The following 40-minute documentary about antisemitism, which aired on Israeli Channel 2 on the eve of Yom HaShoah, April 7, features interviews with Richard Millett, Abe Foxman, Howard Jacobson, and Alan Dershowitz – and includes clips of severalfigures who will be familiar to CiF Watch readers, includingLauren Booth, Jenny Tonge, and Ken O’Keefe.
Much of the show is in Hebrew, but many of the interviews are in English. You can jump to Millett’s segment by forwarding to the 17:15 mark. The other commentators noted above follow Millett.
Milne, Alibhai-Brown, Llewellyn, Rowland listening to Jenny Tonge’s rant last nigh
The reputation of the Jewish community was dragged through the gutter at last night’s book launch of The Battle for Public Opinion in Europe: Changing Perceptions of the Palestine-Israel Conflict. The event was staged by anti-Israel pressure group Middle East Monitor at the University of London’s Senate House.
The panelists were Tim Llewellyn (former BBC Middle East correspondent and now adviser to Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding), Jackie Rowland (Al Jazeera correspondent) and Seumas Milne (The Guardian associate editor). Yasmin Alibhai-Browne (The Independent) chaired the event.
Seumas Milne
Llewellyn and Rowland described a persistent manipulation of the British broadcast media by a well-moneyed pro-Jewish lobby. Llewellyn said, inter alia, that:
“The BBC is very sparing in the amount of delegations or visitors it allows from the Palestinian side. Whereas from remarks that have been heard from the head of BBC News, Helen Boaden, the British Board of Deputies (of British Jews), for example, practically lives at the BBC. They’re there all the time.”
And:
“I was there (at the BBC) when we weren’t interfered with. But the last 10-12 years, since the beginning of the second Intifada, has coincided with Israel’s decision to mount a tremendously well organised, careful, assiduous and extremely well-financed propaganda campaign in this country, especially in Britain.
The BBC has completely and utterly become feeble and has misreported, in my view; misrepresenting the situation in Israel-Palestine. It has done this maybe because of intense Israeli and pro-Israeli pressure from within this country, from political elements like the Friends of Israel of our three main political parties.
Also through the higher level of pro-Israel Zionists who are scattered at strategic points throughout the British establishment, throughout British business and among the people whose voices are respected.
The propaganda can sometimes be extremely intense, it can be bitter, it can be angry, it could be violent, it can be other forms of coercion. But it’s something the suits at the BBC find very hard to resist. So what has developed over the past 10 years at the BBC, and at other broadcasting institutions like ITN, not so much Channel 4, is a kind of self-censorship.
It is known now by the reporters if they are reporting on an atrocity by the Israelis, in the occupied territories or elsewhere, that they have to add-on to the end of their story some kind of appeasing story of how terrible the Palestinians are or how the Israelis have suffered.”
And:
“The pressure of this Israeli campaign has had a tremendous effect, especially at the institutional level of the BBC and inside the political parties. These people are extremely tough, tough-minded. I have just read a book by Anthony Lerman called The Making and Unmaking of a Zionist. If you studied the internecine warfare that goes on inside the Jewish community between the different groups; the anti-Zionists, the Zionists, the liberal Zionists, the non-Zionists, it is vitriolic, it is dreadful, I mean what chance have we got outside that community.”
Llewellyn even described Jews as “an alien people”. He said:
“The situation in Palestine now is the direct result of British deviousness, betrayal…dividing Syria in at least three parts; Lebanon, Syria as it is now, and Palestine, and setting the stage for the imposition and the implanting of an alien country, an alien people in that region.”
Rowland described how the BBC’s obligation for accountability, because it is publicly funded, has been “used and exploited by very well organised pro-Israeli, pro-Jewish lobby groups.”
She said that she knew someone who worked in the complaints department of the BBC who told her “that 85% of the complaints he dealt with were complaints by pro-Israeli, pro-Jewish lobby groups complaining about the perceived bias of the BBC’s Middle East coverage.”
She said this gives an idea of “how well organised, well-funded people use the idea of public accountability to tie up a lot of BBC resources on one very narrow focus.”
Alibhai-Browne told of how she had been given a rent free home in England by Professor Hugh Blaschko for seven years after she fled Uganda and how he had said to her that “Israel will bring the worst out in us Jewish people”.
Alibahi-Browne also compared Israel to apartheid South Africa.
Milne said “there are well-funded and well organised organisations that campaign in support of Israel. If you’re editing in these area you will find pressure and campaigning constantly by those groups.”
During the Q&A I couldn’t resist mentioning, seeing she was in the audience, thatI took the footage that contributed to Jenny Tonge’s exit from the Liberal Democrats. In a bizarre outburst right at the end she took to the microphone to announce:
“I’d like to say, I hope he hasn’t gone, a big, big ‘thank you’ to Richard Millett, the Jewish Chronicle, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the entire pro-Israel lobby who have relentlessly attacked me for eight years but making sure that the Palestinian cause gets heard.”
I have no problem at all with the Palestinian cause getting heard. The main problem for the Palestinians is that it is heard via the likes of Tonge, Milne, Rowland, Alibhai-Browne and Llewellyn.
Meanwhile, it will be interesting to clarify exactly what Helen Boaden did say that led to Llewellyn’s accusation that the Board of Deputies of British Jews “practically lives at the BBC”.
Click HERE for Jonathan Hoffman’s view of last night.
A couple of months ago Jenny Tonge caused a firestorm after she publicly stated during an anti-Israel diatribe “Israel is not going to be there forever in its present performance”. Rejecting an ultimatum from Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, to apologize for her remarks Tonge was forced to resign from the Liberal Democrats and give up the party whip.
Commenting on Tonge’s remarks, Robert Halfon, MP opined
“Baroness Tonge has an appalling record of strong anti-Israel rhetoric. Too often, these remarks carry an offensive anti-Semitic tone. The Liberal Democrat whip should be withdrawn immediately, and she should withdraw her remarks.”
Enter Salma Yaqoob, hailed by the Guardian as “the most prominent Muslim woman in British public life”.
Yaqoob, leader of the Respect Party and former Birmingham city councilor, is known for her Islamistleanings having called the 7/7 London bombings “reprisal attacks”.According toHarry’s Place:
[H]er connections with Islamist extremism go back far further than her association with RESPECT. She was part of the campaign teamwhich supported the family of Abu Hamza, who were caught while taking part in jihadist training in Yemen. Most disgracefully, she wrote an article in Inayat Bunglawala’s “Trends” magazine, which imagined Britain becoming an Islamic Republic, from which Salman Rushdie was depicted fleeing for his life.
Salma Yaqoob (right) endorsing Ben "I can understand why some are antisemitic" White's book Israel Apartheid for Beginners
It should come as no surprise then that Yaqoob holds a special place in her heart for Israel. She attendeda protest together with Richard Burden, MP, in which the Israeli flag was burnt. On her personal blog, she lovingly refers to the IHH terrorists on board the Mavi Marmara as martyrs, campaigned for the release of Sheikh Raed Salah, endorsed the closure of the Israeli embassy in London, and supported the pro-Hamas Viva Palestina convoy while on Twitter she participated in the campaign to release Palestinian Islamic Jihad spokesperson, Khader Adnan.
In the spirit of Norman Finkelstein, in an article published in the Guardian (but where else!) she accused“Zionists [of abusing] the memory of the Holocaust to bolster support for today’s Israeli state.” And as can be seen from this article she is a staunch supporter of the BDS movement and the antisemitic Israel apartheid trope.
Which is all by way of introduction to this video filmed in 2010 that places everything neatly in context.
Around the 1 minute mark you can hear Yaqoob saying the following:
“[J]ust as South Africa now is liberated. Just as the bankrupt apartheid regime was exposed, was exposed to a world of the solidarity of world citizens [sic] was dismantled, so too the days of this racist apartheid regime are numbered.” [emphasis added]
Calling into question the existence of and willing the end of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people is abhorrent, offensive and yesantisemitic.
So I ask the question: is there really any difference between what Jenny Tonge and Salma Yaqoob said?
Perhaps Yaqoob should ponder this next time she openly threatens CiF Watch on twitter for expressing our First Amendment rights of free speech.
Update 1
On Twitter, Yaqoob is claiming that she referred to the fact that 7/7 bomber claimed it as a reprisal attack and that she condemned the bombings unreservedly.
Update 2
On Twitter, Yaqoob claims that the Trends article was a satirical parody. She’s strangely silent about the substance of the post – namely the similarity of her statement to that of Jenny Tonge!
Update 3
More hate speech from Salma Yaqoob, this time on Twitter:
Salma Yaqoob Hate Speech Tweet
Update 4
Yaqoob is resolute about standing behind her comments a la Jenny Tonge as evidenced by this retweet:
A guest post by Hadar Sela, a freelance Anglo Israeli writer
Jenny Tonge (far left) with Hamas' Ismail Haniyeh (third from left)
The recent tirade by Baroness Jenny Tonge – which resulted in her removal from the Liberal Democrats Party – included one of her more recurrent themes; the so-called ‘Israel lobby’.
Tonge said that Americans would tell “the Israel lobby in the USA: enough is enough” and accounts by those present at the event report that:
“Tonge, who describes herself as an “ethnic Christian” started by telling the audience to beware of the Israel lobby because “once they have decided to go for you, they will go for you. I bear the scars”. She cited the notorious writings of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, which have been widely discredited for effectively alleging a Jewish conspiracy – a charge that the authors have strenuously denied.”
This, of course, is not a new theme for Jenny Tonge. In 2006 she opined:
“The pro-Israeli lobby has got its grips on the Western World, its financial grips. I think they’ve probably got a certain grip on our party”.
It is therefore interesting to note that on Baroness Tonge’s newly updated profile page on the House of Lords website she declares two overseas trips within the last few months, both paid for by theCouncil for European Palestinian Relations.
Visit to Cairo and Gaza, 20-25 November 2011; travel expenses and accommodation paid by Council for European Palestinian Relations (based in Brussels)
Visit to Qatar, 8-10 January 2012, for discussions with Crown Prince; cost of accommodation and travel met by Council for European/Palestine Relations (based in Brussels)
It appears on the Transparency Register of the Joint Secretariat of the European Parliament and European Commission (no. 60576433-83). According to that register we see that in the financial year 2010/2011 the CEPR had a total budget of 155,000 Euros, all of which came from donations, although no information is available as to the identity of the donors.
The CEPR declares on the register and on its website that:
“The CEPR is funded by individual donations from around the world in compliance with Belgian and UK legal requirements. It does not accept funds from any individuals or bodies whose objectives are inimical to the interests of peace and justice.”
So far, the CEPR perhaps sounds like any other lobbyist body, but the interesting aspects of this organization begin to come to light when one takes a look at the personalitiesbehind it.
The Director of CEPR is Dr. Arafat Shoukri (aka Arafat Madi Mahmoud Shukri). Shoukri is also Operational Director with the Palestinian Return Centre (PRC) – a Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood affiliated organization based in London which is outlawed in Israel due to its clearlinks to Hamas.
Several of the PRC’s senior figures are Hamas activists who found refuge in the UK. Founded by Salman Abu Sitta in 1996, the PRC was born out of rejection of the Oslo Accords, denial of Israel’s right to exist and the agenda of ‘right of return’ for millions of Palestinian refugees to Israel, effectively annihilating the Jewish state. Its funding is not transparent.
Other PRC board members are connected to charities linked to the Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘Union of Good’ umbrella organization – illegal in Israel and the United States due to its fundraising activities for Hamas. Several prominent PRC activists took part in the infamous ‘Durban Conference’ in 2001.
Since 2003 the PRC has organized an annual ‘Conference of Palestinians in Europe’ which is attended by figures from Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood along with representatives of their supporting organisations. Ismail Haniyeh – unable to travel to the conferences in person due to a European travel ban – has on several occasions addressed the conference by video link.
Arafat Shoukri is also chair of the European Campaign to End the Siege on Gaza (ECESG) which was established by the Muslim Brotherhood’s European arm – the Federation of Islamic Organisations in Europe (FIOE) in 2007 and shares the same London offices as the PRC. The ECESG is one of the coalition of groups which organizes the various flotillas aimed at breaking Israel’s maritime embargo on Gaza which was established in order to prevent the smuggling of weapons to Hamas. Jenny Tonge is a “supporting VIP” of the ECESG.
Here is Shoukri being interviewed in his ECESG capacity prior to the tragic 2010 flotilla:
The CEPR website is registered to ‘Save Gaza’, which was the address of the apparently now defunct ECESG website still promoted on the ECESG Facebook account.
Arafat Shoukri attended the recent ‘Conference for the Defence of Al Quds’ in Qatar, (alsoattended by Yusuf Qaradawi of the Muslim Brotherhood) which came to the conclusion that “the Israelis have no heritage in Al-Quds”.
Assistant to the Director at CEPR is Ramy Abdu (aka Rami Salah Ismail Abdo) who at least until2011was (and may still be) also the ECESGspokesman. In 2009 Abdu left hisnative Gaza (where he acted as spokesman for the pro-Hamas ‘Popular Committee Against the Siege’) and moved to Manchester to study at MMU. He also became an ECESG co-ordinator. Here is Abdu being interviewed in his previous role with the PCAS.
James Tuite is the Parliamentary Officer of the CEPR and as such is active at the European Parliament in Brussels and presumably in initiatives such as this.
Unsurprisingly, Reigeluth has also contributed articles to the antisemitic ‘Palestine Telegraph‘ which is run by Sameh Habeeb (aka Sameh Akram Subhi Habib – also originally from Gaza) who is alsoconnected to both the Palestinian Return Centre and the ECESG, having acted as the latter’s spokesman during its 2009 aid convoy. Jenny Tonge was patron of the Palestine Telegraph until sheresigned after it posted a David Duke video.
Julian Memetaj is listed as Communications Assistant on the CEPR website. In this recentarticle (written together with Reigeluth) he states that “Jewish Israelis are xenophobic towards Arabs”.
Further indication of the close level of co-operation between the CEPR and the other organisations with which so many of its staff are involved can be seen in their joint projects.
In 2011 the CEPR and the PRC together took a group of Parliamentarians from Britain and Europe – lead by Sir Gerald Kaufman – to Lebanon where they met representatives of the PFLP-GC and Osama Hamdan of Hamas. (Both these organisations are proscribed terror groups in the EU). Majid al Zeer of the PRC (a known Hamas operative) and Arafat Shoukri of the CEPR were also present in the delegation.
Also in 2011 a joint CEPR/ECESG project took a group of 50 Parliamentarians to Gaza, where they met with Ismail Haniyeh among others.
Whilst it is unsurprising to say the least that Jenny Tonge would collaborate with such a thinly veiled Hamas lobby as the Council for European Palestinian Relations, some of the manyothermembers of both Houses of Parliament who have taken part inCEPR tripsmight care to ask themselves exactly where the money for their travel expenses originated and whether or not their allowing themselves to be lobbied by an organisation with such clear links to a terrorist organisation their own government has proscribed is appropriate.
The European and British Parliaments – which allow the CEPR to lobby on their premises – would also be wise to verify that organisation’s claim that it “does not accept funds from any individuals or bodies whose objectives are inimical to the interests of peace and justice”.
Since the publication of thetwo-partreporton the Global March on Jerusalem scheduled for March 30th, further information and several new developments have come to light thanks to the work of some wonderful people.
Aaron took a look at the subject of the registration and hosting of the various GMJ websites and found that they share an IP address with the website of the AhlulBayt Islamic Mission – the Islamic Republic of Iran aligned Shia missionary organisation in the United Kingdom. The server hosting both the AhlulBayt site and the GMJ sites is registered to a Leicester resident named Shabbir Hassanally. Read all the details here.
Mr Hassanally appears to be quite a fan of Hizbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah. In fact he puts considerable effort into making English language sub-titles for Nasrallah’s frequent speeches which he then posts on his own blog – apparently unconcerned by the fact that Hizbollah’s military wing isproscribed by his own government and that the glorification of terrorism is a criminal offence in the UK.
Hassanally has also acted as rovingreporter in Lebanon for the Palestine Telegraph – founded and edited by Sameh Habib (aka Sameh Akram Subhi Habeeb) who is also spokesman for the flotilla-organising ‘European Campaign to End the Siege on Gaza’ which was set up by the Muslim Brotherhood’s European arm – the Federation of Islamic Organisations in Europe (FIOE) – in 2007. The Palestine Telegraph proved to be too extreme even for its former patron Jenny Tonge and it and itseditor have been involved in multiplescandals.
Here is Shabbir Hassanally celebrating the 32nd anniversary of the Iranian regime last year. Note his apparent subscription to the messianic Mahdi concept and his description of Israel as “the cancer occupying our beloved Palestine“.
If UK readers are now pondering the efficacy of their government’s ‘Prevent‘ counter-terrorism policy upon which so much of their taxes have been spent, they will certainly not be reassured by the fact that Hassanally has also been given a platform at the Muslim Shia Welfare Foundation in Leicester, which is – of course – a registered charity.
A variety of interested parties are making intense efforts to bring Jerusalem to the top of the publicity agenda ahead of theplanned marchnext month, including a conference in Qatar earlier this week (for some reason apparently attended by UN representative Robert Serry), an incendiary press release by the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual mentor Yusuf al Qaradawi and publicity on the websites ofHamas and ‘Unified Umma’.
However, it would appear that all is not rosy in the world of joint Sunni-Shia/Red-Green alliance project management.
From the Facebook account of ‘Viva Palestina Australia‘ (h/t to F.) we learn that initial enthusiasm for the GMJ project has been somewhat dampened due to apparentdifferences of opinion with co-ordinator Zaher al Birawi.
Feb 19
Feb 21
Feb 21/22
Feb 22
Feb 21
Feb 21
Feb 22
Meanwhile, over at ISM California, Paul Larudee is chastising his fellow activists for not getting behind the GMJ in sufficient numbers.
Well well; it seems as though some people even within the ‘pro-Palestinian’ movements are waking up to the extremist nature of the GMJ venture and its leaders and organisers and the fact that such publicity stunts do nothing to help the Palestinian people.
Mads Gilbert and Jenny Tonge last night in Parliament.
Last night yet another hate-meeting took place in Parliament with the Palestine Return Centre holding an event “to commemorate the memory of Palestinian victims over the past six decades especially the last war in Gaza”. (Hereis what the PRC is all about. It makes unpleasant reading for Jews).
Jenny Tonge was there ranting about how the Palestinians weren’t responsible for the Holocaust and asking “how can the Israelis treat the Palestinians the way they do after what happened in the Holocaust”.
She criticised the power of the “Israel lobby” and held up a magazine with Hamas’ Ismail Haniyeh on the front cover and proceeded to idolise him.
She told us about a Palestinian fishing-boat which was boarded by the Israeli navy off Gaza. She said the Palestinian fishermen had their hands bound behind their backs and were forced to swim to the Israeli boat.
And she spoke about why she thinks she comes in for such heavy criticism and put this down to the fact that she stands up for the Palestinians and criticises Israel. The latter, she thinks, is viewed as being anti-Semitic.
When challenged by Jonathan Hoffman to give an example of when criticism of Israel has been called anti-Semitic she said she could give “many examples”, but failed to come through with even one. Here’s the action:
We also heard from Dr. Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian anesthesiologist, who gave us the names of Palestinian children who had been killed or who had horrendous injuries. He spent most of last night trying to flog his book about it all called Eyes on Gaza. Available from all good retailers.
We heard from Manal Timraz. Manal lost 15 members of her family during Operation Cast Lead, 11 of which were aged between twelve and two, and has lost another four since. After asking us to stand for a minute’s silence she emotionally outlined how the only way forward is a one-state-solution.
She lives in England next to a Jewish woman who “didn’t steal my land and I didn’t steal her’s”.
Gilbert had called for an academic boycott of Israel and during the Q&A I asked him how he could propose such an obviously racist policy and whether he used any Israeli products himself.
He said that the accusation that he was “a racist” was “absolutely preposterous” (I didn’t call him “a racist”) and said that he used computers without Intel chips. He then accused me of “smiling and laughing arrogantly” while Manal was speaking. I was smiling, but only at Manal’s suggestion that Jonathan go to the West Bank with her to drink tea “like a Palestinian”.
Gilbert further rejected accusations of anti-Semitism, eventhough none were made, with:
“If you want to look for anti-Semitism don’t look among us because we are profoundly anti-racist”.
He’s even friends with a Canadian Jew!
But how can anyone seriously claim to be “profoundly anti-racist” while hero-worshipping a self-confessed Jew hater (see Hamas Charter) like Ismail Haniyeh?
Here is the Q&A footage. First you hear PRC’s Sameh Habeeb, then Manal Timraz, then Mads Gilbert (from 4 mins. 15 secs.) and, finally, Jenny Tonge again, who, sadly, wasn’t impressed with me or Jonathan:
Additional photo:
British Palestinian Manal Timraz speaking last night.
The ever watchfulRobin Shepherd informed us last week of a new flotilla being organised by ‘European Jews for a Just Peace’ so, as Robin suggests, it is time to take a look at who and what lies behind these latest ships of fools.
In common with the previous attempts to break Israel’s partial blockade of Gaza the organisers of this flotilla claim the moral and legal right to do so on the basis of their interpretation of the situation on the ground – an interpretation sadly lacking anchorage in facts. They claim that the blockade is ‘illegal’, ‘morally wrong’ and ‘indefensible’. They also claim that their actions are necessary due to the ‘humanitarian crisis ’ in Gaza. There is, of course, no truth in either of these oft-repeated claims and never has been – they are merely a smoke screen for political activism.
Israel continues to transportthousands of tons of humanitarian aid of all kinds into the Gaza Strip every day and details of the amounts and nature of the aid entering Gaza are openly publicized on the internet for all to see. Three months agorestrictions on the types of goods entering Gaza were easedeven further and there is no truth whatsoever in the claims made by various flotilla organizers of shortages or even starvation. Not only is Israel’s economic blockade on Gaza entirely in line with international law, the fact that flotilla organisers have consistently reserved their indignation for Israeli actions whilst conveniently ignoring very similar ones on the part of Egypt indicates clearly that their motives are political rather than humanitarian.
In order to be legal, several conditions have to be fulfilled. The first is the requirement to give widespread notice when a blockade is applied and to make sure that any ship that is stopped knows that there is a blockade. Nowadays the problem of notification is much easier than in the past because of the great improvement in communications.
Another condition for the legality of a sea blockade is effectiveness. It is not enough simply to declare a blockade. It has to be enforced, otherwise it is not valid and legal.
According to a further condition, a blockade should not cut off an unrelated foreign state from access to the sea. In the case of Gaza, the blockade does not prevent Egypt from reaching the sea.
Furthermore, a blockade has to be based on equality: It must apply to everybody. Of course there is always the possibility that the blockading party may give special permission to certain neutral ships to go through, but these are exceptions.
A blockade has to permit the passage of humanitarian assistance if needed. However, the San Remo Manual includes two conditions (in Article 103): first, the blockading party may decide where and when and through which port the assistance should reach the coast. In addition, the state may require that a neutral organization on the coast should control the distribution of the items. For instance, in Gaza, does it reach the civilians or Hamas?
Finally, there is the condition that a state may not starve the civilian population (San Remo, Article 102). This conforms also to the general principles of the laws on armed conflict.
What If a Ship Disobeys the Blockade?
What may be done to a ship that disobeys the blockade? Here, there may be a distinction between merchant ships and warships. A merchant ship may be visited, searched, or captured; and if the ship resists, it may be attacked. The situation of neutral warships is not quite clear: Warships may also be searched and captured, but opinions are divided on whether they may be attacked. An attack is certainly permitted in a situation of self-defense.
A ship that clearly intends to breach the blockade can be dealt with while it is still on the high seas. Stopping the flotilla in international waters 100 kilometers from Israel was legal: In time of armed conflict, ships breaching the blockade may be searched even on the high seas.”
Ron Prosor’s essay in CiF – “Before We Talk to Hamas: No missiles means no blockade. When Israelis feel secure, concessions will follow. It’s that simple” – proposed that for real peace to occur, Israel has to feel secure that any territorial withdrawal, and other such concessions, wont’ be met by more missiles, terrorism, and incitement. He noted, what should be obvious:
“[Hamas] must renounce violence, recognise Israel and abide by previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.”
Prosor (Israel’s Ambassador to the UK) then pointed out that:
“At no point has Hamas satisfied these conditions – or indicated any intention to do so.”
Prosor noted:
“TheHamas charter advocates the destruction of the state of Israel, the genocidal slaughter of Jews and the imposition of an Islamic state governed by sharia law. When an organisation’s constitution venerates your murder, it is difficult to know how negotiations should begin – perhaps with a discussion of the flowers for one’s funeral.”
He continued:
“This week marks the fifth anniversary of Israel’s disengagement from Gaza. We withdrew every Israeli soldier and citizen, gambling on the formula of land for peace. Instead of peace and progress we received missiles and misery.”
He then observed:
“Our experience following the Gaza pull-out has scarred the Israeli public. Hamas’s missiles wounded the concept of land for peace, increasing Israeli fears and skepticism.”
He concluded:
“When Israelis feel secure concessions follow. Last weekend Israel dismantled the security barrier in Gilo, a Jerusalem suburb that came under heavy Palestinian sniper fire during the second intifada. If in Gilo no sniper fire means no wall, so in Gaza no missiles would mean no blockade. It is that simple.”
Yes, it really is that simple – except, that is, for the Guardian’s fellow travelers. The Guardian printed several letters in response to Prosor’s reasonable argument. They are really a sight to be seen.
Richard Horton
First, was a letter by Dr. Richard Horton, Editor of the Lancet – a highly politicized medical journal. Lancet, it was noted, in adevastating expose by Honest Reporting, reported on Lancet’s multi-article series on Palestinian health written by Israel boycotters that went way beyond accepted medical norms.
His letter contains passages, attempting to refute Prosor’s essay, that are simply breathtaking. He says, apparently with a straight face (and I’m quoting him exactly and in context):
So the Guardian is backingthe Liberal Democrats (“LibDems”) for the UK election on Thursday, as the Party that offers the best chance of achieving change from a ‘First Past The Post’ electoral system to a ‘proportional representation’ one.
But how convenient for Rusbridger et al that the LibDems are by far the closest in ideology to CIF’s Israel bashers. Indeed there are several crossovers. It was the LibDem’s leader, Nick Clegg, who voiced support for an arms embargo on Israel. Moreover he chose CIF as his platform to announce it. That speaks volumes.
And what a coincidence that Clegg has beenadvised by Nicholas Blincoe, a former ISM activist, who writes for the Guardian and was a staffer for a time. Blincoe’s insights about Israelinclude this one:
Israeli archaeologists are like the fireman in the novel Fahrenheit 451; their job is to erase the traces of non-Jewish civilizations, not to investigate them.
And look howNadhmi Auchi, an anti-Israel Iraqui billionaire, is close to Clegg and organised a fundraising dinner for a LibDem candidate.
Then there is Jenny Tonge, famous for saying “The pro-Israeli lobby has got its grips on the western world, its financial grips. I think they’ve probably got a grip on our party.” Until very recently she was a Patron of the viciously antisemiticPalestine Telegraph. Only when it posted a David Duke video did she resign. But she has not been thrown out of the LibDem Party – as she surely should be.
You can see here whatTonge and a LibDem MP Sarah Teather say about Israel.
Here you can see the LibDems’ response to thequestionnairesent to candidates by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (the only party – as opposed to individual candidates – to respond). (The response has been taken off the PSC site).They call for a ban on settlement goods, suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and an arms embargo on Israel).
33 LibDem candidates have so far put their name to this. A further 25 LibDem candidates signed thePSC’s pledges.
One LibDem candidate said that the only reason that there was not an arms embargo on Israel was “the power of the Jewish lobbies in Washington and Britain”. She also echoed Tonge’s call for an inquiry to disprove allegations that Israeli army medical teams in Haiti “harvested” organs of earthquake victims.
More still: Over 80% of the LibDem MPs in the Parliament which has just been dissolved are happy to seeIsraelis arrested in the UK on politically motivated false “War Crimes” charges.
Finally …….. remember Chris Davies? He was the LibDem MEP who told a constituent that he hoped she enjoyed “wallowing in her own filth” after she wrote to disagree with his views on Israel. He remains a LibDem MEP though he was forced to resign as the Party’s Leader in the European Parliament.
Voluminous though this catalogue is, I’m sure that diligent CIF readers can add to it. Like the way the LibDems’ message on Israel changes according to whether the listener is mezzuzah or muezzin.
I certainly will not be voting for the LibDems on Thursday. No Jew or supporter of Israel should vote for them. They and the Guardian deserve each other. It is a nightmare shidduch.
In fact I have already voted (by post) for the Conservatives. I want a Conservative government because of the previous government’s hostility to Israel. Of course there will be Conservative policies towards Israel with which one disgrees but on the basics – closing the Universal Jurisdiction loophole, opposing the Goldstone Report/Islamic extremism/Iran/Hamas/Hisbolla – they can be trusted.
Postscript:
Not all LibDems are endemically hostile to Israel. Baroness Sarah Ludford has been a great supporter in the European Parliament. There is a LibDem “Friends of Israel” organisation (Vice Chair Matthew Harris, the candidate in Hendon) which especially at Party Conferences has done a good job in stopping some of the extreme hostility being ratified in Resolutions. Chris Huhne – the Home Affairs spokesman who should be Party Leader (he ran against Clegg and reportedly a sack of votes which arrived late would have swung it for Huhne, but he generously said that they should not be counted when this was offered) certainly does not go along with the extreme hostility and neither does Vince Cable (the Shadow Finance Minister). But I believe these people are in a small minority in the Party. If the LibDems entered the Cabinet in a hung Parliament, they certainly would not form the majority voice in the Party’s foreign policy.
Explanatory Note: A “Shidduch” (Hebrew: שִׁידּוּךְ) is a match made between two Orthodox Jewish singles.
Disclaimer: The above are personal views and should not be attributed to the UK Zionist Federation of which I am (honorary) Co-Vice Chair.
Sometimes, Dr. Watson, some people try to be so fair-minded they trip over themselves. For example, take the curious case of “BeautifulBurnout ”, a CiF contributor, self-styled “Beautiful bubbly burntout buddhist barrister” and, it appears, one of the most prolific of CiF commenters (roughly one comment every three minutes on a huge variety of threads), commenting on Uri Dromi’s article about the Tonge affair, A Lib Dem and a blood libel.
“beautifulburnout” nurtured a belief that the Jewish media was responsible for the Baroness Tonge scandal …
But, to be as fair-minded as she would like to be, let’s start from the last of her comments (or, at time of writing, most recent – it’s hard to keep up).
“beautifulburnout”makes a sort of back-handed, rueful apology that manages at the same time once again to cast doubt on Uri Dromi’s impartiality regarding what, Dr. Watson, certainly seems to this investigator as an open and shut case – as “beautifulburnout” reluctantly admits:
Let’s follow the long and winding road that led “beautifulburnout” to this reluctant admission of guilt (I am going to cut ‘n paste rather than paste a screen shot of every comment from this point on but if you care to go through the dozens of comments this poster makes every day you’ll find them at here (although by the time you read this, if she stays on pace, you’ll need to get to page 6 or 7 or 10 of her comments). I have occasionally bolded significant comments I wish to admit in evidence.
A new variation on an old age tactic of antisemites is now surfacing. I refer, of course, to the demand that Israel be required to form commissions of inquiry to refute any accusation, no matter how vile and unfounded that is hurled against it. Similar to the well-known accusation: “Have you stopped beating your wife?” thrown at someone not even married, Israel now is being asked to clear its name for any number of deeds it never committed.
We have four recent examples to choose from, but, in the spirit of painting Israel as badly as possible, why choose at all? Three at least have become part of the accepted anti-Israel dialog, and the Tonge affair fits right in:
The Jenny Tonge affair is not yet cold and its details have been amply documented in the press and are still being discussed throughout the blogosphere. At the time of writing, Baroness Tonge has been dismissed from her role as Liberal Democrat spokesperson for health, but has not had the whip withdrawn, been dismissed from the party or removed from the House of Lords. In the interests of fairness, it must be observed that the latter two options, whilst not impossible, are relatively complicated courses of action.
The question which needs to be asked is ‘does it matter?’ So what if a peer of the realm has made remarks more befitting of a medieval blood libel? There’s certainly nothing new about Jenny Tonge making statements which are grossly offensive to most Jews. So what if the leader of Britain’s third largest political party has given her a token slap on the wrist but has reneged on his previous promises to act if she made antisemitic remarks on his watch? Nothing very novel there; politicians make promises they have no intention of keeping all the time and after all, Tonge got to the elevated position in which she finds herself today after (and some may say, because of) a similar scandal in 2004. So what if Nick Clegg has pronounced the troublesome Baroness ‘not anti-Semitic’ despite the public outcry? Surely we are used by now to people telling us what we should or should not consider antisemitic even when it is quite clearly not their call to make. So what if a member of democratic Britain’s highest lawmaking and governing institution is publicly promoting libels identical to those which have been broadcast by a corrupt hereditary third world dictatorship.
Well, what matters in my view is that by and large until now it was still feasible to say that antisemitism in the UK, although indisputably on the rise and increasingly threatening in the context of the daily lives of British Jews, was still a kind of antisemitism which for the most part came from below. In other words, it was a symptom of a malaise which afflicts some ordinary (albeit very loud) citizens rather than being something generally acceptable to those leading the country. The significance of the latest Tonge affair is that we now have indisputable evidence that a member of Britain’s highest government institution sees nothing wrong in, and feels comfortable about, promoting an antisemitic blood libel. More importantly, neither her party leader nor the other members of the parliamentary body of which she is a member appear to comprehend the gravity of this fact. The lack of appropriate censure by either Clegg or the House of Lords can only convey to the average citizen living under the jurisdiction of that body that the crudest, most ancient type of antisemitic blood libel is nothing exceptional in the eyes of the leaders of 21st century Britain.
Whilst the number of true antisemites in the UK may still be thankfully relatively moderate, they gain strength and legitimacy from the silence of bystanders such as Nick Clegg who, instead of summoning the courage to stand up to antisemitism, try to dismiss it when it is obviously staring them in the face. What Clegg and the rest of the Liberal Democrat party, as well as the members of the House of Lords, need to remember is that the rising tide of antisemitism in the UK does not only poison the atmosphere for its Jewish minority; it is also the environment in which they are allowing their children to grow up. Do they have the courage to aspire to a better society than the one presently polluted by antisemitism or will they continue by their silence to acquiesce to antisemitic libel, as promoted by Jenny Tonge, being made a hallmark of British governing bodies? Yellow may be the Liberal Democrats’ campaigning colour in these upcoming elections, but it doesn’t have to be an adjective for British leadership.
The British elections scheduled for spring 2010 are going to be exceptionally interesting. After 12 years of New Labour rule, a big shake-up is predicted and although the electoral campaign began unofficially long ago, party leaders seem to be so far keeping most of their cards quite close to their chests. However, the leader of Britain’s third party, the Liberal Democrats, seems to have no problem with making his views on one issue perfectly clear. In his CiF article of December 22nd Nick Clegg proves yet again just how little he understands about the Middle East when he insists that Israel should ‘Lift the Gaza Blockade’. It was interesting to see below the line just what sort of people agree with Clegg’s views and what sort of opinions are held by those who could potentially support his party next spring.
