David Singer: End the West Bank Refugee Gravy Train

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

He writes:

With more than three million Syrians fleeing war-torn Syria seeking safe havens in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Europe – scarce United Nations resources continue to be used supporting and maintaining about 760,000 Palestinian Arabs currently living in the West Bank and registered as “refugees” with the United Nations Relief And Works Agency (UNRWA).

Their refugee categorization and status was changed on 3 January 2013 when PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas replaced the “Palestinian Authority” with the “State of Palestine” by this decree: 

"Official documents, seals, signs and letterheads of the Palestinian National Authority official and national institutions shall be amended by replacing the name 'Palestinian National Authority' whenever it appears by the name 'State of Palestine' and by adopting the emblem of the State of Palestine." 

 John Whitbeck – a legal advisor to the Palestinian team in negotiations with Israel – has written on the significance of this name change: 

“In his correspondence, Yasser Arafat used to list all three of his titles under his signature -- President of the State of Palestine, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization and President of the Palestinian Authority (in that order of precedence). It is both legally and politically noteworthy that, in signing this decree, Mahmoud Abbas has listed only the first two titles. The Trojan horse called the "Palestinian Authority" in accordance with the Oslo interim agreements and the "Palestinian National Authority" by Palestinians has served its purpose by introducing the institutions of the State of Palestine on the soil of Palestine and has now ceased to exist.”

Abbas’s semantic ploy had left Israel without its designated negotiating partner under the Oslo Accords and had effectively ended negotiations for the creation a Palestinian State under the Bush Roadmap.

The institutions of the so-called “State of Palestine” had replaced the “Palestinian Authority” in some 40 per cent of the West Bank designated under the Oslo Accords as Areas “A” and B”– assuming full administrative control over 95 per cent of the entire West Bank Arab population  including about 190000 Palestinian Arab refugees living in 19 camps whilst the remaining 570000 lived in towns and villages.

UNRWA funds:

* 97 schools with 51,327 pupils

* 2 vocational and technical training centres

* 42 primary health centres

* 15 community rehabilitation centres

* 18 women’s programme centres 

 UNRWA explains: 

'UNRWA is unique in terms of its long-standing commitment to one group of refugees. It has contributed to the welfare and human development of four generations of Palestine refugees, defined as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.”

The descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children, are also eligible for registration.

UNRWA services are available to all those living in its areas of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance.'

As of 14 September 2015, 136 of the 193 United Nations member states have been playing the PLO name-game change and recognised the “State of Palestine”.

These 136 States now need to answer two questions: 

1. How can any person living in his own country still be classified as a refugee?

2. Shouldn’t the 760,000 registered Palestinian Arab refugees living in the West Bank have their refugee status revoked and be resettled and fully integrated among their fellow Palestinian Arabs?

Claiming the trappings of Statehood – whilst segregating its citizens into two different classes – is a recipe for continuing tension and future conflict.

Change the name – change the game – but be prepared to accept the consequences.

A French Oleh Slams France's Consulate General in Jerusalem

French oleh Jean Vercors, no stranger to regular readers of this blog, writes:

The French consulate in Jerusalem, located in the Israeli capital not in the territories occupied by Arab settlers, has launched a campaign to provide scholarships for Palestinian students only, not to Jews.

Take a look at the poster: it is written in French, Arabic but not in Hebrew. Especially not in Hebrew, this may offend diplomatic relations with dictatorships of the Gulf, and disturb the "social peace" in France.

Israeli citizens cannot apply for scholarships; they are available only to Palestinians.

 Yes, it sounds like a measure of apartheid, and the initiative is discriminatory. Applications must be submitted before 29 February 2016 as mentioned on the consulate's website.

 The campaign was launched with the French Institute of Jerusalem, Nablus, the Franco-German Center of Ramallah, the French Alliance of Bethlehem.

The consulate has a long reputation that hardly serves the Palestinian cause, and to have been exposed and does not bother the consulate or deter it from continuing its morally questionable activities. 

France very often interfere in Israeli internal affairs via the AFD (l’Agence Francaise de Development), which wants to divide Jerusalem.

Khaled

In October 2013, the consulate was promoting Leila Khaled, the "famous terrorist" who became a Palestinian novelist posing with keffiyeh and AK47 via the French Institute Chateaubriand in Jerusalem.

France has always actively supported UNRWA, whose buildings are used as rocket launchers fired at Israeli civilians and where among their staff are Hamas militants.

 France, champion of human rights, said nothing, did not denounce the use of children by Palestinian terrorist groups.Those who attack innocent Israeli civilians with a knife - in the back are between 11 and 15 years.

These are flagrant violations of the Geneva Conventions committed by terrorist groups against children in armed conflict.

 But as we must not show that Palestinian misbehave, moralistic and human rightist ideologues more defenders let these children suffer and die.

France pays millions of euros to French NGOs, Israeli far-left and Palestinian, that are anti-Israeli. The funding is made possible by the AFD and the Consulat General de France in Jerusalem

 No official media will only show you the sumptuous properties in Ramallah or Gaza beachfront , luxury  4x4 BMWs and Mercedes, that the Palestinian leadership acquires with this money.

Reproduction authorized with the following: © Jean Vercors Dreuz.info .

"[O]n the Left Today What is in Jeopardy is Support ... for the Concept of Israel" (includes video)

Coincidentally during "Israel Apartheid Week" (see David Collier's brilliant post here) the House of Lords has been debating the Middle East, and some of the speeches have been notable for their resounding support for Israel.

Look, for example, at this offering, from Labour life peer Lord Livermore, a former party strategist and quite obviously not a Corbynista:

'My Lords, I wish to use the short time available to argue for a better understanding of Israel. This task is urgent because we see now a disturbing resurgence of anti-Zionism that is bordering on the antisemitic, particularly, I regret to say, in sections of the left in British politics.

  Israel is not of course above criticism. It is right that where necessary we should be critical of Israeli policy, conduct and behaviour. \

Institute for Black Solidarity with Israel

But too often this legitimate criticism of specific actions taken by Israel obscures the reality of Israel. When this reality is not heard, it creates a space for those with uglier motivations to build support for grotesque analogies between Israel and apartheid South Africa or even Nazi Germany.

I fear that on the left today what is in jeopardy is support not just for the conduct of Israel but for the concept of Israel. We see senior figures praising as friends those who are committed to the violent destruction of the Jewish homeland.

 Indeed, we now have the perverse situation where people who consider themselves to be progressive oppose Israel in the belief that they are standing up for liberal values and human rights, but in doing so side with totalitarian Islamist regimes that abuse human rights and prohibit basic liberties.

I believe that it is the duty of progressives to stop the slide from opposition to specific policies of Israel towards opposition to the very existence of Israel. I want us to make the progressive case for a country where women have the right to vote, dress as they wish and say what they wish in a region where, too often, they are segregated and subjugated; for a country that is committed to the free practice of religion for all in a region where religious minorities are frequently suppressed and persecuted; for a country where gay people are not discriminated against, tortured, detained or executed, as they are almost everywhere else in the region; and for a country with a free press, freedom of expression, an independent judiciary and strong trade unions, all lacking in almost all neighbouring countries. 

 There is nothing progressive about siding with those who oppose the very values that we as a society strive to represent, and there is nothing progressive about seeking to extinguish a beacon of democracy, modernity and pluralism in the Middle East.' 
[Emphasis added above and below]

Conservative life peer Lord Grade, who's Jewish, said; inter alia:

'Just yesterday, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who is in her place this evening, and other noble Lords spoke with eloquence and passion on the intimidating environment in our scholarly communities which is suppressing constructive discussion on the Middle East. The vicious approach to debate, or rather to the stifling of debate, taken by some—for example, those who violently disrupted an Israeli speaker at King’s College, London, last month—does nothing to foster greater understanding of the Middle East in the UK; quite the contrary.

 The KCL Action Palestine society, which spearheaded the disruption of KCL’s Israel society event, is a committed supporter of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. The BDS movement continually smears the only democratic state in the region by comparing Israel to the apartheid South African regime of yesteryear. This is as intellectually bankrupt as it is dishonest: it is almost like comparing BDS to the National Socialist Party in pre-war Germany. Let us be clear that the overarching aim of this particular movement is to quash constructive dialogue and end any hope of a viable two-state solution.

To achieve its ends, in recent years BDS has engineered votes to boycott Israel at some of our top universities, which really should know better. In recent months, students at the School of Oriental and African Studies voted overwhelmingly to boycott Israel, and only last week the co-chair of the Oxford University Labour Club, Alex Chalmers, while lamenting that much of the student left has“some kind of problem with Jews”, resigned in the light of the club’s decision to support Israel Apartheid Week at the university this week.

Elsewhere, the movement has been particularly successful in galvanising support for BDS against Israel in the UK’s influential culture and entertainment sectors, culminating in a letter last year signed by 1,000 artists indicating support for a boycott of Israel. Interestingly, Professor Stephen Hawking publicly boycotted one academic event in Israel. It is perhaps worth noting that his extraordinary speech-generation device’s most important component is a silicon chip that was designed in Israel. A leading commentator writing about the professor’s decision asked whether the solution to this problem would be for Professor Hawking to boycott himself.

While advocacy for supporting boycotts represents a disturbing trend in any sector, the prominence and success of the movement in areas which should thrive on free expression is particularly distressing. Last year, more than 300 professors committed themselves to boycotting Israel. Campuses should be at the forefront of charting a way towards the peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not spaces to further entrench differences and incite hostility and, dare I say it, bigotry.

Parliament is at the heart of the academic issue. There is a blatant double standard here, which we as legislators have not addressed. There is evidence that we permit the funding of some educational departments by authoritarian states with abhorrent track records on human rights and free expression, yet UK institutions are somehow at the forefront of calls to ban Israeli academics and students on the basis of their nationality and, probably, their religion. The connection between the funding of universities by vehemently anti-Israel regimes, the constraining of free expression and referenda to ban Israelis must be exposed. While we in this place advocate free expression and a two-state solution, elsewhere, we permit the clandestine manipulation of research and teaching on the Middle East to the opposite effect.

Let me now, at last, be more positive. I was especially pleased to learn just last week of the Government’s follow-through on their commitment to prevent public authorities, such as local councils and universities, boycotting products from Israel. The statement by Cabinet Office Minister Matt Hancock in Israel was welcome news for all those who cherish free speech.

I am also encouraged to see Israel’s linkages with Britain grow with unabated rapidity in recent years. In science and technology, one of the UK’s leading country priorities is Israel. The development of the UK Israel Tech Hub, the Britain Israel Research and Academic Exchange Partnership, and a top-level UK-Israel Life Sciences Council bring together millions of pounds in funding and some of the world’s brightest minds to collaborate on a number of fronts, including heart disease prevention, regenerative stem cell research and battling multiple sclerosis. UK-Israel partnerships are currently producing world-leading innovations in nanotechnology, agriscience, neuroscience and many other specialist subjects.

In the real commercial world, away from some of the bigoted posturing of academe, trade between Israel and Britain is supporting much-needed manufacturing jobs here at home. For example, Rolls Royce has recently won a contract to supply jet engines to Israel’s state airline, El Al—El Al, by the way, is the only airline for which you do not buy a ticket but give a donation. Perhaps some of those academics who parade their prejudices without any sense of responsibility would like to see what the employees of Rolls Royce might say to them about working with Israel. Business and trade is flourishing between Israel and Britain. In the past 10 years, bilateral trade has increased by 60% to over £3 billion per annum. As many as 300 Israeli companies operate in the UK, and it remains a principal destination for capital and market growth opportunities for Israeli entrepreneurs.

Crucially, in the arts sector, last year we celebrated 20 years of the British Israeli Arts Training Scheme. Funded by the British Council and the Government of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Culture and Sport, the programme provides advice and short-term grants, as well as longer-term programmes.

Fostering connections between Palestinians and Israelis and between Britain and Israel is laying fertile ground from which peace may one day grow. It is in this endeavour that government can be a leading champion. Most important of all, in my view, in the search for peace in the Middle East are the many unreported collaborations where Jews and Arabs are working together on the ground. The Valley of Peace initiative promotes economic co-operation between Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians based in the Arava valley. Regional economic collaborations like this are critically important, as an economically viable Palestine is a necessary condition for a peaceful resolution. I could also highlight the Israeli-Palestinian Science Organization, which facilitates co-operation, dialogue and interaction between Israeli and Palestinian scholars and scientists. Initiatives such as these are where grass-roots activists and professional leaders are doing the lion’s share of the work to increase understanding and work towards peace.

However, I feel that in order for us to create a society where co-existence can truly thrive, we need to focus on those who will be the future leaders: the children. How can Israelis and Arabs find common ground if they cannot talk to each other? In Israel, Jewish and Arab children attend separate schools, which creates space for fear, stereotypes and inequalities to grow. These children, who might even be neighbours, grow up in two parallel worlds that rarely interact. In order to change this reality, parents and community members in Be’er Sheva have played an active role in developing a future based on equality and respect for their children and their community through the founding of the Hagar Association, Jewish-Arab Education for Equality, an organisation dedicated to creating a shared society and co-existence between Jewish and Arab residents of Israel’s Negev. It is a centre for joint community initiatives which are completely bilingual in Hebrew and Arabic. There are sport activities that encourage Israeli and Arab children to aspire to be the next Lionel Messi.

We need understanding and discussion, and I hope that this debate will encourage that more than boycotts.'

Baroness Deech, who's also Jewish, and has of course been the target of a nasty little dig by Roger Waters for it, was her usual excellent self:

'My Lords, to my mind, this is a debate centring on disinformation, the deliberate spreading of inaccurate information in order to cover up the truth or to mislead public opinion. Our main sources of information about the Middle East are the media and teaching at universities. Journalists are exceptionally brave purveyors of information, but to a large extent they can go only where it is safe and they can send accurate dispatches only from that region where permitted to do so. Scores of journalists have died or been imprisoned there, and their reports are censored by the majority of countries in the Middle East, without the reader necessarily knowing.

Reporting from the area is bedevilled by the failure to use the right words—for example, not saying the word “terrorist”—and consequent downplaying of the violence. There is disproportionate coverage of Israel, and nothing is ever reported about the Palestinians’ way of life or their diaspora, save for victimhood. Opinion is disguised as news—for example, Tim Willcox of the BBC, at a Charlie Hebdo rally, saying to a Jewish demonstrator:

“Many critics of Israel’s policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well”.

There is a lack of context; there has never been an East Jerusalem, except during the Jordanian occupation period of 1948-67. There is selective omission—for example, the headlines proclaiming that a Palestinian has been killed, when in fact he was brought down after murdering Israeli civilians in the street. That is why it is so important that complaints about the media inaccuracies are handled by independent arbiters, and the BBC has to reform its complaints system.

Our universities have accepted money from various repressive Arab regimes—money directed almost exclusively at teaching Middle Eastern studies and putting in place curricula and professors subscribing to that point of view. An example is the Islamic Centre at Oxford, which has received £75 million from Saudi Arabia and other such regimes. The same is true of nearly every professorial post in this subject. I hope that the Minister will announce an inquiry into the foreign funding of our universities and that university donations are to be made public.'

Lib Dem life peer Lord Palmer of Childs Hill said:

My Lords, the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Grade, is how to increase understanding of the Middle East. I am just back from an all-party Peers’ visit to Israel and the West Bank. We met Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Rivlin, who were far more positive than we had been led to believe. Does the Minister believe that the Israelis are prepared to come to the negotiating table without preconditions?

We also went to Ramallah to lunch with leading Palestinians. I must say that our meeting with them was profoundly disappointing, to the extent that they ended by blaming the British for the lack of a Palestinian state, ignoring completely the fact that prior to 1967 it was well within the powers of Jordan and Egypt, who respectively controlled the West Bank and Gaza, to have created a state of Palestine when there were no Israeli settlers in those areas. Can the Minister say whether the UK Government are making efforts to move the Palestinians out of past gripes and to think positively about what is achievable, and also ask them whether they will come to the negotiating table without preconditions?

We received a frightening presentation on the radicalisation of Palestinian youth in schools and in sport. It must say something when Palestinian sporting events are named after so-called martyrs who killed Israelis. Have the UK Government any views on how to stop this education of hate?

We also visited the town of Sderot and the moshav Netiv HaAsara, right on the border with Gaza. The people there live in and out of bomb shelters, which has saved lives but has caused great trauma particularly for the kids, who know of no life without shelters and safe rooms at home and in school. Have the UK Government views on why this life of trauma receives so little publicity in this country?'

Even Conservative "wet" Lord Patten, chancellor of the University of Oxford, no friend to Israel either before or during his headship of the BBC Trust, appeared (more or less) conciliatory.  (Too bad he never hauled Bowen, Donnison, and the rest of the Israel-demonising BBC pack over the coals; words are cheap.)

'The lightning conductor and fulcrum of Middle Eastern misunderstanding since the late 1940s has been the state of Israel with its polyglot and talented population. Understanding the Middle East today, almost 70 years on, must begin at home in the United Kingdom, which has a particular historical role as the colonial power in Palestine during the run-up to the creation of Israel in 1948. We have not managed so far, despite best efforts, to be at all successful in eradicating antisemitism at home in the United Kingdom and thus cannot be sure of our standing in getting greater understanding of Israel, which feels under deadly threat just as some Palestinians feel the same.

Only this month we had, as my noble friend Lord Grade said in his notable speech, seen a particularly nasty outbreak of antisemitism among the members of one particular political club in Oxford, its co-chairman resigning as he thought some of its members had “poisonous” attitudes made intolerant statements and had,“some kind of problem with Jews”.

That 70 years on these attitudes prevail in what should be a bastion of liberalism and tolerance is completely shameful, so robust action must be taken where and when reason is missing. I thus congratulate very warmly the Government on their stand against local authorities who now wish to boycott Israeli goods as their own little contribution to Middle Eastern understanding—nowhere else, just Israeli goods. I want my local authority to deal with flood prevention and potholes rather than developing their own foreign policy in direct contravention of the rules of the World Trade Organisation with the sole aim of undermining and delegitimising one state and one state only in the Middle East—the state of Israel.

I say all that not as a Jew but as a Roman Catholic. There are a lot of my lot in Jerusalem and I want them to stay there. I am extremely grateful to the Government of Israel for protecting them and for making it possible for Roman Catholics and other Christians to be in Jerusalem and not to be cleansed and cleared out, as they have been in so many other parts of the Middle East.'

For more see here (citing Hansard House of Lords Debate, 23 February 2016)

Gleanings From Gatoff (video)

A friend, having just seen an episode of Newt's News on the Aussie Jewish program "The Shtick," is full of praise, reminding me that it's time to show some of Mr Gatoff's gleanings again.

Left-wing obsession with Israel... Israeli inventions...  BDS... Jerusalem... "Occupation"...

Some excellent segments here.

Christian Refugees Worry over Mass Muslim Immigration (video)

In Sweden, Christian refugees, perhaps wiser than their indigenous counterparts, voice their fears regarding the impact of Muslim immigration.  Sweden's Jews, of course, are already paying the price for Sweden's suicidal madness.

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes Blog

Meanwhile, yet another ecclesiastical initiative against the little Jewish State.

"The Problem is, Of Course, the Jews" (video)

"Welcome to the inter-section of social justice and neo-Nazism..." says the narrator of the antisemitic student Left:

 Bonus:

"It's not very nice or comfortable to be there as a Jewish person."

No prizes for guessing where. This is what the iniquitous Left have bequeathed to what was, not that long ago, one of the most enviable countries  in Europe.

The references to antisemitism and the plight of the Jews, including the above quote from a Jewish actor,  begins at about 2:40.

David Singer: Syria – End The Diplomatic Doublespeak Start Getting Serious

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

He writes:

The deadline for a ceasefire in Syria by 19 February has passed with no indication that it will be achieved at any time in the foreseeable future. Hopes for that ceasefire were high after the UN Security Council had unanimously passed Resolution 2254 on 18 December 2015 requesting:

“the Secretary-General to lead the effort, through the office of his Special Envoy and in consultation with relevant parties, to determine the modalities and requirements of a ceasefire as well as continue planning for the support of ceasefire implementation, and urges Member States, in particular members of the ISSG, to support and accelerate all efforts to achieve a ceasefire, including through pressing all relevant parties to agree and adhere to such a ceasefire”

The ISSG mentioned in the Resolution is the International Syria Support Group – comprising the Arab League, China, Egypt, the EU, France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United Nations, and the United States.

ISSG has proved totally ineffective in ending the five year conflict in Syria that has seen more than 300000 deaths and seven million Syrians internally displaced or fleeing to neighbouring States and swamping Europe to escape the horrific carnage unleashed in Syria during that time.

Islamic State was spawned in Syria and Iraq in July 2014 and now occupies more land than the area of Great Britain. Together with Al Nusra Front – a Syria-based Sunni extremist group that adheres to the global jihadist ideology of al-Qa'ida – both have been declared terrorist organisations by the UN Security Council. Meeting in Munich on 12 and 13 February the ISSG members agreed that:

“The UN shall serve as the secretariat of the ceasefire task force. The cessation of hostilities will commence in one week, after confirmation by the Syrian government and opposition, following appropriate consultations in Syria.”

During that week, the ISSG task force will develop modalities for the cessation of hostilities. The ISSG task force will, among other responsibilities continue to:

a) delineate the territory held by Daesh [Islamic State], ANF [Al Nusra Front] and other groups designated as terrorist organisations by the United Nations Security Council;

 b) ensure effective communications among all parties to promote compliance and rapidly de-escalate tensions;

c) resolve allegations of non-compliance; and

 d) refer persistent non-compliant behaviour by any of the parties to ISSG Ministers, or those designated by the Ministers, to determine appropriate action, including the exclusion of such parties from the arrangements for the cessation of hostilities and the protection it affords them.”

Meaningless gobbledygook.

The ISSG task force failed to meet once during that critical seven day period. Whilst the UN and the ISSG task force mumbles, fumbles and stumbles, the carnage continues – as the ISSG members remain divided between those supporting Syria’s President Assad retaining power and those seeking his removal.

The ISSG is hopelessly conflicted and needs to adopt a different approach to begin ending the suffering of the Syrian people.

All ISSG members unanimously agree that Islamic State and Al Nusra Front represent a grave threat to world peace and security.

Russia, America, China, France and the United Kingdom – the five permanent members of the Security Council and all ISSG members – need to combine their diplomatic power to procure the passing of an unequivocal and unambiguous Security Council Resolution establishing a UN military force to confront and defeat Islamic State and Al Nusra Front.

Until these enemies are comprehensibly defeated, all else is diplomatic doublespeak and a complete waste of time in ending the conflict in Syria.

London Calling! (video)

Londoners calling Israel the worst human rights violator out of a given list! (Some others know better.)

This video  (posted originally on  www.thegatewaypundit.com/ ) will no doubt have already been viewed by many.  It was recommended to me by Reader P, and does yeoman service by going on to  expose the real situation in the real human rights-violating regimes around the world.

Not the kind of thing to watch while eating popcorn, though.

"Jews Are The New Jews"

In Old London Town

By the philosemitic British journalist Julie Burchill, a gutsy piece refuting the fashionable leftist and Muslim canard that "Muslims are the new Jews":
Here's a taster:

'.... How are Muslims not the New Jews? Let me count the ways. 

For a start, there seems to be no sign of any sort of Kindertransport in action - rather, the modus operandi would appear to be "women and children last" judging by the huge groups of able-bodied young men who have found their way to the West.... I don't recall any accounts of marauding bands of Jewish youths mob-handedly molesting gentile women on the streets of countries which gave them refuge....

[T]here is only one tiny Jewish majority country, which did not exist until 1948, and so the Jews fleeing persecution throughout the centuries had no place of assured safety until recently; yet another reason why supporters of Israel such as myself are so passionate about its survival. The Jews who came to Britain as refugees came to a very different country, with no welfare state, also speaking no English and with little money....

Likewise

Jewish refugees left the virulently antisemitic countries of Eastern Europe for the moderately antisemitic countries of Western Europe and considered it a good exchange, grasping the new freedom that came their way and running with it. Certain sections of the Muslim community, on the other hand, seem to veer between rather hysterical extremes of victorhood and victimhood....

Somewhat embarrassingly, a recent Freedom of Information request by a Sikh organisation found that of 400 anti-Muslim "hate crimes" recorded in the first half of last year, 28 per cent were not on Muslims at all.

But I don't mind the stats which tell us how many Muslims were attacked so long as we also get the stats on how many Muslims attacked people, including their own people in so-called "honour crimes", which are actually hate crimes of the most cowardly kind, usually committed on defenceless young girls by one or more fully-grown men. 

Meanwhile, antisemitic attacks continue to rise - and the Jewish Community Security Trust doesn't need to add attacks on Christians to bulk up the numbers....

 Muslims are not the new Jews - Jews are the new Jews and sadly Muslims now number greatly among their chief tormentors.

But there is a greater issue at stake here, far beyond the different standards of behaviour displayed by Jewish refugees in the past and Muslim refugees now. Wherever the Jews have gone, they have enriched and opened up the host culture far beyond the extent even to which they have enriched and opened up themselves....'

Read all of the article here

"Don't Let Trudeau Fool You!" (video)

 "In 2010, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives stopped funding UNRWA and directed Canada's aid money elsewhere. 

The Conservatives didn't stop funding projects in Gaza or the West Bank -- they funded other projects that were not linked to Hamas, projects that actually helped Palestinians. 

But now the Liberals are about to send $15 million to UNRWA, much of which could benefit Hamas and their terror activities. In fact, it was that concern that saw UNRWA cut off from their Canadian funding in the first place.

In the 2012-2013 fiscal year CIDA, our foreign aid department, spent $26.7 million in the West Bank and Gaza. They just didn't give any to UNRWA, because UNRWA has been tied to the Hamas terrorist group.

Trudeau wants you to think the Harper Conservatives were cold hearted and mean, that they only cared about Israel and about the Jews. But that is simply not true. Harper sided with Israel against terrorism, but still funded real development projects to help Palestinians. Now, under Justin Trudeau, we are looking at re-funding a group linked to Hamas...." [Emphasis added]

 More (including the petition) here

Class War Warrior

From an article intended to show what a great president Bernie Sanders would make, but which should surely make realists shudder:

Been and Seen in New York City

 'She started by referring to the Islamophobic bigotry of many of the Republican candidates. As she continued, calling herself “an American Muslim student who aspires to change the world,” Sanders interrupted her to invite her up to the stage and embrace her, and then, respectfully, he gave her the opportunity to finish her question onstage on equal footing. How would Sanders respond, Abdelgadar asked, to the Islamophobia spouted by the Republicans and amplified by the media? Sanders gently took her hand and stood next to her at the lectern as he responded.

Had this scene been scripted, it would have been a remarkable tableau vivant. It was not rehearsed, but neither was it accidental. Sanders’s response to her question gave us a rich insight into the Socialist worldview that underpinned the Jewish and multicultural Brooklyn environment in which he was raised, which goes a good way toward explaining his broad and growing appeal.

Sanders began by equating anti-Semitism, racism and Islamophobia. He hearkened to his own Jewish heritage and recalled the murders of his father’s family in Nazi concentration camps. Racism is not only about pent up hatred and stupidity, he explained; it is also a tool that politicians and the wealthy elite use to keep workers divided and to weaken their efforts to organize....'

Read it all here


Sobering claims here

And here

Britain's Ban on BDS: baddies & goodies speak out (video)

The background to this substantial video can be read here

For an in-depth article assessing the impact of BDS generally and what lies behind it  there's a good in-depth article here

The New Antisemitism & The New Jewish Exodus (video)

A must-watch powerful piece.  Migration statistics from the Jewish Agency for Israel.

Spread the word!

Good Onya Bernie! (video)

I'm not a fan of Bernie Sanders (interesting article here) but it's rewarding and revealing to see the anger among Israel-haters on social media occasioned by the discovery of this video from 2014:

Sorry about the foul-mouthed hysterical clown who does the commentary.

Update (hat tip: Ian in the comments below); the Israel-haters can take comfort from this:

Meanwhile, here's a recent video (about "roasting Jewish flesh") from the murderous outfit Bernie was trying to educate Israel-haters about:

David Singer: France Signals Surrender to PLO and Muslim Pressure

Courtesy: Jean Vercors

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

He writes:

France's extraordinary decision to try and resurrect the dead two-state solution smacks of:

 1. Abject surrender to PLO demands for unilateral recognition of a Palestinian State outside the parameters defined by Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

2. A desperate attempt to appease France's 4.7 million Muslims as they protest against the continuing state of emergency declared after the series of co-ordinated attacks by Islamic State in Paris last November that saw 130 people murdered and 368 wounded.

France made its intentions clear in the following statement released on 30 January by Foreign Affairs Minister Laurent Fabius:

"France will engage in the coming weeks in the preparation of an international conference bringing together the parties and their main partners, American, European, Arab, notably to preserve and make happen the two-state solution"

Mr Fabius issued this veiled threat on France 24:

“If this attempt to achieve a negotiated solution reaches a dead end, we will take responsibility and recognize the Palestinian state”

Respected commentator Aaron David Miller has already delivered his verdict on the proposed International conference in a scathing tweet:

"Another bone headed French play.Convene a peace conference doomed to fail; then recognize a faux Palestinian state"

In its Spring 2015 Global Attitudes Survey the Pew Research Centre found that 76 per cent of France's population had favourable views of France's Muslim population whilst 24 per cent had unfavourable views.

France no doubt hopes that calling this pro-Arab international conference will stem any growth in the anti-Muslim view in the next Pew Survey. Given the violent ongoing Muslim demonstrations such hope is doomed.

France's Muslim population far exceeds that of the 475,000 Jewish population, whose number has been dramatically declining following 851 antisemitic incidents recorded in 2014 and 806 attacks in 2015.

Jews leaving France for Israel have also doubled and then doubled again since 2010 - reaching 8,000 last year - up from 1,900 in 2011. Such is the Jewish exodus that French Prime Minister Manuel Valls was recently forced to acknowledge that French Jewry is in crisis and that France must work with:
“all its might to protect Jews”

France's planned international conference and threatened recognition of a Palestinian State will have the opposite effect - ensuring an ever increasing number of French Jews will be fleeing to safer havens.

Any unilateral French declaration recognising Palestinian Statehood will only exacerbate the continuation of the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict - not contribute to its resolution.

Such a declaration could represent a complete turnaround in France's stated foreign policy:

"France considers that the conflict can only be resolved by the creation of an independent, viable and democratic Palestinian State living in peace and security alongside Israel."

Given the current authoritarian and undemocratic division of rule between two organisations pledged to wipe Israel off the map - the PLO in Areas "A" and "B" in Judea and Samaria and Hamas in Gaza - France needs to ensure that any State of Palestine it recognises is indisputably democratic.

France is being politically naive to believe the failed negotiations conducted over 23 years between Israel and the PLO can be revived.

An international conference aimed at jumpstarting negotiations to resolve sovereignty in Judea and Samaria between Israel and Jordan - not Israel and the PLO - would have made far more sense.

However, the only winners from France's proposed conference will be the airlines, the 5-star hotels, 3-hat Michelin restaurants, vignerons and limousine car companies catering to the needs of the delegations flying in for a talkfest that will go nowhere.

Hopefully Islamic State will not spoil the politicians' party.

Rana on the Run (video)

A disturbing look at the plight of people, including Rana from Saudi Arabia, who choose to leave Islam:

"The NSW Branch of the ALP Has Launched a Full-scale Attack on Israel... And we should ask: Why?"

This coming weekend the Australian Labor Party (ALP) in New South Wales (power base of Israel-demonising ex-state premier and ex-foreign minister Bob Carr) is holding its state conference.

Of 45 proposed resolutions relating to foreign policy a whopping 28 concern Israel/Palestine, and you can guess their flavour.

As Australian Jewish News publisher Robert Magid writes in the course of a long and penetrating op-ed in the current issue of that newspaper:

 '.... One can ask why are there no resolutions about the extermination of the Yazidis and the Nazerenes; the rape of Tibet by our major trading partner; concern for the spread of Islamic extremism in our closest neighbour and largest Muslim country; the spread of mayhem at the hands of Islamist terrorists in much of Africa, the slaughter in Syria and Iraq, Russia's rape of Ukraine, the dangerous path Europe has taken, to name only a few pressing issues which can't be converted to condemnation of Israel....

 .... [A] worthy resolution would include an understanding of Israel's concern for its people's safety, condemnation of terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians and of the war crimes of missile attacks from Gaza intent on the mass killing of Israeli civilians.

Before one calls for the creation of a Palestinian state [as 13 proposed resolutions do] one has to resolve the issue of borders, end the fantasy of "right of return" into Israel and require a guarantee that all aggression ceases.

The NSW branch of the ALP has launched a full-scale attack on Israel, an ally of Australia and a country which on a global scale, is involved in a tiny distant conflict of little impact strategically to Australia.  And we should ask: Why?'

Here's a rather interesting recent conversation between two ALP heavyweight old-timers, ex-Senator Graham Richardson and ex-federal minister Peter Baldwin, concerning the present iniquity.

 Meanwhile, for anyone who missed it, here's what the editor of Melbourne's The Age newspaper, one of the Israel-critical Fairfax stable of newspapers, has had to say about his paper's woeful attitude towards Israel.

Simone's Cri de Coeur from Calais (video)

A heart-wrenching account by a lifelong resident of Calais regarding the terrible impact on the town and its people of the thousands and thousands of "asylum seekers" in the "Jungle" awaiting their chance to invade France's neighbour across the Channel.

 (Note: Sandgate in the subtitles should of course read "Sangatte")

" If You Don’t Do This, You Are Professionally Ostracized": A journalist on anti-Israel bias

Ring any bells, Jon Donnison?

'....Over time, I came to realize that to be considered a successful journalist by the Western media, a journalist must stick to an acceptable script. In the Middle East, this means portraying Israel and the Jews as the bad guys, and the Palestinians and the PA as the good guys. If you don’t do this, you are professionally ostracized.

.... I saw journalists depict the easiest stories to tell without digging any deeper into the facts behind the conflict. There were various reasons for this—lack of time, money, and resources; ignorance and pressure from editors....

Beyond this, however, I found that some stories carried with them an inherent dislike for the Jewish state and the Jewish people. I’m not speaking about most of the Western media. But a few conversations with journalists do come to mind in which it was obvious that the motivation for their stories was anti-Semitism. What’s scary is that these stories inevitably play a major role in shaping foreign policy toward Israel.

Of course, every news outlet, newspaper, or magazine has an agenda. There is no such thing as an unbiased journalist. We bring our experiences, interactions with people, and our emotions to bear on every story and situation. This is inevitable. Biases will always exist. But we still have a responsibility to uncover and portray the truth to the best of our ability. Admitting to our biases does not mean we should submit to them. [This goes double for publicly-funded public broadcasters like the BBC, whose charters obligate them to impartiality.]

I admit that, at times, I questioned my perception of the situation in Israel. Was I missing something? I felt like I must be doing something wrong, because my views didn’t fit into the framework presented by the Western media.... And the Western media’s view of Israel is a status quo that needs to be questioned.

There is another reason why Western journalists must begin to question their biases and their conduct toward Israel: Their failure do so is pushing peace further away. For example, the Western media feeds the corruption of the Palestinian Authority. If journalists really want to help change things for the better, they should have the courage to criticize the Palestinians and their government.

Got that, Jezza?

They should report on human rights violations committed by the PA (and Hamas). They should tell the world about incitement again Jews and Israelis in PA-controlled media, as well as mosques and schools. They should report on the television shows that teach Palestinian children to hate Jews. They should share the stories of Palestinians who want to speak out against their leaders, but are afraid to do so for fear of imprisonment or death. Give Palestinians a real voice. Putting all the blame on Israel will never change the fate of the Palestinian people.

In fact, just like the PA, the Western media exploits the Palestinians. They use them in order to get the award-winning story their editors want. What the Palestinians do not realize is that these journalists don’t care about the Palestinians. They interview a few people in Ramallah about their struggles, take some emotional photos, and then head back to the comfort of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. As a result, decades of pro-Palestinian bias has changed nothing.

.... As a journalist myself, it pains me to see how bias, unprofessionalism, laziness, ego, and sometimes outright racism influences coverage of Israel and its conflict with the Palestinians. These failures are not only a violation of journalistic ethics, they make peace less likely and embolden Israel’s enemies, and the enemies of democracy around the world.

People ask me a lot if I am pro-Israel. Am I pro-Israel? If supporting democracy and the search for truth it permits means that I am pro-Israel, then, yes, I am.'

Those are extracts from a suberb indictment of journalistic bias against Israel, entitled 'Yes, Journalists Choose Sides in a Conflict—and Often for the Worst Reasons' by Israel-based journalist Zenobia Davji, herself of Parsee heritage.  The entire piece must be read.

And since her article inevitably reminded me of the BBC, here's a recent Memri.org video of Al Beeb's very good friend "Bari" Atwan, speaking late last year in Beirut:

Blarney, BDS & Blood Libels (includes video)

At the weekend, Martin O'Quigley, head of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign, explains why he's out on the streets of Dublin demonstrating against the proposed foundation of an Irish branch of the anti-islamisation organisation PEGIDA, dubbed by most of the press a "far right" organisation  (a label rejected by worried English feminist Anne-Marie Waters of UK Mothers against Sharia and the other founders of the British branch).

For O'Quigley the demo's something about being anti-Zionist and opposing all forms of racism, apparently, as well as dutifully opposing fascism.

The fact that fascism, which Europe defeated during the Second World War (a conflict in which the Irish Republic stood neutral, incidentally, even spitefully denying British ships port facilities during that life or death conflict with evil), is busily importing a new kind of fascism, is of course not part of the mindset of the Irish anti-"Islamophobia" crowd and more than it is of their British and Continental counterparts.

I hold no brief for PEGIDA.   But how strange it is that the fears of Ms Waters and other true feminists for the future of girls and women in a Europe of rapidly changing demographics are apparently not shared by the guys and gals of the "far left".

As reported here, among those joining in the Irish anti-PEGIDA protests are such far leftists as Sinn Féin, People Before Profit, the Workers Solidarity Movement.

Sinn Féin MEP Lynn Boylan said “we are standing shoulder to shoulder in solidarity to show that there is no place in Ireland today for racism and Islamophobia. There is no place for hate.” 
Ms Boylan is a veteran of the anti-Israel movement: see, for instance, here  and here and here

"There is no place for hate" on the Irish Left, it seems, except where Israel is concerned.

President Higgins and friends

I have blogged several times about the anti-Israel cause in Ireland and how vicious seem its sentiments.

Here's another example,  these disgraceful assertions by Anna O'Leary, an Irish Israel-hater, telling Iran's Press TV that Israel is "a place that does not observe human rights".

Listen to her vile blood libels against Israel and her laughable remarks about "our values" (the "our" encompasses Iran, too, presumably!)

 That O'Leary thinks it appropriate to give an interview to the satellite propaganda channel of one of the world's most notorious actual violators of the human rights of women and children, and indeed of males when they are gays or dissidents, while accusing Israel of the heinous things she does in the way she does speaks volumes about the nature and purpose of O'Leary in particular and the Irish BDS movement in general.

Oh, and as for Anne-Marie Waters, here she is in Copenhagen last month, castigating the pro-Islam lefty sisterhood heckling her there:

David Singer: UN Security Council & Quartet Silence Dooms Two-State Solution

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

He writes:

The UN Security Council and the Quartet – Russia, America, the United Nations and the European Union – have ended any expectations they had of successfully negotiating a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, after failing to categorically reject UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s highly offensive remarks before the Security Council and in the New York Times.

Ban told the Security Council on January 26:

“Palestinian frustration is growing under the weight of a half century of occupation and the paralysis of the peace process.

Some have taken me to task for pointing out this indisputable truth.

Yet, as oppressed peoples have demonstrated throughout the ages, it is human nature to react to occupation, which often serves as a potent incubator of hate and extremism.”

Reacting to "occupation” can never justify the murder of Israeli civilians in their own homes, shopping in supermarkets, meeting in bars, or waiting at bus stops.

Such acts of murder are despicable and inhumane – and the Security Council and the Quartet should have said so clearly and unequivocally.

Following Israel’s trenchant criticism of these statements a clearly piqued Ban ran off to the New York Times on 31 January claiming he had been misrepresented:

“Some sought to shoot the messenger — twisting my words into a misguided justification for violence. The stabbings, vehicle rammings and other attacks by Palestinians targeting Israeli civilians are reprehensible. So, too, are the incitement of violence and the glorification of killers.”

Ban had dug himself an even deeper hole.

Failing again to call such stabbings, vehicle rammings and other targeted attacks on Israeli civilians as “murder” was reprehensible.

The Security Council and the Quartet should have made it absolutely clear that until such murderous acts ceased - the Quartet’s further participation in assisting and facilitating the implementation of the two-state solution envisaged by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap would be indefinitely suspended. That role had been specifically assigned to the Quartet in 2003 when the Bush Roadmap was released:

“A two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will only be achieved through an end to violence and terrorism when the Palestinian people have a leadership acting decisively against terror and willing and able to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty, and through Israel’s readiness to do what is necessary for a democratic Palestinian state to be established…

The Quartet will assist and facilitate implementation of the plan … including direct discussions between the parties as required.”

In July 2015 the Quartet’s role was deliberately changed when:

1. The Quartet’s representative Tony Blair stood down with no replacement whilst his office – the Office of the Quartet Representative (OQR) - was renamed the Office of the Quartet (OQ).

 2. The OQ’s stated mandate was:

 “to support the Palestinian people on economic development, rule of law and improved movement and access for goods and people, as they build the institutions and economy of a viable and peaceful state in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.”

An independent non-partisan Quartet had overnight been transformed into a biased and hostile Quartet, ignoring Israel’s territorial claims and security needs whilst solely supporting the “Palestinian people”.

No longer were the “democratic Palestinian state” or “practising democracy” mentioned in the Roadmap considered non-negotiable end objectives.

Changing the name had certainly changed the game – with the murder of Israeli civilians and the glorification of their killers beginning soon thereafter.

Whilst the Security Council and Quartet take no decisive action to effectively end these ongoing murders, the two-state solution – and the Quartet’s role - will be doomed to political oblivion.

When Jon Meets Sophie

Both the ABC's Jerusalem correspondent Sophie McNeill and the BBC's Australia (ex-Gaza) correspondent Jon Donnison are notorious for their anti-Israel bias.

They get away with their breaches of their employers' respective charters time and time and time again.

Lefty McNeill is an avowed activist and Lefty Donnison (with his numerous snide tweets about Aussie asylum policy as well as about Israel) behaves like one.

Here's the latest example of Jon and Sophie together.

One, if you'll pardon the expression, on top of the other.

Israel.  "Financial deals".  "Who would have thought it"

There wouldn't be a hint of leftist "rich man antisemitism" there, would there Jon?

Irate Over Iran

Foreign Office Arabist Sir Richard Dalton ( a former British ambassador to Libya and to Iran), seen in the above footage telling the BBC's Jane Hill that "Israel exaggerates the threat of Iran" and that last year's nuclear "deal" will be honoured"conscientiously" by Iran not merely for 15 years but indefinitely, is set to chair an event at the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) addressed by the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr Mohammed Javar Zarif.

Protests Jonathan Arkush, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews:

“To give Zarif a platform to speak at a prestigious London venue like Chatham House is nothing less than an insult to British values. This is a man who has publicly supported Hezbollah, an Iranian-funded organisation which is widely believed to have perpetrated acts of terror around the world including the 1994 bombing of a Jewish cultural centre in Argentina which killed 85 people and the bombing of a tourist bus in Bulgaria in 2012 which killed six.

 Hezbollah has also been found to have used funds from drug trafficking operations to buy arms.

Zarif represents a regime which has been complicit in massive violations of human rights beyond its borders, including in Yemen, where it supports the Houthis, whose flag proclaims ‘Death to the Jews’.

 His is a government which sponsored a Holocaust cartoon competition, condemned around the world and notably by UNESCO. Zarif is the representative of a vile regime and a pariah terrorist state. His presence at Chatham House is an affront to anyone with a belief in peace and justice.”

Meanwhile, here in Australia, prominent pro-Israel federal Labor MP Michael Danby has denounced Aussie  foreign minister Julie Bishop’s decision to lift sanctions against Iran:

“Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, a source of instability in the Middle East and violates UN Security Council resolutions, such as Resolution 1929, which prohibits Iran from testing nuclear warhead-capable ballistic missiles. Dropping sanctions against Iran will serve to increase instability in the Middle East.

While the US Congress has debated the Iran deal and sanctions, Julie Bishop arrogantly refuses to allow a parliamentary debate as Australian Labor continues to ask for one on this major shift in Australian foreign policy. It’s extraordinary that under the Turnbull-Bishop government, Australia learns of major policy shifts by press release. The opposition has been continuing to call for a Parliamentary debate on this deal with Iran and the lifting of sanctions.

I have asked Ms Bishop to explain to Parliament what benefits to Australia there will be in providing intelligence to Iranian-sponsored militias in Iraq, which are now increasingly fighting in Syria.

 I have asked Ms Bishop to explain why she is in favour of allowing Iranian consulates in Melbourne and Sydney, when Iran has repeatedly used the diplomatic cover provided by consulates and embassies to enable Hezbollah terrorist activity in South America, Europe, Asia and Africa.

 I have also asked whether Ms Bishop has already decided to remove Australia’s autonomous sanctions against Iran, since she has been narrowcasting on ABC Rural radio the benefits of trade with Iran. She has not bothered to reassure Australians that she has a peaceful Middle East or Australia’s best interests at heart. Since the Vienna nuclear deal was concluded in July, Iran has fired ballistic missile tests in September and November. Unlike the United States, Australia has failed to even protest these violations of United Nations resolutions.

Iran has a history of aggressively breaking the rules or pushing the envelope. Whatever slim hope there is that the nuclear deals working will work is dependent on us ensuring Iran does not get away with breaking the rules. We are failing miserably, and so will the nuclear deal. The ramifications of that is a nuclear Iran and more nuclear proliferation across the Middle East.”

See more regarding Danby's concerns here