Tag Archive

You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Boycott’ tag.

Finkelstein: “BDS Movement is a Cult.” (The video anti-Zionists didn’t want you to see)

February 15, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, BDS, Boycott, Delegitimization, Huffington Post Monitor, Norman Finkelstein | by Adam Levick | 29 comments

BDS activists posted, then removed, this YouTube video of Norman Finkelstein blasting the BDS movement - Yes, Norman Finkelstein! - during an interview with a pro-BDS activist at Imperial College, with an interlocutor who, no doubt, thought Finkelstein was on board.

Here’s what you saw when trying to access the video following its removal.

However, thanks to our friends Zach and Matt at Huffington Post Monitor (HPM), who downloaded the video (and trimmed the original 30 minute video to include only the sections calling out the BDSers) the clip anti-Israel activists didn’t want you to see is now available.

Here’s a transcript of the shortened clip, courtesy of HPM, as well:

I’ve earned my right to speak my mind, and I’m not going to tolerate what I think is silliness, childishness, and a lot of leftist posturing.

I mean we have to be honest, and I loathe the disingenuous. They don’t want Israel. They think they are being very clever; they call it their three-tier. We want the end of the occupation, the right of return, and we want equal rights for Arabs in Israel. And they think they are very clever because they know the result of implementing all three is what, what is the result?

You know and I know what the result is. There’s no Israel! And if you don’t want the same framework then stop talking about the law and stop trying to be so clever. Because you’re only so clever in your cult. The moment you step out you have to deal with Israeli propaganda. And here they have a case.

They say no they’re not really talking about rights. They’re talking about they want to destroy Israel. And in act I think they’re right I think that’s true. I’m not going to lie. But this kind of duplicity and disingenuous, “oh we’re agnostic about Israel.” No you’re not agnostic! You don’t want it! Then just say it! But they know full well: If you say it you don’t have a prayer reaching a broad public. Because that’s where the public is right now.

I support the BDS. But I said it will never reach a broad public until and unless they’re explicit in their goal. And their goal has to include the recognition of Israel or it’s a nonstarter. It won’t reach the public because the moment you go out there Israel will start to say what about we and they won’t recognize our right and in fact that’s correct. You can’t answer the Israelis on that because they’re making a statement that’s factually correct. It’s not an accidental and unwitting omission that BDS does not mention Israel. You know that and I know that

It’s not like they’re “oh we forgot to mention it.” They won’t mention it because they know it will split the movement. Cause there’s a large segment of the movement that wants to eliminate Israel.

You talk about BDS they make all these claims about their victories. All their claims. You know what? You use these ten fingers? These more than suffice to count all their victories. There are superfluous fingers here to count all their victories. It’s a cult! Where the guru says we have all these victories and everyone nods their head and no one sits down to do the arithmetic on their own.

Yes it’s had some victories no question about it. But the way people promote it as if it’s proven itself and we’re on the verge of a victory of some sort. It’s just sheer nonsense. It’s a cult. And I personally am tired of it.

There’s no Israel. That’s what it’s really about. And you think you’re fooling anybody. You think you’re so clever that people can’t figure that out for themselves? No they understand the arithmetic perfectly well. Are you going to reach a broad public which is going to hear the Israeli side ‘they want to destroy us?’ No you’re not. And frankly you know what you shouldn’t. You shouldn’t read a broad public because you’re dishonest. And I wouldn’t trust those people if I had to live in this state. I wouldn’t. It’s dishonesty.

See full video here.

More proof that J Street is clearly outside even the broadest Zionist tent (cifwatch.com)
Note to Philly BDS Activists: You will fail. (cifwatch.com)
CiF Watch exclusive interview with Smadar Bakovic, who fought anti-Zionist bias in UK Academia & won! (cifwatch.com)

More proof that J Street is clearly outside even the broadest Zionist tent

February 11, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Boycott, Cross Post, J Street, BDS, Delegitimization, anti-Zionism, Lori Lowenthal Marcus, University of Pennsylvania, Z Street, American Thinker | by Guest/Cross Post | 3 comments

The following essay, by Lori Lowenthal Marcus of the group Z Street, was published at American Thinker

Given the ideological bedlam often seen even within individual Jewish organizations, just imagine trying to get an entire community of Jewish organizations together to sign a several-paragraphs-long statement reflecting a single position — and to do that within a matter of weeks.

That miracle almost happened recently, when the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia gathered practically every Jewish organization in the Philadelphia community to send a message of strong disapproval to an anti-Israel coalition known as the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which is holding a three-day conference at the University of Pennsylvania on February 3-5. But the “almost” is necessary because one significant local group refused to join in. Understanding who, and why, reveals important lessons that must be taken to heart.

Penn BDS was thrown together by a single undergraduate student with the goal of luring the BDS conference to the University of Pennsylvania campus. BDS is a global, largely unsuccessful but widely publicized menace with the ultimate goal of demonizing, demoralizing, and destroying the state of Israel. BDS proponents claim that their methods constitute a tool to achieve justice for those oppressed by Israel; they take their cue from the effort to overthrow the racist South African government during the 1980s. But BDS is, in fact, merely a thin mask over enmity against any effective haven for the Jewish people.

Last month, when the Penn Hillel leadership learned that the BDS conference was to take place on their campus, the Philadelphia Jewish leadership was alerted, as was the Israeli Consulate. A broad spectrum of at least nominally pro-Israel local organizations was quickly called together with the goal of creating a strong communal response.

Mainstream local groups such as the Jewish Federation, the Anti-Defamation League, and Scholars for Peace in the Middle East — as well as those on the far left of the spectrum, such as the New Israel Fund and J Street, and those on the right end, such as Z STREET and the Zionist Organization of America — were included in this call to action. Several decisions were reached: there would be a communal statement of solidarity condemning the BDS conference; there would be an event showcasing communal support for Israel just prior to the conference; and, to counter the campaign of boycotting Israeli goods, there would be a concerted effort to encourage people to purchase Israeli products.

The crafting of the communal statement took two rounds of drafts and delicate negotiations with each organization involved. It fell to David Cohen, the senior associate for Israel and Middle East Affairs at the Philadelphia Federation, to ferret out each group’s rock-bottom red lines, then artfully craft changes to avoid crossing any of those lines, and finally to come up with a document that avoided all the pitfalls but still clearly condemned the strategy of BDS generally, and the holding of the BDS conference at Penn specifically.

I was present at and participated in the meetings as the Z STREET representative. In response to the first draft, I told Cohen that Z STREET objected to an emphasis on the ubiquitous “two state” mantra. We think the one clear goal of the peace process should be peace for Israel. Z STREET believes that the pro-Israel community disserves that goal by adding an additional goal which may not — and in our view, clearly does not — ensure that such peace will be attained. While disappointed to see the “two states” language as part of the final version of the community statement, we decided that a show of community-wide solidarity is important. More than two dozen other organizations felt the same, with each no doubt making its own ideological compromises so that the Jewish community could say something with one voice.

But there was a conspicuous absence from the Philadelphia Community Statement’s list of signatures. Although its representative was present at the community-wide meeting and was included in the community phone calls, J Street refused to be a part of the community and would not sign the joint statement of condemnation. Instead, J Street Philly issued a separate statement – one very different from the community’s in title, in tone, and in apportionment of blame. As the local representative stated clearly, J Street wanted to “maintain the integrity of our values” and their “unique position on this issue.”

Whereas the Philadelphia Community Statement is officially one of solidarity with Israel and of condemnation of the BDS Conference, J Street’s is neither.

The Philadelphia Community Statement unequivocally condemns boycotting Israel, disinvesting from its companies, or sanctioning it. J Street’s statement criticizes the BDS tactics but explicitly recognizes, validates, and agrees with the underlying sentiments expressed by those advocating BDS, which include “the ongoing occupation and diplomatic stagnation” and the “legitimate and warranted” and shared “concern about the present and future of the Palestinian people.”

Of particular concern to J Street was a broad condemnation of BDS — one that lacked “nuance,” such as making exceptions for boycotting goods made in Judea and Samaria. Also, J Street refused to criticize Penn, even subtly, for allowing the conference to be held there. J Street was unwilling to include its voice in stating that “the outrageous claims of BDS campaigns do not stand up to the rigors of academic inquiry and as such, go against the sophisticated civil discourse that is a core element of the University of Pennsylvania.”

Worse, J Street seems to have issued even its own tepid statement with not even enough enthusiasm as to post it; the J Street statement does not appear on the J Street Philadelphia website or on J Street’s Facebook page. J Street also refused to be one of the more than thirty co-sponsors of the “We Are One ” event with Alan Dershowitz.

Much has been about why and whether J Street is allowed in the “big tent” of Jewish communal organizations. The argument in favor, of course, is the desire to expand the marketplace of ideas, to be as inclusive as possible, and simply to give a respectful hearing even to those with whom one disagrees. But we now know what happened when J Street was unquestioningly welcomed into the Philadelphia community tent. When given the first opportunity to stand as one with the community and speak with one voice from one tent, J Street snuck out the back and pitched its own tent instead

(Editor’s note: Also, see following clip, from the PennBDS conference, at a breakout session on the “Academic Boycott of Israel”. During the Q&A session, a teacher asked Amy Kaplan, professor of English at Penn, how to incorporate BDS narratives delegitimizing Israel into college courses, even when the course has nothing to do with “Palestine.”)

Note to Philly BDS Activists: You will fail. (cifwatch.com)
CiF Watch exclusive interview with Smadar Bakovic, who fought anti-Zionist bias in UK Academia & won! (cifwatch.com)
BDS to World: “We’re not losers” – Part 1 (cifwatch.com)

As Islamic extremists take power in ME, New Statesman publishes vicious attack on Israel by Ben White

February 6, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, BDS, Ben White, Boycott, Cross Post, Delegitimization, Guardian, New Statesman, Robin Shepherd, The Commentator | by Guest/Cross Post | 12 comments

This was written by Robin Shepherd, the owner/publisher of @CommentatorIntl. You can follow him on Twitter @RobinShepherd1

Ben White has taken to the New Statesman to attack Israel yet again

Of all the bigotries in the world today, one stands out for special consideration. That is not simply because it is so odious, though it is certainly that. It is because it is the one bigotry that presents a clear and present danger of translating into a genocidal outcome. It is also the one form of bigotry that has been openly accepted and internalised by large sections of a British and West-European political intelligentsia that remains dominated by the liberal-Left.

I am talking, of course, about anti-Zionism – a uniquely discriminatory agenda aimed at deligitimising the State of Israel and ending that country’s existence as the national homeland of the Jewish people.

In the context of Iranian threats to destroy the country, the loss of Turkey as an ally and the new pre-eminence of extreme, anti-Israeli Islamists in Egypt, the rantings of Western anti-Zionists have now acquired a new and more dangerous significance.

Think of it this way: it’s one thing to spout abuse about black people to a group of equally bigoted but basically passive racists when nobody else is listening; it’s quite another to do exactly the same thing in front of a frenzied, knife-wielding mob of skinheads heading towards a black neighbourhood.

I make no direct analogy, but enter Ben White, author of, “Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide”. On Sunday, he published an extensive piece in the leading weekly magazine of the British Left, The New Statesman. Essentially, it’s a trash job on Israeli democracy. It, perversely, charges a British pro-Israel grouping, BICOM, with having unwittingly revealed, in a series of recent essays, that Israel is not in fact a proper democracy at all: it’s a racist“ethnocracy“ run by and for Jews.

You’ve heard it all before, of course. And I will come to the “substance“ (if such a word is appropriate in the circumstances) in a moment.

But let me first re-emphaise the point made above, and make it relevant to the fate of Israel in the Middle East.

For there is nothing new about fanatical hostility to Israel in the British and European mainstream. The Guardian newspaper – the media-intellectual home of the British Left and, effectively, the house journal of the BBC – has been at it for years.

What is new is the context in the Middle East where Israel now looks set to be ensnared in a potentially deadly triangle of annihilationist regimes. On one point on that triangle is Turkey – a country that in little more than a blink of an eye has moved from being an ally to an enemy; a country whose leadership is increasingly using anti-Israeli rhetoric as a rallying cry and which has even gone so far as to threaten sending its warships to protect pro-Hamas “aid“ flotillas to Gaza.

Now draw a straight line from Ankara to Cairo for the second point on the triangle. Egypt’s parliamentary elections were resoundingly won by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists – both of which combine extreme forms of anti-Semitism with resolute opposition to the existence of the Jewish state. Together, they took over 70 percent of the seats.

Now go to Tehran, drawing the line necessary to complete the triangle from both Ankara and Cairo. (Iranian hostility to Israel surely needs no elaboration.)

Read the rest of the essay here.

Note to Philly BDS Activists: You will fail.

February 1, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Ali Abunimah, anti-Zionism, BDS, Boycott, Comment is Free, Guardian, Omar Barghouti, Philadelphia | by Adam Levick | 8 comments

Opponents of the Jewish state’s existence – such as CiF contributors Ali Abunimah, Tel Aviv University student Omar Barghouti, and Ahmed Moor - will be converging on my native city of Philadelphia (at the University of Pennsylvania) on February 4th and 5th for a BDS Conference.

As our friend and ally Jon, of the anti-BDS blog, Divest This!, put it:

“An international lineup of BDS advocates will meet, greet and try to breathe life in a ‘movement’ that has yet to achieve a single major victory after more than a decade of effort.”

Divest This! has even created a unique page to combat the Philly event, titled “PennBDS-Oy!”

Since I know a few of the local Philly anti-Zionist Jews who will likely participate in the conference on how best to isolate my nation, and, in the off-chance they read this post, here’s some advice.

As always, you will fail miserably at your efforts.

Not only does Philly have an especially well-organized pro-Israel community, which includes college Zionist activists, my friend Lori Lowenthal Marcus and her group Z Street, and my former colleagues at the local office of the Anti-Defamation League, but, more broadly, Israel, my new country, has one weapon which we’ll continue to deploy that you have no answer to: Our success.

In addition to our undeniable regional advantage in every conceivable democratic category, we continue to achieve economically, academically and socially to a degree remarkably disproportionate to our size.

Though our right to exist as a Jewish state is axiomatic and unreserved – and we need not demonstrate our utility to gain the privilege granted to all other nations unconditionally – our achievements stand as a testament to what you’re up against when you engage in cognitive warfare against us.

Israel has the 2nd highest ratio of university degrees in the world, produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation by a large margin, has the largest number of startup companies than any other country except the U.S., and has the largest number (per capita) of biotech companies.

What we may lack in natural resources we more than make up for in grit, determination, and hard work.

Further, unlike our Arab neighbors, our liberal values are consistently demonstrated by our free and fair elections, our independent judiciary, our democratic legislature (which even grants rights to political parties opposed to our existence), our free and feisty press, and the rights afforded to women, religious minorities, and the LGBT community.

My nation – the first sovereign Jewish state in 2000 years – is a proud, robust, dynamic, and thriving pluralistic democratic Jewish state, and there is little you can do to thwart our will to survive.

Finally, here’s a small reminder of what a small group of thoughtful, committed supporters of the Jewish state can do in the face of a coordinated anti-Zionist campaign:

Am Y’srael Chai! (The Jewish nation lives).

BDS to World: “We’re not losers” – Part 1 (cifwatch.com)
Ali Abunimah Tweets for a third violent Intifada (cifwatch.com)
CiF Watch exclusive interview with Smadar Bakovic, who fought anti-Zionist bias in UK Academia & won! (cifwatch.com)

How NOT to combat anti-Israel incitement on UK campuses.

January 22, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Comment is Free, Guardian, Ilan Pappe, Boycott, BDS, Delegitimization, Azzam Tamimi, Terrorism, anti-Zionism, Gaza War, Academic boycotts of Israel, Operation Defensive Shield, SOAS | by Israelinurse | 25 comments

SOAS: International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network event in 2010

Almost a decade ago, on April 6^th 2002 – a mere ten days after the Park Hotel terror attack which killed 30 Israelis and injured 140 others, prompting Operation Defensive Shield – a group of 125 British academics had a letter published in the Guardian calling publicly, for the first time, for an academic boycott of Israel.

Throughout the subsequent ten years – and in particular since Operation Cast Lead – the growth of anti-Israel incitement and antisemitism at British universities has become a serious cause of concern for anti-racist organisations, politicians and prominent figureswithin British society, as well as some academics.

The news, therefore, that the Israel Society at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) has been recently revived at the initiative of two Israeli students might seem like a glimmer of hope in the dark world of anti-Israeli activism in British academic institutions, especially as SOAS has been particularly egregious on these counts.

In 2009 SOAS invited the prominent Muslim Brotherhood representative in the UK Kamal Helbawy and Ibrahim el Moussaoui – the former head of the foreign department of Hizballah’s ‘Al Manar’ TV – to teach a course on political Islam. In 2010, Hamas activist Azzam Tamimi was invited to speak to students at SOAS alongside his fellow Guardian contributor Ben White. Tamimi told students:

“Today Hamas is considered a terrorist organisation because that’s what the Americans and Israelis and cowardly politicians of Europe want, but what is so terrorist about it?

“You shouldn’t be afraid of being labelled extreme, radical or terrorist. If fighting for your home land is terrorism, I take pride in being a terrorist. The Koran tells me if I die for my homeland, I’m a martyr and I long to be a martyr.”

“Why are the Jews superhuman and better than anyone else that God would give them a homeland? Is God a racist? A god who would prefer people because of their race is not a god I want to associate with. Claiming they are being given the land of God is a racist idea.

“If the world felt so guilty about the Holocaust, the Jews should have been compensated, not brought to my country at the expense of my people.

“Israel does not belong to my homeland and must come to an end. This can happen peacefully if they acknowledge what they did — or we will continue to struggle until Israel is no more.”

“I want to encourage you not to be intimidated by the pro-Israel lobby. The Zionists tell a pack of lies.”

(Tamimi, as is well known, was born in 1955 and his family moved from Hebron to Kuwait when he was 7 years old – a full 5 years before Jordan lost the Six Day War.)

Unfortunately, any hopes of the rejuvenated SOAS Israel Society swimming against the tide of anti-Israel hatred and propaganda already appear to be overly-optimistic. The society’s opening event on January 30^th is to be a panel discussion purporting to “re-examine BDS through a more nuanced lens”.

Nuance, however, is hardly the territory inhabited by anti-Zionist panel member Ilan Pappe; controversial for his jaundiced use of history to advance a political agenda, his blithe dismissals of anti-Semitism and his recent spirited defence of Raed Salah. Neither are we to expect much in the way of nuance from Dr John Chalcraft – an old hand in the business of promoting an academic boycott against Israel.

Further along the spectrum, we find Dr Lee Jones – an expert on Southeast Asia (where Israel obviously is not) and Hannah Weisfeld of the debatably ‘pro-Israel, pro-peace’ British J-Street look-alike, Yachad. Also taking part as a discussant will be SOAS Doctoral candidate Sharri Plonsky (Plonski) whose brief experience of Israel must be seen in light of her three year role as Development Coordinator for ‘HaMoked‘: an organization of which the Israeli State Prosecutor said “the organization’s self-presentation as ‘a human rights organization’ has no basis in reality and is designed to mislead.”

Panel member and co-chair of the SOAS Israel Society is occasional Guardian writer and +972 magazine co-founder and editor Dimi (Dmitry) Reider who is currently working on a Master’s degree at SOAS and who was perhaps (we are not told) one of the ‘two Israeli students’ instrumental in the society’s rebirth. Reider is known for his support of the so-called ‘one-state solution’ under which Israel as a Jewish and democratic state would cease to exist and his opinions on BDS appear here.

Interestingly, in a recent article in the Tablet, +972 magazine’s editor in chief Noam Sheizaf admitted that only 20% of its readership is Israeli, indicating “the growing unpopularity of its progressive politics” although that fact does not appear to perturb him as he believes “[i]t’s good to internationalize the conversation”.

“Rejected by the Arabs, ignored by the Jews: This is the reality with which the magazine’s 15 or so writers have to contend, writing, as they do, in English for a largely American audience. The magazine’s name is no coincidence: It is a tribute to Israel’s international calling code and an acknowledgement that, increasingly, any serious conversation about Israel’s policies is to be had outside of Israel’s borders.”

It therefore does not seem unreasonable to ponder the possibility that the SOAS Israel Society has in fact been rejuvenated as a British front for the +972 magazine agenda to which Reider subscribes: an agenda which has so little respect for Israeli democracy that it promotes the use of “dramatic pressure from abroad”, of which – of course – BDS is an integral arm.

Certainly no ‘Israel Society’ which invites Ilan Pappe to spread his anti-Zionist views or has an advocate of the dissolution of the Jewish state such as Dimi Reider as its chair is going to help stem the rising tide of anti-Israel incitement and anti-Semitism on UK campuses. But there is an additional irony to this story.

It turns out that Dimi Reider’s studies at SOAS are supported by a Chevening Scholarship donated by the British Embassy in Tel Aviv and the British Council. So whilst some British MPs and academics work tirelessly to combat anti-Israel incitement on campus, their own Foreign and Commonwealth Office has in this case – be it by accident, design or neglect – made their job somewhat harder.

How to most effectively advocate for Israel on campus (cifwatch.com)
CiF Watch exclusive interview with Smadar Bakovic, who fought anti-Zionist bias in UK Academia & won! (cifwatch.com)
Jenny Tonge rants about the Holocaust and idolises Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh. (cifwatch.com)
Why is anti-Israel extremist Gary Spedding affiliated with Holocaust Memorial Day Trust? (cifwatch.com)

Guardian publishes letter by supporter of Gilad Atzmon, refuses to publish rebuttal

January 19, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Antisemitism, Boycott, BDS, Delegitimization, anti-Zionism, Alan Hart, Gilad Atzmon, Tanya Gold, Karl Sabbagh | by Adam Levick | 11 comments

Tanya Gold’s essay at ‘Comment is Free’ (LSE Nazi games in context: Antisemitic discourse is more acceptable now than at any time since the 1930s, I just can’t laugh it off, Jan. 16.) was really exceptional for a CiF piece for one reason: It not only took antisemitism seriously, in the context of commenting on LSE students playing a Nazi-themed party game, but included this Guardian apostacy:

“Leftwing antisemites despise Israel…”

Gold, unfortunately, didn’t flesh out that sentence to the degree warranted, failing to note that, per her passage, there are comprehensive studies which demonstrate this correlation. One, titled, “Anti-Israel sentiment predicts Antisemitism in Europe” is a must read for those interested in understanding that, while not every anti-Zionist is an antisemite, such anti-Zionists are dramatically more likely to hold antisemitic views than the rest of the public.

Gold’s essay elicited furious criticism from commenters below the line, which included an appearance by antisemitism sympathizer Ben White (whose criticism of Gold’s condemnation of anti-Zionism garnered nearly 500 “Recommends”).

Further, the Guardian saw fit to publish two letters in response to Gold’s piece, both which were critical of the essay: (Letters: Israel, Palestine and the meaning of antisemitism, Jan 17).

Here is one such letter:

Once again a Jewish writer (Tanya Gold, 17 January) complaining about antisemitism deliberately ignores the distinction between false accusations against Jews over the centuries and justified criticism of the Jewish takeover of Palestine, a land that in living memory had a population that was 90% Arab, including my grandparents. Should the victim of a crime keep quiet because false accusations have been made against the criminal in the past? Let it be said loud and clear – it is entirely possible to criticise Israel without being antisemitic. To deny this is to argue against freedom of speech.
Karl Sabbagh
Newbold on Stour, Warkwickshire

The following letter was submitted to the Guardian by Mrs L Julius, in reply to Sabbagh’s complaint of “Jews’ takeover of Palestine”. She agreed to publish it here after concluding that the Guardian was not going to publish it.

Karl Sabbagh justifies ‘criticism of the Jewish takeover of Palestine, a land that in living memory had a population that was 90 percent Arab, including my grandparents.’ He implies that if the critic gets carried away and punches the Jew in the nose for the ‘crimes’ of his fellows in Palestine – the blame lies with the criminals.

It is a stretch to argue that the land was 90 percent Arab: contemporary records show the land was sparsely populated at the turn of the last century. The Arab population was equivalent to that of a small town of perhaps half a million – wandering Bedouin or recent Muslim immigrants from Bosnia, Libya, Algeria, Syria and Egypt.

The fact that there were Arabs living in a land designated by the Balfour Declaration of 1917 to be the Jewish homeland, does not mean that Arabs were automatically entitled to sovereignty in Palestine. The Arabs already have 21 states in the region, while other indigenous peoples such as Kurds, Assyrians and Berbers have none. For the likes of Karl Sabbagh, a single Jewish state is one too many.

Precedence in itself does mean much. My parents were brutally expelled from Iraq, where the Jewish community dates back 2,700 years – predating the Arab invasion by 1,000 years. Yet I do not see Jews from Iraq loudly abusing Arabs for their crimes.

Mrs L Julius

Julius’s letter is spot-on, but the story doesn’t end there.

A brief search of Karl Sabbagh demonstrates that he is prolific anti-Zionist who proves Gold’s thesis. Sabbagh (a ‘Palestinian-British’ writer and journalist), in 2011, participated in a panel discussion with Alan Hart (who has described Zionists as “the new Nazis“) and one of the most prolific antisemites, Gilad Atzmon.

In the video, Sabbagh praises Atzmon’s book, The Wandering Who?, and fails to render even the slightest objection while Atzmon characterizes Judaism as a “supremacist ideology fueled by chosenness”, opines that Jews control the world, suggests that Jews were responsible for fomenting the Nazi genocide, and even mocks Holocaust victims.

The sickening video serves to prove Gold’s thesis that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are, in reality, more often than not ugly ideological bedfellows.

You can read a summary of the hate fest at The JC.

(UPDATE: Dave Rich at the CST has more on Karl Sabbagh, here)

Breathtaking Hypocrisy Watch: Per Guardian/AP, Palestinians accuse Gingrich of ‘Incitement’ (cifwatch.com)
Guardian buries and distorts story about US Ambassador’s excuse for Muslim antisemitism (cifwatch.com)
Most banal observation about antisemitism ever at the Guardian? (cifwatch.com)
U.S. Ambassador blames Israel for European Muslim antisemitism: Teachable moment for the Left? (cifwatch.com)
On the explicit antisemitism of the Guardian’s Deborah Orr (cifwatch.com)
Flagman: Arab ‘Spring’, the Guardian & the glorification of a nation’s anti-Zionist obsession (cifwatch.com)
Antisemitism without Jews: What Egyptian soccer fans’ pro-Holocaust chants say about the ‘Arab Spring’ (cifwatch.com)

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? (Who Guards the Guardians?)

January 17, 2012 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, Board of Deputies of British Jews, Boycott, Comment is Free, Delegitimization, Guardian, Jonathan Hoffman | by Guest/Cross Post | 121 comments

A guest post by Jonathan Hoffman

On Sunday, the following Motion proposed by me and seconded by Harry Levine was on the agenda of the Board of Deputies of British Jews:

“The Board regrets the regular appearance of antisemitic material in The Guardian and its online blog “Comment is Free”. The Board urges all who oppose antisemitism to refrain from buying the Guardian or advertising in it, until its Editor has proved that he is willing to confront the problem.”

The matter falls into the ambit of the Defence Division of the Board. They did not like the boycott element of the motion, so they proposed their own ‘spoiler’:

“The Board of Deputies of British Jews is appalled at the continued biased and anti-Israel reporting which appears in the Guardian newspaper, and its online web forum, Comment is Free, which regularly crosses the boundaries of legitimate criticism into the realms of antisemitism. The Board deplores the persistent lack of intervention and toothless approach to this issue taken thus far by the Press Complaints Commission, and expresses its support for initiatives which will create a transparent and robust regulatory system, to cover not only the mainstream press in general but also electronic, technical and specialist media.”

Their motion was discussed first (despite the fact that the only reason it was there was my motion).

The discussion was bizarre. Alex Brummer (a journalist now with the Mail, formerly The Guardian) stressed the importance of a free press and called the motion ‘intellectual fascism’.

Another former journalist (ex-Reuters) said much the same.

Alex Goldberg (an interfaith professional) said he has written for CiF and had always found the editing sympathetic and The Guardian is not an antisemitic newspaper: after all, the Guardian website features the “Sounds Jewish” podcast.

Someone quoted Jonathan Freedland as saying how careful and wide-ranging the daily editorial conference is.

Several people said that The Guardian is not an antisemitic paper (though, neither the ‘spoiler’ nor my motion claims it is, just that it carries antisemitic material regularly).

Three or four people said the motion was ‘toothless’ implying that they might support my motion. (I did not rise to speak as I wanted to speak to my own motion).

The ‘spoiler’ motion was defeated by a substantial majority (46-77). I put this down to a combination of:

(a) the ‘hands off the free press’ argument

(b) the ‘toothless’ argument and

Only after two hours was my motion addressed. But it wasn’t. The Chairman moved that ‘the motion be not put’ without any discussion and it was carried overwhelmingly. I put this down to a combination of the ‘hands off the free press’ argument and the fact that after two hours people’s attention span is reduced and they thought they had heard enough about The Guardian.

The ‘motion not be put’ device is completely undemocratic. The Constitution (SO17) gives a Deputy the right to speak to a Motion and have it voted. If a Motion was frivolous or otherwise unacceptable I could understand that the Chair might call for a vote that it ‘not be put’. But no-one could say that of this motion – after all it was taken seriously enough that a ‘spoiler’ was tabled.

But draw your own conclusions – you can read the speech I would have made – opposing the ‘motion be not put’ motion – below.

Here’s the text of my prepared speech:

We have a constitutional duty to advance Israel’s security, welfare and standing. We also have a duty to protect, support and defend the interests of Jews.

The Guardian is the polar opposite of advancing Israel’s security, welfare and understanding. It defames and lies about Israel continuously. Robin Shepherd has called it “the mainstream Anglo publication most hostile to Israel in the world.” Moreover it frequently crosses the line into antisemitism. After Israel released 1027 terrorists in exchange for Gilad Shalit, a Guardian columnist – Deborah Orr – unbelievably wrote that Israel chose the 1027:1 ratio for racist reasons. She wrote “there is something abject in their eagerness to accept a transfer that tacitly acknowledges what so many Zionists believe – that the lives of the chosen are of hugely greater consequence than those of their unfortunate neighbours.

I can cite many more examples. Former Ambassador Ron Prosor wrote: ‘Never has a British broadsheet so openly served the agenda of Middle Eastern extremism. The Guardian must be commended for its transparency: readers can no longer doubt its affinity for Hamas’.

This Motion needs to be debated. It needs to be debated because the Board must take a stand against The Guardian and must encourage others to do the same. A strong stand. “Deploring” and “being appalled” – as the defeated Defence Division motion states – is toothless (one of the reasons it was defeated). It is simply talking to ourselves.

It is time for the Board to take the lead in using economic leverage against The Guardian until things change. The Guardian matters. It is approximately the 200th most visited website in the world (for comparison, the BBC is the 45^th). That’s tens of millions of unique users a month. The Board supports Advocacy Conferences but unless it’s willing to act and act decisively against the sources of delegitimisation, it’s fighting only one half of the battle.

They did it in Australia. Faced with a similar problem with “The Age” newspaper in Melbourne, the Jewish leadership took a stand. They severed ties with the newspaper, accusing it of “clear and consistent vilification of the world’s only Jewish state”. They did it in Australia – are we really too timid and too much of a pushover to do it here?

When this Motion was debated in Defence Division there were four objections raised. All are easy to answer.

The first was “People will say we’re trying to control the media”. Simple response: We must not let antisemites tell us how to deal with antisemitism

The second was “We don’t believe in boycotts”. The Defence Division says our Motion will “undermine the community’s long held opposition to boycotts”.

Ah yes .. I remember now …. That was the same opposition which led the Board of Deputies to resolutely refuse to join the Boycott of Nazi Germany which began on 21^st March 1935. The Board continued to refuse to join the Boycott throughout the 1930s. It was on the wrong side of history then. Is it really going to make the same mistake again?

The third argument was “There are not enough Jewish readers/advertisers of the Guardian to make it successful”. My response is that this is about building a coalition of right-thinking people. There are plenty of non-Jews who will support us. Indeed there are plenty who are mystified as to why we have not done it already.

The final argument was “A debate/vote will show us divided”. My response to that is So What? Is it so shameful for Jews to be seen to be disagreeing? We are a notoriously disputatious people – we disagree all the time for heaven’s sake.

Many people have told us that we should not have to move this Motion. The Executive should have acted long ago. I completely agree. It is shameful that the Executive is not sponsoring this Motion just as it was shameful that the Board failed to join the Boycott against Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

That makes our right to have the right to have this Motion debated unquestionable. Standing Order 17 gives us that right. If this Motion was frivolous then we could accept that this Motion be not put. But the Defence Division clearly does not think it frivolous since we have spurred it to come up with its own Motion.

If a Deputy cannot have such an important Motion debated, then we might as well shut up shop and go home … what is the point of becoming a Deputy … and what kind of example is this to the young people we are trying to persuade to become Deputies…??

The Guardian vindicates CiF Watch (cifwatch.com)
Guardian buries and distorts story about US Ambassador’s excuse for Muslim antisemitism (cifwatch.com)
Guardian partner blog, The Arabist, claims Israel lobby is forming ties with “proto-fascists” (cifwatch.com)
What the Guardian won’t report: Egyptian soccer fans call for a new Holocaust against Jews (cifwatch.com)
The Guardian welcomes back Ben White, tireless campaigner for the end of the Jewish State (cifwatch.com)
Want to protect yourself from an antisemitic mob? Order our new “I’m not a Jew” Gear, today! (cifwatch.com)

CiF Watch exclusive interview with Smadar Bakovic, who fought anti-Zionist bias in UK Academia & won!

December 24, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Antisemitism, BDS, Boycott, Nicola Pratt, Warwick University | by Adam Levick | 159 comments

An Israeli postgraduate student at Warwick University (in Coventry, UK) recently prevailed in efforts to have her dissertation re-marked to a distinction after it was originally given a poor mark by a professor who promotes academic boycotts of Israel.

Smadar Bakovic had repeatedly told the school she was uncomfortable with the professor, Nicola Pratt, overseeing her master’s dissertation on Israeli Arab identity.

Professor Pratt is an anti-Israel activist who, following Operation Cast Lead, was one of more than 100 academics who wrote to the Guardian saying “Israel must lose” and calling for the UK to implement BDS against the Jewish state.

Ms Bakovic, 35, who lives near Jerusalem, spent a year challenging Warwick’s original rejection of her appeal against the decision to allow Professor Pratt to supervise her.

She was told last week that her re-marked dissertation had obtained a distinction, with a score 11 points higher than the original mark given by Professor Pratt.

Upon contacting Ms. Bakovic, she agreed to answer a few of my questions:

Adam Levick: First, congratulations on your success in having your dissertation re-marked to a distinction after it was originally given a poor mark by Professor Pratt. How do you feel about prevailing?

Smadar Bakovic: It was a hard, frustrating year. I had to spend a whole year writing letters and reports to the university, and even had to appear in a video-conference with the university’s Complaints Committee, in order to persuade them that an injustice took place. A WHOLE YEAR.

I did this for myself, for Israel, for Jews and for all other minorities all over the world who are being discriminated on the basis of where they come from or anything else. I am sure that had I been gay or black and professor Pratt were to sign petitions to boycott all gays and/or blacks, the university would have kicked her out a long time ago, and petitions would not be necessary, as the act would have been so disgraceful to the university.

But Israel and Jew hatred are a free for all – not meaning that all British people are racist, but there is definitely an atmosphere within UK academia and other fields such that one can be anti-Semitic without paying the consequences. As if there is justice for all, BUT for Jews and Israelis. I feel great. I won the battle. But the war is not over yet. The most disgraceful thing is that the university is STILL backing Pratt and saying that she is “exemplary.” Would the university defend her were she against ANY other minority? No. Pratt would be already looking for a new job.

AL: Can you briefly explain how you first realized Professor Pratt was biased against you do to the fact that you’re a Zionist?

SB: I first came across Pratt when one evening, there was an event in which the Palestinian society (can’t remember its name) invited a Jew from Jews for Justice for Palestinians.

The message the event sent to the audience was: Israel should not have been established (but since now it is too late for that, some political solution should be reached), it is a murderous Apartheid regime, etc….Professor Pratt was the moderator for this.

She was also connected to other activities on campus, so I knew this was something she was regularly involved in. Then, when I saw that she was allocated to me, a red light came on immediately, and I did some research about her on the Internet.

It took me exactly 2 seconds to see exactly what she was about – one of the largest supporters of the academic (and other) boycotts of Israel, who signs petitions accusing Israel of “ethnic cleansing” and being an “Apartheid state.” Even she (on her site on the Warwick page) calls herself an activist.

I then knew that I was dealing with a self-defined anti-Israel academic, who really calls to boycott Israeli academia, meaning Jewish Israeli academia, which makes her also an anti-Semite.

If I were Muhammed Jaber but with an Israeli passport, then I am sure Nicola Pratt would not at all object to having me in the university, even if I were to apply from an Israeli institution which she calls to boycott. Additionally, Pratt, in her feedback of my dissertation said that I was pursuing Israeli and Zionist lines and perspectives.

What is a Zionist perspective, or an Israeli one?

Obviously, she doesn’t acknowledge that Israel is a pluralistic, democratic state, so there are MANY different opinions about everything. She also put down anything I wrote which was even slightly from the Israeli perspective and said “surely this is the perspective of the Israeli government.” (And she reduced points for this).

AL: As The JC reported, following Operation Cast Lead Pratt was one of more than 100 academics who wrote to the Guardian saying “Israel must lose” the war and calling for the UK to implement a programme of BDS. What are your broader views about the fact that such racism against Israelis seems so egregious within the UK media and Academia?

SB: Nicola Pratt and her likes think that everyone should be treated equally, except Israelis and Jews. Meaning that she has no problem with Iran, Hezbollah, and she doesn’t call for the boycott of Iran or Lebanon.

Her obsession, as is the obsession of many others, is ONLY the “evil” coming out of Israel, the ONLY democracy in the Middle East, where woman and minorities have rights, and where they can vote and participate in all walks of life. The only place in the Middle East where human shields are not used, and where the army has strict guidelines about when they can fire.

This to her and to her like is the only point – Israel represents to her everything that is evil, the cause of everything that is bad in the region.

On my dissertation, she also claimed that my claim that minorities in the Arab Middle East don’t have equal rights is incorrect – that the only aspect in which they are discriminated against is religiously. And she is an “expert” on women in the Middle East. So you see? Nothing is as evil as Israel. And when something is evil…..well, you know what should happen to it.

This is why they compare Israel and South Africa – South Africa was an Apartheid state which was illegitimate. And because of its illegitimacy, it had to be eradicated. She and the BDS movement are smart – they don’t explicitly say let’s boycott Israeli Jews, but, rather, let’s boycott Israeli institutions. While it may not be okay in most circles to explicitly say you hate Jews, hating Israel is just fine.

In effect, Pratt knows that, unlike other forms of racism, racism against Israel is often condoned, and she probably never thought that this would become an issue. And the response of the university shows that to a great extent, she was right! They know exactly who they can pick on. I say, enough of this!

AL: I was very moved by the fact that you said you fought this battle for Israel. Can you please elaborate?

SB: Nicola Pratt, and those who think like her reject Israel’s right to exist and especially to exist as a Jewish state, separate Israel from all other states. In effect, what they are saying is that Zionism, which represents the national aspirations of the Jewish people, is illegitimate, evil and racist. But yet they have no problem with their own states having been born out of nationalism…or being defined as a Christian [or Muslim] state (in name, in customs, in the way of life…).

This has only one answer: if Israel should not exist and Jews should not be able to define themselves as they want, then Jews themselves don’t have a right to exist as free people, as this is the only place they have where they can be guaranteed to live freely without the oppression of anti-Semitism. If Israel won’t be a Jewish state, then we all know what will happen to the Jews who reside there.

Pratt calls to boycott all Israeli institutions, in EVERY way – not to accept applications, not to host Israeli professors, to stop any UK and EU cooperation between themselves and Israel. ONLY Israel. It is not like she is saying, look the Middle East is all violent….look what is happening now with the Arab Spring…..thousands are being killed…..let’s boycott them all. No, to her ONLY Israel is the problem in the region. This is not only anti-Israel bias, but also blatant anti-Semitism….singling Israel out as the Jew among nations, where everyone else is pure, and Israel is bad. This is unacceptable.

AL: As Harry’s Place noted, it seems odd that, given the obvious potential for conflict between you and Pratt, that the dissertation wasn’t second marked to begin with. Was this possibility ever discussed?

SB: There are two points here. The dissertation was marked by another professor (who is not an expert in the Middle East) who gave me a higher mark. But with Pratt’s low mark, the total mark was very low. This, however, is not the point. Because from the very start, I could not write the dissertation freely – my real politics and beliefs were suppressed, that it doesn’t matter how many people would have marked it, it wasn’t something I really wrote and believed in.

When it was marked again, I changed a few sentences which were only there because I knew Pratt’s political orientation. This is why I based my entire appeal on what the department didn’t want me to find, the Charter of Statutes, in which paragraph 20 details this issue, where you can’t be politically intimidated when writing. You can find this here.

The dissertation could have been marked by 1,000 more people…but since its content was “biased” anyway…what was the point?? It is not only about the mark – the university violated my right (signed by the HM Queen) to write freely without any intimidation.

When I wrote to the department about Pratt, BEFORE starting to write, and I even sent them links as to Pratt’s desire to boycott Israel, they said I *had* to work under her. They didn’t want to understand what was going on. Any other minority would have been treated differently (ALL minorities should be protected from such bias).

AL: Finally, can you tell us a little about the petition being circulated asking that Professor Pratt be fired for such unprofessional conduct?

SB: The petition was not started my me, but was brought to my attention. I am surprised, positively of course, that people are finding it and signing this. I see this as a great window of opportunity, at a time when Jews and Israelis are usually intimidated and silenced, to fight against this type of racism and discrimination.

This must be done while we can, before the momentum disappears. Professor Pratt should not be a part of Warwick, or of any other reputable institution, as she supports racism against a very specific group – Israelis and Jews. Anyone who believes that the academic world in the UK should be liberal, open-minded and inclusive should sign this. Each of us might face discrimination one day, and we have to support each other in combating it. I urge everyone to sign it.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/fire-professor-nicola-pratt-now/

Smadar BAKOVIC, December 23, 2011, Israel.

UPDATE:

Like the Facebook Page of “Fire Nicola Pratt“

UPDATE 2:

Per The Jewish Chronicle, Nicola Pratt is being investigated by the agency that reviews the performance of universities.

Fight or flight? CiF Watch, David Yehuda Stern & Ben White (cifwatch.com)
Muslim Zionist, Kasim Hafeez: “Life is a lot happier when you don’t hate as much.” (cifwatch.com)
The Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland reconciles with the anti-Zionist left (cifwatch.com)
Guardian again champions Tony Kushner & omits his view that Israel shouldn’t have been born (cifwatch.com)

Observer 2011 classical music review notes “trouble” brought by Israel Philharmonic Orchestra

December 12, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, BDS, Boycott, Classical music, Delegitimization, Fiona Maddocks, Guardian, Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, London Philharmonic Orchestra, Observer, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Royal Albert Hall | by Adam Levick | 17 comments

Fiona Maddocks’ report, “The Best classical music of 2011“, Observer, Dec. 11, began her take on the best classical performances as follows:

This year’s riots and protests to some degree penetrated the usually self-contained world of music. When word spread that the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra would play at the BBC Proms, everyone anticipated trouble. It proved the case. Hecklers shouted in the Royal Albert Hall, bringing the Radio 3 live broadcast to a halt. Players from the London Philharmonic Orchestra, among several signatories of a letter to a national newspaper protesting at the Israel concert, were suspended, generating a second level of heated debate which is still, if behind the scenes, working itself out.

Other visiting orchestras brought purely musical pleasures…

Yes, those Israelis. Bringing trouble wherever they go.

In fact the only ones causing trouble were the Palestine Solidarity Campaign anti-Israel activists, and their few fellow political travelers, who somehow found it progressive to boycott a performance by Israeli musicians.

A handful of London Philharmonic Orchestra (LPO) musicians joined in calls for a cultural boycott of the Jewish state, expressing their view that the performance by the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra (IPO) should have been cancelled.

Specifically, the musicians signed a letter as members of the LPO denouncing the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra as “an instrument of the country’s propaganda,” echoing Sarah Colborne, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) who characterized the Israel’s Orchestra as an organization which lends ”strategic support to Israel’s occupation.”

Yes, classical musicians performing for the national orchestra of the Jewish state are truly just another insidious element of Zionist oppression.

PSC, for those unaware, is an organisation which continually has demonstrated itself compromised by the explicit expressions of antisemitism of its “activists” and leaders; a group so “progressive” that it invited the extremist Islamist preacher, Sheikh Raed Salah, to speak – a man who was convicted for funding Hamas, who repeatedly incited his followers to violence, and who called homosexuality “a crime” that starts “the collapse of every society”.

However, as Richard Millet noted about the shameful disruptions at the Proms in contrast with the musical pleasure appreciated by the overwhelming majority of the London audience:

The band played on, the audience inside the Royal Albert Hall loved it and screamed “More!”,

JavaScript required to play Massive ovation for IPO at RAH at end of concert on 1.9.11: www.richardmillett.wordpress.com.

#BDSFAIL

Why did the BBC pull last night’s live transmission of the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra at the Proms? (Richard Millett)

Pacifist Aggressive: the Quaker echo chamber which empowers terrorism.

August 7, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Alastair Crooke, anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, BDS, Boycott, Christian Peacemaker Teams, Delegitimization, Ismail Patel, Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, Quakers, Religious Society of Friends, Terrorism, Woodbrooke Quaker Study Centre | by Israelinurse | 28 comments

The decision taken in April 2011 by British members of the Religious Society of Friends – or Quakers, as they are perhaps better known – to officially join the BDS movement and engage in the boycotting of goods originating in certain parts of Israel brought the need for examination of this group’s activities into clearer focus. For several years, some British bloggers have been publicly asking for explanations regarding repeated incidents of the hiring out of Quaker-owned facilities in London and elsewhere in the UK to extremist groups with a less than pacifist ethos. Others have wondered at some of the funding decisions made by Quaker charities such as the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. A look inside the world of the Friends is, therefore, perhaps long overdue.

Several of the organisations which have received funding from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust over the last few years are familiar actors in the assault upon Israel’s legitimacy. They include ‘War on Want‘ (which actively promoted Ben White’s book “Israeli Apartheid- a Beginner’s Guide), the Oxford Research Group and its offshoot organisation the Oxford Peace Research Trust (which feature such figures as Tony Klug, Azzam Tamimi and Gabrielle Rifkind), the Nobel Women’s Initiative (which includes flotilla participant Mairead Maguire), Christian Peacemaker Teams (at least one member of which took part in the recent ‘flytilla’) and the Network of Christian Peace Organisations which includes Pax Christi, the Methodist Peace fellowship and Ekklesia. The Israeli organisation ‘New Profile’, which solicits and encourages Israeli youth to break the law of their country by encouraging and enabling draft dodging supposedly on the grounds of ‘conscientious objection’ was also a Rowntree grantee in 2007 and has further ties to both UK and US Quaker organisations.

Perhaps one of the more dubious funding decisions taken by the Rowntree Trust was its June 2007 award of a £45,000 grant spread over three years to Alastair Crooke’s ‘Conflicts Forum’, which includes on its board Ismail Patel of ‘Friends of Al Aqsa’, Hamas supporter Azzam Tamimi and Moazzam Begg of ‘Cageprisoners’. In July 2010 a second grant of £40,000 over 24 months was awarded and in addition to that, the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust appeared to be very proud to announce that ‘Conflicts Forum’ had been selected as the recipient of a “special peace grant”.

Conflicts Forum’s director Alastair Crooke is a staunch supporter of the current Iranian and Syrian regimes as well as a supporter of and mouthpiece for Hizbollah and Hamas. In 2007 – perhaps with the aid of the Rowntree funding, although it was also being funded by the EU at the time – ‘Conflicts Forum’ produced a report (worth reading in full) detailing a public relations campaign to rebrand the proscribed terrorist groups Hamas and Hizbollah in the West as proponents of “social justice”.

At first glance it may appear incongruous for a Quaker charity to be involved in the generous funding of an organisation which supports and legitimises some of the world’s most repressive regimes. Logic would seemingly dictate that the pacifist Quakers would be among the first to express horror at the indiscriminate murder of unarmed Iranian and Syrian civilians seeking political change by the armed forces of their own governments. It may also appear difficult to reconcile Quaker pacifism with the giving of repeated grants to an organisation such as Conflicts Forum which openly supports heavily armed terrorist groups which have murdered hundreds of unarmed civilians.

So how did these repeated grants make their way from the Rowntree Trust to a selection of organisations engaged in lending material or moral support to such obviously non-pacifist causes?

Whilst the inner workings of the grant-giving Trustees of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust remain an enigma, a clue may lie in the fact that one member of the five person (four of whom are also Trustees) “Peace Committee” which awarded the “special peace grant” to Conflicts Forum is a Quaker named Michael Eccles. Mr Eccles currently works at the Woodbrooke Quaker Study Centre in Birmingham where he is a tutor, particularly of young adult Quakers, and is involved in the Quaker Peace and Social Witness programme. He also worked with an organisation called ‘Responding to Conflict’ as its Middle East programme coordinator. Prior to that, however, Eccles held a fairly senior role as regional coordinator at the charity ‘Islamic Relief Worldwide’ (IRW). In May 2006 his colleague and subordinate, the IRW representative in Gaza, Iyaz Ali of Shipley, near Bradford, was deported from Israel.

“Incriminating files were found on Ali’s computer, including documents that attested to the organization’s ties with illegal Hamas funds abroad (in the UK and in Saudi Arabia) and in Nablus. Also found were photographs of swastikas superimposed on IDF symbols, of senior Nazi German officials, of Osama Bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, as well as many photographs of Hamas military activities.”

“The IRW was established in 1984 in the British city of Birmingham. It has branches in Gaza and Ramallah. The IRW provides support and assistance to Hamas’s infrastructure. The IRW’s activities in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip are carried out by social welfare organizations controlled and staffed by Hamas operatives. The intensive activities of these associations are designed to further Hamas’s ideology among the Palestinian population.”

IRW has been identified as a member of the ‘Union of Good’ – the Muslim Brotherhood’s umbrella organization involved in fundraising for Hamas and its terrorist activities which is headed by the notoriously homophobic and anti-Semitic cleric Yussuf Qaradawi and which was banned in Israel in 2002 and designated a terrorist organization by the USA in 2008. Some of the IRW’s British Trustees are known members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Strangely, the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust appears to have seen fit to make a man who worked for such a controversial body for five years partly responsible for the allocation of large sums of money to so-called ‘peace’ organizations. Not so strange is the resulting fact that a supposedly pacifist Quaker charity then repeatedly allocates grants to an outfit such as Conflicts Forum which supports terrorist organizations and whitewashes repressive human rights-abusing regimes.

However, the Quakers’ selective pacifism and terrorist denial does not end with the granting of financial gifts. The Quaker Council for European Affairs, which sits in Brussels, produced a frankly stunning report in 2007 entitled “Effective Counter-Terrorism”. This report really does need to be read in full for the magnitude of its dangerous mix of naivety combined with unquestioned faux axioms to be appreciated.

One might assume that such a report would be compiled by some sort of expert in the field, seeing as it proffers recommendations to the EU on subjects such as intelligence and security. But no; it was in fact written by one of the QCEA’s program assistants (interns) and edited by the joint representative (co-director) of the organization, Liz Scurfield. Ms Scurfield is actually an expert in Chinese language by profession and the intern, Matthew Taylor, was barely a couple of years out of university when he penned this report. Nevertheless, apparently both consider themselves adequately informed and the opinions of lay persons of the Quaker faith across Europe ( with whom they consulted in the preparation of the report) sufficiently weighty to be able to produce a document issuing recommendations to the security services and the EU parliament.

This act of rather barefaced self-aggrandizement takes on even more worrying proportions when one takes into account that one of the activities of the QCEA is to lobby EU MEPs – something Ms Scurfield engages in herself – and that reports and papers emanating from the QCEA are instrumental in forming policy for Quaker groups throughout Europe. Liz Scurfield and her colleague Martina Weitch also attend events such as United Nations meetings in their capacity as QCEA representatives and issue briefings designed to influence EU decision-making on the subject of the Middle East.

Read the rest of this entry »

Lush: “We aren’t anti-Semitic”.

August 4, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, BDS, Boycott, Delegitimization | by Guest/Cross Post | 12 comments

This is cross posted at Richard Mille tt’s Blog

Lush flying the Saudi flag on their site.

Here we go again. Yet another claim that “We aren’t anti-Semitic” by someone attacking Israel in the most crudest terms.

Lush’s website is still promoting a song that claims that there are “more than six million (Palestinian) refugees”, that Palestinians were forced from their homes and history, that Gaza is a prison camp, that the wall that keeps Israelis safe from suicide bombers is an “apartheid wall”, and that blames only Israel for violence and accuses it of racial segregation.

Despite this Lush aren’t anti-Semitic. And you know why Lush aren’t anti-Semitic? Because they say so.

They have just released another statement (see end) part of which reads:

“Standing for the human rights of one does not undermine calls for the human rights of others. Likewise, criticising Israeli government policies is not akin to being anti-Semitic or anti the Israeli state. We do not tolerate racism or any other form of discrimination.”

So Lush might not like it that Iranian gays are hanged for wishing to express their sexuality, or that women are not allowed to drive or work in Saudi Arabia or that Syrian civilians are being massacred en masse, it’s just that singling out the Jewish state is more important.

Lush even has shops in Saudi Arabia, so they are actually contributing to a government with a totally deplorable human rights record!

The statement continues:

“We believe that the occupation exacerbates violence in the region and therefore bringing it to an end is a vital step in the peace process.”

So it’s all about “the occupation”, stupid.

It has nothing at all to do with Hamas’ desire to kill Jews as stated in their Charter (Article 7), or that Hamas believes Israel is an “Islamic waqf” (Article 11), or that Hamas has no plans for any “peaceful solutions and international conferences” (Article 13), or that every Muslim’s duty is one of Jihad to fight the “Jews’ usurpation of Palestine” (Article 15).

The Charter also claims that Jews proclaimed “Mohammad is dead” and that “Israel, Judaism, Jews, challenge Islam and the Muslim people”.

But Lush aren’t anti-Semitic, remember. They’re just criticising “the occupation” and Israel’s alleged breaches of international law.

And when the leader of the EDL, Tommy Robinson, said last week that what happened recently in Norway could happen in the UK, he was accused of making threats and condoning violence.

Well, by stating “the occupation exacerbates violence” hasn’t Lush now done a similar thing?

Robinson argues that increased Muslim immigration will bring more violence to our streets from those opposed to it, but Lush are allowed to get away with “understanding” why the Palestinians are so violent against Israelis.

I have tried speaking to Lush for the last week and a half, but they refuse to return calls.

In exhasperation I called Norman Black, the head of marketing at Brent Cross, who said that there was nothing Brent Cross could do about Lush’s campaign. He said it was a Lush issue, not a Brent Cross issue.

He also said that Brent Cross would not allow any sort of peaceful protest against Lush as “this would mean introducing politics into Brent Cross”, nevermind that Lush introduced the politics. This also explains Lush’s “bold” statement, reported in the Jewish Chronicle, that “we would not ask Brent Cross to move people on if they came to protest”.

They know that Brent Cross security will do it for them!

When I spoke to Lush last week I suggested they could be more objective and instead promote the the Parents Circle – Families Forum, an organisation where bereaved Israeli and Palestinian relatives meet and also speak in schools and universities about their tragic experiences due to the conflict. These are people who really have suffered. But Lush refuses to take anything on board, except the anti-Israel propaganda they are constantly fed by War on Want.

Another of Lush’s “ethical campaigns” was to help free Binyam Mohamed from Guantanamo Bay. But what about Gilad Schalit, kidnapped by Hamas nearly five years ago and kept in solitary confinement in Gaza with no access to doctors or his family?

But, I must repeat, Lush aren’t anti-Semitic in the slightest.

Singling out the Jewish state only for criticism while staying silent about Muslim countries executing gays and slaughtering their own people, as in Syria, is not anti-semitic.

Sticking up for Binyam Mohamed, while staying silent about Gilad Schalit is ok. They will get around to Gilad eventually, I’m sure.

When I spoke to Norman Black he said he totally understood our position but that he also admired Lush’s single-mindedness of purpose.

More pertinently, he said he was relieved that the section of society that was outraged by Lush’s campaign was not one that was prone to anything more than peaceful protest.

So, there you have it in a nutshell: British Jews are a benign lot, whereas members of certain other minority groups might not be so forgiving.

Some organisations get this which is why they single out Israel, while allowing other countries to get away with, quite literally, murder. They might also have done the math. There are approximately 1.5 billion Muslims in the world and only about 14 million Jews. It could be great for business to be so anti-Israel these days.

Full Lush press release:

Lush supports the OneWorld Freedom for Palestine campaign because we believe in human rights and equality for all. Freedom for Palestine is a multi-cultural, multi-faith song that expresses the concerns some musicians across the UK and global community have about the denial of basic rights of the Palestinian people. The song calls for the end of the Israeli occupation of Palestine – which the United Nations has recognised as breaking human rights law.

Organisations such as the International Red Cross, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have expressed concerns about human rights abuses and a resulting humanitarian crisis caused by the occupation. Areas of concern include poverty, unemployment, food insecurity, limited access to clean water and farmland and restricted access to healthcare and medicines.

Standing for the human rights of one does not undermine calls for the human rights of others. Likewise, criticising Israeli government policies is not akin to being anti-Semitic or anti the Israeli state. We do not tolerate racism or any other form of discrimination.

We believe that the occupation exacerbates violence in the region and therefore bringing it to an end is a vital step in the peace process. Calling for an end to the occupation is simply calling for adherence to international law in the hope that this will bring about security and peace for all in the region. The Israeli and Palestinian people must find a solution that respects human rights for both sides and adheres to international human rights law; it’s our job as part of the international community to do what we can to ensure this happens.

Kind regards,

Vicky Jansson
Customer Care Manager
Lush Ltd.

MEMO and Carlos Latuff, “respectfully” criticizing Israel (cifwatch.com)
On CiF Watch and the fight against contemporary anti-Semitism (cifwatch.com)
Israel section of the Guardian’s online bookshop includes a work by David Duke’s favorite Jew (cifwatch.com)
A praised Guardian favorite is not so … praiseworthy (cifwatch.com)
Conal Urquhart quotes Ben White as a source in Guardian’s second whitewash of anti-Semitic preacher (cifwatch.com)
U.S. “slavish subservience to Israel” Update (cifwatch.com)
What the Guardian won’t report: Latest Pew Study demonstrates anti-Semitism in many Arab countries is universal (cifwatch.com)

BDS Sewer System: Exposing Anti-Israel Boycotts

July 20, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, BDS, Boycott, Delegitimization, NGO-Monitor, NGOs | by Adam Levick | 4 comments

This video, produced by NGO Monitor, exposes the network of funders, NGOs, and tactics that make up the global boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement – a key component of the political war to demonize and isolate Israel. As the video notes, “BDS is anti-peace, anti-human rights, and offers no platform for constructive dialogue.”

Requisite photo of Palestinians behind bars accompanies “report” by Harriet Sherwood on anti-BDS bill

July 16, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, BDS, Boycott, Comment is Free, Delegitimization, Guardian, Harriet Sherwood, HonestReporting, Michael White | by Adam Levick | 5 comments

Last year, Akus commented o n the Guardian’s use of often highly inappropriate photos, in Israel related stories, in service of reinforcing a desired narrative.

He noted the debacle of the Guardian’s use of the following pre-disengagement picture from Gaza in 2005 to illustrate an article by Leila El-Haddad – which they eventually removed – to reinforce the narrative of Gaza, in 2010, as a place worse than a prison camp.

Indeed, Honest Reporting issued an excellent report in December on the use of bars in images (by the mainstream media) to enhance the impression of Palestinians suffering as “prisoners” of Israeli occupation and brutality.

So far, Harriet Sherwood has posted three pieces on Israel’s controversial new anti-BDS law in as many days. And, while the latest (Israelis divided over new law that backs business hit by trade boycotts, July 15th) is actually not as one-sided as the first two (as it actually marginally presents the views of some who support the law), the editors’ choice of a photo to advance the paper’s desired narrative regarding the broader conflict is quite transparent.

It’s fair to ask why this photo – which, based on a search I did from the image’s URL, turns out to have been taken in February of 2007 – was chosen to illustrate the story.

Sherwood’s piece, after all, is about attempts by Israel to fight efforts to isolate the state, by use of boycotts and other means of delegitimization, and it’s unclear what a photo of Palestinians passing through a checkpoint along Israel’s security fence in 2007 has to do with either the recently passed Knesset bill, or the broader issue of BDS.

If this was a commentary attempting to demonstrate Palestinian suffering in service of a broad moral defense of BDS against Israel, then the image (though still highly problematic) would at least have been contextually consistent.

However, as Harriet Sherwood is the Guardian’s Jerusalem correspondent, and the piece does not purport to be a polemic, it’s clear that the editor who chose to insert that stock photo was making an editorial decision to show Israel in the worst possible light, and highlight Palestinian suffering – the only narrative about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict which has any credibility among Guardian readers.

As Guardian Assistant Editor Michael White acknowledged, in a remarkably frank blog post in March, regarding the paper’s disproportionate criticism of Israel:

“[editors] strive much of the time to tell [Guardian readers] what [they'd] rather know rather than challenge [their] prejudices and make [them] cross.”

The Guardian: reinforcing their readers’ egregious biases against Israel – one story, and one image, at a time.

Harriet Sherwood story in Guardian quotes Richard Falk in accusing Israel of ethnic cleansing (cifwatch.com)
In a separate development…Harriet Sherwood tries to connect the dots (cifwatch.com)
Harriet Sherwood, and the Guardian’s continuing ideologically inspired sins of omission (cifwatch.com)
Harriet Sherwood, Egypt’s opening of its border with Gaza, and the photos not posted (cifwatch.com)
Guardian contributor characterizes proponents of Israel’s anti-BDS bill as supporters of “totalitarianism” (cifwatch.com)
Harriet Sherwood and the political hysteria of the Guardian Left (cifwatch.com)
Harriet Sherwood’s post critical of Israel’s proposed anti-BDS legislation fails to note EU and US precedents (cifwatch.com)
Harriet Sherwood erroneously places Knesset on Arab Farmland (cifwatch.com)

Harriet Sherwood’s post critical of Israel’s proposed anti-BDS legislation fails to note EU and US precedents

July 11, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: BDS, Boycott, Council of Europe, European Court of Human Rights, European Union, Guardian, Harriet Sherwood | by Adam Levick | 13 comments

In July 2009, the Council of Europe’s Court of Human Rights upheld a French ruling which deemed it illegal and discriminatory to boycott Israeli goods, and that making it illegal to call for a boycott of Israeli goods did not constitute a violation of one’s freedom of expression, as such as boycott constituted “incitement to discrimination.”

Today, Harriet Sherwood characterized as “anti-democratic” a proposed bill before the Israeli Knesset which would allow that any individual or organisation proposing a boycott could be sued for compensation by any individual or institution demonstrating it was damaged by such a call, (Israel prepares to pass law banning citizens from calling for boycotts).

The EU decision noted:

The exercise of…freedoms…carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder”

If further stated:

“The Court observed that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression had been provided for by law, being based on Articles 23 and 24 of the Press Act 1881, and that it pursued a legitimate aim, namely to protect the rights of Israeli producers.

Indeed, the U.S. has laws prohibiting individuals or companies engaged in commerce to participate in boycotts against Israel.

In fact, unlike the proposed Israeli law – which merely calls for monetary compensation for Israeli companies effected by such boycott efforts – the U.S. law stipulates that those guilty of such discriminatory boycotts can face imprisonment for up to five years.

So, the story, as it could have been told, is one of Israeli anti-boycott legislation which is at least in the spirit of legal precedents set by EU and US laws.

As with her previous post today – regarding the events surrounding Rachel Corrie’s death in 2003 – Sherwood again omits relevant information which could serve to properly frame the story.

While the civil libertarian in me, to be honest, has reservations about the proposed Knesset law, and while the devil is (as with all legislation) in the details, and reasonable people can of course disagree on the merits of the bill on various credible grounds, it’s also worth noting that it took me about 10 minutes on Google to find EU and US legal precedents necessary to properly contextualize such anti-boycott measures. My guess is that Harriet Sherwood could have done the same.

(Update, July 12th: The Israeli Knesset passed the law today. See English translation of the bill, here: boycott_prohibition_bill_27june2011-ENG).

We all want peace: Letter to the editor by an Israeli, published by West Dunbartonshire newspaper

June 15, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, BDS, Boycott, Delegitimization, Jim Bollan, West Dunbartonshire | by Adam Levick | 23 comments

Here is the letter published by the Dunbarton Reporter on June 14th by Jason Pearlman of Modi’in, Israel, in response to the ongoing controversy surrounding West Dunbartonshire’s boycott of Israeli goods.

Sir,

The name of West Dunbartonshire has featured widely in media concerned with the Middle East this past week. Here in Israel, it is has taken a notable hit following news of a ban on Israeli goods, and especially Israeli books – for Israeli Jews, there scarcely exists a scarier echo of the Third Reich.

I am Jewish, was born in the UK and now live in Israel. I live in an Israeli city near the West Bank, and am often in Jerusalem – accordingly I have regular contact with Palestinians, and like a majority of Jews in Israel, daily contact with Israeli Arabs, Christian, Muslim and Druze alike. What for you may be a political campaign, a hobby, a cause to support – for me is daily life. And let me tell you a bit about it.

When I drop off my kids at kindergarten in the morning, there is an armed guard at the door. When I enter any shop, hospital, cinema, museum or office, there too is an armed guard who checks my bag, and either passes a wand over me, or requests I walk through a metal detector.

In my home, I am required by law to have a safe room, with reinforced concrete and an airtight window and door. I have gas masks under my bed – for me, my wife and my infant children. I pay a high level of tax to afford a security service capable of defending me and my family from daily attempts on our lives, whether in the form of bombs, shootings, stabbings, deliberate hit and runs, or rockets from neighbouring territories and states. These attacks pre-date 1967, they occurred before Israel’s independence in 1948. Indeed they began as early as the 1920s, and were carried out by those incited into ‘jihad’ by the Islamic Mufti of Jerusalem and his supporters – a man who, while your parents and grandparents were fighting the Nazis, was making alliances with Hitler.

Yet, when my wife was diagnosed with cancer, she was treated by Jewish and Arab doctors and nurses, and alongside Jewish and Arab patients. Her surgeon was a Palestinian from Hebron, her nurse was a Druze from Haifa and her day care doctor was a Jew from Jerusalem. This is not reported in the media, because it is not unique. This is normal life, and is happening right now.

Speaking of the media, Israel’s press is the most open in the Middle East. If you doubt me, ask any British journalist in Israel; they have just been across the region covering the Arab Spring – see if they really feel that sound humanitarian reason would propose a boycott of Israeli publications over those from other states. There is freedom of speech in Israel like nowhere else in the region.

I am not suggesting Palestinian life is all fine and dandy. But myths such as a humanitarian crisis when economic figures are booming, and claims of occupation when Palestinians are suppressed by their own leaders, mean the Palestinian rhetoric as it is heard around the world is far from reflective of reality. Moreover, Palestinian television and press continue to preach, to children and adults alike, the culture of jihad, the honour of martyrdom and sickeningly deny Jews the right to exist. Farfur the ‘Mickey Mouse’ character who sung of suicide bombings to five year olds is just one example.

Finally, I ask you to consider the root of this motion to boycott Israeli goods, and books of all things. The Left in the UK is enduring difficult times. In recent years we have seen its key figures invite Islamist preachers and supporters of homophobia, suicide bombings and domestic abuse. We have seen leaders of Israel’s political opposition unable to speak in the UK. We have seen university unions deny the very definition of anti-Semitism, and leading members of the Houses of Parliament voice support for suicide bombings.

Remember 7/7, remember the attack on Glasgow’s airport. Imagine having this threat every day, not for a decade, but for a century.

I am not asking you to agree with Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians. I am simply asking you understand why and how these policies have come to be. I am asking you to listen to mainstream voices in Israel, not simply the hard Left or Right.

We all want peace. But I want a peace that assures my children a future. We may disagree on how we achieve this, but banning my leaders, boycotting my goods, blocking my books, silencing my voice – does only harm to all of us.

Jason Pearlman,

Modi’in, Israel

Scottish Council BDS leader, Jim Bollan: “Hamas are freedom fighters” (cifwatch.com)
Keep the pressure on West Dunbartonshire Council: Fight Racist Boycott of Israel (cifwatch.com)
Scottish anti-Israel forces defeated in Dundee Council (cifwatch.com)
The inimitable Mr. McColl (cifwatch.com)
Whisky Counter-Boycott (cifwatch.com)

Twitter Updates

Propaganda by wife of Islamic Jihad terrorist, Khadr Adnan: Courtesy of the Guardian : http://t.co/A2IsEX9X via @wordpressdotcom 36 minutes ago
Seumas Milne or Ahmadinejad? Guardian warns attacking Iran would be 'criminal aggression': http://t.co/3yXqLcYI via @wordpressdotcom 6 hours ago
Why do you conceal this context? http://t.co/E3fQ4ryF MT @AsaWinstanley: Stunning graphic illustrates context of Adnan's hunger strike 8 hours ago
@anthonypermal glad to hear that. 8 hours ago
.@huwaidaarraf bet this video of terrorist #KhaderAdnan makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. http://t.co/E3fQ4ryF 8 hours ago
9/11 troofer shilling for a terrorist tweeted by terror supporter > MT @huwaidaarraf: Richard Falk: Saving #KhaderAdnan's Life and Legacy 8 hours ago
@anthonypermal glad to hear it; but seeking a justification to murder Jews in cold blood....think about that. 8 hours ago
.@anthonypermal justifying suicide bombings eh? How lovely. 8 hours ago
Its so chic to shill for a terrorist http://t.co/E3fQ4ryF MT @sysh: Cool #infographic about Hunger Strikes. Feat. #KhaderAdnan 8 hours ago
Not this speech though! http://t.co/E3fQ4ryF >>MT @VanZaqq: RT @anthonypermal: The Hunger Strike Infographic. This chilled me.. #khaderadnan 8 hours ago
Clip of Israeli Amb to UK, Daniel Taub, blasting Deborah Orr at 'Big Tent for Zionism' conference: http://t.co/4TB3wkWp via @adamlevick 9 hours ago
#KhaderAdnan: "Who among you is the next suicide bomber?" http://t.co/E3fQ4ryF 11 hours ago
Would you let your children watch this video? #KhadersVictory4Palestine http://t.co/pzMthe71 13 hours ago
@Dima_Khatib Yes it counts to glorify a man who encourages suicide bombing. Wonderful! #KhadersVictory4Palestine http://t.co/pzMthe71 13 hours ago
Warning: don't watch this video if yoú're not tough http://t.co/pzMthe71 ##KhadersVictory4Palestine 13 hours ago
Do you know who you're praising? Adnan is no hero http://t.co/pzMthe71 ##KhadersVictory4Palestine 13 hours ago
Watch this video of #KhaderAdnan that the anti-Israel activists don't want you to see http://t.co/E3fQ4ryF 13 hours ago
.@JessicaMontell are you proud of yourself? http://t.co/E3fQ4ryF 13 hours ago
Does this sound like innocent? http://t.co/E3fQ4ryF MT @z4k8: RT @lsarsour: There are 100s of #KhaderAdnan in #palestine - innocent people.. 14 hours ago
This life or the afterlife? http://t.co/E3fQ4ryF >> MT @HopesProject: #KhadersVictory4Palestine you definitely taught us life, sir!!! 14 hours ago

Tag Archive

Finkelstein: “BDS Movement is a Cult.” (The video anti-Zionists didn’t want you to see)

More proof that J Street is clearly outside even the broadest Zionist tent

As Islamic extremists take power in ME, New Statesman publishes vicious attack on Israel by Ben White

Note to Philly BDS Activists: You will fail.

How NOT to combat anti-Israel incitement on UK campuses.

Guardian publishes letter by supporter of Gilad Atzmon, refuses to publish rebuttal

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? (Who Guards the Guardians?)

CiF Watch exclusive interview with Smadar Bakovic, who fought anti-Zionist bias in UK Academia & won!

Observer 2011 classical music review notes “trouble” brought by Israel Philharmonic Orchestra

Pacifist Aggressive: the Quaker echo chamber which empowers terrorism.

Lush: “We aren’t anti-Semitic”.

BDS Sewer System: Exposing Anti-Israel Boycotts

Requisite photo of Palestinians behind bars accompanies “report” by Harriet Sherwood on anti-BDS bill

Harriet Sherwood’s post critical of Israel’s proposed anti-BDS legislation fails to note EU and US precedents

We all want peace: Letter to the editor by an Israeli, published by West Dunbartonshire newspaper

CiF Watch: A Technorati Top 100 “Politics” and “World Politics” Blog

CiF Watch Report on Extremists & Terror Supporters Behind ‘Global March to Jerusalem’

CiF Watch Newsletters

Gaza Rocket Counter

Join our Facebook Page

Follow CiF Watch on Twitter

Follow Blog via Email

Recent Posts

CifWatchers

Blogroll

Recent Comments

Twitter Updates

CiF Watch Tag Cloud

Archives

Fair Use Notice

Terms of Use

Follow “CiF Watch”

Tag Archive

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

Share this:

Related articles

Share this:

CiF Watch: A Technorati Top 100 “Politics” and “World Politics” Blog

CiF Watch Report on Extremists & Terror Supporters Behind ‘Global March to Jerusalem’

CiF Watch Newsletters

Gaza Rocket Counter

Join our Facebook Page

Follow CiF Watch on Twitter

Follow Blog via Email

Recent Posts

CifWatchers

Blogroll

Recent Comments

CiF Watch Tag Cloud

Archives

Fair Use Notice

Terms of Use

Follow “CiF Watch”