thedailyblog--2020-11-13--A foul and ugly witch-hunt against Corbyn

The hate-filled and indefensible attacks , waged by the Zionist lobby and its hangers-on to silence critics , relies utterly on falsehoods and the suppression of truth .
In this , it is aided and abetted by the mainstream news media and timid politicians .
The Zionists pretend to speak and act on behalf of the global Jewish community but the voices of Jews wishing to counter the lobby ’ s propaganda are hardly ever allowed to reach the public .
In November last year , the outgoing Jewish Speaker of the House of Commons and former Conservative MP , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 57 minutes in ) with British GQ magazine last month : “ I myself have never experienced anti-Semitism from a member of the Labour Party , point one .
And point two , though there is a big issue and it has to be addressed , I do not myself believe Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic.
” Bercow also told the interviewer : “ I ’ ve known him for the 22 years I ’ ve been in Parliament .
Even , actually , when I was a right-winger we got on pretty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never detected so much as a whiff of anti-Semitism.
” There is a shocking video ( about 40 mins in ) in which a Sunday Telegraph columnist , Simon Heffer , claimed with absolutely no proof , that Corbyn “ wants to reopen Auschwitz ” .
When the interviewer responded that such an accusation was completely unacceptable , Heffer replied : “ I ’ m sure , in 1933 , they had similar conversations in Germany : “ the Fuehrer ’ s never going to do that ” .
The Jewish philosopher , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cognitive scientist , historian and political activist ) responded to the shameful nature of these remarks : “ The way charges of anti-Semitism are being used in Britain to undermine the Corbyn-led Labour Party is not only a disgrace but also – to put it simply – an insult to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust .
.
.
” In an article published by the Israel Institute of New Zealand ( IINZ ) on 12 September 2017 , an anonymous Shalom Kiwi writer asks , “ why is Jeremy Corbyn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” The piece then continues : “ He participated in a wreath-laying ceremony at the grave of one of the terrorists behind the massacre of 11 Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich in 1972.
” The intention of this , clearly , is to imply that Corbyn was sympathetic towards anti-Jewish terrorism .
Nothing could be further from the truth .
The Guardian quoted Corbyn as saying : “ I was there because I wanted to see a fitting memorial to everyone who has died in every terrorist incident everywhere because we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pursue peace by a cycle of violence ; the only way you can pursue peace [ is ] by a cycle of dialogue.
” The wreath-laying actually took place in 2014 at an event , honouring those killed by an Israeli air strike on the Tunisian capital in 1985 , that had targeted the Palestine Liberation Organiation ’ s ( PLO ) offices .
A large proportion of the dead were “ women and children , many of them Tunisians , ” according to a New York Times report on the incident .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to France , Hedi Mabrouk , called the strike “ state terrorism ” on Israel ’ s part .
In 2018 , as part of the anti-Corbyn campaign , Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu accused the Leader of the UK Labour Party , via Twitter , of having laid a wreath on “ the graves [ ic ] of the terrorist who perpetrated the Munich massacre.
” And who was this ‘ terrorist ‘ ?
The first thing to note is that there is no evidence to show that Atef Bseiso , actually committed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Head of Intelligence for the PLO and he was assassinated by Israeli terrorists while working as liaison officer for the PLO with Western intelligence agencies in Paris .
Bseiso ‘ s death came at a time when the PLO was actually sharing intelligence information with Western countries to help oppose terrorist operations hostile to Western interests .
According to the Washington Post , Bseiso ’ s murder stunned Western intelligence agencies , especially as this was the third killing of a chief PLO intelligence liaison officer while co-operating with Western agencies .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professionalism of the carefully planned slaying , Middle East specialists – Israeli and Palestinian – said the most likely suspect is Israel ’ s overseas intelligence agency , Mossad.
” Bystanders had described the killers as “ European-looking ” with short-cropped hair and wearing black jogging suits .
They shot and killed Bseiso at point-blank range on his return from a late-night dinner at the Left Bank hotel where he had registered under an alias .
Running off into the night , the agents left behind a handgun fitted with a silencer and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a technique designed to hamper ballistics investigation .
Israel and its Mossad agency have little respect for sovereignty , be it Palestinian or any other .
One example is Mossad ‘ s drugging and abduction of an Israeli citizen in Italy .
In New Zealand , in 2004 , Mossad agents breached “ New Zealand sovereignty and international law ” , as Prime Minister Helen Clark put it , by fraudulently attempting to acquire a New Zealand passport , using the identity of a man with cerebral palsy .
In any case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jeremy Corbyn ’ s attendance at the wreath-laying ceremony for the victims of an Israeli air strike is hypocritical considering that , in 2018 , Netanyahu himself had spoken admiringly about the notorious terrorist leader Menachem Begin in an address he gave at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center .
He spoke of the presence of two documents at the building : “ One , President Truman ’ s historic recognition of the Jewish state ; and right next to it , President Trump ’ s historic recognition of Jerusalem as Israel ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the assembly that Menachem Begin “ serves as an emblem and as an example for future generations , because the battle is never over .
Begin understood that security comes first.
” Begin was leader of the Irgun terrorist group that in 1946 set off a bomb in a hotel in Jerusalem that killed 91 people .
In 2016 , an article in the Israeli newspaper , Haaretz , gave recognition to the fact that the bombing of the King David Hotel was an “ act of terror ” .
In an interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the newspaper : “ I ’ m not an anti-Semite in any way , never have been , never will be .
I ’ ve opposed racism in any form all my life .
It ’ s the way I was brought up , it ’ s the way I ’ ve lived my life.
” He went on to describe ‘ anti-Semitism ‘ as “ a cancer in our society ” that had to be “ challenged at every single stage.
” As directly and clearly as possible , Corbyn expressed his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying “ we want people to understand what it is like to be accused of something because of your ethnicity , because of your faith , because of where you come from .
It is very hurtful but also very dangerous and corrosive to our whole society .
So today I say quite clearly , anti-Semitism is completely wrong , as is any other form of racism.
” On Twitter recently , Juliet Moses , spokesperson for the NZ Jewish Council , asked , “ Is anyone going to try and defend this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antisemitic tropes : 1 ) Jews as Christ-killers 2 ) Jews as a virus 3 ) Jews making up bogus allegations of antisemitism and pulling the strings to advance a neo-liberal agenda.
” In reality , Bradbury ’ s article made not a single reference to Jews but it did target the crimes against humanity that Zionist Israel commit in the name of Jews .
Another way to describe the persecution of Jeremy Corbyn is to liken it to a witch-hunt .
Completely devoid of reason and justice , this revival of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dystopian future that Zionism ’ s investors would impose upon the world .
People who join with Jews in Israel and around the world in their condemnation of the Zionist regime ’ s racist violations of human rights can not credibly be branded as racist or anti-Jewish .
Misleading Zionist propaganda relies on half-truths and rumours , manipulating language at every turn .
It is Zionism that is racist – let ’ s ask Juliet Moses if she , or anyone else , can defend the latest barbaric example of Zionism in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Palestinian family homes and tent dwellings , as well as 64 facilities belonging to them .
These included water storage tanks , livestock shelters , mobile bathrooms , solar cell power generators and two agricultural tractors .
As the UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator for the Occupied Palestinian territories , Yvonne Helle , explained : “ demolitions are a key means of creating an environment designed to coerce Palestinians to leave their homes.
” Then , of course , there is the constant persecution of Palestinian olive harvesters .
Should the above still leave room @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as to the foul and ugly purpose that drives the Zionist enterprise , then ask any Zionist if they can defend Israel ’ s cruelty and criminal abuse of Palestinian children outlined in this Save the Children ( SCF ) report : The impact of the Israeli military detention system on Palestinian children .
This subject has , for years , already been reported on by the UN and human rights groups but this latest evidence has been described as “ a searing indictment of the Israeli authorities , and a worthy addition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into this issue.
” Imagine the mainstream news media headlines and outrage if Israeli children were being awakened during the night and seized by foreign occupation soldiers to be taken hooded or blindfolded from their homes .
Israel is the only country in the world that ethnically selects children for prosecution in military courts .
It should be plain that success , for the Zionist enterprise , depends upon lies , suppression of freedom of expression and terror .
If this corporate-funded movement achieves its ultimate goal , we will find ourselves consigned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control .
The groundwork for this has been exercised for over 50 years already in the Occupied Palestinian West Bank and Gaza .
Many would say it has been for much longer than that .
We live in strange times .
To survive we must defend freedom of expression and human rights .
The key to that is opposition to Zionism and holding Israel to account – while there is still time .

The hate-filled and indefensible attacks, waged by the Zionist lobby and its hangers-on to silence critics, relies utterly on falsehoods and the suppression of truth. In this, it is aided and abetted by the mainstream news media and timid politicians. The Zionists pretend to speak and act on behalf of the global Jewish community but the voices of Jews wishing to counter the lobby’s propaganda are hardly ever allowed to reach the public.
In November last year, the outgoing Jewish Speaker of the House of Commons and former Conservative MP, John Bercow, said in an interview (57 minutes in) with British GQ magazine last month: “I myself have never experienced anti-Semitism from a member of the Labour Party, point one. And point two, though there is a big issue and it has to be addressed, I do not myself believe Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic.” Bercow also told the interviewer: “I’ve known him for the 22 years I’ve been in Parliament. Even, actually, when I was a right-winger we got on pretty well . . . I’ve never detected so much as a whiff of anti-Semitism.”
Re-opening Auschwitz
There is a shocking video (about 40 mins in) in which a Sunday Telegraph columnist, Simon Heffer, claimed with absolutely no proof, that Corbyn “wants to reopen Auschwitz”. When the interviewer responded that such an accusation was completely unacceptable, Heffer replied: “I’m sure, in 1933, they had similar conversations in Germany: “the Fuehrer’s never going to do that”. The Jewish philosopher, Noam Chomsky (famed American linguist, cognitive scientist, historian and political activist) responded to the shameful nature of these remarks: “The way charges of anti-Semitism are being used in Britain to undermine the Corbyn-led Labour Party is not only a disgrace but also – to put it simply – an insult to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust . . .”
Misleading accusations
In an article published by the Israel Institute of New Zealand (IINZ) on 12 September 2017, an anonymous Shalom Kiwi writer asks, “why is Jeremy Corbyn such a toxic name in Jewish circles?” The piece then continues: “He participated in a wreath-laying ceremony at the grave of one of the terrorists behind the massacre of 11 Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich in 1972.” The intention of this, clearly, is to imply that Corbyn was sympathetic towards anti-Jewish terrorism. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Guardian quoted Corbyn as saying: “I was there because I wanted to see a fitting memorial to everyone who has died in every terrorist incident everywhere because we have to end it. You cannot pursue peace by a cycle of violence; the only way you can pursue peace [is] by a cycle of dialogue.”
The wreath-laying actually took place in 2014 at an event, honouring those killed by an Israeli air strike on the Tunisian capital in 1985, that had targeted the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s (PLO) offices. A large proportion of the dead were “women and children, many of them Tunisians,” according to a New York Times report on the incident. At the time, the Tunisian Ambassador to France, Hedi Mabrouk, called the strike “state terrorism” on Israel’s part. In 2018, as part of the anti-Corbyn campaign, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu accused the Leader of the UK Labour Party, via Twitter, of having laid a wreath on “the graves [sic] of the terrorist who perpetrated the Munich massacre.”
And who was this ‘terrorist‘? The first thing to note is that there is no evidence to show that Atef Bseiso, actually committed any terrorist crime. Bseiso was the Head of Intelligence for the PLO and he was assassinated by Israeli terrorists while working as liaison officer for the PLO with Western intelligence agencies in Paris. Bseiso‘s death came at a time when the PLO was actually sharing intelligence information with Western countries to help oppose terrorist operations hostile to Western interests. According to the Washington Post, Bseiso’s murder stunned Western intelligence agencies, especially as this was the third killing of a chief PLO intelligence liaison officer while co-operating with Western agencies. The paper reported that “judging by the professionalism of the carefully planned slaying, Middle East specialists – Israeli and Palestinian – said the most likely suspect is Israel’s overseas intelligence agency, Mossad.”
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Bystanders had described the killers as “European-looking” with short-cropped hair and wearing black jogging suits. They shot and killed Bseiso at point-blank range on his return from a late-night dinner at the Left Bank hotel where he had registered under an alias. Running off into the night, the agents left behind a handgun fitted with a silencer and a bag to catch the spent cartridges, a technique designed to hamper ballistics investigation. Israel and its Mossad agency have little respect for sovereignty, be it Palestinian or any other. One example is Mossad‘s drugging and abduction of an Israeli citizen in Italy. In New Zealand, in 2004, Mossad agents breached “New Zealand sovereignty and international law”, as Prime Minister Helen Clark put it, by fraudulently attempting to acquire a New Zealand passport, using the identity of a man with cerebral palsy.
In any case, Netanyahu’s nauseous denunciation of Jeremy Corbyn’s attendance at the wreath-laying ceremony for the victims of an Israeli air strike is hypocritical considering that, in 2018, Netanyahu himself had spoken admiringly about the notorious terrorist leader Menachem Begin in an address he gave at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center. He spoke of the presence of two documents at the building: “One, President Truman’s historic recognition of the Jewish state; and right next to it, President Trump’s historic recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.” The Israeli Prime Minister told the assembly that Menachem Begin “serves as an emblem and as an example for future generations, because the battle is never over. Begin understood that security comes first.” Begin was leader of the Irgun terrorist group that in 1946 set off a bomb in a hotel in Jerusalem that killed 91 people. In 2016, an article in the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, gave recognition to the fact that the bombing of the King David Hotel was an “act of terror”.
In an interview with Jewish News, Jeremy Corbyn told the newspaper: “I’m not an anti-Semite in any way, never have been, never will be. I’ve opposed racism in any form all my life. It’s the way I was brought up, it’s the way I’ve lived my life.” He went on to describe ‘anti-Semitism‘ as “a cancer in our society” that had to be “challenged at every single stage.” As directly and clearly as possible, Corbyn expressed his abhorrence of all forms of discrimination, saying “we want people to understand what it is like to be accused of something because of your ethnicity, because of your faith, because of where you come from. It is very hurtful but also very dangerous and corrosive to our whole society. So today I say quite clearly, anti-Semitism is completely wrong, as is any other form of racism.”
Juliet Moses and Martyn Bradbury
On Twitter recently, Juliet Moses, spokesperson for the NZ Jewish Council, asked, “Is anyone going to try and defend this revolting The Daily Blog piece riddled with antisemitic tropes: 1) Jews as Christ-killers 2) Jews as a virus 3) Jews making up bogus allegations of antisemitism and pulling the strings to advance a neo-liberal agenda.” In reality, Bradbury’s article made not a single reference to Jews but it did target the crimes against humanity that Zionist Israel commits in the name of Jews.
Another way to describe the persecution of Jeremy Corbyn is to liken it to a witch-hunt. Completely devoid of reason and justice, this revival of the Inquisition should wake us all up to the dystopian future that Zionism’s investors would impose upon the world. People who join with Jews in Israel and around the world in their condemnation of the Zionist regime’s racist violations of human rights cannot credibly be branded as racist or anti-Jewish. Misleading Zionist propaganda relies on half-truths and rumours, manipulating language at every turn.
It is Zionism that is racist – let’s ask Juliet Moses if she, or anyone else, can defend the latest barbaric example of Zionism in practise: The Israeli Army destroyed 11 Palestinian family homes and tent dwellings, as well as 64 facilities belonging to them. These included water storage tanks, livestock shelters, mobile bathrooms, solar cell power generators and two agricultural tractors. As the UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator for the Occupied Palestinian territories, Yvonne Helle, explained: “demolitions are a key means of creating an environment designed to coerce Palestinians to leave their homes.” Then, of course, there is the constant persecution of Palestinian olive harvesters.
Evidence
Should the above still leave room for doubt in anyone’s mind as to the foul and ugly purpose that drives the Zionist enterprise, then ask any Zionist if they can defend Israel’s cruelty and criminal abuse of Palestinian children outlined in this Save the Children (SCF) report: The impact of the Israeli military detention system on Palestinian children. This subject has, for years, already been reported on by the UN and human rights groups but this latest evidence has been described as “a searing indictment of the Israeli authorities, and a worthy addition to the voluminous but damning high-quality research into this issue.” Imagine the mainstream news media headlines and outrage if Israeli children were being awakened during the night and seized by foreign occupation soldiers to be taken hooded or blindfolded from their homes. Israel is the only country in the world that ethnically selects children for prosecution in military courts.
It should be plain that success, for the Zionist enterprise, depends upon lies, suppression of freedom of expression and terror. If this corporate-funded movement achieves its ultimate goal, we will find ourselves consigned to a world based upon absolute population control. The groundwork for this has been exercised for over 50 years already in the Occupied Palestinian West Bank and Gaza. Many would say it has been for much longer than that. We live in strange times. To survive we must defend freedom of expression and human rights. The key to that is opposition to Zionism and holding Israel to account – while there is still time.


thedailyblog--2020-11-16--Bernard Hickey says it all…

Bernard Hickey says it all…

My view : The Reserve Bank is just a third of the way through its programme and mortgage rates could fall to just 1.5 % next year , unleashing another 20-30 % rise in house prices .
That is politically unsustainable at a time when property owners just got $ 100b richer through the value of their homes and Jacinda Ardern is refusing to spend $ 5.2b more to raise benefits more because she says the Government is short of money .
The Reserve Bank should be directly funding a $ 100b programme of Government infrastructure spending over 10 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change by flooding the housing market with 100,000 new homes and building the public transport and water infrastructure needed to reach carbon net zero by 2050 .
The post-1989 era of focusing the Government on having an independent inflation-targeting central bank and limiting the size of Government ( to around 30 % of GDP in NZ ) by targeting net debt of 20 % of GDP is politically unsustainable when the fallout of Covid-19 is hitting young renters , Māori , Pacifica and women hardest , while property and share owners celebrate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wealth .
These should be bi-partisan targets where independent authorities ( RBNZ , Kāinga Ora , NZTA and the Climate Commission ) pull the infrastructure , tax and spending levers to achieve that .
We should be targeting just a 10th of poor families spending more than 30 % of their income on housing ( it trebled to 55 % over the last 30 years ) and getting on track for net carbon zero by 2050 .

Bernard Hickey’s view, worth highlighting this quote…
My view: The Reserve Bank is just a third of the way through its programme and mortgage rates could fall to just 1.5% next year, unleashing another 20-30% rise in house prices. That is politically unsustainable at a time when property owners just got $100b richer through the value of their homes and Jacinda Ardern is refusing to spend $5.2b more to raise benefits more because she says the Government is short of money.
The Reserve Bank should be directly funding a $100b programme of Government infrastructure spending over 10 years to massively improve housing affordability and address climate change by flooding the housing market with 100,000 new homes and building the public transport and water infrastructure needed to reach carbon net zero by 2050.
The post-1989 era of focusing the Government on having an independent inflation-targeting central bank and limiting the size of Government (to around 30% of GDP in NZ) by targeting net debt of 20% of GDP is politically unsustainable when the fallout of Covid-19 is hitting young renters, Māori, Pacifica and women hardest, while property and share owners celebrate hundreds of billions of unearned and untaxed wealth.
These should be bi-partisan targets where independent authorities (RBNZ, Kāinga Ora, NZTA and the Climate Commission) pull the infrastructure, tax and spending levers to achieve that.
We should be targeting just a 10th of poor families spending more than 30% of their income on housing (it trebled to 55% over the last 30 years) and getting on track for net carbon zero by 2050.


thedailyblog--2020-11-16--If Only We Had a Minister of Broadcasting Worthy Of The Title.

MORE OR LESS OFFICIALLY , this government is committed to merging TVNZ and RNZ into a single , monolithic , publicly-owned broadcasting entity .
The temptation to support this idea enthusiastically is strong .
For a Minister of Broadcasting to even contemplate such a dramatic revision of the public broadcasting status-quo surely implies a deep understanding of how poorly the current entities are performing , while signalling a firm intention to offer TVNZ ’ s and RNZ ’ s audiences something better .
You would , however , be well advised to curb your enthusiasm .
The chances of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make KiwiBuild look like a safe bet .
Consider the policy ’ s provenance : the Office of the Minister of Broadcasting , Kris Faafoi .
This is the man who , having been briefed on RNZ management ’ s proposal , endorsed by RNZ ’ s board , to effectively destroy RNZ Concert – in favour of a “ Yoof ” channel – failed to identify any significant problems with the idea .
That failure , along with the public outcry and political embarrassment it occasioned , should have seen him stripped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so uninterested is the Labour Cabinet in public broadcasting – and the media in general – that Faafoi continues to hold the warrant .
Given the Minister ’ s evident uninterest in the classic Reithian principles of public broadcasting – i.e .
to educate , elevate and entertain the people – any review of Faafoi ’ s motivations for rolling-up TVNZ and RNZ into a single , state-owned broadcasting entity , leaves one fearing the worst .
The first motivation that springs to mind is straightforward , old-fashioned , cost-cutting .
Rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s predecessor , Clare Curran , promised to do more than four years ago ) the current minister might simply be seeking the approbation of the Finance Minister by freeing-up an extra $ 15 million for some eye-catching and vote-winning alternative .
( Something to do with Rugby , perhaps ? )
Another motivation could be a strong desire to get rid of the governance and management personnel who caused him such acute political embarrassment .
Any merging of RNZ and TVNZ would , almost certainly , be to the disadvantage of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Faafoi is anticipating that the big television elephants will make short work of the tiny radio mice ?
As a former TVNZ journalist , he is likely to identify much more strongly with the populist instincts of his former employers , than he is with what remains of the public service ethos at RNZ .
Killing two birds with a single stone always elicits hearty cheers from career politicians .
Then again , it might be some sort of confused , ham-fisted attempt by elements within the Ministry of Heritage and Culture ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both state broadcasters and drag them , kicking and screaming , into some semblance of awareness of their obligations to New Zealand ’ s democratic political system , and to the cultural needs of the citizens they are supposed to serve .
Unfortunately , that is the least likely explanation for the proposed merger .
After multiple changes at the upper echelons of the MHC there is simply not the critical mass of tough and talented public servants needed to drive through such a visionary ( not to mention ideologically suspect ) project @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( or any ) government pulling off a successful and progressive merger of TVNZ and RNZ , the public would need to have been properly prepared by means of a full-scale public inquiry into the strengths and weaknesses of both entities .
Those leading the inquiry would need to be genuinely independent , as well as fully conversant with the way public broadcasters are funded , managed and protected in other Western countries .
Most obviously , it would study the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the BBC , but it would also review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and North America .
The problem with this “ solution ” is , of course , that only a government already cognisant of the vital role effective public broadcasters can play in lifting the cultural and political discourse of a nation could contemplate such an inquiry .
And , as we have already established , this is not such a government .
If it was , and if it had a Minister of Broadcasting and Communications worthy of his title , then New Zealanders might expect to see , hear and/or read about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raise issues pertinent to the quality of public broadcasting in New Zealand .
Such a minister might ask why the important role of political commentator on RNZ ’ s Nine to Noon show is apparently now restricted to public relations personnel and pollsters with strong ties to the two major political parties , rather than to individuals demonstrably at arm ’ s length from these institutions , such as university academics , trade unionists and independent journalists and commentators .
This was , after all , the previous practice – why the change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aloud why so much commentary on economic matters is provided by economists employed by the major trading banks , rather than , once again , by qualified individuals without quite so much skin in the game ?
Or , why so many of our leading state broadcasters are more interested in the sound of their own voices , than in the voices of the unfortunate people they invite on air to interupt ?
Questions might be raised as to why so much of the prime-time schedule is devoted to reality TV shows ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ commissioned and broadcast on state television ?
Why the rural and business sectors are so well-served by our public broadcasters , while the lives of industrial and service sector workers are considered unworthy of such regular and dedicated journalistic scrutiny ?
Why we have a programme called Country Calendar , but not one called Working Life ?
Why sport flourishes while the arts struggle to be heard ?
A government purporting to be “ progressive ” would not only ask these questions , it would question why they needed to be asked .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for whom the life of the mind was more important than likes on Facebook and followers on Twitter .
Such a government would be filled with politicians who are as interested in reading books as they are in balancing them .
Most of all , it would have a Broadcasting Minister who made it his , or her , business to gather together the brightest , the bravest and the most creative souls this country can offer , and then provide them with the resources needed to broadcast back to New Zealanders their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unique reflections .
That is the sort of public broadcasting policy New Zealand needs : exactly the sort of broadcasting policy it is not going to get .

MORE OR LESS OFFICIALLY, this government is committed to merging TVNZ and RNZ into a single, monolithic, publicly-owned broadcasting entity. The temptation to support this idea enthusiastically is strong. For a Minister of Broadcasting to even contemplate such a dramatic revision of the public broadcasting status-quo surely implies a deep understanding of how poorly the current entities are performing, while signalling a firm intention to offer TVNZ’s and RNZ’s audiences something better. You would, however, be well advised to curb your enthusiasm. The chances of this policy proving successful are so low they make KiwiBuild look like a safe bet.
Consider the policy’s provenance: the Office of the Minister of Broadcasting, Kris Faafoi. This is the man who, having been briefed on RNZ management’s proposal, endorsed by RNZ’s board, to effectively destroy RNZ Concert – in favour of a “Yoof” channel – failed to identify any significant problems with the idea. That failure, along with the public outcry and political embarrassment it occasioned, should have seen him stripped of the broadcasting portfolio. Unfortunately, so uninterested is the Labour Cabinet in public broadcasting – and the media in general – that Faafoi continues to hold the warrant.
Given the Minister’s evident uninterest in the classic Reithian principles of public broadcasting – i.e. to educate, elevate and entertain the people – any review of Faafoi’s motivations for rolling-up TVNZ and RNZ into a single, state-owned broadcasting entity, leaves one fearing the worst.
The first motivation that springs to mind is straightforward, old-fashioned, cost-cutting. Rather than fund RNZ properly (as Faafoi’s predecessor, Clare Curran, promised to do more than four years ago) the current minister might simply be seeking the approbation of the Finance Minister by freeing-up an extra $15 million for some eye-catching and vote-winning alternative. (Something to do with Rugby, perhaps?)
Another motivation could be a strong desire to get rid of the governance and management personnel who caused him such acute political embarrassment. Any merging of RNZ and TVNZ would, almost certainly, be to the disadvantage of the smaller and weaker radio network. Perhaps Faafoi is anticipating that the big television elephants will make short work of the tiny radio mice? As a former TVNZ journalist, he is likely to identify much more strongly with the populist instincts of his former employers, than he is with what remains of the public service ethos at RNZ. Killing two birds with a single stone always elicits hearty cheers from career politicians.
Then again, it might be some sort of confused, ham-fisted attempt by elements within the Ministry of Heritage and Culture (MHC) to stop the rot in both state broadcasters and drag them, kicking and screaming, into some semblance of awareness of their obligations to New Zealand’s democratic political system, and to the cultural needs of the citizens they are supposed to serve.
Unfortunately, that is the least likely explanation for the proposed merger. After multiple changes at the upper echelons of the MHC there is simply not the critical mass of tough and talented public servants needed to drive through such a visionary (not to mention ideologically suspect) project.
To be reasonably confident of this (or any) government pulling off a successful and progressive merger of TVNZ and RNZ, the public would need to have been properly prepared by means of a full-scale public inquiry into the strengths and weaknesses of both entities. Those leading the inquiry would need to be genuinely independent, as well as fully conversant with the way public broadcasters are funded, managed and protected in other Western countries. Most obviously, it would study the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the BBC, but it would also review the public broadcasting arrangements in Western Europe and North America.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
The problem with this “solution” is, of course, that only a government already cognisant of the vital role effective public broadcasters can play in lifting the cultural and political discourse of a nation could contemplate such an inquiry. And, as we have already established, this is not such a government.
If it was, and if it had a Minister of Broadcasting and Communications worthy of his title, then New Zealanders might expect to see, hear and/or read about a minister who was not afraid to raise issues pertinent to the quality of public broadcasting in New Zealand.
Such a minister might ask why the important role of political commentator on RNZ’s Nine to Noon show is apparently now restricted to public relations personnel and pollsters with strong ties to the two major political parties, rather than to individuals demonstrably at arm’s length from these institutions, such as university academics, trade unionists and independent journalists and commentators. This was, after all, the previous practice – why the change?
That same minister might also wonder aloud why so much commentary on economic matters is provided by economists employed by the major trading banks, rather than, once again, by qualified individuals without quite so much skin in the game?
Or, why so many of our leading state broadcasters are more interested in the sound of their own voices, than in the voices of the unfortunate people they invite on air to interupt?
Questions might be raised as to why so much of the prime-time schedule is devoted to reality TV shows? Why there is so little political satire commissioned and broadcast on state television? Why the rural and business sectors are so well-served by our public broadcasters, while the lives of industrial and service sector workers are considered unworthy of such regular and dedicated journalistic scrutiny? Why we have a programme called Country Calendar, but not one called Working Life? Why sport flourishes while the arts struggle to be heard?
A government purporting to be “progressive” would not only ask these questions, it would question why they needed to be asked. Its Cabinet would be filled with people for whom the life of the mind was more important than likes on Facebook and followers on Twitter. Such a government would be filled with politicians who are as interested in reading books as they are in balancing them.
Most of all, it would have a Broadcasting Minister who made it his, or her, business to gather together the brightest, the bravest and the most creative souls this country can offer, and then provide them with the resources needed to broadcast back to New Zealanders their own compelling, revelatory, uplifting and unique reflections.
That is the sort of public broadcasting policy New Zealand needs: exactly the sort of broadcasting policy it is not going to get.


thedailyblog--2020-11-15--Dr Liz Gordon: Options for Christmas and beyond

Chris Trotter has just written a must-read article on , well , capitalist constraints on government .
While it is a depressing read ( in the penultimate paragraph , all the ‘ old Marxists ’ give up and head for the bar ) , it begins with discussions of the ‘ Christmas bonus ’ given by Labour Governments in 1935 and 1972 to beneficiaries .
Several times during the pandemic , there has been a suggestion that the government should provide a payment , either targeted or universal , to citizens , to provide one-off relief from the physical , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I was opposed to this , thinking that any such bonus should be targeted at the bottom 30 % of income earners – those living on or below the poverty line , not for all .
But the question is whether some kind of meaningful Christmas bonus might be a good way to relieve the pressure on beneficiaries and low-income workers and offer some hope for the future .
We all know , and have known for years , that the ‘ Ruthanasia ’ slashing of benefits by one-third in the 1991 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy of the whole generation of neo-liberal policies .
Probably pretty well tied with the Employment Contracts Act ( before y ’ all remind me ) .
For those of you too young to remember , the purpose of that move in the ‘ mother of all budgets ’ was to reduce benefits to allow wages to fall , as benefit levels were seen to be holding up the wages of people at the bottom .
I can not even begin to document the harm this policy caused .
Perhaps a few gins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be the appropriate place to talk about that .
The struggle of poverty , the loss of hope , disengagement from society , family harm , imprisonment… as a social researcher , I know it would take years to accurately gauge the effects of that single , cruel policy ( a good project : “ Quantify the harm caused by neoliberal policies ” ) .
What is more astounding is that , as beneficiaries fell further and further behind , nothing was done to correct the harm , year on year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ended up , by the time National ( NOT Labour ) provided a one-off $ 25 per week correction in 2016 ( I think ) , around $ 220 per week worse off than they would have been .
All of that money went as a social bonus , through tax cuts and so on , to the wealthiest 10 % of New Zealanders , who are the only ones to come out in the black in the neo-liberal era , as Max Rashbrooke has shown .
It has taken an awfully long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a groundswell now exists for this government to right the wrongs of the past .
Of course the government has done several things to improve the incomes of beneficiaries : indexed the benefit to inflation ( from next year ) , given a permanent $ 25 per week increase and begun ( very slowly ) raising the benefit abatement thresholds so that beneficiaries can earn more before a clawback occurs .
But these are small changes that do not rescue families from poverty .
Would a one-off payment for , perhaps , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ income terms , constitute an effective approach at this time ?
It is an attractive thought , although I am sure it would be much more likely to be used for debt reduction ( the loan sharks have well got their claws into these families ) than having a nice Christmas .
That lovely element of hope – that frisson of belief that things might get better – would be very welcome .
It would send a strong signal , currently lacking , that this government intends to make things better for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society as a whole .
But there is no point in having the gesture unless it is followed up .
Hope , once aroused , can easily be depressed again , leaving the hopers psychologically worse off than before .
So while the idea of a happy Christmas bonus is a very good one , I think that the government are going to need to focus on a very strong programme to lift benefits , which also means lifting wages and pushing employment opportunities .
Such a programme would then lead the economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Such a programme will be expensive and there may be no room for a Christmas bonus to signal ‘ government kindness ’ among neo-liberalism ’ s many victims .
The various movements – anti poverty , union , justice , social groups and so on – who have been pushing for urgent action by this government are all clamouring for some aspect of the above programme to lift employment , increase wages and pay all families a living wage .
Being bold now and providing a global reset around these matters would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zealand for a post-neoliberal future .
And begin to heal the harm .
Everyone knows that the best way to get an economy moving is to raise the wages of the poorest in society , because they spend all their incomes .
While such a solution does not solve the problems of capitalism that drive the old Marxists to the pub , it can do much to heal the harm of the past 30 years .
For this Labour government , the task should not be to ignore and withstand the increasingly strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a path to achieve it .
This is your mission , should you choose to accept it .
This message will self-destruct in jolly quick time , if the moment is lost .
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister , with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society .
She usually blogs on justice , social welfare and education topics .

Chris Trotter has just written a must-read article on, well, capitalist constraints on government. While it is a depressing read (in the penultimate paragraph, all the ‘old Marxists’ give up and head for the bar), it begins with discussions of the ‘Christmas bonus’ given by Labour Governments in 1935 and 1972 to beneficiaries.
Several times during the pandemic, there has been a suggestion that the government should provide a payment, either targeted or universal, to citizens, to provide one-off relief from the physical, social and psychological costs of the pandemic. I was opposed to this, thinking that any such bonus should be targeted at the bottom 30% of income earners – those living on or below the poverty line, not for all.
But the question is whether some kind of meaningful Christmas bonus might be a good way to relieve the pressure on beneficiaries and low-income workers and offer some hope for the future.
We all know, and have known for years, that the ‘Ruthanasia’ slashing of benefits by one-third in the 1991 budget was the most pernicious and harmful policy of the whole generation of neo-liberal policies. Probably pretty well tied with the Employment Contracts Act (before y’all remind me). For those of you too young to remember, the purpose of that move in the ‘mother of all budgets’ was to reduce benefits to allow wages to fall, as benefit levels were seen to be holding up the wages of people at the bottom.
I cannot even begin to document the harm this policy caused. Perhaps a few gins at the pub with some old Marxists might be the appropriate place to talk about that. The struggle of poverty, the loss of hope, disengagement from society, family harm, imprisonment… as a social researcher, I know it would take years to accurately gauge the effects of that single, cruel policy (a good project: “Quantify the harm caused by neoliberal policies”).
What is more astounding is that, as beneficiaries fell further and further behind, nothing was done to correct the harm, year on year. The average single parent with one child ended up, by the time National (NOT Labour) provided a one-off $25 per week correction in 2016 (I think), around $220 per week worse off than they would have been.
All of that money went as a social bonus, through tax cuts and so on, to the wealthiest 10% of New Zealanders, who are the only ones to come out in the black in the neo-liberal era, as Max Rashbrooke has shown.
It has taken an awfully long time, but there is no doubt that a groundswell now exists for this government to right the wrongs of the past. Of course the government has done several things to improve the incomes of beneficiaries: indexed the benefit to inflation (from next year), given a permanent $25 per week increase and begun (very slowly) raising the benefit abatement thresholds so that beneficiaries can earn more before a clawback occurs. But these are small changes that do not rescue families from poverty.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Would a one-off payment for, perhaps, the bottom 30% of families in income terms, constitute an effective approach at this time? It is an attractive thought, although I am sure it would be much more likely to be used for debt reduction (the loan sharks have well got their claws into these families) than having a nice Christmas. That lovely element of hope – that frisson of belief that things might get better – would be very welcome. It would send a strong signal, currently lacking, that this government intends to make things better for the enduring victims of neo-liberalism and for our society as a whole.
But there is no point in having the gesture unless it is followed up. Hope, once aroused, can easily be depressed again, leaving the hopers psychologically worse off than before. So while the idea of a happy Christmas bonus is a very good one, I think that the government are going to need to focus on a very strong programme to lift benefits, which also means lifting wages and pushing employment opportunities. Such a programme would then lead the economic recovery we are all hoping for post-Covid. Such a programme will be expensive and there may be no room for a Christmas bonus to signal ‘government kindness’ among neo-liberalism’s many victims.
The various movements – anti poverty, union, justice, social groups and so on – who have been pushing for urgent action by this government are all clamouring for some aspect of the above programme to lift employment, increase wages and pay all families a living wage. Being bold now and providing a global reset around these matters would do a lot to set up New Zealand for a post-neoliberal future. And begin to heal the harm.
Everyone knows that the best way to get an economy moving is to raise the wages of the poorest in society, because they spend all their incomes. While such a solution does not solve the problems of capitalism that drive the old Marxists to the pub, it can do much to heal the harm of the past 30 years.
For this Labour government, the task should not be to ignore and withstand the increasingly strong demands for change, but to plot a path to achieve it. This is your mission, should you choose to accept it. This message will self-destruct in jolly quick time, if the moment is lost.
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister, with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society. She usually blogs on justice, social welfare and education topics.


thedailyblog--2020-11-17--RCEP – A Wake Up Call To Rethink The Failed Hyperglobalisation Model

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership ( RCEP ) that was signed virtually yesterday is a wake up call for the cheerleaders of hyperglobalisation : countries and their peoples have become wary and weary of these mega-free trade deals , … “ The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership ( RCEP ) that was signed virtually yesterday is a wake up call for the cheerleaders of hyperglobalisation : countries and their peoples have become wary and weary of these mega-free trade deals ” , says University of Auckland law professor Jane Kelsey , who closely followed the negotiations and attended many negotiating rounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was originally slated as China ’ s antidote to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement ( TPPA ) leaves out some of the most controversial rules .
There is no chapter on state-owned enterprises or government procurement , no right for foreign investors to enforce special rights through investor-state dispute settlement ( ISDS ) , some intellectual property rights for Big Pharma are absent or diluted , the electronic commerce chapter left out some rules and is not enforceable .
Moreover , RCEP delivers virtually nothing in traditional market access terms among 15 countries that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among themselves .
“ The big deal , including for New Zealand , was the inclusion of India ” , says Professor Kelsey .
“ But India walked away last year because the price was just too high .
The economy and workforce would have been swamped by Chinese imports and Australian and New Zealand market access demands would have devastated India ’ s 100 million dairy farmers.
” .
Professor Kelsey notes that the usually ebullient Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade ( MFAT ) is even downplaying the deal , admitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It ’ s time for New Zealand to revisit the failed hyperglobalisation model of the past four decades , especially after Covid-19 has exposed our vulnerability to deeply integrated supply chains we can ’ t control and ‘ services exports ’ that depend on international travel.
” “ Even the Labour ’ s government ’ s Trade for All Advisory Board called for a rethink of the current approach ” Professor Kelsey observed .
“ Hopefully Minister Mahuta will bring a fresh eye to these challenges and help move New Zealand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the challenges of the 21st century .
”

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) that was signed virtually yesterday is a wake up call for the cheerleaders of hyperglobalisation: countries and their peoples have become wary and weary of these mega-free trade deals , …
“The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) that was signed virtually yesterday is a wake up call for the cheerleaders of hyperglobalisation: countries and their peoples have become wary and weary of these mega-free trade deals ”, says University of Auckland law professor Jane Kelsey, who closely followed the negotiations and attended many negotiating rounds over the past eight years.
What was originally slated as China’s antidote to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) leaves out some of the most controversial rules.
There is no chapter on state-owned enterprises or government procurement, no right for foreign investors to enforce special rights through investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), some intellectual property rights for Big Pharma are absent or diluted, the electronic commerce chapter left out some rules and is not enforceable.
Moreover, RCEP delivers virtually nothing in traditional market access terms among 15 countries that have a vast web of similar agreements among themselves.
“The big deal, including for New Zealand, was the inclusion of India”, says Professor Kelsey.
“But India walked away last year because the price was just too high. The economy and workforce would have been swamped by Chinese imports and Australian and New Zealand market access demands would have devastated India’s 100 million dairy farmers.”.
Professor Kelsey notes that the usually ebullient Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) is even downplaying the deal, admitting that it failed to achieve its objectives.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
“It’s time for New Zealand to revisit the failed hyperglobalisation model of the past four decades, especially after Covid-19 has exposed our vulnerability to deeply integrated supply chains we can’t control and ‘services exports’ that depend on international travel.”
“Even the Labour’s government’s Trade for All Advisory Board called for a rethink of the current approach” Professor Kelsey observed.
“Hopefully Minister Mahuta will bring a fresh eye to these challenges and help move New Zealand to a progressive trade agenda fit for the challenges of the 21st century.”


thedailyblog--2020-11-18--The Hollow Persons (With Apologies To T.S. Eliot.)

We are the hollow persons First we make them , Are far from empty .
We are inflamed by the thrill Mistaking the image for the deed .
Those who have moved on From office to retirement , that powerless state , Understand us best – see us clearly – not as lost Thankfully do not appear : I will not go again No more fulsome greetings The offering of last night ’ s ratings It is not like this In those hours when There are no eyes here In this valley of abandoned dreams Strewn with the bones of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope We cling to one another Try to swallow the crumbs of official praise .
This is the way we wash our hands This is the way we wash our hands Of everything left in the morning For this is the Empire of Neo-liberalism Between the stamping out of Covid-19 And the ending of child poverty Between the Politics of Kindness Between the promise of transformation For this is the Empire of Neo-Liberalism For this is This is the way Jacinda ends This is the way Jacinda ends This is the way Jacinda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simper .

Let’s do this
Let’s keep moving
I
We are the hollow persons
Inflated with hot air
Hanging together
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
For fear of hanging separately. Cut!
Our empty promises, when
First we make them,
Are far from empty.
We are inflamed by the thrill
Of passionate sounds,
Like Boomers watching porn,
Mistaking the image for the deed.
Policy without intention, sincerity without truth,
Activity without consequence, politics without effect.
Those who have moved on
From office to retirement, that powerless state,
Understand us best – see us clearly – not as lost
Treacherous souls, but only
As the hollow persons
Inflated with hot air.
II
Eyes I dare not meet in studios
Or the Green Room
Thankfully do not appear:
There, all eyes blaze
Like television lights
There, lips curl cruelly,
And nostrils flare
In eager anticipation of
A broken political career.
I will not go again
To that dream factory
I’ll wear no more
The deliberate disguises of
Commentator, pundit, expert
In my field
Holding up a finger to discover
The prevailing political wind.
No more fulsome greetings
In the shallow money trench.
III
It is a wavering realm
Guided by autocues
Raising statues of flesh
To receive each morning
The offering of last night’s ratings
Restoring a twinkle to fading stars.
It is not like this
Outside the make-up room
Abiding alone
In those hours when
The camera’s tenderness
Is removed
And all earpieces fall silent.
IV
There are no eyes here
No prying eyes
In this valley of abandoned dreams
This valley of hollow victories
Strewn with the bones of broken promises
In this place of suspended hope
We cling to one another
Avoid commitment
Try to swallow the crumbs of official praise.
Paralysed, unless,
From somewhere,
A choir of cast-off heroes,
Voices from history,
Sing solidarity songs
To gather-in our lost flock
Of hollow persons.
V
This is the way we wash our hands
Wash our hands, wash our hands,
This is the way we wash our hands
Of everything left in the morning
Between the Caucus
And the Treasury
Between the promise
And the press-release
Falls the shadow
For this is the Empire of Neo-liberalism
Between the Mosque Massacre
And KiwiBuild
Between the stamping out of Covid-19
And the ending of child poverty
Falls the shadow
It’s only a three year term
Between the Politics of Kindness
And the MSD counter
Between the promise of transformation
And maintaining business confidence
Between the loyal working-class
And the borrowed middle-class
Falls the shadow
For this is the Empire of Neo-Liberalism
For this is
Only a three year term
For
This is the way Jacinda ends
This is the way Jacinda ends
This is the way Jacinda ends
Not with a pang but a simper.
Chris Trotter
2020


thedailyblog--2020-11-18--Jeremy Corbyn and false smears of anti-semitism

The best summary I ’ ve read of the recent report of Britain ’ s Equalities and Human Rights Commission ( EHRC ) into claims of anti-semitism within the British Labour Party is from Nazareth-based journalist Johnathan Cook here .
It ’ s worth spending the time to read through the entire analysis but most of us are busy so I ’ ve taken a few extracts from the Johnathan Cook piece to highlight the main points .
The reason this became so big in British politics was two-fold .
British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn was being attacked with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promoting policies of support for Palestinians and proposing to impose sanctions against Israel for its racist , apartheid policies .
However , he was also being targeted by the right-wing within the establishment and within the British Labour Party itself ( by supporters of war criminal Tony Blair ) who are wedded to neo-liberalism .
The Cook analysis says : But in reality there are other , entirely credible reasons about why the antisemitism claims against Labour were , as Corbyn observed , “ dramatically overstated for political reasons ” , or were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ targeted by pro-Israel groups for very understandable reasons , from their partisan perspective .
He was the first British party leader within reach of power to unapologetically support the Palestinian cause and threaten Israel with serious repercussions for its continuing oppression of the Palestinian people .
But the claims of pro-Israel lobbyists only gained traction politically because , in concert , he was being targeted by the neoliberal establishment .
That included the media , the Conservative Party and , particularly damagingly , the still-dominant “ Blairite ” wing of his own party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour ’ s glory days under former leader Tony Blair .
They all wanted to keep Corbyn from reaching No 10 .
Ultimately , antisemitism proved the most effective of a range of smears they tried on Corbyn for size .
The goal was to discredit him in the eyes of British voters to ensure he could never implement a socialist platform that would challenge establishment interests head-on .
The EHRC report did not support the claims the British Labour Party was “ institutionally anti-semitic ” but , more mundanely , that party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Cook analysis says : The impression left on the public – aided by yet more frantic media spin – was that the EHRC ’ s 130-page report had confirmed the claims of Corbyn ’ s critics that on his watch the party had become “ institutionally antisemitic ” .
In fact , the watchdog body reached no such conclusion .
Its report was far more ambiguous .
And its findings – deeply flawed , vague and glaringly inconsistent as they were – were nowhere near as dramatic as the headlines suggested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination for which the Labour Party is responsible ” .
Those failings , according to the commission , related to the handling of antisemitism complaints , interference by the leader ’ s office in the disciplinary procedure , and “ unlawful harassment ” by two Labour Party “ agents ” .
None of that seemed to amount to anything like the supposed claims of a “ plague ” and “ tidal wave ” of antisemitism that have dominated headlines for five years .
Paradoxically , the equalities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Corbyn ’ s statement that the scale of Labour ’ s antisemitism problem had been “ dramatically overstated ” .
That remark quickly became grounds for the party suspending him .
So sustained has the furore about “ institutional antisemitism ” been in Labour that , according to a recent survey by academics Greg Philo and Mike Berry , the British public estimated that on average a third of Labour members had been disciplined for antisemitism – more than 300 times the real figure .
But in the end , the commission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antisemitism the party was responsible for .
According to the report , there were 18 “ borderline ” cases , however , “ there was not enough evidence to conclude that the Labour Party was legally responsible for the conduct of the individual ” .
In fact it was the right-wing “ Blairites ” who were responsible for the poor handling of the complaints while Corbyn supporters were putting pressure on for the complaints to be expedited .
The Cook analysis says : The watchdog body ’ s second finding against Labour follows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first .
Corbyn ’ s team are blamed for “ political interference ” in the complaints procedure , creating the risk of “ indirect discrimination ” .
Out of 70 complaints it studied , it found 23 instances over a three-year period where there was “ political interference ” by the leader ’ s office and other actors in the handling of antisemitism cases .
In most of these , Corbyn ’ s staff were seeking to expedite stalled antisemitism proceedings that were causing – and meant to cause – the party a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to do exactly what critics like the Board of Deputies of British Jews demanded of them .
Supporters of Corbyn have stressed the “ counter-case ” of overwhelming evidence that there is not a particular problem of anti-semitism within the Labour Party .
The Cook report says : Corbyn ’ s supporters argued that the claims of an especial antisemitism problem in Labour amounted to an ideologically motivated and evidence-free smear .
When Corbyn tried to defend his record last week , arguing that the scale of the antisemitism problem had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he was suspended .
But he and his allies have solid evidence to justify that claim .
First , they note , surveys demonstrate that Labour supporters were less likely to express antisemitic attitudes than Conservative supporters or the general public .
A poll by the Economist magazine last year showed that while those on the far-left in the UK had by far the most critical views of Israel , they were also the least likely to engage in antisemitism .
Second , Cobyn ’ s supporters can point to the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a minuscule proportion of members were ever referred to the party ’ s disciplinary procedure for antisemitism .
That was the case even after pro-Israel groups like the CAA and the JLM scoured social media accounts trying to find examples to discredit Corbyn and after they managed to browbeat the party into adopting the new IHRA definition of antisemitism that conflated hatred of Jews with criticism of Israel .
And third , of those who faced investigation for antisemitism , a significant proportion were Jewish members outspoken in their criticism of Israel .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ active in the Labour Party , including nowadays in a group called Jewish Voice for Labour .
By obscuring the fact that many of Israel ’ s harshest critics in Labour were Jewish , the media and pro-Israel partisans handed Corbyn ’ s opponents a convenient whip to beat him with .
One of the biggest worries from false smears of anti-semitism against Corbyn and his supporters , any anywhere else in fact , is that it undermines understanding of the very real and present threat of anti-semitism which – as Corbyn says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ humanity .
This cancer inhabits the British Conservative Party and the US Republicans in particular .
Theodor Hertzl , often described as the father of modern Zionism , understood this clearly when he wrote : “ The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends , the anti-Semitic countries our allies.
” As far as defending Israel ’ s racist apartheid policies and brutality towards Palestinians are concerned , Hertzl was 100 % correct .

The best summary I’ve read of the recent report of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) into claims of anti-semitism within the British Labour Party is from Nazareth-based journalist Johnathan Cook here.
It’s worth spending the time to read through the entire analysis but most of us are busy so I’ve taken a few extracts from the Johnathan Cook piece to highlight the main points.
The reason this became so big in British politics was two-fold. British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn was being attacked with false smears of anti-semitism because he was promoting policies of support for Palestinians and proposing to impose sanctions against Israel for its racist, apartheid policies. However, he was also being targeted by the right-wing within the establishment and within the British Labour Party itself (by supporters of war criminal Tony Blair) who are wedded to neo-liberalism. The Cook analysis says:
But in reality there are other, entirely credible reasons about why the antisemitism claims against Labour were, as Corbyn observed, “dramatically overstated for political reasons”, or were even outright smears.
Corbyn was indeed targeted by pro-Israel groups for very understandable reasons, from their partisan perspective. He was the first British party leader within reach of power to unapologetically support the Palestinian cause and threaten Israel with serious repercussions for its continuing oppression of the Palestinian people.
But the claims of pro-Israel lobbyists only gained traction politically because, in concert, he was being targeted by the neoliberal establishment. That included the media, the Conservative Party and, particularly damagingly, the still-dominant “Blairite” wing of his own party, which hankered for a return to Labour’s glory days under former leader Tony Blair.
They all wanted to keep Corbyn from reaching No 10. Ultimately, antisemitism proved the most effective of a range of smears they tried on Corbyn for size. The goal was to discredit him in the eyes of British voters to ensure he could never implement a socialist platform that would challenge establishment interests head-on.
The EHRC report did not support the claims the British Labour Party was “institutionally anti-semitic” but, more mundanely, that party officials had handled complaints of anti-semitism poorly. The Cook analysis says:
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
The impression left on the public – aided by yet more frantic media spin – was that the EHRC’s 130-page report had confirmed the claims of Corbyn’s critics that on his watch the party had become “institutionally antisemitic”. In fact, the watchdog body reached no such conclusion. Its report was far more ambiguous. And its findings – deeply flawed, vague and glaringly inconsistent as they were – were nowhere near as dramatic as the headlines suggested.
The commission concluded that “there were unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination for which the Labour Party is responsible”. Those failings, according to the commission, related to the handling of antisemitism complaints, interference by the leader’s office in the disciplinary procedure, and “unlawful harassment” by two Labour Party “agents”.
None of that seemed to amount to anything like the supposed claims of a “plague” and “tidal wave” of antisemitism that have dominated headlines for five years.
Paradoxically, the equalities commission’s conclusions sounded a lot like Corbyn’s statement that the scale of Labour’s antisemitism problem had been “dramatically overstated”. That remark quickly became grounds for the party suspending him.
So sustained has the furore about “institutional antisemitism” been in Labour that, according to a recent survey by academics Greg Philo and Mike Berry, the British public estimated that on average a third of Labour members had been disciplined for antisemitism – more than 300 times the real figure.
But in the end, the commission could identify only two cases of unlawful antisemitism the party was responsible for. According to the report, there were 18 “borderline” cases, however, “there was not enough evidence to conclude that the Labour Party was legally responsible for the conduct of the individual”.
In fact it was the right-wing “Blairites” who were responsible for the poor handling of the complaints while Corbyn supporters were putting pressure on for the complaints to be expedited. The Cook analysis says:
The watchdog body’s second finding against Labour follows from – and starkly contradicts – the first. Corbyn’s team are blamed for “political interference” in the complaints procedure, creating the risk of “indirect discrimination”.
Out of 70 complaints it studied, it found 23 instances over a three-year period where there was “political interference” by the leader’s office and other actors in the handling of antisemitism cases.
In most of these, Corbyn’s staff were seeking to expedite stalled antisemitism proceedings that were causing – and meant to cause – the party a great deal of embarrassment. They were trying to do exactly what critics like the Board of Deputies of British Jews demanded of them.
Supporters of Corbyn have stressed the “counter-case” of overwhelming evidence that there is not a particular problem of anti-semitism within the Labour Party. The Cook report says:
Corbyn’s supporters argued that the claims of an especial antisemitism problem in Labour amounted to an ideologically motivated and evidence-free smear. When Corbyn tried to defend his record last week, arguing that the scale of the antisemitism problem had been “dramatically overstated for political reasons”, he was suspended.
But he and his allies have solid evidence to justify that claim.
First, they note, surveys demonstrate that Labour supporters were less likely to express antisemitic attitudes than Conservative supporters or the general public. A poll by the Economist magazine last year showed that while those on the far-left in the UK had by far the most critical views of Israel, they were also the least likely to engage in antisemitism.
Second, Cobyn’s supporters can point to the party’s own statistics that show only a minuscule proportion of members were ever referred to the party’s disciplinary procedure for antisemitism. That was the case even after pro-Israel groups like the CAA and the JLM scoured social media accounts trying to find examples to discredit Corbyn and after they managed to browbeat the party into adopting the new IHRA definition of antisemitism that conflated hatred of Jews with criticism of Israel.
And third, of those who faced investigation for antisemitism, a significant proportion were Jewish members outspoken in their criticism of Israel. Many Jews vocally opposed to Israel are active in the Labour Party, including nowadays in a group called Jewish Voice for Labour. By obscuring the fact that many of Israel’s harshest critics in Labour were Jewish, the media and pro-Israel partisans handed Corbyn’s opponents a convenient whip to beat him with.
One of the biggest worries from false smears of anti-semitism against Corbyn and his supporters, any anywhere else in fact, is that it undermines understanding of the very real and present threat of anti-semitism which – as Corbyn says – is a “cancer” on humanity.
This cancer inhabits the British Conservative Party and the US Republicans in particular. Theodor Hertzl, often described as the father of modern Zionism, understood this clearly when he wrote:
“The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.”
As far as defending Israel’s racist apartheid policies and brutality towards Palestinians are concerned, Hertzl was 100% correct.


thedailyblog--2020-11-19--Meeting The Overwhelming Quantum Of Need  – A modest proposal for ending New Zealand’s housing crisi

Meeting The Overwhelming Quantum Of Need  – A modest proposal for ending New Zealand’s housing crisis

IT COULD BE DONE .
This government could make a serious attempt to house the 20,000 people waiting for social housing before the next election .
It would , however , require them to do something they have , so far , showed no willingness to do : think outside the neoliberal box – like socialists .
Part of the present problem – quite a large part – is the sheer logistical difficulty in gearing up New Zealand ’ s already over-extended construction industry to meet the overwhelming quantum of need .
This isn ’ t 1936 , there aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , plumbers , electricians and other construction workers desperate for employment .
That ’ s the challenge .
Finding the human and other resources needed to house the homeless .
To make any impression on this problem it will be necessary to import workers from abroad .
This was key to the successful Christchurch re-build , and it will likely be the key to solving the housing crisis .
The question is : where are we to find the expertise and labour force required to accommodate 20,000+ people in less than three years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go looking for this sort of assistance – the Peoples Republic of China .
Few nations on earth have a construction workforce large enough to take on such a massive job , but China does .
The Chinese have been building infrastructure all over Africa for more than 20 years .
They are used to deploying hundreds – sometimes thousands – of workers to foreign lands and then bringing them home when these country-to-country joint ventures are completed .
They have even more experience in constructing accommodation for the hundreds-of-thousands of Chinese citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of China for its burgeoning coastal cities .
In the space of just a few years whole new cities have risen out of the ground .
This is what New Zealand ’ s government needs to do : enter into a joint-venture with the Chinese Government to construct massive , multi-storied , housing complexes in which all those New Zealanders in urgent need of warm , dry , affordable and secure accommodation can find it .
Interestingly enough , the designs for precisely this sort of mass accommodation , along with the social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ translated into viable and vibrant communities , already exist .
They were drawn up nearly three-quarters-of- a-century ago , by the Department of Housing Construction of the Ministry of Works .
Had Labour won the 1949 general election , Auckland , in particular , would have been a very different city .
Not so much a poor man ’ s version of Los Angeles , as a lucky man ’ s version of Copenhagen or Stockholm .
( One more disaster to set at the National Party ’ s door ! )
Of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throw up their hands in horror at such an out-there suggestion .
Their problem , however , is not being able to come up with any viable suggestions of their own .
Where , for example , would they lay their hands on the skilled workforce necessary to erect ten , twenty , thirty housing complexes ?
As things now stand , New Zealand would be hard-pressed to erect the accommodation for the workers needed to build the accommodation !
The only way to get ahead of the ever-lengthening state house waiting-list is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We simply don ’ t have time to recruit and train the people necessary to do the job ourselves .
No sooner had we assembled a workforce large enough to tackle the problem , than we would be faced with assembling another , even larger , one !
Maybe , if we could outbid the wage rates of Australia ’ s construction industry , or America ’ s , availing ourselves of China ’ s could be avoided .
But , you know how it goes : a few extra billion here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretty soon you ’ re talking serious money !
Besides , how keen would the government of either of those countries be to involve themselves in such an openly socialistic programme ?
Nowhere near as keen as the comrades in Beijing !
The other objection which is certain to be raised is that why on earth would New Zealanders consent to living like the citizens of Singapore or Shanghai ?
How long would it take for these huge , rapidly-constructed apartment buildings to turn into high-rise slums ?
The answer to that question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are ways to ensure that even large , high-rise apartment complexes are embedded in the sort of social and economic matrices that make the slide into slum status impossible .
By building schools , medical facilities , shopping-centres , police stations and youth centres into the plans , the feelings of isolation and abandonment that have historically contributed to the development of slums can be avoided .
Similarly , by ensuring that these apartments are situated in employment- , transport- and recreational-rich zones , the complex networks making for vibrant communities can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this concept can be found in the tragic history of “ Red Vienna ” .
So successful was the post-World War I construction of worker housing in the Austrian capital , and so vibrant the socialist working-class culture it created , that the right-wing Austrian government ordered the Austrian Army to destroy the workers ’ quarter of Vienna with shellfire in the bitter class conflicts of 1934 .
The enormous danger embodied in Vienna ’ s example of what the progressive imagination could produce , if given the chance , had to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human cost .
And this is the reason why this present government , barring a change of heart of truly Damascene proportions , will not dare to go down this path .
Not only would such a truly transformational joint-venture between Wellington and Beijing produce something very close to panic in Washington and Canberra , but it would also cause near-fatal conniptions at Treasury and in just about every other neoliberal institution across the country .
Socialism doesn ’ t grow out of thin air : it emerges from an infrastructure in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encoded in institutions ’ standard operating procedures .
The creation of carefully-planned , well-resourced , state-owned apartment complexes : the result of co-operation between the Labour Party Government of New Zealand and the Communist Party Government of China ; marking the end of homelessness for 20,000 of the country ’ s poorest citizens ; would not only be a red flag to the Right ’ s most vicious bulls , but also the best thing that happened to the New Zealand working-class in three-quarters-of-a-century .
At last , the Politics of Kindness could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and , finally , the Prime Minister ’ s promised “ transformation ” could begin .

IT COULD BE DONE. This government could make a serious attempt to house the 20,000 people waiting for social housing before the next election. It would, however, require them to do something they have, so far, showed no willingness to do: think outside the neoliberal box – like socialists.
Part of the present problem – quite a large part – is the sheer logistical difficulty in gearing up New Zealand’s already over-extended construction industry to meet the overwhelming quantum of need. This isn’t 1936, there aren’t tens-of-thousands of carpenters, roofers, plumbers, electricians and other construction workers desperate for employment. That’s the challenge. Finding the human and other resources needed to house the homeless.
To make any impression on this problem it will be necessary to import workers from abroad. This was key to the successful Christchurch re-build, and it will likely be the key to solving the housing crisis. The question is: where are we to find the expertise and labour force required to accommodate 20,000+ people in less than three years?
There is only one place to go looking for this sort of assistance – the Peoples Republic of China. Few nations on earth have a construction workforce large enough to take on such a massive job, but China does. The Chinese have been building infrastructure all over Africa for more than 20 years. They are used to deploying hundreds – sometimes thousands – of workers to foreign lands and then bringing them home when these country-to-country joint ventures are completed. They have even more experience in constructing accommodation for the hundreds-of-thousands of Chinese citizens who every year abandon the rural interior of China for its burgeoning coastal cities. In the space of just a few years whole new cities have risen out of the ground.
This is what New Zealand’s government needs to do: enter into a joint-venture with the Chinese Government to construct massive, multi-storied, housing complexes in which all those New Zealanders in urgent need of warm, dry, affordable and secure accommodation can find it.
Interestingly enough, the designs for precisely this sort of mass accommodation, along with the social infrastructure necessary to ensure that it is translated into viable and vibrant communities, already exist. They were drawn up nearly three-quarters-of- a-century ago, by the Department of Housing Construction of the Ministry of Works. Had Labour won the 1949 general election, Auckland, in particular, would have been a very different city. Not so much a poor man’s version of Los Angeles, as a lucky man’s version of Copenhagen or Stockholm. (One more disaster to set at the National Party’s door!)
Of course every China-hating xenophobe and red-baiter will throw up their hands in horror at such an out-there suggestion. Their problem, however, is not being able to come up with any viable suggestions of their own. Where, for example, would they lay their hands on the skilled workforce necessary to erect ten, twenty, thirty housing complexes? As things now stand, New Zealand would be hard-pressed to erect the accommodation for the workers needed to build the accommodation!
The only way to get ahead of the ever-lengthening state house waiting-list is to build big and build fast. We simply don’t have time to recruit and train the people necessary to do the job ourselves. No sooner had we assembled a workforce large enough to tackle the problem, than we would be faced with assembling another, even larger, one!
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Maybe, if we could outbid the wage rates of Australia’s construction industry, or America’s, availing ourselves of China’s could be avoided. But, you know how it goes: a few extra billion here, and few extra billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking serious money! Besides, how keen would the government of either of those countries be to involve themselves in such an openly socialistic programme? Nowhere near as keen as the comrades in Beijing!
The other objection which is certain to be raised is that why on earth would New Zealanders consent to living like the citizens of Singapore or Shanghai? How long would it take for these huge, rapidly-constructed apartment buildings to turn into high-rise slums?
The answer to that question would be ours to frame. There are ways to ensure that even large, high-rise apartment complexes are embedded in the sort of social and economic matrices that make the slide into slum status impossible. By building schools, medical facilities, shopping-centres, police stations and youth centres into the plans, the feelings of isolation and abandonment that have historically contributed to the development of slums can be avoided. Similarly, by ensuring that these apartments are situated in employment-, transport- and recreational-rich zones, the complex networks making for vibrant communities can be hard-wired into the project.
The proof of this concept can be found in the tragic history of “Red Vienna”. So successful was the post-World War I construction of worker housing in the Austrian capital, and so vibrant the socialist working-class culture it created, that the right-wing Austrian government ordered the Austrian Army to destroy the workers’ quarter of Vienna with shellfire in the bitter class conflicts of 1934. The enormous danger embodied in Vienna’s example of what the progressive imagination could produce, if given the chance, had to be eliminated – no matter at what human cost.
And this is the reason why this present government, barring a change of heart of truly Damascene proportions, will not dare to go down this path. Not only would such a truly transformational joint-venture between Wellington and Beijing produce something very close to panic in Washington and Canberra, but it would also cause near-fatal conniptions at Treasury and in just about every other neoliberal institution across the country.
Socialism doesn’t grow out of thin air: it emerges from an infrastructure in which collectivism – not individualism – has been encoded in institutions’ standard operating procedures. The creation of carefully-planned, well-resourced, state-owned apartment complexes: the result of co-operation between the Labour Party Government of New Zealand and the Communist Party Government of China; marking the end of homelessness for 20,000 of the country’s poorest citizens; would not only be a red flag to the Right’s most vicious bulls, but also the best thing that happened to the New Zealand working-class in three-quarters-of-a-century.
At last, the Politics of Kindness could take on the indisputable solidity of bricks-and-mortar, and, finally, the Prime Minister’s promised “transformation” could begin.


thedailyblog--2020-11-21--Mike Pompeo – revealing the enormous power of BDS

Lame duck US Secretary of State , Mike Pompeo , is on a visit to Israel .
Pompeo knows the game is over for Trump and his own position will end in two months when Biden is sworn in as President .
So why is Pompeo in Israel ?
His visit , with its accompanying pronouncements , tells us three things : Firstly , the continuing importance of Israel as a beachhead in the Middle East for US imperial interests .
This has been the case since 1967 and with the US promising Israel almost four billion in “ aid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years this will not change soon .
Israel works to ensure the current crop of dictators and medieval despots which rule Arab countries in the Middle East , and refuse democracy or freedom to their people , are kept in place .
While Israel upholds US interests in exchange for massive handouts , the US supports Israeli interests by condoning the wholesale theft of Palestinian land , denial of the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their land and homes in Israel , cover for the racist apartheid , policies towards Palestinian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occupation of the entire area of historic Palestine .
On this visit Pompeo is announcing US policy to label products made in illegal Israeli settlements as “ Made in Israel ” and is promising to declare any support for Boycott , Divestment and Sanctions against Israel as anti-semitic .
Pompeo is showing contempt for international law and contempt for Palestinians and their basic human rights .
Secondly , Pompeo ’ s visit shows us how much he wants the Republican nomination to run for US President in 2024 .
This trip to Israel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Thirdly , his visit shows starkly the enormous power of the BDS ( Boycott , Divestment and Sanctions ) movement , whereby people around the world are campaigning for effective pressure on Israel to require it to abide by international law and United Nations resolutions .
The absurdity of Pompeo trying to equate support for BDS with anti-semitism shows just how vulnerable Israel is to the power of humanity joining hands around the world to force Israel to change direction .
BDS was successful with apartheid South Africa and it will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrified of BDS and the US is doing its best to forestall this popular movement with the likes of Pompeo tossing around claims of anti-semitism like confetti to try and protect filthy , racist , apartheid policies and unconscionable brutality towards Palestinians .
The international expert on apartheid , Bishop Desmond Tutu says the situation for Palestinians is worse that it was for black South Africans under apartheid there .
“ I have witnessed the racially segregated roads and housing in the Holy Land that reminded me so much of the conditions we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Tutu points the way forward for the world when he says , in regard to Israeli polices , we should In explaining this Tutu says : “ We ( black South Africans ) could not have achieved our democracy without the help of people around the world , who through… non-violent means , such as boycotts and disinvestment , encouraged their governments and other corporate actors to reverse decades-long support for the apartheid regime , ” Pompeo has confirmed loudly and clearly that the international Palestinian solidarity movement is on the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this blog should go to US based Jewish Voice for Peace which has denounced Pompeo ’ s idea that BDS is anti-semitic saying : “ We are proudly Jewish , proudly anti-Zionist , and proudly pro-BDS .
BDS is a powerful tool in the work for Palestinian rights .
”

Lame duck US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, is on a visit to Israel. Pompeo knows the game is over for Trump and his own position will end in two months when Biden is sworn in as President.
So why is Pompeo in Israel? His visit, with its accompanying pronouncements, tells us three things:
Firstly, the continuing importance of Israel as a beachhead in the Middle East for US imperial interests. This has been the case since 1967 and with the US promising Israel almost four billion in “aid” every year for the next 10 years this will not change soon.
Israel works to ensure the current crop of dictators and medieval despots which rule Arab countries in the Middle East, and refuse democracy or freedom to their people, are kept in place.
While Israel upholds US interests in exchange for massive handouts, the US supports Israeli interests by condoning the wholesale theft of Palestinian land, denial of the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their land and homes in Israel, cover for the racist apartheid, policies towards Palestinian Israelis and Israel’s brutal military occupation of the entire area of historic Palestine.
On this visit Pompeo is announcing US policy to label products made in illegal Israeli settlements as “Made in Israel” and is promising to declare any support for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel as anti-semitic.
Pompeo is showing contempt for international law and contempt for Palestinians and their basic human rights.
Secondly, Pompeo’s visit shows us how much he wants the Republican nomination to run for US President in 2024. This trip to Israel is the first step in his campaign.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Thirdly, his visit shows starkly the enormous power of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement, whereby people around the world are campaigning for effective pressure on Israel to require it to abide by international law and United Nations resolutions.
The absurdity of Pompeo trying to equate support for BDS with anti-semitism shows just how vulnerable Israel is to the power of humanity joining hands around the world to force Israel to change direction. BDS was successful with apartheid South Africa and it will be successful with apartheid Israel.
Israel is terrified of BDS and the US is doing its best to forestall this popular movement with the likes of Pompeo tossing around claims of anti-semitism like confetti to try and protect filthy, racist, apartheid policies and unconscionable brutality towards Palestinians.
The international expert on apartheid, Bishop Desmond Tutu says the situation for Palestinians is worse that it was for black South Africans under apartheid there.
“I have witnessed the racially segregated roads and housing in the Holy Land that reminded me so much of the conditions we experienced in South Africa under apartheid”.
Tutu points the way forward for the world when he says, in regard to Israeli polices, we should
“name it apartheid – and boycott”
In explaining this Tutu says:
“We (black South Africans) could not have achieved our democracy without the help of people around the world, who through… non-violent means, such as boycotts and disinvestment, encouraged their governments and other corporate actors to reverse decades-long support for the apartheid regime,”
Pompeo has confirmed loudly and clearly that the international Palestinian solidarity movement is on the right path – BDS.
The last word in this blog should go to US based Jewish Voice for Peace which has denounced Pompeo’s idea that BDS is anti-semitic saying:
“We are proudly Jewish, proudly anti-Zionist, and proudly pro-BDS. BDS is a powerful tool in the work for Palestinian rights.”
Yes indeed.