August 9, 2011

London is Burning

By Haim Bresheeth

Yes, London is burning. Again. How utterly surprising and unbelievable. Of course, we are told, it is nothing like the 1980s. Nothing whatsoever to do with it. You watch the news and are told that there are different stories unfolding: Capitalism is choking itself (and us, in the process) to a painful death, not in one country, but across the globe. The future, so to speak, is behind us. There is nothing to look forward to but sweat and tears, and richer bankers than ever.

Then, in a total disconnect, we see the sights of chaos and destruction on the streets of London – feral youth on the rampage, harming what they find, destroying their ‘communities’, setting fire to shops and homes, attacking the police. Of course, there is no connection between the stories. No connection to a society where democracy has become meaningless, where elections cannot change the situation of most people, where the feral elite rules supreme, with their millions, billions and zillions – where their greed is the only force now moving society.

David Cameron has spoken of ‘broken Britain’. It is here and now – he has managed to break it within one year, like Mrs. Thatcher before him; Ina short while it became quite clear to young people that there is nothing to look forward to, at the same time that they are exposed to the shenanigans of the feral elite, the corrupt connections between the politicians in power, the media barons, the police and the financiers – a concoction of lethal power ruling our broken Britain. The enormous greed which is the organizing principle of this society, has now seemingly percolated down to the lower social echelons – the youth breaking into a phone shop to get an iPhone, to get new trainers, and to light a few fires on the way, like their elders in the banking community, which have left a world of burnt earth behind them.

No. There is no connection whatsoever. The Middle Class cannot face its image in the broken media mirror of the fires, the looting, the chaos and thieving, the breakdown of the order of things. And yet, it is them who have brought this about, by supporting the same politics which have destroyed British society a number of times before. It is the society which supports military takeover of other countries, of inflicting untold violence on their societies in Iraq and Afghanistan, of supporting the elites who, while preaching for the rest of us to have a ‘haircut’, are piling enormous loot in tax havens.

The morality of the ruling elite has won, it seems, and the young people have understood – you don’t get anything for the asking – this capitalism is feral and inhumane, and if you wish to get anything, you must take it. Greed has been seen as good by the New Labour politicians who spent their time with its worst proponents, so we can hardly be surprised at Tories sharing their liking of greed. But now, greed has come a full circle.  We can all see the end scene, with the fires burning quietly through the sultry nights of the Summer of Fear. London has turned into a warzone, people have lost their homes and businesses, and, would you believe it, the PM of broken Britain was forced to end his holiday early!  What is the world coming to? What next?

Tomorrow, as the TV crews will film the glowing embers of this night’s fires, and the news of the collapse of more firms, of more cuts, of less jobs, of the world economy tumbling – we will be told all this is simply the results of one man being shot by the police. Yes, like the Arab Spring was started by one man burning himself in Tunis, like the Intifada in Palestine having started by the IDF killing a girl in a road accident…

What lights the fuse is of course immaterial. What is important is the fact that there is a bomb, there is fuse, and there is the desperate will to light it. If not one event, it will be another. The bomb is there now, being put there by the Greedy Class, by feral elites, by ‘muscular democrats’ like Mr. Cameron, the author and creator of Broken Britain. All the King’s horses and all the king’s men may fail to put Old Blighty together again.

EDITOR: THE BDS campaign continues to change realities!

hWith French company Veolia in mortal trouble, with more and more companies refusing to work in and with Israel, the Lush story is typical.

Lush: Saudia Arabia gets under our skin: The Jewish Chronicle

July 28, 2011
“It’s not just their exfoliant that makes my face go red!”
Skincare company Lush says concerns about the lack of a “mixed” workforce would prevent it opening a store in Israel – but it operates stores in Saudi Arabia.
And this week the company, which has just opened a new store in Brent Cross, north-west London, defended its decision to promote a pro-Palestinian song on its website.
Customers have been challenging staff in the Lush store in Brent Cross, about the company’s support for Oneworld’s single “Freedom for Palestine”. The head office has received 223 emails to date on the issue.
On the Lush website, under “Our Ethical Campaigns” it says: “The catastrophe facing the Palestinian people is one of the defining global justice issues of our time.”
Hilary Jones, the company’s ethics director, admitted that Lush had been approached by the charity War on Want about putting the single online, but said it had not donated to the cause.
She said: “It was an easy decision. We trade with the region and forge links on both sides of the community. We buy olive oil from a Jewish-Arab project.
“But we don’t feel it’s a safe environment to have a store. Would we want a shop where we couldn’t have a mix? We have a multicultural attitude to everything we do; we want everyone in the country where we are trading to be on an equal footing as far as basic human rights go. Some of the team would have to come through checkpoints and be treated differently on their way to work – that would be our worry.”
Simon Emmerson, a Jewish musician who produces the soundtracks for Lush stores, said: “We are taking sides, definitely. The money isn’t going to support Hamas, it’s an issue of human rights. We’ve had long and very heated discussions about this. If people feel let down, we have to argue our corner. Other companies see these ethical campaigns as a PR exercise.”
The Zionist Federation said it urged supporters of Israel to write to the store, and StandWithUs UK said it was “deeply disturbed” and was encouraging a boycott of Lush products and a letter-writing campaign. The ZF’s director of public affairs, Stefan Kerner, said: “Refusing to open a store in Israel, whilst having stores in Saudi Arabia, just proves how blatantly biased the company are – and how they are more concerned with bashing Israel than staying true to their own ethical standards.”
The English Defence League’s Jewish Division advertised a protest outside the store last Sunday on its Facebook page, but staff said no organised group had appeared.
A member of staff at the Brent Cross store, which has been open for three weeks, said: “We have been worried about some demonstrations, but we support people’s right to demonstrate and we would not ask Brent Cross to move people on if they came to protest. We have had a lot of people come into the shop and talk to us about it: some have been angry.”
English teacher Judi Granit said she would no longer buy from the company, despite often having products shipped to her home in Haifa. She said: “I am absolutely broken-hearted. I have relished and supported the wonderful products for years. I am 100 per cent for supporting human rights around the globe and ending suffering, however, I do not condone untruths and lies, even if the intentions are good.
“I invite them to visit Israel and see that there is no apartheid here and no religious segregation. Yet the song ‘Freedom for Palestine'” says the opposite.”

Reut Institute: Israeli Boycott law may backfire: The Electronic Intifada

Adri Nieuwhof on Tue, 08/09/2011
In response to the growing Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, the Israeli parliament passed an anti-boycott law on 11 July. The law is heavily criticized; for example, Amnesty International denounced the anti-boycott law because it “will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression in Israel.”

Palestinian member of the Israeli parliament, Ahmad Tibi, criticized the law as “a strike against free speech.” in an article. He pledged his support to the BDS movement:

“Because I believe in ending the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, equal rights for Palestinians and Jews, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees forced from their homes and lands in 1948, I support boycotting — and calling on others to boycott — all Israeli companies that help perpetuate these injustices.”

A few days later, a remarkable warning was published by the Reut Institute, which characterizes itself as “a non-partisan Zionist organization” in a promotional video. Reut mentions in the video its support for strategic decision making processes of the State of Israel which includes advising the Prime Minister’s office, the Ministry of Defense, the Israeli army and the National Security Council..

Reut’s CEO, Roy Keidar and head of Reut’s National Security Team, Eran Shayson, warned on 2 August, that “the greater damage of the boycott law is the controversy forming around it.” They write:

“Indeed, the urgent sense that action must be taken against the de-legitimization phenomenon is both understandable and justified. However, assumptions that the boycott law and other similar laws provide the answer to this challenge, are wrong and may well backfire.”

Fighting ‘delegitmization’

In February 2010, Reut qualified the actions of the BDS movement as delegitimization of Israel in a report on the urgency to respond to the growing international criticism of Israel’s violations of international law and disrespect of the rights of the Palestinian people. Reut referred in the report to critical voices as “delegitimizers”.

“The effectiveness of Israel’s delegitimizers, who represent a relatively marginal political and societal force in Europe and North America, stems from their ability to engage and mobilize others by blurring the lines with Israel’s critics. They do so by branding Israel as a pariah and ‘apartheid’ state; rallying coalitions around ‘outstanding issues’ such as the ‘Gaza blockade’; making pro-Palestinian activity trendy; and promoting grassroots activities such as boycotts, divestments, and sanctions (BDS) as a way to ‘correct Israel’s ways.’”

In addition, Reut wrote:

“The Delegitimization Network aims to supersede the Zionist model with a state that is based on the ‘one person, one vote’ principle by turning Israel into a pariah state and by challenging the moral legitimacy of its authorities and existence.”

Comparison with South Africa

When I interviewed Professor John Dugard, former UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in October 2010, I asked him to react to accusations that the BDS movement delegitimizes Israel. He said:

“The BDS actions are delegitimizing Israel. There is no question about that. Obviously Israel is unwilling to accept that, similar to apartheid South Africa, which did want to suppress international sanctions. BDS was at that time effective, largely as a result of international advocacy for [boycott, divestment and] sanctions. It delegitimized the state and ultimately led to change in South Africa.

The comparison between Israel and South Africa is important. The situation is very similar at present. The international community is increasingly critical of Israel, advocating for international [boycott, divestment and] sanctions. It is not surprising that Israel is taking steps to prevent them in the same way the South African government did.”

In February 2010, Reut’s policy advice to Israel was to effectively face the “Delegitimization Network” by embracing a network-based logic and response by “Focusing on the hubs of delegitimization – such as London, Paris, Toronto, Madrid, and the Bay Area – and on undermining its catalysts.” Reut called on the Israeli government to direct substantial resources towards this end.

Attacking the messenger

Reut’s advice to “undermine the catalysts” of the BDS movement is a perfect example of attacking the messenger. A few months after Reut’s advice, The Electronic Intifada and its Dutch donor were fiercely attacked by the NGO Monitor. Ali Abunimah analyzed the reasons behind the attack in his article “Why NGO Monitor is attacking The Electronic Intifada”.

He wrote:

“NGO Monitor’s attack on The Electronic Intifada is part of a well-financed, Israeli-government endorsed effort to silence reporting about and criticism of Israel by attacking so-called “delegitimizers” — those who speak about well-documented human rights abuses, support boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS), or promote full equality for Palestinians. Last February, The Electronic Intifada reported that a leading Israeli think-tank had recommended a campaign of “sabotage” against Israel’s critics as a matter of state policy.”

In its criticism of the boycott law, Reut writes that the law applies to Israel while the “delegitimization campaign is global, primarily operating beyond Israel’s borders.” Therefore the law cannot stop the global BDS movement. In addition, Reut identifies the controversy forming around the boycott law as a danger, creating divisions in “the Israeli camp” at a time where unity is needed.

Indeed, the Israeli boycott law is an attack on freedom of expression, and as such another example of Israel’s disrespect for basic human rights. It would have been very disturbing if this law was docilely accepted.