an innovative Pro-Palestinian campaigner

We’ve been thumbing the pages of the JC again, both on paper and online. Dirty habit we know. And while we might claim to be reading it in order to keep up with events in the Jewish world, this is much like reading Playboy for the celebrity interviews. No, the only good reason for reading the JC is to see who got married, who died and who looked like a complete schlemiel at some Jew do last saturday.

In our thumbings we wandered over to the ‘your blogs’ section, a rather ham-fisted attempt to move towards Web 2.0. There amongst a lot of rubbish, you can find regular blogs by a delightful character named Jonathan Hoffman. Mr Hoffman is the leading thug (sorry spokesperson) of the Zionist Federation and is frequently to be found engaging in vitriol, abuse and wild accusation (sorry ‘hasbara’). What is notable about dear Jonathan is his constant willingness to ‘go there’ – no pussyfooting around for him. So when others merely hint at it, Jonathan will happily declare that anti-zionism equals anti-semitism. He will have no hesitation about tarring all criticism, as ‘anti Israel’, and all opponents as either self-hating Jews or anti-semites. Naturally Jonathan declines to accept that the occupation exists, insists that Israel is a full democracy, that all its actions are 100% justifiable and that human rights campaigners are Islamists in disguise. Jonathan likes to turn up to left wing events and shout, heckle and genuine make an ass of himself. So far so good. But in his latest action Jonathan has surpassed himself.

On the JC blog site, Jonathan likes to abuse fellow posters, preferably calling them ‘trolls’. We can put this aside, perhaps this is standard conversational style in Woodside Park Synagogue. A particular poster, ‘Ben Abuyah’ however, got Johnathan’s back up. ‘Ben Abuyah’ was a critic of Israel, was pretty knowledgable, and, horror of horrors, worked for a Jewish communal organisation. How dare a community organisation employ someone whose views are not specifically endorsed by the Zionist Federation!  Jonathan has been pretty clear – Jews who criticise Israel are a best not proper Jews and at worst not jewish at all. But how does one tell? In good rabbinic style, Jonathan devised a simple and straightforward test for ascertaing someone’s Jewishness, posting the following:

To the Jewish Israel bashers:

1. Examples of active participation in synagogue services over the last six months
2. The number of mezuzot in your home
3. Fluency in reading/speaking Hebrew
4. Participation in rabbinical shiurim in the past six months
5. Positions held within the Jewish community
6. Extent of kashrut observance
7. Examples of active support for Israel in past six months
8. Frequency of synagogue attendance

Has ever such a list been produced in all of Jewish history? Maimonides had his 13 principles but this is a whole other level – no longer is Jewishness to be based on descent or conversion, according to JH it needs to be frequently tested to check whether or not it has lapsed. Some questions remain – do all 8 areas score equally? Or does no. 7 trump all the others? An do Jews who are not ‘Israel Bashers’  have to submit to the quiz or are they exempt? And what happens if you score less than half points? Will the men in black hats come round to put you in cherem?

What was it, one might wonder that led Jonathan to produce such a list? What had got his back up? A notable omission from JH’s list is shabbat observance, a very traditional marker of Jewish religiosity. It turned out that this was very relevant. Ben Abuyah pointed out that JH had been posting on the JC blog on shabbat. Hilariously, both the shabbat posts and Ben Abuyah’s flagging of them have now disappeared from the JC site. JH was obviously highly gefruntzled by this having his shabbat desecration pointed out ; it seemingly led him to do some research and then gleefully ‘out’ Ben Abuyah. At that point the trail goes quiet – though it seems likely that Hoffman will now try to make things difficult for ‘Ben Abuya’ in his communal organisation. (update: Hoffman’s questionaire seems to have also disappeared from the site – the moderators are zealous in their efforts to protect ZF spokespeople)

Nobody expects the Jewish inquisition.....

Its pretty clear from the above that Mr Hoffman is keen to initiate a Jewish inquisition with himself in the role of chief inquisitor. He both sets up a standard that Jews have to meet to be considered kosher, and tries to hound out a critic of Israel from their job in a Jewish community organisation. Throughout, he maintains that Jewish critics of Israel have no place within community.

Now at this juncture we could go all po-faced, condemn his behaviour, and call for the Zionist Federation to sack him. But that would be an error. Jonathan Hoffman is so extreme, so constantly dogmatic, rude, intellectually dubious and pig headed that he constantly brings the Zionist Federation, and his own cause, into disrepute. There can be only one explanation, that he is in fact an Anti-Zionist mole trying to bring down the British Zionist movement. At this, he is doing an excellent job. No other anti-Zionist has had such success in promoting the cause and making Zionism look ridiculous. Whether funded by Hezbolllah, or simply doing it as a hobby Hoffman is the anti-zionist activist par excellence. Jonathan, we salute you!

Two lay hold of a cloak. This one says: “I found it!” And that one says ‘I found it!” This one says, “It’s all mine!”. And that one says, “It’s all mine!”. This one takes an oath that he has no less a share than half, and that one takes an oath that he has no less a share than half. And they divide it up.

Translation: Neusner

This little nugget of Mishna is traditionally one of the first taught to children. You can see why, it, along with the many cases that follow, is a simple expositions of one of the key aims of the rabbinic project, to present a clear legal system designed to smooth out all uncertainties, resolve conflicting claims and demonstrate a method for dealing with all social issues that might arise. The text is pretty clear, it presents a case when two people have equal claim on an object, having, presumably, both come across it simultaneously. The image suggested is a cartoonish one, each picking up one end, only then realising the presence of the other. We know that their claims are totally equal as they use totally identical language. How can they divide the garment, seeing as they both have a just claim to all of it? To ask they to say that they own only half of it would be to force them to lie. Rather, the Mishna comes up with an innovative solution, that each should swear that he owns not less than half. With this approach, both owners can maintain the integrity of their claim, while allowing a practical division of the garment to take place.

Now I’ve heard this text used several times in recent months, not as an introduction to rabbinic laws of property but as a political analogy.  There seems to be something of a fashion for using this Mishna as a metaphor for the two-state solution. It requires little explanation: just as the two characters each believe the whole cloak is theirs, each side in the Israeli Palestinian conflict believes the whole land belongs to them. They cannot say that only half the land is theirs, as this would be to make a nonsense of their deeply held beliefs. Rather, they can say that ‘not less than half’ of the land belongs to them, allowing each to maintain the theoretical purity of their position whilst permitting the land to be divided into Israeli and Palestinian states in practice.

So far so cute. I can, however see at least problems with this analogy. The first is political – why is it necessary at all? We have been told for so long that the two-state solution is the only, most just and totally inevitable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If so, why the need to propagandise on its behalf, to marshal Mishnaic metaphors in support of it.

The second problem is a textual one. While most translations describe the two characters as fighting over a garment or a cloak, the Hebrew is rather more precise. It refers to a Tallit, the Jewish prayer shawl. The notable thing about a Tallit, the factor that makes it a Tallit rather than any other garment, is its fringes, 613 of them. These represent the 613 Mitzvot (commandments) and the Tallit thus reminds the wearer of their obligations. A Tallit with less than 613 fringes would not be a Tallit and thus worthless. Its value lies in its unity. Therefore an agreement which divided the Tallit in two would be an absurd, monstrous one.

This argument is bolstered by seeing a Biblical story behind the Mishnaic text. It seems to me implausible that a reader knowledgeable in Tanach would not see a connection to the story of King Solomon and the baby claimed by two mothers, found in 1 Kings 3:16-28. Here, famously the urge to divide is seen as proof of a false claim, the true mother would want the baby intact, even if it meant relinquishing ownership to the other.

This is an apt metaphor for the state affairs in what remains of ‘peacemaking’, behind the apparent inevitability and necessity of the two state solution lies its monstrous shadow, the enfant terrible of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the one state solution. Such a solution questions how the land, with its water resources, overlapping populations, criss-crossing roads and contested capital can be meaningfully/justly divided in two. Is not what is most beautiful about the land its unity? Are not borders, and the urge to police them a source of oppression as much as liberation?

Until now these ideas represent the ‘lunatic’ fringe of Israeli Jewish opinion. They were rather more popular amongst Palestinians, but were dropped by the Palestinian leadership in the 1980’s after being told that a two-state solution was all Israel would accept. It turns out however, that even that was too much to expect.

The collapse of the Oslo process in 2001 (let’s not go into reasons here) led to the total ascendancy of the Israeli right, and their associates, the settler movement. What seemed wholly possible in the 1990s, that Israeli state might evacuate almost all settlements as part of an agreement now seems impossible to conceive. The right is so dominant, and increasingly unwilling to concede anything at all to placate the ever-concerned ‘International Community’. The strongest card of what remains of the ‘Peace Camp’ (the fact thus Kadima is seen as part of it shows how far things have come) is the ‘demographic argument’ that points out that in not too many years there will be Palestinians than Jews in the strip of land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river. If this tipping point occurs without a Palestinian state existing, then the monstrous option will occur by default, and a one state solution will inevitable occur. For this reason, it was supposed, all Jewish Israelis had to support the two-state solution in one form or another, and when rightists opposed it they were simply putting their heads in the sand, having no other solution.

Until, it seems, now. Haaretz recently published an extraordinary article by Noam Sheizaf on the seemingly impossible subject of settler bi-nationalism. It seems that a series of people within Likud and the settler movement have decided that a) their priority is not to divide the land so no settlements need be removed b) if so, Palestinians must be given the vote, otherwise the world will view Israel as a full apartheid state and thus c) they are prepared to give up on the idea of a Jewish majority. This is a mind-boggling development. Have the most racist, most nationalist Israeli Jews suddenly become the biggest doves of all? Not quite.

As Uri Averny has pointed out, these thinkers have a series of major caveats. Firstly, they try to take Gaza out of the picture, seeing it as an enemy state, and perhaps hoping it could eventually become part of Egypt. Removing Gaza from the picture takes 1.5 million Palestinians out of the equation – certainly helpful for the demographic equation. Secondly they suggest that Palestinians would only be given the vote gradually, in some cases, on some kind of ‘earned’ basis. This is obviously unacceptable to any democrat.  Thirdly, and in connection with the previous point, they maintain that this state will continue to be unambiguously a ‘Jewish state’. This is clearly delusional – if the Palestinians form, say 45% of the electorate, naturally they are going to demand that said state be neutral or bi-national.

These inconstancies, however, do not invalidate the whole idea. If this is the beginning of a total sea change it will naturally take some time to develop into a coherent political programme. Ali Abunimah, at aljazeera.net argues that once the one state principle is established, it will gain its own momentum, however these figures might want to control it. He points out, that right until the end of apartheid, most white South Africans opposed creating a universal franchise, preferring some kind of halfway house or power sharing arrangement. Once the negotiations began it became clear that this was simply a non-starter. The same would be true of any proposal to give Palestinians the vote ‘gradually’.

At the point where the two-state solution’s moment has probably passed, its adherents in the diaspora are sounding more and more desparate. There has been an increase around ‘Zionist left’ activism, through initiatives like J-Street and J-Call, that fail to notice that the Zionist left in Israel is pretty much dead and buried. The last two-staters are desperate to drown out the calls of more radical groups like Jewish Voice for Peace, and the ever-growing BDS movement. They are trying to trap a genie that has already escaped from the bottle – nowadays the whole Tallit is in sight.

Finally, Gustav Landauer in English! Well perhaps it says something about me but I harangued Kuhn for an interview, about Landauer specifically. It’s not that I’m not interested in proto-queer disabled pirates or anti-machismo sober revolutionaries, it’s just that Landauer’s big influence on many of my German friends has made me aware that his ideas are sorely missing from English speaking discourses.

So there we sat, around a large sticky table in Stockholm’s activist hangout number one – Kafé 44 – talking about a man who died ninety years ago; whose thoughts about socialism as anarchism, escaping the state, the Zapatistas (of 1914!), anti-semitism, oil corporations, mysticism and spirituality, and of course revolution itself, seem as remarkable today as they ever were.

Dov Neumann: Firstly, I’d like to say thank you very much for meeting me Gabriel.

Gabriel Kuhn: My pleasure.

DN: In front of me is a copy of what you’ve obviously been working on for several years now, Gustav Landauer: Revolution and Other Writings – a rather mammoth translation project if you don’t mind me saying so. To English speakers you’ve made available for the first time a serious body of the writings of probably the most important German Anarchist of the twentieth century. Essays, articles, pamphlets, personal letters, even a postcard.

GK: His politically focused texts anyway. I had to focus on his political writings because he also wrote a lot on the arts, literature and philosophy. His lectures on Shakespeare fill two volumes, for example, which isn’t exactly in the scope of this book.

DN: But Landauer died, or rather was killed, in 1919. Why revive him today?

GK: I think there are two aspects for me. Firstly, I think that if you translate a text – whether it’s 50, 100, 200 years old – if you consider an author important in anarchism, a social movement, philosophical school or whatever: it’s a valuable research tool in itself.

However, I would say that what’s special about Landauer is that he really presented a definition of anarchism and socialism – he used the terms interchangeably – that is, I dare say, pretty unique.

He began his theoretical development with a broadly ‘class-struggle anarchist’ approach to politics, but ended up developing something of a spiritual understanding of socialism. It strongly focused on people finding something within themselves that cultivated inner change, from which values like mutual aid and solidarity would come naturally; rather than through a rational code where you might think, ‘Well it’s better for others therefore it’s better for me.’

DN: He was quite opposed to that kind of rationalism, wasn’t he?

GK: Absolutely. He believed that on that basis you couldn’t develop socialism because people wouldn’t really feel connected to one another. To do so you’d have to, and this is where it becomes complicated because it’s mystical, discover the inner essence of humanity that lies within each individual. You have to turn inwards first and discover this inner essence, and then you will perceive humankind in a different sense and approach people differently.

DN: Difference is a key word for Landauer. For example he vehemently opposes Esperanto for trying to unite humanity with one language. He makes an almost Tower of Babelesque critique.

GK: That’s a good example of Landauer’s opposition to rationalist measures of bringing people together. I guess Esperanto was to him a cold, mechanical idea of providing some kind of common structure of finding one another. Rather, people best do so through cherishing their own cultural traditions, expressions and language.

The idea of a homogenous socialist utopia was not something that appealed to him. If you’re not able to embrace all cultural forms that human kind has produced: you cannot embrace all of human kind, you cannot establish socialism. His idea of difference goes beyond a mere concept of tolerance. Socialism has to ‘grow’, that’s a word that appears often in his writings, it has to grow from the diversity of human beings and cultures that make up humanity.

DN: Perhaps that relates to his agrarianism, his belief in the revolutionary potential of agricultural settlements – what we would now call communes. I laughed when I read in your introduction how he visited one of these pioneering settlements, the Neue Gemeinschaft, but left ‘Disillusioned with the escapism they mistook for social transformation’, as you wrote. My own experience precisely!

GK: His settlement idea is superficially one of a commune movement: you move to the country, set up your commune, hope that more and more people will do the same. That is part of Landauer’s idea, but that alone would not suffice. Your commune could never be an isolated island. It has to be connected to its context and it has to have an impact on society overall.

DN: Does this slow settlement idea make Landauer something of an ‘evolutionary’ anarchist?

GK: Some people have argued that rapid social transformations are contrary to his beliefs, and therefore he’s been criticised for joining the 1918 Bavarian Revolution. I see that as rather short sighted. Landauer did believe that in certain times revolution could be part of a movement to create a better world. He just never thought that socialism could be achieved by changing the structure of government or establishing workers councils. He saw it as an important step but not the one thing that would establish socialism.

Eventually, for Landauer, the state would disappear because it would no longer be necessary. He famously defines it as a ‘social relationship’ between people. You abolish it by developing different relationships and not by changing the political system or the economic structure.

DN: In a way that’s quite a Post-Structuralist way of understanding power.

GK: I think so. For example Foucault’s theory of power stresses that aspect, that a lot of our power structures are reproduced in personal relationships, not just in government institutions. So I think that is one aspect in which Landauer’s theories fit in with more contemporary theory. Another is with the idea of ‘counter-power’, where you try to build a parallel underground society and use that to escape and diminish the power of the state. I think a lot of contemporaries would find something interesting in Landauer’s writings which goes beyond merely satisfying a historical interest.

DN: Landauer had a Jewish background. Did that affect his ideas?

GK: His thoughts on Judaism emerged only later in his life. Like many secular Jewish intellectuals at the time he almost made a point of not addressing that part of his identity. The spiritual aspects of his central political text Revolution focus on Middle Age Christian mystics, not Jewish mysticism. Judaism comes in his later essays, where he confronts the anti-semitism inherent in the Beilis Trial, and seemingly discovers Jewish mysticism for the first time, with the help of his close friend, the Jewish philosopher, Martin Buber.

DN: Did he join in with Buber’s enthusiasm for some form of Jewish state?

GK: Landauer just started joining the discussion on Zionism a few months before he died. He was invited to a couple of conferences that dealt with Zionism and settlement projects in Palestine but he couldn’t attend because of the events in Munich, in which he was killed.

DN: He was invited by Nachum Goldman, founder and president of the the World Jewish Congress, right?

GK: Exactly. All we have there are a couple of letters between Landauer and Goldman where Landauer expresses, if you will, – hesitant – interest. It’s really hard to tell whether Landauer would have actively supported settlements in Palestine. Nevertheless, a lot of people in the early kibbutz movement were directly inspired by his idea of developing socialism through a network of agricultural settlements.

It’s hard to believe Landauer would have supported Jewish statehood. Perhaps he would have shared his friend Margarete Susman’s anti-statist interpretation of Zionism; Zionism as part of an international socialist movement. Even before the events of 1948 she declared explicitly that the Zionist movement must not turn into a nationalistic, nation-state-building movement: that would kill the whole idea.

DN: It has been argued that Landauer named his Sozialistische Bund organisation (Socialist Association) that way because of the link between the German word ‘Bund’ and the Hebrew word ‘bris’ (covenant). Would he perhaps have favoured the other significant Hebrew related Bund at the time – the Yidisher Arbeiter Bund (Yiddish Workers Association) – over the Zionist cause? Their values seem closer to his . . .

GK: I’m not aware of any direct links to the Yidisher Arbeiter Bund. That said, if he had lived longer, he would probably have seen the return of Rudolf Rocker [important German anarcho-syndicalist; leading light in London's Yiddish-anarchist movement, despite not being Jewish] to Germany, and it would have been interesting to see what their contact would have been.

In a sense, much of the Yidisher Arbeiter Bund‘s ideas would fit with Landauer’s beliefs. You have this universal, socialist-anarchist ideal, but if your cultural background is Jewish, or you come from a Yiddish speaking background, you want to pursue that as well, because that’s what allows you to formulate and express your ideas best.

DN: One of your next projects, I gather, is something of an accompaniment to your Landauer book. You’re translating a major body of writings from a German anarchist who is even less known outside Germany than Landauer: his friend Erich Mühsam.

GK: Yes. They were the two most important German anarchists of the century. Mühsam was influenced by Landauer’s spiritual socialism and they collaborated quite a lot in writing and action. Both had similar backgrounds – Jewish, middle class – Mühsam was ten years younger though and throughout his entire life saw Landauer as a kind of mentor-teacher. The main difference between the two was that Mühsam was closer to class-struggle anarchism, considering the proletariat a revolutionary subject. Landauer was more skeptical. . .

DN: Landauer called the proletariat ‘Significant but overrated’!

GK: Exactly. The other major difference was that Mühsam, while being very close to the ideas of proletarian council communism, was also a prototypical bohemian. Free love, artist-colonies and so on were important things for him. And that was a conflict between him and Landauer. Landauer considered the family the smallest unit of a socialist society, where you craft the solidarity and mutual aid. He had a well known love affair with a Swiss syndicalist called Margarethe Faas-Hardegger which ended when Margarethe wrote an article which criticised the nuclear family unit and argued for communal child rearing. He also didn’t feel comfortable discussing rights for homosexuals, which Mühsam was very involved in. So there was a conflict there, but they were good friends and shared a lot of ideas. Mühsam would eventually be one of the first prominent victims of the early Nazi concentration camps.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Gustav Landauer: Revolution and Other Writings will be on sale from the beginning of July. See Housemans, Amazon.

Gabriel Kuhn holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Innsbruck, Austria, and lives as a writer and translator in Stockholm, Sweden. Currently, he is mainly working with Unrast Verlag in Germany and with PM Press in the US.

A double irony, the following article by Richard Irvine was posted on Electronic Intifada the day before Israel’s contemptuous massacre of international peace activists aboard the Mavi Marmara. He wasn’t to know that the analogy of the Exodus ship would be applicable not only to isolated Gaza, but to the Freedom Flotillas themselves. The Exodus is today filled with Palestinians and left activists from around the world.

———————————–

The Gaza flotilla and the ironies of history

No one can accuse history of not having a sense of irony. Sixty-three years ago in July 1947 a passenger ship destined for Palestine and named The Exodus was stopped and boarded by the British Navy. The ship was crowded with Holocaust survivors determined to make a new life for themselves in British controlled Palestine but did not have official immigration permits. Facing terrorism by Zionist organizations, waves of illegal immigration by Jews fleeing the displaced persons camps in post-war Europe, and resistance by Palestinian Arabs to the increasingly powerful and belligerent Zionist movement emboldened by its growing numbers, Britain was determined to stop the ship. Accordingly when the Royal Navy boarded the ship twenty miles out from Haifa a full scale battle ensued. Three of the immigrants were killed and dozens injured as British troops beat the passengers on to three separate prison ships. From there these Holocaust survivors were transported back to Germany and were once again placed in camps. The world was horrified; an American newspaper ran the headline, “Back to the Reich.” Delegates from the UN Special Commission on Palestine who watched what occurred were similarly shocked; the Yugoslav delegate cited that what happened to The Exodus “is the best possible evidence we have for allowing Jews into Palestine.”

Since then the fate of The Exodus has achieved legendary status: Leon Uris used it as the basis of his 1958 bestseller of the same name; an award winning film starring Paul Newman came out in 1960. Indeed, The Exodus the book and film, painted an exceedingly favorable portrayal of the Zionist movement and the fledgling state, arguably helping the US and Europe to overcome their guilt for historic anti-Semitism and inaction during the Holocaust by supporting Israel. Former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban drew a direct link between The Exodus story and the ending of British rule in Palestine. Tellingly a 1996 documentary celebrating the story is entitled, Exodus 1947: The Ship That Launched A Nation.

Today another small flotilla of ships is making its way to Palestine. Crammed with humanitarian aid and some 600 international peace activists and human rights workers it is set for Gaza.

Synonymous with violence and poverty Gaza is home to 1.5 million dispossessed and imprisoned Palestinians. Under Israeli control since 1967 Gaza has seen it all and been through it all. Yet the events of the last two years are without precedent. Under blockade since 2007, bombarded in a three week long assault that is called a war, its people have been barely subsisting since. As Dov Weissglas, an advisor to then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, explained in 2006, Palestinians were to be “put on a diet.” Today much that is essential for everyday life in Gaza is banned — for either “security reasons” or because they are “luxury items”: cement is banned, pencils banned, paper banned, toys banned, medicines and food restricted.

Of course you can agree with all this and say it is “the terrorist” organization Hamas that is to blame. You can say that even though all this is illegal under international law it is necessary for Israel’s security. Or you can ask how banning toys is fighting terror?

Like Mary Robinson after the war you can be shocked of course: “Their whole civilization has been destroyed, I’m not exaggerating … It’s almost unbelievable that the world doesn’t care while this is happening.” Or you can believe Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman: “There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Despite Hamas’ war crimes against Israeli citizens … Israel continues to respond in the most humane way possible.”

Regardless of whom you choose to believe, this weekend you are likely to see another example of Israel’s humanity. Reportedly a quarter of Israel’s Navy has been mobilized to ensure the aid flotilla does not get through. The Israeli press reports that just like the British all those years ago, plans have been made to stop the aid flotilla twenty miles out to sea and transfer the passengers to holding camps or prisons inside Israel before deporting them. For Israel’s foreign minister this is not an aid convoy, but “a blatant provocation” and “violent propaganda.” Which is odd really since the convoy, if left unimpeded, will not go near Israel.

However, even if Israel does stop the convoy it should be aware that its position on blockading a whole people is not sustainable. At the time of The Exodus affair future Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir declared: “To Britain we must say: it is a great illusion to believe us weak. Let Great Britain with her mighty fleet and her many guns and planes know that this people is not weak, and that its strength will stand it in good stead.” Replace Great Britain with Israel and the same applies today.

Richard Irvine teaches a course at Queen’s University Belfast entitled “The Battle for Palestine” which explores the entire history of the conflict. Irvine has also worked voluntarily in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon and taken part in olive planting and harvesting in the West Bank.

Are these practices learnt from Board of Deputies 'elections'?

Don’t you get fed up with anti-semites going on about the “Jewish vote”? Why should it be assumed that just because we are Jews that we all share the same political views or regard the same political matters as important? Many Jews I know vote out of fundamental values and convictions but they are as different from each other as could be imagined. Some Jews believe that what politicians say about the Middle East is important, some of them will be looking for very pro-Israel statements, others will be looking for politicians who will support peace for Palestinians and Israelis and get very put off by candidates who try to shmooze their Jewish constituents by being ultra-Zionist. Many Jews I know don’t give a monkeys what politicians are saying about a conflict thousands of miles away but will look at what they say about the BNP here, about cuts to public spending, about health care and education – and so on.

But what would you think if your synagogue – that, I shouldn’t need to remind you, people do not join for political reasons, phones you a few days before the election, to tell you NOT to a vote for your local Labour candidate?

That is what has happened to the members of South Hampstead United synagogue. I know that because someone close to me was officially called up by this synagogue with this precise instruction.

South Hampstead Synagogue has used its handy membership list to cold call its members and tell them not to vote for Glenda Jackson, the local Labour candidate.

Regardless of the illegality of contravening the Data Protection Act – what an outrage, what an absolute chutzpah, and what a gift to the antisemites who go on about “Jewish lobbies” and “Jewish votes”!

Thank you very much for the advice, South Hampstead. You crystallised the decision for at least one of your congregation, who was wavering but as a result of your disgraceful intervention decided to support Glenda!

South Hampstead’s Rabbi is Shlomo Levin, their telephone number is 020 7722 1807 and their email is office@southhampstead.org. Do get in touch to let them know what you think of this, and ask them what the hell they thought they were doing.

The Great Chief and Majestic Leader’s point was (characteristically) simple. Using his own position as an example, he commented ‘No one has voted for me yet I am the Chief Rabbi. No one has voted for me and yet I am a Lord. Under a democratic system, I would have achieved neither of these great titles, and might still be living in a semi-detached house in Golders Green.’ ‘Democracy,’ he added ‘is plagued with ugly terms like “accountability” and beset with instabilities that can remove power from great leaders such as myself and Rupert Murdoch.

To boost his point, Sacks cited the Torah, which he had just finished reading. ‘Was Moses elected before he parted the Red Sea?’ he spluttered. ‘Was there a referendum as to whether the Jewish people should accept the Torah? Was God elected from a list of other possible deities under proportional representation?’  Lord Sacks concluded the thought by pointing out that if one wanted really to see the outcome of democracy, one should always remember, as he does, that Hitler was elected, a thought which he rendered into the handy soundbite ‘We’re only ever one vote away from the Nazis. Or Nick Clegg’

The Honourable Lord and Merciful Father conceded that it might be possible to construct a system which gave the appearance of democracy while simultaneously ensuring real change never occurred. While he felt that this was skillfully done by the UK’s First Past the Post electoral system, he argued that the pinnacle was the Board of Deputies’ ‘brown envelopes and fishballs’ approach. ‘By successfully maintaining an electorate of about 500 retired male barristers, whose votes are mostly conditional on the quality of the port served, the UK could build a Parliament as open and dynamic as Anglo Jewry’s’. He admitted that some in the community felt that even the Board’s limited democracy went too far, and in response the Jewish Leadership Council had been set up in order to make sure that power was based on the failsafe priniciple ‘£1million one vote’. He saw this as return to the halcyon days ‘when Britain was great, when the empire stretched across the globe and when a Jew was Prime Minister.

It was unclear how effective Lord Sacks’ new decree would be. Rabbi Avraham Pinter argued that it would have little effect in the Stamford Hill community, as ‘Sacks is a jumped up little twat’ while the minister of Finchley’s ‘Deadloss’ synagogue suggested that the new law could be modified to only ban votes for parties other than the Conservatives.  Reform Judaism  ‘Head’ Tony Bayfield had no comment to make, as he was being held by the testicles by Rabbi Shoshana Boyd-Gelfand.

By way of demonstrating his commitment to anti-democratic principles, the Chief announced that he has embarked on a campaign to accumulate as many unelected titles as possible, an enterprise that has been underway for some years, he confirmed. He used the thought for the day slot to confirm that some of his new titles included ‘Baronet of Gateshead,’ ‘Earl of Highgate,’ ‘Sahib of Finchley,’ ‘Radlett United Synagogue Librarian,’ ‘Mother Superior,’ ‘Dalai Lama,’ and ‘Archbishop of Canterbury.’

It was later revealed this week that Sacks only ever agreed to appear on thought for the day owing to a mis-hearing of the show’s title. It is understood that he believed that he would be able to bolster his status with the use of a ‘Fort for the Day.’ However he agreed to continue with the programme on the basis that his dulcet tones might one day land him the much coverted ‘Cadbury’s Flake’ voiceover. The crumbliest, flakiest Chief Rabbi.

Truth is its been a little difficult. We realised long ago that all the parties were extremely BAD FOR THE JEWS, and inexplicably issues such as the high price of Kosher meat have not dominated the agenda.

But finally we have our story.

Our Hero. Looking slightly like an extra from a Jack Rosenthal film

Quick witted viewers of the first leaders debate will have noticed that the kippah (thats skullcup for gentiles and stupid Jews) wearing teenager asking a question, was the same one who questioned Nick Griffin on the infamous Question Time a few months ago. The very same Jew! The Hebraic youth, who Jewdas is proud to name as Joel Weiner (formerly Jojo – ahhhh) has stunned political leaders by asking searching questions such as ‘Isn’t it a bad idea to deny the holocaust?’ and ‘Don’t you think there are too many tests in schools?’. It is thought that next week he’ll be at Vatican questioning the Catholic credentials of Pope Ratzinger. Young Joel has already spawned a facebook group ‘The Jewish Kid from the First Election Debate’ which has gained an extraordinary 12,500 fans, some of whom may not be from Barnet. The group’s wall contains much wisdom, including such nuggets as ‘he’s sexy’,  ‘Joel for Prime Minister’ and ‘He should have gone to SpecSavers’. He has also achieved a wikipedia page, on which he is pictured demonstrating the style that we believe is known as ‘JFS chic’.

Of course pundits are already drawing the more than obvious parallels with the man-on-the-street star of the American Presidential elections, Joe the Plumber. Joel, already dubbed ‘Joel the Jew’, is more than likely to encompass this role through his easily identifiable affinity with the issues affecting the average British voter, be they Worcestor Woman, Plymouth Polygamist or Chichester Cuntface. Where Joe the Plumber’s working class, plain speaking credentials rendered him the perfect poster-boy for the Republican Party, Joel the Jew’s lisping nervousness, middle-aged dress sense and premature engagement with mainstream politics are bound to resonate strongly with the British public. Indeed, in an era where Britain has never been less sure of itself; what better figure for the country and its ailing politicians to rally around than Joel the Jew, standing for multiculturalism, rootlessness, radical post-nationalism and, most importantly,  a strong affinity for the M&S menswear department.

Weiner on Question Time with strange animal in corner

But, knowing from kaballah that there is no such thing as a coincidence, how to explain the fact that Joel has appeared as a questioner on two prime time shows? Once we reject the absurd suggestion that he simply queued up and got in to both, on account of being a bit of a geek, we at Jewdas can offer several explanations.

1) That there is in fact only only one Jew in Britain. Joel is he. Forget such luminaries as Vanessa Feltz, Esther Rantzen, Hendon Estate Agents and Stamford Hill Volvo drivers, they’re all imposters. Probably they’re just posing as Jews in the hope of getting funding. Naturally, as the UK’s sole Jew, Joel is highly in demand for television appearances.

2) Our knowledge of the classic game ‘Happy Jewish Families’ can reveal that Joel’s father is the esteemed Masorti Rabbi and halachic uber-geek, Chaim Weiner. Rabbi Weiner is a man who once demolished the Bible Code theory by performing a similar analysis on the Jerusalem telephone book. It would have been no trouble for Rabbi Weiner to whip up some kaballah spells to transport him from his Finchley home to television studios around the nation.

3) Joel Weiner is the Messiah. This is the most likely explanation. Appearing on popular TV shows would be the most likely way for Moshiach to introduce himself to the British People. He has come to proclaim a new era of love, peace, and dubious glasses for all. But, you say, hasn’t Joel explicitly denied being the messiah? We remind you THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE MESSIAH WOULD SAY. Do not be fooled.

We cannot promise that this new Jewish hero and nationwide pinup will appear on the next debate, but we can predict that the 3 leaders will find themselves rushing to proclaim ‘I agree with Joel’.

Sexy Joel

Joel, we salute you. A Hebrew hero for our times.

I’ve been working on this film with my friend and Emmy award winning director, Jesse Zook Mann for the past two years. We’ve been following a community of Jewish musicians, artists, and activists in New York, who are creating a new and unconventional culture around their heritage and religion. Originally we were going to produce a full length documentary but along the way we heard so many amazing and moving stories from the likes of fashion designer Levi Okunov, MC Y-Love, mixed-media artist Rivka Karasik, punk band Moshiach Oi!, and author / philosopher Yoseph Leib aka “The Cannabis Hassid,” that we realized we couldn’t fit them all into a single film. So we recently made the decision to instead produce an online documentary series where we will present various mini-documentaries via the internet. We thought this would be more effective in creating a community around the project by making it an on-going event where people would be able to watch a new segment on a regular basis rather than a one-time 90-minute event.

What excites us about Punk Jews are the stories of people owning their heritage, and having fun with it – and doing so at any cost. We want to show how people are creating a place where honoring who you are and where you come from is not mutually exclusive from free expression and creativity. Included in the series will be some the most captivating music, art, fashion, philosophy, and religion, all in an emerging Jewish movement. We want to share their light, and inspire others around the world to create community, acceptance and inclusiveness around their culture and religion-whatever it may be.

We are currently fundraising for this project on Kickstarter.com. Kickstarter is a very unique and innovative way for independent artists to fund a project through the internet. The way Kickstarter works is that you set a fundraising goal that you must meet within 90 days by having people donate through your kickstarter profile in exchange for gifts. If the goal is met within the time frame than everyone’s credit cards get charged and the project is funded and ready to be put into action. If the goal is not met in time than no one’s cards get charged and everyone walks away. What sets Kickstarter apart is that it creates a venue for the audience to decide what gets funded and what they want to see. So the “Punk Jews” online documentary series has a goal of $10,000 that has to be met within the next 78 days in order to cover the cost of producing it and launching the site. It would be great if everyone could go to WWW.PUNKJEWS.TK where you can watch the trailer and have the opportunity to donate to the cause any amount that is comfortable for you to give. Gifts we are giving away range from CD’s, t-shirts, keffiyehs, and concert tickets courtesy of Shemspeed and Dveykus.com to throwing a shabbos dinner in your honor. This is going to be a one-of-kind-documentary series of cutting edge Jewish artists that I think many of you will appreciate. Thank you!

In the programme I stated that there was no such thing as an Israeli nationality.  I was interrupted by Hadar Sela, a minor Israeli propagandist, who informed me that there was an Israeli nationality.  Indeed it was written on her passport.  I therefore assumed, although this was before the Dubai murder, that Israel had the same attitude to passports as most countries and wouldn’t lie on such a document.  I was wrong.  I assumed instead that Ms Sela was therefore being untruthful about this as she was about much else (‘full equality in Israel between Jews and Arabs’ etc.).

Jonathan Hoffman, co-Chair of the Zionist Federation, intervened in the discussion to argue that there was indeed such a thing as an Israeli nationality and further, that ‘In calling her an “Israeli” you were yourself recognising her nationality! If Israel ‘nationality’ was confined to Jews that leaves non-Jews in Israel effectively stateless.’

Although one would perhaps expect a leading officer of Britain’s Zionist Federation to at least understand the ideological and political building blocks of the State he so avidly defends, this was clearly not the case.  Instead JH argued that ‘it is clearly wrong to mix up the diplomatic concept of ‘nationality’ qua ‘citizenship’ with the ‘peoplehood’ concept of ‘Jewish nation’.’ Because ‘As you well know there are many definitions of ‘who is a Jew?’ depending on who is doing the defining, but there is only one definition of ‘who now has Israeli nationality?’

In fact JH was not only wrong on all scores but nonetheless managed to confuse the question of ‘who is a Jew’ with Israeli citizenship and nationality.  In fact the situation is quite clear:

1. There is no Israeli nationality.

2. If there was such a category and it was confined only to Jews it wouldn’t leave non-Jews stateless as there are 132 other nationalities to choose from!!  All of which seem to be invented on the back of an envelope depending on the situation.

Is there an Israeli nationality?

Of this there can be no doubt.  As Shimon Agranat, head of the supreme court ruled in 1970 in a case brought by Tel Aviv psychologist, George Tamarin:
“There is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people.”

Agranat further ruled that

“the Jewish people is composed not only of those residing in Israel but also of Diaspora Jewry.”

[Oscar Kraines, The Impossible Dilemma: Who is a Jew in the State of Israel, p. 67).

As Menachem Begin, who even JH couldn’t accuse of being a self-hating anti-Zionist Jew explained:

‘In Western Europe or the United States, “nationality” is synonymous with “citizenship.” A national of a given state is a citizen of that state, or at least one born under its jurisdiction. In Central and Eastern Europe citizenship and nationality are distinct. We have Israeli citizens of diverse religions. on the other hand, Jewish nationality and religion must always go together.”

[Eliezer Goldman, Religious Issues in Israel’s Political Life]

Why is this Important

Some readers may wonder why I am stressing the importance of this.  Surely this is merely a juridicial issue?  A quirk of the Israeli state just as most states have their own quirks? E.g. the fact that the King or Queen of the UK cannot be a Catholic, is maybe just one of those things that enliven the tapestry of life?  Maybe not having an Israeli Nationality is merely a nod in the direction of official Zionist ideology, of which there is no practical consequence today?

If that were so, then of course there would be an argument for leaving this quaint arrangement as it was.  But in fact the distinction between Citizenship and Nationality goes to the heart of Israeli Apartheid.  It is a crucial legal component in the continuing dispossession and oppression of the Palestinians, especially those who have lived in the Israeli state since 1948.

It is also crucial to what makes Israel different from all other states (bar South Africa).  Israel is unique in being a State that is a state, not of its own citizens but of its Jewish nationals.  Indeed citizenship is becoming ever more meaningless as legislative attacks on Arab citizens of Israel become more frequent (e.g. not being allowed to live with a married partner from the Occupied Territories or being able to revoke the citizenship of Arabs).  Israel is a Jewish State, a state of its Jewish nationals as opposed to all of its citizens.  That is why it is not a democratic state but one which is ever fearful that the non-Jews (Arabs) are going to breed and multiply and outnumber Jews.  That is the ‘demographic problem’ as it is quaintly termed.

Legal Challenge to Refusal to Include Israeli Nationality

One would think that with 132 nationalities at its disposal, the Israeli Interior Ministry would have no difficulty in adding a 133rd – Israeli.  After all this is Israel!  However that would be like passing the proverbial ham sandwich round the congregants at Yom Kippur.

So Uzzi Ornan, a retired linguistics professor and a number of other distinguished Israelis, including Shulamit Aloni and Uri Avneri, (ex MKs) have added their names to the petition to the High Court asking for there to be an Israeli nationality. Ornan himself has been active in the “I am Israeli” movement, which strives for equality among all Israelis. To this end several appeals were submitted to Israeli courts.

The petition has already been rejected by the lower court and no one expects the appeal to succeed, however much embarrassment it causes.

But back to Hadar Selah.  How is it that a minor Zionist propagandist can point to her passport, which clearly has written in English the words ‘Nationality’ and opposite that in Hebrew ‘Ezrahut’ (which is actually citizenship, ‘Le’om’ being the correct term for nationality).  I must confess I was somewhat struck for an answer.  Surely Israel doesn’t deliberately seek to mislead the officials of other states when an Israeli citizen presents their passport.  Surely this is one conspiracy theory too far?

Well that was also my view until I read Jonathan Cook’s “Israeli Nation” vs. “Jewish State” Cook is one of the best journalists writing on Israel and lives in Nazareth.  This what he wrote, quoting the Petition of Ornan and co:

“The group also said it hoped to expose a verbal sleight of hand that intentionally mistranslates the Hebrew term “Israeli citizenship” on the country’s passports as “Israeli nationality” in English to avoid problems with foreign border officials.”

And if that wasn’t enough then the veteran journalist B Michael, of Yedioth Aharonot, Israel’s most popular newspaper, observed that: “We are all Israeli nationals — but only abroad.”

And then it all fell into place.  Internally, within Israel there is no such thing as an Israeli nationality.  But for the goys and those abroad there is!   And the reason?  As Uri Avnery explains:

“The State of Israel cannot recognise an ‘Israeli’ nation because it is the state of the ‘Jewish’ nation … it belongs to the Jews of Brooklyn, Budapest and Buenos Aires, even though these consider themselves as belonging to the American, Hungarian or Argentine nations.”

In an appropriately named article ‘No ‘Israelis’ in Israel?’ Ynet observes that:
‘since 1992 Israeli passports declare their holder to be of ‘Israeli Nationality,’ therefore the State does acknowledge such an identity.’

However, Uzzi Ornan, is unlikely to be  successful in his petition because although an Israeli passport may indeed declare the existence of an Israeli nationality, the Supreme Court and legislature of Israel deny any such entity exists, because an Israeli nation would have to include non-Jews.  No longer would the Israeli State be the vehicle for fulfilment of the Zionist project’s main goal, the ‘ingathering of the Jewish exiles’.  It would be just another state in which large numbers of Jews live rather than the centre of Jewish existence.

But since Jonathan Hoffman is quite happy with the idea of an Israeli nation, indeed he believes there already is one, wouldn’t it be excellent if he were to add his name to Ornan’s petition?   In the name of the British Zionist Federation of course!

Tony Greenstein