#pogrund

[superfuji]

Ma ora quella che era un’accusa sta diventando un fatto. In primo luogo, la legge sullo Stato-nazione pone gli ebrei al di sopra dei concittadini arabi – musulmani, drusi, beduini e cristiani. Ogni giorno i ministri del governo e i loro alleati sfogano il loro razzismo e lo fanno con azioni discriminatorie. Non c’è pietà nemmeno per i drusi che, come gli ebrei, hanno fatto parte dell’esercito fin dal 1948.

In secondo luogo, Israele non può più rivendicare la sicurezza come ragione del nostro comportamento in Cisgiordania e dell’assedio di Gaza. Dopo 56 anni, la nostra occupazione non può più essere spiegata come temporanea, in attesa di una soluzione al conflitto con i palestinesi. Ci stiamo dirigendo verso l’annessione, e non mancano inviti a raddoppiare i 500.000 coloni israeliani già presenti in Cisgiordania.

L’esercito è del tutto complice nel sequestro illegale di terre e nella creazione di avamposti di insediamento. Il governo usa impropriamente molti milioni di shekel per i coloni. Abusa delle sue stesse leggi. I coloni uccidono i palestinesi e distruggono case e automobili. I tribunali intervengono raramente. I soldati stanno a guardare.

Neghiamo ai palestinesi qualsiasi speranza di libertà e di vita normale. Crediamo alla nostra stessa propaganda secondo cui alcuni milioni di persone dovrebbero accettare docilmente inferiorità e oppressione perpetue.

Il governo sta spingendo Israele sempre più verso un comportamento disumano e crudele, al di là di qualsiasi difesa. Non è necessario essere religiosi per sapere che questo è un vergognoso tradimento della moralità e della storia ebraica.

Per decenni ho difeso Israele dalle accuse di apartheid. Ora non posso più farlo.

[tweetingukpolitics]

[probablyasocialecologist]

According to the Sunday Times account, between 2017 and 2020 McSweeney failed to declare £730,000 in donations from a slew of millionaire businessmen, misreported and underreported other payments, and falsely assured supportive MPs that electoral law was being followed. A 2021 investigation by the Electoral Commission found Labour Together guilty of more than 20 separate breaches of the law, imposed a higher-end fine, and rebuked the organisation for failing to provide a “reasonable excuse”. But by then, as Pogrund and Yorke observe, “money at a scale rarely seen in Labour politics had already changed the party’s future, setting Starmer on the path to Downing Street.” McSweeney (and through him, Starmer) has since avoided being connected publicly to the scandal – until now. The old Watergate adage of “follow the money” may at last be shedding some media light on Starmer’s political ascendancy. The Sunday Times revelations are of a piece with Starmer’s own refusal to reveal the donors to his leadership campaign until after the ballot when it was too late. Pull at the threads of this story and preferred official accounts of Labour party politics over the last five years begin to unravel, with a far more sinister picture of antidemocratic plotting and scheming emerging instead.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Germany's anti-Semitism expert insists that saying Israel is adopting Apartheid policies is "inherently anti-Semitic." But South African Jews who have immigrated to Israel find themselves in agreement: these policies match what we recall. Benjamin Pogrund: I’ve lived through it before: grabbing power, fascism and racism, destroying democracy. Israel is going where South Africa was 75 years ago. It’s like watching the replay of a horror movie. In 1948, as a teenager in Cape Town, I followed the results of the May 26 election on a giant board on a newspaper building. The winner-takes-all electoral system produced distorted results: the Afrikaner Nationalist party, with its smaller partner, won 79 parliamentary seats against 74 for the United Party and its smaller partner. But the Nats, as they were called, in fact won only 37.7 percent of the vote against the opposition’s 49.18 percent. Although the opposition got more than 11 percent more votes, the Nats said they had a majority and could do what they wanted.

In the Israel of 2023, I'm reliving some of these same experiences. Our proportional election system can distort results as well: last November, Likud, with its smaller partners, won 64 seats against 56 for the opposition. In fact, the right-wing bloc won by only 0.6 percent of the vote. The 0.6 percent government says that it represents the will of the majority and can do whatever it wants. It goes on saying this even though a poll from the Israel Democracy Institute shows that less than one-third of Israelis back its law to end the so-called reasonableness standard, which allowed the High Court to overturn government decisions it deemed unreasonable.

[Haaretz]

[Robert Scott Horton]

[hailthebonegod]

"Left Out" by Patrick Maguire and Gabriel Pogrund (Book)

It's a book covering the factional battles and tribulations faced by Corbyn's Labour party between 2017 and 2019. It's really good. Buckets of information. I could've used more details on the antisemitism stuff, they covered Corbyn's offices' response but not that many of the inciting incidents.

It was brutal reading for me as I was pretty invested in politics at the time. It portrays Corbyn as kind, but flawed. McDonnell comes off very well.

[oyvinja]

Written before the ongoing atrocities, but all the more relevant now.

[andronetalks]

Revealed: the Hamas chief who lives in a London council house

The Sunday Times By Gabriel Pogrund and Anshel Pfeffer Saturday October 21 2023, 6.00pm BST A Hamas fugitive who “ran the group’s terrorist operations in the West Bank” and served on its ruling body lives in London in a council property he recently bought with a £112,000 discount. Muhammad Qassem Sawalha evaded Israel’s security services using a relative’s passport and fled to the UK in the…

[thenetionalnews]

Piers Morgan reacts to claims Prince Charles accepted 'bagfuls of cash'

Piers Morgan reacts to claims Prince Charles accepted ‘bagfuls of cash’

Piers Morgan reacts to claims Prince Charles accepted ‘bagfuls of cash’ Former Good Morning Britain host and outspoken journalist Piers Morgan has reacted to the claims Prince Charles received 3 million euros in cash from a former Qatari prime minister, some of it in shopping bags. Commenting of the Sunday Times reporter Gabriel Pogrund tweet where he shared the news about the future king, Piers…

[gettothestabbing]

Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel. #Gaza #Palestine #Israel

In May of this year, Twitter user John Gilmore dug up the six-year-old tweet, forcing Omar to defend herself.

She responded: "Drawing attention to the apartheid Israeli regime is far from hating Jews. You are a hateful sad man, I pray to Allah you get the help you need and find happiness."

The oft-repeated notion that Israel is an "apartheid" nation is incorrect on multiple grounds. Perhaps the most succinct refutation of this idea comes from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which writes:

Arab citizens of Israel enjoy the full range of civil and political rights, including the right to organize politically, the right to vote and the right to speak and publish freely. Israeli Arabs and other non-Jewish Israelis serve as members of Israel’s security forces, are elected to parliament and appointed to the country’s highest courts. They are afforded equal educational opportunities, and there are ongoing initiatives to further improve the economic standing of all of Israel’s minorities.

With a quick Google search, one can find many other pieces countering the claim that Israel is an apartheid state. South African-born journalist Benjamin Pogrund writes in The New York Times:

Suicide bombings and murders by ramming pedestrians with vehicles never happened in South Africa. Yet Israel has had them aplenty. Security concerns have dictated Israel’s precautions and responses, not an ideology of apartheid racism. ...South African apartheid rigidly enforced racial laws. Israel is not remotely comparable.

Even Pogrund, who is vocally and vociferously critical of Israel on numerous fronts, admits that the only democracy in the Middle East is not remotely comparable to South African apartheid.

[mariacallous]

POLITICO London Playbook

DRIVING THE DAY

BREAKING THIS MORNING: In the last few minutes, Playbook is told Boris Johnson has ordered a Cabinet Office inquiry into allegations by Conservative MP Nus Ghani that she was fired from her job as a minister because she is Muslim. Johnson moved after two Cabinet ministers — Health Secretary Sajid Javid and Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi — both called for a “proper” investigation into the disturbing Islamophobia claims against beleaguered Chief Whip Mark Spencer, who denies making the alleged remarks about Ghani’s “Muslimness” at a reshuffle meeting two years ago. Playbook is told Johnson also spoke to Ghani about the probe last night. The story dominates the news agenda as Westminster awaits civil service investigator Sue Gray’s own inquiry into the Partygate scandal that could determine Johnson’s fate as PM this week. Here we go.

How the Ghani story unfolded: Tory infighting ratcheted up on Saturday night when the story dropped from the Sunday Times’ Caroline Wheeler, Rosamund Irwin and Gabriel Pogrund. They reported Ghani’s account of a meeting with government whips following her sacking as a transport minister in the February 2020 mini-reshuffle, where she alleged she was told that her “Muslimness” had been raised as an “issue” and that her status as a “Muslim woman minister” was making Conservative colleagues uncomfortable. Ghani did not name Spencer as the person who made these comments, but he (somewhat chaotically) identified himself, insisting: “These accusations are completely false and I consider them to be defamatory. I have never used those words attributed to me.”

How the No. 10 line developed: On the Sunday morning broadcast round, Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab argued that because Ghani “hasn’t made a formal complaint” despite being “asked to do so,” there would “be no specific investigation into this.” Downing Street confirmed that position, issuing a statement revealing Johnson had met with Ghani in July 2020 to discuss her allegations and written to her urging her to make a formal complaint to the Conservative Party. Ghani then hit back with a statement of her own explaining that she had asked Johnson for a government probe rather than internal party inquiry because it “happened on government business.” Parties marking their own homework on these sorts of things is not ideal in any case. Ghani said: “Not a day has gone by without thinking about what I was told and wondering why I was in politics, while hoping for the government to take this seriously.”

Reverse ferret: The Telegraph’s Lucy Fisher reports that Johnson came under pressure from Javid and Zahawi to drop Downing Street’s resistance to a government-led inquiry, and on Sunday evening he relented. Playbook is told the Cabinet Office will run the investigation, though it remains to be seen exactly who will be in charge. Christopher Geidt is the “independent adviser on ministers’ interests,” whose job it is to advise the PM on matters relating to the ministerial code (not just relating to wallpaper). Alternatively, Sue Gray will be looking for something to do after this week. Or it could be someone else entirely.

Who’s telling the truth? The immediate issue for the Cabinet Office probe is that Ghani and Spencer appear to be offering two completely irreconcilable versions of events, and it may well end up being one person’s word against another. Ghani won support from several senior Tory colleagues yesterday and was praised as a person of integrity. Spencer has had some private backing from others, as well as Tory backbencher Michael Fabricant taking it upon himself to tour the studios in his defense yesterday (not very helpfully). Playbook is told Johnson and Downing Street have been perplexed by the case, as it’s not likely Ghani would make something like that up, but they also consider it out of character and career suicide for Spencer to have said those words.

What happens next: Johnson is on a visit this morning and will endure a broadcast clip around lunchtime. Playbook supposes the new inquiry means the PM will answer that he can’t comment further while an investigation is ongoing. Over to the Cabinet Office, where scandals definitely don’t go to die.

GOING GRAY WAITING

INQUIRY, INQUIRY, THEY’VE ALL GOT AN INQUIRY: Even Vladimir Putin starting a European war is unlikely to turn Westminster’s attention from the main domestic news event of the week: the publication of Sue Gray’s report on Partygate. Playbook is sorry to say we may be waiting a little while further before her findings are revealed. The Sunday Times’ Tim Shipman reported that Gray is due to interview Johnson’s former chief aide Dominic Cummings today. Since he is at the center of many of the allegations, Gray may need some time to consider his testimony. There had been some hopes she might report back “early” this week, either Monday or Tuesday. Playbook is assured it won’t be today, and there is speculation it could now come later in the week. The annoying reality is at the moment no one really knows.

Which means … that for all the talk of this week being decisive for Johnson’s premiership, with the Gray findings potentially triggering a confidence vote that could theoretically see the PM ousted by the weekend, it may take a little while to get going — and we’re going to have to put up with a load more noise until the report eventually drops.

How it will happen: Gray is expected to give Johnson and No. 10 a first look, then publish either a few hours later or the following day. Johnson’s team has asked Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle if he can go to the despatch box “almost immediately” to make a statement, the Times’ Henry Zeffman reports.

How much detail will we get? There has been speculation that the for-public-consumption publication will not include the names of mid-ranking and junior officials involved, and not include the full transcripts of email chains and interviews — a controversy not helped by the PM having some say over the publication process. Labour’s Angela Rayner tells Gray to get on with it and blasts: “Boris Johnson cannot be allowed to cover-up or obscure any of the truth when he has insisted on a hugely protracted internal probe to tell him which parties he attended and what happened in his own home. The Sue Gray report must be published in its entirety with all accompanying evidence.”

Uh oh: The i’s Arj Singh reckons Gray will go beyond merely setting out the facts she’s uncovered, and will “make some kind of judgment on the events in turn, where it is possible with the evidence, but without calling for sackings.”

In the meantime … expect No. 10 to be asked about Tim Shipman’s report that alleged lockdown-breaking gatherings in the Downing Street flat are being looked at … that email-loving Principal Private Secretary Martin Reynolds has flipped and is now helping Gray extensively … plus speculation that Gray has access to the check-in and check-out logs of Downing Street aides’ passes … the Telegraph’s Dani Sheridan’s story that Johnson’s official diary will be examined … and the Indy’s Anna Isaac’s eye-catching story suggesting No. 10 officials are holding back information and photos from the inquiry. Good luck getting any answers.

‘Ello ‘ello ‘ello, what’s all this then? Today’s Telegraph splash by Martin Evans and Lucy Fisher reveals Gray has interviewed Downing Street police officers about what they saw on the nights in question. A source tells the paper the cops have been able to provide Gray with “a lot of information” and that some of it is “extremely damning.” Which raises the question for the Met: If what the police were seeing was so damning, why didn’t they do anything about it, either then or since?

The Tel turns: Asked how significant the material disclosed by the police was, the source in the story tells the paper: “Put it this way, if Boris Johnson is still Prime Minister by the end of the week, I’d be very surprised.”

Trying to keep Johnson in No. 10 … is the PM’s new shadow whipping operation, as revealed by Steve Swinford, Henry Zeffman and Oli Wright in Saturday’s Times. Johnson’s allies had come to a realization, even before the Nus Ghani scandal, that official Chief Whip Mark Spencer had lost authority with the parliamentary party following the Owen Paterson debacle, and that the PM needed to call up much of his former leadership campaign team to have a proper operation in place ahead of any confidence vote. Front-and-center is Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, who is praised as one of the most effective political operators in the Tory Party and comes armed with a remarkably reliable spreadsheet keeping track of MPs’ loyalties. The Mirror’s Rachel Wearmouth reports Shapps was due in Manchester today on a planned HS2 visit but pulled out on Friday, just as his spreadsheet was loading up. Former whips Chris Pincher, Chris Heaton Harris and Nigel Adams, as well as long-time ally Conor Burns, make up the rest of the “avengers” team. (© Shippers.)

The case to keep him: Johnson’s allies believe Tory MPs have turned on him in alarming numbers for four reasons: They feel ignored by his Downing Street operation and the whips; they think he has been too cautious on COVID; they disagree with his proposed tax rises and the direction of the government; and they are furious about the Partygate scandal and the effect on the polls. One supporter of the PM argued that the parties were the boiling point rather than the root cause of MPs’ disquiet, and that it’s the other three factors that have caused unhappiness to bubble away for some time. They argued that Johnson will try to convince backbenchers that his No. 10 team and the whips office can be fixed to make them listen more to their concerns; that Britain will lead the world out of the pandemic with no more restrictions ever again; and that he deserves a chance to govern in “peace time” and is the only politician who can lead on the “leveling up” agenda that saw the Tories crack the red wall — before cutting taxes at the next election. On Partygate, the source said the failure of last week’s “pork pie plot” shows MPs have not yet resolved to remove Johnson, and that he can convince them to avoid the “travesty” of ousting him before he can deliver for 2019 Tory voters. Expect these sorts of arguments to be made to Tory MPs all week.

No. 10 vs. the ’22: One of the chief concerns of Team Johnson is that several members of the executive of the 1922 committee — a small group of MPs that governs the leadership process for the Conservative Party — appears to be actively working against Johnson. You might have thought the organization in charge of leadership rules and announcing confidence votes would be impartial. Not in the Tory Party, where the current ’22 Chair Graham Brady almost ran for leader last time, and its two vice chairs, William Wragg and Nus Ghani, are involved in very public disputes with No. 10. The 1922’s Executive Secretary Gary Sambrook was also named as one of the pork pie plotters. Worryingly for Johnson, the ’22 executive is expected to vote this week on reducing the time limit between confidence votes from a year to six months, meaning that if MPs fail to scalp Johnson this week, they could try again in the summer. The dynamic with the ’22 is fascinating, has been a key factor behind the scenes in recent days and will be vitally important in the week ahead.

Lost his Wragg: Public administration committee Chair William Wragg is due to meet the police this week to complain that Tory MPs have been blackmailed by whips into supporting the government. The Times’ Henry Zeffman and Steve Swinford report Wragg and co. are looking at sending Mark Spencer subject access requests forcing him to hand over emails and messages containing their personal data. Subject access requests are viewed in Westminster as a nuclear weapon that is never to be used, with everyone in mainstream politics relying on mutually assured destruction preventing total chaos. That they are being discussed goes some way to demonstrating how bad things are in the Tory Party right now.

THE ANTI-FABRICANTS: Of all the Tory MPs and ministers still emphasizing their continued support for Johnson and the government in the past few weeks, not all have expressed it in terms that make it sound like they’re completely into it. Playbook’s Andrew McDonald has a list of those Tory MPs who are still with the PM — but only sort of.

[newstfionline]

Britain has pinned its future on the world’s most volatile commodity: Trump’s goodwill

By Gabriel Pogrund, Washington Post, July 13, 2018

A good Anglophile knows that an audience with Queen Elizabeth II is planned well in advance: from the way a guest greets her--bow or curtsy--to the way she is addressed: “Your majesty” first, “ma’am” thereafter.

In the court of Emperor Trump--as the Sun’s political editor Tom Newton Dunn dubbed the White House on Thursday--nothing is certain. Britain and its prime minister have learned this lesson the hard way.

Prime Minister Theresa May already faced an arguably impossible task ahead of the president’s visit: Impress Trump and shore up a trade deal without appearing too deferential before a disapproving public.

A YouGov poll revealed only half of Britons felt Trump’s visit should have gone ahead, and the majority of the British population think he is a racist. Yet supporters of Brexit see a U.S. trade deal as a central plank of their strategy: Vote Leave, the campaign to leave the European Union, said post-Brexit trade deals centering on the United States could create 284,000 jobs.

10 Downing Street resolved this tension by planning a swift “business visit” that would avoid protests or any population centers. It also urged Trump’s team to avoid meetings that could lead to a breach of protocol and undermine talks, such as appearing on Nigel Farage’s shock-jock radio show.

The Sun interview that appeared late Monday exceeded the prime minister’s worst nightmares. The president stunned Britain by declaring there would “probably” be no free trade deal with Britain if Theresa May adopted her current Brexit strategy. The tabloid concluded: “US deal is off!”

Jacob Rees-Mogg--an member of Parliament whose aristocratic drawl and rich historical references have earned him the nickname “the Honorable Member for the 18th Century”--has led the opposition to May’s post-Brexit blueprint, and is a favorite to succeed her. He pounced on the remarks, saying Friday morning that Trump’s interview proved he understood the flaws of her plan more than government ministers.

Within hours, however, Trump had flip-flopped and denied criticizing the prime minister, insisting: “We want to trade with the U.K., and the U.K. wants to trade with us.” He even said she was an “incredible woman” doing a “great job.” Such hyperbole is rarely reserved for the British prime minister, whose aloofness and unpopularity led to her party losing a parliamentary majority in the most recent general election. This week her approval ratings reached an all-time low--with only 25 percent in favor.

The reality is that no one knows which position to take more seriously--the Sun interview or Trump’s U-turn--and the president may not know himself.

He has made clear he wants Brexit to succeed, both as a lifelong Euroskeptic and a person who predicted his own populist victory would be “Brexit plus plus plus.” Former president Barack Obama said a vote to leave the bloc would put Britain “at the back of the queue,” so signing a trade deal, further undermining his predecessor, has a special allure.

At the same time, the president may also be sincere in his belief that May’s blueprint leaves Britain too closely entangled with the E.U. to make a trade deal with the United States palatable or even possible. “We have enough difficulty with the European Union,” he said Thursday.

Nor is his opposition to May’s strategy without precedent: In less publicized remarks made late last year, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross warned Britain on Trump’s behalf that it must strike a deal with Europe that “takes into account our commercial interests and does not hinder the development of a closer post-Brexit U.S.-U.K. relationship.”

This illustrates how a trade deal with May’s Britain would bring into conflict two of Trump’s core convictions: that Brexit is essentially good and that dealing with multilateral treaties or institutions, whether NAFTA or the E.U., is bad. As Britain’s departure from the bloc draws nearer, Downing Street will hope Trump is willing to compromise and put his faith in May’s Brexit.

The fact remains that Trump is one of a handful of world leaders who has expressed a belief in Brexit, and he could yet provide a trade deal as talks with the E.U. founder. But Britain has today learned that its future is built on the whims of a world leader who is perhaps more mercurial than any other.

[techcrunchappcom]

New Post has been published on http://techcrunchapp.com/israels-cabinet-meets-to-finalise-annexation-plans-the-guardian/

Israel's cabinet meets to finalise annexation plans - The Guardian

The Israeli cabinet will meet on Sunday to finalise plans to annex parts of the West Bank amid growing international opposition and calls for sanctions to be imposed if the proposal is implemented.

Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said Israel will “apply sovereignty” to up to 30% of the West Bank, covering Israeli settlements and the rich agricultural lands of the Jordan Valley, from 1 July.

On Friday, two rockets were fired from Gaza towards Israel a day after the Palestinian group Hamas warned that annexation amounted to a “declaration of war”. In response, Israeli air force jets struck two military facilities in the southern Gaza Strip, the army said.

The head of Mossad, the Israeli secret service, visited Amman last week to discuss the annexation plan with King Abdullah of Jordan after he warned of a “massive conflict” with Israel if it proceeded.

Despite Netanyahu’s pledge to give the order to annex on Wednesday, he may be forced to dilute or delay the proposal after three days of deliberations at the White House last week ended without an endorsement.

What would be left would be a Palestinian Bantustan, islands of disconnected land completely surrounded by Israel

UN experts’ statement

Netanyahu had been counting on the backing of the Trump administration after it unveiled its “vision for peace” six months ago which said Jewish settlements in the West Bank – illegal under international law – and the Jordan Valley would be incorporated into Israel. Kellyanne Conway, a top aide to the US president, said on Thursday that Donald Trump was poised to make a “big announcement” on Israel’s planned annexation, but White House officials later said talks were set to continue.

Although there is substantial international opposition to annexation, Trump’s endorsement would shore up his crucial support base among evangelical Christians in the US for November’s presidential election.

Hardline nationalists in Israel regard Trump’s presidency as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to carry out measures that were unacceptable to previous US administrations. The Israeli government, aware that the most pro-Israel president in recent history could fail to win re-election in four months’ time, is keen to move fast.

Last week, the UK, Germany and France were among seven European members of the UN security council that issued a joint statement saying the annexation plan was “a clear violation of international law” that would jeopardise the possibility of a future Palestinian state and would threaten security in the region.

The statement added: “Annexation would have consequences for our close relationship with Israel and would not be recognised by us.”

The statement followed a letter signed by more than 1,000 European parliamentarians, including senior Conservative figures in the UK, which said “acquisition of territory by force … must have commensurate consequences” and called on European leaders to “act decisively”.

The Labour party, a former Conservative chair of the foreign affairs select committee and a former British consul-general to Jerusalem called this weekend for a ban on the import to the UK of goods from illegal settlements in the West Bank in response to annexation.

The Israeli settlement of Mitzpe Kramim on the West Bank Photograph: Menahem Kahana/AFP/Getty Images

The archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster have voiced their opposition to the Israeli plan. The Holy Land Coordination Group, composed of bishops from Europe, North America and South Africa, warned the proposed annexation “would only bring more conflict, suffering and division”.

Almost 50 UN experts said in a statement earlier this month that the acquisition of territory by force was a violation of international law. “The international community has prohibited annexation precisely because it incites wars, economic devastation, political instability, systematic human rights abuses and widespread human suffering,” they said.

Human rights violations over more than 50 years of occupation of the West Bank would, the statement said: “Only intensify after annexation. What would be left of the West Bank would be a Palestinian Bantustan, islands of disconnected land completely surrounded by Israel and with no territorial connection to the outside world …

“The morning after annexation would be the crystallisation of an already unjust reality: two peoples living in the same space, ruled by the same state, but with profoundly unequal rights. This is a vision of a 21st-century apartheid.”

A prominent South African Jewish journalist living in Israel has also drawn parallels with the former regime in his home country. Benjamin Pogrund, 87, who reported on events under apartheid for most of his career, previously held the view that applying the term to Israel was “at best ignorant and naive and at worst cynical and manipulative”. But in an interview last week, he said annexation would mean “Israeli overlords in an occupied area, and the people over whom they will be ruling will not have basic rights. That will be apartheid, and we will merit the charge”.

Last week, the Board of Deputies of British Jews agreed to debate a motion reaffirming support for a two-state solution and warning that “unilateral steps” would damage efforts to restart peace talks.

The decision followed growing unease among British Jews over the plan. A letter signed by more than 40 of the most prominent names in British Jewry, including Sir Simon Schama, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Dame Vivien Duffield, warned of an existential threat to Israel and of “grave consequences for the Palestinian people”.

The signatories said their alarm was “shared by large numbers of the British Jewish community, including many in its current leadership”.

Netanyahu’s pledge to annex parts of the West Bank was made during his campaign to win Israel’s third general election within 12 months. Annexation would be “another glorious chapter in the history of Zionism”, he said at his swearing-in ceremony last month.

[beardedpuppymoon]

Critics liken Israel's West Financial institution annexation to modern-day model of apartheid https://www.today-24.com/critics-liken-israels-west-financial-institution-annexation-to-modern-day-model-of-apartheid/?feed_id=21874&_unique_id=5ef3a9785592c Benjamin Pogrund spent many years bat...