.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Emet m'Tsiyon

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Researcher Edwin Black Finds Ford Foundation Indirectly Funding Bodies that Support Arab Anti-Israel Terrorism

Edwin Black has published a long series of books and articles on Modern Jewish history, particularly on how the Ford Foundation has funded NGOs and individuals that have called for boycotting Israel, doing away with Israel or  committing the now mundane violence against Israel and Israelis. For instance, Black wrote a series of articles for the JTA [Jewish Telegraphic Agency] detailing how various NGOs funded directly or indirectly by the Ford had joined together at the Durban "anti-racism" conference in 2001 and called for a boycott of Israel, as if Israel were a racist country and indeed the major racist country in the world.

Joshua Levitt, a reporter for the Algemeiner, originally a weekly Yiddish-language newspaper, now in English on the web, wrote a review and summary of Black's latest book. We are facing the Ford Foundation once again:

EDWIN BLACK’S NEW BOOK CONNECTS NIF TO FORD FOUNDATION ANTI-ISRAEL ACTIVISM

by Joshua Levitt

 

"Financing the Flames," a new book by "IBM and the Holocaust" author Edwin Black. 

In Edwin Black's new book, 'Financing the Flames,' the author of 'IBM and the Holocaust' follows the money trail to uncover the powers behind non-profit groups attempting to de-legitimize Israel.
The book focuses on the role played by the New Israel Fund, a non-profit initially funded by the Ford Foundation, that donates to hundreds of smaller non-profits, many of which Black ties to programs attacking Israel or attempting to de-legitimize the Jewish state.
Black's book explores NIF's funding sources and its out-sized influence as a lobbying force in the Knesset and as a destabilizing force for the IDF. He also profiles some of the fringe groups impacting Israel today and makes the case that Americans are indirectly funding a controversial Palestinian Authority program that pays convicted terrorists in Israeli jails.
In an interview with The Algemeiner, Black said the book was written to show U.S. taxpayers and the U.S. Congress how well-meaning intentions have transformed into a force that is threatening the Jewish state from within.
The Algemeiner was granted special permission by the author to cite the book's newsworthy passages extensively.
Black describes the opaque financing routes that have created the situation:
A superhighway of money goes directly from Israel's greatest adversaries into a vast interchange where it co-mingles with dollars, shekels, Euros, and yen from the finest financial nameplates and charitable funds in the world. This merged money courses throughout Israel with exit ramps into some of the most benevolent Arab programs—as well as those that stoke violence and confrontation.
In the case of NIF, the money can be traced back to the Ford Foundation, which Black described in a previous monograph entitled 'Financing Hate,' published by the JTA. . . . .
- - - - - - - - - - - 

For continuation of the above review and more on Black's latest book, go here.

For background on Henry Ford's hatred of Jews and on the Ford Foundation go to the two previous post on Emet m'Tsiyon here and here.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Ford Foundation Founded with the Capital of a Man Who Inspired Hitler

additions 1-22 & 2-23-2014 at bottom

Edsel Ford, Henry Ford's son, founded the Ford Foundation in 1936 with his family's money. Both Edsel and Henry bequeathed valuable, high-yielding [non-voting] stock to the foundation upon their deaths in 1943 and 1947 respectively. This made the foundation "the largest philanthropy in the world . . . a national and international philanthropy dedicated to the advancement of human welfare." Human welfare no less!! Therefore, let's look at Henry Ford's motives for concocting and publishing The International Jew:
When asked in 1921 why he had chosen to publish the series, Ford explained that he was "only trying to awake the Gentile world to an understanding of what is going on. The Jew is a huckster, a trader who doesn't want to produce but to make something out of what somebody else produces." He also blamed them for subversively instigating war behind the scenes for their own profit.  [Alex Grobman, License to Murder: The Enduring Threat of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Noble OK: Balfour  Books 2011), p53]
Ford himself was a producer of course. He produced automobiles, just by the way working his employees to death or near to it. Still, he was a producer. But he was also a huckster. After all, he wanted to sell the cars that his factories produced. And for that purpose, he hired advertising agencies to produce suitably persuasive sales messages and bought space in newspapers and other publications to reach the public. His The International Jew series published in his newspaper, the Dearborn Independent, was also meant to persuade, to persuade people to believe in an ugly, false message.

Ford's readers included "college professors, Christian clergy and the uneducated." His readers "sent him money, praised him for assailing the Jews, and clamored for more information." [Grobman, p 53]

One of Ford's readers was a very special person or shall we say that he was  a unique creature. This was none other than Adolf Hitler.
Adolph Hitler acknowledged that Henry Ford's The International Jew  influenced him in writing Mein Kampf, and had a picture of Ford hung on the wall in his Munich office. "I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration," Hitler told a reporter for the Detroit News. In 1938, Hitler sent his personal greetings to Ford on the occasion of his 75th birthday, and conferred upon him the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the highest honor that could be bestowed on a foreign national. [Grobman, ibid.]
Hitler was not the only Nazi inspired by Ford's The International Jew. Another was
. . . Baldur von Schirach, Reich leader of the Nazi Students' Federation and future leader of the Hitler Youth. After reading Der international jude [German translation of The International Jew] in 1924 at the age of 17, a year prior to hearing Hitler speak for the first time, von Schirach remarked that "The younger generation looked with envy to the symbols of success and prosperity like Henry Ford. And if  Ford said that the Jews were to blame, why, naturally we believed him." [Grobman, p 54]
So Ford's prestige as a leading manufacturer and a very wealthy man helped to persuade people to believe in his ugly message. Von Schirach in turn persuaded young Germans to willingly join Hitler's army and take part in his wars and mass murders.

To be sure, Ford's The International Jew did not meet with universal approval.
"Despite the acclaim garnered by The International Jew . . . and its translation into a number of languages . . .  Prominent periodicals of the time, including Current Opinion, the Outlook, The Century, Harper's Weekly, and the Independent condemned the Protocols, The International Jew, and Ford himself." [Ibid, p 54]

The Nation [much different from the Nation of today] observed the significant increase of anti-Semitism engulfing the world in 1920 and concluded that "the chief responsibility for the survival of this hoary shame among us in America attaches to Henry Ford." Historian Norman Cohn believed that The International Jew  "probably did more than any other work to make the Protocols more famous." On the eve of World War II, the Protocols were more popular than they had been even in 1920 before being exposed as a forgery. [Grobman, ibid.]
Grobman's last sentence reminds us that today, as in the past, big lies like the Protocols are used to make deadly --indeed genocidal-- propaganda against the Jewish people. One of the recent big lies was the Muhammad al-Durah hoax. But that is a story for another time. Let us just bear in mind that the capital of the Ford Foundation was provided by a cruel employer and bigoted anti-Jewish propagandist, Henry Ford.

In the 21st century, nearly 100 years after Ford published his version of the Protocols, the Ford Foundation provides millions to the New Israel Fund which in turn funds many so-called  "non-governmental organizations" in Israel which engage in activities meant to undermine Israel in world public opinion and weaken Israel in the face of Israel's Arab and other enemies.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ADDED 1-29-2014 Unbeknownst to me when I wrote the above blog post, Edwin Black had published a book that goes into the Ford Foundation's funding of the New Israel Fund as well as a number of Arab anti-Israel NGOs [see review here]

2-23-2014 Scholarly article on Henry Ford's Judeophobia [here]
3-20-2014  Contemporary press report by the JTA on the libel suit against Henry Ford [here]

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, January 17, 2014

Where Did the Ford Foundation Get the Money to Get Started with?

The Ford Foundation's first money came from the Ford Family fortune made through the Ford Motor Company. Now the Ford Foundation today likely receives funding from several sources. But how was the family fortune originally made??  Another question: What did Henry Ford do with his money?

One of the ways Ford got rich was to work his factory laborers harder than the other manufacturers in Detroit. It was known there that a job in a Ford factory was more exhausting than jobs in other plants.
Here a Black factory worker up from the South writes about workers' experiences in the Detroit auto plants. His name was Matthew Ward and the following is an excerpt from his book [see below]:
 --------------------------------
I never wanted to work for Ford. And I never did work there. Everyone talked about it, they said it was the house of murder. There was a big rumor all over the city [Detroit] that other men had to take care of Ford workers' sexual home affairs. Everybody always asked about a Ford worker's wife, "Who is her boyfriend?" If a man would see a woman and she would say that her husband worked for Ford, he would make a big joke. He would pretend to take a pencil and a pad and ask her for her telephone number. They were all so worked down they couldn't have sexual relations. Mr Gordon's wife had to help him up the steps and feed him in bed. Where he laid on a sheet at night he didn't move from that spot.
Every worker could identify Ford workers on the streetcars going home at night. Every worker who was asleep was working for Ford. You'd see twenty asleep on the cars and everyone would say, "Ford workers." Many times the conductors looked over the car and shook a man to tell him it was his stop. On Sunday Ford workers would sleep on the way to church.
Sometimes some people tried to cover it up. They would say it was working in a foundry that made the men sleep. They said it was the fumes. But everybody knew Ford was a man killing place. That always frightened me. I tried to stay away. But during the Depression, everything closed down once for two or three months. The paper came out asking for men for Ford. The next morning there was a stampede at Ford of two thousand men at five a.m. They were only  hiring fifty or a hundred men. The agent came out and told us they were not hiring but nobody would leave. We thought it was a line to send us away and give jobs to those who remained. We stayed, pushing and shoving. The police rode up on horse and ran at the crowd hitting us with sticks. This didn't disperse the workers. The police called the Fire Department and they hooked up their hoses and shot cold water on us. It was the middle of winter. While we waited for the streetcars our clothes froze on us hard as bricks. That's the first and last time I went  to Ford to look for work.
[Matthew Ward, Indignant Heart (New York: New Books 1952), pp 35-36]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Ford plants were cruel places to work, crueler even than the factories of other manufacturers. That's one of the ways in which Henry Ford made his fortune.

Now what were some of the things that Ford did with his money? One thing was to publish an Americanized version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the  notorious plagiarism and forgery.
". . .  the first American edition of the Protocols was published in The Protocols and World Revolution" [in 1920] by one Boris Brasol,  a Russian monarchist exile living in the USA and a leader among his fellow monarchist exiles. This was just three years after the Russian emperor, the Tsar, had been overthrown in March 1917.
It is Brasol who was responsible for convincing Henry Ford of the authenticity of the Protocols, which Ford then published in his International Jew series in the Dearborn Independent. [The Dearborn Independent was a newspaper owned by Ford himself.] [Alex Grobman, License to Murder: The Enduring Threat of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Noble Oklahoma: Balfour Books 2011), p 52]
However, the original Protocols had been worked up to support the Russian imperial government. As a product of the Russian intelligence agencies, it favored the Russian Orthodox Church against the Roman Catholic Church, even making accusations against the Catholic Church. This obviously posed an obstacle to full acceptance of the Protocols in Catholic lands and in the USA which had a large Catholic population. So Ford  made up a new version of the Protocols which was tailored to American tastes. He removed the negative references in the book to the Catholic church and creed which were found in the original Russian version. Along with other deletions and additions and reworkings, this became the International Jew.
. . . the first article in this consecutive series appeared on May 22, 1920, and then sporadically until 1927. [Grobman, p 52]
 The hostile slanderous nature of Ford's anti-Semitic articles is evident in their titles, which included: "The Scope of Jewish Dictatorship in America," "Jewish Gamblers Corrupt American Baseball," "How the Jewish Song Trust Makes You Sing," "Jewish Jazz Becomes Our National Music" . . . . "The Jewish Associates of Benedict Arnold." [Grobman, Ibid.]
For the information of non-Americans, Benedict Arnold was a notorious traitor in favor of the British during the American revolutionary war. At that time, the Jewish population of the United States was a minuscule percentage.

Ford's fortune was based on the most ruthless exploitation and oppression of labor, even by the standards of the time, worse than other automotive manufacturers. And he used a part of his fortune to propagate notions intended to make people hate Jews. Henry Ford died after the Ford Foundation had already been set up. But given the Foundation's stress on funding actions harmful to Jews and Israel --in the name of peace and human rights to be sure-- we may say that Henry Ford's hatred of Jews is still alive in the Ford Foundation.
The Ford Foundation provides a large subsidy to the New Israel Fund which in turn finances a whole series of supposed human rights and peace NGOs operating in Israel whose ulterior motive is to destabilize Israeli society and favor Arab  claims over Jewish human rights. And favor Arab political claims and demands on Israel.
- - - - - - - -

More on Ford's endeavors to bring the hatred of Jews to the general American public to come in subsequent posts.

 Scholarly article on Ford's Judeophobia [here]
JTA press report on the libel trial against Henry Ford in 1927 -- from JTA's archives [here]

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, August 06, 2011

Real Problems, False Answers from Demagogues & Subversives

REVISED 8-7-2011 LINK ADDED at bottom 8-8&14&15&25-2011

It has long been known that demagogues and those who would take over a state take advantage of real issues, real problems. So it was in Weimar Germany when the Nazis of the National Socialist German Workers Party took advantage of the world economic crisis at the end of the 1920s. The Nazis too blamed the tycoons of the time --often identified by them as "Jewish international bankers." Needless to say, the Nazis did not solve Germany's or the world's economic problem. Rather they brought about a war that led to the destruction of much of Germany and of many Germans, besides the tens of millions of Jews and other peoples slaughtered in the war.

The economic crisis reached America too where it became known as the Great Depression. Franklin Roosevelt came to power and improved the situation but the United States did not get out of the Depression until the war with massive, government-funded war production and massive recruitment of millions of young men into the armed forces.

Israel's housing crisis is real. The situation became noticeable and started to be talked about early this year. Israel's central bank governor, Stanley Fisher, recently said at a press conference that he had made a choice in his management of Israel's monetary situation. He said that he preferred to bring down unemployment rather than solve the housing problem, since helping one situation with the tools available to him meant hurting the other situation. Indeed, the latest unemployment stat for Israel was 5.7% which is an excellent rate compared to Western Europe and the United States. Nevertheless, housing was getting more expensive, whether for sale or for rent. Especially in the Tel Aviv metro area, called here Gush Dan. Also, food prices have been going up. This reminds us that after some 15 or 16 Euro countries joined the euro currency, the Eurozone, food and other consumer prices went up there and have not come down, although theoretically this should not have happned. People complain in Italy, France and Germany over these inexplicable price rises. In Israel, the food price rise led to the cottage cheese boycott of several weeks ago.

This seems to have given a number of oppositionist bodies funded and coordinated by the New Israel Fund [itself funded in turn by the Ford Foundation among other sources] the idea to use socio-economic issues, rather than their usual whining about the sad fate of Arab terrorists and genocide mongers, in order to bring down the govt. So an employee of an outfit funded by NIF, Dafne Leef, set up a tent in the middle of Rothschild Boulevard in a fairly fancy part of Tel Aviv.
She claimed that she could not rent an apartment at a decent price in the fancier parts of Tel Aviv. She is a poor little rich girl. But the gimmick worked and she has been joined by others throughout the country. Tents supplied courtesy of funds provided by NIF, the Qadima Party, the Hadash Party [Communists], etc.

But what are the causes of the shortage of affordable housing? First of all, the freeze in building in Judea-Samaria, which Prez Obama pressured PM Netanyahu into accepting. Insofar as the NIF supports Obama's anti-Israel, anti-Jewish policy, then the NIF and its constituent funded bodies, like Shatil, are morally complicit in the freeze and in the consequent shortage of affordable housing. Another cause is the increased immigration [`aliyah] of Jews from France and elsewhere in Europe. They are being substantially driven out by the increased Judeophobia there, the most violent and dangerous part of it coming from the large Muslim population in France [not to say that all French Muslims take part in anti-Jewish violence], encouraged by some of the "extreme Left" in France, such as Trotskyist Olivier Besancenot. The immigrants from France are often fairly prosperous and have bought up much of the expensive upscale housing, especially on Israel's coast.

Lastly, in a period when building in Judea-Samaria is next to impossible, bureaucratic Israeli structures of long standing, such as the Lands Administration [minhal m'qarq`in], do their bit, as they have been doing for years, to retard building in the country inside the Green Line, keeping the supply of housing and commercial real estate down, and all this by dragging out the process of approval for building plans for years, up to seven years according to Netanyahu. The Lands Administration is in itself an entrenched special interest and protects certain special interests, the owners of existing built real estate [besides the fact that the head of the Lands Administration is among the highest paid officials in Israel, making more in 2006 than the prime minister in 2010]. When demand for RE outpaces supply, the prices of existing RE go up. It's the old, simple law of supply and demand. Netanyahu has long wanted to remedy this situation, talking about it even in his first term. In July 2009, two years ago, he was trying to pass legislation to reform the Lands Administration but something always came up to derail the final change [Globes, 5-5-2011Hebrew]. So this is something that Netanyahu has been working on for years but could not succeed in pushing through fully and finally. Various entrenched interests were opposed. Almost two weeks ago, Netanyahu pulled out at a press conference a new version of his program to reform the Lands Administration. The self-appointed leaders of the housing protests rejected his plan, claiming that it would make people rich, especially the hated but unnamed "tycoons." Yet, insofar as the Lands Administration was keeping down the housing supply by delaying approval of building plans, then the "protest" leaders were opposing a measure to increase the supply --and a larger supply would of course bring down prices. Maintaining the present system in fact enriches real estate owners, owners of existing built up real estate, because it limits the supply of new housing. So somebody is getting rich either way. If there is more building the contractors and building materials suppliers can get rich. If the Lands Administration is not reformed and Netanyahu's other plans to build homes and rental apartments do not go through then the owners of existing RE get richer.
By opposing the prime minister's proposals the self-appointed protest leaders show that they do not want a solution to the housing problem and do not want to help people.

Of course, the fact that the hard core of the protest movement does not want solutions but is more focused on bringing down Netanyahu, has not escaped many observers in Israel. Dror Eyder, writing in Yisrael HaYom [ 7-29-2011], reports on a lecture by Stanley Greenberg, a public opinion pollster and manipulator for Bill Clinton. Greenberg lectured here in Israel at a meeting of the Rubinger Forum meant to discuss reviving the Israeli "Left," and how to persuade people that there was a "palestinian partner" for peace, that the "settlements" were a "disaster" [conveniently giving the unthinking "leftist" herds somebody to hate], and that it was necessary to go back to socialist economics. Greenberg lectured about 1/2 year ago. He gave his audience "ten steps" to defeat their adversaries in Israel.

Curiously, the audience was told to read an essay by the anti-Communist Czech intellectual, Vaclav Havel, "The Power of the Powerless." Ironically, the "Left" in Israel is far from powerless and has always dominated major state institutions since independence, even under Likud govts. They dominate the police, the judiciary, the prosecutor's office, public broadcasting, etc., although some of this is changing, albeit too slowly. They once dominated the economy, exercising enormous power of people who simply wanted a job. Those who did not hold the Histadrut's red membership booklet could not get jobs controlled by the Histadrut which was probably most jobs at one time. Or would have to join in order to get the job, which was my wife's experience. Nevertheless, this membership did not protect her job. She taught for one year at a school owned by the Histadrut, an `Amal school. At the end of one year she was laid off, although a good teacher. All the new teachers were laid off at the end of one year [if they stayed more than a year they would have seniority to keep the job], except for a favored one or two who had ingratiated themselves with the principal. So the "Left" is hardly the disadvantaged or weaker party in Israel. They use their institutional control to continue to shape policy against the wishes of the majority of the people. In short, enemies of Israel at home and abroad, including the NIF, have been thinking of strategies for bringing down the govt.

So the "mass protests" are backed up by a lot of money and powerful institutions and individuals. One of the "leftists" admitted the reality, with some amount of commendable embarassment and regret. Money from the EU and the NIF [much of it originating with the Ford Foundation] is financing the "protest" movement. It is likely that the movement will keep on "protesting" whether any problems get solved or not. The money is there. And when you are paid to organize a protest, you don't drop out until your employer changes his policy.

But Netanyahu, ironically, was able to use these protests as a lever for pushing through his own, long-desired reform of the Lands Administration. It is obvious that the housing problem has been on his mind for a long time, and up till now he could not get his program through because of the opposition of entrenched interests. Now apparently, with the unwitting and maybe unwilling help of the protest movement's self-appointed leadership, he has finally done it. This is like a jiu jitsu fighter using his enemy's strength against that enemy. If this works out, I say to him Kol haKavod, all honors to you. More power to him. Likewise, minister of interior, Eli Yishai, used the situation to approve 930 units of new housing to be built in the Har Homa neighborhood of southeast Jerusalem. Approval of these units had been held up for almost two years out of a desire not to upset Obama who is bothered by Jews having a place to live. Yishai also recently approved a project in northern Samaria in a place called Harish for 4,700 housing units. Another place where Obama doesn't want Jews to live.

For an understanding of some of Israel's basic problems, see an essay by Martin Sherman, a shrewd and knowledgeable social and political analyst. He had an excellent op ed in the JPost showing what some of the real problems are in Israel and some of their causes as well as some of the obstacles to solving them. I agree with just about everything in the article. I have often read Sherman's articles in the JPost and Nativ and elsewhere and had a long conversation with him while he worked as a high official in the Ministry of Agriculture. He is both knowledgeable and honest, as well as shrewd.

To conclude with the leadership of the "protest movment." They are great with slogans. Slogans, slogans, slogans. But they are noticeably weak on solutions. They rejected Netanyahu's proposed solutions to the housing shortage with specious arguments [see above]. But they have a slogan. A favorite slogan: Social Justice. What's wrong with this slogan? Because just about everybody agrees with it, just about everybody can claim to be for social justice. But it means different things to different people. Everybody has his own notion of what social justice is. The strict Muslim wants Muslim rule over the whole world and the non-Muslims as subjects of the Islamic state must be dhimmis, people tolerated in a state of inferiority, like Jews and Christians in the traditional Islamic state that the Muslim Brotherhood --"moderates" according to big shots in Washington-- wants to go back to. On the other hand, a Catholic priest, Father Charles Coughlin, published a weekly paper in the 1930s in America entitled Social Justice. He didn't much like Jews. But he too wanted social justice. He said so himself. But he wanted his version. Although he ranted every week on radio about "international bankers," at first more often insinuated to be Jews, later, usually asserted to be Jews, Coughlin had quiet meetings with at least one international banker who was not a Jew. And after supporting Roosevelt for election in 1933, he became openly pro-Nazi starting in 1936. So the slogan social justice [ צדק חברתי] can mean being pro-fascist. The protest organizers are cleverly using vague, empty slogans. But these do not provide a solution. They are more meant to bring people into the movement --and hopefully bring down the Netanyahu-Likud govt, from their standpoint-- than to provide real solutions to help real people.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
8-8-2011 Yoaz Hendel writes that the demonstrators on Rothchild Boulevard represent not the people of Israel but only one of several "tribes" that make up the people [here]. The protest movement, specifically "the rally last night, was created by the media of this same tribe." And, Hendel writes, the numbers were "tens of thousands," not the 300,000 claimed by various media. He too agrees that "social justice" is a matter of opinion and point of view.
8-14-2011 Sarah Honig in the JPost provides her definitions helpful for understanding the current protest movement. She takes up terms like: front organization, astroturf, useful idiot & others [here].
8-15-2011 Zalman Shoval points to the demagogic slogans like "social justice", used by organizers of the protests, as well as to the foreign funding enjoyed by some of them [here]. Shoval acknowledges the real problems that exist, as well as the Orwellian quality of the protest organizers' response to the prime minister's proposal to reform the Israel Lands Administration [or Authority].
Benny Avni belittles the notion that the tent protest movement will bring down the Netanyahu government [here]. I concur.
8-25-2011 Yaniv Moyal, a protest leader outside the circle of Daphni Leef and her charmed circle of professional/full time radicals, complains that most of the media give that group all of the attention although they are young people of little experience and arrogant, domineering disposition [here in JPost]

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Israel Anti-Boycott Law Misrepresented by Interested Parties, as Expected

Israel's new anti-boycott law does not "criminalize" speech --nor even pro-boycott speech or acts-- as was claimed in a rather overheated reaction by the New Israel Fund. Rather, the law defines pro-boycott agitation as a tort, a civil wrong [in Hebrew `avlah עוולה]. As such, parties injured by a boycott can sue for damages. Moreover, the Israeli government is to withhold state benefits and favors, grants, subsidies, guarantees, etc, from those who practice or advocate a boycott. Hence there is no criminal punishment in the law, no jail sentences; the State of Israel is not "criminalizing" boycotters, as the NIF claimed. It is denying state benefits which it has the right to do to protect the state and people of Israel. [See text of law at link below comments. See Hebrew text פה {pdf} or כאן] Maybe the NIF thought that they could get away with lying about the law, depending on the general ignorance of the Hebrew language.

The NIF has been charged by NGO Monitor with funding pro-boycott activities and advocacy. The NIF itself is funded by --among other bodies-- the Ford Foundation, which in its turn helped to organize and fund participating anti-Israel outfits that created an anti-Israeli hate atmosphere at the racist, Judeophobic Durban "anti-racism" conference which took place in early September 2001, just before the 9-11 tragedy. Among hateful things done at Durban in 2001 was to advocate the BDS strategy against Israel [BDS = boycott, divestment, sanctions].

What does the law do?
1) the law does not restrict free speech except insofar as injured persons or bodies may sue the boycott advocates for damages under the old damages law [neziqin]. Laws in civilized countries restrict free speech, of course, on the grounds of libel which can lead to imposing payment of damages on libellers, as well as on the grounds of incitement to violence, sedition, threats of violence, etc.
2) the law also allows the govt to withhold govt grants, subsidies, or other special state benefits and favors from advocates of the boycott, not including pensions, child allowances, etc.
3) BDS advocacy is treated as a civil offense perhaps warranting damages or withholding of state benefits. It is not treated as a criminal matter. The law does not forbid bds advocacy.

One member of Knesset explained why the law was needed. MK Tsipi Hotobeli said today --in a radio discussion with Uri Avneri, head of the pro-BDS "Gush Shalom" outfit, that it is hard for Israel to denounce and complain about BDS efforts abroad when they are allowed here at home.
Further, those who criticize the law should ask whether the govt should have to pay public money [state benefits-but this does not include pensions or regular social benefits enjoyed by citizens] to those who act against the public interest .

Ironically, those who defend boycott advocacy on the grounds of freedom of speech are themselves guilty of undermining the human rights of others, particularly but not only Jews who live or wish to live in Judea-Samaria. Uri Avneri and "Peace Now" advocate preventing Jews from peacefully migrating to live in Judea-Samaria and advocate boycotting products made by Jewish firms in those areas, firms which hire Arabs as well as Jews.

Those who boycott settlement products because they believe that Jews have no right to live or conduct businesses or manufacturing in Judea-Samaria are taking a racist, apartheid position against Jews. Although they typically justify this position on the grounds of international law, the interpretations of int'l law that they brandish about are false. They typically claim that Geneva Convention IV, article 49, forbids "transfer" of population to "occupied territory." It does. However, recall that Germany, Austria and Japan were avowedly occupied by US, USSR, UK, and France after WW2. Many civilians from the occupying powers voluntarily moved into those countries while they were occupied. Nobody complained that Geneva IV, article 49 [or whatever] forbid these civilians to move into occupied countries. Large parts of Japan are still occupied by Russia, that is, they were annexed in the Soviet Communist days by the USSR, although Japan never recognized that annexation and there is as yet no Russian-Japanese or Soviet-Japanese peace treaty as far as I know. Hundreds of thousands --if not millions-- of Soviets/Russians were moved into these formerly Japanese areas. Nobody gives a damn but the Japanese. Nor is the situation considered a threat to international peace.

Now many of us would argue that Judea-Samaria are not occupied, and this on various grounds [such as the Jewish National Home principle]. Further, "transfer" means compulsory migration, whereas the Jews living in Judea-Samaria were willing migrants. But even if J-S were occupied and even if Geneva IV, 49, applied to voluntary migrants [not persons subject to "transfer"] across the Green Line, the position demanding exclusion of Jews from Judea-Samaria would still be racist. Legal perhaps, but racist against Jews. Since when do advocates of liberty and human rights want to punish people who have flouted restrictive laws [if J-S were occupied and if Geneva IV, 49, applied legally]?? And BDS relies on these false interpretations of law and is a legalist-nativist argument as well, which humanitarians and human rights advocates should eschew. BDS falsely speaks in the name of human rights.

The bds campaign actively tries to prevent people --Jews-- from exercising human rights, the right to live where their long-time enemies don't want them to live. Hence it is BDS that is racist. Racist against Jews. This is the argument that should be made. Heretofore, the Yesha Council, Women in Green, and such groups have NOT been making the right arguments to the world.

Here is an interesting case in which a person who would likely be called "a progressive" sued someone who libelled him, thereby restricting the libeller's freedom of speech and press.

The so-called Association for Civil Rights in Israel [ACRI] issued a position paper against the new law, while NIF has so far just sent around a whining email [their position paper will likely follow soon]. The paper does not mention --probably due to the author's ignorance-- that in the United States a private person was allowed to sue for damages to his work and endeavors caused by libel of the group to which he belonged and in which he was named personally. Libel laws too have "a chilling effect" on freedom of speech. The ACRI paper decries the permission granted by the new law to private persons to sue for damages caused by boycott calls. But a trial was begun on such a matter in the USA. The defendant --who was promoting libel through his newspaper, eventually settled in the plaintiff's favor. This represented a restriction on the defendant's freedom of speech as well as on freedom of the press.

I refer to a suit against Henry Ford by a Jew. In the early 1920s, Ford's newspaper, The Dearborn Independent, worked out its own version of the forged and plagiarized Protocols of the Elders of Zion, also naming individual Jews.
"Aaron Sapiro, a lawyer who was organizing farmers' cooperatives [kind of like a community organizer], sued Mr Ford and his paper for a million dollars on the ground that his valuable work would be ruined by their lies. The trial was begun in Detroit in 1926 but it was never finished because Mr Ford apologized to Aaron Sapiro and to the Jewish people as a whole . . . [Ford] said: 'I deem it to be my duty . . . to make amends for the wrong done to the Jews. . . asking their forgiveness. . .'" [Rabbi Lee Levinger, A History of the Jews in the United States (NY: UAHC 1959), p 358].
Henry Ford to be sure was an intense Judeophobe and Nazi sympathizer. He had to produce his own version of the Protocols because --among other things-- the original version was --anti-Roman Catholic & anti-Protestant and sympathetic to the Russian Orthodox Church. The anti-Catholic hate in the original would not have gone down well in the United States.

So, although the libel trial against Ford did not conclude, Sapiro's claim --which restricted Ford's freedom of speech-- was accepted for trial as justiciable. Sapiro did not have to wait for governmental action. Of course the case is not identical. But I think it is rather close to the "private action" that the ACRI paper so deplores. Curiously, the Ford Foundation, founded with Henry Ford's money, works against the Jews as did its namesake, Henry Ford.

- - - - -
NGO Monitor's comments and translation of the law [here]
Eli Hertz compares the present Israeli anti-boycott law with an American anti-boycott law [here]
Isi Leibler discusses anti-Israel boycotts and the anti-boycott law [here]
Eugene Kontorovich blasts hypocrisy of anti-boycott law defamers [here]
7-29-2011 Martin Sherman argues that those circles in Israel advocating boycotts against Israel and/or opposing the anti-boycott law have been undemocratic in their recent history and constitute the greatest threat to democracy in Israel [here]

Labels: , ,