21 June 2021

JULIAN ASSANGE ROTS IN JAIL AS US SLAUGHTERS FIRST AMENDMENT

From CounterPunch
18 JUNE 2021
Julian Assange Rots in Jail as U.S. Slaughters First Amendment
BY EVE OTTENBERG
Photograph Source: thierry ehrmann – CC BY 2.0

Years pass, and journalist Julian Assange languishes in a British jail. His crime? Truthful reporting of U.S. military atrocities in Iraq, reporting that sparked a lust for vengeance among U.S. politicos and military men. With Assange, the American empire would manage what imperialists couldn’t with whistleblower Edward Snowden, who slipped through their fingers by wisely fleeing to Russia – namely, torture him to death in prison.

For whatever reason, perhaps a mistaken belief in the rule of law, the power of a free press and the force of public opinion, Assange did not take refuge in Russia, China or Venezuela. This was a fatal mistake. Legal niceties simply fall like matchsticks in the wind when the empire takes offense. Its gaudy invocations of truth and justice are then exposed as mere words.

If you doubt that, recall U.S. military jets forcing the grounding of Bolivian president Evo Morales’ plane in Vienna in 2013, because Obama hacks were convinced Snowden hid on board en route to Latin America. The U.S. didn’t hesitate to violate international law, not for a second. Eight years later, the West hollers its outrage over the authoritarian government of Belarus doing the same thing. But it’s useless to call out this hypocrisy, because the U.S. does what it pleases almost anywhere in the world, and the first law of its precious, thoroughly mendacious rules-based order is that those rules never apply to IT.

That so-called rules-based order very damagingly replaces international laws and United Nations agreements. If the U.S. abided by a system of laws applied to all countries equally, it would not impose criminal sanctions on countries it deems too independent; hunger would not stalk Venezuelans, plague would not sicken Iranians, because without sanctions, both would have access to food and medicine. If the U.S. abided by international law, it would not so easily snap its fingers and have a vassal state like the UK assault its own hallowed legacy of press freedom by locking up a journalist in a dungeon.

Think – if the U.S. honored international law, another country might even take legal action against American judicial abuses, like the de facto double jeopardy of Chelsea Manning. Even more critically, if the U.S. adhered to international law, which includes the Nuremberg laws, it never would have committed the war crime that caused its scandalous treatment of Assange and Manning to begin with – namely, invading and destroying Iraq.

Assange has suffered from years holed up in the Ecuadoran embassy in London, where he sought asylum. Dignitaries like Hillary Clinton lamented publicly that he couldn’t be “droned.” The press vilified him for everything from a phony rape case to how he treats his cat. He has been held for years in Belmarsh prison, full of murderers and covid. And yet, if extradited to the U.S., his treatment would surely be shockingly worse. That’s why judge Vanessa Baraitser, no friend to Assange, whom journalist Chris Hedges in fact compares to the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland, refused his extradition in January – she thought he would commit suicide.

Speaking of the extremely anti-Assange biased Baraitser and how she managed her courtroom, Hedges called the trial “a judicial farce. There was no legal basis to hold Julian in prison. There was no legal basis to try him, an Australian citizen, under the U.S. Espionage Act. The CIA spied on Julian in the embassy…recording the privileged conversations between Julian and his lawyers as they discussed his defense. This fact alone invalidated the trial.”

Hedges also cites the indispensable reporting of Craig Murray, who documented how the U.S. government directed the London prosecutor, James Lewis. “Lewis presented these directives to Baraitser,” Hedges writes. “Bariatser adopted them as her legal decision. It was judicial pantomime.” Close to one thousand years of English law just whooshed out the window with what this courtroom travesty inflicted on Assange, and scarcely a peep about it in our cowardly corporate media.

Those already alarmed by the life-threatening abuse heaped on Assange and Manning by the U.S. government surely noted that prospects for the longevity of the first amendment dimmed even more in early June. That’s when news came of a justice department assault on the first amendment, brewing below the headlines, since the close of the Trump administration. I say below the headlines, because while the four New York Times reporters whose emails the DOJ had demanded did not know about this, Times executives did. However, the Biden administration had imposed a gag order on those executives.

This battle for the emails started under Trump – no surprise there, from that sworn enemy of truth and a free press – and continued under Biden, for the first few months of his administration. Biden’s March 3 “gag order prevented the executives from disclosing the government’s efforts to seize the records,” according to the Times on June 4, “even to the executive editor, Dean Baquet, and other newsroom leaders.”

The Biden administration ultimately “notified the four reporters that the Trump administration, hunting for their sources, had in 2020 secretly seized months of their phone records from early 2017,” the Times reported. Google had refused to cooperate with these prosecutorial excesses. A similar confiscation of records and gag order involving CNN and the Washington Post unfolded recently also.

If this news didn’t chill every reporter and potential source who read about it, I don’t know what would. It is classic, brazen, government overreach to subvert freedom of the press. The Times article also reveals that “the government had never before seized the Times’ phone records without advance notification of the effort.” So things are getting worse. U.S. rulers and their legal henchmen became even more arrogant under Trump. Surprise! But it didn’t stop there. There were also secret seizures of congressional phone records. The Trump team drove several nails in the coffin of the first and fourth amendments, and the Biden folks quite tellingly hesitated for months to pull them out.

So while Biden claims to support free speech, actions speak louder than words. Prosecuting Julian Assange speaks loudest of all. If Assange is convicted under the Espionage Act, that will kill off the first amendment once and for all. It will mean any reporter, of any nationality, working in any country, who digs into the U.S. government’s dirt, risks fatal grasp in the empire’s iron talons, namely, being hustled onto a plane, hijacked to Northern Virginia, charged with Espionage Act violations and being buried alive, for 175 years, in supermax, solitary confinement. True, most reporters are far too timorous ever to find themselves in that predicament. But for those brave souls who do, it will be cold and bitter comfort to know that their abduction, arrest and imprisonment testify to the truth of their reporting.

.Eve Ottenberg is a novelist and journalist. Her latest book is Birdbrain. She can be reached at her website.

11 June 2021

ASYLUM SEEKERS - AUSTRALIAN POLITICIANS

In 94 years and four countries I would have hoped, still being alive in a country priding itself on humanity and human rights, that I would find that there is still some compassion left somewhere in the world and in members of parliament who make up the people who are supposed to represent the people of Australia.

If those people really represent the mass of the country who actually voted them into office, then I suggest we consider ourselves worthy of being back as cave people of some thousands of years ago. Unless our families of the moment consider taking action to restore some modicum of humanity into our lives and behaviours, we really are no better than our ancestors from a bygone age.

I have never seen people who consider themselves adherents of religions which claim to have compassion, humanity and support for the more under-priveleged among us behave towards people who have managed to get away from societies where they are persecuted, assaulted, incarcerated, murdered, perpetrate the same abuses on asylum seekers, and who become involved with the equivalent of what these people desperately hoped they had escaped from.

To hold the sword of Damocles over their heads and threaten to return them to the purgatory from which they have fled, is a sort of torture one had hoped we were civilised enough never to contemplate. Yet here we have some so-called religious maniacs threatening to do just that.

Is there no shame left anywhere and enough people in our societies who will object and ensure this doesn't happen?

I would have hoped this wouldn't happen in my lifetime, but it seems it is an idle hope.

07 June 2021

AGED CARE IN AUSTRALIA

I am 94 years old. My partner died last year aged 98. He was being treated at St Vincent's Hospital for metastatic prostate cancer.

He told the oncologist at the hospital that he did not intend going into an age care facility and that he intended dying at home.

He did not have an advanced care directive but knew that I would follow his requests for care until the end, knowing I would respect his wishes. As he has died and I am now on my own, I have no guarantee that anybody around me when I am at a stage when my end is approaching will necessarily heed my requirements.

Unlike my partner, I do have an advanced care directive, but nobody close in Melbourne who will necessarily obey my requests.

As things stand at the moment in Australia, and more specifically as they stand in Melbourne, I would sooner commit suicide - or do euthanasia if you prefer those words - to being committed to an aged care facility.

My criticism is not of people who are involved in aged care - most of them deeply committed to their work - doctors, nurses, everybody else working in aged care homes, nursing homes in general and all related places, because they are permanently underfunded, understaffed, inadequately provided with equipment and medications required and all related issues, but as of at this time, in Melbourne, on 8 June 2021, Covid has taken its toll, vaccination of everybody concerned is lacking and the federal government has shown that it is not in the least interested in remedying the situation at any time soon.

I am in my own home with little assistance from government agencies of any sort, don't have any means of transport, and have just been notified that the urgent requirement for me to protect myself should I require help from Personal Alert Victoria will be available and installed in my home - "wait time" - is approximately 14 to 16 weeks for the system called MePACS, the letter being dated 27 May 2021.

It is interesting to realise that when sporting teams or other such events require to fulfill they charters, goverments are there to assist them immediately.

The letter I received states: "We apologise for the delay, this is due to the limited number of funded units available for Victorians."

It is not surprising that people have died waiting for help when they have tried to get ambulances for emergencies because so mush is underfunded - so much has been privatised and all such services are grossly underfunded - sports facilities and sports grounds are much more urgently required - unless you are rich and can pay for everything - as ever, money talks, loud and clear.

MANNIE DE SAXE

04 June 2021

HOW PALESTINIAN RESISTANCE ALTERED THE EQUATION

1 June 2021

How Palestinian Resistance Altered the Equation

by Ramzy Baroud

Photograph Source: Neil Ward – CC BY 2.0

The ceasefire on May 21 has, for now, brought the Israeli war on Gaza to an end. However, this ceasefire is not permanent and constant Israeli provocations anywhere in Palestine could reignite the bloody cycle all over again. Moreover, the Israeli siege on Gaza remains in place, as well as the Israeli military occupation and the rooted system of apartheid that exists all over Palestine.

This, however, does not preclude the fact that the 11-day Israeli war on the besieged Gaza Strip has fundamentally altered some elements about Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians, especially the Palestinian Resistance, in all of its manifestations.

Let us examine the main actors in the latest confrontation and briefly discuss the impact of the Israeli war and the determined Palestinian resistance on their respective positions.

‘Mowing the Grass’ No More

‘Mowing the grass’ is an Israeli term used with reference to the habitual Israeli attacks and war on besieged Gaza, aimed at delineating the need for Israel to routinely eradicate or degrade the capabilities of the various Palestinian resistance groups on the street.

‘Mowing the grass’ also has political benefits, as it often neatly fit into Israel’s political agendas – for example, the need to distract from one political crisis or another in Israel or to solidify Israeli society around its leadership.

May 2021 will be remembered as the time that ‘mowing the grass’ can no longer be easily invoked as a military and political strategy by the Israeli government, as the Gaza resistance and the popular rebellion that was ignited throughout all of Palestine has raised the price by several-fold that Israel paid for its violent provocations.

While Israeli military and political strategists want to convince us, and themselves, that their relationship with Gaza and the Palestinian Resistance has not changed, it actually has and, arguably, irreversibly so.

The Altered Equation

The Palestinian fight for freedom has also been fundamentally altered, not only because of the unprecedented resilience of Palestinian resistance, but the unity of the Palestinian people, and the rise of a post-Oslo/peace process Palestinian nation that is united around a new popular discourse, one which does not differentiate between Palestinians in Jerusalem, Gaza, or anywhere else.

Palestinian unity around resistance, not peace process, is placing Israel in a new kind of quandary. For the first time in its history, Israel cannot win the war on the Palestinians. Neither can it lose the war, because conceding essentially means that Israel is ready to offer compromises – end its occupation, dismantle apartheid, and so on. This is why Israel opted for a one-sided ceasefire. Though humiliating, it preferred over-reaching a negotiated agreement, thus sending a message that the Palestinian Resistance works.

Still, the May war demonstrated that Israel is no longer the only party that sets the rules of the game. Palestinians are finally able to make an impact and force Israel to abandon its illusions that Palestinians are passive victims and that resistance is futile.

Equally important, we can no longer discuss popular resistance and armed resistance as if they are two separate notions or strategies. It would have been impossible for the armed resistance to be sustained, especially under the shocking amount of Israeli firepower, without the support of Palestinians at every level of society and regardless of their political and ideological differences.

Facing a single enemy that did not differentiate between civilians and fighters, between a Hamas or a Fatah supporter, the Palestinian people throughout Palestine moved past all of their political divisions and factional squabbles. Palestinian youth coined new terminologies, ones that were centered around resistance, liberation, solidarity and so on. This shift in the popular discourse will have important consequences that have the potential of cementing Palestinian unity for many years to come.

Israel’s Allies Not Ready to Change

The popular revolt in Palestine has taken many by surprise, including Israel’s allies. Historically, Israel’s Western supporters have proven to be morally bankrupt, but the latest war has proved them to be politically bankrupt as well.

Throughout the war, Washington and other Western capitals parroted the same old line about Israel’s right to defend itself, Israel’s security and the need to return to the negotiation table. This is an archaic and useless position because it did not add anything new to the old, empty discourse. If anything, it merely demonstrates their inability to evolve politically and to match the dramatic changes underway in occupied Palestine.

Needless to say, the new US Administration of Joe Biden, in particular, has missed a crucial opportunity to prove that it was different from that of the previous Donald Trump Administration. Despite, at times, guarded language and a few nuances, Biden behaved precisely as Trump would have if he was still President.

What ‘Palestinian leadership’?

The head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and his circle of supporters represent a bygone era. While they are happy to claim a large share of whatever international financial support that could pour in to rebuild Gaza, they do not represent any political trend in Palestine at the moment.

Abbas’s decision to cancel Palestine’s elections scheduled for May and July left him more isolated. Palestinians are ready to look past him; in fact, they already have. This so-called leadership will not be able to galvanize upon this historic moment built on Palestinian unity and resistance.

The Palestinian Authority is corrupt and dispensable. Worse, it is an obstacle in the way of Palestinian freedom. Palestine needs a leadership that represents all Palestinian people everywhere, one that is truly capable of leading the people as they attempt to chart a clear path to their coveted freedom. Expanding the Circle of Solidarity The incredible amount of global solidarity which made headline news all over the world was a clear indication that the many years of preparedness at a grassroots level have paid off. Aside from the numerous expressions of solidarity, one particular aspect deserves further analysis: the geographic diversity of this solidarity which is no longer confined to a few cities in a few countries.

Pro-Palestine solidarity protests, vigils, conferences, webinars, art, music, poetry and many more such expressions were manifest from Kenya to South Africa, to Pakistan to the UK and dozens of countries around the world. The demographics, too, have changed, with minorities and people of color either leading or taking center stage of many of these protests, a phenomenon indicative of the rising intersectionality between Palestinians and numerous oppressed groups around the globe.

A critical fight ahead for Palestinians is the fight of delegitimizing and exposing Israeli colonialism, racism and apartheid. This fight can be won at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), UNESCO and numerous international and regional organizations, in addition to the countless civil society groups and community centers the world over.

For this to happen, every voice matters, every vote counts, from India to Brazil, from Portugal to South Africa, from China to New Zealand, and so on. Israel understands this perfectly, thus the global charm offensive that right-wing Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been leading for years. It is essential that we, too, understand this, and reach out to each UN member as part of a larger strategy to deservingly isolate Israel for ongoing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of five books. His latest is “These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons” (Clarity Press, Atlanta). Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), Istanbul Zaim University (IZU). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net

13 May 2021

WORSE THAN THE DREYFUSS AFFAIR: THE PERSECUTION OF JULIAN ASSANGE

12 May 2021
Worse Than the Dreyfuss Affair: the Persecution of Julian Assange
by Alfred de Zayas
Drawing by Nathaniel St. Clair

It may appear unnecessary to repeat the truism that democracy depends on transparency and accountability, and yet, how often has the democratic order been betrayed by our leaders in the recent past? How often have the media abandoned their watchdog function, how often have they simply accepted the role of an echo-chamber for the powerful, whether government or transnational corporations?

Among the many scandals and betrayals of democracy and the rule of law we recognize the persecution of inconvenient journalists by governments and their helpers in the media. Perhaps the most scandalous and immoral example of the multinational corruption of the rule of law is the “lawfare” conducted against Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, who in the year 2010 uncovered war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the United States and its NATO allies in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In a world where the rule of law matters, these war crimes would have been promptly investigated, indictments would have been issued in the countries concerned. But no, the ire of the governments and the media focused instead on the journalist who had dared to uncover these crimes. The persecution of this journalist was a coordinated assault on the rule of law by the United States, United Kingdom and Sweden, later joined by Ecuador. The instrumentalization of the administration of justice – not for purposes of doing justice, but to destroy a human being pulled more and more people into a joint-criminal conspiracy of defamation, trumped-up charges, investigations without indictment, deliberate delays and covers-up.

In April 2021 my colleague, Professor Nils Melzer, the UN Rapporteur on torture, published a meticulously researched and methodically unassailable documentation of this almost incredible saga. His book, The Case of Julian Assange (Piper Verlag, München 2021), can well be called the “J’accuse” of our time, reminding us how our authorities have betrayed us, how four governments colluded in the corruption of the rule of law. Like Emile Zola, who in 1898 exposed the web of lies surrounding the scandalous judicial framing of the French Colonel Alfred Dreyfuss in France, Nils Melzer shocks us 122 years later with proof of how countries that are ostensibly committed to the rule of law and human rights can betray the democratic ethos with the complicity of the mainstream media. Melzer writes about “concrete evidence of political persecution, gross arbitrariness on the part of the administration of justice and deliberate torture and abuse.”

This is an enormously important book because it requires us to abandon our “comfort zone” and demand transparency and accountability from our governments. Indeed, it is scandalous that none of the four governments involved in the frame-up cooperated with Professor Melzer and only answered with “political platitudes.” Me too, I experienced the same lack of cooperation from powerful countries to whom I addressed notes verbales concerning violations of human rights – none of them responded satisfactorily.

Melzer reminds us of Hans-Christian Andersen’s fable “The Emperor’s new clothes”. Indeed, everyone involved in the Assange frame-up consistently maintains the illusion of legality and repeats the same untruths, until an observer says – but the emperor has no clothes! That is the point. Our administration of justice has no clothes and instead of advancing justice, it colludes in the persecution of a journalist, with all the implications that this behaviour has for the survival of the democratic order.

Melzer convinces us with facts that we are living in a time of “post-truth”, and that it is our responsibility to correct this situation now, lest we wake up in a tyranny.

Alfred de Zayas is a professor at the Geneva School of Diplomacy and served as a UN Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order 2012-18.

08 May 2021

PALESTINE'S MOMENT OF RECKONING: ON ABBAS' DANGEROUS DECISION TO 'POSTPONE' ELECTIONS

7 May 2021


Palestine’s Moment of Reckoning: On Abbas’ Dangerous Decision to ‘Postpone’ Elections


by Ramzy Baroud

Photograph Source: U.S. Department of State – Public Domain

The decision on April 30 by Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, to ‘postpone’ Palestinian elections, which would have been the first in 15 years, will deepen Palestinian division and could, potentially, signal the collapse of the Fatah Movement, at least in its current form.

Unlike the last Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006, the big story, this time, was not the Fatah-Hamas rivalry. Many rounds of talks in recent months between representatives of Palestine’s two largest political parties had already sorted out much of the details regarding the now-canceled elections, which were scheduled to begin on May 22.

Both Fatah and Hamas have much to gain from the elections; the former relished the opportunity to restore its long-dissipated legitimacy as it has ruled over occupied Palestinians, through its dominance of the Palestinian Authority, with no democratic mandate whatsoever; Hamas, on the other hand, was desperate to break away from its long and painful isolation as exemplified in the Israeli siege on Gaza, which ironically resulted from its victory in the 2006 elections.

It was not Israeli and American pressure, either, that made Abbas betray the collective wishes of a whole nation. This pressure coming from Tel Aviv and Washington was real and widely reported, but must have also been expected. Moreover, Abbas could have easily circumvented them as his election decree, announced last January, was welcomed by Palestinians and praised by much of the international community.

Abbas’ unfortunate but, frankly, expected decision was justified by the 86-year-old leader as one which is compelled by Israel’s refusal to allow Palestinians in Jerusalem from taking part in the elections. Abbas’ explanation, however, is a mere fig leaf aimed at masking his fear of losing power with Israel’s routine obstinacy. But since when do occupied people beg their occupiers to practice their democratic rights? Since when have Palestinians sought permission from Israel to assert any form of political sovereignty in occupied East Jerusalem?

Indeed, the battle for Palestinian rights in Jerusalem takes place on a daily basis in the alleyways of the captive city. Jerusalemites are targeted in every facet of their existence, as Israeli restrictions make it nearly impossible for them to live a normal life, neither in the way they build, work, study and travel nor even marry and worship. So it would be mind-boggling if Abbas was truly sincere that he had, indeed, expected Israeli authorities to allow Palestinians in the occupied city easy access to polling stations and to exercise their political right, while those same authorities labor to erase any semblance of Palestinian political life, even mere physical presence, in Jerusalem.

The truth is Abbas canceled the elections because all credible public opinion polls showed that the May vote would have decimated the ruling clique of his Fatah party, and would have ushered in a whole new political configuration, one in which his Fatah rivals, Marwan Barghouti and Nasser al-Qudwa would have emerged as the new leaders of Fatah. If this scenario were to occur, a whole class of Palestinian millionaires who turned the Palestinian struggle into a lucrative industry, generously financed by ‘donor countries’, risk losing everything, in favor of uncharted political territories, controlled by a Palestinian prisoner, Marwan Barghouti, from his Israeli prison cell.

Worse for Abbas, Barghouti could have potentially become the new Palestinian president, as he was expected to compete in the July presidential elections. Bad for Abbas, but good for Palestinians, as Barghouti’s presidency would have proven crucial for Palestinian national unity and even international solidarity. An imprisoned Palestinian president would have been a PR disaster for Israel. Equally, it would have confronted the low-profile American diplomacy under Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, with an unprecedented challenge: How could Washington continue to preach a ‘peace process’ between Israel and the Palestinians, when the latter’s president languishes in solitary confinement, as he has since 2002?

By effectively canceling the elections, Abbas, his benefactors and supporters were hoping to delay a moment of reckoning within the Fatah Movement – in fact, within the Palestinian body politic as a whole. However, the decision is likely to have far more serious repercussions on Fatah and Palestinian politics than if the elections took place. Why?

Since Abbas’ election decree earlier this year, 36 lists have registered with the Palestinian Central Elections Commission. While Islamist and socialist parties prepared to run with unified lists, Fatah disintegrated. Aside from the official Fatah list, which is close to Abbas, two other non-official lists, ‘Freedom’ and ‘Future’, planned to compete. Various polls showed that the ‘Freedom’ list, led by late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat’s nephew, Nasser al-Qudwa, and Marwan Barghouti’s wife, Fadwa, headed for an election upset, and were on their way to ousting Abbas and his shrinking, though influential circle.

Yet, none of this is likely to go away simply because Abbas reneged on his commitment to restoring a semblance of Palestinian democracy. A whole new political class in Palestine is now defining itself through its allegiances to various lists, parties and leaders. The mass of Fatah supporters that were mentally ready to break away from the dominance of Abbas will not relent easily, simply because the aging leader has changed his mind. In fact, throughout Palestine, an unparalleled discussion on democracy, representation and the need to move forward beyond Abbas and his haphazard, self-serving politics is currently taking place and is impossible to contain. For the first time in many years, the conversation is no longer confined to Hamas vs. Fatah, Ramallah vs. Gaza or any other such demoralizing classifications. This is a major step in the right direction.

There is nothing that Abbas can say or do at this point to restore the people’s confidence in his authority. Arguably, he never had their confidence in the first place. By canceling the elections, he has crossed a red line that should have never been crossed, thus placing himself and few others around him as enemies of the Palestinian people, their democratic aspirations and their hope for a better future.


Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of five books. His latest is “These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons” (Clarity Press, Atlanta). Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), Istanbul Zaim University (IZU). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net

05 March 2021

STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH KEN LOACH: AGAINST THE ISRAEL LOBBY'S SMEAR CAMPAIGN

Stand in Solidarity with Ken Loach: against the Israel lobby’s smear campaign
Arena Online
Gavin Lewis
4 Mar 2021

Ken Loach is one of Britain’s most revered and successful film-makers. His work Kes (1969), depicting the poetics and deprivation of northern English working-class life, was voted the seventh greatest British film of the twentieth century in a poll by the British Film Institute. He has twice won the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival, for The Wind That Shakes the Barley (2006) and I, Daniel Blake (2016)—only eight other film-makers have won this many times. Uniquely, he has entwined his film aesthetics with an agenda of standing up for the oppressed, speaking truth to power, and revisiting histories that are uncomfortable for the political establishment.

His television plays Up the Junction (1965) and Cathy Come Home (1966), and his film Poor Cow (1967) caused national debate about housing provision, social deprivation and lone motherhood. He has also directed numerous television plays in support of trade unionism, of which The Big Flame (1969), The Rank and File (1971) and The Price of Coal (1977) are indicative. He raised the issue of mental health provision and methods in his television play In Two Minds (1967).

In 1990 he risked and subsequently received a battering from the establishment media for representing British state terrorism and assassination of Irish Catholics in the north of Ireland in his film Hidden Agenda. Loach’s Land and Freedom (1995) recalls the fight against fascism in Spain, and Carla’s Song (1996) raised the issue of the US-sponsored Contra insurgency in Nicaragua against the country’s legitimate government. Loach’s solitary US-based film Bread and Roses (2000) represented the ‘Justice for Janitors’ campaign of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Of his two Palme d’Or winners, The Wind That Shakes the Barley (2006) revisited the compromises of the Irish struggle against the British, and I, Daniel Blake (2016) confronted the horrors of the UK welfare system.

This list of films is not even Loach’s entire portfolio. So you would think his reputation would be beyond question.

Yet in February 2021 the Master of St Peter’s College, Oxford, Judith Buchanan, apologised to Jewish students for offering a speaking invitation to Loach, who is one of its alumni, a veteran film-maker, a globally respected human rights activist, and a champion of socialist human solidarity. This apology was made on the basis of smears that alleged that Loach was anti-Semitic, raised via the post–Gaza bombing, pro-Israel, media moral panic.

As he is an advocate for Palestinians, this wasn’t Loach’s first smear in the years following the bombing. In 2017 the Guardian’s Zionist editor of opinion, Jonathan Freedland, made similar unsubstantiated allegations of Loach’s supposed anti-Semitism in his column. Indicative of the one-sided media manipulation at work, Loach’s demand for equivalent space for a traditional right of reply was denied, forcing him to make his rebuttal on the anti-racist Jewish Voice for Labour website. As the St Peter’s College incident demonstrates, the Israel lobby is now attempting to chase him from event to event. The attacks on Loach and many others were part of a broader campaign to invert the status of victims and aggressors: according to the UN the 2014 bombardment of Gaza consisted of 6000 air strikes, 14,500 tank shells and 45,000 artillery shells deployed between 7 July and 26 August, killing 2252 Palestinians, of whom 551 were children. The hysteria unleashed by this status-inverting campaign has resulted in threats and abuse at the launch of the book Bad News for Labour by academics Greg Philo, Mike Berry, Justin Schlosberg, Antony Lerman and David Miller, and a bomb threat at a venue screening WitchHunt, a film about activist Jackie Walker. The pro-Palestinian Jewish Voice for Labour group has also complained about assaults and bomb threats.

Ken Loach’s history as a human rights activist is difficult to stain, and the Israel lobby certainly doesn’t want to mention Palestinians, so it has been citing Perdition. Loach, along with his long-term collaborator Jim Allen, were involved in this 1987 play that was controversially unproduced after being slammed by the Israel lobby. Perdition was inspired by an actual trial, the theme of the play is collusion between Zionists and Nazis.[1] A similar assertion about this type of collusion brought down the career of socialist, pro-LGBTQ , pro-multicultural politician Ken Livingstone, who was subjected to McCarthyite smears after he cited Lenni Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of the Dictators on the topic.

The only critical observations made by Jewish historian Norman Finkelstein were that:

‘Livingstone maybe wasn’t precise enough, and lacked nuance… Livingstone is more or less accurate about this—or, as accurate as might be expected from a politician speaking off the cuff’.
Norman Finkelstein

In simple terms, the Nazis wanted Jews out of Germany, and for many decades prior to the Nazi era Zionists had sought to exploit an external ethnic colonialism that would be exclusive to themselves. It was therefore inevitable in the early days of the Nazi regime that there would be attempts to establish to what extent these agendas were politically compatible.[2] Examples of collusion beyond those mentioned by Livingstone or in Perdition are not that hard to find, such as the Zionist ‘terrorist’ Avraham Stern of the Lehi/Stern Gang, who while fighting the British in Palestine sought a strategic allegiance with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.[3]

In essence the McCarthyite attacks on Ken Loach have two functions. By smearing him the Israel lobby takes a prominent pro-Palestinian human rights activist out of public debate. As in the Livingstone case, this line of attack also seals off media references to part of Zionism’s roots in what Finkelstein describes as a ‘dark chapter in history’.

Loach’s solidarity with the oppressed is not a pose or a means of marketing his work and personality. In 2012 he turned down an award from the Torino Film Festival after cleaning and security services were outsourced at its National Museum of Cinema. In 1995, casualisation was introduced on the Liverpool docks and workers were sacked for refusing to cross a picket line. Loach donated his services to them, making the film The Flickering Flame (1996) about their plight and representing their strike.[4] In 2010 Loach both refused to enter and publicly condemned a Manchester art-house cinema for refusing to pay the living wage. He enlisted film-maker Mike Leigh in the same publicity campaign. Occasions like this are too numerous to list in their entirety here, but they are how Loach lives his life.

Ken Loach is currently being smeared by propagandists for colonial oppression who clearly either individually or as an institutional lobby fail to measure up to the merits of his character. If those who share Loach’s values fail to overcome the McCarthyism that is abroad by mobilising traditional politics of solidarity, then all of us should be fearful of potential similar persecution.

[1] The play, which owed much to the trial of Dr Rudolf Kastner in Israel in 1953, explored the extent to which Zionism, as a nationalist tendency, found accommodations with fascism as a means towards building an Israeli state in Palestine… the play is ‘quite explicit on the difference between Zionism and Judaism, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism’, and ‘bristles with the agonies of the Holocaust, agonies which some of the play’s wilder critics in 1987 would have had one believe (writer Jim) Allen was denying’ (source).

[2] ‘As a practical matter, the Zionists and Nazis could therefore find a degree of common ground around the emigration/expulsion of Jews to Palestine.’ – Finkelstein.

[3] ‘[H]e offered the Germans that “Lehi” would fight on their side against the British and, in return, Germany would send off Jews from Europe to Palestine, where they would found their own country.’ (source); ‘Doubting the Allies could win the war, he advocated an alliance with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, believing these ties would assist the nationalist effort in Eretz-Israel.’ (source).

[4] ‘Several contemporary reviewers noted that this documentary couldn’t have been made were it not for Ken Loach and his reputation. Loach was able to provide the dockers with an opportunity to speak for themselves that had previously been largely denied to them in the British media.’ (source).

RED JOS - ACTIVIST KICKS BACKS



Welcome to my blog and let me know what you think about my postings.


My web pages also have a wide range of topics which are added to when possible. Look for them in any search engine under

"RED JOS"




I hope you find items of interest!

Search This Blog

Followers

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews

About Me

My photo
Preston, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
90 years old, political gay activist, hosting two web sites, one personal: http://www.red-jos.net one shared with my partner, 94-year-old Ken Lovett: http://www.josken.net and also this blog. The blog now has an alphabetical index: http://www.red-jos.net/alpha3.htm

Labels