They Don't Like It Up 'Em! British BDSers "steal" Jill the pro-Israel poster girl

Like its counterpart across the Irish Sea, the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign exhibits an especially virulent strain of the antisemitic anti-Zionism virus.

This weekend, like the anti-Israel movement in English cities (take a look here) as well as here (some familiar as-a-Jews and others in this Alex Seymour/Seymour Alexander video, where the "apartheid" slur is freely made, and in which the London constabulary breaks up the party in the end)

 it's been staging anti-Israel marches in s number of Scottish localities, as seen, for instance, in these sample photographs:

We all know what that so-called "right of return"demanded on this banner held by allied marchers would entail for Israel (and just look at that logo), while the stupid analogy with events in Ferguson has been imported from leftist ratbags across the Herring Pond, and has been further inspired, it seems, by the following cartoon that the Scottish PSC posted on social media:

On hand as usual in Brighton to counter the Israel-haters there was Jill the Poster Girl from Sussex Friends of Israel.

It seems Jill is really getting under the haters' skin.  Certainly, they are unable to refute the good sense contained in Jill's that they've photoshopped it with a pathetic hate-motivated message of their own.

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery", as the old saying goes.

And, as a certain Home Guard corporal used to say in a certain British sit com: "They don't like it up 'em!"

Carry on, Jill!

As a reviewer of an important new book entitled The Case Against Academic Boycotts of Israel remarks, inter alia, in his review here,

"[T]o single out the Jewish state for boycotting, while ignoring every other state on the planet engaged in human rights violations generally far, far worse than those allegedly committed by Israel – many of them Islamic states – is antisemitism in the nastiest, most odious, most deplorable sense of the term.  No amount of disingenuous obfuscation will change this fact.  On the contrary, most advocates of BDS are virtually apologists for the incalculably greater record of human rights violations carried out in the Third World, and especially in the Islamic world...."

Meanwhile, Sussex Friends of Israel have been showing the haters up as usual.

Good on yah, lads and lasses!

Update: Jill's famous! The Israel-haters have also got a spoof site about our heroine, here (Hat tip: Shirlee) Oh, how well you're doing, Jill, to have such an impact upon their tiny hate-filled minds.

Islamic State: "A Papal miracle is within reach" argues David Singer

Entitled " Islamic State – Pope Calls For International Consensus", here is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

Pope Francis has made public his thoughts on the action necessary to counter Islamic State. Speaking to Vatican Radio after his return from a visit to the EU parliament in Strasburg, he said:

"I never say all is lost, never. Maybe there cannot be a dialogue but you can never shut a door. It is difficult, one could say almost impossible, but the door is always open." 

Responding to a question about whether or not it would be possible to communicate with rather than fight the militants, the Pope said:

"I repeat what I have said: when you want to stop an unjust oppressor, you must do so with international consensus." 

Since dialogue is realistically impossible – only an international consensus expressed in a Security Council resolution under Chapter V11 of the United Nations Charter can achieve the Pope’s clearly enunciated position. So far two Security Council Resolutions have been passed – Resolution 2170 adopted on 15 August and Resolution 2178 adopted on 24 September

These two Resolutions were passed under the provisions of Article 41 of the UN Charter:

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Neither Resolution has acted as a brake to stop Islamic State in its tracks – let alone bring about its downfall.

An American-led coalition has undertaken military intervention in Syria and Iraq to degrade and destroy Islamic State but its objectives have not succeeded by any stretch of the imagination.

The State Department has announced that over 60 coalition partners have committed themselves to the goals of eliminating the threat posed by Islamic State and had already contributed in various capacities to the effort to combat Islamic State in Iraq, the region and beyond.

The coalition partners listed by the State Department that have joined this effort to date are:.

Albania, Arab League, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Bulgaria ,Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, European Union, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Kosovo, Kuwait, Republic of Korea, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, NATO, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States.

The State Department outlined five areas of possible involvement by coalition members as formulated by Secretary of State John Kerry and recently resigned Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel:

1. Providing military support ;

2. Impeding the flow of foreign fighters;

3. Stopping Islamic State financing and funding;

4. Addressing humanitarian crises in the region; and

5. Exposing Islamic State’s true nature.

Not all coalition partners have participated in the countless aerial bombing attacks on Islamic State forces.

As at 6 November Australian fighter jets had flown 144 missions against Islamic State and dropped twenty-five 500-pound laser and GPS-guided bombs on 14 ISIL targets, with 11 destroyed and three damaged.

Belgium, France, Netherlands, Canada and the United Kingdom have also been involved in aerial strikes against Islamic State fighters.

However, the two notable omissions from this international coalition ranged against Islamic State are China and Russia – both members of the Security Council holding the power to veto any stronger action by the Security Council up to now.

Such action is becoming increasingly urgent as an unknown number of foreign fighters flock to join Islamic State and a pledge of allegiance has been made by Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis – a Jihadi-based organisation based in the Sinai Peninsula.

Islamic State head Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (pictured) declared on November 10:

“We announce to you the expansion of the Islamic State to new countries, to the countries of the Haramayn [Saudi Arabia], Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Algeria,”

Baghdadi claimed them as new provinces under Islamic State.

This may indeed be all propaganda – but the Pope has clearly shown his concern.

The only real basis for international consensus rests on the Security Council passing a resolution under Article 42 of the UN Charter:

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

A Papal plea made directly to China and Russia to join in drafting a resolution under Section 42 could just prove to be the catalyst to persuade these two recalcitrant nations into authorizing military action under the United Nations Charter against Islamic State.

Having supported Security Council Resolutions 2170 and 2178 – China and Russia now need to go that extra mile to defeat what they have already declared to be a grave threat to international peace and security.

Russia’s President Putin has a chance to come in out of the cold caused by his growing international isolation over Crimea, Ukraine and Syria. China would enhance its international reputation enormously by acceding to the Pope’s request.

A Papal miracle is within reach...

Is Israel Really An Apartheid State? (video)

Here's an interesting video newly posted to YouTube:

According to a poll published this week:

An impressive vote of confidence in the "Apartheid State", eh?

"Rupert Murdoch ... Is A Zionist Jew" & Other Fables: As told by a British party leader

Pippa Bartolotti  is the fanatically anti-Israel leader of the Wales Green Party.  She stood unsuccessfully for leadership of the Green Party of England and Wales in 2012 in succession to the equally anti-Israel Caroline Lucas, and, again unsuccessfully, for the European Parliament in this year's May elections.

Ms Bartolotti's speeches to the Welsh Greens (see the opening words of one in the link above, for instance) often include references to Israel, despite that having absolutely no relevance to green issues in Wales.

In the video at the foot of this post (a video which consists of a 65-minute demonisation of Israel) Ms Bartolotti centres the narrative of her recent address to an audience in Newport, Gwent, as a "fundraiser evening" for the Gwent Greens,  entitled "Why Gaza?" largely on her participation in the "Viva Palestina" convoy of 2010.

Here's one of the many photographs that she shows to her audience; it was taken when the convoy passed through Turin:

She also displayed a photo of herself with the "Pace"flag she acquired in Italy, but had the good sense to leave this photo, of herself and the flag of an expansionist Syrian party which was inspired by Nazi symbolism, at home.

Ms Bartolotti's speech contains a number of howlers and half-truths: I nearly entitled this post "Pro-Palestinian politician Pippa picks a pack of pickled porkies" but on reflection I decided that sounds too flippant, for what she is feeding her audience is no laughing matter.

And it's not only in the use of those mendacious maps:

For example:

At about  3:08 she declares, regarding the United Nations of 1947: "The UN, as it is now [!!!], was dominated by Western Powers" 

At about 3:34, with no reference to Israel's invasion by five Arab armies hell-bent on its destruction, she declares that "the so-called War of Independence ... was a very bloody one-sided affair" (with Israel the sole baddie, of course)

At about 6:50 the spin about the Nakba begins, with the Arabs are described as "the indigenous population" and nothing said about how they were duped by their leaders into fleeing their homes ... As throughout, the Arabs are squeaky clean, the Israelis the villains ...

At about 9:29 A reference to Menachem Begun in a peculiar pronunciation (a soft g); can it be that the speaker is not so very au fait with Israeli history after all?

At about 9:40 we have Ariel Sharon blamed for the Sabra and Shatila massacre as if he carried it out

At about 14:21 regarding the Mavi Marmara affair, no context regarding the IHH nor of the vicious beating of Israeli personnel: "It was completely unnecessary to kill anyone let alone ten people"

At about 29:55 A description of the plight of Palestinian refugees in Syria as if their status after all these years is Israel's fault, with nothing said about the Arab rejectionist nations' deliberate policy of using the Arabs who left Israel as pawns ...

At about 43:12 "You have to remember that the Zionist lobby in America is very strong"

At about 50:27, relating to a certain allegedly all-powerful cabal, a howler regarding a certain pro-Israel media mogul of non-Jewish descent on both sides: "Rupert Murdoch ... is a Zionist Jew ..."

At  about 4:23: Hamas is "labelled a terrorist group – which is rather strange really"

At about 38:54: "Hamas ... is practically Dad's Army"

And at about 52:20: "They [Hamas] are not a terrorist group"

At about 1:00:59: An off-the-cuff tribute to busy busy busy anti-Israel activist Elizabeth Morley for her letter-writing campaigns alleging – wait for it! – pro-Israel bias on the part of the BBC.  (This, by the way, is the Elizabeth Morley, of the Aberystwyth Palestinian Solidaity Campaign branch, who, against avowed PSC policy, is not averse to posting links from the antisemitic online Redress such as this grubby piece of racism by Stuart Littlewood):

At 1:02, despite exhortations to BDS as a means to a "proper peace"

commendation of a one-state solution that entails the eradication of Israel from the map: Gaddafi's statement was "eminently sensible":

"A very bloody one-sided affair" indeed.

 Here is the entire video, in the unlikely event that anyone wishes to endure all 65 minutes of it:

An eloquent answer to BDS ratbags in London's Bond Street (video)

This video, uploaded by inveterate Israel-hater Alex Seymour (aka Seymour Alexander) is described by him thus:

"Saturday's protest in Bond Street against De Beers (and briefly afterwards, Leviev) for their complicity in Israel's war crimes and crimes against humanity. No diamonds in the world could be bloodier than Israel's; not a day goes past without news of another child murdered by the cowardly killers known as the IDF; there are plenty other and more accurate names one could call those loathsome Zionist terrorists who think a kipa on their head somehow gives them licence to behave like the German National Socialists they talk so much about."

The video is notable for the wide berth passing pedestrians give to the little gaggle of groupies holding banners and handing out leaflets defaming Israel while vile invective against Israel is screamed by a woman with a theatrical voice (we've seen this thespian manqué before, in similar scenes, along with her grey-haired offsider who boards Tube trains to recite anti-Israel "poetry" to commuters).

Do these protesters have a permit to stand outside a shop and assail shoppers' eardrums, I wonder?

The video's uploader might as well have entitled it "Watch London Pedestrians Stroll On By".

There is however, one pedestrian who demonstrates his contempt for the anti-Israel ratbags with more than a dirty look or a sudden swerve: watch what he does at about 4:29 ...

An eloquent and fitting response, sir.  One worth the risk of a municipal fine.

"Their Main Goal Is To Eliminate Israel & Establish An Islamic State": Jordanian opposition figure on Palestinian aims (video)

Just posted by Mudar Zahran re Jordan

Here's Mudar Zahran, the Jordanian opposition figure of Palestinian background who's very sympathetic to Israel, interviewed on Brett and Jon Rappaport's current affairs series The Final Say about the current situation in the Middle East. 

"They are ... in their own world when it comes to radicalism and hatred of Israel ...Their main goal is to eliminate Israel and establish an Islamic state."

In that quotation, is Mr Zahran talking about Hamas?

No.  He's talking about the attitude of Palestinians in the West Bank, where he spent this past summer.

The entire interview, not overly long, is worth listening to, but the relevant section starts at about 13:15, when Mr Zahran's interviewer asks him whether there are any genuine partners for peace on the Palestinian side.

Regarding the people of Gaza, he says

 "[T]hey have had enough of Hamas.  They would love to see Hamas go."

 He is scornful of the Kerry Plan and the current vogue for recognising Palestinian statehood..

  "The Palestinian Authority is corrupt and affiliated with terrorism."

"Basically the West is pushing Israel as if [statehood] is going to solve all the problems .... It's a bad idea."

His solution?

 "[T]he only logical option is a Palestinian state east of the river ...."

 Another brave Arab gentleman, speaking earlier this year:

And see this from the son of a Hamas leader, in the current Telegraph

David Singer On Palestinian Violence: "Continuing Jew-hatred Must Extract A Heavy Price"

This video (hat tip: Shirlee), of the bloodied scene following this week's atrocity in a Jerusalem synagogue, contains graphic images.  They are a grim testimony to what two evil men have done in a house of worship to peaceful persons engaged in prayer; nevertheless, some people might feel that they are best kept out of the public domain, so please think carefully whether you wish to view them.

In the immediate wake of that atrocity, and on the theme of how such manifestations of Jew-hatred should be answered, comes the latest article by Australian lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

An obscene reaction by a Palestinian hatemonger

The slaughter of four rabbis with axes, knives and guns whilst praying in a synagogue along with the serious wounding of six other Jews caught in this horrific blood bath – and the murder of a Druze police officer who went to their rescue – is the end result of endemic Jew-hatred:

1. Begun in the 1920 Jerusalem riots

2. Embodied in the 1964 PLO Covenant, and

3. Reinforced in the 1987 Hamas Charter  

 Arab Jew-hatred has continued unabated for the last 90 years since the Jewish people’s right to self- determination was unanimously endorsed by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter.

Alarm bells warning of this week’s massacre should have sounded loud and clear when American Secretary of State John Kerry visited Israel on 2 January following Israel releasing 26 long term Palestinian Arab prisoners convicted of murder and other serious criminal offences.

 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presciently told Kerry on that occasion:

“A few days ago in Ramallah, President Abbas embraced [these] terrorists as heroes. To glorify the murders of innocent women and men as heroes is an outrage. How can President Abbas says – how can he say that he stands against terrorism when he embraces the perpetrators of terrorism and glorifies them as heroes? He can’t stand against terrorists and stand with the terrorists. And I’m wondering what a young Palestinian would think when he sees the leader of the Palestinian people embrace people who axed innocent men and women – axed their heads or blew them up or riddled them with bullets – what’s a young Palestinian supposed to think about the future? What’s he supposed to think about what he should do vis-a-vis Israelis and vis-a-vis the state of Israel? So it’s not surprising that in recent weeks Israel has been subjected to a growing wave of terrorist attacks. President Abbas didn’t see fit to condemn these attacks even after we learned that at least in one case – I stress, at least in one case – those who served and are serving in the Palestinian security forces took part in them.”

Among those 26 prisoners released were:

   1. Yakoub Muhammad Ouda Ramadan, Afana Mustafa Ahmad Muhammad, and Da’agna Nufal Mahmad Mahmoud – convicted of stabbing Sara Sharon, 37, to death in Holon on January 20, 1993.

    2. Abu Mohsin Khaled Ibrahim Jamal – convicted of the ambush and murder of Shlomo Yahya, a 76-year-old gardener, in a public park in Moshav Kadima and stabbing him to death.

    3. Barham Fawzi Mustafa Nasser – convicted for the murder of Morris (Moshe) Edri 65 – a former employer of Nasser who Nasser ambushed and stabbed in the back. 

    4. Muammar Ata Mahmoud Mahmoud and Salah Khalil Ahmad Ibrahim – convicted of murdering Menahem Stern, a history professor at Hebrew University. Stern, 64, a winner of the prestigious Israel Prize, was stabbed to death while walking to work at the university’s Givat Ram campus on June 22, 1989.

   5.  Abu Hadir Muhammad Yassin Yassin – convicted for the murder of Yigal Shahaf – shooting him in the head as he and his wife were walking through Jerusalem’s old city toward the Western Wall.

Netanyahu then told Kerry to his face:

“In the six months since the start of peace negotiations, the Palestinian Authority continues its unabated incitement against the state of Israel. This Palestinian Government incitement is rampant. You see it in the state-controlled media – the government-controlled media – in the schools, in textbooks, in kindergartens. You see it at every part of Palestinian society. So instead of preparing Palestinians for peace, Palestinian leaders are teaching them to hate Israel. This is not the way to achieve peace. President Abbas must lead his people away from terror and incitement, towards reconciliation and peace.”

Kerry failed to address this virulent Jew-hatred motivating Palestinian Arabs to murder Jews - ignored the adulation afforded these convicted murderers by Abbas and remained silent on the rampant incitement conducted on a daily basis against Israel.

Instead – Kerry – apparently languishing in a time warp – sought to provide some comforting reassurance for Netanyahu with these incredibly inane remarks:

“On a personal level, last month I travelled to Vietnam on my first visit there as Secretary of State. And the transformation in our relationship – I was a young soldier who fought there – the transformation in our relationship is proof that as painful as the past can be, through hard work of diplomacy history’s adversaries can actually become partners for a new day and history’s challenges can become opportunities for a new age.”

Kerry’s words have turned out to be a massive misjudgement. 

It is surely time for America and the European Union especially - and for the rest of the international community generally - to take stock and make clear that:

1. no further financial aid will be given in either Gaza or the West Bank

 2. Abbas and his Government will be regarded as persona non-grata 

until:

(i) the insidious Jew-hating provisions in the PLO Covenant and Hamas Charter are repealed

 (ii) Government-controlled media and schools excise all references denigrating and demeaning Jews.

(iii) The PLO is prepared to recognise Israel as the nation state of the Jewish People in any peace agreement signed by Israel and the PLO.

Failure to so act can only see the Jewish-Arab conflict spiralling out of control into a crisis of catastrophic proportions.

Should such Jew-hatred continue – this heavy price must be extracted. 

Iraqi-born Londoner Orim Shimshon Talks About His Pro-Israel Stance (video)

As easy on the feminine eye as he is on the ear, here's Orim Shimshon, the young Londoner of Iraqi Muslim background who's become the bane of anti-Israel activists in Britain's capital, talking to Canadian blogger Vlad Tepes about his pro-Israel stance.

Keep safe, Orim!

More Candy For More Carnage (video)

Remember these unpalatable scenes following the slaughter of the Fogel family in 2011?

Well, here's footage of Gazans in Rafah handing out candy to celebrate the commission of evil deeds against defenceless Israeli Jews.

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes blog

For more on this see here and  here and for two pictorial examples of hate-fuelled adulation of violence by Palestinians following the Jerusalem synagogue atrocity scroll to the end of my previous post.

British Zionist Stalwart Hoffman: "The Last Thing Israel Needs Is The Vilification, Denigration & Falsehoods Routinely Seen From Yachad"

To admit or not to admit to the community's representative umbrella organisation a bona fide Jewish organisation which happens to profess opinions that militate against the broadly accepted Jewish communal ethos?

That is the thorny question that's bedevilled more than one Western Jewish community in recent years.

Take, for example, the case of the Australian Jewish Democratic Society (AJDS). which successfully applied for membership of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV) – formerly known as the Victorian Jewish Board of Deputies(VJBD) – despite a radical leftist agenda unrepresentative of that of the Victorian Jewish community (and for that matter the Australian Jewish community) as a whole.  Thus the AJDS is an affiliate of the JCCV, which is in its turn a constituent of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ).

The admission of the AJDS (slogan: "A progressive voice among Jews and a Jewish voice among progressives") was doubtless not without much soul searching and many  misgivings on the part of JCCV delegates, but, so (as I understand the matter) the persuasive argument went, in a democratic, pluralistic community the AJDS could not be refused membership on any acceptable grounds.

The AJDS still remains an affiliate, despite ( to the ire and dismay of many in what remains a deeply Zionist community) its avowed support since August 2010 of a "selected BDS actions, a position taken subsequent to its initial admission to the JCCV:

'The resolution ... rejected the Palestinian civil society version of Boycotts, Divestments and Sanctions (BDS): 

“The AJDS is opposed to any Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign aimed at the breadth of Israeli economic, cultural or intellectual activity”. The AJDS only supports “selected BDS actions designed to bring about an end to the Israeli occupation, blockade and settlement on Palestinian lands lying outside of the June 1967 Israeli borders.”

Unlike the rejected Palestinian full BDS, the AJDS wants to concentrate on those who profit from this very occupation. An example given in the resolution is of boycotting “settlement products”. In this way the AJDS’s stance is similar to that taken recently by the National Council of Churches in Australia. Like the churches, the AJDS has not endorsed some of the other aims of the Palestinian BDS such as the Palestinian Right of Return.

While not reversing the AJDS’s long-term opposition to blanket academic boycotts, the AJDS envisages boycotting “specific Israeli academics openly supportive of the Occupation.” The organisation made it plain that nevertheless decision on any action would still need to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

The AJDS is opposed to any Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign aimed at the breadth of Israeli economic, cultural or intellectual activity. However, the AJDS does support selected BDS actions designed to bring about an end to the Israeli occupation, blockade and settlement on Palestinian lands lying outside of the June 1967 Israeli borders. Such limited and focused BDS support might include boycotts of settlement products and divestment from military Research and Development (R&D) and boycott of industrial/military activities unrelated to Israel’s defence and security. It might also include selected sanctions or boycotts against specific Israeli academics openly supportive of the Occupation.

The AJDS will make any decisions on these matters on a case-by-case basis, and exercise its judgement as to the political/social cost-benefits of any such actions before granting specific endorsement or approval....'

See the ADJS's latest mischief-making here

The question "to admit or not to admit" was faced by the  Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations earlier this year, when the controversial, professedly Zionist, J Street', founded by Peter Beinart, was rejected for admission to that body,  J Street being widely seen as having an agenda that seriously undermines Israel.

Last Sunday (16 November) Britain's version of J Street, Yachad, founded by Hannah Weisfeld, was admitted to membership of the British Board of Deputies by 135:61 votes, achieving the required two-thirds majority by the narrow margin of five votes.  Apparently, of the five members of the Board execitive, only Board vice-president Jonathan Arkush, voted against admission.

Now, since the Board is officially described as “the voice of British Jewry: a cross-communal, democratic, grassroots organization, and thus the authoritative first port of call for Government, media and others seeking to understand Jewish community  interests and concerns”  this result, like that admitting the AJDS to the JCCV,  was a victory for communal pluralism.

But is it a wise and worthy decision? 

Stalwart pro-Israel activist Jonathan Hoffman (pictured), who's both a member of the Board and of the Zionist Federation, has no doubt about the answer to that question.

I reproduce his speech to the Deputies in full:

'So the Constitution Committee thinks that Yachad is “beneficial to the interests of the community”. Nonsense. The welfare of Israel is at the heart of our interests. Indeed our Constitution requires us to "advance Israel's security, welfare and standing." Yachad is the very antithesis of this. Far from advancing Israel’s security, welfare and standing, it undermines it at every opportunity. Let me give you just four examples:

Example One: Yachad’s main activity in Israel is arranging trips into Judea and Samaria with a group called ‘Breaking the Silence’, which does nothing but denigrate and badmouth the IDF, without ever mentioning the terrorists that threaten Israel every day. Here is an account of one person who went on the trip:

"Our leader subjected us to a litany of accusations against Israel. I have studied the conflict and most of his accusations were new to me and did not ring true. Some of his statements I knew to be false. For example he said that the most aggressive act of the PA was in a speech at the UN – But I knew that Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade – under the direct authority of the PA - had carried out acts of terrorism and that the PA has incited terrorism ever since it was created. Hannah Weisfeld mentioned further talks that Yachad is doing on "the legality of the occupation". Of course Israel’s presence on the West Bank is not illegal – but Weisfeld just wanted to put into our minds the thought that it is. She calls Yachad "pro-Israel pro-Peace" but her intention is to reduce the support of British Jews for Israel, and to get Israel out of the West Bank, even as the PA and all Palestinian movements call for Israel's destruction. If Israel withdrew, the level of violence would increase dramatically. It would also kill any chance of a two state solution. In my opinion she is committed to undermining support for Israel and her commitment to a two state solution is a sham. Her slogan "Pro Israel Pro Peace" is pure propaganda, as seen in George Orwell's 1984."

Not my words – The words of someone who went on a Yachad trip.

Example Two: Yachad supported the UN upgrade to Palestinian status – which was opposed by Israel and every other western country. Every truly pro-Israel organisation believes that negotiations are the only way forward. By wanting to give the Palestinians access to the International Court and to the UN with its inbuilt majority against Israel, Yachad’s action posed a threat to Israel’s security. So does Yachad’s support for the immediate creation of a Palestinian State. Can you imagine how much worse the summer bombardment of Israel would have been, if Yachad had its way, and Palestine was a country, no doubt governed by Hamas, with weapons still more threatening than the missiles which even now can reach Haifa? A month ago we were lobbying MPs to vote against a Palestinian State. To now admit an organisation wanting an immediate Palestinian State would be a complete nonsense.

Example Three: Yachad has never condemned a boycott of Israeli goods.

Example Four: Yachad makes no effort to explain how Hamas targets Israeli civilians. Yachad portrays the Security Fence only as something which harms the Palestinians. Yachad is silent when it comes to the number of Israeli lives the Fence has saved.

To those of you who say that “we need to embrace Jewish organisations with whom we might disagree”, I ask where are your red lines? Would you support membership for Jews for Justice for Palestinans? Or Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods? Surely those organisations are beyond the pale? Well so is Yachad.

No – it is not simply that we ‘might disagree’ with Yachad. It is much worse than that. Yachad blatantly violates our Constitutional obligation to support Israel.

To those who say that rejecting Yachad will damage the standing of the Board, I respond with the example of J-Street in the US. J-Street was rejected for membership of the US Conference of Presidents. Far from damaging the standing of the Conference, it enhanced it in the eyes of many. Here the ZF rejected Yachad’s membership. Has it damaged the ZF’s standing? Of course not. The ZF’s standing has never been higher. The ZF’s rally during the Gaza operation to support Israel attracted thousands.

 I urge you to vote ‘no’ to Yachad membership of the Board. At this time – above all times – Israel needs support from the Diaspora. The last thing Israel needs is the vilification, denigration and falsehoods routinely seen from Yachad."

A powerful speech indeed! 

But sadly not persuasive.

Perhaps Mr Hoffman should have reminded his listeners of the ancient proverb widely, though apparently erroneously, attributed to Euripides:

"Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad."

Meanwhile, against the backdrop of the evil attack on a synagogue in Jerusalem, involving an axe among other weapons, that has left four rabbis dead, the following photo, proclaiming "This is the way from now on", is being widely distributed on Palestinian social media:

 (Hat tip: M.Z.)

And then there's this:

See http://www.meforum.org/4892/murdered-because-they-were-jews

At Glasgow University, Anti-Israel Totalitarian Brats In Action (video)

The background to the disgraceful scenes in the video below can be briefly told: on 12 November Mr Yiftah Curiel, a diplomat from the Israeli Embassy in London, was addressing members of the University of Glasgow's European Society on the topic"‘Israel and Europe", when anti-Israel protesters disrupted the talk, preventing him from carrying on.

Here are the anti-Israel totalitarian brats in action:

And here is Mr Curiel on STV News, along with an article by Stephen Daisley that goes, inter alia:

'Stop me if you've heard this one before.

An Israeli diplomat, Yiftah Curiel, visited Scotland for the first time on Wednesday. He set aside some of his time to speak to students at the University of Glasgow about Israel, Europe, trade, culture, and peace.

But during his talk, some people decided they didn't like Mr Curiel, his country, what he was saying, or some combination of all three, and began heckling the speaker and brought his remarks to a halt....

Mr Curiel said afterwards: "It was good to meet and discuss Israel and Europe with students at Glasgow Uni. The event took place despite an attempt by a small number of students to hijack freedom of speech on campus for their narrow, violent agenda. Those who preclude dialogue are necessarily part of the problem and not the solution.

"Those who preach hatred and division, are on a dangerous path to violent incitement. It was sad and disappointing to realise that freedom of expression, a pillar of academic discourse and British tradition, could be so easily trampled by a small group of extremists on a UK campus."

This is a common experience for representatives of the Jewish state on university campuses in the West. Speakers, invited to engage in dialogue, are met not just by healthy protest but opponents so antagonistic towards Israel they seek to shout down anyone who offers an alternative perspective.

Another Israeli diplomat Ishmael Khladi was meted out the same treatment during a speech at the University of Edinburgh in 2011. Mr Khaldi, a Bedouin Muslim who ran a Jewish/Bedouin outreach programme before going to work for Israel's foreign ministry, has a unique story to tell but the people who shouted him down were not prepared to listen.... [see my post here - D.A.]

Mr Curiel is a young man from a young country -- Theodor Herzl's "Old New Land" – and he speaks hopefully of coexistence and progress. It is, however, a very Israeli optimism, tempered by the bitter and painful lessons of war and terrorism, error and failure. Israel is a country that anyone who cares about peace must work to understand. Understand, but not always agree with the policies of this government or that. Protest, demonstrate, and agitate if you feel strongly. Condemn and denounce injustice when you perceive it. Fly your Palestinian flag and send your money and show solidarity if you choose. But if you want to be part of the solution and help create a climate where peace can be achieved, you have to talk -- and listen.'

Be sure to read it all!

Balls!!! See How They Spin!

Is there no end to the gullibility and ignorance of the Israel-hating brigade who fail to understand that the "Palestine" involved in this pre-war soccer match Down Under totally comprised members of the Yishuv?

This latest kick of this ball has landed it onto the Facebook page of the Kiwi Israel-demonising organisation Kia Ora Gaza (which is headed by veteran far leftist Roger Fowler, who's been linked to the Communist Party and to Socialist Alliance).

 A typical response has so far been

Will any of the anti-Israel activists belonging to Kia Ora Gaza have the wherewithal to cry "Foul!", I wonder?

Still, it's an amusing spectator sport in itself to note the number of times the Israel-haters have been taken in.

Not the brightest shirts on the field, are they?

When and where will they strike next?
 
The truth about the team here and here

The Menace Of Islamic Hate Speech & Hamas Propaganda Against Israel (videos)

Here are a couple of great videos for a wet Sunday afternoon (as here in parts of Australia at present).

The first is of a recent speech regarding Israel by Britain's former Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, in the House of Lords, who inter alia condemns those who would drag humanity back to a dark age of barbarism, and who preach and disseminate hatred against Jews and Israel.

The second (hat tip: Shirlee of the Jews Down Under online magazine) exposes the deeply troubling inroads Islamic propaganda against Israel is making on American campuses.

David Singer: Islamic State – APEC A Fizzer; G20 Promises No Better

Here is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

The 2014 APEC Conference in Beijing this past week has been and gone and the G20 Conference in Brisbane is taking place in Brisbane this weekend.

If the APEC Conference is any guide the world leaders assembled in Australia will have little to say about the meteoric rise of Islamic State (IS) over the past six months and the threat to world peace and security Islamic State poses.

Expectations were high that Islamic State would be discussed at the APEC Conference. New Zealand’s Prime Minister John Key declared before the meeting:

"It's very hard to believe that leaders won't spend a lot of time talking about that [Islamic State].

And if you think about risks to the global economy, certainly one of the risks is that there's a very, very significant meltdown of the situation in the Middle East. And if you saw that then the economic risks to the world are very significant." 

 Two days later at meeting’s end he was singing a different song admitting that:

“discussions about IS played just a small part in the APEC talks, with leaders focused on progressing two significant free trade deals.”

Key however revealed he had had a conversation on IS with US President Barack Obama “on the sidelines” of the conference – telling reporters:

"He is very much in agreement with me that ultimately the real issue here is one of diplomacy."

He said Mr Obama was quite confident about the capacity of new Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to reach out to Sunnis and be much more inclusive.

"I think him and I are very much on the same page - that you need some military capability and clearly need to try and control and rein in Isis but on the other side of the coin if you are really looking for a long term solution, it has got to come from people feeling as though they are part of the long-term solution to Iraq."

If Obama’s sentiments have been accurately reported by Key, then the US President has changed tack for the third time in four weeks going from initially planning to “degrade and destroy” IS to “disrupting and delaying” IS and now planning “to try and control and rein in” IS.

How one can ever possibly deal with Islamic State diplomatically was not revealed.

Meanwhile Australia’s Foreign Minister Julie Bishop was able to meet US Secretary of State John Kerry when they reportedly discussed a timeframe in combating Islamic State - as well as the work Australian Special Forces would be undertaking in combating IS in Iraq.

In her usual and frank manner Bishop made no bones of the difficult task ahead:

“I don’t think anybody was under any illusions that this would be easy. IS is well funded, well resourced, with apparently 16,000 fighters or more from 80 different countries. When you are dealing with an ideology, it’s very hard to know what a complete mission would look like.

It will take time, it will take effort from a number of countries.”

Photo credit: Daily Mail.co.uk

No doubt Bishop would have been very concerned to hear the evidence given today [Thursday] by Australian Federal Police Assistant Commissioner Neil Gaughan to a Parliamentary Committee examining new counter-terrorism legislation known as the Foreign Fighters Bill. Gaughan told the committee Australia's control order regime needed to be overhauled with a lower threshold for evidence so that  police can catch terror suspects. More Australians had managed to slip out of the country to join Islamic State fighters.

"I think what we're missing is the ability to stop people – the enablers and the supporters. We haven't got anything there”

There are some people who travelled a few days ago that were not on anyone's radar.

We got wind of it after the fact but the fact is there are still people travelling.

And regardless of what we're doing, we're not stopping that, so we need some other tools. Gaughan reportedly said greater powers were needed to stop those facilitating and supporting home-grown extremists.

"There are, I would say, a handful of facilitation groups operating up and down the east coast [of Australia] that at the moment are just far enough away from law enforcement that we can't arrest them”. The APEC Leaders Communique managed to mention the word “terrorism” just once:

“We commit to jointly tackle pandemic diseases, terrorism, natural disasters, climate change and other global challenges.”

The Communique showed more concern for wildlife than for human life being shed each day in the bloodbath that has become Syria and Iraq and threatens to spill over into surrounding countries:

“We commit to continue our efforts in combating wildlife trafficking. We will take steps to combat wildlife trafficking by enhancing international cooperation through Wildlife Enforcement Networks (WENs) and other existing mechanisms, reducing the supply of and demand for illegally traded wildlife, increasing public awareness and education related to wildlife trafficking and its impacts, and treating wildlife trafficking crimes seriously.”

Can one dare hope Obama and Putin might come together in Brisbane and agree on the terms of a Resolution to be put to the UN Security Council to confront Islamic State – which by its ongoing conquest of land and its inhabitants is threatening to make a mockery of every economic decision and prediction set to be taken and trumpeted at the G20?

Dissecting A Lizard Of Oz

"Something very strange has happened to the Western Left in recent times, exemplified by its attitude to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I say that as someone who was affiliated with the Left of the Australian Labor Party throughout by 22-year parliamentary career. On the one hand, this is the great age of political correctness, where the slightest implication of racism, sexism or homophobia is instantly condemned and the perpetrators required to do penance. Yet here we have clear advocacy of genocide, right there in plain sight in Hamas’ foundational document adopted in 1988. Whole forests have been levelled to produce anti-Israel resolutions. How many of these have called on Hamas to repudiate this foul, evil document? Some academic enthusiasts even argue that Hamas should be considered part of the ‘progressive Left’.

Israel, on the other hand, is the country that can do no right, blamed for a large share of the ills that beset the region if not the world. Even its friendliness to the gay community (in a recent poll Tel Aviv was rated the world’s top gay tourist destination) is derided at academic conferences as pinkwashing designed to mask its repression of the Palestinians. Meanwhile in Teheran gays are publicly lynched from cranes. No resolutions or conferences about that, needless to say. The Left has a singular obsession with the real or imagined misdeeds of Israel, giving little or no attention to far greater humanitarian calamities such as the conflict in Syria and Iraq.

The thing I find particularly disturbing is not legitimate criticism of Israel but the tacit or explicit support given to a movement that embodies everything the Left should stand against, one face of a hideous barbarism afflicting multiple locations throughout the Islamic world. It is impossible to reasonably pass judgement on the Israelis without taking account of the nature of their adversaries. This the ‘pro-Palestinian’ Left seems incapable of doing, and in effect ends up lending support to a futile and destructive rejectionism that will ensure the continuing immiseration of the Palestinians."

Those are the words of a  former Australian Labor Party minister Peter Baldwin, who sat in the federal House of Representatives from 1983-98.  It is part of a much longer rejoinder to an inveterate Sydney Israel bashing "as-a-Jew" academic Peter Slezak, and makes such good points in defence of Israel that it deserves to be read in full here.

Last month, Melissa Parke, Labor member for Fremantle, WA, in the federal House of Represntatives, became the darling of the Israel-hating Left in Australia when she broke ranks with her party to defend the despicable BDS movement, insisting that it is not antisemitic.

In doing so, Ms Parke, who has form when it comes to demonising Israel,  cited some very dodgy "authorities".

As Peter Wertheim, executive director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, (ECAJ) and that organisation'spublic affairs director, Alex Ryvchin, noted soon afterwards:

'.... In her attempt to distinguish between hatred for the Jews as a people and hatred for Jews as a people with a national home, the Labor Member for Fremantle relied on the views of former UN-official Richard Falk.

Falk is known as a "9/11 conspiracy theorist", and was denounced, including by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, for vile comments blaming the Boston terrorist attack on "the American global domination project" and "Tel Aviv."

So extreme are Falk's views that the Palestinian Authority requested that he step down from his position as the UN Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian Territories because they considered him to be a partisan of Hamas and opposed his deeply offensive references to the Holocaust.

To build the case for BDS, Parke also quotes Peter Slezak, of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network. Just hours after a bus-load of Jewish primary school children were threatened in Sydney with having their "throats cut" and were subjected to shouts of "Heil Hitler" and "all Jews must die", Slezak declared that "Jews are fair game because of their influence and militant support for crimes of [the] Jewish state." Slezak insists that he meant Jews were "only" fair game for criticism, but this is belied by the timing and context of his comment."

They went on:

'The dishonesty and extremism of what Parke calls the "official BDS campaign" is evident.

The founder of the BDS movement, Omar Barghouti, claims  Palestinians have a "right to resistance by any means, including armed resistance," and denies that the Jews are a people or have a connection to the land of Israel.

Other leading figures in the movement have openly asserted the campaign's purpose of destroying Israel....

Parke's speech in support of BDS is symptomatic of the same psychosis for which Richard Falk has been roundly condemned. It places all the ills of the Middle East, if not the world, at the feet of Israel.

Parke even goes so far as to link the scourge of militant Islam with the actions of Israel and implies that BDS is part of the solution. What connection Israel has to the marauding jihadists consuming much of Africa and the Middle East, Parke does not tell us. Israel's only involvement in the Syrian tragedy that  spawned IS and which has claimed, in just a few years, far more lives than the Arab-Israeli conflict has in over six decades, is to smuggle wounded Syrian civilians across the border and heal them free of charge in Israeli hospitals.

Every party in the Federal Parliament and in the State or Territory parliaments has rejected the anti-Israel BDS campaign, and leaders of the Coalition, Labor and the Greens have denounced BDS publicly more than once.  

More importantly, Australians have shown no tolerance at all for the fringe groups that picket chocolate shops, university centres that try to exclude Israeli academics, or local councils that seek to spend ratepayers' money on anti-Israel crusades.

Parke's public endorsement of a campaign that is at best dishonest and at worst racist, will disgust all people of goodwill who support a Palestinian State alongside Israel, something that BDS staunchly opposes. ...'

More recently, former Australian Foreign Minister and former president of Labor Friends of Israel Bob Carr's much-flaunted decision to become patron of Labor Friends of Palestine has, deservedly, attracted widespread derision from Jewish and other pro-Israel sources.

Speaking to the Australian Friends of Palestine Association (a most active ratbag crowd of BDSers; latest video below) in Adelaide, Carr said, in part:

"Pennant Hills Golf Club in Sydney is an unusual place for an epiphany on the changes in Israel. Still, it was there I met a Christian volunteer who went to the occupied territories to escort Palestinian children to school, to protect them from verbal and physical ­violence by Israeli settlers.

Violence against Arab kids? Christian volunteers to protect them? From Jewish settlers?

None of this was around in 1977 when I rented a room in Sydney Trades Hall and called on Bob Hawke, ACTU president, to help me launch Labor Friends of Israel.

In 1977 the Israeli occupation was 10 years old. There were 25,000 settlers. It was easy to believe the Israelis were holding the West Bank only as a bargaining chip. Arabs were terrorists.

Now the occupation has lasted 47 years. There are 500,000 settlers. Up to 60 per cent of the Israeli cabinet is on record as opposing a two-state solution. Palestinians have been part of a peace process for 25 years....

In 1977 the Palestine Liberation Organisation was blowing up planes. Now for 25 years Palestinians have been committed to a neg­otiated solution, most recently to a demilitarised state with the presence of a US-led NATO force on the West Bank and East ­Jerusalem.

In 1977 when we launched Labor Friends of Israel we knew, to our disgrace, none of their narrative....

From the writers of The West Wing came this. Discussing Gaza and the West Bank, a White House adviser says to another, “Revolutionaries will outlast and out-die occupiers every time.” No other colonial rule has survived, let alone with rich settlers on fortified hilltops with Los Angeles lawns, the wretched huddled in the gullies, their 12-year-old kids subject to military arrest and ­detention.

We have politely pitched the case for Palestinian statehood as creating security for Israel. But in view of the settlements and settler violence, I now pitch the case in terms of the rights of the Palestinian people, recognised in international law and every draft peace statement supported by the world for a quarter of a century.

Palestinians must commit to non-violent resistance, not a third intifada. They must build international support. They must engage with the righteous Jews who condemn the takeover of Zionism by the fanatics.

Forty years ago I signed up to be president of Labor Friends of Israel; I still count myself a friend of the liberals in that country but it serves the cause of a just peace better by me this week becoming patron of Labor Friends of Palestine."

As Liberal federal MP Josh Frydenberg, parliamentary secretary to prime minister Tony Abbott, and the only Jewish MP on that side of the House, commented:

“This grandstanding by Bob Carr is all about him. It’s nothing more than an obsession on Bob Carr’s part.

He is a real opportunist. He’s been silent as we’ve seen ISIL or ISIS go ahead and engage in beheadings in Iraq and Syria and butchery and genocide but he’s just obsessed with the Israel-Palestinian issue and I just think it’s because he’s got relevance deprivation syndrome.”....'

The current Australian Jewish News, which hit the newsstands today, is replete with letters and articles about Bob Carr's treacherous attitude towards Israel.

One of the best and most trenchant of the indictments of Carr comes from the paper's publisher, Robert Magid, who is not afraid to suggest that awareness of the Muslim vote in Sydney and Melbourne has prompted Carr's volte-face; his article, headed "Carr's veered off the road of reality", appeared yesterday in The Australian behind a paywall (title, should you wish to google it: Bob Carr is no friend of Israel or Palestinians)

"Israel", writes Mr Magid inter alia,

lives in a rough neighbourhood. Syria recently killed more than 200,000 of its citizens and more than half of its population have fled their country. Lebanon has tens of thousands of missiles pointed at Israel. Gaza recently fired batteries of Fajr-5 missiles not at military targets but Israeli civilians. An army of fanatics is intent on killing anyone who is not Sunni, beheading or mass murdering prisoners, enslaving women and children. Iran is marching inexorably to acquire nuclear weapons, intent on wiping Israel off the map.

Into these shark-infested ­waters swims our heroic former foreign minister with all the answers. His view? Everything is Israel’s fault. The Palestinians are helpless victims. The expansion of settlements is irreversible and renders peace impossible. With the ­absorption of the West Bank, Israel will become an apartheid state. Israel is becoming more religious, hence more fanatical and more right wing, and while Israel expands, Palestinians have been thwarted in the peace process for 25 years. The imagery is all there. Mahmoud Abbas sits, pen in hand, a jilted bride.

What is the reality? Start with the peace process. Every Palestinian is suckled on the belief that Palestine includes all of Israel. Look at any map in the Palestinian territories or the Arab world. To Palestinians, “the Occupation” is not of Jenin or Ramallah but Tel Aviv and Haifa. Anyone who betrays that birthright should be killed as a traitor. The only peace agreement Abbas would sign is for Benjamin Netanyahu to hand over all of ­Israel.

So who is responsible for the lack of progress towards peace?

Israel agreed to the Oslo Accords that brought to the West Bank Yasser Arafat and his PLO, who, rather than seeking peace, unleashed an intifada that killed more than 1000 Israelis.....

 Bob Carr sees settlements as the essential obstacle to peace from which Israel will never withdraw, the only possible outcome a Greater Israel with a disenfranchised Palestinian minority.

Yet there were no settlements between 1948 and the war of 1967 and Palestinians refused to negotiate peace, and all Israeli proposals since then have been rejected. Former Peace Now activist Ari Shavit acknowledges that even if all the settlements were dismantled, Palestinians would never sign a peace agreement.

Carr implies Israel is becoming more right wing. But democratic politics is a pendulum. When Israelis feel secure, they vote on domestic issues, usually for leftist parties. When they feel threatened, they vote for the party they believe provides them with security.

Carr shows his ignorance by confusing religious parties in the Knesset with support for extremists — the main religious parties are focused on support for their education and welfare priorities and join in coalitions with whichever party meets their needs.

Carr also fails to mention that the Netanyahu government is committed to a two-state solution....

Carr talks about future apartheid if Israel remains in control of the West Bank but Israel is the only country in the neighbourhood where apartheid is not practised. Israeli Arabs vote, are represented in parliament, sit on the judiciary, are active in academe as students and lecturers, are doctors and staff in all hospitals, and represent Israel in international forums.

Palestinians born in Syria, Lebanon and other Arab states have no right to citizenship and are restricted in their place of residence.

As for the West Bank, Palestinians voted for their own government, which is responsible for all domestic policies....

The West Bank cannot be a stand-alone economy. Many Palestinians see their future not in exacerbating relations with Israel, a technological wonder but in constructive economic and social ties. Palestinians are forming companies linked with Israeli hi-tech companies to provide services.

Hamas has shown considerable technical skill building rockets, missiles and tunnels but these skills should be harnessed to improve its people’s lives. Instead of encouraging constructive dialogue, Carr plays to the victim mentality. Therein lies the difference between those who welcome an integration of Palestinian and Israeli economies to the benefit all rather than the destructive negativity of Carr. Sadly, he is no friend of Israel or of the Palestinians.'

 Meanwhile, as J-Wire's Henry Benjamin reports here, the ECAJ's president, Robert Goot, has told delegates its AGM:

"The erosion in support for Israel within the Australian Labor Party, especially in New South Wales and Queensland, has lead to a weakening of the cross-party consensus on Israel that has been a feature of Australian politics since at least the mid-1950’s. The ECAJ is working closely with the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies in particular and the Jewish community’s many friends within the ALP, to address this issue especially in the context of the national conference of the ALP to be held in 2015, where we anticipate a move led by Bob Carr to change the policy. His latest remarks reported in “The Australian” yesterday, will undoubtedly attract support and demonstrate yet again the impact on some of our friends of the settlement policy, the attitude of some of the settlers and their political supporters, which whatever their motivation, is seen to undermine support for the 2 state solution and further isolates Israel.”  [My emphasis]