Showing posts with label Daphne Anson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Daphne Anson. Show all posts

“The Mohammedans Have an Idea That They Acquire Merit in Heaven by Taking the Life of a Jew” (Daphne Anson)




So much of a controversial nature has been going on this week – a knife-edge General Election in Australia, the continuing fallout from Brexit that’s sent the Conservative Party leadership into turmoil, Jeremy Corbyn’s despicable comparison of Israel with Islamic State and an antisemitic allegation regarding a Jewish MP by a Corbynista activist – that I feel like a political junkie who has overdosed on it all.  Accordingly, for this week’s post I’ve turned once more to the historical  archives.

The Rev. William Jowett was an English clergymen who, under the auspices of the Church Missionary Society, authored Christian Researches in Syria and the Holy land, in 1823 & 1824, published in Boston, Mass., in 1826 together with an appendix consisting of the journal of another English missionary, Joseph Greaves, who was based in Tunis.

Jowett was a typical conversionist of his time – he wrote that “The Jews have been suffering now these eighteen hundred years a special punishment on account of their rejection and murder” of “the only Messiah” and sentiments of that nature – but leaving aside his “ulterior motive” in visiting their eastern venues his narrative has points of interest.

“…. From Aleppo to Jerusalem, Jews are to be found in all the principal cities: in Mount Lebanon there are but few….

 [At Tiberias] we judged the population might be one thousand souls: but considering that a large portion is peopled by Jews, who crowd together in a very little space, possibly the number may be greater.  We remarked two Minarets.  As we approached the gate of the city, we were met by two Polish Jews … 
We rode at once, as we had been recommended to do, by Seignior Rafaele Picciotto, an aged Jewish gentleman, who formerly held the office of Austrian consul at Aleppo; and, being succeeded by his son, has retired hither to pass the remainder of his days peacefully, on ground considered by the Jews as holy.  We had every reason to be grateful to him for his civil attentions to us.  We were entertained with a clean upper room, and entertained hospitably at his table.

Toward evening, we witnessed the scene of his whole household performing prayers.  About thirty persons came at this hour into the court, and united in repeating the service, in conducting which, Rabbi Samuel, who has married his [Picciotto’s] step-daughter, was the chief leader.  It was very affecting, at one part, to view them turning their faces toward Jerusalem – bowing, and lifting up their voices in fervent petitions.  It reminded us of Daniel’s supplications when in Babylon, who had his windows open toward Jerusalem, and kneeled upon his knees three times a day and prayed: (Daniel vi. 10.)  After sunset the table was prepared, and we sat down to a plentiful supper, at which it gratified us to see the females joining the circle – a sight banished from Turkish and Christian houses in this country, but not from Jewish.  These were the consul’s wife and step-daughter.

The consul himself professes to know very little of his countrymen in this place.  His son-in-law, however, is more communicative.  The Mohammedans in this place are more numerous, he says, than the Jews, but when it comes to the question of actual numbers, you will rarely find two men agreeing in their account.  Rabbi Samuel stated the Sephartim [sic], or Spanish Jews, at seventy or eighty houses; but another said that the Sephartim were ninety houses, and the Ashkenasim [sic] ninety-six.  Rabbi Samuel says that there are no Jews of the sect of the Perushim, but that all are Hassidim.

…. The baths of Tiberias, so much celebrated by many authors, are just a mile south of the town, and about fifty feet from the margin of the lake.  On the way thither we passed the Jewish burying ground….  On every side, small ruins of walls, columns and foundations indicate the former extent of Tiberias.  …. [J]ewish literature flourished in this spot, and some of the most learned Hebrew commentators on Sacred Scripture formed a kind of university in this city.” 

He found that the following quotation from French Huguenot divine Jacques Basnage’s History of the Jews (1708; French original, 1706) presented a rosy contrast to their treatment at Sfat (Safed):
“Safet [sic] is the most peopled, and the most celebrated [Holy Land city] celebrated among them.  There they enjoy many advantages.  For, first, this city, situated in the tribe of Naphtali, at a distance of nine miles from Bethsaida, upon a mountain with a triple ridge or summit, is extremely difficult of access.  It is thus protected from the incursions of the roving Arabs, who pillage and desolate whatever cities they can enter.  Second, I know not whether it be that the Turks are unwilling, by ill-treating the Jews, to occasion the depopulation of the town, or whether it is the mildness of the Ottomans that attracts the Jews thither; certain it is that they are more numerous at Safet, and that they are more kindly treated here, than in all the rest of the Ottoman Empire…. A third of the inhabitants are Turks; the other two-thirds are Jews.”

Jowett visited in November 1823:

“[In the Jewish quarter of Safet] …. After much delay, and many enquiries, we reached the house of Rabbi Israel, one of the Perushim [‘separate ones’; followers of the Vilna Gaon], and chief of that sect in this place.  He himself was gone to Jerusalem: but his wife and son, and Baruch the Shemas [shammas] … welcomed us, and gave us the best room in their house; it was, however, very wretched and cold.

In the evening some of the Jews called upon us.  One of them complained, most bitterly, of the treatment which he had received at the last festival of Succoth: he had brought it, indeed, on himself, having gone to some excess in wine; a Mohammedan laid to his charge the crime of blaspheming against the Mohammedan religion; and, without further witness or investigation, the governor ordered him for punishment, when he suffered … five hundred stripes of the bastinado…. They all [the Safed Jews] complain of the severity to which they are liable from the ruling powers.

The number of Jewish families at this place, they stated at four hundred:  of which the Ashkenasim [sic] and Sephartim [sic] are in about equal numbers; that is, two hundred families of each.  Since the war in Turkey, few venture to come from Poland, so that the Hebrew population is rather on the decrease.  They said there were sixteen synagogues in the place … this … I suspect to be exaggerated….  In the room which we occupied we counted five hundred books, all Hebrew; the library of Rabbi Samuel.

….. Of [the synagogues] we counted five.  Of the Hassidim, one synagogue … and one Maddras, College: for, with this title do they dignify a room which will scarcely contain twenty persons … but, certainly, a few appeared here to be in the very act of poring over Talmudical books.  For the Perushim there is one place, which is used both as a synagogue and Maddrass; and one other place, which has at least some pretensions to its title of Maddrass, as it contains a thousand Hebrew volumes.  Lastly, one synagogue of the Sephardim: this was by far the best and largest of the places which we saw….

From the view which we had of the town when on the castle, we judged, that if there are in the Jewish quarter the number of families which they state, namely, four hundred, there would be about one thousand Mohammedan houses: for, as they occupy distinct quarters, it is easy to compare their superficial area; the Jews, however, state them at fifteen hundred families.  The population of Safet might be stated, in round numbers, at seven thousand souls.  We observed four Minarets.” 
In December 1823 he visited Jerusalem.  On Friday, 5 December,

“A little before noon, we called on Rabbi Mendel, a Jewish rabbi, of some consideration on account of his talmudical learning ….  He had at his side a volume of the Talmud, and he is greatly in repute for his skill in these works….  In addition to a certain wild abstracted gaze, which nature and talmudical studies have given to the countenance of Rabbi Mendel, he was further suffering from terror, the impression of which was not yet effaced from his mind; he having been, about a week before, forcibly seized in the night, and carried off to prison by order of the new governor. 
The pretext alleged was that his street door had been left open in the night: for this he was compelled to pay a heavy fine of three purses; about £37 sterling.  The officer who apprehended him burst with violence into his inner chamber – waked him – spurned all his protestations of his having European protection – he having an Austrian firman [decree]; and, forthwith, took him, his disciple Rabbi Isaac, and two others to the prison, from which, after twenty-four hours’ confinement and the payment of the fine, they were set at liberty. 
He was proposing to go for relief to the consul at Acre: from the Austrian consul at Tiberias he expected nothing, as that gentleman, himself a Jew, probably finds it as much as he can do to secure protection for his own declining old age.  Rabbi Mendel preferred going in person to writing, for if it were known in Jerusalem that he had written, it would subject him to fresh insults or exactions.  How truly is this threat accomplished – Thy life shall hang in douby before thee, and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life! (Deut. Xxviii, 66).

The money was, clearly, the sole motive for this proceeding – a new governor, in this devoted city, generally making his advances, by rapid steps, first to the Jews, next to the Greeks and Armenians, and finally to the Latins.  Nor have these any appeal: their only relief is, by cunning and intrigue, to throw the burden as much as possible upon the shoulders of their neighbors; or to plead their inability to meet the demands of the governor, who always begins by bidding high.  The parties from whom the demand is made being either put in prison or otherwise annoyed, part of their policy is to endure as long as nature can bear the unjust affliction; thus proving, by their willingness to suffer, their inability to pay.

The other party of the Jews, the Sephartim [sic], being much more numerous, were soon obliged to pay a much larger sum.  Four of their principal men were, during these days, thrown into prison; from which they were not released till the bargain was adjusted.  Some, whom we inquired after, had secreted themselves in their neighbors’ houses.

Rabbi Isaac conducted us to see an interesting spot, to which the Jews frequently resort on the afternoon of Friday.  It is on the outer wall of the mosque of Omar.  Within the area which surrounds the mosque, none may enter, under pain of death, unless he becomes a Mohammedan; but, at a particular part of the outside of the surrounding buildings, the Jews have the permission, for which they pay money, to assemble every Friday, to pray.  There were only eight when we were there, but at a later hour, probably, there would be more.  On other occasions they are numerous: but the measures of the new governor have thrown them into consternation, so that they are not so forward to show themselves.

I observed, as we passed through the Jew quarter – and upon many faces, in most parts of Jerusalem – a timid expression of countenance … with a curiosity that desires to know everything concerning a stranger, there is, at the same time, a slinking away from the curiosity of others.  We stood awhile with the worshippers at this spot… To worship here must be the summit of their desires: it seems to be somewhat in the spirit of David’s vow, In thy fear will I worship toward thy holy temple.”
In October 1824 Joseph Greaves, in Tunis, was informed that the total population of that place numbered about 120,000.

“Of this number there may be 30,000 Jews.  The native or Tunisine Jews are distinguished from the Mohammedans by their dress, not being allowed to wear the red scull [sic]-cap under the turban: it must be black, or dark blue: they are sometimes very ill-treated, but are not liable to greater exactions than the Moors.  The European Jews wear hats, and speak chiefly Spanish or Italian: their number does not exceed 2000 at the most: they have considerable connections in Leghorn.  The native Jews speak the Arabic of the country, but their books are in Hebrew.  There is not much cordiality between the two classes; rather, I am informed, division and animosity.  A few of the Tunisian Jews by purchase, and others through interest, enjoy the privilege of wearing the European dress."

There, he learned of “justice” as meted out the dhimmis:

“Wednesday, Dec. 1 [1824]: “A shocking instance of cruelty occurred yesterday, which will give an idea of judicial proceedings in Barbary.  The two victims of it were a young Jew and a Moorish woman.  It was stated that they had been taken in adultery; but all the circumstances were so improbable as to leave no doubt on the minds of most persons of the innocence of the parties.  The crime was affirmed to have been committed about four days ago, and the individuals were immediately taken to prison.  The young man was carried before the Bey yesterday morning; and some witnesses came forward, and gave evidence of the fact: the poor Jew, seeing that his death was determined on, as the last resource [resort] repeated the Mohammedan profession of faith, by which he became a Turk: he was told, however, that it was too late, as he had been induced to take the step through fear.

This measure failing, he boldly asserted his innocence, telling the Bey that he [the latter] was his superior now, but that before God they should be equal, and that he should then ask an account of his blood: the Bey shook his clothes, and said that it would lie at the door of the witnesses.  From the palace he was immediately conducted to the place of execution, and cut down.  I was told his sufferings were not protracted; one of the executioners having almost immediately struck off his head.  His mangled body was afterward dragged about the town by the infuriated mob, and treated with every possible indignity.  He has left a wife and two young children, who, by the seizure and confiscation of the little property that he possessed, now depend for subsistence on the small allowance which they may receive from the general poor-fund of the Jews.  The Moorish woman was a very bad and troublesome character: she was punished, according to the Mohammedan custom, by being put into a sack and drowned. 
I much regret having been absent during this transaction, for I cannot help thinking that a little exertion might have procured for the unfortunate individual at least a regular trial according to Mohammedan law.  By that law, so many qualifications in a witness are required that the lives of the parties would probably have been saved: at all events time would have been gained, which might have led to the development of many circumstances.  It was generally thought that revenge for legal proceedings to which the Jew had had recourse against a Moor for the recovery of a debt was at the bottom of the whole affair.  In consequence of a somewhat similar case, which happened about a year and a half ago, I was told it was made an article in the last treaty with the British Government that a Christian shall not be put to death within less than forty-eight hours from the time of conviction, and that the trial shall be conducted in the presence of the consul of his nation.  But the Jews, unhappily, have no nation – no Consul.   
Thursday, Dec. 2, 1824.  Mordecai Naggiar [scholar Mordecai Ibn al-Najjar, Greaves’s Jewish contact and interpreter in Tunis] informed me that the Mohammedans have an idea that they acquire merit in heaven by taking the life of a Jew; and that, to succeed in this, they would sacrifice the lives of ten women.  These observations were made with particular reference to the late occurrence; and, no doubt, under the influence of passionate indignation; yet they probably describe, not too strongly, the fanaticism which prevails among the Mussulman populace. 
…. Monday, Dec. 6 …. I was determined to call on the poor Jewess whose husband was put to death a few days ago; and also to endeavour to interest some of the consuls in her favour: but my Arabic master [i.e. teacher], himself a Jew, told me that it would be better not to do so, as it might excite a suspicion that the Jews were seeking the protection of a Christian nation, and be worse both for the family and the Jews in general.”




We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Share:

Bad Losers to Brexit (Daphne Anson)






“In a democracy it is occasionally necessary to defer to the wishes of the majority,” observed Queen Victoria’s favourite prime minister, the old “Hebrew conjuror” Benjamin Disraeli.  It is a lesson that many on the losing side of Britain’s 23 June referendum on whether the country should quit or remain in the European Union don’t want to learn.  These sore losers of the left have in their millions put their names to an online petition to Parliament demanding a second referendum, on the flimsy excuse that less than 75 per cent of the electorate turned out at the one that gave a narrow yet nevertheless glorious victory to the Brexiteers.  Since the petition has far exceeded the requisite number of signatures necessary to prompt a parliamentary debate, a debate is what will happen, though the outrageous demand for another plebiscite surely cannot be met.  There was no proviso that the vote would be honoured only so long as a certain percentage of the electorate turned out; too bad for the losing side – these things cannot be determined retrospectively to appease those who didn’t like the result.  Another sore loser, Labour MP David Lammy, has tweeted that Parliament should “end this nightmare” by overriding the people’s will altogether.

In 1975, Britons voted to join a European Economic Community, which many saw as a bulwark against the Soviet bloc, an economic corollary of NATO.  A four-word letter in the London Daily Telegraph very shortly before that referendum expressed a widespread, albeit resignedly grudging view: “Better Brussels than Moscow”.  How do I remember?  Because I was working in London at the time and knew the letter writer, and recall a hard-of-hearing friend to whom it was read out replying “What do you mean? Better brothels in Moscow?”

But I digress.  The point is that the electorate were voting to join a Common Market and ended up, thanks to the 1991 Maastricht Treaty, with a monstrous entity that none but the likes of the duplicitous Edward Heath and his cronies foresaw in 1975 – that the Common Market would morph into a political leviathan, a kind of super state, run by faceless unaccountable bureaucrats and smug superannuated politicians for whom the European Parliament has proved a wonderful gravy train, a political leviathan riding roughshod over national parliaments and resembling, of all things, the old Soviet Union.  No wonder Britons alarmed at the erosion of the sovereignty of the Mother of Parliaments and at the unconscionable rate of immigration decided that they wanted their country to claw responsibility for its own destiny back and voted to leave the European Union.
And what a routing of the received wisdom of the arrogant elites of both left and right it has been, with the “Remain” vote confined heavily to Scotland and Northern Ireland – even most of Wales including working-class Ebbw Vale in the mining valleys and the rather cosmopolitan port city of Swansea dealt Cameron, Corbyn and company an unwelcome shock – and some exclusive, well-heeled parts of the Home Counties as well as that now most un-English of English cities, London, voting overwhelmingly to remain. 

Far be it for me to agree with the egregious John Pilger, but there is an enjoyable truth in these observations of his regarding the attitude of the “Remain” camp (but not the rest of the article, which contains a deplorable illusion to Israel, I hasten to add; http://johnpilger.com/articles/why-the-british-said-no-to-europe):

‘The majority vote by Britons to leave the European Union was an act of raw democracy. Millions of ordinary people refused to be bullied, intimidated and dismissed with open contempt by their presumed betters in the major parties, the leaders of the business and banking oligarchy and the media.  This was, in great part, a vote by those angered and demoralised by the sheer arrogance of the apologists for the "remain" campaign and the dismemberment of a socially just civil life in Britain…. A forewarning came when the Treasurer, George Osborne, the embodiment of both Britain's ancient regime and the banking mafia in Europe, threatened to cut £30 billion from public services if people voted the wrong way; it was blackmail on a shocking scale…. The most effective propagandists of the "European ideal" have not been the far right, but an insufferably patrician class for whom metropolitan London is the United Kingdom. Its leading members see themselves as liberal, enlightened, cultivated tribunes of the 21st century zeitgeist, even "cool". What they really are is a bourgeoisie with insatiable consumerist tastes and ancient instincts of their own superiority. In their house paper, the Guardian, they have gloated, day after day, at those who would even consider the EU profoundly undemocratic, a source of social injustice and a virulent extremism known as "neoliberalism"….’

There can be little doubt that in parts of eastern England resentment at the seemingly inexorable arrival of unemployed young Poles (often with children) to compete for jobs and strain public resources and the school system has fuelled determination to cast loose from Brussels, as has the unsustainable levels of migration into other places, with the constant presence of “refugees” at Calais waiting to trick their way across the Channel and the recent intake of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of dubious “refugees” by Germany’s Merkel increasing already well-founded fears of a population increase without end and a dilution of western secular and Judeo-Christian values and culture.  England is small and overcrowded.  It cannot be expected to take in everyone who wants to enter, as the left (many of them Greens) demand.

Yes, much of this fear is grounded in “Islamophobia” – and with good reason.  Who knows how many Jihadis and potential Jihadis have entered Europe in the wake of the Syrian disaster?  UKIP’s (the UK Independence Party’s) indefatigable leader Nigel Farage, to whom enormous praise is due for making the Referendum, and therefore the “Leave” vote, a reality, has been excoriated in many quarters for playing on such fears, with a huge campaign poster showing a seemingly endless line of young male migrants trekking across Europe, but he is absolutely justified in doing so, and so are those who voted to leave owing to fears for their children’s future.

The Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-referendum-how-the-results-compare-to-the-uks-educated-old-an/) has shown that “Those aged over 60 were the most likely group to want to leave the EU, according the polls before the vote.   … [T]he East coast areas that scored the highest anti-EU votes are also the areas with the highest pensioner populace.  According to the polls, university graduates were the most likely people to want to remain in the EU - while those with a GCSE or equivalent as their highest qualification were more likely to back Brexit.  This was a pattern that was reflected in the results.  Levels of education and class overlap strongly in the UK, and so the Brexit vote also matched up with areas with higher levels of people from the DE social class –  meaning people in semi-skilled or unskilled labour, those in casual labour and pensioners.   This includes Blaenau Gwent in Wales, which has the highest working class population in Britain – 62 percent of voters here went for Leave.  Considering how the Leave campaign adopted immigration as one of its key arguments, claiming that the current level of net migration is too high, it is unsurprising that the Remain campaign resonated more strongly with Britain's immigrant population.  London, where immigration is massively higher than the rest of the country, voted overwhelmingly to Remain –  by 60 percent to 40.  But it's the areas in the South East and the East Midlands, where immigration has made a bigger impact only recently, that UKIP and now the Leave campaign have most resonated with.”

Regarding education, both left and right appeared to underestimate the intelligence of the average voter, one low point surely being syrupy smooth David Cameron’s trotting out of David Beckham as an example of a “Remain” voter, with the intention of influencing the masses. In the same vein, another mega-rich “Remainer”, the all too ubiquitous Sir Richard Branson, was wheeled out for propaganda purposes.  Then there was the BBC’s not-so-subtle attempt to influence the vote by giving rather too much publicity to the “Remainder” leftists who sought to bash the Brexiteers by implying that anyone advocating “Leave” was a wicked racist in the mould of the murderer of MP Jo Cox, who as I’ve mentioned on my own blog was an anti-Israel activist hardly deserving of the sainthood many – including some in Anglo-Jewry’s leadership – seem to have bestowed upon her.  Oh, and just to make sure that the ignorant under-educated masses got the “Remain” message, the BBC brought out a psychology specialist to warn the oldies that if they perceived the time before Britain joined the EEC as a better period their memories are playing tricks with them.
Any country which has engaged so much with the world over the centuries as Britain has is hardly narrow and inward-looking.   It is a commonplace to point out that Britain – England in the main – has welcomed successive waves of refugees to its shores.  There have been men of foreign birth in its army and navy for centuries past.  The City of London attracted continental merchants galore, including founders of brands – Rimmel the cosmetics giant being one example – seen today as quintessentially British. The number of Londoners who have a foreign-born forebear or two is quite astonishing: they include Nigel Farage himself (two German great-grandparents and possibly a Huguenot), as well as (more extraordinarily) “one man melting pot” Boris Johnson.  Some of the most notable of the eighteenth-century admirals whose bravery and skill ensured that Britain ruled the waves were men of part-foreign extraction: Keppel, Dutch; Howe, Hanoverian; Kempenfelt, Swedish. One of the country’s most acclaimed composers (many would regard him as Britain’s national composer) was a German, Handel; the half-French Isambard Kingdom Brunel was voted “greatest Briton” in a BBC television contest some years ago. Leaving the EU is not a case of “hate” but of self-preservation.

Are those over-60s who helped the “Leave” campaign to victory innate racists?  I hardly think so.  Here are some of names that certain famous people in Britain had when that generation was growing up, people regarded as English as Bird’s Custard or Colman’s Mustard without a second thought: Barbirolli, Constanduros, Handl, Mantovani, Edmundo Ross, not to mention such popular, even beloved, Jewish show biz personalities as Georgia Brown, Alma Cogan, Alfred Marks, Denis Norden, Frankie Vaughan, Mike and Bernie Winters, and the equally admired entertainers “of colour” – Winifred Attwell, Shirley Bassey,  Cy Grant, Cleo Laine, Elisabeth Welch, and boxer Randolph Turpin.  The average Briton, of that or any generation, is not a racist.

I’ll wager the typical Brexit supporter feels very similar to a 67-year-old lady from Sheffield who told the BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36631131 ):

‘I voted for membership of the European Economic Community 40 years [ago]. I voted for what I thought was free trade between the UK and the six founder countries.  I did not vote for what the EU was becoming, which appeared to be a federal state run by Brussels bureaucrats who I believe do not serve the interests of any of the EU member states.  For this reason, I voted Leave on Thursday. Although I have felt some anxiety, I also feel hopeful.  I have no doubt we will see some turbulent economic times initially, but we have seen economic turbulence through the recession, and prior to that, with the high interest rates and inflation of the 1970s and 80s. As an "out" voter, I am still European. I still believe in mutually beneficial trade deals, both with Europe, and the rest of the world, and I support controlled immigration.  Britain was, is, and will continue to be a great country. I am optimistic. We should see "brexit" as an opportunity.’ 

Indeed, there are plenty of people of colour who voted to leave the EEC: among celebrities they include the footballers John Barnes and Sol Campbell, while a most eloquent adherent of Brexit was an Afro-Caribbean lady interviewed in the Essex town of Romford (turnout 70 per cent in favour of leaving) when the BBC went there soliciting shoppers’ views.

It has been noticeable from the first that, apart from George Galloway, the enemies of Israel have been overwhelmingly anti-Brexit.  They include pro-Corbyn vicar Stephen Sizer (now well back in the Facebook groove) and Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign chief Mick Napier (a regular guest on Press TV whenever a shower of fierce invective about the Zionist Entity is sought), who on social media brought to his followers’ attention an article by Nadine El-Enany, lecturer in law at Birkbeck Law School, University of London.  Inter alia:

‘[T]he referendum has licensed the expression of racism and xenophobia, which has been unleashed with deadly consequences [a reference to Jo Cox’s murder]. The racist discourse that has defined the Brexit campaign must be understood in the context of Britain’s imperial legacy. The terms on which the debate around the referendum have taken place are symptomatic of a Britain struggling to conceive of its place in the world post-Empire.  The run up to the EU referendum has shown Britain for what it is. Woodwork: the washed-up bracken of the British Empire, and the ugly flotsam of its legacy of racism….’ (http://criticallegalthinking.com/2016/06/19/brexit-nostalgia-empire/)

Yes, there were regrettable aspects to the conduct of Empire, but the example the author cites, the throwing overboard in 1781 of the human cargo of a slave ship for the sake of an insurance claim, is singularly weak.  The author forgets the flourishing Arab slave trade which condemned black and white captives to abominable cruelties and which has continued in some cases into our own time.  What chutzpah!  Britain, through the Royal Navy, played a noble part during the nineteenth century in suppressing the slave trade;  Britain exported parliamentary democracy to the world; British administrators abolished (or thought they had abolished) such gruesome practices as suttee and thuggee.  Now, of course, received wisdom (the left’s received wisdom, imposed upon and accepted by wet elements on the centre-right) has it that everything the Empire did was evil and everything that “indigenous” peoples did and do is pure and worthy.  Conveniently overlooked are the many injuries and insults to the female of the species done by Third World societies, with leftist females typically keeping shtum about them too.  As for SPSC chief Napier, he might reflect on the fact that of all the United Kingdom’s constituent peoples, those who did best out of the Empire were in fact the Scots, who largely ran the East India Company!

And if there is any linkage between imperialism and the Brexit vote it is surely this: that the European Union is acting like a tyrannous latter-day Empire holding subject peoples in thraldom: one of those subject peoples have been the British, and the British have asserted their right to liberty. 

Oh, I did see one obnoxiously racist pledge to vote for Brexit.  It was by an inveterate Israel-hater on Facebook who, having read an article (http://forward.com/opinion/world/343245/why-bds-and-brexit-go-hand-in-hand/) suggesting that Britain remaining in the EU would benefit Israel, since it would be easier for a Britain in Europe to fight BDS and so on, declared that the article had convinced him that, in order to spite Israel, he would vote in favour of leaving.


We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Share:

These Greens Are Poisonous (Daphne Anson)




We all want to save this planet, we all want a life that’s free
So we voted for the Greens, cause they stood for equality.
But as soon as they got power, it went right to their head,
Now they’re not supporting freedom, but racism instead.
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, you ain’t what you were at the start,
Greens, greens, your paint’s peeling off, revealing your racist heart.
There are human rights abuses in most countries you could name
But there’s just one tiny country that the Greens would like to blame,
A country known as Israel where citizens walk free,
Muslims, Jews and Christians – the region’s lone democracy.
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, you ain’t what you were at the start,
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, revealing your racist heart.
Israel’s fought in seven wars, not one did it start,
Rockets launched each day from Gaza still tear children’s lives apart.
But to the Greens they’re the aggressors, not entitled to their views –
How dare Israel defend itself, those stubborn bloody Jews.
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, you ain’t what you were at the start,
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, revealing your racist heart.
Sure, Israel isn’t perfect, and it’s always in the news,
But would you fare any better, standing in their shoes?
If you call a country racist, while ignoring the great wealth
Of far greater wrongs around it, you’re just racist yourself.
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, you ain’t what you were at the start,
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, revealing your racist heart.
Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, you ain’t what you were, that’s for sure.
Greens, Greens we now see who you are, and we won’t vote for you anymore.

That catchy ditty entitled “Racist Heart” whose words I decided to reproduce since they don’t seem to appear all together anywhere on the internet (to hear them go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHPe04ZrVGY) is the work of a New South Wales singer-songwriter inspired by the utter hypocrisy, bigotry and double standards displayed by the New South Wales Greens in 2011 when they committed the council of Marrickville in Sydney to BDS, a mean and divisive move that outraged both Jews and non-Jews and has since been overturned.

For a party that was founded with the welfare of the environment and ecological issues in mind, the Greens in Australia, like the Greens elsewhere, have a disproportionate fixation with “Israel Palestine” and appear to have passed more “party resolutions” pertaining to that corner of the world than to any other foreign policy issue. Here’s their most recent resolution, one that allows no consideration of the pre-Six Day War 1949 ceasefire lines as they affect Israel’s security and which offers everything to the Palestinian Arabs on a platter, despite their decades-old rejectionism and with no responsibility on their part towards negotiation with Israel:

Resolution on Palestine, November 2015
That the Australian Greens National Conference:
1. Notes:
a) The state of Palestine is currently recognised by 136 states, representing 70.5% of the 193 member states and two non-member states of the United Nations;
b) The importance of recognition of the state of Palestine, alongside the state of Israel, as a contribution to securing a negotiated two state solution, based on 4 June 1967 boundaries with both states sharing Jerusalem as their capital;
2. Formally recognises the State of Palestine.
Motion passed by consensus

Since, as made clear by Greens politician Adam Bandt the other day (see below) they support the “right of return” for “Palestinian refugees” they are, quite obviously, unconscionably hostile to Israel.
Here’s a brief glimpse of their obnoxious attitude. In 2013 the New South Wales Greens, apparently spearheaded by David Shoebridge, member of the state Legislative Council and co-convenor of the NSW Parliamentary Friends of Palestine, announced support for the “Gaza’s Ark” project, which will challenge the blockade by rebuilding a boat in Gaza using Palestinian shipbuilders, load the vessel with Palestinian goods and products, and sail to international waters with both Palestinians and internationals on board,” the aim being “ to challenge the ongoing, illegal Israeli blockade and focus worldwide attention on Gaza and the complicity of the governments that support it or look the other way.” This, despite the fact that in 2011 an inquiry under UN auspices declared Israel “fully within its rights to impose [the blockade] in order to prevent the import of weapons which will be turned against it.” To the ire of the then federal Greens’ leader Senator Christine Milne when she found out, a staffer in Shoebridge’s office invited notorious German-born South Australian Holocaust denier Dr Fredrick Töben to the “Gaza’s Ark” fundraiser (a cruise around Sydney Harbour), leading Shoebridge to have the invitation withdrawn.  
That same year NSW Young Greens posted on Facebook a poll that asked whether respondents believed in the rights and sovereignty of Palestine” or supported the creation and continuance of the state of Israel”. Although the poll was later removed owing to pressure by the then party leadership, those who administered that Facebook page remained defiant in their outlook, leading the executive director of the Executive Council for Australian Jewry to observe: “Regardless of their personal views, their activities and rhetoric have time and again been magnets for gross expressions of antisemitism, both online and in public forums. The Greens … have a choice to make … They can speak and act as a party with mainstream voter appeal, or they can pander to the radical fringe of politics.
Federal Senator Lee Rhiannon (born Lee Brown to hard left parents, and of part-Jewish extraction through her mother) is arguably the most infamous of the anti-Israel Greens. Her attitude can be discerned in a speech she made two and a half years ago in the Senate, in which she said, inter alia:
There is a strongly growing case for the Australian government to adopt the Greens policy of no military cooperation and trade with Israel. This policy change is needed to ensure that Australia no longer supports crimes committed by the Israeli government…. Jake Lynch, Director of Sydney University's Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, has pointed out that Israel is the only country which is guilty of the following four major transgressions. The first transgression is that it is illegally occupying foreign territory. The evidence for this is UN Security Council resolution 242 which calls on Israel to reinstate the 1967 borders. This violation is now in its 46th year. The second transgression is that Israel is the subject of well-founded allegations of war crimes, most recently the 2009 UN Goldstone Report into Operation Cast Lead. A third transgression is that it is a nuclear armed state yet has refused to admit this or join the non-proliferation treaty. This is surely one of the biggest obstacles to a peaceful and stable Middle East. The fourth transgression is that it is the subject of well-founded allegations of apartheid crimes, violating the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid….”
Last month Senator Rhiannon, as readers of David Singer’s posts on my blog will be aware, authorised Israel-demonising leaflets, including that ubiquitous set of mendacious maps and other misleading material, to be issued by her office at public expense.
Senator Christine Milne’s successor as federal Greens’ leader, Dr Richard Di Natale, was praised by Jewish communal leaders in May 2015 when, was asked in an interview with the AJNwhether Abbas should recognise Israel’s existence as a Jewish state” he replied “Of course. How can you have a two-state solution when you refuse to acknowledge the right of one state to exist? It’s patently nonsense.” The ensuing furore in his party caused Dr Di Natale to backtrack. A fortnight after the interview was published, the AJN (4 June 2015) reported:

Ignoring the fact that the Jewish State has existed for almost 70 years and is recognised in international law, Greens leader Senator Richard Di Natale this week earned the ire of community leaders for declaring “absolutely” that he does not support the establishment of a Jewish state and does not believe it would be conducive to a two-state solution. The backlash [from Greens regarding the answer he gave in the interview] prompted a clarification, in which his executive assistant stated that Di Natale was “concerned about the way in which his comments were reported” and that while he supports a two-state solution, “the establishment of a ‘Jewish state’ (as opposed to an ‘Israeli state’) is not conducive to that outcome”. When The AJN contacted Di Natale’s office, a spokesperson said they didn’t mean to imply there had been “an error in reporting”, explaining “it was just a misunderstanding”….

Di Natale this week reiterated his position in correspondence with the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ)…. “My comments in the AJN piece were intended to reflect that view and that view alone. I have never believed that the establishment of a ‘Jewish state’ (as opposed to an ‘Israeli state’) is conducive to this outcome and I absolutely do not support that goal.” …. Labelling Di Natale’s “about turn” as “profoundly disquieting”, Zionist Federation of Australia president Danny Lamm noted the UN and Israel’s Declaration of Independence, as well as statements by US President Barack Obama as supporting its existence as the Jewish State. He added, “Senator Di Natale’s revised position on Israel should also be assessed in the light of Articles One and Four of the Palestinian Basic Law (2003) that respectively declare: ‘the Palestinian people are part of the Arab nation’; and ‘the principles of Islamic sharia shall be the principal source of legislation’. “It would be useful to ask whether Senator Di Natale’s objection to national ethno-religious identity applies solely to a Jewish Israel, or extends to an Arab/Muslim Palestine as well?….’

The words of the “Racist Heart” song above are so pertinent to the despicable, discriminatory attitude of the Green Party in Australia towards Israel, and even, as recent events in the state of Victoria have reminded us, towards Jews. The latest whiff of Greens’ poison has emerged during the current federal election campaign, and it involves Greens candidate Steph Hodgins-May, who is hoping to wrest the seat of Melbourne Posts from the Australian Labor Party’s (ALP’s) Michael Danby, who has represented the seat in federal Parliament in Canberra since 1998. Mr Danby, who is Jewish, is and always has been a stalwart champion of Israel, and from his university days has been instrumental in building up support for Israel among trades unionists and others on the right of the party. On 22 June Mr Danby’s two main rivals, Liberal Party candidate Owen Guest and the Greens’ Ms Hodgins-May, were due to join him in a pre-election debate on issues raised by Jewish constituents (who comprise a not insignificant proportion part of the seat’s electorate). But as a result of Ms Hodgins-May’s sudden withdrawal, the debate will be between just Danby and Guest.

The debate, to be chaired by Australian Jewish News editor-in-chief Zeddy Lawrence, was first proposed to the three candidates on 26 May, and Ms Hodgin-May’s office that same day confirmed her participation. On 30 May Mr Lawrence emailed her to inform her that the event would be co-sponsored with the AJN by Zionism Victoria. On 7 June she told an enquiring journalist on Twitter that she was unaware of the involvement of Zionism Victoria, and on 8 June her office informed the AJN by email: “At the time of Steph accepting AJN’s invitation to participate in the candidate forum, it was our understanding that it was being independently hosted by your newspaper. Since the circumstances of the forum have changed, Steph won’t be participating.” That same day she informed the paper, in two separate conversations: “I’m not comfortable participating in a forum that is co-hosted by an organisation that isn’t an independent newspaper, so that’s my reason for withdrawal” and that she felt it was not “appropriate and right to speak at an event co-organised by a politically active organisation”.

On 9 June the AJN pointed out to her that the Greens member for Melbourne and former deputy leader of the party Adam Bandt would be speaking at an Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN) (see, by the way, Bandt’s response to an APAN questionnaire (https://apan.org.au/party-positions-on-the-question-of-palestine/adam-bandt-mp-greens-member-for-melbourne/). Thus cornered, she offered this excuse: “I was unaware when I accepted that it was also being co-hosted by an organisation that holds strong political views, including in relation to the United Nations. As someone who worked at the UN and holds their work in high regard, I have chosen not to participate in the now co-hosted forum.” Yet, as the AJN notes, the description a “nuisance and a sham organisation,” which Hodgins-May attributes on her website to Zionism Victoria, emanated from the Zionist Federation of Victoria.

See Bandt’s shameful response when confronted at the APAN forum with this issue by David Schulberg: (http://jmedia.online/2016/06/14/australian-palestinian-advocacy-network-event/ )

Here is Bandt’s speech at the APAN forum, where he makes clear that the Australian Greens support the “Palestinian Right of Return” (something that, if effected, would spell the end of Israel): 

Ms Hodgins-May has behaved disgracefully, treating a section of her potential electorate with contempt. As excoriating articles in the current AJN make clear, she has caused deep offence and hurt to Jews in the constituency she hopes to represent. Not long ago she tweeted a photo of herself holding a loaf of challah on a Friday afternoon, together with appreciative comments. But elections are not won by bread and blarney and photo opportunities alone. The Greens are poisonous.

Editorialises the AJN:

“As a newspaper – albeit a Jewish, Zionist one – we don’t as a rule presume to tell our readers who to vote for. We may encourage them in a certain direction, but on the whole we present relevant information and allow them to make up their own minds. In this instance, however, we feel we have no choice. We not only opened our pages to Steph Hodgins-May, we invited her to take part in our panel. In turn, she has shown considerable disrespect towards our community. And that being the case, we would urge you not to give her your vote.”

Michael Danby goes further: “Approximately 71 per cent of Australian Jewish residents of Melbourne Ports have family in Israel. If she doesn’t want to represent our local Jewish community, or even speak to them, she cannot be their local member. Greens Leader Di Natale must sack her.” Excellent point.


We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Share: