Guardian champions their favorite Israeli causes: Disloyalty and Insubordination

Former AP correspondent Matti Friedman, in his essay at Tablet on media coverage of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, explained that reporters “working in the international press corps here understands quickly that what is important in the Israel-Palestinian story is Israel”, whose “every action and flaw is analyzed, criticized and aggressively reported”, while, alternately, “Palestinians are not taken seriously as agents of their own fate”.

The Guardian coverage of Israel and the greater region perfectly reflects this principle.

Though the Guardian has completely ignored an AP story on growing evidence that Hamas used human shields during the war, and failed to report even more dramatic reports that Hamas may have used violence against UNRWA employees, they’ve published over 10,600 words in 7 separate stories relating to one protest letter by 43 Israelis (who serve or have served in the IDF’s 8200 intelligence unit), threatening that they’d no longer serve in the unit due to their political opposition to participating in “Israel’s military occupation over the territories”.

Here’s how the Guardian’s Israel page looks today, September 16th.

seven

You can read the whole letter by the 43 here, but the following paragraphs are quite instructive:

We, veterans of Unit 8200, reserve soldiers both past and present, declare that we refuse to take part in actions against Palestinians and refuse to continue serving as tools in deepening the military control over the Occupied Territories.

Millions of Palestinians have been living under Israeli military rule for over 47 years. This regime denies the basic rights and expropriates extensive tracts of land for Jewish settlements subject to separate and different legal systems, jurisdiction and law enforcement. This reality is not an inevitable result of the state’s efforts to protect itself but rather the result of choice. Settlement expansion has nothing to do with national security. The same goes for restrictions on construction and development, economic exploitation of the West Bank, collective punishment of inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, and the actual route of the separation barrier.

While the Guardian has naturally framed the 43 Israelis as “refuskniks”, and an honorable group taking a principled stand on behalf of freedom of conscience, do we even have to ask how the paper would respond if a group of right-wing Israelis in the same unit, prior to the 2005 evacuation of Gaza, signed a letter refusing to take part in surveillance of extremist Jewish groups in Gaza on the grounds that they opposed the evacuation?

Indeed, as a recent Jerusalem Post editorial reminded us, every Israeli soldier, upon induction, pledges to “maintain loyalty to the State of Israel, its laws and legally authorized government, to accept without condition or reservation the discipline of the IDF, to obey all orders and instructions by authorized commanders”.

As the overwhelming majority of Israelis who serve in the IDF understand, there isn’t an asterisk at the end of their oath of allegiance which grants exceptions to those who disagree, on political grounds, with the mission assigned to them.  

Whilst soldiers are always free to take complaints to their superiors, the only legitimate means of changing military policy – given that the IDF is of course subordinate to the government – is by participating in elections and using other legitimate tools within the state’s democratic framework, to change government policy.  Indeed, the near universal criticism within Israel (on the Left and Right) to the protest letter, as well as fact that the 43 chose to release their letter to the media and not to work within the system to effect change, is a good indicator of just how unpopular their case is in the country they purport to love.

Finally, the Guardian’s fawning coverage of the 43 – as we’ve seen in their obsessive coverage of Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli who engaged in treason, and, closer to their London offices, their role in the release of British security secrets by Edward Snowden – the media group’s claim to champion liberal values is fatally undermined by their elitist contempt for principles such as patriotism, loyalty, respect for the law and restraint – values which represent the sine qua non of any real, functioning, stable and sustainable democracy. 

Gideon Levy recycles a likely fabricated Golda Meir quote for the Irish Times

As CAMERA has previously documented, in 2004 Gideon Levy claimed in a Ha’aretz column that “Golda Meir said that after what the Nazis did to us, we can do whatever we want,” but was later forced to admit that he had no source for the quote. In an email to CAMERA, he acknowledged: “Therefore we dropped the quotation in the original version in Hebrew and by mistake it was printed in the English version.”

He’s at it again.

A gushing profile of Levy, a favorite of anti-Zionists in the Western media, was published on September 11th in the Irish Times by Lara Marlow, titled “Holocaust makes Israelis think international law doesn’t apply.

levy

It included the following passage, which neatly falls in line with the characteristically malign narrative advanced in the headline:

On a national level, “Golda Meir said that after the Holocaust, Jews have the right to do anything they want,” Levy continues. “The Holocaust makes Israelis think international law doesn’t apply to them, because they are the ultimate victims of history; the only victims.”

Anyone even remotely familiar with Levy’s body of work would likely be quite skeptical of those who might suggest he simply ‘forgot’ to have previously acknowledged the absence of anything resembling a source for the quote.

Guardian ‘forgets’ to mention Steven Salaita’s most hateful Tweets

Steven Salaita is a former Virginia Tech professor who accepted a tenure-track position at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign – an appointment which was later withdrawn by the university after a series of Tweets about Israel, Jews and antisemitism came to light.  The Guardian’s report on the row and Salaita’s recent efforts to get his appointment reinstated (Professor fired for Israel criticism urges University of Illinois to reinstate him, Mark Guarino, Sept. 9th) was compromised by serious omissions.

In addition to the troubling implicit suggestion in the article that the impetus behind the decision by the university to withdraw Salaita’s nomination was influenced by threats from wealthy Jewish donors, the Guardian completely ignored the more egregious examples of truly hateful Tweets by Salaita.

The Guardian report described Salaita’s Tweets benignly as “critical of Israel”, and later cited only these two examples:

“Only Israel can murder around 300 children in the span of a few weeks and insist that it is the victim,” said one [Tweet]. “If Netanyahu appeared on TV with a necklace made from the teeth of Palestinian children, would anybody be surprised,” asked another [Tweet].

Later, it quoted Salaita:

At a press conference on Tuesday held at the university YMCA, [Salaita] did not apologise for the tweets, but said that his “messages are no doubt passionate and unfiltered” and “reflect my deep dismay at the deaths of more than 2,000 innocent Palestinians”.

He said he was troubled by the emails, saying that they are “part of a nationwide concerted effort by wealthy and well-organised groups to attack pro-Palestinian students and faculty and silence their speech.”

However, the Guardian didn’t provide the whole picture – and omitted a few especially relevant Tweets by Salaita, such as these:

Jewish Zionists are partly responsible for antisemitism (Tweet)

1

Antisemitism is now honorable (Tweet)

3

Israel is partly responsible for the poverty of racial minorities in the US (Tweet)

2

 Genocide charge / Nazi analogy (Tweet)

4

Another Nazi analogy (Tweet)

last

A truly fair and honest Guardian report on the row – even one which raised legitimate questions about academic freedom – would have revealed these truly abhorrent Tweets so readers could fairly assess whether such vitriol can be reasonably be characterized as (prt the language used by university officials) “disrespectful and demeaning speech that promotes malice”.

h/t Martin Kramer

Robert Fisk suggests that ISIS violence is payback for “Palestine in 1948″

When we last visited the Independent’s ‘award winning‘ Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk, he was warning about the (previously unknown) dangers posed to UK society by “radicalized” British Zionists, and his most recent Indy op-ed on the roots of ISIS jihad strives for similar heights of polemical fantasy. 

In a disjointed and tedious piece, Fisk cites several jihadist grievances which arguably have led to the Islamic State’s almost unparalleled barbarism. These include the West’s failure to stop the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Bosnia, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and…yes, you guessed it.

All of which takes us back to that phrase “radicalisation” – replaced most recently, I notice, by “brainwashing”, presumably unearthed from the Korean War Communist psycho-war against US prisoners. I have said before that those foreign “Western” Muslims fighting for Isis must surely have been “radicalised” before they left their homes in Europe or America. We put this down to the internet, crazed preachers and a mumbo-jumbo version of religion. Sure. And let us not endow Isis with the right to resolve injustice. Not one word did it utter in sympathy for the 2,100 dead Palestinians in the last Gaza war. In his last weeks, even Osama bin Laden realised that Isis – and the Taliban – represented a sectarian clique rather than a jihad against Islam’s enemies.

But isn’t there also a legacy of history here? Did we think we’d get away with Palestine in 1948? Or Bosnia in 1992? Or Iraq in 2003? Doesn’t injustice get a look in any more?

His prose is quite confusing, but it seems clear – based on the context, as well as his history of animosity against the Jewish State – that he’s suggesting the violence committed by ISIS against innocent civilians, such as the executions of Steven Sotloff and James Foley, can rightfully be seen, at least in part, as payback for Western ‘collusion’ with Zionism in 1948. 

While we’re of course quite used to UK media analyses which (at least implicitly) blame Israel, or support for Israel by Western powers, for Islamist extremism, the mere ubiquity of such Judeocentric explanations for terrorism and its onslaughts doesn’t render it any less appalling.  

Top 7 anti-Jewish comments by The Independent’s Mira Bar-Hillel

Mira Bar-Hillel is a journalist for the London Evening Standard and op-ed contributor for The Independent, who’s also been interviewed by both the BBC and Sky News on the topics of Israel, British Jewry, and antisemitism – this despite the fact that Bar-Hillel acknowledged being prejudiced against Jews and has a record of engaging in anti-Jewish racism.

Here is a list of her anti-Jewish claims, which we’ve compiled during the course of frequent posts about her op-eds, media appearances and Tweets:

1. She admitted to being “prejudiced against Jews”. Here are her exact words:

The Jews of today scare me and I find it almost impossible to talk to most of them, including relatives. Any criticism of the policies of Israel – including the disgraceful treatment of Holocaust survivors as well as refugees from murderous regimes – is regarded as treason and/or anti-Semitism. Most papers and journals will not even publish articles on the subject for fear of a Jewish backlash. Goyim (gentiles) are often treated with ill-concealed contempt, yet the Jews are always the victims. Am I prejudiced against Jews? Alas, yes.

2. She complained  (in an op-ed at The Independent) that Jews smear people unfairly with the charge of antisemitism to silence and “gag into submission any critic of Israel”. 

3. She evoked  (in an op-ed at The Independent) the ugly Nazi-Zionism analogy in characterizing Israeli racism and IDF military actions in Gaza. 

4. She accused British Jews (in a series of Tweets) collectively of ‘bombing Gaza’.

5. She argued (during a BBC interview) that British Jews don’t criticize Israeli actions in Gaza out of fear of being “ex-communicated” from the Jewish community.

6. She expressed (in a series of Tweets) her belief that “the message” of Jews controlling America is “entirely true” and “increasingly so”, and that Jewish lobbyists appear to be picking up some of their ideas from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and using them.

7. She complained (in an op-ed at The Independent) that the pro-Israel lobby is multi-tentacled. (Indy editors later removed the words “multi-tentacles”)

cache

Snapshot of cached version of passage from Bar-Hillel’s op-ed

As we’ve argued previously, it’s truly difficult to understand how a reputable publication like The Independent (which claims to take antisemitism seriously) can continue publishing op-eds by someone with such a well-documented history of advancing explicitly antisemitic tropes.

indy

Headline from official Independent editorial on Oct. 4, 2013, denying that the paper engages in antisemitism

 

Read Yiftah Curiel’s Guardian op-ed: ‘Hamas is single biggest barrier to peace’

, spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in London, published an op-ed at the Guardian titled ‘Hamas is the single biggest barrier to peace in Gaza‘.

yiftach

We encourage you to read it, and comment below the line.

 

What do Angelina Jolie & Mira Bar-Hillel have in common? Both caused Indy headline fails

The Independent experienced some problems of late in facing the decision all UK newspaper editors who understand the Judeocentric road to increased web traffic: whether any given story should be framed as pertaining to Jews, or merely Israel.

On Aug. 29th, the Indy published a story about Angelina Jolie’s recent wedding to Brad Pitt which originally included a headline suggesting that Jolie’s father, Jon Voight, wasn’t invited because of his pro-Israel views.  However, the subsequent text in the article didn’t at all support this claim, and the headline was later amended.

pitt

Remarkably, however, the author of the article about Jolie’s wedding, Jen Selby, still managed to devote 325 words (in a 800 word piece) about Voight’s views on Israel.

Earlier this month, Voight stirred controversy when he accused Penelopé Cruz and her husband Javier Bardem of ‘inciting anti-Semitism’ after they signed an open letter condemning the Israeli government’s Palestinian ‘genocide’.

In response, Voight, who is famously pro-Israel, penned a strongly-worded letter published on Variety.com.

“My name is Jon Voight and I am more than angry,” it begins. “I am heartsick that people like Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem could incite anti-Semitism all over the world and are oblivious to the damage they have caused

“They are obviously ignorant of the whole story of Israel’s birth, when in 1948 the Jewish people were offered by the UN a portion of the land originally set aside for them in 1921, and the Arab Palestinians were offered the other half.

“The Arabs rejected the offer, and the Jews accepted, only to be attacked by five surrounding Arab countries committed to driving them into the sea.”

He goes on to claim that Israel, after years of being at war with the Palestinian people, gave them the Gaza strip as a gesture of peace. He ends the piece by pleading for famous names in the entertainment industry to re-address their anti-IDF stances.

“I am asking all my peers who signed that poison letter against Israel to examine their motives.  Can you take back the fire of anti-Semitism that is raging all over the world now?

“You have been able to become famous and have all your monetary gains because you are in a democratic country: America.  Do you think you would have been able to accomplish this in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, et cetera?

“You had a great responsibility to use your celebrity for good.  Instead, you have defamed the only democratic country of goodwill in the Middle East: Israel.

“You should hang your heads in shame,” he concludes.  “You should all come forth with deep regrets for what you did, and ask forgiveness from the suffering people in Israel.

The misleading nature of the original headline was actually revealed in the last sentence in the article:

Neither Angelina Jolie, norBrad Pitt, have publicly shared their views on the conflict.

Sure, now you tell us!

Then, on Sept. 1st, Indy editors decided to reward their loyal readers by publishing more timeless wisdom from Mira Bar-Hillel, in an op-ed originally titled ‘The truth about the UK’s powerful Jewish lobbies‘. (You can see this writer’s rebuttal at the Indy here.)

The headline was later quietly changed, and the words “powerful Jewish lobbies” became “pro-Israel lobbies”, as the former perhaps was deemed by editors to evoke calumnies about Jews which are inconsistent with their “enlightenment” values.

miraInterestingly though, the term “Jewish lobby” can still be seen twice in the article. 

Finally, the disproportionate focus on Jews and Israel within the media was the focus of an amusing blog entry by Jeffrey Goldberg, in a post (published at The Atlantic in 2011) with the following headline:

headline

Here’s the post:

The headline above was produced by the Instamash-Bloginator3000, a device, invented by Israeli scientists working in the Jewish settlement of Neve Manyak, that can reduce thousands of blog posts to a single thought. And it also corrupts Iranian centrifuges! I plugged 3,000 of my blog posts into this wonder machine, and this is the headline that came out!

No, no, I kid! (I kid because I love.) There is no Jewish settlement named Neve Manyak. The headline above actually refers to the disproportionate interest drunks and lunatics take in Jews and their meddling and mysterious ways.

In the last several days, we’ve had Charlie Sheen angrily outing his producer, Chuck Lorre, as “Chaim Levine“;  Glenn Beck accusing Reform rabbis of conspiring to build a Muslim caliphate (or something); John Galliano drunkenly praising Hitler (advice to Galliano’s lawyer: Tell the press your client was referring to another Hitler, maybe a hitherto-obscure designer of hats); the Iranian regime complaining that the 2012 Olympic logo secretly spells out the word “Zion” (they’re wrong, of course; the logo secretly spells out “Mark Spitz is Jewish, and Jason Lezak is Too, So Go Drown Yourselves in the Caspian Sea); and now, Julian Assange is allegedly arguing that The Guardian — the English-language newspaper least friendly to Israel on Earth — is engaged in a Jewish-dominated conspiracy to smear him.

One of the great advantages of being Jewish — and there are many (we invented both ethical monotheism and whitefish salad, after all) — is that though there are only about 14 million of us on the whole planet (18 million before World War II, Mr. Galliano), people can’t stop talking about us! It is very exciting to be a part of so many different fantasies. 

We don’t know for sure if the Indy uses a device as sophisticated as the Instamash-Bloginator3000 to assist their editors in crafting headlines, or whether they just realize on their own the great click-bait advantages generated by generous use of the terms “Jew” and “Israel”.  However, in the rarely dull field of pro-Israel media criticism nothing much surprises us anymore.  

After all, if you had told us just last week that we would be publishing a post with a headline that included the names Angelina Jolie and Mira Bar-Hillel we would have certainly, at the very least, raised an eyebrow and scratched our collective Jewish Israeli Zionist heads. 

Read Adam Levick’s op-ed at The Independent

Adam Levick had an op-ed published today at the The Independent, (‘Yes, pro-Israel Jews lobby the Gov’t, and like all UK citizens they have every right to do so‘, Sept. 2), in response to an Independent op-ed by Mira Bar-Hillel (The truth about pro-Israel lobbies, Sept. 1).

You can read it here.

Bizarre claim in the Guardian: ‘Red roofs are mandatory in Israeli settlements’

What can ‘forensic architecture’ reveal about the conflict in Gaza?‘, Guardian, Sept 1, focuses on the Haifa-born, London educated architect Eyal Weizman, evidently famous in some circles as the “chief proponent of “forensic architecture”, which analyzes the “impacts of urban warfare” for clues about the crimes perpetrated there.

When he looks out across the landscape of the occupied Palestinian West Bank, as he does in the film The Architecture of Violence, to be aired on Al Jazeera today, [Eyal Weizman] sees a battlefield. “The weapons and ammunitions are very simple elements: they are trees, they are terraces, they are houses. They are barriers.”

In the kitchen of his east London home…he says the most obvious and contentious aspect of what he calls the “architecture of occupation” is the system of Israeli settlements. Perched on West Bank hilltops, they are strategically positioned, according to Weizman, so that they look out over the Palestinian valleys and towns below, in order “to dominate”.

Then, the kicker:

Each of the uniformly suburban-looking houses – all with mandatory red roofs so that on flyovers the Israeli army know[s] not to target them – is “itself like an optical instrument,” he tells me.

As bizarre as this claim is, amazingly it has been advanced previously.  Just a few months ago, the Chairman of Norwegian People’s Aid, Finn Erik, said pretty much the same thing at a lecture in Norway.  But, as popular blogger Elder of Ziyon demonstrated, there are multiple reasons why this claim doesn’t withstand even the slightest scrutiny.  

  • Most Palestinians in Judea and Samaria live in areas A and B under control of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The PA has full responsibility for zoning and import of building materials, including the type of roof tiles that can be used. There are no Palestinian regulations that prohibit the use of red roof tiles.
  • Israel has no laws or regulations that prohibit the use of red roof tiles in Area C which is under Israeli control. This means that both Arabs and Jews who build in this area can use red roof tiles in their houses, if they want to. 
  • The Israeli air force uses precision weapons that can hit its target with great accuracy both day and night, and is completely independent of the color of the house or on the roof tiles.
  • Most Palestinian houses do not have red roof tiles is that they do not tile their roofs at all. The traditional Arab architecture in the area includes a solarium that can be used for different purposes.
  • A number of houses built in recent years in Arab settlements in Israel, Judea and Samaria, have red tiles.
redroof

Photo from Elder of Ziyon

Additionally, Elder noted that Israeli aircraft does not bomb houses in Judea and Samaria. And, indeed, as far as we can tell there hasn’t been an air strike anywhere in the West Bank, for any reason, since the height of the 2nd Intifada.

Finally, an article by architecture critic Ran Shechori  published provides a bit of history on red-tiled roofs in Israel:

Since there were no local skilled builders at the beginning of the 19th century the English had even been forced to import stonecutters from Malta no antagonism was felt towards the foreign styles that sprouted on the local landscape. Consciously or not, that century witnessed the belated victory of the Crusaders, with the creation of a Christian presence in the Holy Land, which took over the educational and welfare system and began the Europeanization of this part of the world.

The local population began to copy the European styles of building. Wealthy Arab families who had left the Old City began building villas and mansions in the European style, albeit heavily decorated with traditional Moslem embellishments. The cities that were then growing adopted European terraced housing and the sloping red-tiled roofs.

The Jews, who had lived till then in homes rented from Arabs, also began to establish their own independent neighbourhoods. Mishkenot Shaananim (lit. “tranquil dwellings”) was the first such area in Jerusalem. It was built with the help of the British philanthropist, Sir Moses Montefiore, in 1860, as a series of long buildings topped by sloping, red-tiled roofs

Red-tiled roofs, which came to symbolize the Jewish presence and represented the idealized “home”;

Just as in the beginning, the Israeli still sees the red roof as a status symbol.

As Matti Friedman explained in his masterful essay at Tablet Magazine, one of the iron-clad rules of media coverage of the region requires that “every flaw in Israeli society is aggressively reported”, to which he should have added: even those ‘flaws‘ which are merely a figment of the increasingly wild anti-Zionist imagination.  

Focus below the line: Profile of ‘anti-Zionist’ Guardian commenter Eileen Kuch

We first noticed commenter ‘Eileen Kuch’ on a ‘Comment is Free’ thread about the Ukrainian-Russian crisis in April, where she vehemently supported Russia’s intervention in Ukraine.

1

This comment, putting aside the “Zio-controlled” trope (that can be explained off as some kind of anti-Zionism – she didn’t write “Jewish controlled”; did she?), reminded us of a crazy conspiracy theory – on some completely off the mental spectrum website – alleging that Barack Obama’s stepfather Lolo Soetoro must have been Jewish because “soetoro” is a Hebrew word used in the Hebrew Bible.

We were mildly surprised that the Guardian allowed such a bizarre claim on their site, and, wishing to understand the very generous flexibility of the moderators, searched for her other comments.

Reading her writings taken from her public profile on CIF is a beautiful example of the level of racist hate speech that the World’s Leading Liberal Voice is evidently ready to tolerate, completely disregarding their own ‘community standards’. Here are a limited number of examples of her comments, along with the ‘source’ of her knowledge.

Israel and its puppet the USA are the instigators of all ongoing unrest and upheaval in the world:

1

Another comment puts some light on her ‘sources’.

new

Her suggested useful reference on the mass murder of “Christians” by the hands of Lenin and Trotsky is a book of a certain Estonian author – Juri Lina – titled ‘Under the Sign of the Scorpion‘. To illustrate what she considers ‘an important source’, we will only quote the well-known neo-Nazi and conspiracy theorist Henry Makow: 

Estonian journalist Juri Lina has examined the recently opened Soviet archives and documented the connection between the Bolshevik Revolution and Jewish Illuminism in his book “Under the Sign of the Scorpion.” (1994)

I will probably devote a separate column to this book. Suffice to say here that Communism was the outcome of the plan outlined in Protocols. No wonder this book was banned in the USSR on pain of death! Its informal ban in America is a measure of our condition.

Karl Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, were all Jewish Freemasons, dysfunctional losers who were employed by the Illuminist bankers to hoodwink the masses. Lenin for example had been an unsuccessful lawyer who had only six cases in which he defended shoplifters. He lost all six cases. A week later he gave up the law to become a highly paid revolutionary.

Ms Kuch can’t be fooled; she knows the real name of the players in Ukraine:

1 Continue reading

Celebrating 5 years of CiF Watch!

 

Friends,

Last week, CiF Watch celebrated its 5th anniversary.

In our inaugural post on Aug. 24, 2009 we announced our intention to combat antisemitism and anti-Israel bias at the Guardian, and “to regularly post articles exposing the bigoted and one-sided nature of [their] obsessive focus on Israel and, by extension, the Jewish people.”

In recent years we have evolved in several respects:

  • We improved our efficacy by establishing an extremely successful affiliation with CAMERA.

Please continue reaching out to us – by following us on Twitter, liking us on Facebook, or the ‘old fashioned’ way, by emailing us at contactus@cifwatch.com – when you come across misleading claims, or outright factual errors, in reports and commentaries within the UK media.

On the occasion of our fifth anniversary, we’d love to hear your thoughts on the work we do, and how we can more effectively carry out our mission, and continue speaking truth to power.

Adam Levick, Managing Editor

How did UK Chief Rabbi get the motivation of Toulouse killer so wrong?

It typically is quite welcomed when the UK Chief Rabbi lends his moral authority – and, as in the case of the previous occupant of the office, Jonathan Sacks, profound eloquence – to an op-ed on the topic of antisemitism.  

However, though we were hoping for inspiration and clarity by the new Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, his Telegraph op-ed included a truly baffling error regarding the background of the Toulouse killer, Muhammad Merah.

Here are the first few paragraphs in Mirvis’s essay (A new strain of Antisemitism is on the rise, Aug. 27):

On Sunday a rally will take place in London to demand zero tolerance of anti-Semitism. Why is this necessary?

On March 19 2012, a teacher and three pupils were killed in a terrorist attack at the Ozar Hatorah Jewish Day School in Toulouse. For days, speculation was rife about the identity and motivation of the perpetrator.

Initially, many presumed that the killer came from the extreme Right. After all, the strengthening of extremist elements in the midst of a faltering European economy has fuelled anti-Semitism. Or, we wondered, perhaps the attacker subscribed to neo-Nazi ideology, or was influenced by radical Islam. Whatever the motivation, it seemed sadly clear that, even in the 21st century, the old aims of Hitler had not vanished from the continent of Europe.

Then the perpetrator was identified as Mohammed Merah, a 23-year-old French petty criminal, of Algerian descent. Merah said that he attacked the Jewish school because “the Jews kill our brothers and sisters in Palestine”. This transformation of the Israeli-Palestinian political conflict into something more sinister, and even religious in nature, has produced what some refer to as the new anti-Semitism.

It’s curious that Mirvis chose to benignly characterize Merah as a “petty criminal’ and not someone motivated by radical Islam.  There is simply no debate over the fact that he was an Islamist who murdered Rabbi Jonathan Sandler, Gabriel Sandler (age 4), Arieh Sandler (age 5), Miriam Monsonego (age 7) in an act of Jihad.  

Though Merah had previously served time in jail for ‘petty crime’, his radicalization while in prison was not surprising, given that this extremist Islamist ideology infected most of his immediate family.  Indeed, his family was reportedly obsessed by hatred of Jews, and were passionate supporters of the “outlawed Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) and Armed Islamic Group) (GIA) terrorist organizations”.

In 2010, Merah traveled to Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, and Tajikistan to join or train with jihadists.  He later traveled to Afghanistan in hopes of joining the Taliban.

Marc Weitzmann, a regular contributor to Le Monde, in his masterful essay at Tablet about Merah, chillingly noted the following:

in August 2011…he finally met [Islamist] “the brothers” who would initiate him into terror. And here’s the credo (retold in a French that challenges a translator): “In the beginning, the brothers, they told me to kill. A brother from Arab origin. He said I should kill everything—everything that is civilian and miscreant, everything. The gays, the homosexuals, the ones that kiss each other in public. He said, ‘Shoot them down,’ see? But me, I had a message to carry. And, er… I knew that by killing only militaries and Jews, the message, it would carried better. Cuz if I were to kill just civilians, the French population they’d say, ‘Oh, he’s just another crazy terrorist.’ Even if I had the right. But now the message’s different. Now I just kill militaries and Jews, see?

Yes, we ‘see’ that Merah was clearly motivated by Islamist extremism, an ominous example of the increasing threat posed to Europe by radicalized Muslims returning from ‘theaters of Jihad’ overseas.

We’re left to wonder, however: Does the Chief Rabbi not see this?

An appeal to Owen Jones: don’t associate with anti-Semites

This is cross posted from the blog of The CST, and was originally titled ‘Opposing antisemitism: an appeal to put words into action’.

owen jones

Owen Jones

The past two months have seen the number of antisemitic incidents in Britain approach record levels Much of this has been due to extreme reactions to the conflict between Israel and Gaza that reached its latest ceasefire yesterday. This problem, and its link to extreme manifestations of anti-Israel sentiment, has been covered extensively in the British media.

Some pro-Palestinian activists have recognised this problem and spoken out against it. 

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) has said that antisemitism has no place in its activities, and Owen Jones wrote a column for the Guardian in which he warned of the need to take antisemitism seriously. In particular, he wrote:

Antisemitic themes are depressingly constant: of Jews being aliens, lacking loyalty to their countries, acting as parasites, wielding disproportionate influence. Sometimes this hatred is overt, other times more subtle and pernicious.

We welcome these statements from supporters of the Palestinian cause, just as we previously welcomed PSC’s rejection of the equation of Israel with Nazi Germany. And because we consider these statements to be important and necessary, we hope and expect that the people who made them will live up to their words and the sentiments behind them.

It is for this reason that we appeal to PSC and to Owen Jones to reconsider the inclusion of Tim Llewellyn as a speaker at a PSC meeting tomorrow evening, 28th August, on “Gaza: let down by the BBC and mainstream media?” We appeal to PSC as the organiser of the meeting and to Jones as one of the other speakers.

Our objection is not to the meeting itself. We do not oppose your right to hold public meetings in support of the Palestinians, or to criticise Israel, or to critique media coverage of the conflict between the two.

Our objection is specifically to the inclusion of Llewellyn as a guest speaker on this topic because he has a record of statements that illustrate exactly what Jones warns against: themes “of Jews being aliens, lacking loyalty to their countries, acting as parasites, wielding disproportionate influence.”

For example, last year at a meeting in London that was also about media coverage of Israel, Llewellyn claimed that the BBC is intimidated by the “Jewish lobby”. When he was challenged on this by the chair of the meeting, he resisted criticism of his choice of phrase. The full exchange ran as follows and can be viewed here on the CST Blog:

Llewellyn: “Is it because… I can see it in the BBC. They’re frighten’, these people are quite aggressive, right. The Jewish Lobby is not much fun. They come at you from every direction.”

Off camera, another speaker says “no”, then, “its the pro-Israel lobby”. It is not exactly clear who says what after this, but it includes the chair Mark McDonald talking over Llewellyn, stating:

“I mean that’s a very important thing to say, that it’s not a Jewish lobby. Can I interrupt a second. It’s not a Jewish lobby. It might be a Zionist lobby. It may be a pro-Israel lobby.”

Llewellyn replies: “Yes, but they use Jewish connections to get you.”

This statement by Llewellyn was not a one-off. It fitted a long record of statements and writings that mix “Jewish” with “Zionist” while alleging that both hold undue and nefarious influence in British public life. For example, in 2006, Llewellyn wrote the following in the Foreword to a new edition of Publish It Not: The Middle East Cover-Up by Michael Adams and Christopher Mayhew:

No alien polity has so successfully penetrated the British government and British institutions during the past ninety years as the Zionist movement and its manifestation as the state of Israel…the Zionists have manipulated British systems as expertly as maestros, here a massive major chord, there a minor refrain, the audience, for the most part, spellbound.

…this cuckoo in the nest of British politics…

… Israel had worked its spells well, with a lot of help from its friends: these lined the benches of parliament, wrote the news stories and editorials, framed the way we saw and heard almost everything about the Middle East on TV, radio and in the press. History, the Bible, Nazi Germany’s slaughter of the Jews, Russian pogroms, the Jewish narrative relayed and parlayed through a thousand books, films, TV plays and series, radio programmes, the skills of Jewish writers, diarists, memoirists, artists and musicians, people like us and among us, all had played their part.

…the fervent Zionist Labour MPs, some of them little better than bully-boys, Richard Crossman (not a Jew), Ian Mikardo, Maurice Edelman, Emmanuel “Manny” Shinwell, Sidney Silverman, Konni Zilliacus et al, are, mercifully, not only no longer with us but have not been replaced, not in such virulent form.

… the Union of Jewish Students, which elbows and induces Zionistically inclined undergraduates towards influential positions in British public life, especially the media, the banking sector and information technology.

Llewellyn mixes “Zionist” with “Jewish”, describing both as “alien” to Britain; and alleges undue and negative influence and manipulation of the media, politics and “the banking sector”. These allegations all have clear antecedents in antisemitic conspiracy theories.

Another example: in 2004, Llewellyn was quoted in the Jewish Chronicle as describing former US ambassador Dennis Ross in these terms:

He also denounced broadcasters who invited the “insidious” former US ambassador to the Middle East Denis Ross, without fully identifying him.

Mr Llewellyn said: “What a lovely Anglo-Saxon name! But Denis Ross is not just a Jew, he is a Zionist, a long-time Zionist… and now directs an Israeli-funded think tank in Washington. He is a Zionist propagandist.”

The suggestion that broadcasters should identify an interviewee as “a Jew”, lest their viewers be fooled by an “Anglo-Saxon name”, is scurrilous and prejudiced.

In 2012, Llewellyn wrote of

massive media distortion, and … Zionist penetration and manipulation of our institutions – the media, universities, local education, political parties…

He went on to describe as Britain’s

real enemies… the ambitious and greedy British politicians and insidious political influence, in this case spawned by an alien state and strengthened by its friends in our midst, people who put Israel’s interests above that of their own nation.

(From The Battle for Public Opinion in Europe: Changing Perceptions of the Palestine-Israel Conflict, eds. Daud Abdullah & Ibrahim Hewitt, not online). Again, this echoes the classical antisemitic allegation of ‘dual loyalty’, whereby British Jews are accused of lacking loyalty to the country of their birth.

If the important and welcome statements by PSC, Owen Jones and others about their opposition to antisemitism and determination to exclude it from pro-Palestinian activism have real meaning, then there should be no place for Tim Llewellyn at a PSC meeting. This is not an abstract argument: the sharp increase in antisemitism in Britain in recent weeks demonstrates that fact. Words lead to actions, good and bad. We now invite PSC and Owen Jones to put their valuable and worthy statements and principles into practice. A discussion of media coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict must not give room to those who believe that there is a Zionist conspiracy to control, manipulate or influence the British media, politics, banking and education, as Tim Llewellyn has suggested. Nor should pro-Palestinian activism be a home for those who believe that Jews are an alien presence, disloyal to Britain, who change their names to disguise their true loyalties.

Put your words into action, and remove Tim Llewellyn from your platform.

Mira Bar-Hillel falls for phony ‘IDF’ tweet ‘admitting’ to murdering children

For those unfamiliar with the British ‘journalist’ Mira Bar-Hillel (who contributes to the Independent), here are a few facts about her views on Jews and Israel:

  • She complained that Jews smear people unfairly with the charge of antisemitism to “gag into submission any critic of Israel”.
  • She evoked Nazi Germany in characterizing Israeli racism and IDF military actions in Gaza.
  • She accused British Jews (collectively) of ‘bombing Gaza’.
  • She bizarrely argued that British Jews don’t criticize Israeli actions in Gaza out of fear of being “ex-communicated” from the Jewish community. (She later admitted that she had no evidence to back this claim up.)
  • She has admitted to being “prejudiced against Jews”. (See her exact words)
  • She believes that “the message” of Jews controlling America is “entirely true” and “increasingly so”, and that Jewish lobbyists appear to be picking up some of the ideas from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and using them.

Now, the latest.

Here are two tweets from today by Bar-Hillel, which included a graphic purporting to represent an “IDF tweet”:

Here’s Bar-Hillel’s first tweet, with the “IDF tweet” attached.

154

And, then, 8 minutes later she asks a few more of her Zionist nemeses to justify the ‘IDF tweet':

202

We’re not sure if anyone out there, except Bar-Hillel and her motley crew of retweeters, could possibly believe in the authenticity of this “IDF” tweet “acknowledging” child murder, but, briefly:

It was clearly photoshopped from this real IDF tweet from Aug. 21:

And, the graphic was almost certainly taken from this IDF tweet

Mira Bar-Hillel wants so badly to believe that Israel murders children that she was willing to believe this absurd hoax tweet.

Tell us again why Bar-Hillel continues to pen op-eds for British newspapers (on the topics of Israel and antisemitism!) and lands interviews with the BBC and Sky News, on similar topics, as a ‘representative’ of the British Jewish community.

ISM propaganda film update: What being killed by a sniper really looks like

(Here’s an edited version of the latest installment from Thomas Wictor, fisking a widely reported ISM video purporting to show the ‘killing’, by an unseen IDF sniper, of Salem Shemaly in the Gaza City neighborhood of Shejaiya on July 20th – A.L.)

In the past twenty-four hours, I’ve gotten dozens of messages from Jewish Britons, telling me that the fake Gaza sniper video is suddenly coming up over and over in the UK.

indy

Op-ed at the Independent, Aug. 22, focusing on the “killing” of Shemaly

British Jews are being called murderers. Does that make sense on any level? Am I now allowed to call all Arab-Americans in Detroit murderers because of the atrocities committed by the Islamic State? So, I’m going do something I wanted to avoid. Let me show you the harsh reality of being killed by a sniper.

Don’t watch any of the videos if you’re sensitive. I’ll describe them so that you don’t have to subject yourself to the imagery and sounds if things like this are too hard for you to take.

Last night I was interviewed by an Israeli news program. The interviewer had read my posts on the fake Gaza sniper video put out by the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), but she said it was difficult for people to understand what I was saying without visual imagery.

I disagree. People are being deliberately obtuse in order to have more “war crimes” to pin on Israel.  But to satisfy the wishes of the masses, I’ll provide visual imagery.

First the original ISM video, which you may need for comparison purposes

To give ISM the greatest possible leeway, I’ll restrict myself to discussing the M24 Sniper Weapon System, the lightest-caliber such rifle in the Israeli arsenal.

sniperIsraeli designated marksmen have rifles that fire a less-powerful cartridge, but the accusation is that a sniper killed Salem Shamaly from a house several hundred meters away.

Minaret.1

In the foreground is the alleged sniper’s position, according to while the red arrow marks where Salem Shamaly is said to have been shot. Therefore a trained sniper would’ve had to have taken the shots. I’ll assign him the M24 Sniper Weapon System instead of the massively more powerful .338-caliber HTR-2000 that Israel uses.

One of my criticisms of the ISM video is that the “shots” don’t sound like a rifle. Here are IDF snipers firing the M24 at targets. Nobody gets hurt.

Do you hear anything in the ISM video that sounds remotely like that? The M4 has a strangely legato report. What I hear in the Pallywood production are the high-pitched, stacatto pak! of small explosives detonated electrically. They’re used to simulate bullet impacts in movies.


Now the “Israeli sniper’s” bullet. The green arrow identifies the .300 magnum cartridge that the M24 fires.

300_Magnum

One of the ways that I know the ISM video is fake is that we see no wounds on Salem Shamaly. I’ve said this several times, but people don’t seem to understand. Fine. Now I’ll show you what I mean.

This is what the .300 magnum bullet does to the living flesh of a deer.

deer

Salem Shamaly was said to have been shot three times. This deer was shot once with a .300 magnum bullet.

300_magnum.1

Since he was on his back, Salem Shamaly would’ve had to have been hit in the front. He has no injuries whatsoever, much less the gigantic, exploded holes you see on the deer.

According to the ISM fiction, Salem Shamaly lay on the ground and was shot repeatedly by an Israeli sniper. Here’s genuine video of a Syrian man lying on the ground and being shot repeatedly by a Syrian Arab Army sniper.

He was initially hit in the right forearm, before the video began. At 0:32 he’s shot in the right ankle. He jerks violently from the shock. Salem Shamaly makes no such movements as the .300 magnum bullets allegedly slam into him.

At 1:12, the Syrian man gets up and runs for cover. His right forearm and ankle are shattered from the impact of the bullets, and the front of his sweater is smeared with blood. He makes it around the corner and is rescued at 2:06.

That man was shot at least three times by a sniper. He has blood, injuries, and involuntary reactions to prove it.

This next video shows another Syrian man shot by a sniper. Before the camera began rolling, he was hit in the torso, on the front of his body. Unlike the shirt of Salem Shamaly, this man’s garment is soaked in blood.


At 0:07 he’s hit in the back of his left thigh, in exactly the place where ISM claims that Salem Shamaly was shot. When the bullet strikes this Syrian man, it raises a cloud of dust because the force slams his leg into the ground. The man’s thigh blows apart, and a substantial amount of blood is visible. As the man tries to crawl away, the sniper fires four more times. More clouds of dust are raised. It’s certain that the man didn’t survive.

And here’s the final reason I know the ISM video is fake. This is a Syrian rebel dying on camera after being shot in the chest. Unlike Salem Shamaly, this man is covered with blood.

At 0:28 he raises his legs in cadaveric spasm, an involuntary muscle reaction that occurs at the moment of traumatic death. This also causes his fists to clench. Cadaveric spasm signifies intense emotion. He begins Cheyne-Stokes respiration at 0:44; it’s a classic symptom of the dying process. The wound in his chest damaged his heart, causing fatal cardiac arrest.

Not only does Salem Shamaly show no signs of being shot or of dying, the activists filming him don’t behave as though he’s dying. 

Fakery belittles the suffering of genuine war victims. Superficial, safe, uninformed First Worlders who think the ISM video is real should have their faces ground into the reality of death until they scream for mercy.

The ISM are con artists who’ve told so many lies that they can’t even keep track of them. Here’s what NBC News said about Salem Shamaly.

Ayman Mohyeldin: At the morgue, even after a week of decomposing in the sun, Khalil quickly recognized his son’s body and that green shirt.

Actually, that means that Salem spent a week decomposing in the sun, but never mind. The Palestinian Authority has a different story.

Salem_Shemaly1

To Israelis and Jews everywhere, don’t feel anything except disgust at this infantile playacting. When somebody brings up this video, just point them toward this post. And then cut them out of your lives.

Israelis don’t shoot unarmed civilians as a matter of policy. Their neighbors are the ones who do that. The ISM video is pure psychological projection.