Ashley Church
israelinstitute.nz
In March 1947, US President Harry Truman enacted an Executive Order which required all federal employees to be screened for ‘loyalty’ as a way of rooting out those who would seek to ‘alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means’. The move was a response to the growing strength of Soviet Communism following World War 2 and started with relatively innocent intentions – a point we would do well to remember, here in New Zealand.
However, within months, Truman’s order was being used to justify a range of human rights abuses and, by the time Senator Joseph McCarthy had come onto the scene 3 years later in 1950, the order had already been enthusiastically adopted by States, private companies and other organisations. Actors, journalists, high profile Americans and business people were blacklisted and ‘outed’ as communists in a purge which continued for almost 10 years during which time hundreds were imprisoned and as many as 12,000 lost their jobs, livelihoods and/or reputations. Many even committed suicide in the face of the public hysteria.
McCarthy didn’t start the movement which bears his name – but he became the personification of it – and the term ‘McCarthyism’ has come to refer to movements which seek to dismiss viewpoints or, at the extreme, eliminate people who hold views which are at odds with the prevailing orthodoxy or who simply happen to be part of the ‘wrong’ group.
None of this was new, of course. Such movements have existed throughout history – most recently in the moves to isolate Jews from mainstream German society, which started in the early 1930s, as a precursor to the much more chilling imposition of Hitlers so-called ‘final solution’.
Given the gravity and impact of both of these stains on our recent history you would think that we’ve learnt not to repeat the mistakes of the past – but we haven’t. McCarthyism is alive and well in the 21 st century and is always just a populist surge away from reigniting the kind of purge which took place in Germany in the 30s and the US in the 1950s. Here in New Zealand the ‘woke’ movement has already morphed into a form a McCarthyism and we see it specifically in initiatives such as the ‘cancel culture’ which seeks to remove things and people which don’t toe the prevailing ideological line.
In New Zealand, as in many western nations, there is (once again) a growing movement which identifies Jews, in general, and the state of Israel, in particular as the supposed personification of all of the problems in the Middle East as well as a fairly large share of the problems of the wider international community.
Sadly, this nonsense is supported by a youthful media which, in the main, has no sense of historical context. At best, such viewpoints are simplistic and childish – at worst, they are dangerous and lead, inevitably, to puerile moves to control thought and marginalise those who earn the ire of the high priests of social orthodoxy.
In New Zealand, we’re seeing this in the early moves to control ‘hate speech’ in an environment where the things which are supposedly ‘hateful’ are simply ideas and views which are at odds with the populist line and where the real motivation is to censor opinions which offend that line.
It’s for this reason that the role of the Israel Institute and other groups which seek to bring balance to discussion of Israel is so important. While I don’t believe that our activities would be defined as ‘hate speech’ within the first draft of any proposed legislation – it’s not difficult to envisage that. definition tightening in subsequent reviews, in a way which could outlaw our activities or severely restrict our ability to be a voice of reason.
If you’ve been a passive observer to what’s been happening in the world over the past few years – and have watched the noose once again closing on Jewish communities and the international attitude toward Israel – I urge you to step up and become more active in the face of this recurring malaise.
If you want to get more involved, but don’t know how, contact us at the Institute and share your thoughts. We’d love to hear from you.
IINZ Briefing
New report responds to anti-Israeli bias perpetuated at UNHRC
UN Watch released its 58-page “Agenda Item 7: Country Claims & UN Watch Responses” examining 23 accusations made by various countries under Agenda Item 7 against Israel in the period covering the six UNHRC sessions held in 2019 and 2020.
UN Watch has also submitted several written statements that will be circulated to delegates as official UN documents of the session, calling out the lie that Israel’s vaccination campaign—one of the best-run in the world—is “racist”; exposing UNRWA teachers’ incitement to terrorism and antisemitism; and documenting the Palestinians’ illegal use of child soldiers.
BBC admits claim that Israel is responsible for vaccinating Palestinians Is wrong
The BBC has acknowledged that its claim that Israel is responsible for vaccinating Palestinians against Covid-19 is mistaken.
The assertion has gained considerable coverage in the media in recent weeks, including the NZHerald, Dominion Post, and RNZ. Green MP, Golriz Ghahraman also implied the claim was true in an instagram post that the NZ Jewish Council also objected to.
There has been no retraction or apology from NZ media.
New report finds UNRWA lied about removing hate speech and incitement from curriculum
After a report by IMPACT-se prompted criticism from donor nations, UNRWA admitted to its use of racist and inciting educational materials, and said that all such content had been removed by Nov. 2020.
IMPACT-se’s new report finds that, despite the agency’s claims to have rectified the problem, its educational materials remain replete with hate speech and exhortations to violence.
New Zealand gives approximately $1m each year to UNRWA and MFAT staff have ignored decades of evidence about the incitement and hate taught in schools.
ICC recognising Palestine creates setback for Middle East peace hopes
Australia submitted to the ICC in March 2020 clearly stating:-
“Australia’s position is that the jurisdictional preconditions under Article 12 of the Rome Statute are not met”;
– “Australia’s position is that a two-state solution must be advanced through direct negotiations between the parties”;
– “The question of Palestinian statehood cannot be resolved prior to a negotiated peace settlement and therefore Australia’s position is clear: Australia does not recognise the ‘State of Palestine'”:
and- “As outlined, the questions before the Court in the Prosecutor’s Request to confirm the Court’s territorial jurisdiction relate to the ‘State of Palestine’ and its territory. It is not appropriate for the Court to resolve these questions”
Other traditional allies of New Zealand, Germany, Austria, Czechia, and Hungary, as well as Uganda, Brazil, and others also spoke up against ICC jurisdiction on Palestine one year ago.
In determining 2-1 that a “State of Palestine” exists, thus empowering the court’s prosecutor to investigate potential war crimes by Israel and Palestinians at “Palestine’s” request, the ICC pre-trial chamber has significantly set back hopes for an eventual negotiated two-state Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Now that the ruling has gone against those reasoned positions, Australia has said “The International Criminal Court should not exercise jurisdiction in this matter.” and the United States has said “We have serious concerns about the ICC’s attempts to exercise its jurisdiction over Israeli personnel.”
Alex Ryvchin has also written that “The current ICC Prosecutor’s pursuit of Israel would therefore significantly lower the Court’s gravity threshold (Art. 17) and violate its mandate to deal with “the most serious crimes of international concern” (Rome Statute preamble and Art. 1). The focus on Israel also represents a discarding of the ‘court of last resort’ doctrine on which the ICC was founded.”
New Zealand did not submit anything in 2020 and has remained silent.
Please share this BFD article so others can discover The BFD.
