Benighted in Brighton: University of Sussex succumbs to BDS (& update re Southampton Uni Hatefest)

The University of Sussex is a seat of learning founded as the forerunner of several "new universities"  in the 1960s.   It managed to poach famous scholars from other universities and to say it was "flavour of the month" is to make an understatement.

Then, it seemed, anyone who was anyone wanted to go there, perhaps even in preference to Oxbridge, and certainly as a consolation for failing to gain admittance to either Oxford or Cambridge.

It was notoriously difficult to even secure an interview for admission, owing to the vast numbers of applicants.

Its initial intake of undergraduates included the famous "Jay Twins", daughters of the Labour Cabinet minister Douglas Jay, and that enhanced the publicity surrounding it.

It was once known (rightly or wrongly) for the numbers of Jews on campus as both academics and students.

And for the number of trendy lefties in its ranks.

It is now, according to a recent Jewish student there writing in Ha'aretz last year:

'a famously anti-Israel campus ...  [T]he atmosphere is definitely very anti-Israel'.

 Now, this campus near Brighton has joined the ranks of the BDSers.

Consequent upon a vote taken last week, its students' union is pledged to eschew all Israeli products, cultural and academic institutions, to lobbying the university to avoid cooperation with Israeli companies, and to abandon all investments in Israel.

Advises its website:

 The Students' Union should endorse the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement against Israel

Votes cast - 1292. Abstentions - 113

Yes - 806- 68%
No - 373 - 32%

The Students' Union will endorse the BDS movement against Israel.

The photos show some of the Israel-haters whooping it up in response to the announcement of the vote.

Compare this.

Update
Breaking News:
To the signatories of the Zionist Federation's petition on Change.org:

Southampton Uni's Kangaroo Court Cancelled?

ZF UK

31 Mar 2015 — After weeks of pressure, this morning the organisers of Southampton University's anti-Israel conference released an astounding statement:

"It is with extreme astonishment and sadness that we have to inform you that the University of Southampton has told us earlier yesterday (Monday 30 March 2015) that it intends to withdraw its permission to hold the academic conference on International Law and the State of Israel."

(You can read the full statement here: http://freespeechsouthampton.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/update-from-organisers-31-march-it-is.html

As of yet, Southampton University have not released an statement on the matter, with the conference still officially being under review. If the event is cancelled, it will be a huge victory for all the thousands who have campaigned against this bigoted event.

But we're not finished yet. Over 6000 people have signed this petition, agreeing that it's not right or fair for Israel to be singled out in this way. It's not right or fair for the Jewish state to be found guilty of the "crime" of existing. And it's certainly not right or fair for extremists like Richard Falk, who peddle conspiracy theories and antisemitism, to welcome on campus.

That's why we're asking you for what we hope will be one last push, to show Southampton University how many people agree that this anti-Israel kangaroo court shouldn't go ahead.

So please, let's make sure this is the last time we ask: Share this petition!

 (No update so far on this petition)

Predictably the Israel-haters are marshalling; this, for instance, by an anti-Israel activist who just happens to be halachically Jewish:

Interesting post on Harry's Place here re the apparent cancellation, showing inter alia a dodgy comment regarding a "pound of flesh" ...

Obama ... Oy Vey!

This article by former US ambassador (2005-6) to the United Nations John Bolton has gone viral, and here's another that deserves a wide readership.

It concerns the Obama Administration's threat, following Bibi Netanyahu's return to power in Israel, to acquiesce in and even encourage recognition by the UN Security Council of a Palestinian State and the restriction of Israel to the pre-1967 lines.

Bolton writes in part:

'America’s consistent view since Council Resolution 242 concluded the 1967 Arab-Israeli war is that only the parties themselves can structure a lasting peace. Deviating from that formula would be a radical departure by Obama from a bipartisan Middle East policy nearly half a century old.

In fact, Israel’s “1967 borders” are basically only the 1949 cease-fire lines, but its critics shrink from admitting this tedious reality. The indeterminate status of Israel’s borders from its 1948 creation is in fact a powerful argument why only negotiation with relevant Arab parties can ultimately fix the lines with certainty. 

That is why Resolution 242’s “land for peace” formula, vague and elastic though it is, was acceptable to everyone in 1967: There were no hard and fast boundaries to fall back on, no longstanding historical precedents. Prior U.N. resolutions from the 1940s, for example, had all been overtaken by events. Only negotiation, if anything, could leave the parties content; externally imposed terms could only sow future conflicts. Hence, Resolution 242 does not call for a return to the prewar boundaries, but instead affirms the right of “every State in the area” to “secure and recognized boundaries.” Ignoring this fundamental reality is fantasy....

Obama is criticizing not just Netanyahu, but the very legitimacy of Israel’s democracy, giving an implicit green light to those prepared to act violently against it. ...

Whether one takes his or Netanyahu’s side, the administration’s approach is now squarely contrary to America’s larger strategic interests. And the global harm that will be done to common U.S. and Israeli interests through Security Council resolutions if Washington stands aside (or worse, joins in) will extend far beyond the terms of one prime minister and one president. ...'

See the entire article here

As Michael Comay, then Israel's ambassador to Britain, declared in 1970:

"The choice before us is not between victory and defeat, but between victory and annihilation.

 We therefore have not the slightest intention of allowing the re-creation of the conditions of vulnerability in which we found ourselves, abandoned and alone, in the summer of 1967."

Meanwhile:

The Swedish Disease

Significant elements in several Western countries – especially the United States, Great Britain, and Israel – believe their own governments to be repositories of evil, and see terrorism as just punishment for past sins. This "we have met the enemy and he is us" attitude replaces an effective response with appeasement, including a readiness to give up traditions and achievements.... 

Self-hating Westerners have an out-sized importance due to their prominent role as shapers of opinion in universities, the media, religious institutions, and the arts. They serve as the Islamists' auxiliary mujahideen.

So observed Daniel Pipes in 2006.

How the contagion continues to spread.  In Sweden, for example,

'Many former Marxists have become passionate Multiculturalists, so much so that we need to analyze what these doctrines have in common. How come so many white Marxists are aggressively hostile to their own civilization and almost seem to derive pleasure from the idea of wiping out their own people? Is Globalist Multiculturalism on some level a replacement Communism or is it in fact a direct continuation of Communism? In traditional Communism the “oppressive class” should be forced out of power, stripped of their assets and perhaps physically eliminated. If we assume that whites, and by that I mean people of European stock, are seen collectively as the “global oppressive class” who uphold the capitalist system and prevent a just world order, breaking down whites becomes the road to implement equality. Perhaps if traditional Communism put its emphasis on economic differences, this new form of Communism puts emphasis on breaking down cultural and genetic differences in order to achieve global equality. It could thus be thought of as cultural and genetic Communism.

If we assume that the ideology of Globalist Multiculturalism has totalitarian tendencies, we should remember that totalitarian ideologies usually have a Villain Class, a group of evil oppressors that can be blamed for all the ills of society. If the ruling ideology falls somewhat short of producing the Perfect Society it has promised, this will be followed by even more passionate attacks on the Villain Class, be that the Jews, the capitalists, the bourgeoisie, etc. The Villain Class of Multiculturalism seems to be European culture and persons who happen to be born with a white skin. Any problems will automatically be blamed on “white racism.” One of the hallmarks of a Villain Class is that its members can be verbally or even physically abused with impunity. The Villain Class is subject to public scorn and has de facto or de jure less legal protection than other groups.

The radical feminist Joanna Rytel wrote an article called “I Will Never Give Birth to a White Man,” for the Swedish daily Aftonbladet, stating things such as “no white men, please… I just puke on them.” After receiving a complaint because of this, Swedish state prosecutor Göran Lambertz explained why this didn’t qualify as racism: “The purpose behind the law against incitement of ethnic hatred was to ensure legal protection for minority groups of different compositions and followers of different religions. Cases where people express themselves in a critical or derogatory way about men of ethnic Swedish background were not intended to be included in this law.”

In 2006, Chancellor of Justice Göran Lambertz discontinued his preliminary investigation regarding anti-Semitism at the great mosque in Stockholm. He wrote that “the lecture at hand contains statements that are strongly degrading to Jews, among other things, they are throughout called brothers of apes and pigs.” Furthermore a curse is expressed over the Jews and “Jihad is called for, to kill the Jews, whereby suicide bombers — celebrated as martyrs — are the most effective weapon.” Lambertz thought that the “recently mentioned statements in spite of their contents are not to be considered incitement against an ethnic group according to Swedish law.” His conclusions were that the preliminary investigation should be discontinued because this incitement against Jews could be said to originate from the Middle East conflict.

It is illegal to suggest that certain groups are worse than others. If you criticize oppression of women, you should be careful to state that all men are equally bad and that Western men are at least as bad as Muslim men. The Marxist politician (from the “reformed” Communists) Gudrun Schyman in a 2002 speech posited that Swedish men were just like the extremely brutal Islamic Taliban regime. A male columnist in newspaper Aftonbladet immediately agreed with her: Yes, Western men are like the Taliban.

http://www.meforum.org/5141/palestinian-sister-wives

A note to Ms. Schyman: A feminist culture will eventually be squashed because the men have either become too demoralized and weakened to protect their women, or because they have become fed-up with incessant ridicule. If Western men are pigs and “just like the Taliban” no matter what we do, why bother? Western women will then be squashed by more aggressive men from other cultures (whom women often voted to let in because of their “kind and compassionate” Socialist sympathies), which is exactly what is happening in Western Europe now. The irony is that when women launched the Second Wave of Feminism in the 1960s and 70s, they were reasonably safe and, in my view, not very oppressed. When the long-term effects of feminism finally set in, Western women may very well end up being genuinely oppressed under the boot of Islam. Radical feminism thus leads to oppression of women.

In 2005, a TV program which caused some stir quoted Irene von Wachenfeldt, chairwoman of ROKS, The National Organization for Women’s Shelters, as saying: “…when war breaks out, it is fully ok to use violence openly. I sometimes say that we are involved in a civil world war, a gender war. Men are animals.” In the organization’s magazine, the extreme feminist Valeria Solana was hailed in a review. She writes in her manifesto: “To call a man an animal is to flatter him: He is a machine, a walking dildo, a biological mishap.” In the TV documentary, Irene von Wachenfelt was asked whether she agreed with Solana, and she did. ROKS has received millions in public funding.

In Sweden, you cannot say that certain ethnic groups are more involved in crime than others. That’s hateful and banned by law. But you can say that all men are animals, and you will get state support for doing so. You can also belittle the traditional culture of the natives. This is not just allowed but encouraged. As mentioned before, the “conservative” Prime Minister Reinfeldt has stated that the native culture was merely barbarism and that everything good has been imported from abroad. Had a public figure said something similar about the culture of an immigrant group, he or she would have had to resign immediately and most likely would have faced a trial for hate speech and racism.

Jonathan Friedman, an American Jew living in Sweden, mentions that the so-called Integration Act from 1997, two years after Sweden joined the European Union, proclaimed that “Sweden is a Multicultural society.” The Act implicitly states that Sweden doesn’t have a history, only the various ethnic groups that live there now. Native Swedes have formally been reduced to just another ethnic group, with no more claims to the country than the Iraqis who arrived there last Thursday. As Friedman puts it, “it’s almost as if the state has sided with the immigrants against the Swedish working class.”

“Exit Folkhemssverige - En samhällsmodells sönderfall“ (Exit the People’s Home of Sweden — The Downfall of a Model of Society) is a book from 2005 about immigration and the welfare state model called “the people’s home,” written by Jonathan Friedman, Ingrid Björkman, Jan Elfverson and Åke Wedin. According to them, the Multicultural elites see themselves first of all as citizens of the world. In order to emphasize and accentuate “diversity,” everything associated with the native culture is deliberately disparaged. Opposition to this is considered racism: “The dominant ideology in Sweden, which has been made dominant by powerful methods of silencing and repression, is a totalitarian ideology, where the elites oppose the national aspect of the nation state. The problem is that the ethnic group that are described as Swedes implicitly are considered to be nationalists, and thereby are viewed as racists.”

Jens Orback, Minister for Democracy, Metropolitan Affairs, Integration and Gender Equality from the Social Democratic Party said during a debate in Swedish radio in 2004 that “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”

This was a government which knew perfectly well that their people risked becoming a minority in their own country, yet did nothing to stop this. ...'

 Read much much more here

Islamic Supremacism, Iran, Saudi Arabia, The Bomb, & Obama's Attitude To Israel

 Here's the urbane Saudi Arabian ambassador to Washington, speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer about Iran's nuclear capability and about Yemen, but understandably not giving much away:

It's perhaps best to view this interview of Jamie Glazov with scholar Daniel Greenfield, alter ago of blogger  "Sultan Knish", with a stiff whisky or three at the ready:

Incidentally the translation of the poster in the picture below concerning Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen reflects the honest translation of "Allahu Akhbar",  the true meaning of which Greenfield discusses in the first part of the video, which refers to his post here, in which he states inter alia:

'Allahu Akbar doesn't mean Allah is Great, in a "Isn't 'Allah and the Virgins of Paradise' a great band". It's more like Allah is Greatest or Superior. And if you're on the right side of the cockpit door, the one doing the shouting 'Allahu Akbar' means that Allah is superior to your country and to you. And one of his followers is about to do his best to show you why.

 The tactic of Islamic propagandists and their Western enablers has been to mainstream and normalize. In their translations, "Allahu Akbar" becomes "God is Great". Not Allah, but God. And not Greater, but Great. The differences are significant. Every news story takes great care to explain that ...Allahu Akbar ... is a common Arabic phrase shouted at various occasions. Which is true. Muslims don't just shout Allahu Akbar when they're killing people. The problem is that they do shout Allahu Akbar when they are killing people. And that shout reveals motive...."

From http://vladtepesblog.com/

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes blog

Oh, and here's Ben Shapiro:

Amnesty International Slams Palestinian War Crimes in Gaza

In a press release dated today (26 March) Amnesty International advises:

'Palestinian armed groups displayed a flagrant disregard for the lives of civilians by repeatedly launching indiscriminate rockets and mortars towards civilian areas in Israel during the conflict in July and August 2014, said Amnesty International in a new report published today.

Unlawful and deadly: Rocket and mortar attacks by Palestinian armed groups during the 2014 Gaza/Israel conflict provides evidence that several attacks launched from inside the Gaza Strip amount to war crimes. Six civilians in Israel, including a four-year-old boy, were killed in such attacks during the 50-day conflict. In the deadliest incident believed to have been caused by a Palestinian attack, 11 children were among 13 Palestinian civilians killed when a projectile fired from within the Gaza Strip landed in the al-Shati refugee camp.

“Palestinian armed groups, including the armed wing of Hamas, repeatedly launched unlawful attacks during the conflict killing and injuring civilians. In launching these attacks, they displayed a flagrant disregard for international humanitarian law and for the consequences of their violations on civilians in both Israel and the Gaza Strip,” said Philip Luther, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Amnesty International.

All the rockets used by Palestinian armed groups are unguided projectiles which cannot be accurately aimed at specific targets and are inherently indiscriminate; using such weapons is prohibited under international law and their use constitutes a war crime. Mortars are also imprecise munitions and should never be used to attack military targets located in or near civilian areas.

“Palestinian armed groups must end all direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks. They must also take all feasible precautions to protect civilians in the Gaza Strip from the effects of such attacks. This includes taking all possible measures to avoid locating fighters and arms within or near densely populated areas,” said Philip Luther.

And now, in Gaza, opportunities for women grow (read about it here)

At least 1,585 Palestinian civilians, including more than 530 children, were killed in Gaza, and at least 16,245 homes were destroyed or rendered uninhabitable by Israeli attacks during the conflict, some of which also amounted to war crimes.

“The devastating impact of Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians during the conflict is undeniable, but violations by one side in a conflict can never justify violations by their opponents,” said Philip Luther.

“The fact that Palestinian armed groups appear to have carried out war crimes by firing indiscriminate rockets and mortars does not absolve the Israeli forces from their obligations under international humanitarian law. The war wrought an unprecedented level of death, destruction and injury on the 1.8 million people in the Gaza Strip, and some of the Israeli attacks must be investigated as war crimes.

“The Israeli and Palestinian authorities must both co-operate with the probes of the UN Commission of Inquiry and the International Criminal Court to end decades of impunity that have perpetuated a cycle of violations in which civilians on both sides have paid a heavy price.”

According to UN data, more than 4,800 rockets and 1,700 mortars were fired from Gaza towards Israel during the conflict. Out of the thousands of rockets and mortars fired, around 224 are estimated to have struck Israeli residential areas, as Israel’s Iron Dome missile defence system intercepted many others.

The death of Daniel Tregerman, a four-year-old boy, on 22 August 2014 clearly illustrates the tragic consequences of using imprecise weapons such as mortars on civilian areas. His family had fled their home in Kibbutz Nahal Oz because of the fighting but returned the day before he was killed. Moments after the alarm sirens went off, a mortar launched from Gaza struck the family car parked outside the house. Daniel’s little sister who was also present watched him die before her eyes.

“My husband and son were in the living room and I was yelling for them to come into the shelter. Shrapnel [from the mortar] entered Daniel’s head, killing him immediately,” his mother, Gila Tregerman, told Amnesty International.

Hamas’ military wing, the al-Qassam Brigades, claimed responsibility for the attack.

The briefing also highlights the Israeli authorities’ failure to adequately protect civilians in vulnerable communities during the conflict, particularly Bedouin villages in Israel’s Negev/Naqab region, many of which are not officially recognized by the Israeli government. Ouda Jumi’an al-Waj was killed by a rocket that struck the Bedouin village of Qasr al-Sir near the Israeli city of Dimona on 19 July.

Most Bedouin villages are classified as non-residential “open areas” by the Israeli authorities, so the Iron Dome system to intercept rockets does not operate there and there are no bomb shelters. More than 100,000 people live in Bedouin villages in southern Israel.

“Civilians living in Bedouin villages during the conflict were left vulnerable and exposed, one manifestation of the discrimination they face on a daily basis. The Israeli authorities must ensure everyone is given equal protection,” said Philip Luther.

Other civilians killed by attacks launched in Gaza included an agricultural worker from Thailand, Narakorn Kittiyangkul, who was killed when a mortar struck the tomato farm in southern Israel where he was working. Ze’ev Etzion and Shahar Melamed were killed in a mortar attack on Kibbutz Nirim on 26 August.

In the deadliest incident believed to have been caused by a Palestinian armed group during the conflict, 13 Palestinian civilians – 11 of them children – were killed when a projectile exploded next to a supermarket in the crowded al-Shati refugee camp in Gaza on 28 July 2014, the first day of Eid al-Fitr.

The children had been playing in the street and buying crisps and soft drinks in the supermarket at the time of the attack.

Although Palestinians have claimed that the Israeli military was responsible for the attack, an independent munitions expert who examined the available evidence on behalf of Amnesty International concluded that the projectile used in the attack was a Palestinian rocket.

“Evidence suggesting that a rocket launched by a Palestinian armed group may have caused 13 civilian deaths inside Gaza just underscores how indiscriminate these weapons can be and the dreadful consequences of using them,” said Philip Luther.

Mahmoud Abu Shaqfa and his five-year-old son Khaled were seriously wounded in the attack. His eight-year-old son Muhammad was killed. “The rocket fell near the car… The whole car was pierced by shrapnel. A piece of shrapnel pierced me… My son [Khaled] came to me. He was screaming ‘Daddy get up, get up…’ My entire leg was torn open and my arm had been wrenched to my back.”

There are no bomb shelters or warning systems in place to protect civilians in Gaza.

The report also details other violations of international humanitarian law by Palestinian armed groups during the conflict, such as storing rockets and other munitions in civilian buildings, including UN schools, and cases where Palestinian armed groups launched attacks or stored munitions very near locations where hundreds of displaced civilians were taking shelter.

“The international community must help prevent further violations by tackling entrenched impunity and by ending transfers to Palestinian armed groups and Israel of all arms and military equipment that could be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law,” said Philip Luther.

Amnesty International is calling on all states to support the UN Commission of Inquiry and the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over crimes committed by all parties to the conflict.'  [Emphasis added]

 Read the full report in English here  https://www.amnesty.org/…/Documents/MDE2111782015ENGLISH.PDF

Why The "Two State Solution" Has Gone Nowhere: David Singer Explains

Here, entitled "Palestine: Words Matter – But Their Meaning Matters More," is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

"Words matter," White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters this week.

Regrettably Earnest was being less than earnest in failing to point out that words can also have several meanings – which can result in people failing to actually communicate with each other because each has a different understanding of the words he is using.

As a lawyer with extensive experience in drafting agreements – I have found the most critical part in any agreement is the definition of terms used in those agreements – so that the parties are in no doubt at all as to the meaning of the words they are using.

The so-called “Two State Solution” has gone nowhere in the last 20 years for precisely this reason.

The parties to the negotiations – including America on its own and as part of the Quartet – have been talking at cross purposes without first agreeing on the meaning of the terms they are using.

Take the following terms –  and their suggested possible definitions:

1. “Palestine” – means “the territory known today as Israel, West Bank, Gaza and Jordan being the territory covered by the Mandate for Palestine dated 24 July 1922.”

2. “Palestinians” – means

(i) “those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or stayed there.

(ii) Anyone born after 1947 of a father qualifying as a Palestinian under paragraph (i) - whether inside Palestine or outside it”

3. “West Bank” – means “the term used since 1950 to refer to the territory known as “Judea and Samaria” since biblical times and comprising the territory that came under Israeli military government control in 1967”

4. Oslo Accords 1 – means Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements or short Declaration of Principles(DOP) dated 13 September 1993

5. “Oslo Accords II - means Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip commonly known as Oslo II or Oslo 2 dated 25 September 1995

6. “Oslo Accords” means “Oslo Accords I” and “Oslo Accords II”

7. “Bush Roadmap” means – “the two-state solution”

8. “Two-State solution” – means “the Performance Based Roadmap To A Permanent Two-State solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict as presented in President Bush’s speech of 24 June 2003, and welcomed by the EU, Russia and the UN in the 16 July 2003 and 17 September 2003 Quartet Ministerial statements.”

9. “Quartet” means “America, European Union (EU), Russia and the United Nations(UN)”

10. “Jerusalem” means “all of the area that is described in the appendix of the proclamation expanding the borders of municipal Jerusalem beginning the 20th of Sivan 5727 (June 28, 1967), as was given according to the Cities' Ordinance.”

11. “Palestinian Authority” means “The Palestinian National Authority established in 1994 following Oslo Accords 1 and disbanded on 3 January 2013”.

To the legally uninitiated this may sound like a lot of detailed, unnecessary and technical drafting – but its purpose is quite clear – to ensure when the parties to this dispute use any of the above terms  their meaning is unmistakeably clear.

The proof is in the pudding.

Do President Obama and his Press Secretary – Josh Earnest – agree with the above definitions when they utter these commonly used terms almost daily?

Do Israel’s Prime Minister – Benjamin Netanyahu – and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas agree with these definitions?

Do the media? Do you?

If indeed there is any disagreement – then the parties need to first reach agreement on their meaning – before they can even think of talking to each other.

Unless everyone is singing from the same hymn book the music will sound frightfully discordant.

"The Egyptian People Is Entitled To Claim Its [Legal] Rights In Australia"

Who discovered Australia?  The Aboriginal people of this vast continent?  Malaysian seafarers and fishermen? Abel Tasman?  James Cook?

Re-write the history books!:

Streuth!

More from Elder of Ziyon here

(Hat tip: Ian)

Now, just supposing this whacko view of history was true, would it mean the Australian lefties who castigate Israel for the "occupation" of "Arab land" would be willing to give up their occupation of "Egyptian land" to any claimants?

More Malice in Marrickville: Theatre Rats Refuse Jewish Booking (But Later Apologise)

The Red Rattler Theatre in the Sydney suburb of Marrickville (where, as many readers will recall, the Greens-led council in 2010 notoriously voted to implement a despicable and ludicrous BDS policy) describes itself as:

'a not-for-profit (NFP) artist-run initiative (ARI) operating a community-based venue and artists’ studios.

[It] is a creative playground for performers, musicians, artists, designers, multi-media makers, experimentalists, film-makers, theorists, activists, collective organisers, and local punters. It is fitted with a full PA, stage, LED lighting rig, projector and screen, licensed bar, a roof-top garden, and two non-residential artist studios currently supporting 5 practicing artists.

The Theatre was the realisation of a collective dream of five local artists, who wanted to create a legal warehouse venue to showcase alternative Sydney arts, performance and grassroots activism. The five “Rats” had been hosting events for years at many of the illegal inner-city and inner-west warehouse spaces that have been shut down over the years (Lan Franchis, Space 3, love hotel, and many temporary squatted zones), and dreamed of creating an accessible venue that held all relevant licences to stay open, and would not be at the mercy of high rents and developers.

The Red Rattler Theatre Inc is completely volunteer-run, and could not exist without the hard work and goodwill of a small army of volunteers who staff, manage and run the venue. The success and longevity of the Theatre depend on the involvement and support of volunteers....

[T]he name of the theatre is inspired by the old Red Rattler trains... The rattle refers to us trying to shake things up in terms of accessible venues and creative spaces in Sydney, and the colour red has long associations with left politics, revolution and anarchism.

Since its inception, The Red Rattler Theatre has shown the resilience, mettle and cunning of the furry creature it has been nicknamed for."

Regarding hiring the 300-capacity theatre for performances see here

When the Jewish group Hillel tried to book the theatre in order to stage a series of storytelling performances relating to the Shoah on its premises it was unprepared for the Rats' response.

Hillel representative Shailee Mendelovitch, who applied to hire the theatre for that purpose, felt understandably "diminished" when received this unsigned email in response:

“Our policy does not support ­colonialism/Zionism. Therefore we do not host groups that support the colonisation and occu­pation of Palestine.”

The Australian notes that this refusal "has left the NSW Jewish community shocked and distressed" and appears to breach anti-discrimination laws on the grounds of race.

The paper reports that NSW Jewish Board of Deput­ies chief executive Vic Alhadeff
has written to the theatre explaining that Hillel is a non-political organisation and reiterating his Board's support for a Two State solution.

 He wrote inter alia:

“To categorically reject an approach by a Jewish organisation to hire your premises because of a political position that your team holds in relation to an overseas conflict is at best ill-informed and at worst racist and discriminatory."

Alhadeff informed the antipodean J-Wire service:

"I wrote a respectful letter to the theatre, saying I would like to discuss the matter in order to resolve misconceptions on the part of their team – about the organisation which had approached them and about the position of the Jewish community in regard to Palestine and about Israel itself.

 Despite several calls to the theatre with a request to discuss and resolve the matter and explain Hillel’s and the community’s position on these issues, I have  received no response either to my letter or to several calls to the theatre."

Disgusted messages (some very shrewd in the points they make) have, not surpringly, been posted beneath The Australian's article and to the Rats' Facebook page here


A page on which the merest glimpse of the Rats' "Likes" leave us in no doubt where the Rats' loyalties lie

The Red Rattler Theatre, by the way, has an appeal underway for financial support.  It seems safe to say that Jews and others appalled by its antisemitism will not be contributing.

Update: The Australian Jewish News [AJN] reports:

'In an email to The AJN tonight (Monday) it [the theatre]  said the email [sent to Hillel refusing the booking] “does not reflect the values of  the Community Board of the Red Rattler Theatre”.

The email, which is signed by the entire board of directors of the Red Rattler Theatre went on to say that “The Red Rattler condemns racism of any kind”.

“We welcome organisations  from all cultures and walks of life and actively encourage cultural diversity.”...'

A typical telling off for the Rats on Facebook

Cold feet (with possible legal prosecution in mind?) or consciences genuinely pricking?  Either way, it's a welcome ending.

But the little episode illustrates the depths to which some anti-Israel fanatics are willing to sink.

Which is instructive.  And which leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

Big Malevolence: Fraser The Anti-Israel Fantasist

Former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser, who led the Liberal Party to three election wins, finally succumbing to defeat at the polls by the ALP's Bob Hawke, has died at the age of 84, and inevitably people on both sides of politics are falling over themselves to pay tribute to his memory, no matter what they thought of the manner of his taking office and of his policies while in office.

"In retirement he became a statesman" is a widespread and indeed, an almost consensual view.

It's not the done thing to speak ill of the dead (at least, not immediately after their demise), and so even his those who have the most reason to feel aggrieved by him accentuate the positive, as in this excellent overview of his relations, once upon a time, with Australian Jewry .

Virtually his last political tweet

But make no mistake: hagiography towards Malcolm Fraser is strangely misplaced.

In his "retirement" the haughty and pompous Fraser became a proverbial pain in the tuches, loftily berating the policies of  John Howard and his other successors in the party, from which, having become an holier-than-thou advocate of "human rights" in Australia and around the world, he ultimately resigned.

From "Malcolm Fraser: The Political Memoirs"

Whatever may or may not have been Fraser's achievements and good qualities [update: see Isi Leibler's brief reflection here), his reputation must always be tarnished by the extreme hostility towards Israel that he (of part-Jewish descent himself, by the way) developed, and which include, most inexplicably and dementedly, the acceptance and advancement of a bizarre conspiracy theory regarding Israel's tragic (mistaken) attack on the USS Liberty during the Six Day War.

In an interview last May with ABC Radio Melbourne's Jon Faine (pictured above with Fraser), to plug his anti-American book Dangerous Allies, Fraser declared that former foreign minister Bob Carr was “absolutely correct” in his view that the pro-Israel lobby wielded too much power and maintained that

“Israel years ago, during one of the wars, killed 30 or 40 Americans on a spy ship in the Western Mediterranean.

The Americans tried to cover it up. It wasn’t a mistake. It was deliberate.”

When Faine inquired what he based the claim upon, Fraser replied in characteristically supercilious fashion:

“Information I have. I am not going to tell you the source.”

Little wonder that Australian Jewish leaders condemned his remarks.

Australia Israel Jewish Affairs Council  (AIJAC) chairman Mark Leibler commented, inter alia:

"This is a guy who says we’re too powerful as a Jewish lobby. There never has been another case that I can remember that a prime minister or the Australian government has issued a press release calling on us to support a view that they had in relation to Israeli policy....

This is not the same Malcolm Fraser … It seems he’s developed an antagonism towards the Jewish community and Israel for reasons which are certainly not apparent to me or to anyone else.”To make these allegations about Israel deliberately targeting Americans when there’s no evidence to support it, when successive inquiries by both the Americans and the Israelis have demonstrated that this was an accident, I just think it is appalling beyond description ...."

As Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) president Robert Goot said:

“Fraser’s assertion, that Israel’s missile hit on an American ship in the Mediterranean was not mistaken but deliberate, was disgraceful given the number of international inquiries that found to the contrary. The statement by Fraser that the Jewish community ‘seek to get Australia to adopt policies as defined by Israel’, suggesting dual loyalties, is equally wrong and particularly ­unfortunate.”

And in the words of Zionist Federation of Australia president Danny Lamm :

“The [USS Liberty] incident was subject to no less than 10 American investigations and an additional three Israeli investigations, all of which found that it was indeed an accident.

If Mr Fraser has a credible source to back up his outlandish claims, then he is duty-bound to reveal it.”

But "Big Mal" Fraser proved incorrigible.  Despite his part-Jewish origins he seems to have become a confirmed antisemite, even granting an interview to Melbourne "Troofer" Dalia Mae Lachlan in which he augmented his nutjob views:

"The Churchillian Thing To Do"

"Deeply Unfortunate & Dangerous".  That's how Obama's attitude towards Israel and Netanyahu has been described in this excellent video, telling the story (so far) of the current American administration's attitude to the man who thwarted them in being returned for another term as Israeli prime minister.

Among the  articles that have been written (so far) by friends of Israel in the wake of Bibi's election victory, this brief and lucid statement by Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center,  which appeared on Fox News, particularly caught my eye:

Iran's aim: Shia Corridor; h/t Bruce's Mideast Soundbites

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." That Churchillian one-liner summarizes the glorious chaos that is Israeli politics.  

In the one Middle Eastern nation where you can still speak your mind without being arrested, disappeared, or executed, Israelis went to the polls Tuesday to decide whether Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu or Isaac "Bougie" Herzog would lead the Jewish State for the next four years. 

The unexpected outcome came as a shock to many pundits on both sides of the Atlantic. Netanyahu’s Likud Party won between 29 and 30 seats  Mr. Herzog’s Zionist Union’s, 24. This means  that Netanyahu will be given time to forge a new coalition government. 

 Without question the results will  deeply disappoint President Obama and some European leaders, who were hoping Israelis would swap out an intractable “hawk” for a more flexible “dove,” one whom they assumed would pave the way for a quick final deal with Iran and hasten a two-state solution in the Holy Land before President Obama leaves office. 

The ABC's Sophie (see previous post) begins her campaign

In reality however, there is no real distance between Bibi and Bougie over the existential threat posed by Iran. Israel’s next prime minister must come up with a plan to thwart Tehran, whose leaders continue to call for the Jewish State’s annihilation, from becoming a nuclear power. 

Additionally, Jerusalem will be confronted with a new strategic threat from Iran and its Hezbollah terrorist lackeys whose brazen entrenchment on the Golan Heights has raised nary a peep from the U.S. or the European Union. 

Even if Israel’s left had prevailed it is hard to imagine that a deal for a Two-State solution could be reached in the next two years. Hamas’ continuous terrorism and genocidal hate and the celebration by leaders of the PA of vicious terrorist outrages against Jews, have left most Israelis warily awaiting a Palestinian leader – someone unlike PA President Abbas – who would be ready to tell his constituents that their Jewish neighbors are there to stay and that the Jewish State has a legitimate right to be there.

 Against this background it seems almost ludicrous for anyone to believe that Israeli voters could somehow be manipulated by forces outside of Israel as to whom they should cast their ballots for. For us as Americans, Election Day is certainly important. For most Israeli  parents – right, center, and left – who have to send their 18-year-old sons and daughters for two years of military service to protect the homeland – they cast their votes as if their lives and the lives of their children depend on making the right choice. Those in Washington who were reportedly involved in such an effort did a great disservice to both democracies. 

I was present in our nation’s capital for Netanyahu’s speech on Iran. Love him or hate him, everyone in the Chamber, and Israelis watching at home, saw a true world leader in action. In the end, his respectful and masterful speech reminded everyone, that he has earned his place on the international stage, no matter how discomfiting his message is to some.

 Finally, it would not surprise me if, when Israeli President Ruby [Reuven] Rivlin invites Netanyahu to form the next government, he winds up reaching out to some of the very people who tried to topple him, especially those who gave strong voice to the frustrations of young couples lacking affordable housing as well as the many citizens left behind by Israel’s expanding economy.

After all, that would be the Churchillian thing to do.'

Sophie's Choice: "I Wanted To Be A Journalist ... To Make The World A Better Place ... You Knew What Was Happening In Gaza ... There Are No Excuses Any More"

Bibi's Victory: The BBC's Bowen reacts

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is Australia's counterpart to the BBC, and is similarly obliged to adhere to a code of practice prohibiting bias, that code declaring, inter alia:

 "The ABC has a statutory duty to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism.

 Aiming to equip audiences to make up their own minds is consistent with the public service character of the ABC. A democratic society depends on diverse sources of reliable information and contending opinions. A broadcaster operating under statute with public funds is legitimately expected to contribute in ways that may differ from commercial media, which are free to be partial to private interests."

But, just like its British equivalent, Australia's public broadcaster exhibits a shameless left-liberal bias.

And, disturbingly, the ABC has recently appointed as its Middle East correspondent, based in Jerusalem, Sophie McNeill, a young woman with a, disturbing history of naive and leftwing pro-Palestinian bias, a young woman who is on record as expressing her admiration for John Pilger (it was reading his Hidden Histories which inspired her to enter journalism) for Robert Fisk.

In the following must-watch (or listen to) video, dating to 2011, Ms McNeill tells her interviewer, inter alia:

"If you just try to frame stories from the point of view of the people who are really suffering in a situation, be it in Lebanon, if you re hanging out in a Palestinian refugee camp, [or] in Gaza you re hanging out, you know, at the children’s cancer ward. One of the saddest things I’ve seen in my whole life is spending some time filming in a children’s cancer ward in Gaza. I just think if you just – if you look at a situation and you just – yeah, I guess just try to spend time with the people who are – who really don t have any power and it is hard, you know, for them to have a voice. Then that’s, yeah, that’s the kind of journalism I want to do.... Everyone knew what was happening in Gaza ... you saw all the horrific videos ... a lot of people died ... there are no excuses any more..."

 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISS_Qy1cWm4)

Ahron Shapiro of  the Australia Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) points out (hat tip: Ian):

"Any reporting by an ABC employee, including McNeill, is required to follow the following standards:

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

 And also

4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.

4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another."

In a substantial article, Shapiro traces and analyses historic broadcast after broadcast by Ms McNeill that reveal her pattern of blatant partisanship in reportage concerning the Middle East.

He also draws attention to her apparent pro-Palestinian activism.

For example:

 '[I]n 2013, McNeill, along with prolific pro-Palestinian photographer Richard Wainwright were the only journalists presented to speak at the Human Rights in Palestine Conference at the ANU [Australian National University] ...

 [W] hile living in Beirut in 2007, McNeill filed a story with the notorious anti-Israel website Electronic Intifada.

Here, the content of the story she filed, which was about Lebanese mistreatment of Palestinians, was in itself not problematic. What is a problem, however, and what should have given ABC pause when choosing McNeill for her current job, is why McNeill chose to work with a website whose raison d’être is to increase popular support for the elimination of Israel and routinely publishes material justifying Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians.

Finally, in 2009 (see here and here) and again in 2013, McNeill initiated online campaigns to raise money for her “dear friend” and Gaza fixer, Raed Al Athamneh. Raising money to help someone you work with through a crisis is not necessarily inappropriate. But for a journalist to adopt the Palestinian narrative in their pitch for donations most certainly is.

For example, she wrote “most of Gaza’s residents are refugees who used to live inside Israel’s borders, but were forced out when the country was created in 1948″.

This revisionist historical narrative that Israel forced out all the refugees – language used by her mentor Pilger – represents an endorsement of the Palestinian narrative that Israel is entirely responsible for the refugee problem, ignores the fact that the vast majority of Palestinians fled and were not forced out and ignores the war that was launched against Israel by the Arab nations and Palestinians who rejected partition.

In this essay, she also made an allegation that Israel “collectively punished” the Palestinians of Gaza, describing the blockade of Gaza as a means of punishing the Strip’s residents who support Hamas. [Emphasis added]

She initiated a fundraising campaign for Raed again in 2013, according to her friend and Australian Gazan Patrick Abboud and an appeal she posted on ABC Triple J Hack’s Facebook page.'

He observes:

"Her reporting does not show a clear record of separating her media career from her activism..

And there is little doubt that her activism continues and influences her reporting in terms of how she frames stories, particularly about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. ...

 What makes this matter even more serious is the fact that the Jerusalem bureau is undergoing changes. While until now there were two ABC Middle East reporters (most recently Hayden Cooper and Matt Brown) as well as some support crew, the ABC says that it is making Jerusalem a Video Journalist bureau later this year. That move, it would appear, would give McNeill substantially more autonomy than previous Middle East correspondents have had.

The onus now lies on O’Neill [sic] to demonstrate that ABC management was not irresponsible in making the appointment – given her self-described dedication to frame stories from the point of view of the people who are “really suffering” (in her lexicon, the Palestinians) – and whether she can possibly fulfil the statutory obligation of an ABC correspondent to present news with due impartiality and to be fair to all perspectives.'

Read Shapiro's entire detailed piece here

And brilliant Aussie columnist Andrew Bolt's characteristically astute piece here

(Hat tip: The amazing bloodhound Ian)

Sophie McNeill will certainly have to be closely watched.

And any episodes of bias robustly protested.

But is it not outrageous that a person with this level of bias came to be appointed by the ABC in the first place?

Jake Lynch's Nemesis Revealed: The Redhead With The Balls

So here she is, the lady in my previous post dubbed "carrot top".

This footage is taken from a long post in support of Jake Lynch by Michael Brull, an incorrigible Israel-bashing Aussie Jewish leftist whose articles sometimes appear on the ABC's "The Drum".

See a snippet of his mindset in the dialogue I reproduced in this recent Facebook exchange with another Jewish leftist:

"Get Out! Get Out! ... Get Lost!":

"This is the woman who assaulted me":

"This is going to cost you a lot of money..."

The Carrot Top, The Crown Jewels, & The Colonel

Associate Professor Jake Lynch – the Israel-hating director of Sydney University's Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies whose c.v. includes a stint as a broadcaster with the BBC – continues to be the cynosure of numerous Australians within and without the country's Jewish community as the result of his disgraceful conduct at the talk a week ago at Sydney University by the heroic Colonel Richard Kemp (pictured, when commanding Britain's forces in Afghanistan).

Much attention (and not a little merriment) has focused on Lynch's claim that the reason he pulled a five dollar note from his shirt pocket and waved it in the face of a Jewish audience member is because she ("a lady with dyed orange-red hair, probably in her 50s" according to him but perhaps in her 60s according to an equally anti-Israel part-time member of his department) kicked him  – twice – in "the meat and two veg" (that part of the anatomy known in Pommieland, whence Lynch comes, as "the crown jewels").

Some, while relishing the image of such a well-placed move on the "ninja nana's" part (there have been claims she's in her 70s), have questioned the recipient's story, maintaining that had the carrot top really struck him where he claims he would have been doubled up in acute pain rather than responding with a thrust of the paper stuff.

Meanwhile the colonel, whose letter of protest to the vice-chancellor of Sydney University went viral at the weekend, has reiterated his disgust at the behaviour he encountered, writing (inter alia) in today's issue of The Australian newspaper:

'I spoke for about 20 minutes to an audience of about 100 students, academics and guests. A group of about a dozen people then stormed into the lecture theatre and started yelling at me and the audience through a megaphone, accusing me of “supporting genocide”, and trying to shut down the lecture.....

I heard one of the protesters yell support for the Islamist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir, a vile group that is banned in many countries, whose theo-fascist values seem to me entirely at odds with the progressive values these students claim to support.

I have addressed the UN commission of inquiry on the conduct of the parties to the Israel-Hamas war. I have condemned Hamas as a terrorist organisation and recognised the extraordinary measures to which Israel has gone to avoid civilian casualties when faced with an enemy that militarises civilian infrastructure and shields its fighters with the bodies of the civilians it claims to defend. US General Martin Dempsey, the highest ranking officer in the US Army, sent a fact-finding team to Israel and concluded the US ­forces had lessons to learn from the measures taken by Israel to spare the lives of Palestinian civilians as far as possible, often at the expense of its own soldiers.

By daring to defend the actions of the Jewish state and condemning Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, both designated terrorist organisations, I was considered fair game for the protesters. This is indicative of a pervasive culture among certain sections of university students and staff in Britain, and clearly in Australia, where to speak objectively about Israel is to court harassment, thuggery and violence. The behaviour of the protesters and the academics was an affront to the core ideals of the university
 – the freedom to speak, the freedom to assemble and the freedom to engage with ideas and opinions.'

Regarding the incident involving the lady:

'I spoke for about 20 minutes to an audience of about 100 students, academics and guests. A group of about a dozen people then stormed into the lecture theatre and started yelling at me and the audience through a megaphone, accusing me of “supporting genocide”, and trying to shut down the lecture.

Dr Riemer

The protesters occupied the lecture theatre, intimidated members of the audience and were intent on preventing the exchange of views my lecture was intended to facilitate. Two of the academics [ Lynch and Dr Nicholas Riemer, according to the colonel's above-mentioned letter] then joined them, one of whom I saw badgering an elderly woman who objected to him photographing her on his iPhone. When she tried to push the iPhone out of her face he grabbed her arm forcibly, and appeared to hurt her. When she retaliated physically, the academic – an associate professor – waved a $5 note in her face and the face of a Jewish student....

 This protest had clear anti-­Semitic undertones. The audience was predominantly Jewish and the protesters knew that. Often anti-Semitic abuse and ­hatred is dressed up as anti-Israel or anti-Zionist action. This resonated that way, with vicious shouting and intimidation against a group of Jews and brandishing money around invoking the stereotype of the “greedy Jew”.

As for Associate Professor Jake Lynch, shown to be so adept at conflict with an elderly woman, his value to the university and its students would be enhanced by listening to those who have seen real conflict and have risked their lives to secure peace.'

Also commenting about the Lynch incident again is Glen Falkenstein, policy analyst at the Australia Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), who writes, inter alia:

'Suppose a person jumps up in a lecture theatre, stands on his chair, waves money at an old Jewish woman and yells in the faces of students – would such a person be permitted to remain in the room? Now imagine it was a professor that did these things – should such a person be allowed to remain at the University? 

Associate Professor Jake Lynch, Director of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, is under investigation by the University of Sydney for allegedly intimidating attendees at a lecture and reportedly thrusting money in the face of more than one Jewish person....

I spoke with a number of Jewish students after the protest; they were clearly shaken. They told me that Associate Professor Lynch had shouted in their faces. A photo has been posted online seeming to show Lynch holding money in the face of a Jewish student, with reports of another photo showing him thrusting a five dollar note in the face of what he termed an "older lady," believed to be 75 year old Jewish woman....

The former Federal Labor MP Peter Baldwin was present at the lecture. He wrote to the Vice-Chancellor of the University, stating: "this was a truly frightening episode ... [Sydney University is] becoming increasingly poisonous and fearful for identifiably Jewish students."....

Needless to say, an adult waving money in a Jewish person's face, regardless of their motivation, would be a confronting and alienating situation. Associate Professor Lynch responded to the allegations by claiming he waved the money in the woman's face to warn her that he "would have no option but to sue her for assault if she carried on – which would cost her a lot of money." ....

A petition started by the Jewish student union calling for Associate Professor Jake Lynch to be sacked has already attracted over 5,000 signatures. It alleges he breached the University's code of conduct, which requires that staff treat students with "respect, impartiality, courtesy and sensitivity" and that "Lynch has a history of supporting harassment and discrimination against Jewish students."

 A Sydney University spokesperson commented: "The University is deeply concerned about events surrounding a protest on campus and has commenced an investigation into the incidents."The protesters, accused of disrupting a lecture, intimidating Jewish students, filming them without their permission and shouting at them could face expulsion from the University.

 A professor accused of the same, and of thrusting money in the faces of a Jewish student and an elderly Jewish woman, needs to be taken just as seriously. If the professor and the other demonstrators acted so disgracefully, the University has a responsibility to protect the welfare of its students and its own reputation.'

As for that petition mentioned by Falkenstein, many of the "reasons for signing" indicate that many Jewish students at the University of Sydney have long felt harassed and intimidated by the man who is its focus.

See and sign the petition here

Update: Carrot Top revealed in my next post.