close
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20100115204142/http://www.hurryupharry.org:80/

Main menu:

Recent posts

RSS in Arts

By Topic

Archives

Defamation Row

David Hirsh resents being made the ‘hero’ of a new film looking at antisemitism, as he explains in a post at CiF.

Shamir makes me into the hero of the film. Normally I would enjoy being the hero but in this case he constructs my heroic status by misrepresenting what I do and what I say.

I am shown making criticisms of the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians as though this was something controversial. I am shown arguing that contemporary antisemitism is in part a mystification of the real conflict, transformed by racist language and grotesque narratives. I actually said more that day than the one-sided soundbite that Shamir wanted to hear.

Mark Gardner of the CST has another concern. He objects to the way the film has been characteristed in the TV schedules:

The film was itself was many things. It was most certainly not, however, an analysis of “anti-Semitism today”, as implied by Channel 4. It was a two hour long attack upon Israel and its supposed supporters, claiming that they defame non-Jews with the accusation of antisemitism. To call this an examination of “what is anti-Semitism today” is itself a defamation: a defamation of the many Jews throughout the world who have fallen victim to physical antisemitic attack in recent years, and a defamation of those, including CST, who have sought to reverse the current near-global phenomenon of escalating antisemitsm.


“Untermenschen and Asylum Seekers” conference

Meretz UK will sponsor a conference on “Untermenschen and Asylum Seekers” in London on Sunday January 24.

Refugees and Economic Migrants. Past and contemporary themes on refugees and migrants, reviewed by experts, time witnesses and campaigners from Britain, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.

Among the speakers will be David Rosenberg, who has led historical tours of London neighborhoods for Harry’s Place readers.

Details are here.

(Hat tip: Bob from Brockley)


Does Hizb-ut look big in this?

Two troubling tidbits of information in The Times today.

Shiraz Maher writes:

At universities across the country, Hizb ut-Tahrir operates freely behind a series of “front groups” holding events covertly and spreading its dangerous message of confrontation and separation. In recent years it has become more sophisticated in how it does this, circumventing attempts to clamp down on its activities.

Meanwhile, Sean O’Neill reports:

A senior figure in Hizb ut-Tahrir, a hardline Islamist group that the Government keeps “under continuous review” and the Conservatives want to ban, is teaching and preaching at a top university.

So who, one has to wonder, is enabling this? Is there simply a blind spot, or are the same sort of people who – in a previous era – muddied the waters enough for KGB agents to take up positions in the civil service, academia and the media now doing the same for the Islamists?


Chavez ♥ JPMorgan

By Quico at Caracas Chronicles

If any final confirmation of the fundamental lack of seriousness of the chavista project were needed, VTV’s ecstatic reception of JPMorgan’s decision to upgrade Venezuela’s bond ratings surely must be it.

Lets stop and ponder this little nugget for a moment: the Chávez government makes a decision that shifts purchasing power from El Pueblo to The State,  improving the latter’s creditworthiness at the expense of the former’s. The Ultimate Symbol of International Financial Capitalism – we’re talking about JPMorgan, ferchrissake! – notices this, thinks "bloody hell, Venezuelans may not have any money to buy groceries by the end of the year, but the Venezuelan government sure is going to have the cash to pay off international financiers!" and proceeds to upgrade its estimation of how likely those capitalist are to get a return on their investment.

And the people’s revolutionary government highlights this as an achievement in its première propaganda organ!!!

Are these people mad?! Wasn’t the old oligarchy’s willingness to prioritize the needs of international capital over those of everyday Venezuelans at the very center of their critique of the ancien regime? Its conceptual nub?

I sort of sit here and try to picture Lenin bragging in Pravda about how the Soviet Union is now going to be able to pay off the Rothschilds, or Fidel making sure Prensa Latina highlights a glowing press release about the revolución from the United Fruit Company.

Seriously, the mind boggles.

George Orwell adds:

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.


Flying the white flag: BNP Defence

This is a cross-post from Nothing British

Image

Today, Nick Griffin will launch the British National Party’s 2010 General Election campaign. The party is attempting to exploit the growing voter scepticism about the intervention in Afghanistan. (For more information on the BNP’s foreign and defence policy, please see our dossier.)

In the run up to this campaign, the BNP has propagated that it is the only party that would put Britain’s national interest first. It has claimed time and again that it is “tough on terror”. Furthermore, it has wanted the public to believe that it is the party of the troops.

This is rubbish.

They want Britain to abandon our allies, turn our backs on injustice, withdraw from the world stage, run down the army, and leave terrorists and dictators to their own devices. The BNP’s European allies support terrorism in the Middle East and have connections to Saddam Hussein’s regime.

The worrying problem is that the BNP are pulling the wool over the eyes of the British electorate by making them believe that by shirking away from our responsibilities and isolate ourselves from our closest allies will make us safer.

The BNP defence policy:-

  • Withdraw all British troops from Afghanistan.
  • Deny that foreign Islamist terrorists are a threat to Britain’s national security.
  • Pull out of our commitments to NATO.
  • Isolate Britain from the United States.
  • Expel non-whites from the Armed Services

Don’t surrender to Bin Laden and the Taliban by voting BNP.

Keep Britain safe from terrorism.


Being a Nazi is no longer cool

This is a guest post by Brian Henry

I confess I’m still shocked when I see a university professor spitting out Israel-hatred.  You’d think I would have learned that education doesn’t guard against fanaticism.

After all, this isn’t new.  The people driving the new antisemitism are the same people who have driven it in the past. 

They’re an elitist group who see themselves as more politically advanced than most people, more “progressive.”  As such, they think it’s their job to define our political morality.

The new antisemites call themselves leftists.  But when it comes to Israel, they happily team up with the right.  There is, for example, nothing leftwing about Hamas or Hezbollah.

Yet in a conflict between a liberal democracy and these fascistic terrorist groups, the far left identifies with the fascists.  Why?  Because their movement isn’t about what they’re for; it’s about who they’re against.

Two heroes of the new antisemites are John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of The Israel Lobby.  They describe Israel as a shitty little country with no oil and claim the U.S. supports Israel only because a Zionist lobby controls America’s Middle East policy. 

Mearsheimer and Walt call themselves foreign policy realists, in the same school as Kissinger and Nixon. They wouldn’t dream of describing themselves as “on the left.” 

Indeed, David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan, pointed out that he’s been saying the same thing as Mearsheimer and Walt all along!

There’s nothing leftwing or rightwing about Israel-hatred.  In our time, it’s emerged on the left because of historical accidents. 

Back in the 1930s, being a Nazi was cool.  They looked at themselves as a progressive movement that was going to wipe away Jew contamination and create a glorious 1,000-year Reich. 

As everyone knows, the Nazis enlisted street thugs.  But the Nazis also appealed to German intellectuals.  At the Wannsee conference, called to discuss the logistics of murdering the Jewish population of Europe, eight of the fourteen participants held doctorate degrees.

Indeed, the Nazis took over the universities more easily than they took the streets.   Martin Heidegger, rector of Freiberg University and the foremost German philosopher of his time declared: “The Fuhrer alone is the present and future German reality and its law.” 

Some people argue that Heidegger’s Nazism merely reflected his ignorance of reality.  But in that case, why did Heidegger attach his enthusiasm to the Nazis? 

If it wasn’t because he understood the Nazis, then it was because it was the in thing.  All the coolest professors were sporting swastikas in their lapels, and students were wearing their brown shirts to class to show their love of fascism, much as students today wear the Palestinian kefiyeh. 

It’s no longer cool to be a Nazi.  It’s difficult to even imagine a time when it was.  That’s why David Duke gets no respect.  But his ideas of a Zionist conspiracy aren’t out of fashion – they’ve just migrated to the other side of the political spectrum.

The other bits of history that put the new antisemitism on the Left are its roots in Soviet antisemitism and in the radical politics of the 60s and 70s. 

What’s new about antisemitism is the focus on Israel, and the depiction of Israel as uniquely evil – a colonial project and a racist entity – and the claim that the Jews have become Nazis. 

These slanders were the handiwork of Soviet propagandists, who spread them through Europe and the third world. 

More than anything, though, our Israel-haters are the bastard children of the radicals of the 60s and 70s.  But on top of the old quasi-left, anti-war, anti-American ethos, our new extremists have added a layer of antisemitism.

In an earlier age, they might have adopted the anti-clerical and antisemitic politics of Voltaire.  Before that, the religious and antisemitic politics of Martin Luther.  Before that, the Catholic and antisemitic politics of the Inquisition. 

Antisemitism, it seems, has a special attraction for those who believe they’re entitled to define the political morality of their age.

This makes it different from other forms of bigotry.  Racists hate blacks, but they don’t define them as the enemy of mankind.  However, that’s exactly how antisemites define Jews. 

They create a fantasy of good and evil.  They modestly cast themselves in the role of upholding everything that is progressive and holy, and they portray Jews as representing all that is unenlightened and evil.  And they try to impose their beliefs on society.

This conflict is again playing itself out.  The new antisemites define Israel – and those who support it – as representing the worst political evils: imperialism, racism, apartheid and Nazism.  And they’re trying to inflict their twisted vision on the rest of us.

So far, they’re failing.  But they can’t be ignored.  History shows that whole societies can come to embrace even the most extreme beliefs.

Brian Henry is a Toronto writer and editor and a refugee from the NDP – Canada’s social democratic party.  This article previously appeared in the January 14, 2010, Jewish Tribune, a community paper published weekly by B’nai Brith Canada.


Kaboom and Brum

Azzam “Kaboom” Tamimi, one of the UK’s most radical Islamists, is scheduled to address a conference at the University of Birmingham on 20 January.

The conference is titled “In Pursuit of Justice: Remember Gaza” and is organised by the university’s student Islamic society (ISOC).

Tamimi’s fellow speakers will be Tony Benn and Mike Cushman of the British Committee for Universities for Palestine and Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods.

Tamimi is not the first radical guest of the ISOC. Just last month it hosted Abu Usamah At Thahabi, imam of the Green Lane Mosque in Birmingham, where Jew hating preachers are invited to speak and defended. Thahabi was barred from addressing an event at University College London (UCL) in November 2009, but was apparently still welcome in Birmingham the following month.

Turning back to Tamimi, he is known as “Kaboom” for this infamous exchange on the BBC’s “Hard Talk” programme, which charted the hateful depth of his commitment to Hamas:

TIM SEBASTIAN: And meanwhile you advocate the suicide bombing. You said on an internet chat forum early in 2003: ‘For us Moslems martyrdom is not the end of things but the beginning of the most wonderful of things’. If it’s so wonderful to go and blow yourself up in a public place in Israel why don’t you do it?
DR AZZAM AL-TAMIMI: Martyrdom is not necessarily suicide bombings as you call then. Martyrdom is …
TIM SEBASTIAN: No, please answer my question. It was a serious question.
DR AZZAM AL-TAMIMI: I’m trying to answer it …
TIM SEBASTIAN: Why don’t you do it?
DR AZZAM AL-TAMIMI: I’m trying to answer it because this is a concept. Unless it is explained, how can you answer it? Because martyrdom means giving / sacrificing yourself for a noble cause. Now these bombings, the human bombs …
TIM SEBASTIAN: Are you prepared to do this or not?
DR AZZAM AL-TAMIMI: I am prepared, of course.
TIM SEBASTIAN: You would [go] and blow yourself up?
DR AZZAM AL-TAMIMI: No. I’m trying to explain to you …
TIM SEBASTIAN: Ah – so it’s okay. So that’s just for the poor and the disillusioned to go and blow themselves up? You would not be prepared to do it …
DR AZZAM AL-TAMIMI: Most of the …
TIM SEBASTIAN: … you advocate other people to do it?
DR AZZAM AL-TAMIMI: Unless you give me a chance to explain …
TIM SEBASTIAN: Please … Please …
DR AZZAM AL-TAMIMI: Not a single person of those who bomb themselves, bomb themselves because they are desperate or poor. It doesn’t happen because of this. They do it because they want to sacrifice themselves for a cause after all avenues have been closed before them. If the Palestinians today are given F16s and Apache helicopters …
TIM SEBASTIAN: No – please come back to my question. Please come back to my question. Why if it is so glorious and honourable to do this, why don’t you do it?
DR AZZAM AL-TAMIMI: I would do it …
TIM SEBASTIAN: When?
DR AZZAM AL-TAMIMI: If I have the opportunity I would do it …
TIM SEBASTIAN: When are you going to do it?
DR AZZAM AL-TAMIMI: When? If I can go to Palestine and sacrifice myself I would do it. Why not?
TIM SEBASTIAN: So what’s stopping you?
DR AZZAM AL-TAMIMI: I cannot go to Palestine. I cannot go to Palestine.
TIM SEBASTIAN: You simply can’t get in?
DR AZZAM AL-TAMIMI: No, I cannot get in.
TIM SEBASTIAN: Why not?
DR AZZAM AL-TAMIMI: I cannot get in because I am not counted as a Pales[tinian]. When my home town was occupied I was outside Palestine and I just wasn’t counted. I’m not considered by the Palestinians as a legitimate Palestinian / by the Israelis as a legitimate Palestinian. So as much as they don’t recognise me I don’t recognise them.
TIM SEBASTIAN: So this is the reason – the only thing that is holding you back from strapping on a suicide belt is the fact that you can’t get back to the Palestinian territories?
DR AZZAM AL-TAMIMI: You see sacrificing myself for Palestine is a noble cause. It is the straight way to pleasing my God and I would do it if I had the opportunity.

Here he is chanting the “We Are All Hamas” mantra at one of last winter’s pro-Hamas demonstrations in London:

This is Hamas:

Heres Tamimi’s own thinking on Jews (only the Zionist variety of questionable humanity, mind you):

“More people today than ever before are sick of Israel’s holocaust industry that is providing a justification for its own holocaust against the Palestinians…[Jews] rely on extremely sophisticated propaganda machine (sic) that is the product of more than sixty years of holocaust-related campaigns aimed at making non-Jews pay Zionism and Israel for what Hitler did to his Jewish as well as non-Jewish victims in Europe.”

One must admit that Israel and its supporters in the USA and Western Europe are highly experienced in marketing Jewish casualties and in posing before the world as the victims. They rely on extremely sophisticated propaganda machine that is the product of more than sixty years of holocaust-related campaigns aimed at making non-Jews pay Zionism and Israel for what Hitler did to his Jewish as well as non-Jewish victims in Europe. Today’s victims of Israel, the Palestinians, are definitely no match to pro-Israel propaganda machine, which includes the majority of U.S. media, the U.S. film industry and a large proportion of American politicians who are indebted to Jewish money for their success.

Human beings may understand why a person should choose to sacrifice himself for the noble cause of liberating one’s country or defending one’s honor, but few humans may accept the racist claim of other humans of being God’s chosen ones who may kill others because they are less divine.

Zionist Jews must ask themselves, do they really think they can get away with such racist ideology and with their constant fabrication of lies in order to justify it? Until when will the world be able to put up with their arrogance and aggression? If they want to be as human as anybody else, Jews must wake up before it is too late. Israel is their number one liability and Zionism is no honorable cause for any respectable human being.

Tamimi’s radicalism is not focused on Israel alone. This is what he said in November 2001 about the September 11 atrocities in the United States, in an interview with Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia:

Headline: “I admire the Taliban; they are courageous.” Tamimi begins by assuring the interviewer that “everyone” in the Arab world cheered upon seeing the Twin Towers fall. “Excuse me,” says the interviewer, “did you understand my question?” Tamimi: “In the Arab and Muslim countries, everyone jumped for joy. That’s what you asked me, isn’t it?”

How does the ISOC square inviting this man with this statement on its website?

Does ISOC condone terrorism?
NO. ISOC is completely against and appalled by the blowing up of buildings and the killing of innocent people, and this is something that the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, forbade. We stand in solidarity with the people of any country against such atrocities, and will not tolerate any such sentiments within our society.

The University of Birmingham’s current speech policy (pdf) makes a strong statement in favour of freedom:

1.3 Under the Education (No.2) Act 1986, although there is no legal obligation on the University to permit meetings, the University is now legally required to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers.

1.4 The University is an academic community of staff and students. Central to this concept is the ability of all its members freely to challenge prevailing orthodoxies, query the positions and views of others and to put forward ideas that may sometimes be radical in their formulation.

2.2 So far as is reasonably practicable, no access to, or use of land or buildings of the University shall be denied to any individual or body of persons on any grounds solely connected with: (i) the beliefs or views of that individual or of that body; or (ii) the policy or objectives of that body, always providing that the University takes account of the general law relating to incitement to unlawful conduct (including racial hatred), unlawful assemblies, the presence of proscribed organisations or individuals, and other similar matters which may require it to have regard to what is said on its premises.

It also says this:

1.6 Universities do not function in a vacuum and wider conflicts and disputes, often involving ethnicity or religious faith, may sometimes find expression on campus amongst the student body or other constituencies. The challenge for universities is to identify when the pursuit of freedom of ideas and expression crosses a threshold and becomes extremism or intolerance.

1.7 General legal principles, and in specific areas legislation, provide that the proportionate and reasonable limitation of expression is permissible in order to maintain public order and safety or to ensure that there is no breach of the law. Therefore, the right to free speech is not open-ended or absolute. The University will, on occasion, have to weigh conflicting demands for free, public expression of ideas against concerns, on its part, regarding public order and safety, or the potential for breaches of the law to occur. The University acknowledges that it has both a legal and a moral responsibility to act in a proactive manner in order to minimise the possibility that extremism or intolerance will arise on campus whilst, at the same time, ensuring the general continuance of freedom of speech.

Mr Tamimi is most certainly an intolerant extremist. So I would love to know how the conflict between cherished freedoms and the need to reject intolerance and extremism has been assessed, if it has been assessed formally at all, by the University of Birmingham in the case of Azzam Tamimi.

If sections 1.6 and 1.7 of the code of practice on freedom of speech do not justify a ban, who would be banned?

Here’s what happened in High Street Kensington, London, which is just about as close to the Israeli embassy as the racist thugs bent on violence could get, a few hours after Tamimi’s “We are All Hamas” speech (shown above):


11 years for BNP terrorist

News on the BNP terrorist:

A man who admitted making nail and ball bearing bombs at his West Yorkshire home has been jailed for 11 years.

Terrence Robert Gavan also pleaded guilty to six counts of having or collecting documents useful in terrorism.

The 38-year-old from Batley was arrested in a raid by police at his home in May 2009, the Old Bailey heard.

The arsenal of weapons and explosives included home-made shotguns, pen guns and pistols.

Sentencing Gavan, Mr Justice Calvert-Smith said his case was “unique” because of his long and persistent manufacture of guns and explosives.

Gavan pleaded guilty to a total of 22 charges at Woolwich Crown Court last November.

More on Gavan and his links to the BNP here.


Why left-wing students should not support boycotts of Israel

The Alliance for Workers Liberty has produced a cogent argument for opposing the ‘Boycott Israel’ campaign from a Trotskyist-left-wing perspective. It supports a two-state solution as a means of guaranteeing self-determination for both nations. The argument calls for more constructive solidarity and the promotion of cooperation between the Palestinian and Israeli working class and progressive movements. It explains why the “apartheid” analogy is plain wrong when applied to Israel and explains the differences in outcomes and effects between the the current boycott call and past boycotts of South Africa. It concludes that a boycott of Israel will in fact be counter-productive, and profoundly damaging to the cause of Palestinian liberation.

While I’m sure that both the pro-boycott crowd and some supporters of Israel will find much to disagree with, it is well worth a read.

Boycotts will certainly weaken the left, internationalist, pro-Palestinian wing inside Israel, and strengthen the right, by making Israelis feel as if a hostile world is pressing down on them (of the course the history of the Holocaust and anti-semitism play a role here too). The more effective they are – for instance, the more Israelis lose their jobs or livelihoods as a result – the stronger this negative impact will be. Boycotts will harm, not help, the Palestinians.

There are good reasons why, in general, the left is sceptical about boycotts as a form of struggle. They promote ideas of consumer rather than workers’ power, power residing on people’s shopping lists rather than in their workplaces. They are often counterproductive. But Israel seems to be a special case. Why?

Read the full article here.


Haiti