The photographs of Peter Mitchell:
[All photos © Peter Mitchell/RRB Publishing/Neutral Grey]
Peter Mitchell previously.
The photographs of Peter Mitchell:
[All photos © Peter Mitchell/RRB Publishing/Neutral Grey]
Peter Mitchell previously.
Martin Robbins, in the New Statesman,on the paranoid style of Corbyn's Labour:
Corbyn’s time as Labour leader has been marked by an extraordinary surge of paranoia and conspiracy theory on the left. The sheer intensity of it, combined with some of his supporters’ glassy-eyed denial of reality and desire to “purge” the party unfaithful, has led some to compare Corbynism to a cult or a religious movement. Unfortunately, the problem goes much deeper. Corbyn didn’t create or lead a movement; he followed one.
In the last few years, a new breed of hyperbolic pundits has emerged on left-wing social media who embody what Richard Hofstadter called “The Paranoid Style” in politics, “a sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy”.
Hofstadter’s 1964 essay was inspired by McCarthyism, but the Paranoid Style as a political and psychological phenomena has been with us for as long as modern politics. Of course conspiracies and misdeeds can happen, but the Paranoid Style builds up an apocalyptic vision of a future driven entirely by dark conspiracies. The NHS won’t just be a bit worse; it will be destroyed in 24 hours. Opponents aren’t simply wrong, but evil incarnate; near-omnipotent super-villains control the media, the banks, even history itself. Through most of history, movements like this have remained at the fringes of politics; and when they move into the mainstream bad things tend to happen....
Taken at face value, Corbyn’s summer has been appalling. It began with the poor local election results, continued with Labour’s official position being defeated in the EU Referendum, and then saw the party’s leader lose a vote of no confidence, after which he was forced to watch the resignation of most of his shadow cabinet and then face a leadership challenge. Labour are polling terribly against Theresa May (who, admittedly, is in her honeymoon period), and the press are either hostile or find Corbyn impossible to work with.
If Corbyn were a conventional Leader of the Opposition these facts would be catastrophic, but he’s not and they’re not. To understand why, let’s look at some head-scratching quotes from leading Corbynistas. Jon Lansman, Chair of Momentum, was heavily mocked on Twitter recently for saying, “Democracy gives power to people, ‘Winning’ is the small bit that matters to political elites who want to keep power themselves.” The former BBC and Channel 4 journalist Paul Mason released a video clip suggesting Labour should be transformed into a “social movement”, along the lines of Occupy....
Labour has 232 seats, considerably more than David Cameron inherited in 2005. Their opponent is an “unelected” Prime Minister commanding a majority of just twelve, who was a senior figure in the government that just caused Britain’s biggest crisis since the war, and is now forced to negotiate a deal that either cripples the economy or enrages millions of voters who were conned by her colleagues into believing they had won a referendum on immigration. Just before leaving office, George Osborne abandoned his budget surplus target – effectively conceding it was a political gambit all along.
A competent Labour leader, working with other parties and disaffected Remainian Tories, could be – should be - tearing lumps out of the government on a weekly basis. Majority government may be a distant prospect, but forcing the Tories into a coalition or removing them from government altogether by the next election is entirely achievable. Yet it’s fair to say that many Corbynistas have little interest in seeing this scenario play out.
Which makes sense, because to these people Labour – real Labour – doesn’t have 232 seats, it has about 40. The others seats are occupied by “Red Tories” or, worse, “Blairites”. Since these groups are as much the enemy as the Tories are, exchanging one for the other is meaningless. The Corbynites could start their own party of course, but why do that when they can seize control of Labour’s infrastructure, short money and institutional donors. The only long-term strategy that makes sense is to “purify” Labour, and rebuild from the foundations up. That may mean another 10 or 20 years of Tory rule, but the achingly middle-class Corbynistas won’t be the ones to suffer from that.
Not to worry. From the Times (£):
Extremist Islamist books promoting antisemitism and preaching hatred toward non-Muslims were distributed by imams in prisons for months despite jail authorities having been alerted to their discovery, The Times has learnt.
Among the prohibited titles are a tract described as the Mein Kampfof Islamist terrorism, a pamphlet extolling the virtues of violent jihad and a book urging Muslims to fight and subjugate unbelievers.
One of the books, by the jihadist ideologue Sayyid Qutb, blames Jews for “materialism, animal sexuality, the destruction of the family and the dissolution of society”.
Another focuses on “the sexual deviation known as homosexuality”. It states: “The spread of this depraved practice in a society disrupts its natural life pattern and makes those who practise it slaves to their lusts, depriving them of decent taste, decent morals and a decent manner of living.”
A third states that jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim.
Copies of one or more of the publications were found in chaplaincy rooms at nine of 11 prisons that were inspected during a review of radicalisation behind bars. Among them were high-security category A establishments.
Terry Glavin is always worth a read. Here's his latest, in Canada's National Post:
If you’ve recently come to conclude that American democracy has degenerated into a hopelessly dystopian reality-TV spectacle and it seems as though we’re all teetering at the abyss of a broken America that is no longer a force for good in the world, you are wrong. It’s worse than you think.
That’s the good news. Because there is quite a bit of terrain to traverse between now and the November 8 presidential election, and the odds are at least even that by then, the penny will have dropped and American voters will have awoken to the realization that shrieking vulgarities and unceasing assaults on both reason and common decency have dragged the United States to the point of no return. If this keeps up, it’s banana republic time. That’s looking on the bright side, which at the moment is a difficult thing to do. The past few days will not have induced feelings of sunny optimism in any reasonable person.
The Republican Party is gone. Its national convention in Cleveland was a four-day carnival of shrieking vulgarity, a meticulously stage-managed incitement of the lowest and ugliest impulses in the American political character. Its climax was something almost unimaginable only a year or so ago: the Republican nominee for the office of the president of the United States of America is the loudmouth caudillo Donald Trump.
With the nomination of Hillary Clinton, this week’s Democratic Party convention in Philadelphia is concluding with the party’s least-popular Democratic presidential contender since Jimmy Carter ran in 1980. It remains to be seen whether her close rival Bernie Sanders, a genuine democratic socialist, will be capable of mustering his impressive talent for oratory with a vigour sufficient to persuade his legions of hardcore supporters to stop burning Israeli flags and parading around with giant, bus-sized spliffs long enough to actually expend some effort in the attempt to get Clinton elected....
The penny has got to drop at some point, even among the self-aggrandizing galaxy of A-list celebrities, Democracy Now pundits and Daily Show guests that constitute what is derisively known as America’s liberal elite. What we’re seeing is the fruit of all their years of cultivating contempt and mockery of the hillbillies and the hayseeds that are too stupid to be in thrall of the genius U.S. President Barack Obama. That abandoned mass of Americans is now Trump’s base, and the worst and most cunning of the racists and xenophobes among them are now exacting their revenge.
All those years of championing the vandalism of Wikileaks and Julian Assange, of dismissing the Kremlin’s aggression in Ukraine as an understandable response to NATO’s warmongering encirclement, of justifying their indifference to genocide in Syria and Iraq with plaintive claims of upstanding anti-war virtue, and it’s all come full circle. To Michael Moore, Medea Benjamin, John Pilger, Susan Sarandon, Seymour Hersh, Robert Fisk, George Galloway and all their acolytes and admirers: look at what you’ve done. I hope you’re proud of yourselves....
The Pope speaks out:
Pope Francis has warned that a recent wave of jihadist attacks in Europe is proof that "the world is at war".
Except he doesn't actually talk of "jihadist attacks", because - of course - none of this has anything to do with religion:
However, he stressed he did not mean a war of religions, but rather a conflict over "interests, money, resources"....
"The word we hear a lot is insecurity, but the real word is war," the pontiff said.
"We must not be afraid to say the truth, the world is at war because it has lost peace.
Can't argue with that.
"When I speak of war I speak of wars over interests, money, resources, not religion. All religions want peace, it's the others who want war," Pope Francis added.
We can add the Pope's helpful comments to those of the BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardner, who asks, What drives individuals to commit mass killings?
With four attacks in southern Germany coming shortly after the mass murder of 84 people in Nice, counter-terrorism officials are struggling to detect a common thread. Is there a single, defining feature to these attacks that could offer clues on how to prevent more of them from happening?
What on earth could it be? Luckily there's a psychoanalyst at hand, to help us out. And not just an ordinary psychoanalyst - this one's a forensic psychoanalyst.
Peter Aylward, who spent much of his career as a detective in the Metropolitan Police, then later as a forensic psychoanalyst at Broadmoor Psychiatric Hospital, says it is possible to find a common thread in the past history of murderers. He believes the clues are all in their dysfunctional backgrounds.
"It is a psychiatric problem," he says, "and such planning [as the Nice or Munich attacks] indicates a disordered personality. With such premeditation there is a desire to enact a form of revenge, and with such intent on causing major terror."
So why do we only see such a relatively small number of killing sprees, compared with the large number of people who suffer from psychiatric disorders and never go on to harm anyone?
"With a detailed look at the history of those perpetrators," says Mr Aylward, "what we see is a sort of combination-lock of numbers that if arranged in the right sequence then the lock snaps open and a murderous attack takes place."
He says far more work needs to be done to identify the signs leading up to such events before they happen.
All of this poses a major problem for US and European governments and intelligence agencies trying to stop the next mass killing. Mental health is not usually in their remit....
What we need, clearly, are more forensic psychoanalysts.
From the Times (£):
A Welsh schoolgirl has been kept prisoner in a cage by her father for more than four years after being accused of un-Islamic behaviour, a court was told yesterday.
Amina Al-Jeffery was born in Swansea but was taken to Saudi Arabia aged 16 because her academic father objected to her western lifestyle. She has since been held captive in her father’s home in Jeddah, the family division of the High Court was told yesterday.
The forced marriage unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said that the Saudi authorities refused to recognise the daughter’s British citizenship and “steps need to be taken to ensure Miss Al-Jeffery is returned to the UK where her safety can be guaranteed”....
Mr Al-Jeffery, a father of nine, moved to Wales before his daughter’s birth. The family received benefits and his children were educated at British schools and universities. Henry Setright, QC, representing Mr Al-Jeffery, said that her father had taken her to Saudi Arabia because he disapproved of her “relationships and conduct”.
Miss Al-Jeffery, now 21, is kept in a cage when her father leaves the home, is physically abused, deprived of food and water and not allowed to marry the man of her choice, the court was told....
Mr Justice Holman said that the jurisdiction of the British courts was not clear because Miss Al-Jeffery was now an adult with dual Saudi and UK citizenship. He said: “We have to be careful about asserting the supremacy of our cultural standards.”
How true. Our cultural standards include not keeping a 21-year-old woman locked up in a cage. But, if other cultures think otherwise, well, who are we to argue?
Close your eyes and imagine that a hacking group backed by Russian President Vladimir Putin broke into the email system of a major U.S. political party. The group stole thousands of sensitive messages and then published them through an obliging third party in a way that was strategically timed to influence the United States presidential election. Now open your eyes, because that’s what just happened.
On Friday, Wikileaks published 20,000 emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee. They reveal, among other things, thuggish infighting, a push by a top DNC official to use Bernie Sanders’ religious convictions against him in the South, and attempts to strong-arm media outlets. In other words, they reveal the Washington campaign monster for what it is.
But leave aside the purported content of the Wikileaks data dump (to which numerous other outlets have devoted considerable attention) and consider the source. Considerable evidence shows that the Wikileaks dump was an orchestrated act by the Russian government, working through proxies, to undermine Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign.
That's astonishing - and the evidence is growing:
The hacker who claims to have stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee and provided them to WikiLeaks is actually an agent of the Russian government and part of an orchestrated attempt to influence U.S. media coverage surrounding the presidential election, a security research group concluded on Tuesday.
Even the President has waded in:
“What we do know is that the Russians hack our systems, not just government systems but private systems,” Obama told NBC. “What the motives were in terms of the leaks, all that — I can’t say directly. What I do know is that Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed admiration for Vladimir Putin.”
A foreign government has hacked a political party’s computers—and possibly an election. It has stolen documents and timed their release to explode with maximum damage. It is a strike against our civic infrastructure. And though nobody died—and there was no economic toll exacted—the Russians were aiming for a tender spot, a central node of our democracy.
It was hard to see the perniciousness of this attack at first, especially given how news media initially covered the story. The Russians, after all, didn’t knock out a power grid. And when the stolen information arrived, it was dressed in the ideology of WikiLeaks, which presents its exploits as possessing a kind of journalistic bravery the traditional media lacks....
The DNC dump may not have revealed a conspiracy that could end a candidacy, but it succeeded in casting a pall of anxiety over this election. We know that the Russians have a further stash of documents from the DNC and another set of document purloined from the Clinton Foundation. In other words, Vladimir Putin is now treating American democracy with the same respect he accords his own.
It's no secret that Putin is backing Trump. Nor is it a secret that Trump has expressed some admiration for Putin's autocratic strong-man style of government. What's interesting, though, is that making this particular connection will get you branded a McCarthyite from those sections of the regressive left who still hold a certain unshakeable affection for mother Russia. Jonathan Chait:
The cultivation of friendly candidates in elections in other countries, and efforts to intervene on their behalf, is a staple of Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy. Putin’s Russia has been proven or credibly alleged to have boosted friendly candidates in France, Germany, Austria, and, most successfully, in the election of a pro-Russian government in Ukraine. Something like this seems to be happening in the American presidential election now. Several weeks ago, Franklin Foer wrote in Slate about the web of suspicious financial ties connecting Trump and his leading Russia adviser to the Kremlin. The story attracted little attention — maybe it was too far-fetched, or maybe the daily stream of cable-news ticker-friendly public outrages spewed out by Trump, which required no inference, blotted out a much deeper one that lay half-buried. But recent events have propelled the story into the presidential campaign.
First, in Cleveland, Trump’s campaign, which had generally steered clear of platform disputes, threw around its weight to block a plank endorsing defensive military aide to Ukraine. Next, Trump shocked the foreign-policy Establishment by telling reporters that, contrary to decades of American policy, he might renege on America’s commitment to defend NATO allies in the event of a Russian invasion. And then, last weekend, emails from the Democratic National Committee that had been hacked by Russia appeared on WikiLeaks. The emails, which showed staffers pulling for Hillary Clinton despite the organization’s professed neutrality, created a rift between bitter supporters of Bernie Sanders and the party Establishment at a time when it was trying to tamp down discord in the service of concord. Clinton’s campaign manager is now stating openly that Russia is trying to help Trump.
And oddly enough, the drama is having a second-order effect that is more profound than the direct hit from the email story. It is prying open a deep, decades-old ideological wedge between liberals and the left at just the moment when the two wings were seeking to form a united front against Trump....
But the accusation that Trump’s relationship with Russia reeks of impropriety, in the media now by Clinton, has provoked a furious counterattack on the left. Even the indisputable notion that Russia is trying to help Trump (far from the more explosive charge that Trump is trying to help Russia) has been assailed on the left as “McCarthyism” by figures like Katrina vandenHeuvel, Glenn Greenwald, and many others.
The split runs along the same lines as the fissure between liberals and leftists dating from the origins of the Cold War. The Cold War began under the presidency of Harry Truman, a figure who was regarded by progressives of his era with emotions ranging from disappointment to outright disgust. That dismay propelled the third-party candidacy of Henry Wallace, who attracted a small but wildly enthusiastic following among idealists and the far left. Wallace lambasted Truman as a warmonger, a tool of Wall Street and big business, and a traitor to the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt (which, to the frustration of liberals, had stalled). Wallace depicted the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Airlift, and other Cold War policies as a plot to instigate World War III.
The hostility between Truman and the left of his era, I argued a couple of months ago, parallels the current dynamic between Clinton and the Bernie Sanders movement today. The Trump-Russia scandal has activated that same left-wing impulse. The American far left during Truman’s era, just like today, was not pro-Russia so much as it was anti-anti-Russia, and follows identical themes: Criticism of Russia’s domestic repression or aggressive foreign policy is merely a ploy to distract from and excuse America’s own failings, and provides dangerous support for American aggression, which could lead to war. So, just as the left of the '40s and '50s saw anti-Stalinism as an excuse for Jim Crow, a Glenn Greenwald today casts Russia’s human-rights record in an implausibly favorable light, and reflexively dismisses any contrary view as simple hypocrisy. When Russia menaces Ukraine, The Nation informs its audience that this is perfectly justifiable because Ukraine is not really a country at all.
Trump’s pro-Russia tilt has reenergized these Cold War tropes....
For whatever reason, Trump is the candidate who has given the most forthright expression to anti-anti-Russian beliefs of any candidate since circa 1948 Henry Wallace (just as he has given the most open expression of racist beliefs of any candidate since circa 1968 George Wallace). As the acrimony between Clinton-supporting liberals and their foes on the left spills out on the streets of Philadelphia, this historical irony is playing a minor role. The far left’s willingness to play into the opposing party’s hands displays not only its continued disgust with the Democratic Party’s nominee and Establishment, but a certain convergence of thought with the Republican nominee.
Should we be worrying? Yes, we should be worrying. A Trump upswing is to be expected after the Cleveland Republican Convention, but still: Nate Silver's latest 2016 Election Forecast gives Hillary Clinton 42.5% to Trump's 57.5%.
Last week Donald Trump laid out a deeply disturbing view of America's role in the world. The Trump Doctrine - if we can call this mass of contradictions a doctrine - embraces isolationism while simultaneously insisting Trump can swiftly destroy ISIS. It suggests we should abandon our closest allies, the democracies in NATO and Asia, even as Trump embraces autocrats like Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
This is the statement of a demagogue who will do tremendous harm to U.S. security if given the chance. Let us count the ways that Trump's message will, and already has, made America less safe:
Yet Trump has falsely defamed his own country. Contrary to his claims, the U.S. economy is doing well, unemployment is down, and serious urban crime, while undergoing a 2015 uptick in some cities, is down in many urban areas and has been dropping steadily for over a decade.
Second, Trump's praise for autocrats, and disrespect for his own democracy, further feeds the Russian-Chinese-ISIS narrative that liberal democracies are headed for history's dustbin. In a scary foreign policy interview with the New York Times, Trump expressed admiration for only two foreign leaders. The first was Putin, who pulls all the strings in Russia, sends opponents to Siberia (if they are not mysteriously murdered), and is trying to imitate a Russian tsar. "I think Putin and I will get along very well," he told the Times.
The second was Erdogan, who wants to reclaim the past glories of an Ottoman sultan. He has used a failed coup as an excuse to round up tens of thousands of civilians, including anyone who might ever oppose him, behavior that Trump refused to criticize. Even before the coup attempt, the Turkish leader had silenced leading opposition media by using draconian libel laws that bankrupted critical newspapers. Trump has said he would tighten U.S. libel laws if elected (First Amendment be damned).
Third, Trump promotes an America First isolationism that will convince the world that our country is a spent power. He has undercut key alliances with Europe, Japan, and South Korea, which will thrill Russia and China as they try to dominate their neighbors....
We know the Donald already has a long enemies list that includes blacks, Hispanics, the media, and anyone who crosses him. His angry followers, including the racists and crazies who have been mainstreamed by his campaign, would no doubt vent their anger on these traitors.
The one person Trump is unlikely to blame for the security debacle that will follow his election would be himself.
And James Kirchick:
There is an unspoken social contract in democratic politics: candidates should not overtly appeal to citizens’ basest instincts. As citizens in the world’s oldest constitutional democracy, we place a great deal of faith in the judgment of individuals, trusting that they would never willingly elect a tyrant to power. And thankfully, there are multiple, mediating institutions in our system of republican government to prevent a single man or movement from assuming absolute control. But what if a totally unscrupulous demagogue—one with undeniable charisma and mass media appeal—comes along and decides that the unspoken social contract, like every other rule he has ever encountered, does not apply to him?
That is what Donald Trump has done: he has broken the social contract between the American people and their political leaders by banking on the assumption that unvarnished nativism, bigotry, and ignorance will win him the presidency.
Even worse, Trump has been rewarded by purportedly responsible and reasonable people, people whom I once respected and had to watch barking like seals as this madman and would-be tyrant brought them up to their feet again and again with his empty promises of salvific national recovery. When the delegates cheered him, did they think about the time he ridiculed John McCain for being “captured?” For me, like many others, that was the first moment I thought, “It’s over” for Trump. How many insults, stunning professions of ignorance, and outrageous revelations ago was that “gaffe!”
As they rose to hoot and holler, did the Republicans in Cleveland remember, even in the distant recesses of their minds, when he mocked a physically handicapped reporter? Did they recall the many loathsome remarks he made about women, or the praise he offered the Chinese communists for running their tanks over people in Tiananmen Square, or the encouragement he bestowed—just a day prior—upon Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ruthless purge? The morning after accepting their nomination, when Trump—citing a supermarket tabloid—once again speculated that Ted Cruz’s father had been involved in the JFK assassination, did they reflect upon what their enabling a plainly demented individual says about their patriotism? Did these latter-day Pontius Pilates, many of whom pridefully advertise themselves as adherents of Judeo-Christian faith, pause a moment to consider what their ancient texts say about the weak and the strong, the rich and the poor, about those who lust for power at the expense of everything else? I hope they did, and that they felt at least a pang of guilt at their participation in this moral obscenity masking itself as an exercise in American democracy.
It's a familiar complaint by now: Muslims in the UK have been let down by the kind of condescending multiculturalism that doesn't expect them to adopt western liberal values - a racism of low expectations. As Maajid Nawaz argues, in the Times today (£), the success of Birmingham's Rockwood Academy reinforces the point:
For years in Britain there has been a pernicious trend to shy away from making a case for our liberal values among minority communities. As these values continued their march unabated among the mainstream, certain multiculturalists assumed that to assert them among minorities would be deemed offensive, perhaps racist, and in the Muslim context even Islamophobic.
The successful turnaround of the “Trojan horse” school Park View — now Rockwood Academy — couldn’t have proved this view more wrong. Two years after the scandal, the school has surpassed expectations, with cadet recruitment, after-school drama classes, counterextremism workshops and trips to Wimbledon. Those who worried about a more active integration policy alienating the Birmingham school’s predominantly Muslim students really needn’t have. So why did they?
Our 1990s-era multiculturalism was intended to bring about diverse communities. Instead, it brought about monocultural ghettos that gave rise to state schools such as Park View broadcasting the Muslim call to prayer from their loudspeakers. Two complementary trends arose together that culturally disintegrated Britain. Within my own Muslim communities, Islamism, a theocratic ideology, which sought to impose a version of Islam over society, emerged practically unchallenged to insist that we were Muslims to the exclusion of every other identity. Meanwhile, among mainstream liberals, multiculturalism came to mean diversity between, rather than within, groups.
Due to these two trends, as a country we celebrated our cities as they self-segregated into isolated cultural ghettos. Division in areas such as Dewsbury and parts of Bradford was hailed as diversity. Self-segregation was supported as cultural tolerance. Disintegration was championed as integration. Those of my fellow liberals who promoted such policies believed they were doing so to help us Muslims. Yet this “help” couldn’t have been more disempowering.
Failing to advocate for liberal values within groups and not merely between groups led to a stifling of creativity and a lack of diversity among Muslims. Rebel voices who needed our support inside these communities suffered the most, and feel betrayed by liberals to this day. I call these the minority within the minority: feminist Muslims, gay Muslims, ex-Muslims, secular Muslims and anyone else deemed to be heretical or not Muslim enough....
As a country we ended up living together, apart. By allowing minorities to isolate themselves, the very people my fellow liberals wanted to help were suffering the most. It is no surprise then that such disintegration created a breeding ground for Isis recruiters. The liberal values that we came to expect from everyone else we shied away from advocating among Muslims. It is as if we Muslims were simply incapable of embracing secularism. And as we weren’t even expected to be liberal, or in many cases as our illiberalism was celebrated, we naturally grew further and further apart from wider society....
The success at Rockwood Academy highlights that it never had to be this way. Identities are by definition multiple. So yes I am a Muslim, but I am also English, a secular liberal democrat of Pakistani descent, I was born in Essex and I am British.
When a chance was given instead of denied, when aspiration was encouraged instead of withheld, when integration was expected instead of disparaged, and when social mobility was promised instead of rubbished, the children and parents at Rockwood Academy rushed to it, and excelled. They embraced it all. Indeed, why wouldn’t they? There was finally an expectation that they could be just like anyone else.
More on Rockwood Academy's "remarkable progress".
From the Jerusalem Post:
An academic seminar at a German university claims Israel’s military harvests organs from Palestinians and the Jewish state is responsible for a genocide.
“Our sons were robbed of their organs,” was the title of a part of the seminar’s course material, Rebecca Seidler, an academic who blew the whistle on the anti-Israel material, told the weekly German-Jewish newspaper Jüdische Allgemeine Zeitung in a Thursday article.
The paper reported that the University of Applied Sciences and Arts (HAWK) offers a course on “The Social Situation of Youths in Palestine,” which contains the allegedly anti-Semitic material.
After reviewing the content of the course, Seidler, who was slated to conduct the seminar, complained to the university’s management. The Dean of the faculty of Social Work and Health, Christa Paulini, dismissed Seidler’s criticism in a telephone conversation as being overly-sensitive.
Seidler told the JAZ that material showed “a picture of a genocide on the Palestinians, an ethnic cleansing as well as a complete disenfranchisement of Palestinians by Israel.”
The seminar syllabus also covered the “victims of torture in Israeli prisons,” said Seidler. TheJAZ wrote the seminar conveyed “anti-Semitic stereotypes.”...
HAWK’s president Christiane Dienel told the German wire service DPA on Friday that an ethics commission examined the seminar and it in “no way propagates anti-Semitic or anti-Israel content.”
Well that's OK then.