Russell Tribunal and Israel

Today it will be a bit about politics and history. And with relation not only (and you may find not even primerily) to Israel though the relation to her is important at the moment.

I was inspired by such news
Alice Walker refuses second Hebrew edition of her book

And of course I was sorry that a book won't make it to those who might be interested are are not capable of reading it in other languages or of putting their hands on first edition. But of course the author has a right to decline offer of publishing her book, much as I don't agree with her motives it is her choice.

The more interesting part - for me - was about so called Russell Tribunal, not recognised legally yet "judging" "crimes against Palestinians".
Alice Walker was certainly inspired by Russell Tribunal about which in her own words she writes:
Alice Walker's thoughts about Russell's Tribunal

Russell Tribunal was established in 1954 and originally was intended to "judge" American crimes in Vietnam. It was established by Bertrand Russell and Jean Paul Sartre. Now, this is interesting. Not denying methematical genius of Russell and wonderful writing talent of both gentlemen with all due respect it takes other virtues to be a judge of others. So let us chack who were they as people, not artists.

Bertrand Russell was imprisoned during I World War for vehemently opposing presence of American troops in UK. He was pacifist with all his heart but on somebody else's expanse. Try to imagine what would the world be if - as Russell wished - German aggression would not be countered neither during IWW nor during IIWW (of course if first would be the case there would have been no IIWW, just German hegemony in Europe and colonies). Being honestly and wholeheartedly against aggresive war I can't help feeling that only somebody securly born, educated and placed in mighty (at the time) country behind the Channel could be pacifist in this way - he gave no indication what were the athers - directly attacked and being murdered by troops to do (taking they could not fight back). Possibly just be killed - and they did (though fighting). All soldiers and civilians and resistance movement in attacked countries were being killed while Russell might have been writing about how bad it was to fight oppressor - I wish he was in Poland 1939, in German concentration camps, in France 1940, in attacked by Japanese Nankin in 1938, in Israel attacked by 5 armies a day after it was born in 1948. Let him tell those people they should just let themselves be murdered because fighting back was immoral. Well.....

Jean Paul Sartre - open admirer of Stalinist USSR, who even after visiting it in 1954 didn't cease to praize it. I have deep regard for his inteligence therefore I have to question his - any - moral capability. He couldn't not know about USSR's cooperation with Nazi Germany, about the attack of USSR on Poland in September 1939, and jointly with Nazis held parade (France was still free at the moment and it was in the newspapers). He couldn't not know about purges, about millions starved to death in Ukraine in 30s, about Stalin's cooperation with Hitler for two years, about murder of 20.000 Polish officers, about decline by Stalin acting as mediator between Japanese government and Americans in July 1945 (had he done it maybe the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs wouldn't be used and without neccessity of invasion of the islands - hard to know but there was a chance). He knew about gulags, yet he praised USSR until 1956 (including time when he organised Russell's Tribunal).

Let me tell you something personal - I grew up in Eastern Europe during communist years. I lost some of my family to Soviet attrocities in early 50s (I wasn't born yet, but I know their stories). I know how horrible were those years under occupation by so praised by Sartre USSR. And am I to regard this communist, knowing communism is responsible for 100.000.000 deaths in XX century, the moral authority? No way!!!!!

Russell Tribunal was not preoccupied with atrocities committed by Communist Vietnam and Soviets, only by American atrocities. There had to be - unfortunately - bad and horrible deeds on both sides - it was cruel war. But the one to start it was Communist Vietnam and both sides had their share of guilt, yet Soviets and communists were untouchable for tribunal (and I don't mean in legal sense or executionary one - that is obvious, but RT is no legal tribunal, but they never questioned conduct of communists, they were "heroes").

Years passed, now Russell Tribunal is dealing with Palestine. It doesn't preoccupy with broken ceasefires by Hamas, with suicide bombers, with murders of civilians. It is acceptable to them. They are only interested in showing any - even remote - misconduct by Israelis. Just like for Russell it were British who were guilty of fighting in IWW and IIWW (sure, better to give everything to Germany at once, including UK not only Czech as Chamberlain did), and for Sartre anybody but communists even when they were Nazis closest ally.

Such Tribunal is more like International Communist Party (especially when one goes through its members). Everybody may have their political views and be neonazi despite crimes of Nazizm, or communist, despite what Castro does, what Stalin did, what Mao Zedong did and so on (let me just remind that wars in Africa were often sponsored by communists, including those indicated as most miserable by Ms Walker). But let nobody say that gathering of communist calling themselves Tribunal hasn't moral stand deserving recognition. Millions still remember - or worse still, experience as in North Korea, what is communism.