I received this message today from a long-time subscriber.

He did seem to take on my gravely articulated suggestion that Israel is becoming ever more extreme in its behaviour and that sooner or later, a publication that defines itself by left progressive values may have to reassess its position. I was surprised by his, almost humble, acknowledgment of this, but I’m sure this conciliatory stance is primarily a damage limitation exercise. Who knows how many other long term subscribers like me are pulling the plug!

Keeping quiet – Clinton supporter Laurie ‘ex-red’ Penney

It is clear that the campaign against the New Statesman’s censorship is having an effect if the editor rings up someone who has cancelled their subscription.  I have also heard from other sources that there are ructions within the editorial board of the New Statesman as a result of what has happened. In particular some of its more left-wing contributors (no not Owen Jones!) are also unhappy about the heavy handed censorship of Cowley and Helen Lewis.

The attempt to suggest that the article was an ‘advertorial’ is merely smoke and mirrors.  The article that was pulled clearly said ‘Presented by Palestine Solidarity Campaign’ – there was a partnership between PSC and the New Statesman.  The nature of that partnership is irrelevant.  This was an article by Salah Ajarma, a well known Palestinian activist and founder of the Lajee Cultural Centre in Aida refugee camp outside Bethlehem. 

The fact is that an article by a peace activist living under a 50 year old military occupation by the world’s fourth major military power was pulled at the behest of an organisation which is a propaganda and lobby organisation acting on behalf of the same military power.  Imagine in the days of South African Apartheid, an article by an anti-Apartheid activist being pulled at the instigation of John Carlisle MP, a well known Tory MP who supported the South African state or an article on Chile by an opponent of the Pinochet regime being pulled at the behest of the military regime there.

What happened is a disgrace.  Israel operates two legal systems on the West Bank.  One, a military regime and military law for the Palestinians and another is the civil Israeli legal system for Jewish settlers.  In military courts there is a 99.7% conviction rate.  Palestinians have no right to a lawyer, cannot see a lawyer for weeks on end, are subject to torture as a matter of course and are convicted in a language that they don’t even understand.  This is the system that the New Statesman, in bowing to the demands of an quasi-Israeli government organisation has upheld.

The strangulation of Bethlehem, the birthplace of the Christian religion, by Israel and its Apartheid Wall, an ugly structure over twice as high as the Berlin Wall, is a matter of fact.  The commercial life of Bethlehem is slowly being squeezed out of it by Israel’s occupation.  In its place we see settlements like Gilo, which UK Media describes as a ‘neighbourhood of southern Jerusalem.’  The New Statesman took silenced the voice of the oppressed living in a refugee camp created by Israel’s ethnic cleansing, at the behest of an Israeli funded McCarthyist organisation.  Next time the New Statesman and its writers discusses identity politics and cultural racism it can reflect on its own practices.  Or maybe not.