th century, no regime was more repellent than Tsarist autocracy, and nothing better symbolised its reactionary nature than its anti-Semitic pogroms. Jews responded to the terror by keeping their Jewish identity and joining Jewish socialist movements, such as the Bund, or by becoming entirely assimilated Communists, as Trotsky and many others did.(MORE)

(How the Left Turned Against the Jews | Standpoint)The coincidences of history do not end there. On November 2, 1917, Arthur Balfour sent his declaration to Baron Rothschild that the British Empire would allow the Jewish people to find a home in Palestine “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities”. On November 7, 1917, the Bolsheviks stormed the Winter Palace.(MORE)

(How the Left Turned Against the Jews | Standpoint)As so often the theory was one thing and the practice another. The belief that Communism was better than Nazism stops us seeing that the Bolshevik Revolution was an insane idea from its inception. A “vanguard” party, composed of a tiny band of professional revolutionaries, could hold on to power only by terrorising the subject population. The Bolsheviks had to crush independent Jewish organisations, as they had to crush all other independent organisations. Yet even before the Bolsheviks produced a left-wing variant of the Nazi conspiracy theory, the Jews were a special case in the old Soviet Union. The Bolsheviks recognised other minorities as minorities with homelands. They never said that there should be a Jewish homeland in their empire. Socialist Zionism was a particular threat to the new regime. If Jews succeeded in building a socialist state in Israel, it would be a rival. Lenin set a loyalty test. Before he came to power, he purged the Communist movement of supporters of the Bund. The only Jews he permitted to remain were Jews who were so thoroughly assimilated that they were barely Jews at all.(MORE)

(Trotsky: heartfelt echo By Colin Shindler, Continuum, £17.99 Review: Israel and the European Left | The Jewish Chronicle By Vernon Bogdanor) Unlike Lenin, Stalin was an anti-Semite and understood the uses of irrational hatred. His crimes took the forms of the sins of omission and commission. The omission was not to see Nazism for what it was, and ally with it in the Hitler-Stalin pact of August 1939. It remains one of the most hypocritical and stupid acts in the annals of diplomacy, where examples of hypocrisy and stupidity are not hard to find. Throughout the 1930s Communist writers, poets and propagandists had denounced fascism and urged a popular front against the Hitlerian menace. Then in August 1939 Stalin stood on his head and announced a Soviet reconciliation with Nazi Germany so they might partition Poland between them. Stalin believed in Hitler. Solzhenitsyn speculated in The First Circle that Hitler was the only man he ever really trusted. The complete surprise Hitler achieved when he invaded an unprepared Soviet Union in 1941 suggests that Solzhenitsyn was right. By signing the pact, the Soviet Union agreed to hand over the Jews of western Poland to the Nazis. Although conventional historians lazily say that the pact shocked a generation of leftists, Shindler points out that membership of the British Communist Party actually rose after the tyrants had cut a deal, and hardly anyone worried about the fate of Polish Jewry. Those who had shouted loudest about the dangers of fascism from 1933 to 1938 were as willing as Chamberlain and Halifax to appease it in 1939.(MORE)

It’s gotta be the shoes


Who guards us from the Guardian’s guardian?

February 15, 2012

Bradley Manning
May Face Death Penalty…

ANNA ARDEN

Julian Assange might be hostile to Jews

(StoneGate) Julian Assange, was plunged into anti-Semitic row as he told a journalist he thought a Jewish conspiracy was being worked against him, which “included” the Guardian’s editor Alan Rusbridger. When told Rusbridger was not Jewish, Assange reportedly noted that Rusbridger was “sort of Jewish” because he was related to David Leigh, a Jewish journalist. How do his views and convictions possibly filter down to the way he runs Wikileaks? As it took Helen Thomas close to six decades to come out about her true feelings, this is something that perhaps one can only speculate about.

Who guards us from the Guardian’s guardian? 


As Criticism Over Antisemitism Increases–Media Matters Digs In Its Heels

February 2, 2012

(Yid With Lid)…Media Matters and its Jew-hater in Chief MJ Rosenberg, the talons are out. These pages have provided many examples over the years how Rosenberg accuses American Jews of dual loyalty with the term Israel-firsters), or how he claims the “evil Zionist lobby” controls both the media and the U.S. foreign policy.
Rosenberg eve uses the term neo-con in a similar fashion to another Jew-Hater Pat Buchanan, as a slang pejorative term for Jews who are politically conservative. Rosenberg accuses those Israel-firster neo-cons of everything from pushing the US into the war with Iraq and now trying to manipulate the US into a war with Iran.
MJ Rosenberg is not backing down. Ever since the controversy began to build he has dug in his heals, tweeting hatred and claiming that those who criticize the use of the term are just trying to silence his “progressive Jewish voice.
Here are just a few of his tweets from the past few days:

Gee, I thought the article was about Obama, not the US. Obama is so wrong about so many things like taxes, Obamacare etc., along with the Middle East. Wait does that make MJ Rosenberg an Obama-firster?

So now the line is–“Bash the Jews and it will prevent a war with Iran?”

Is he really is claiming that no one cared about the Holocaust until the 6-Day-War when Jews could begin to exploit it to protect Israel?

(MORE)

Think about how much influence Media Matters has on Youtube. Think about how the media is framed in replay… now imagine all of it being controlled by people whose fetish is hatred of those who are a minority surrounded by people who want to murder the minority. I know what you are thinking… you are thinking… well I don’t trust Media Matters on some issues, but I listen to them on others. It is shocking sometimes (speaking as someone who follows politics closely)… we all come in thinking just like this before we realize that all the little issues we thought we saw eye to eye with the left was not there at all… from global warming… to Islam… to gender and sex issues: The foundation of the leftist establishment from the top… down all the way to their founding socialist intellectual writers. The left is hatred. The left is bigotry. The left is a denial of truth because the left does not like difference. The left is evil.