Categories
Satire

Blood-Thirsty Anarchists Accuse Bibi of Libel

The International Alliance of Anarchists (chair. M. Bakunin) has sent a formal complaint to the Israeli Consumer Protection Authority regarding the prime minister’s description of the protesters who have thronged his residence in recent weeks as “anarchists”.

In a six-minute rant in front of the Cabinet last week, Benjamin Netanyahu railed against “dens of anarchists,” who, he said, were out to topple his government.

The premier’s son, Yair ‘Parasite’ Netanyahu, also got into the act, tweeting that “you aren’t [even] allowed to protest outside the homes of anarchists who have called for the prime minister’s murder.”

“We take great exception to the image created of our profession,” the IAA wrote in its complaint to the Authority. “The namby-pamby, middle-class protestors with national flags, signs calling for democracy and smileys on their T-shirts who we see in the media are as far from anarchism as Netanyahu is from truth-telling.”

“Annoyance at the closure of one’s local sushi bar due to the pandemic does not an anarchist make.”

“If anything,” the complaint continued, “the true anarchists in Israel are those who raid Palestinian homes in the middle of the night, shoot people in the street and bomb the shit out of women and children. Those are our kind of anarchists.”

The complaint concluded with an invitation to the true Israeli anarchists to apply for membership in the IAA.

 

 

 

Categories
Satire

Brownshirt Leader Praises Trump’s Tactical Nous

Support for President Donald Trump’s deployment of irregular troops onto the streets of Portland has come from a surprising source.

“It takes me back to the good old days when we battled commies in the streets of Berlin and Munich in ’32,” Ernst Röhm wrote on his Facebook page on Friday.

Röhm, who largely dropped from sight after Hitler had him killed in June 1934, has made a comeback recently with posts praising Trump for “making the streets ungovernable so citizens will turn to a strongman for protection .”

His Facebook posts have become required reading in recent weeks on alt-right forums such as “Braunhemden for Trump” and “Don’s Weimar Warriors”.

“I never thought it would happen, but another tactical genius has arisen,” Röhm wrote in a recent post. ‘We are witnessing an historical rebirth.”

“The president’s tactics of causing anarchy on the streets to propel good, property-owning citizens into the arms of a strong, law & order leader could have been cut & pasted from the Fuhrer’s playbook.”

“He’s even created concentration camps in the desert to hold the commie, Negro troublemakers.”

The White House said in a statement that, while the president had never met Röhm, he “appreciated the input of a man with such an outstanding public record.”

 

 

 

Categories
Satire

Gory Godfrey Joins Wave of Protests

The world of global cultural politics is in an uproar today after an unprecedented tweet from Godfrey of Bouillon, leader of the First Crusade and the conqueror of Jerusalem in 1099.

“Love the new anti-racist crusade,” Godfrey wrote, in what Twitter confirmed was his first tweet in 921 years.

“Death to cultural appropriation, anti-intersectionality and elite privilege. #deadlivesmatter #coronacrusader #takeaheadandaknee”

“It’s extraordinary,” said Prof. Philip Bryant-Waugh, of the Yale History Department. “Something about the current situation must have struck a chord with Godfrey, who has gone down in history as an intolerant and sanctimonious bastard. Can’t think what it is, though.”

“Another old, male, white elitist trying to stay relevant,” tweeted Darleen-Ubuntu Vangellis of the Identity Pride Coalition. “I bet he never toppled a statue in his life. #icantbreathe”

“I don’t know who he is, but anyone who recognizes the problems of power, privilege, marginalization and historically ignored communities – as long as they’re not a cis white intellectual – is welcome to join our ranks,” said Jason Zygelbaum of Crusaders of Color.

One enigmatic tweet by someone named G.K. Chesterton said simply, “Do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out. #dragonsreallyexist”

Categories
Kibbitz

The Empty Hope of Liberal Zionism

“It’s time to imagine a Jewish home that is not a Jewish state.”

Those words – which appeared in a New York Times opinion piece last week – have created a tempest in that segment of the Jewish world that regards itself as progressive. They were written by journalist and commentator Peter Beinart, who, until the publication of the article, was one of the darlings of the Jewish Left.

Now he seems to be everyone’s favorite anti-Semite, the catch-phrase for anyone who disagrees with the Zionist mainstream. “Denying the right of Jews to a national homeland is anti-Semitism,” wrote Ben Dror Yemini in Yediot Aharonot, Israel’s largest daily, before apparently realizing the absurdity of his knee-jerk response.

“Beinart is not Anti-Semitic,” Yemini added quickly. “His intentions are different, but his position assists the anti-Semitic campaign.”

I’m glad we clarified that.

Even some columnists in Haaretz, the only surviving island of sanity in Israel’s media, have gotten into the act, describing Beinart’s about-face as “utopian” and “jumping ship”.

Personally, I’ve never had much time for Beinart’s blinkered and earnest liberal-Zionism, in which, “the dream of a two-state solution that would give Palestinians a country of their own let me hope that I could remain a liberal and a supporter of Jewish statehood at the same time.” Seventy-two years after the nakba and fifty-three after the occupation, intelligent people shouldn’t have been lulling themselves to sleep with such dreams.

But, to Beinart’s credit, he saw the light. “Events have now extinguished that hope,” he writes, pointing to the close to 700,000 Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank and the fact – obvious to all but those who refuse to see – that “the leaders of Israel’s supposedly center-left parties don’t support a viable, sovereign Palestinian state.”

Hardly anyone in Israel does. For decades, Israel’s leaders have had their fingers crossed behind their backs when talking of a two-state solution. It was the price they had to pay for the billions of dollars in American aid and access to European markets. No-one really believed they were serious, did they?

With Trump now in charge, Israel has largely dropped the charade. Talk of a two-state solution elicits little more than sniggers these days. Now it’s all about annexation – the de facto situation for years already, but the stamp of kashrut that the messianic right seems to need to cross ownership of the territories off their bucket list.

Beinart says he now believes in a bi-national state – “a Jewish home that is also, equally, a Palestinian home. And building that home can bring liberation not just for Palestinians but for us, too.”

Yet, oddly, he writes that “this doesn’t require abandoning Zionism… It requires distinguishing between form and essence. The essence of Zionism is not a Jewish state in the land of Israel; it is a Jewish home in the land of Israel…”

Oops, just when he was getting it right he blew it.

It is true that Herzl originally spoke of a Jewish home in Palestine and the issue of full statehood was open until the Biltmore Conference in 1942, if not later – but that home never, ever included Arabs. The wimps of Brit Shalom may have spoken of Jewish-Arab equality but real, macho Zionists never did.

From the start of Jewish settlement in Palestine, the issue that most concerned the leadership of the Yishuv – aside from security – was avoda ivrit (Hebrew labor), which was code for separate development. Ostensibly a means of opening up jobs for new Jewish immigrants by getting Jewish farmers to hire only Jewish workers, avoda ivrit was in fact the means of developing an ethnically-pure Jewish society – long before the establishment of the state. Hebrew labor was achieved through violence and racism. Even David Ben Gurion, an activist for Hebrew labor, at one point accused fellow Jewish workers of treating Arabs with violence, arrogance and condescension.

Jewish racism and anti-Arabism dating back to the dawn of Zionism are well documented. “They behave toward the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, commit unwarranted trespass, beat them shamefully without any good reason, and brag about doing so,” Ahad Ha’am wrote in the 1880s. According to Israel Rokach, a resident of Jaffa, the Jewish farmers “do not think of the fellahin (peasants) as human.” And that was well over 100 years ago.

Many more scales need to fall from Beinart’s eyes before he understands that the essence of Zionism was – and remains – racism, ethno-centrism and Jewish exceptionalism. Those are the values on which the current generations of Israelis were weaned – and they don’t make for successful bi-nationalism.

Peter Beinart is on the right path. It took courage to write what he did and I applaud him for it. But he’s deluded if he thinks that Jewish statehood is the only obstacle – on the Jewish side; the Palestinians have their own obstacles – to the establishment of a bi-national state. The Zionism that he continues to swear by is rancid. There is no way it can serve as a moral basis for the state’s Jewish component

Israel’s Jews have been brought up to be conquerors, bosses and masters. They are uniquely unqualified to live as equals alongside Palestinians. A good place to begin a process that might, eventually lead to bi-nationalism would be an honest reckoning with Zionist dogma and praxis.

 

 

Categories
Kibbitz

Do You Really Want To Tell The Goyim The Truth?

With both the coronavirus and the germ of annexation clogging the air in these parts, it’s surprising that most of the stench is not coming from Jerusalem but from somber and measured Jews in the diaspora – those who call themselves Zionists but aren’t willing to walk the walk.

Take for example the letter sent by about 40 prominent British Jews to the Israeli ambassador in London, solemnly warning about the grave consequences of annexation. “We are yet to see an argument that convinces us, committed Zionists and passionately outspoken friends of Israel, that the proposed annexation is a constructive step,” opined the Jewish notables, among them historian Simon Schama, writer Howard Jacobson and former foreign secretary Malolm Rifkind, as reported by the Guardian.

“Instead, it would in our view be a pyrrhic victory intensifying Israel’s political, diplomatic and economic challenges without yielding any tangible benefit.”

Or, in simpler terms, do you really want to tell the truth to the goyim?

Where have Schama, Jacobson and the other tribal chiefs been over the past fifty years as, step-by-step, Israel put the foundations of  Jewish sovereignty over the West Bank into place? Where were they when Israel built and populated the settlements which it is now using as an excuse for annexation?

Hiding the truth from the goyim, is where they were. Being committed Zionists and passionately outspoken as Israel went about its apartheid business.

They certainly didn’t do much to prevent fifty-plus years of creeping annexation. But now, when Israel proposes to formalize what already exists in practice, they find their collective voice?

They give hypocrisy a bad name.

Annexation is not an aberration; it’s not a madcap idea that Benjamin Netanyahu and his sidekicks suddenly came up with in 2020, possibly under the influence of the coronavirus. Nor is it a partisan viewpoint held by a minority of the Israeli population.

Annexation is the natural – the organic, inevitable and inexorable – culmination of Zionist praxis going back to the late-19th century. For as long as modern Jews have coveted the land on which Palestinian Arabs were living, total Jewish sovereignty has been the one and only goal. There has never been any other goal.

“We are not coming to a desolate land to inherit it; rather, we are coming to conquer the land from the nation that resides there,” Moshe Sharett wrote in 1925.

For David Ben-Gurion, “We are not workers—we are conquerors. Conquerors of the land. We are a camp of conquerors … We worked and conquered and we were joyful with victory.”

The ultimate goal – conquest of the entire biblical Land of Israel, preferably with as few of its native inhabitants as possible – was never hidden. It wasn’t reserved for whispered conversations in dark corners between consenting adults. It appears repeatedly in public statements by Zionist leaders and in resolutions by Zionist organizations.

From the Second Aliyah onward Zionism had a clear and unwavering objective. Successive Israeli governments fiddled with the objective but never disowned it. Gaining and holding onto biblical territory in its entirety has always been the lodestar, even if committed and passionate Zionists in the diaspora preferred that it not be mentioned in their presence.

Over the years, Israel’s leaders have sometimes had to trim their sails to the prevailing diplomatic winds. In 1956, that meant withdrawing from the conquered Sinai peninsula, despite Ben-Gurion’s euphoric statement that the territories occupied by Israel would become part of “the third Jewish kingdom.”

The country’s ostensible acceptance of the UN’s 1947 Partition Plan was another such tactical realignment, as was Ariel Sharon’s dismantling of the settlements in Gaza in 2005. When the destination is clear and obvious, one can take the necessary detours to reach it.

The Sinai and Gaza are debatably part of the biblical heritage – few would wax lyrical today, as Davar newspaper did in 1956, about the Sinai being “the cradle of our transformation into a nation” – but there has never been any doubt about Judea and Samaria; Hebron and Nablus.

They were, are and always have been essential to the Zionist dream. What Netanyahu is threatening to do now – supported by Trump and his gaon son-in-law – is regularize what has been the quotidian since 1967. Diaspora Jewish leaders oppose it because it will call their bluff – highlight their hypocrisy. They will finally be seen for what they are.

Personally, I’m all for annexation. It will be a reactionary, atavistic move in every possible way – but at least it will reveal the Zionist mission for what it is. There is a chance, however slight, that it might clear the logjam; that it might finally get people thinking beyond their knee-jerk, romantic Zionism. It will show Israel in its true, apartheid light – a racist society lording it over its ethnic inferiors.

I don’t know what will happen after that, but letting in some light can’t be a bad thing.

 

 

Categories
Satire

Language Academy Berates Bibi Over Choice of Words

The Academy of the Hebrew Language has written an official letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, pointing out that a recent quote attributed to him could do “untold damage to the tongue that is the corner-stone of the Zionist dream.”

“You were recently quoted by the media in Israel as saying that the death of an autistic Palestinian youth at the hands of Israeli Border Policemen was a ‘tragedy,'” Academy head Prof. Asher Bar-Arye wrote in the letter.

“I must point out that such an expression is a misuse of the language that sustains our existence in the Promised Land and is contrary to accepted usage as approved by the Academy.”

“The words ‘tragedy’ and ‘tragic’ are not approved for use in conjunction with Palestinian deaths. That has been our policy since the Academy’s establishment in 1953 and remains in force.”

“Words that have been approved by the Academy for use in describing Palestinian deaths include ‘unavoidable’, ‘justified’, ‘necessary’ and ‘legitimate.'”

“On one occasion, after the glorious Kafr Qasim operation in 1956, one-time permission was granted for the use of the word ‘unfortunate,'” Prof. Bar-Arye continued. “But ‘tragedy’ and ‘tragic’ are not words which any Hebrew user should consider appropriate in the circumstances.”

In response to the letter, the Prime Minister’s Bureau in Jerusalem said in a statement that Netanyahu had, as usual, been misquoted by the fake and irresponsible media. What the prime minister actually said was that the youth’s death was a “comedy,” the statement said.

 

 

Categories
Kibbitz

A Biography of My Father Jock Isacowitz

The Kibbitzer has been mostly missing in action during the current pandemic, though for good reason. I used the lockdown to complete and publish a biography of my father, Jock Isacowitz. I am pleased to announce that the book, “Telling People What They Don’t Want to Hear: A Liberal Life Under Apartheid,” is now available on Amazon in ebook format and will be available in paperback in July.

Jock, who died when I was ten, was an ex-servicemen’s leader after World War II, a former communist, a liberal and a prisoner of the apartheid regime during the 1960 emergency. He fought hard for the classic liberal values of equality, civil and human rights and freedom – values that were deprecated under the apartheid regime and remain elusive in many countries today, including some of those that call themselves democratic.

For me, researching his life and trying to come to grips with the man he was – and who I barely remembered – was a profound experience. Now two decades older than Jock was when he died, I was taken back to a period when people still believed in liberal and democratic values and were prepared to sacrifice for their achievement.

It sounds quaint and anachronistic in the period of Trump and his clones, but revisiting the opposition to apartheid in South Africa during the Forties and Fifties rekindled my dwindling belief in the possibility of truth, justice and freedom. I hope it does the same for you.

You can read more about the book, “Telling People What They Don’t Want to Hear: A Liberal Life Under Apartheid”, on The Kibbitzer Books. I have also written a short preview of the book on PoliticsWeb.

Of course, if you simply can’t wait to read it, it is available now on Amazon.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts, either as reviews on the Amazon site or comments here.

 

 

 

Categories
Uncategorized

Bibivirus Claims New Victim; Gantz on Life-Support

Israel is confronted by two lethal viruses: the coronavirus pandemic and an infectious leader who, like the corona variety, needs his influence to be replicated in living organisms for him to survive in power. The social distancing that is currently in force has done nothing to prevent the spread of the second virus.

The latest organism to provide healthy cells for the consumption of the bibivirus is Benny Gantz, who has spent the past year assuring whoever would listen that he was totally, 100 percent dedicated to keeping his distance from it.

Categories
Uncategorized

Democracy: The Next Corona Victim

The coronavirus pandemic is holding up a mirror to all our illusions.

We thought that economies could grow relentlessly, without paying a price. That we could travel whenever and wherever we want without polluting the atmosphere. That the rich could grow ever richer, without being impacted by the poverty they cause. That globalization would bring only the benefits of cross-border trade, not the disadvantages.

And now that we’re cowering at home from the dreaded virus, who do we turn to for succour, bail-outs, sound advice? To our governments! The very institutions that created the problems in the first place, through their dereliction of health services, their kowtowing to the super-rich and the powerful, their incompetence and their corruption.

Categories
Uncategorized

When Bibi Met Corona: A Love Story

Some commentators are calling it a putsch. Personally, I think that’s a little over the top, though future developments may prove me wrong. Certainly, the recent actions of the Israeli government – with Benjamin Netanyahu, the indicted conman, at its head – raise serious questions about its commitment to legality, let alone democracy. There is every indication that Netanyahu is piggybacking on the coronavirus outbreak to ensure his personal future, whatever the cost.

All governments are taking extreme measures in the face of the pandemic – measures which, in different circumstances, would be considered anti-democratic, if not totalitarian. Netanyahu’s government can’t be faulted on that count (though his hubristic conduct in announcing the measures on TV was undoubtedly a violation of good taste.)

Where Israel differs from other states is in its lack of a stable government – Netanyahu and his cabinet have been serving in an acting capacity for the past year – and in the person of its prime minister. Not only is Netanyahu an indicted suspect, awaiting trial on corruption charges, but he has failed to establish a majority government after each of the last three elections – all in the space of one year, of course. Netanyahu, to put it simply, has no popular mandate.