Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Not Saving the Children

As I have reported many times previously, Save The Children is a political organisation that spends large amounts of money on Palestinian anti-Israel propaganda. It certainly has no interest in saving Jewish children since it campaigned vigorously against Israel's efforts to build its security fence to protect them from suicide bombings. No sane person, let alone a Jew who professes to love Israel, should give a penny to them. Yet this week Sacha Baron Cohen donated £335,000 to Save The Children - supposedly to help Syrian refugees (see my thoughts about such help, and remember also that Syrians are probably the most antisemitic people on the planet).

Curiously, just days after Sacha's donation it was revealed that the charity's CEO Jasmine Whitbread earns a salary of £234,000. So, there will still be a bit of money left from Sacha's donation to help fund "Syrian refugees" ....or more anti-Israel propaganda. Curiously, Jasmine Whitbread is the person I wrote to in 2009 asking her to explain her charity's support for Hamas and their refusal to recognise the suffering of Israeli children.  Unfortunately, despite being quite well paid she never did have the time to reply to me....

See also:





Tuesday, December 29, 2015

In deeds rather than words David Cameron is indisputably the most anti-Israel British PM in 45 years


The British Jewish Community sets spectacularly low bars over whom it considers to be a 'true friend of Israel'. If somebody told you personally that 'you have a right to exist' I do not think you would consider that person to be is a friend., especially if they were cutting off your arms and legs while they said it. But apparently a politician uttering the words "Israel has a right to exist" is all it takes for the British Jewish community to salivate over that politician and consider them to be a true friend of Israel, even while they are simultaneously working to undermine the Jewish State (the bizarreness of the 'right to exist' issue - a phenomenon unique to Israel -  is something I tackled extensively here).
   
This is no more evident than in the Jewish Community's obsequious respect of David Cameron. While Cameron offers warm words about Israel when he speaks at Jewish events (or in the Knesset) any leader has to be judged on actions not words. And in actions Cameron has led Britain's most anti-Israel government since Ted Heath in 1970-73. Every Prime Minister in between (Wilson, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair, and Brown) was a more natural - and real - friend to Israel than Cameron.

In order to have a single reference for all those who are easily seduced by Cameron I have decided to list some of the most relevant facts chronologically: 

Thursday, December 24, 2015

Let's all ignore Jews stabbed to death and self-flagellate on Jews stabbing a photo

 
Yesterday another two Jews were knifed to death by Palestinian terrorists in the centre of Jerusalem. Naturally, that story has been totally ignored (or mis-reported) by the main stream media. But another 'stabbing' story from Israel is being reported everywhere: some 'right wing extremists' filmed stabbing a photo of an Arab child  -  and Jews on social media have gone into full self-flagellation mode explaining why this proves we are just like Arab terrorists, so it is understandable that the world hates us.

The usual left-wing Israeli media sources have been jubilantly pumping the story to 'prove' their narrative that right-wing Jews are the biggest threat to national security. But even the Jerusalem Post had it as their main headline yesterday evening - with the story of the Jews killed in Jerusalem not even appearing in their top 4 stories. (UPDATE: Daniel Greenfield has an excellent analysis of the hysteria surrounding the video with an important reminder of the left's history of 'Jewish terrorism' claims) Meanwhile the real stabbing and killing of Jews continues relentlessly and is relentlessly unreported.

Where is the sense of perspective here? The behaviour of the Jews in the video is terrible, but a stabbed photo is not a stabbed person. And while this type of activity is a genuine abomination among Israeli Jews (and rightly condemned universally) much worse antisemitic incitement is practised - and universally welcomed - everywhere and every day by the Palestinian Arabs.

The media who are apoplectic with rage that some Jews stabbed a photo of an Arab child are the very same media who not only refuse ever to report on the far more vicious antisemitic incitement that takes place in every Arab school every day, but who also refuse to report on Arabs stabbing to death real Jewish children. And those Jews who are especially apoplectic with rage at the photo story are the very same Jews who tell us that Arab antisemitism and incitement is 'understandable' because Israelis are 'killing Arabs'.

Jews who think they are helping to address terrorism by grossly exaggerating minor non-violent incidents committed by Jews are simply playing into the hands of antisemites around the whole world. The world is not interested in stories of murdered Jews in Israel, but it laps up any stories that can cast Israelis as the villains. And it seems Jews are only too pleased to serve up and exaggerate such stories.

UPDATE: When I posted the above in response to a FaceBook friend who posted this article by David Horovitz he criticised me saying I had not condemned the extremists. When I replied that I had, he said:
Your condemnation is a tad glib and does nothing at all to address this issue seriously. Anyone reading your post would assume that there is really no problem with far right, ultra nationalism. No probs folks, nothing to see here, move on, move on. Read Horovitz. Then read your piece again. Then notice the difference.
Here is my response:
When the main stream media starts reporting about the incessant terrorist attacks against Israel and the incessant incitement and antisemitism in Arab and Muslim societies, then I might feel it is worth spending some of my time writing about the problems of Jewish extremists. Until then my time is best spent writing about things that few others do, rather than joining the chorus of self-flagellation that is used by antisemites to spread further hatred against Jews. And, incidentally, Horovitz's conclusion is simply stupid. He says that "unless the State of Israel reasserts its insistence on upholding the core Jewish values that these young people have lost .... these dancing youths... will bring down ruin upon us all." For a start, the State of Israel does more than any other country in the world to try to ensure its young people uphold decent principles - and I bet that (Israeli Arabs notwithstanding) there are fewer % racists in Israel than any other country in the world. To suggest that these people are going to bring down the State 'if nothing is done' is complete bullshit.
And here is a photo of one of the real victims yesterday:

And here is the tragic story of the other victim Ofer Ben Ari.

Also, I see that the terrorists were aged 19 and 20 respectively and had both been released from prison after terrorist convictions. Given their ages now that means they either got ludicrously light sentences for terrorist offences or were released as part of the Shalit deal. Anybody shed any light on this?

And here is the wider context for all of this:


Sunday, December 20, 2015

The beast is dead - but never forget the BBC mocked his Israeli victims


There have been previous rumours of the death of Lebanese child-murdering terrorist Samir Kuntar that proved to be false. But today, as the announcement has actually been made by Hezbollah, it seems it is finally true. The only disappointing aspect of his death is that it seems he was killed instantly in a targeted air strike, and therefore was not made to suffer like his victims.

Kuntar's crimes were truly sickening, but it is also important to remember how, in 2006, the BBC disrespected the sole surviving member of the family he murdered (Smadar Haran). It was Smadar herself who provided me with the story here. It sums up everything you need to know about the BBC.

Much more on the Kuntar story at Israel Matzav. My concern is that Israel will now allow what happened in January - a Hezbollah response that goes unanswered.

See also:

Tommy Robinson: his story needs to be read

15 January 2015 UPDATE: While Tommy Robinson's book provides extensive evidence of his claims to have been the victim of State persecution - and indeed of having been a political prisoner - dramatic new evidence today comes in the form of him being charged  over an alleged fight in prison. There is no longer any doubt that Tommy Robinson is being persecuted by the British State simply for publicly warning about the dangers of Islamism.

Tommy Robinson is the former leader of the English Defence League (EDL) who has just published his biography. First I need to point out that the book is not easy to get hold of (see the updated story about this below**, with information provided by Tommy Robinson himself).

There have already been some very detailed and excellent reviews of the book (see especially the review at IsraellyCool) so I will keep this fairly brief.

Anybody who has actually listened to what Tommy Robinson has to say, rather than accepted the stereotype narrative about him parroted by the entire main stream media, will not be totally surprised at what is in this book (the shame is that those who dutifully accept the main stream narrative will not read it). However, even for those who have followed Robinson's story over the years. it is a compelling read as it describes with real evidence the extent to which the British Government under David Cameron will go to both suppress those trying to raise awareness of the Islamic threat and to marginalise those who actually try to stop its spread in the UK. In many respects Tommy Robinson was the ideal bogey man for the Government and media, being white, working class, a one-time football hooligan, and having had a very brief flirtation with the BNP. Robinson talks frankly about all those aspects of his life, and the harsh realities of his up-bringing in Luton.

Written clearly in his own words with feeling (and understating his genuine suffering and heroism in my view) I think this is one of the most important political books of recent times. For me there were two especially illuminating stories: One relates to the 'sting' operation in which Robinson exposed Afzal Amin, the 2015 Conservative election candidate for Dudley North, as a corrupt liar; given David Cameron's affinity to Amin it is likely that he would have been a key Cabinet member in the new Government and so Robinson saved the country from electing one of the most sinister politicians of all time and one who was also subsequently revealed to have a fundamentalist Islamist agenda (much like that other 'charismatic Muslim politician' Baroness Warsi who Cameron also had an obsession with and who really was given positions of power).  If Cameron really wants to find out how Muslims think perhaps he should try talking with Tommy Robinson rather than appointing Muslims who tell him what he wants to hear. The second story relates to Robinson's experience with the Quilliam Foundation, the organisation supposedly countering Islamic extremism.  While the relationship was originally promising (and seen by many of his former EDL colleagues as a sell-out) it seems that Quilliam only wanted to have control over him; moreover Quilliam were also unable (or refused) to answer the serious questions about Islam raised by American bloggers like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller who expose radical Islam.

Talking of Spencer and Geller, one of the small disappointments I had with the book, is that Robinson does not really say much about his relationship with them (see Geller here, for example), whereas having read Geller's blog for years it is clear that the relationship was at one time very close and went through some very interesting phases. He does mention the fact (well covered on this blog) that Spencer and Geller were banned from the UK (although he does not mention that a major reason for the ban was that they were considered 'too pro-Israel'). Of course the Spencer/Geller ban was supported by (and indeed lobbied for) by Jewish organisations including, disgracefully the Board of Deputies. Those same Jewish community 'leaders' and 'intellectuals'  also think they are showing solidarity with the Muslim community by continually branding Robinson a racist. Not only are they wrong about that, but they need to realise that Robinson is simply a British patriot who, in trying to halt the growth of Militant Islam, is one of the few people in this country prepared to do something against what also happens to be the most serious threat to British Jewry.  Moreover, there is a deep irony in British Jews believing everything the BBC and the Guardian says about Robinson, because the narrative presented is as false as the one those very same sources present about Israel.

**Published two weeks before Christmas I assumed the book would have been widely available, especially given Robinson's high-profile. But a quick check on Amazon last week suggested a problem - not eligible for Amazon Prime, and indeed not available direct from Amazon, with estimated delivery 24 Dec - 9 Jan and a £2.80 standard delivery charge on top of the £15 price. Seemed strange to bring out a book before Christmas that cannot be delivered until after Christmas. As I happened to be going to the West End I assumed I would be able to get it in the country's largest bookshop (Foyles). But  Foyles (and all other bookshops I tried) are not selling the book.  So, reluctantly, I ended up doing a Kindle download from Amazon  (the only direct seller of the book seems to be Press News Ltd). It turns out, unsurprisingly, that due to political correctness trumping demand, lack of availability is due to the fact that no publisher or agent was willing to touch the book (Tommy Robsinon tweeted me this information after I asked him about it).  So it seems the story of his life - a heroic but imperfect man outcast from main stream society for daring to speak out against the Islamist threat  - is not only described in this book but perfectly mirrored by the book itself:  heroic, imperfect and outcast from the mainstream bookshops for daring to stand up against the Islamist threat. 

Tommy Robinson – Enemy of the State
344 pages £15.00 (plus £1.50 p/p) is available here with the following summary:
The explosive story of Tommy Robinson, former leader of the English Defence League. Tommy describes the brutal truths about growing up in Luton, a town plagued by Islamic extremism and violent gangs.

When Tommy led a street protest of ordinary townsfolk in support of British troops, they were met by police batons and brutality. And when the EDL grew out of that conflict, the state turned all of its might against him, destroying his livelihood, disrupting his family and ultimately throwing him to the violent Muslim underworld that runs England’s prison system.

Arrested and held on trumped up charges, while receiving a series of death threats, he takes readers through the traumatic EDL years, his ordeal at the hands of the justice system and how he was even imprisoned to prevent him speaking to the Oxford Union.

When all else failed, a shady division of Scotland Yard tried blackmailing Tommy into working for them. Saying ‘no’ cost him his home.

If you believe in British justice and freedom of speech, you need to read this book.


See also:

Wednesday, December 09, 2015

It's official: LSE will not provide any balance to its anti-Israel propaganda

LSE: academic freedom means the right not to allow any conflicting voice to those who seek the destruction of Israel


This is an update to the long-running saga of the LSE's Arab funded anti-Israel propaganda unit (also known laughingly as the "Middle East Research Centre") and the many incidents of anti-semitism that have resulted from the climate of Israel hatred it propagates. This is a Centre which literally wiped Israel off its own map of the Middle East, bars Israeli students from its scholarships and is at the forefront of the academic boycott against Israel. In the most recent episode the LSE Director Prof Calhoun tried to cover for the Centre by saying it did not discriminate against Israel and Israelis since it held events discussing Israel and even employed a person 'with an interest in Israel'. My letter pointed out that the events he referred to universally called for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state and the person with an 'interest' was an anti-Zionist Jew who could accurately be defined as an antisemite since she had also lobbied for Jews in the UK to be banned from carrying out one of the basic tenets of their faith (circumcision).

As Calhoun did not reply to my letter I sent the following reminder yesterday:

Dear Prof Calhoun

I have not had any response to my letter of 15 November which exposed the ludicrous inadequacy and errors in the response you made to my serious complaints.

I would be grateful if you could at least acknowledge the concerns I have raised, especially as the LSE was again in the news last week for an anti-Semitic article published by The LSE Centre for Human Rights:

https://cst.org.uk/news/blog/2015/12/04/cst-condemns-post-on-lse-human-rights-blog
http://hurryupharry.org/2015/12/06/whispering-in-the-lift-on-the-lse-and-anti-semitism/

Yours

The response I received today confirms that the LSE's official position is to allow and encourage discrimination against Israel and to refuse any attempt to balance the arguments.

Thank you for your email of 15 November addressed to Professor Calhoun. I am sorry for the delay responding to you.

I do appreciate that you feel extremely strongly about the issues you raise and that you have not been satisfied with what you have heard from us so far. I am afraid, though, that we must recognise that academics including those in senior positions frequently espouse causes in which they believe. As a liberal university, we don’t think it would be appropriate to infringe upon their right to do so, however controversial some views may be in some quarters.

I should point out that Professor Calhoun never claimed that the instances we cited earlier were uncritical of Israel.

We are legally required to defend academic freedom and to promote freedom of speech within the law. This does not extend to a requirement to present all sides of an argument on every occasion on which one arises. However, our guidelines for those chairing public meetings make clear that chairs should remain neutral, that they should ensure that they take questions from a balance of those in the audience and that an opportunity is provided for the views of the speaker or speakers to be challenged. Also, the encouragement of free debate is fundamental to teaching and other academic activity at LSE.

I am sorry that you do not have a good opinion of LSE at present.

Andrew Webb
Acting Secretary

I will now be writing to  Lord Myners Chair of the LSE's Board of Governers, since I note that one of their responsibilities is "provide the Council (the LSE ‘Board’) and the Director with insight as to how the School is perceived nationally and internationally."

Previous links

See also:

Monday, December 07, 2015

If the response to Pearl Harbour had been the same as that to modern Islamic attacks


On the anniversary of the Pearl Harbour Attack it is worth considering what would have happened if the response would have been the same as that of the response to the 9/11 (and other) Islamist attacks against the West:
  • The main stream media would have insisted there was no evidence that the attacking airplanes were Japanese.
  • The main stream media would also have claimed each pilot was acting completely independently, and likely had 'mental issues'.
  • The US would have declared a 'war against fighter aircraft' with a clear statement that 'this in no way linked to the great nation of Japan which, like Nazi Germany, is a nation of peace'. 
  • This might  have been followed by a few sorties against Japanese fighter aircraft; but, as a token to prove there was no bias against the Japanese people, some British spitfires would also have been attacked. 
  • To ensure that America did not attack mainland Japan, leftists from all over the world would have gone to Tokyo to form human shields.
  • There would have been years of appeasement of Japan and Germany, plus massive funding of 'moderate' Imperial Japanese and Nazi institutions. 
  • The media would have devoted most of its time on identifying what the US had done to invite the attacks, such as not forcing Britain to leave Singapore to allow the Japanese to invade.
  • (Like Israel today) Singapore and Britain would have become the focus of hatred for provoking the Japanese and Nazis by daring to protect their right to exist. The Americans and all the world's free nations would have demanded major and painful concessions from Singapore and Britain to ensure peace with the Japanese and Nazis.
  • There would have been widespread theories that it was all a Jewish/Zionist plot to force America into the war (oh actually that really did happen anyway) and that all Jewish personnel in Hawaii had left the evening before the attack.
  • There would have been a string of documentaries made about how it was physically impossible for the attack to have happened and, in particular, for a ship like the SS Arizona to be destroyed by Japanese aircraft. These documentaries would have been split evenly between those that claim the attack never actually happened and those claiming the Americans and Zionists had planted bombs to explode the ship.
  • By 1945 America would have been a Japanese colony, and to this day Europe would still be under Nazi rule.
Conversely, if the response to 9/11 had been similar to the actual response to Pearl Harbour then:
  • The US would have declared war on all Islamic fundamentalists and would not have stopped until Islam was totally eradicated throughout the world as a supremacist belief. 
  • The first targets would have been Saudi Arabia and Iran. 
  • All Muslims in the USA would have been imprisoned and/or kept under surveillance.
  • The war would only have finished with a prolonged programme of 'de-Islamification' (the de-Nazification  programme for Germany took many years to work even though the people had only been indoctrinated for 10 years. Islamists have been indoctrinating Muslims for 1300 years).
See also:

BBC just cannot resist antisemites

Joey Barton is a convicted criminal (see details below) currently playing for Burnley in the second tier of English football. He has never won any honours at football, and his footballing ability is restricted to being a vicious 'hard-man' on the pitch.

Last year Barton was a panellist on BBC's flagship political programme Question Time. Yesterday he was the guest expert on BBC's flagship football programme Match of the Day.

In case you are wondering why the BBC should be so enamoured with a person like Joey Barton it is important to note that after his criminal convictions and various other FA assault charges in 2012, Barton tried to reinvent himself as a working-class philosopher; and what better way to gain credibility than becoming an obsessive Israel-hater. The 'quality' of the thoughts and writing of this self-appointed Hamas spokesman can be seen here which includes antisemitic gems such as   
".. those innocent children, women and men were being killed in Gaza because of a largely interpreted book that was written more than 2,000 years ago,...there are a group of Jews out there, with extreme beliefs, that think the Old Testament is all fact, which means that Israel belongs to the Jews and the Palestinians must give all of the land back to them".
And while on the subject of antisemites that the BBC just cannot resist from inviting on as experts, I note that they (and Sky News) are STILL regularly employing the good old-fashioned Arab antisemite Abdul Bari Atwan who made an antisemitic speech at LSE that was captured on video,  and is also infamous for stating in 2010 that “If Iranian Missiles Hit Israel, I Will Dance in Trafalgar Square”.

********************************
Joey Barton's record
  • On 20 May 2008 he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for common assault and affray during an incident in Liverpool City Centre. Barton served 77 days of this prison term, being released on 28 July 2008.
  • On 1 July 2008 he was given a four months suspended sentence after admitting assault occasioning actual bodily harm on former teammate Ousmane Dabo during a training ground dispute on 1 May 2007.
  • Barton has been charged with violent conduct three times by The Football Association: for the assault on Dabo, for punching Morten Gamst Pedersen in the stomach, and for attacking three players on the final day of the 2011–12 season.

It is also worth noting that Joey Barton's brother Michael was convicted in 2005 for the racist murder of black teenager Anthony Walker.

And if you still need to know what kind of a person Barton is, here is what one of his victim's Ousmane Dabo told French newspaper L’Equipe in 2012 when Barton talked French club Marseilles into giving him a contract:
Ousmane Dabo - after Barton's assault on him
“Barton is lying about what happened on the training pitch at Manchester City. It is unbelievable. I am shocked.

“There was a trial, he pleaded guilty, and got a four-months suspended prison sentence. When he is talking, he denies it, he stated I have started it all. It is fake. All my team-mates that were present during the attack gave evidence for me during the trial.

“He tackled me, I replied by tackling him too. We found ourselves face-to-face. I had no intention to fight. I jostled him, but I didn’t hit him. So I turned back and then he struck me to the side of the head. I lost consciousness and, being on the ground, he jumped at me and went on hitting me in the face about 10 times.

“He says he is a man, a bad boy, but he is just a coward. I don’t want to give my truth, but the truth. Once again there was a trial.”

Dabo added: ”He is nasty, a traitor. Sometimes I feel people roll out the red carpet for him. So I talk to remind people Joey Barton is a very violent player, far away from the image he tries to give since he joined Marseille. It wears me out to talk again about that story five years later.”
See also
 

Saturday, December 05, 2015

Hilary Benn the supreme hypocrite: Britain has right to defend itself from terrorists but Israel does not


Many people are praising Labour Party MP Hilary Benn for his "Churchillian" speech supporting the bombing of ISIS in Syria. Describing ISIS as 'fascists' he said:
"Can we really stand aside and refuse to act fully in our self-defence against those who are planning these attacks?"
Well, apparently while he demands the UK bomb Islamic terrorists in  a country over 2000 miles away in order to avoid hypothetical future attacks, he does not believe a certain other country has a right to defend itself from Islamic terrorists on its border - even while those terrorists are launching hundreds of rockets that are reaching 50% of that country's civilian population.

Indeed this would be the very same Hilary Benn who delivered the most vicious condemnation of Israel last summer when Israel finally responded to defend itself from multiple unprovoked Hamas rocket attacks.

Here is what he said (it is difficult to imagine a more sided, anti-Israel statement and all the claims in the first paragraph were subsequently proven to be lies - the schools and power station were hit by Hamas rockets misfiring - with no mention at all of the millions of Israeli civilians having to live in shelters for 4 weeks ):
The scenes we have witnessed have been appalling. The ground invasion of Gaza by Israeli troops was wrong and has only led to even more suffering. 1,800 people there have been killed, 450,000 people have been forced to leave their homes, the fuel supply for the power station has been bombed and the UN has warned that the health service is on the point of collapse. The citizens of Gaza did not know where it was safe to go, and the shelling of the UN-run schools where people were sheltering on 30 July and 3 August was an outrage. The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called these attacks reprehensible, unjustifiable and criminal. I agree, and there must now be a full investigation so that those responsible can be held to account.

... As the Labour leader Ed Miliband said “The escalation of violence engulfing Gaza has led, and continues to lead, to suffering and destruction on an appalling scale, and is losing Israel friends in the international community day by day.....the Prime Minister is wrong not to have opposed Israel’s incursion into Gaza. And his silence on the killing of hundreds of innocent Palestinian civilians will be inexplicable to people across Britain and internationally. “

From the start, the UN Security Council rightly and consistently demanded an immediate and unconditional humanitarian ceasefire, with a complete cessation of violence so as to bring an end to the unacceptable killing of large numbers of Palestinian civilians, including children, and to the rocket attacks into Israel which have targeted and killed civilians there. Like many MPs, I urged the Foreign Secretary to do all he could to achieve a ceasefire, but I share the deep concern that has been expressed about the failure of the British government to condemn the scale of Palestinian suffering as a result of the Israeli military incursion.

On UK arms exports to Israel, I have also raised this with the Foreign Secretary. It is clear that no new licences should be granted where there is any doubt about the end use of military equipment and the Government must urgently publish its review into existing UK export licences to Israel. We must be sure that the UK rules on arms exports, which prevent the export of military and dual use equipment which could be used for internal repression, the abuse of human rights or to provoke or prolong armed conflicts, are being applied fully.

Turning to the longer term, while the terrible murder of the teenagers - three Israelis and one Palestinian - was the immediate cause of this crisis, we know that the real problem is the blockade of Gaza, the continued building of illegal settlements by Israel on occupied land, and no progress at all on the peace process. I have seen for myself how the restrictions on movement in and out of Gaza affect the lives of the people there. The blockade must end with the lifting of restrictions as part of an agreement between the two sides.
And here is a reminder of the difference between ISIS and the terrorists that Israel faces on all sides:


Wednesday, November 25, 2015

PSC and the Co-Op: boycotters to boycott the boycotters who boycotted the boycotters?



No the headline is not satire. In 2012 the Co-Op - under pressure from the anti-Israel PSC ("Palestine Solidarity Campaign") decided to impose an Israel boycott. Now its Bank has closed down the accounts of the PSC. The Israel boycotters (PSC) are claiming it is a conspiracy to stop criticism of Israel and will no doubt call for a boycott of the Co-Op (the Israel boycotters) who have now boycotted the PSC (UPDATE: just checked the PSC twitter account and indeed it is full of people saying they will now boycott the Co-Op). It is not quite on a scale of ISIS v Hezbollah, or even Alien v Predator, but it is nevertheless entertaining.

Below is my correspondence in 2012 following the  Co-Op's decision decision to boycott Israeli goods.


First to Co-Op Letter 25 June 2012


Dear Sir/Madam,

Withdrawal of funds (A/C XXXXXX) in protest at Co-Operative’s anti-Semitic anti-Israel policy

I would like you to know that I have today withdrawn all of the funds in this account as a small protest against the Co-op’s despicable anti-Semitic policy that specifically boycotts goods produced by Jewish communities in the disputed West Bank territories. Boycotting Jewish businesses is what the Nazis did in the 1930s. At least my action shows that boycotts can work two ways.

What is sad is that the Co-Op decision has been adopted due to pressure from the “Palestine Solidarity Campaign” – a group of anti-Semitic terrorist-supporting liars and con artists who actually have no interest whatsoever in the welfare of the ‘Palestinians’ but simply want to remove every Jew from the land of Israel. Shame on the Co-op for being hoodwinked by these thuggish goons. The Co-op really should do its homework and find out more about who the PSC really are and whether it really wants to be associated with them.

If you do reply to this letter, please do not bother insulting my intelligence by repeating the nonsensical statements already made about this ‘not being anti-Israel’ because it ‘only applies to goods from illegal West Bank settlements’. The PSC regards the whole of Israel as ‘illegal Jewish settlements’. If it is ‘human rights’ the Co-op is really interested in then there are many dozens of other countries it should be boycotting rather than Israel; one of these would be the Palestinian Authority which treats women on a par with cattle, creams off most of the billions of dollars of Western aid it receives every year into its officials’ Swiss bank accounts, and brainwashes its school children to ‘seek martyrdom’ by killing Jews.

Yours sincerely,

Edgar Davidson

Co-op response from Amanda Bailey (Customer Relations)  19 July 2012


Letter from the Co-Op

My response to Amanda Baily, 4 August 2012


Dear Ms Bailey,

Thank you for your letter of 19th July. I have a number of follow-up questions.

My first set of questions relate to your choice of criteria for boycotting countries. You assert that under your “Human Rights and Trade Policy” you withdraw all trade when there is a ‘broad international consensus a settlement is illegal’ and that ‘there are only two examples of such settlements: the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian Occupied Territories and the Moroccan settlements in Western Sahara”.  Before addressing the issue of the legality or otherwise of the Israeli settlements, I note from your website that the most serious humans rights abusers in the world, namely Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Somalia, Venezuela, Yemen and Zimbabwe are not on your boycott list. So my questions are:

1. ‘Occupation’  is the only criteria that you mention; what other criteria do you have as part of your “Human Rights and Trade Policy”?

2. Is denial of equal rights to women and/or minorities included in your criteria, and if not why not?

3. Is persecution of gays and lesbians included in your criteria, and if not why not?

4. Is the brutal suppression of ethnic minorities and political dissidents included in your criteria, and if not why not?

5. Is sponsoring and glorifying terrorism included in your criteria, and if not why not?

6. Is state sponsored anti-Semitism included in your criteria, and if not why not?

7. Assuming the answer to at least one of questions 1-6 is ‘yes’ then why are you not boycotting goods from every one of the 58 Muslim countries in the world?

8. Is “conducting illegal wars far from a country’s own borders” one of the criteria, and if so why is the Co-Op not boycotting goods from the USA,  France, Italy, Holland etc. In fact, how comes the Co-Op is not boycotting goods from the UK?

My next set of questions concerns the issue of ‘illegal settlements’ of which you say there are only two examples (one of which is the Israelis):

9. Are you aware that, even according to the United Nations (resolution 242), the West Bank does not belong to any national territory but rather is considered disputed territory whose borders are to be determined under a final status peace agreement?

10. Are you aware of the recent Levy Report that demolishes the false narrative of Israeli settlement and occupation by restating many of the obvious points of law; most significantly that Israel is not an occupying power and did not seize any land from another state. Indeed all of the land that Israel is accused of occupying in the West Bank is actually land that was seized from it by the invading Jordanian and other Arab armies during its 1948 War of Independence?

11. Are you aware that the only legal basis for denouncing the Jews who returned in 1967 to the homes that they had been expelled from in 1948 as “settlers” is by recognizing the Jordanian conquests of those territories. But those conquests were never recognized or accepted. Not even by the international community.

12. Assuming that your claim of a ‘broad international consensus’ is the 2004 International Court of Justice ruling (which Israel did not participate in and which has been demolished by the Levy report) are you aware that one of the  ICC ‘judges’ was  Al Khasawneh who had a blatant conflict of interest, since he was an advisor to the King of Jordan and later became the Prime Minister of Jordan?

13. Why does your notion of occupied territories fail to include the approximately 160 other territories around the world that are ‘disputed’ (each of which necessarily involves one country ‘occupying it’ against the wishes of some other country or national group)?

14. In particular why does your definition not include genuinely brutal occupations such as: the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus, or even the Russian occupation of Abkhazia, especially as China, Russia and Turkey all of have infinitely worse human rights records than Israel? 

15. You are presumably aware that one of the disputed international territories is the Falklands Islands, which Argentina claims is illegally occupied by the UK. A significant majority of countries in the UN now agree with the Argentine position. So, as per question 8 above, why is the Co-Op not boycotting the UK?

16. Are you aware that any notion of an ‘international consensus’ is fundamentally irrelevant because the United Nations contains 58 Muslim states – all  human rights abusers as described above - who provide a built-in ‘consensus’ on any anti-Israel motion that anybody cares to think of? 

My next question concerns your assertion that the Co-Op “continue to seek increased trade with Palestinian businesses.” The corrupt Palestinian Authority is not only guilty of all of the human rights offences listed above, but is actually one of the world’s worst offenders. For anti-Semitism the PA truly are world-beaters with their indoctrination of children (becoming a suicide bomber to kill Jews is the highest ambition of most Palestinians children); in the Palestinian Authority selling land to a Jew (not an Israeli please note) is punishable by death and numerous Palestinian citizens have been killed for this ‘crime’. So:

17: How is the Co-Op’s “Human Rights and Trade Policy” consistent with seeking increased traded with such a brutal, corrupt regime?

And finally, three general questions:

18. Do you believe that Israel – the only liberal democracy in the Middle East where all minorities have equal rights – is a worse human rights violator than Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Russia, China etc?

19. How is your policy to boycott goods produced by Jewish communities in the West Bank anything other than pure anti-Semitism?

20. How and why did the Co-Op get hoodwinked into a nonsensical hypocritical policy (that will ultimately be self-damaging) by a small group of congenital anti-Semites disguised as ‘pro-Palestinian’ activists.


Yours sincerely,

Edgar Davidson

Amanda Baily response , 4 September 2012


My response to Amanda Baily, 7 September 2012

Dear Ms Baily

The fact that you made no attempt to answer even one of my questions means it is safe to conclude that the only rational definition of what constitutes an abuse of the Co-Op's “Human Rights and Trade Policy” is that the country must be named "Israel". In particular we can conclude that:

1. ‘Occupation’ is the only criteria you consider as part of your “Human Rights and Trade Policy”

2. Denial of equal rights to women and/or minorities is NOT one of your criteria of interest

3. Persecution of gays and lesbians is NOT one of your criteria of interest

4. Brutal suppression of ethnic minorities and political dissidents is NOT one of your criteria of interest

5. Sponsoring and glorifying terrorism is NOT one of your criteria of interest

6. State sponsored anti-Semitism is NOT one of your criteria of interest

7. The Co-Op is happy to trade with all 58 Muslim countries in the world even though they are all guilty of the human rights abuses listed in 2-6.

8. Conducting "illegal wars far from a country’s own borders” is NOT one of your criteria of interest and that is why the Co-Op is not boycotting goods from the USA, France, Italy, Holland ... and the UK etc.

9. The Co-op is selective in which 'international consensus' it accepts. In particular, it rejects United Nations resolution 242, which specifies that the West Bank does not belong to any national territory but rather is considered disputed territory whose borders are to be determined under a final status peace agreement.

10. The Co-op also rejects the findings of the recent Levy Report.

11. The Co-Op is not aware  that the only legal basis for denouncing the Jews who returned in 1967 to the homes that they had been expelled from in 1948 as “settlers” is by recognizing the Jordanian conquests of those territories, even though those conquests were never recognized or accepted. Not even by the international community.

12. The Co-op are not aware that one of the ICC ‘judges’ who was responsible for the 'international legal ruling' they refer to was Al Khasawneh who had a blatant conflict of interest, since he was an advisor to the King of Jordan and later became the Prime Minister of Jordan

13. The Co-op's notion of occupied territories fails to include the approximately 160 other territories around the world that are ‘disputed’ (each of which necessarily involves one country ‘occupying it’ against the wishes of some other country or national group)?

14. The Co-op's definition does not include genuinely brutal occupations such as: the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus, or even the Russian occupation of Abkhazia, especially as China, Russia and Turkey all of have infinitely worse human rights records than Israel

15. The Co-op are not aware that one of the disputed international territories is the Falklands Islands, which Argentina claims is illegally occupied by the UK and that a significant majority of countries in the UN now agree with the Argentine position.

16. The Co-op are not aware that any notion of an ‘international consensus’ is fundamentally irrelevant because the United Nations contains 58 Muslim states – all human rights abusers as described above - who provide a built-in ‘consensus’ on any anti-Israel motion that anybody cares to think of

17. The Co-op is happy to “continue to seek increased trade with Palestinian businesses.” despite the corrupt Palestinian Authority being guilty of all of the human rights offences listed above

18. The Co-op believes that Israel – the only liberal democracy in the Middle East where all minorities have equal rights – is a worse human rights violator than Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Russia, China etc

19.  The Co-op's policy to boycott goods produced by Jewish communities in the West Bank is indeed pure anti-Semitism

20. The Co-Op did indeed get hoodwinked into a nonsensical hypocritical policy (that will ultimately be self-damaging) by a small group of congenital anti-Semites disguised as ‘pro-Palestinian’ activists.



Sunday, November 22, 2015

Exposing the antisemitic scorecards yet again

The entire main stream media continues to use the antisemitic scorecards (that I exposed previously) to 'summarise' the current Arab intifada against Jewish Israelis. The following is a hypothetical (but not unlikely scenario - see below for real case) that exposes the perniciousness of this approach.

 In the Gush Etzion attack last week's the terrorist shot at a group of people killing an Israeli Jew, a Jewish tourist and an Arab. For the 'scorecards' this officially counted as a tie:

One dead Israeli and one dead Palestinian.  

This is not a joke - this is exactly how the numbers for that attack have been added to the figures you see repeated everywhere.

If the terrorist had been killed during the attack (sadly he wasn't)  the scorecard would have been one dead Israeli two dead Palestinians. You would have thought by now that somebody in the western media agencies who propagate these antisemitic scorecards  would have realised how irrational they are?

See also:

The antisemitic scorecards are back - so here are some alternatives

Thursday, November 19, 2015

The differences between ISIS terrorists and Palestinian terrorists

Lots of people have been asking why the world mourns French victims of ISIS terrorists but not Israeli victims of Palestinians terrorists, and why on days like today (when Palestinian terrorists massacred several Israelis in different attacks) not a single main stream news channels even reports on the attacks. Well the following chart explains very clearly why. You see ISIS and the Palestinian terrorists have absolutely nothing in common!!!!

But just when you were convinced they have nothing in common, the following chart should quell your concerns!!!


See also:

British Red Cross covering for Palestinian Liars while International Red Cross threatens those who expose the truth


This is an important update to a previous post that contained my correspondence with the British Red Cross in relation to the events of 13 November in Israel, when a Jewish family was attacked by terrorists and a Palestinian Red Crescent ambulance refused to help those injured.  After my second letter I received a response saying
Please read the statement from the International Committee of the Red Cross concerning this incident which is fully supported by the British Red Cross:
The ICRC statement (by its Head of Delegation in "Israel and the Occupied Territories Jacques De Maio") unquestioningly accepts the Palestinian version of events and rejects the Israeli version. It includes the following gem:
The Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) has immediately provided factual accounts, firmly rejected these allegations, and unequivocally reaffirmed its commitment to impartial response. The PRCS’ record of principled and strictly humanitarian action is uncontested and well recognized.
In fact (as brilliantly documented in Tuvia Tenenbom's Why European NGOs and the Red Cross are real enemies in Israel) the ICRC and the PRCS have a long history not just of indifference to the suffering of Israeli civilians, but also at least indirect support for terrorism. The ICRC statement also includes the following implict threat against those who seek to expose the Palestinian Red Crescent disgusting behaviour:
What we call on for now is for all to act responsibly and better support both national societies. That includes refraining from making serious accusations against either National Society that do not take into account the facts on the ground.
I have sent another follow-up response to the British Red Cross:

You did not read my letter.  My letter was a follow-up to your response in which you simply whitewashed the accusations against the Palestinian Red Crescent. If you are unable to respond to the specific points I made then I have to infer that the British Red Cross is hiding behind a false statement whitewashing the disgraceful and illegal behaviour of the Palestinian Red Crescent. I will therefore be taking this matter further since it means the British Red Cross is complicit in a conspiracy to withold the truth. I will repeat the key points and questions that I was asking you in my follow-up:
  • Why have you simply repeated the story provided by the Palestinian Red Crescent, which is at odds with the statement provided by the victims and other evidence (see, e.g. https://anneinpt.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/the-red-cross-defends-the-red-crescents-neglect-of-israeli-murder-victims/)
  • Based on the Palestinian Red Crescent's extensive history of lying, as well as direct support for terrorism, can you explain why you believe their version of events (which is not supported by any evidence) and not that of the victims and Israeli authorities (which is supported by recorded telephone calls)?
  • Can you explain the following obvious flaw in the Palestinian Red Crescent version of events. They say "their team believed the situation had become unsafe for Palestinian Red Crescent personnel to remain." In what possible sense was it unsafe for them to remain? If they are inferring that their own lives were in danger because of the presence of Israeli emergency personnel, then this is not only a lie but also a potential blood libel and inversion of reality. It is not Israeli emergency personnel who endanger lives - only Palestinians.
  • Also please note that the Palestinians do not regard the killings of the Israeli civilians as 'tragic events'. In fact, there was as usual widespread celebration among the Palestinians over the killings with praise for the 'heroic operation' not just from Hamas and other terrorist groups but also from members of the Palestine Authority.
  • And also note that the victims were a family who were about to celebrate the wedding of their daughter (which was due to take place on 17 November). You should take the trouble of watching that young lady talk about her postponed wedding: https://www.facebook.com/ch2news/videos/10153337512537523/

Yours

Edgar Davidson
See also:



Wednesday, November 18, 2015

What many Muslims (and leftists) believe

In the light of the Paris attacks many people have been bemused at multiple contradictions in what many Muslims (and leftists) have been saying. For example, on one hand many believe Mossad carried out the attacks, but on the other hand they also believe the attacks are the inevitable result of Muslims being 'persecuted' by Israel and other Western countries.  So, here is a reminder of a simple chart which clearly shows how rational many Muslims (and leftists) really are about politics.


See also: