Google+ Followers

Thursday, 27 April 2017

Farewell Comrade Willem Johannes Meijs 12th April 1941—21st March 2017

Willem Meijs - A friend and fighter for Palestine and a better world

On 21st March, Willem Meijs, the husband of my dear friend Sue Blackwell, passed away in a hospice in the Dutch town of Hoorn.  Six days later I made my first foreign trip since having a liver transplant 18 months ago to pay my respects to Willem.  A decade ago I had broken off my holiday in Normandy to go to their wedding.  The time seemed to pass too quickly.

Willem was first and foremost an activist in the wider Palestine solidarity movement and a fighter for the oppressed and downtrodden of this world.  Sue, who initiated the academic boycott in Britain, found a partner who shared her passion for justice.  Willem was also great company.
Willem was  the heart and soul of our alternative choir at the Albert Hall some years ago when an alternative performance was given to the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra at the Proms.  For the first time ever Radio 3 took the Proms off air rather than allow its listeners to hear peoples’ outrage at the visit of Israel’s musical ambassadors.

At the reception held afterwards I said a few words and read out a tribute from Debbie Fink, a member of Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods, who was unable to be at the funeral.  Also below is a tribute from Naomi Wimborne-Iddrissi, who was also unable to attend.

From Debbie Fink, of Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods:

I am sorry not to be here with you all today.

I knew Willem for over ten years through Sue and their involvement in the Palestine Solidarity movement. I have many fond memories of him. Sue & Willem treated me like family, particularly when I stayed with them in Hoorn in 2012 after their fifth wedding anniversary and in Clare, Suffolk, their other home, in 2015. They were very hospitable and took me on sightseeing tours in both places and we shared many tasty meals.

They also stayed at my place, one notable occasion being after we had disrupted the Israel Philarmonic Orchestra as part of the uninvited choir at the Royal Albert Hall, with Sue's parody of Ode to Joy- Ode to Boycott. We had each carried a letter in spelling 'Free Palestine'. Apparently Willem held his letter up the wrong way! We stayed up most of the night, watching Sue send off news releases, & went out for a hearty brunch the next day.
Willem on a demonstration in Amsterdam on 3rd January 2009 against the bombing of Gaza in Operation Cast Lead
Prior to this historical occasion, we recorded a longer version of 'Ode to Boycott' in my flat to be posted on YouTube: Willem singing the tenor line, Sue & Naomi sharing the alto line and myself on soprano.

This was not the only recording we made in my flat. A few years later, Willem and I recorded another parody of Sue's: 'End Apartheid', to the tune of 'Nessum Dorma' by Puccini which we had sung at a demonstration against UEFA, pleading that the finals would not be staged in Israel.

I also spent time with them in their house in Southall and on Boycott Israel Network conferences. At one of these, Willem wrote out the words to 'On the Street where you live' which he had played a recording of him singing, as I was planning to sing it to a man I liked! He called it 'The stalking song from My Fair Lady'.

Sue and Willem were a double act. I will miss his humour, his voice and contribution to the Palestine solidarity movement.
A fond farewell - from Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi
I must apologise most humbly for not being with Sue and Willem’s other loving family and friends to say farewell to the most genial and supportive of comrades.

I’m pretty confident that Willem would have accepted my excuses – no doubt with a wink and an affectionate reprimand - if I were able to communicate with him about the reason for my absence. For some weeks now, a number of us have been hard at work on a major project to expose attempts to demonise us all simply for trying to call Israel to account for its injustices against Palestinians. Sod’s law has come into play, and this project is being launched publicly on this very day, March 27, in London. News of it should emerge while you are all gathered in Hoorn in Willem’s honour.

Not only did Willem devote himself to supporting Sue in her tireless campaigning efforts. He too put his shoulder to the wheel and applied his talents when called upon.
This was taken at the Boycott Israel Network Conference 2011 where the protest at the Prom against the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra was re-enacted
Most famously, he joined Sue and me and Deborah in performing Sue’s alternative wording for Beethoven’s great “Ode to Joy” as our highbrow contribution to protests at London’s celebrated Royal Albert Hall in September 2011. The occasion was a promenade concert by the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra,acting as a cultural ambassador for the state of Israel. This attracted protests outside the hall and also within, where more than 30 of us deployed ourselves with military precision.
Sue’s “Ode to Joy” rang out from high up in the choir stalls early in the concert, followed by other interruptions later on,  taking the BBC’s radio broadcast off the air the first time in the 75 year history of the Proms and making headline news around the world.

Separately we recorded ourselves singing in three-part harmony - Debbie the soprano, Sue and I altos and Willem the tenor.

It made me smile while preparing this message to hear his voice and see his name on the YouTube clip that he uploaded proudly after the event.
This was taken at the Boycott Israel Network Conference 2011 where the protest at the Prom against the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra was re-enacted
He and Debbie performed together again at another protest, in June 2013, braving unseasonably wet and windy weather to sing another one of Sue’s parodies to the tune of NessumDorma, outside a Park Lane hotel where European football’s governing body UEFA was meeting. This time the issue was UEFA’s decision to hold its under-21 men’s football final in Israel, in defiance of the Palestinian boycott.
Willem and Debbie performing outside a Park Lane hotel where UEFA was meeting. 
It is desperately sad to have to say farewell to Willem long before he should have left us.

Ik ben ontzettend trots om hem als  vriend te kunnen noemen.

Veel liefs,


Below are a series of photos that were taken after the funeral in Willem's home town of Hoorn

Hoorn's harbour

Hoorn's harbour

statues sitting on harbour wall

Sue and her daughter Jazwinder
Dennis and Tony Greenstein 

Dennis from Cambridge PSC, Sue and Jaz

Wednesday, 26 April 2017

Full Support to the Palestinian Prisoner’s Hunger Strike

Marwan Barghouti, the Palestinian Mandela, on why the prisoners have no other option

On April 16th 700 Palestinian prisoners began a hunger strike.  Israel reacted in the way that you would expect a State of Terror to react.  It declared that the hunger strike, a weapon of last resort used by prisoners the world over to fight against their jailers, was an act of ‘terrorism’.  This comes from a State which butchered 2,200 Palestinians in Gaza two years ago when the latest F-I5 airplanes unleashed high explosive missiles at schools, clinics, hospitals and above all peoples’ homes.

But ‘terrorism’ in the world of Trump and May is never perpetrated by states unless those states have fallen out of favour with the West.  The actions of Israel and the United States, however horrific are ‘peace making’, proportionate and designed to quell terror.  The bombing of civilians is an accident, collateral damage to use the jargon.

Palestinian prisoners are incarcerated for most of their natural lives in horrific conditions, denied access to contact with the outside world, mobile phones or the most minimal conditions that a civilised society accords to those incarcerated.  Their only crime has been the international law recognised right of opposition to a military regime.  Most Palestinian prisoners were convicted in Military Courts that have a conviction rate of 99.7%. 
Marwan Barghouti
The leader Marwan Barghouti was convicted in an Israeli court which he refused to recognise.  Israel is a colonial power and it metes out colonial justice.  Barghouti is accused of killing Israeli soldiers.  Even were this is true then that is not a crime.  Resistance to an occupying power is never a crime.  The treatment of Barghouti contrasts with that of Israeli soldiers who kill.  On the rare occasion that they are convicted, then like Elor Azaria, who was recently convicted of manslaughter, not murder, for shooting a prone Palestinian prisoner in the head at short range, he received 18 months imprisonment, most of which he will never serve.

Israel's accusation that Marwan Barghouti is a 'terrorist' should carry as much weight as Apartheid South Africa's accusation that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist.  It is the accusation that was levelled by Britain against all Africa's colonial leaders, from Nkrumah to Kenyatta.  European colonial powers who were bathed in blood always characterised their opponents as 'terrorists'.  The Nazis too described armed opposition from the Serbs, Greeks and others as coming from terrorism so Israel's charges should carry just about as much weight as their Nazi predecessors.

Below are 3 articles including one in the New York Times by Marwan Barghouti.  Needless to say Israel’s defenders in the United States screamed about the fact that he was able to present the prisoners views.  So the NYT added at the end a short postscript about the fact that Marwan had been convicted of 5 counts of murder and belonging to a ‘terrorist organisation’.  Suffice to say that belonging to the main terrorist organisation in Israel, the Israeli Army, is not a crime.

Tony Greenstein
Palestinian boys take part in a rally in support of Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike in Israeli jails, in the West Bank city of Nablus, 20 April.  Ayman Ameen APA images
Thousands of Palestinian prisoners have threatened hunger strike over past several weeks in campaign spearheaded by imprisoned Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti
Yaniv Kubovich and Jack Khoury 
Ha'aretz Apr 17, 2017 9:27 AM

700 Palestinian prisoners currently held in Israel announced the start of a indefinite hunger strike in prisons on Sunday, according to a statement released by Israel's Prison Service. Imprisoned Fatah official Marwan Barghouti spearheaded the campaign, though Hamas and Islamic Jihad prisoners held at Hadarim prison will join the campaign largely associated with Fatah.

The hunger strike is expected to expand Monday morning, with over 2,000 prisoners participating. Palestinian Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah announced his support of the strike, as did leaders of Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Qadura Fares, director of the Palestinian Prisoners Club and an ally of Barghouti, told Haaretz that the Prisoners Club, the prisoners and their families will work to bring the prisoners' cause to the forefront over the next few days. According to Fares, Israel could have prevented the hunger strike had it entered into real negotiations with the prisoners and not ignored the situation.

Nearly 2,900 Palestinian prisoners jailed in Israel and affiliated with Fatah have threatened to launch a hunger strike over the past several weeks. Barghouti, the campaign's organizer, has often been floated as a possible successor to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

The fate of more than 5,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israel, whose number has grown considerably in the past 18 months due to the wave of stabbing and car-ramming attacks (the “lone-wolf intifada”), affects nearly every family in the territories. A hunger strike, if it is widely observed and well managed, could immediately turn up the heat in the Israeli-Palestinian arena. If down the road a threat to the strikers’ lives develops, it could lead to another wave of violence.

The April 17 date was originally chosen with an eye on the start of Ramadan, which is toward the end of May. A full hunger strike during Ramadan, when Palestinians fast by day and break their fasts at night, could be religiously problematic. Setting a potential strike period of a little over a month will allow the struggle against Israel to escalate, but also limits it in time so as to prevent a total loss of control. It also marks the annual Palestinian prisoners day anniversary.

According to the Israel Prison Service regulations, it is an offense for a prisoner to refuse his or her meal and the striking prisoners will be subect to disciplniary measures accordingly. "Prisoners who decide to [hunger] strike will face serious consequences," the Prison Service said in a statement. "Strikes and protests are illegal activities and will face unwavering penalization." The statement added that "In accordance with the policy set by the minister of public security, the Prison Service does not negotiate with the prisoners."

The prisoners drafted a list of demands approximately two weeks ago, which includes the revoking of detention without trial and solitary confinement. The hunger strikers also demand the reinstatement of a number of rights that had been revoked, in addition to demanding the installation of a pay phone in each wing, more frequent family visits and the possibility of being photographed with family members during visits.

MK Dr. Yousef Jabareen (Joint List) called on the government to meet the prisoners' demands. "The prisoners agree to have their calls monitored by the Prison Service, so that the alleged security reasons given by the Prison Service and the Shin Bet against installing telephones are void." He said. "Israel is holding prisoners within its territory, breaching the rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention. One of the immediate circumstances of this violation is a perpetual difficulty with family visits to the prison. The delivery of mail is also limited and hardly takes place. Keeping in touch with one's family is an essential matter for every

Last year, about 260 Hamas prisoners went on hunger strike for two days in response to the Prison Service dispersing the wings in which they were imprisoned, while 40 Prisoners of the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) went on hunger strike in solidarity with the administrative detainee Bilal Kaed, who had been in captivity for 70 days.

Peter Beinart, Forward, April 19 2017

In the April 16 New York Times, Marwan Barghouti announced that he and 1,000 other Palestinian prisoners were launching a hunger strike. It’s easy to understand why.

West Bank Palestinians are colonial subjects. Even though the Palestinian Authority has some power, it is not a state, and the Israeli military can freely enter the West Bank and arrest anyone anytime it wants. The prisoners now refusing food were mostly tried in military courts where proving your innocence is nearly impossible. As the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem noted in 2015, “A Palestinian charged in a military court is as good as convicted.”

Israeli officials, and their American Jewish allies, responded to Barghouti’s op-ed with fury. The reason: Initially, The Times did not say why Barghouti sits in an Israeli prison. (It appended the information later). He was convicted in 2002 — in a civilian court not a military one — of murder. Thus, Deputy Minister for Diplomacy Michael Oren tweeted, Barghouti is not the Palestinian Nelson Mandela, as he’s sometimes described. He’s actually the “Palestinian Dylann Roof.”

Oren’s implication is clear: Because Barghouti was convicted of terrorism, his cause is illegitimate, even monstrous. The problem with this argument is that it doesn’t only explain why Marwan Barghouti isn’t Nelson Mandela. It explains why Nelson Mandela isn’t Nelson Mandela either.

Barghouti denies the specific charges on which he was convicted. (He did not defend himself on the grounds that the proceedings were illegitimate). But at the time of his trial, he did support violence. A decade earlier, when the Oslo Peace Process began, he had declared the era of military resistance over. “The armed struggle,” he claimed in 1994, “is no longer an option for us.

But when Israel kept entrenching its control of the West Bank during the Oslo years, Barghouti changed his mind. “How would you feel if on every hill in territory that belongs to you a new settlement would spring up? he declared. “I reached a simple conclusion. You [Israel] don’t want to end the occupation and you don’t want to stop the settlements, so the only way to convince you is by force.”

Barghouti’s shift, which led him to play an active role in the second intifada, constituted a tragic mistake, even a crime, against both Palestinians and Israelis. I’m not justifying it. But he’s not the only national leader to have embraced armed struggle after losing faith in non-violence. Mandela did too.

For a half-century following its birth in 1912, the African National Congress practiced peaceful resistance to white rule. That resistance culminated in 1952 in a “defiance campaign” — partly inspired by Gandhi — consisting of mass protests, boycotts and strikes. When South Africa’s newly elected government responded with even harsher apartheid laws, however, Mandela demanded a different strategy.

As detailed in the book, “The Road to Democracy in South Africa”, Mandela began advocating armed resistance in 1953, and was reprimanded by ANC leaders. But when South African police murdered 69 protesters in the township of Sharpeville in 1960, and its government declared the ANC illegal, Mandela began pressing his case more aggressively. He met substantial internal resistance, especially from longtime ANC leader Albert Luthuli, who found it awkward that the ANC was considering violence when he had just won the Nobel Peace Prize. Still, Mandela, backed by other young militants, won the day.
One can imagine how Oren might describe Mandela’s actions today. Mandela did not merely support violence. In 1961 he became the head of the ANC’s new military wing, and began receiving funds from the Soviet Union. At the famed 1963 Rivonia trial, he was convicted of “recruiting persons for training in the preparation and use of explosives and in guerrilla warfare for the purpose of violent revolution and committing acts of sabotage,” as well as of supporting communism.

Was Mandela a terrorist? The U.S. government thought so. As late as the 1980s, it still classified the ANC as a terrorist group.

A critic might object that the circumstances under which Mandela and Barghouti turned to violence were different. Mandela argued for it in the early 1960s, after the South African government declared the ANC illegal. Barghouti advocated it in the early 2000s, after Israel had accepted the PLO as a legitimate negotiating partner.

The problem with this distinction is that Mandela kept supporting violence even when South Africa’s government grew more conciliatory. Six different times the authorities in Pretoria offered to release Mandela from prison if he accepted conditions including the renunciation of violence. Six times he refused. When President P.W. Botha asked him to renounce violence in 1985, Mandela shot back, “Let him renounce violence.”

A year later, the ANC detonated a bomb that killed three, and injured 69, at a bar in Durban. It did not suspend its armed struggle until after Mandela was released unconditionally from jail.
Israel isn’t the equivalent of apartheid South Africa. Inside the green line, where Palestinians enjoy Israeli citizenship and the right to vote, it certainly is not. Nor am I claiming that Barghouti is Mandela’s equal. After leaving prison, Mandela brilliantly stewarded South Africa toward reconciliation. Barghouti, by contrast, remains an enigma. He has long supported the two-state solution. But who knows what he would do as a free man?

My argument isn’t really about Barghouti at all. It’s that acts of violence, even horrific violence, don’t necessarily invalidate the cause of the people who commit them. America firebombed Dresden and dropped nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; World War II was still a just war. In 1938, Irgun leader David Raziel detonated bombs in Haifa’s Arab Market, killing 21 people. His crimes didn’t invalidate the struggle for a Jewish state. (Oren’s government certainly doesn’t think so; Raziel’s face adorns an Israeli postage stamp).

Palestinians deserve to be citizens, not subjects. And against an Israeli government that rejects a Palestinian state near the 1967 lines, and every day entrenches its brutal and undemocratic control of the West Bank, Barghouti and his colleagues have the right to resist. I’m glad that they’ve chosen a hunger strike, which inflicts violence only upon themselves. I hope they never take up arms again. But to the extent that they still desire what Barghouti demanded the year he was convicted — “the end of the occupation” and “peaceful coexistence” between Palestinians and Jews — their cause is just.

I was called a terrorist yesterday,” Mandela once said, “but when I came out of jail, many people embraced me, including my enemies, and that is what I normally tell other people who say those who are struggling for liberation in their country are terrorists.”

Do you hear that, Michael Oren? He’s talking to you.

Peter Beinart is a Forward senior columnist and contributing editor. Listen to his podcast, Fault Lines with Daniel Gordis here or on iTunes.

The Opinion Pages New York Times Op-Ed Contributor

Photos of prisoners during a demonstration demanding the release of the Palestinians held in Israeli prisons, in Ramallah, West Bank, this month. Credit Issam Rimawi/Anadolu Agency, via Getty Images
HADARIM PRISON, Israel — Having spent the last 15 years in an Israeli prison, I have been both a witness to and a victim of Israel’s illegal system of mass arbitrary arrests and ill-treatment of Palestinian prisoners. After exhausting all other options, I decided there was no choice but to resist these abuses by going on a hunger strike.

Some 1,000 Palestinian prisoners have decided to take part in this hunger strike, which begins today, the day we observe here as Prisoners’ Day. Hunger striking is the most peaceful form of resistance available. It inflicts pain solely on those who participate and on their loved ones, in the hopes that their empty stomachs and their sacrifice will help the message resonate beyond the confines of their dark cells.

Decades of experience have proved that Israel’s inhumane system of colonial and military occupation aims to break the spirit of prisoners and the nation to which they belong, by inflicting suffering on their bodies, separating them from their families and communities, using humiliating measures to compel subjugation. In spite of such treatment, we will not surrender to it.

Israel, the occupying power, has violated international law in multiple ways for nearly 70 years, and yet has been granted impunity for its actions. It has committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions against the Palestinian people; the prisoners, including men, women and children, are no exception.

I was only 15 when I was first imprisoned. I was barely 18 when an Israeli interrogator forced me to spread my legs while I stood naked in the interrogation room, before hitting my genitals. I passed out from the pain, and the resulting fall left an everlasting scar on my forehead. The interrogator mocked me afterward, saying that I would never procreate because people like me give birth only to terrorists and murderers.

A few years later, I was again in an Israeli prison, leading a hunger strike, when my first son was born. Instead of the sweets we usually distribute to celebrate such news, I handed out salt to the other prisoners. When he was barely 18, he in turn was arrested and spent four years in Israeli prisons.
The eldest of my four children is now a man of 31. Yet here I still am, pursuing this struggle for freedom along with thousands of prisoners, millions of Palestinians and the support of so many around the world. What is it with the arrogance of the occupier and the oppressor and their backers that makes them deaf to this simple truth: Our chains will be broken before we are, because it is human nature to heed the call for freedom regardless of the cost.

Israel has built nearly all of its prisons inside Israel rather than in the occupied territory. In doing so, it has unlawfully and forcibly transferred Palestinian civilians into captivity, and has used this situation to restrict family visits and to inflict suffering on prisoners through long transports under cruel conditions. It turned basic rights that should be guaranteed under international law — including some painfully secured through previous hunger strikes — into privileges its prison service decides to grant us or deprive us of.

Palestinian prisoners and detainees have suffered from torture, inhumane and degrading treatment, and medical negligence. Some have been killed while in detention. According to the latest count from the Palestinian Prisoners Club, about 200 Palestinian prisoners have died since 1967 because of such actions. Palestinian prisoners and their families also remain a primary target of Israel’s policy of imposing collective punishments.

Opinion Today

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

Through our hunger strike, we seek an end to these abuses.

Over the past five decades, according to the human rights group Addameer, more than 800,000 Palestinians have been imprisoned or detained by Israel — equivalent to about 40 percent of the Palestinian territory’s male population. Today, about 6,500 are still imprisoned, among them some who have the dismal distinction of holding world records for the longest periods in detention of political prisoners. There is hardly a single family in Palestine that has not endured the suffering caused by the imprisonment of one or several of its members.

How to account for this unbelievable state of affairs?

Israel has established a dual legal regime, a form of judicial apartheid, that provides virtual impunity for Israelis who commit crimes against Palestinians, while criminalizing Palestinian presence and resistance. Israel’s courts are a charade of justice, clearly instruments of colonial, military occupation. According to the State Department, the conviction rate for Palestinians in the military courts is nearly 90 percent.

Among the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians whom Israel has taken captive are children, women, parliamentarians, activists, journalists, human rights defenders, academics, political figures, militants, bystanders, family members of prisoners. And all with one aim: to bury the legitimate aspirations of an entire nation.

Instead, though, Israel’s prisons have become the cradle of a lasting movement for Palestinian self-determination. This new hunger strike will demonstrate once more that the prisoners’ movement is the compass that guides our struggle, the struggle for Freedom and Dignity, the name we have chosen for this new step in our long walk to freedom.

Israel has tried to brand us all as terrorists to legitimize its violations, including mass arbitrary arrests, torture, punitive measures and severe restrictions. As part of Israel’s effort to undermine the Palestinian struggle for freedom, an Israeli court sentenced me to five life sentences and 40 years in prison in a political show trial that was denounced by international observers.

Israel is not the first occupying or colonial power to resort to such expedients. Every national liberation movement in history can recall similar practices. This is why so many people who have fought against oppression, colonialism and apartheid stand with us. The International Campaign to Free Marwan Barghouti and All Palestinian Prisoners that the anti-apartheid icon Ahmed Kathrada and my wife, Fadwa, inaugurated in 2013 from Nelson Mandela’s former cell on Robben Island has enjoyed the support of eight Nobel Peace Prize laureates, 120 governments and hundreds of leaders, parliamentarians, artists and academics around the world.

Their solidarity exposes Israel’s moral and political failure. Rights are not bestowed by an oppressor. Freedom and dignity are universal rights that are inherent in humanity, to be enjoyed by every nation and all human beings. Palestinians will not be an exception. Only ending occupation will end this injustice and mark the birth of peace.

Editors’ Note: April 17, 2017

This article explained the writer’s prison sentence but neglected to provide sufficient context by stating the offenses of which he was convicted. They were five counts of murder and membership in a terrorist organization. Mr. Barghouti declined to offer a defense at his trial and refused to recognize the Israeli court’s jurisdiction and legitimacy.
Marwan Barghouti is a Palestinian leader and parliamentarian.

See also Israel punishes hunger strikers for demanding their rights

Tuesday, 25 April 2017

Zionism’s Court Historians – Reinventing the past in order to manipulate the future

Lying in the service of the Israeli state 

Oxford's Professor Jane Caplan Attacks Ken Livingstone

 the “Beitar Heart” Instagram account of Jerusalem's Beitar fan club featured an image of a candle lit to commemorate Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day.  The image was tagged with #Death to Arabs!

Jane Caplan, Emeritus Professor of History in Modern European History
On April 8th the Guardian printed a letter by Jane Caplan, an Emeritus Professor of Modern European History no less, at Oxford University, attacking Ken Livingstone for having ‘travestied’ historical facts concerning the Zionist movement and Nazi Germany.

I am still bemused by how one can ‘travesty’ a fact.  Either a fact is true or not true.  I suspect it is an attempt to impress by using what is a meaningless phrase.

Ms Caplan is an establishment historian, eager to affirm the Establishment's current nostrums.  The role of historians, with few exceptions, is to provide the ideological and moral justification for the ruling class.  The Holocaust and the whole era of the Nazi era has been depoliticised and stripped of any radical meanings.  You can weep over the death of 6 million Jews without once mentioning the fact that Britain and the USA erected immigration barriers against the entrance of any Jews able to escape.  You can pass over statements by British and American civil servants that asked what they would do with a million refugees and like Theresa May oppose the entrance of 3,000 child refugees from France at the same time as condemning 'anti-Semitism' and affirming the importance of Holocaust Memorial Day.  
Asia Komisarov's father was killed by the Nazis in Russia. She and her mother survived and she moved to Israel as part of a wave of Russian immigration in the 1990s. She lived in a crumbling flat in Jaffa but was forced out when her landlords wanted to raise prices Photo: Association for Immediate Help for Holocaust Survivors
In a very real sense the Holocaust has become part of the identity of the European ruling classes.  It is a narrative designed to shore up support for Israel, a military superpower in the Middle East.  It has little or nothing to do with anti-racism. This nauseous hypocrisy reached its epiphany in the statement by one of the leaders of the alt-Right in the USA, after Trump's holocaust day message had failed to mention the Jews, that the Holocaust needed de-Judaification!  And why not.  Israel makes study of the holocaust compulsory from the age of three!  What happened to the 6 million is embedded in national consciousness whilst at the same time those holocaust survivors still alive are given the choice between eating or keeping warm.  [Tens of thousands of Israeli Holocaust survivors are living in abject poverty]

Some historians, like Niall Fergusson or Andrew Roberts, two conservative pro-imperialist historians, are open about their agenda.  Others like Caplan do it by hiding behind trite and seemingly progressive but empty phrases.  Zionism is no longer a racist, settler colonial movement.  It is a movement of Jewish self-determination 'aspiring' to form a state.  Caplan may be a professor of European history but she knows next to nothing about either Zionism or its record during the Hitler years.

Tony Greenstein

Dear Professor Caplan,
On April 8th the Guardian published a letter from you criticising Ken Livingstone.  Directly underneath your letter was another letter from me.  I was intrigued by your suggestion that your view had particular validity because you were a Professor of History.

You said you wrote your letter, not as a Jewish Labour Party member but as a historian.  I suggest that you did neither. It was written from the perspective of a political Zionist who was using her academic title and Oxbridge credentials to impress people that her political views merited particular attention.  

History is a social science.  Unlike for the physical sciences there is no right or wrong.  Different academics disagree with each other vehemently.  Historians select facts according to their viewpoints and they are forged into a narrative dependent on their political outlook.  
The Nazis struck a coin to celebrate their alliance with Zionism
Conservative historians such as Niall Fergusson and Andrew Roberts see the British Empire as an example of selflessness, good government and colonial administration, all of which were carried on for the benefit of the natives.  Small matters such as e.g. the deliberate engineering of widespread famine in Bengal in order to test the theories of free market economics are omitted from most imperial history. 

Your letter and the politics that lie behind it is part of the construction of a narrative designed to exculpate and whitewash the record of the Zionist movement.  Instead of Zionism being seen as a Jewish quisling movement that collaborated with anti-Semitic movements in general and the Nazis in particular, you portray it as some kind of humanitarian Jewish endeavour.  It would be interesting to know how you explain away the effusive welcome given by the Zionist movement to Donald Trump, notwithstanding his anti-Semitic outriders such as Steve Bannon of Breitbart.

The role of a historian is neither neutral nor objective.  You typify those who are there to provide an alibi for those with influence and power in society by explaining away their role in the past.  Yours is the construction of a seamless tapestry of obfuscation.  Zionism today plays the part of a ruling class ideology embraced by the Tory Party and the European and American ruling classes and you play the part of its court historian.
The Zionist's paper Judische Rundschau of 17.9.35 welcomes the Nuremburg Laws
Your letter reminds me of what Rudolf Vrba once said when criticising Zionist holocaust historians such as Yehuda Bauer.  Vrba escaped from Auschwitz in April 1944.  He co-wrote the Auschwitz Protocols which revealed the secret and details of Auschwitz as an extermination rather than a labour camp.

The Auschwitz Protocols were suppressed by the Zionist movement in Hungary because of a deal which was made with Eichmann to provide a train carrying 1684 of the Zionist and Jewish elite to safety out of Hungary in return for active complicity in the rounding up of nearly ½ million Jews.  The leader of Hungarian Zionism, Rudolf Kasztner was the subject of a four year long trial in Israel (1954-8), which branded him a collaborator.

Because Vrba, like Livingstone and Hannah Arendt before him, insisted on telling the story of how the Zionist movement betrayed the Jews of Europe, their own members included, he was made a non-person by Zionism's Holocaust historians.  He was removed from history books, anonymised and forgotten about.  His autobiography I Cannot Forgive, a powerful account of his escape from Auschwitz and subsequent developments remained untranslated into Hebrew until 2001 because it didn't fit Zionist holocaust historiography.

In 1994, at a conference at the US Holocaust Museum, Vrba asked who was the better historian: ‘those of us who saw the Nazis in action in Auschwitz’ or ‘those who did not have direct experience with the Nazis’?  Vrba’s crime was ‘disrupting the logic of events’ because he was not a historian.  Eventually Bauer, Gutman and the other Zionist historians were forced to concede that the Auschwitz Protocols had been suppressed by Kasztner, the Hungarian Zionist leader.  [Ruth Linn, Escaping Auschwitz – A Culture of Silence, p.108]

You said in your letter that to claim Hitler was supporting Zionism ‘travesties the fact that the Zionists aspired to create a Jewish state in Palestine’.  I’m not quite sure how you ‘travesty’ a fact, but surely Hitler supporting Zionism and the Zionists building their racial state are entirely compatible?  If you desire an explanation of this conundrum you will find the explanation in the official biography of David Ben Gurion by Shabtai Teveth (The Burning Ground - 1886-1948).  In it Teveth quotes Ben Gurion as saying that where there was ‘a conflict of interest between saving individual Jews and the good of the Zionist enterprise, we shall say that the enterprise comes first.’ (p.855) 

That is the simple truth which you try to evade with all the dignity that your academic titles entitle you to.  The Zionist movement in the war counterposed building a Jewish state to saving Jewish refugees from the Holocaust.

It is incidentally a fact that the Nazis supported Zionism.  Francis Nicosia, Professor of Holocaust Studies at Vermont University wrote in Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany (p. 79) that:

‘Throughout the 1930s, as part of the regime’s determination to force Jews to leave Germany, there was almost unanimous support in German government and Nazi party circles for promoting Zionism among German Jews’   (my emphasis)

In The Final Solution 2016 (p.96) Professor David Cesarani quotes from a 1934 Gestapo report: “The efforts of the Gestapo are oriented to promoting Zionism as much as possible and lending support to its efforts to further emigration.”  (my emphasis)

In War Against the Jews Lucy Dawidowicz describes how on 28th January 1935 Reinhardt Heydrich issued a directive stating that:

‘the activity of the Zionist-oriented youth organizations that are engaged in the occupational restructuring of the Jews for agriculture and manual trades prior to their emigration to Palestine lies in the interest of the National Socialist state’s leadership.’  These organisations therefore ‘are not to be treated with that strictness that it is necessary to apply to the members of the so-called German-Jewish organizations (assimilationists)’.

How can there be any doubt that the Nazis supported the Zionist movement? 

All your wittering about how and why the Nazis supported Jewish emigration from Germany is entirely besides the point.  Likewise their on-off support for a Jewish state in Palestine.

Nor was it the case that the Zionists were primarily interested in Jewish emigration from Germany.  Edwin Black makes it clear in The Transfer Agreement that the reason for Ha'avara, the trade agreement between the Zionist movement and Nazi Germany was not saving Jews but saving their wealth.  Ha'avara only applied to the richest Jews.

Tom Segev, a dissident Israeli historian (as opposed to a conformist historian like yourself) cites Werner Senator, a member of the Zionist Organisation Executive warning the Jewish Agency in Germany that ‘if it did not improve the quality of the “human material” it was sending, the Agency was liable to cut back the number of certificates… set aside for the German capital.’  The Seventh Million, p. 44.  Note the term 'human material'.  Even the language of the Zionists and the Nazis was similar.

The natural reaction of most Jews when the Nazis came to power was to launch a Boycott of Nazi Germany.  The Jewish bourgeoisie and the Zionist movement were fiercely opposed to the Boycott.  It is no surprise that an Oxford historian such as yourself should seek to exonerate the then Jewish Establishment.

Hitler agreed to Ha'avara because it undermined the Boycott.  The Zionists wanted it because it resulted in 60% of capital investment in Jewish Palestine’s economy between 1933 and 1939 coming from Nazi Germany.  Hitler literally built the economic foundations of pre-state Israel.

As Edwin Black wrote, ‘the Nazi party and the Zionist Organization shared a common stake in the recovery of Germany.  If the Hitler economy fell, both sides would be ruined.’ [Black, p.253]

Alfred Rosenberg, the Nazi Party’s chief theoretician, who was hanged at Nuremburg, wrote in the early 1920’s how he ‘intended to use Zionism as a legal justification for depriving German Jews of their civil rights.’  He ‘sanctioned the use of the Zionist movement in the future drive to eliminate Jewish rights, Jewish influence and eventually the Jewish presence in Germany.’ [Nicosia, The Third Reich and the Palestine Question, pp. 25-26.  See also Edwin Black p. 173, The Transfer Agreement]  It is this, the ideological symmetry between Zionism and Anti-Semitism that ‘experts’ like you ignore.

Alone among German Jews, it was the paper of the German Zionist Federation, Juedische Rundschau, No. 75, September 17, 1935 which welcomed the Nuremburg Laws of 1935.  In its Editorial it explained how:

‘The speakers at the Zionist Congress stated that the Jews are a separate people and once again put on record the national claims of Jewry.
Germany has merely drawn the practical consequences from this and is meeting the demands of the International Zionist Congress when it declares the Jews now living in Germany to be a national minority.
Germany has given the Jewish minority the opportunity to live for itself and is offering State protection for this separate life of the Jewish minority:

For a professional historian, even an establishment one from Oxford University, to attack Ken Livingstone, a politician with a long anti-racist record, for telling the truth about the Zionist movement’s record in the 1930’s is despicable.  Defending the Zionist movement, which betrayed Jews as surely as they murder Palestinians today, is an example of how some academics, even Jewish ones, are prepared to prostitute themselves for the benefit of the British establishment.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Greenstein