This week’s postings@JfJfP.com

There have been several commanding issues this week, March 27th-April 2nd, 2017.

We start with the much-disputed definition of antisemitism chosen (for what purpose?) by PM May. It’s the one drawn up by the International Remembrance Alliance, IHRA. A group of concerned organisations, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Free Speech on Israel, Independent Jewish Voices and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, asked Hugh Tomlinson QC to provide a forensic analysis of this document and its compatibility with the obligations of public authorities under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). We post his full Opinion here which is a fine, detailed unpicking of the slippery and meaningless. In short, in his words, it has no legal weight and is too confused to be useful:
IHRA definition of antisemitism not fit for purpose

Another distinguished lawyer, retired judge Sir Stephen Sedley, also read the definition and its ‘explanation’ and said it does not serve to end the political abuse of the term antisemitism, conflating ‘Israel’ with all Jews. His contribution is succinct and very clear:
Abuse of the term ‘antisemitism’

The power hungry American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its policy conference last week, prompting many critical articles. It’s not a Jewish body – its sole concern is to establish contact with the political establishment and lobby for Israel for which generous donors give much thanks. Articles by the lively new group IfNotNow and Bradley Burston:
What’s the point of AIPAC?

Most of the work done to keep Israel going and out of the ICC is done in secret. While AIPAC works by cultivating direct contact with Congressmen, Trump and Netanyahu see no point in letting anyone know what they’re up to :
Keep it secret

Chemi Shalev of Haaretz attended the AIPAC conference and pours scorn on a body which will continue pressing Israel’s cause whatever the country does and acting as though it knows nothing of what the country actually does, making it complicit with the maltreatment of Palestinians:
AIPAC – don’t spoil our dream with facts

The Labour party civil war is purportedly about antisemitism but in fact, as Jonathan Cook says, is part of the Get Corbyn – and never be rude about Israel – campaigns:
Better destroy Labour than offend Israel

Last week the NCC (the National Constitutional Committee) was preparing to expel Ken Livingstone for engaging in conduct that was ‘grossly detrimental’ to the party. The hearing has been postponed until next week. The charge sheet is presented by general secretary Iain McNicol. Several JfJfP signatories have provided witness statements for Livingstone’s defence; he is obdurate about his view that top Nazis had explored the idea, with Zionists,  of deporting German Jews to Palestine.

There could have been an open debate about the truth of this. Instead he is charged with causing offence to Jews. The headline for the package of pieces comes from the witness statement of JfJfP signatory Naomi Wimborne Idrissi:
To allege antisemitism against Ken Livingstone discredits the term

The tide of attacks on any critics of Israel is swelling. Richard Falk, former UN rapporteur on ‘Israeli Violations in Palestine’ and professor of international law knows more about Israel and human rights abuses than most. His new book, Palestine’s Horizon: toward a just peace has just been published. The launch event at LSE was disrupted by Zionist hecklers and two other universities cancelled planned meetings with Prof. Falk – he had invoked Zionist ire by co-authoring the report “Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid”. The admins cited health and safety concerns:
Falk banned for warning of apartheid

In a powerful and eloquent article Howard Cohen (London-born Israeli) describes a society which thinks everything it needs to know and feel is contained within its own boundaries. What lies outside is negligible. And that means a wide range of human consciousness which could empathise with Palestinians and talk critically about Israel’s violent attacks on all forms of Palestinian resistance:
Paralysed by despair in the midst of total madness

The BDS campaign continues to create disproportionate anxiety among Israel loyalists who, rather like the Labour party, prefer judicial strangulation to open debate on the substance of the matter. In what seems a hastily-written article Ramzy Baroud recounts the measures Israel-protectors have used to banish BDS:
Laws, censorship, travel bans, intimidation fail to quell BDS

In the US the drive to silence critics of Israel, or turn them into criminals, comes from the states, often those with a Christian evangelical (right-wing) profile. Their new laws and administrative censorship conflict with human rights law – but Israel doesn’t care about that so why should they?
US states block free speech

After the hideous summer of 2014 there were a number of international efforts to make Gaza an economically functioning society. One of these was the GRM – the Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism. Its aim was to weaken Israel’s siege by increasing the range and quantity of goods companies in Gaza could import.

In fact, says an Oxfam report, the GRM has enabled the Israeli authority to declare an increased number of imports have ‘dual use’ and so ban them. Given almost anything can, to the paranoid and punitive mind, have a bellicose function – babies can be human shields, cars can be vehicles for suicide bombers, your home can be a terrorist shelter – it looks as though the GRM, embodying the PNA, UN and Israeli interests, is not going to work:
Despite UN+ deal, siege on Gaza tightens

The founders of Israel did not expect a Haredi population who thought Israel should not exist (the Messiah not having arrived) and that the proper task of Jews was study of the Torah and not nation-making or military service. This is an irresolvable problem. If the point of Israel is to cultivate Judaism then the Haredim should be the leading light. If Israel is defined as a military state then the Haredim are the enemy within – growing in numbers and votes:
Ultra-Orthodox refuse all state duties

Israel is a security state par excellence. Who’s the enemy? Former Mossad chief Tamir Pardo says it’s not Iran. It’s the Occupation which creates a state of permanent conflict. This will not resolve itself. He joins a long list of security chiefs who have told their government that they must seek a peaceful resolution of the conflict with Palestinians:
Only retired security heads speak truth to power

Asa Winstaneley reports that the number of tourists visiting Israel has fallen, along with visits to all MENA countries; Israel is seen as no less violent than, say, Tunisia or Morocco.
Fewer and fewer want to visit Israel