More here
 |
| The Spectator image; see here |
1. He states that Levi Eshkol’s chief legal advisor Theodor Meron advised the Prime Minister in 1967 that the Geneva Convention says no nation may settle its own population on land it wins in war.What Mr Carr omits to tell readers is that Mr Meron changed his opinion on the applicability of the Geneva Convention in 1968 when he co-signed the following advice to Israel’s then Ambassador to the United States – Yitzchak Rabin:
“to tell the Americans that there are unique aspects to the status of the territories and to our status in the territories. Before the Six-Day War, the Gaza Strip wasn’t Egyptian territory, and the West Bank, too, was territory that had been occupied and annexed by Jordan without international recognition. Given this ambiguous, indeterminate territorial situation, the question of the convention’s applicability is complex and unclear prior to a peace agreement that includes setting secure and recognized borders.”
2. Carr claims Meron is alive today, an eminent international jurist. He says he was right then and is right now.No evidence is supplied by Carr to substantiate that claim – which is obviously rebutted by Meron’s revised 1968 opinion to Rabin. Why did Carr fail to mention Meron’s 1968 epiphany?
3. Carr claims all settlements in the West Bank are illegal.Wrong – all those settlements are legal under article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter – territory-specific legislation dating back to 1922 that is still valid today.
4. Carr claims that Israel has been spreading settlements as fast as possible to render it impossible to achieve a two-state solution.Wrong – the settlements cover only 5 per cent of the West Bank territory. Israel made offers to cede its claims to 90 per cent of the West Bank in 2000/1 and 95 per cent in 2008.
5. Carr claims Israeli Governments have gifted settlers the best land.Wrong – the land given to settlers for which they pay has been land that has mainly remained unsettled and undeveloped for the last 3000 years. It comprises State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes as prescribed under Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine.
6. Carr claims that if the Palestinian Arabs throw up a granny flat without approval in Area C it is promptly demolished by army bulldozers.Wrong – the granny flats are being thrown up by the European Union without approval to create facts on the ground.
7. Carr asks – If Israel is really open to giving the land back in a peace deal why allow settlements in the first place?Because the Arabs refused to negotiate with Israel between 1967 and 1993 and Israel was legally entitled to settle there.
8. Carr relies on Obama’s envoy and former Ambassador Martin Indyk to confirm settlements destroyed the deal.Yet between 1948 and 1967 there were no settlements – after all the Jews living in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza had been driven out by the invading Transjordanian and Egyptian armies.
9. Carr claims the Palestinians are offering a demilitarised state – a Palestine without an army –and Western peacekeepers within their borders.It is hard to imagine more explicit security guarantees.Mr Carr provides no source for this very important information – which is new to me.
10. Carr claims the 83 per cent Arab population of the West Bank is being ruled by a racial and religious minority of 17 per cent.Wrong – 95 per cent of the Arab population live in Areas A and B and their daily lives are completely ruled by the PLO. Only 5 per cent of the Arabs live in Area C under Israeli rule.
1. The Security Council still envisions:
“a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders”
The Palestinian Arabs have had no elections for the last 10 years and no say in their own future – whilst Hamas and the PLO continue their internecine struggle for power against each other.
2. The Security Council continues to misleadingly claim that:
“the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law”
There is no binding legal judgement supporting this claim. It is an opinion – not a statement of fact.
To the contrary the right of Jews to “close settlement” on land in East Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes is specifically “encouraged” by article 6 of the Mandate and preserved by article 80 of the United Nations Charter.
The Security Council’s continuing flagrant violation of the Mandate and the UN Charter finally doomed the two-state solution to extinction.
3. The Security Council is concerned that “the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines” is being imperilled.
Favouring this end-game only encourages the PLO to be intransigent in negotiations.
This exact outcome could have been achieved between 1948 and 1967 following the forced eviction of all the Jews living in Jordanian-occupied Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem and Egyptian-administered Gaza.
An even better result was on offer had the Arabs accepted General Assembly Resolution 191 (II) on 29 November 1947.Such lost opportunities do not re-occur.
'You cannot have a society without a shared moral code....
We have begun a journey down to the road to moral relativism and individualism, which no society in history has survived for long. It was the road taken in Greece in the third pre-Christian century and Rome in the first century CE: two great civilizations that shortly thereafter declined and died. Britain has begun along the same trajectory, and it is bad news for our children, and for our grandchildren worse still.
Some elements of morality are universal: justice-as-fairness and the avoidance of inflicting harm. But others are particular. They are what give a country and culture its colour, its distinctive handwriting in the book of life. The Britain I grew up in had extraordinary values and virtues. It honoured tradition but was open to innovation. It valued family and community but also left space for eccentricity and individuality....
I was a Jew and Britain was a Christian country, but it wore its religion lightly and its embrace was inclusive and warm. Generations of Jews who came here fleeing persecution elsewhere saw these virtues as wondrous, as something deeper and stronger than mere abstract tolerance, and wanted us, their children, to acquire them. For them and for us Britain was not just where we were but a vital part of who we were....'Here's something the Israel-haters and Chrislam propagandists would rather ignore.
"To understand the severity of the situation, let us recall that in the 1950s about 86 per cent of the population of the Bethlehem area was Christian. Today, we are only 12 per cent. In Israel, by contrast, we have 133,000 Christians and the figure is stable. Of course, I am worried about the future of Christians here.... I fear the day will come when our churches will become museums. Is my nightmare."The speaker is Palestinian Christian Samir Qumsieh, quoted in a must-read article on the plight of Palestinian Christians by Khaled Abu Toameh here.
"To all of our Christian friends around the world, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!I send you these greetings from Jerusalem. I'm standing in the courtyard of this magnificent International Christian Embassy. I'm so proud of our relations with our Christian brothers and sisters. I wonder for many of you if you remember the experience you had when you first visited Israel, when you saw the Church of the Holy Sepulchre or the Via Dolorosa or the Sea of Galilee or Nazareth. I'm sure it moved you deeply.
And it moves us deeply to have this bond with you because we all know that this land of Israel is the land of our common heritage. It changed the story of humanity, it changed civilization. What a magnificent heritage it is. Yet, we also know that it is under attack these days, that the forces of intolerance, of barbarism that attack all religions attack Christians with particular vehemence. We stand with you and I'm proud of the fact that in Israel, this is the one place in the Middle East that the Christian community not only survives but thrives and it's no accident. It’s because of our commitment to religious freedom; it's because of our embrace of our heritage; it's because of our embrace of our common future.So please come to Israel. Come and visit me, I'm waiting for you. It will be a great experience for you.
Merry Christmas, Happy New Year!"
"Israelis deeply appreciate one of the great pillars of the US-Israel alliance: the willingness over many years of the US to stand up in the UN and veto anti-Israel resolutions.
I hope the US won't abandon this policy; I hope it will abide by the principles set by President Obama himself in his speech in the UN in 2011: That peace will come not through UN resolutions, but only through direct negotiations between the parties.
And that's why this proposed resolution is bad. It's bad for Israel; it's bad for the United States; and it's bad for peace."
'… we are entering the centenary year of the Balfour Declaration.
On the 2nd of November 1917, the then Foreign Secretary – a Conservative Foreign Secretary – Arthur James Balfour wrote:
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
It is one of the most important letters in history.
It demonstrates Britain’s vital role in creating a homeland for the Jewish people.
And it is an anniversary we will be marking with pride.'
“recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;”The Mandate further affirmed that Britain would be responsible for:
“placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”The use of the terms
* “existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” in the Balfour Declaration and
* “all the inhabitants of Palestine” in the Mandate document– rather than the term “Palestinians” – clearly refutes the existence of any identifiable “Palestinian – people” in Palestine in 1917 or 1922.
“Of course, people are correct when they say that securing the rights of Palestinians and Palestinian statehood have not yet been achieved.”The Prime Minister has ignored the following pertinent facts:
1. The term “Palestinians” was not defined until 1964 when article 6 of the PLO Charter stipulated:
“The Palestinians are those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947, whether they remained or were expelled. Every child who was born to a Palestinian parent after this date whether in Palestine or outside is a Palestinian.”
2. The “Palestinian people” was declared to be an integral part of the Arab Nation under Article 1 of the revised 1968 PLO Charter – not a separate and distinct people.
3. The rights of the Arab citizens of Palestine were secured in 1922 by articles 2 and 25 of the Mandate.
4. On 13 September 1922 a Note communicated to the League of Nations by the Secretary General contained a Memorandum by the British Representative limiting the site designated for the Jewish National Home to just 22 per cent of the mandate territory.
The other 78 per cent was designated for the Arab citizens of Palestine – where Statehood was finally declared on 25 May 1946 when the area was renamed the “Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan”. Another name change to “Jordan” in 1950 followed Transjordan’s illegal occupation of Judea and Samaria in 1948.A second Arab State in former Palestine – in addition to Jordan – remains a fatuous and unrealistically attainable goal.
 |
| A prominent Aussie Israel-basher's credo |
'On the migration issue the European leadership got it disastrously wrong. On the question of radical Islam the European leadership has fundamentally got it wrong. One has to recognise that the European elite's performance over the last decade entirely justified the revolt of provincial England that was what we saw in Brexit.
If those of us who were part of the elite spent more time in pubs in provincial England and provincial Wales we would have heard what I just said.
This is not about GDP, it is principally about the complete loss of control of the EU's external border and what that implies for our country's future.
I have had a kind of awakening. Brexit woke me up and reminded me I needed to pay much more attention to what the non-elite majority of voters were thinking.'Under its wet wet wet liberal CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, the ADL seems bent on turning that organisation into a one-stop shop for the promotion of every leftist bandwagon that rolls by, and demonising as bigots anyone outspokenly critical of Islam.
'First, I hope this essay persuades the ADL, which is heavily invested in antibullying (e.g., “No Place For Hate” campaign), to consider that it itself has become a bully to conservatives who remain in its ranks. Shutting out right-leaning individuals through crowd intimidation and derision weakens coalitions, which are vital in advocacy work. This behavior also diminishes the organization’s values, which will turn stale and trite when left unchallenged.
Secondly, I want the ADL to revisit and clarify its mission. “The nation’s premier civil rights/human relations agency,” asserts that it “fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry”; not just “all forms of bigotry,” but “anti-Semitism” and then “all forms of bigotry.” Yet as murderous anti-Semitism around the globe has surged in recent years, the ADL has dedicated itself more and more to matters of social justice in America (e.g., immigration, women’s reproductive health, economic “privilege”) that are already being pursued by a plethora of lobbying outlets and activist foundations. This wouldn’t be problematic—or rather, duplicitous—per se. But the ADL loudly and incessantly bemoans the fact that Jews are living in an increasingly dangerous world. “Thirty or forty years ago,” I heard over and over again at the National Leadership Summit, “I couldn’t have imagined that Jews would be getting shot dead in the streets of Europe.”
Well, resources are limited. Is combatting anti-Semitism a “priority” for the ADL? If so, then the organization should put its money where its mouth is. Alas, this outcome seems ever more unlikely as it seeks to enforce group conformity and advance political agendas that have nothing to do with defending the Jewish people.'And as Jonathan S. Tobin wrote a few days ago:
'In the month since the presidential election, many in the American Jews have been in mourning over Donald Trump’s victory. For all too many Jews and the organizations that purport to represent Jewish interests, partisan disappointment has led to a great deal of loose and highly irresponsible comparisons of our present situation to Weimar Germany and the rise of Hitler. It is in that context that a new report from the Community Security Service (CSS) about terrorist incidents and attacks on Jews and Israelis in the United States since 1967 is critical reading for those who wish to re-focus the Jewish community on real rather than imagined threats to its security.
The report, which was written by Yehudit Barsky, one of the top experts on radical hate groups in the country, provides a comprehensive analysis of the recent history of anti-Semitism in the United States. She paints a frightening picture of the rising toll of violence against Jews from two distinct sources: white supremacists and radical Islamists....
This serves as a reminder that for all of the talk about Islamophobia, both before and after the election, Jews and Jewish institutions remain the main targets of religious-based hate crimes in this country. This is a fact borne out by the FBI’s annual reports on hate crimes. The latest available report is from 2014 and that one, like every other issued since the outset of such compilations confirms this fact. In that year, 58.1 percent of all religious hate crimes in this country were directed at Jews. Only 16.3 percent were anti-Islamic....
Monitoring hotbeds of hate is key to stopping attacks, but, in the effort to avoid accusations of Islamophobia, efforts by law enforcement to keep tabs on radical mosques and other Islamist centers have been abandoned and wrongly branded as acts of prejudice. Without good intelligence, it’s only a matter of time before another major attack might be successful....'And as Melanie Phillips has so well expressed matters ('Mrs May's False Note'):
'Islamophobia does NOT come from the same wellspring of hatred as antisemitism.
Antisemitism is a true prejudice because the hatred and demonisation it promotes derive entirely from lies and a repudiation of rationality itself.
Islamophobia is a false allegation of prejudice which is deployed to silence rational criticism based on actual facts about attitudes and practices within the Islamic world.
The result of Mrs May’s lethally compromised even-handedness is to misunderstand, and thus minimise, antisemitic attitudes and behaviour while shutting down legitimate and necessary discussion of the threat from the Islamic world – even to demonise as “Islamophobic” anyone who draws attention to the extent and consequences of Muslim antisemitism.
The result was the ludicrous exclusion from Britain of the anti-jihadists Geller and Spencer in 2013. Whatever one may think of their style or choice of allies, to suggest that people who fight against antisemitism and the jihadi threat to the world pose a threat similar to that presented by the terrorist godfathers Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada is just grotesque.
... Yet last July the government allowed into the country two extremist preachers from Pakistan, Muhammad Naqib ur Rehman and Hassan Haseeb ur Rehman, for a seven-week preaching tour of mosques. Both are supporters of Mumtaz Qadri who in 2011 murdered Salman Taseer, a Pakistani politician who spoke out against that country’s blasphemy laws....
To equate antisemitism with Islamophobia not only reveals a moral and intellectual muddle and a failure to understand what bigotry actually is. It also inescapably suggests a most alarming inability to grasp the full nature and extent of the Islamist threat to Britain and the free world.'Meanwhile, Hizb ut-Tahrir, the extremist group banned in much of the Middle East but tolerated in Britain and Australia, has been making its view known, yet again, on the streets of London.
"France has launched a two-phase initiative. A ministerial meeting, first, took place in Paris on June 3rd 2016, without the Israelis and Palestinians, in order to reaffirm the international community’s commitment to the two-State solution. At that meeting, the main international actors expressed their willingness to create a framework and incentives so that credible negotiations can resume. An international conference, to which all parties will be invited, will be organized in the second half of 2016 for this purpose."Surely it would have been much easier – and certainly much cheaper and more effective – for France to pick up the phone and invite both Israel and the PLO to Paris to sit down and resume their negotiations (stalled since 2014) without pre-conditions and outside foreign interference.
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke, by telephone, with French President François Hollande a short while ago today and told him that if there is no international conference in Paris, he would come to meet with Abu Mazen for direct talks without preconditions.
Israel will not attend an international conference, which will not contribute to achieving peace.”France has the undoubted diplomatic and economic clout to influence Abbas – as the French Foreign Office acknowledges:
“France is an active contributor to Palestine’s economic development and the consolidation of the institutions of the future Palestinian State. It devotes considerable sums (close to €400 million for the period 2008-2014, and €40 million in 2015) to aid for Palestine, about a third of which is destined for Gaza. Palestine remains the leading beneficiary of French budgetary assistance.”Why France’s President Hollande allows Abbas to humiliate France by refusing to take up Netanyahu’s offer is a mystery. France’s foreign policy itself is a pure flight of fancy – declaring:
“France considers that the conflict will only be resolved through the creation of a viable and democratic independent Palestinian State, living in peace and security alongside Israel.”The idea that any Palestinian State will ever be democratic is as fanciful as France’s belief that its planned international conference could ever succeed.
The untold story of the 1988 Massacre. Extermination of generation.
Earlier this month an audio tape was published for the first time of a meeting between Hossein-Ali Montazeri, former heir to Khomeini, and officials of the mullahs' regime responsible for the massacre of 30,000 political prisoners in 1988.
The vast majority of the victims were affiliated to the main Iranian opposition group People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI or MEK) who were executed simply because they refused to renounce their opposition to the mullahs’ rule.
Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the President-elect of the Iranian Resistance, described the audio recording as a historical document.
She said the recording attested in the strongest possible manner both to the Mojahedin (PMOI/MEK) political prisoners’ rejection of surrender and to their admirable allegiance to, and perseverance in, their commitment to the Iranian people. The recording is also irrefutable evidence that leaders of the mullahs’ regime are responsible for crimes against humanity and the unprecedented genocide, Mrs. Rajavi said.
'These Conservative Friends of Israel lunches are always special.
But this year feels extra special. Not only is this CFI’s biggest ever lunch, with over 800 people and over 200 Parliamentarians.
It is the first time that I have come here as Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party.
And it is a special time, for we are entering the centenary year of the Balfour Declaration.On the 2nd of November 1917, the then Foreign Secretary – a Conservative Foreign Secretary – Arthur James Balfour wrote:
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
It is one of the most important letters in history. It demonstrates Britain’s vital role in creating a homeland for the Jewish people. And it is an anniversary we will be marking with pride. Born of that letter, and the efforts of so many people, is a remarkable country. No one is saying the path has been perfect – or that many problems do not remain.
Of course, people are correct when they say that securing the rights of Palestinians and Palestinian statehood have not yet been achieved. But we know they can be achieved. We in Britain stand very firmly for a two-state solution. And we know that the way to achieve that is for the two sides to sit down together, without preconditions, and work towards that lasting solution for all theirpeople.
None of this detracts from the fact that we have, in Israel, a thriving democracy, a beacon of tolerance, an engine of enterprise and an example to the rest of the world for overcoming adversity and defying disadvantages.
As most of us here know – and as I realised during my visit in 2014 – seeing is believing.
For it is only when you walk through Jerusalem or Tel Aviv that you see a country where people of all religions and sexualities are free and equal in the eyes of the law.
It is only when you travel across the country that you realise it is only the size of Wales – and appreciate even more the impact it has on the world.
It is only when you meet our partners in eradicating modern slavery – one of the main reasons I visited in 2014 – that you see a country committed to tackling some of the world’s most heinous practices.
And it is only when you witness Israel’s vulnerability that you see the constant danger Israelis face, as I did during my visit, when the bodies of the murdered teenagers, Naftali Frenkel, Gilad Shaer and Eyal Yifrah, were discovered.
So seeing isn’t just believing; it is understanding, acknowledging and appreciating.
That is why I’m so pleased that CFI has already taken 34 of the 74 Conservative MPs elected in 2015 to Israel.
We saw in that video what a powerful experience it can be. We are so grateful to the people in this room for making it happen – but, of course, there is more to do.
We meet at a moment of great change for our country. In the wake of the referendum, Britain is forging a new role for itself on the world stage – open, outward-looking, optimistic.
Israel will be crucial to us as we do that. Because I believe our two countries have a great deal in common.
As the Ambassador Mark Regev said, we have common values; we work together, on health, counter-terrorism, cyber security, technology; and we can help each other achieve our aims.
First, we both want to take maximum advantage of trade and investment opportunities, because we know enterprise is the key to our countries’ prosperity.
Our economic relationship is already strong. The UK is Israel’s second-largest trading partner. We are its number-one destination for investment in Europe, with more than 300 Israeli companies operating here. And last year saw our countries’ biggest-ever business deal, worth over £1 billion, when Israeli airline El Al decided to use Rolls Royce engines in its new aircraft.
We should celebrate that, we should build on that – and we should condemn any attempt to undermine that through boycotts. I couldn’t be clearer: the boycotts, divestment and sanctions movement is wrong, it is unacceptable, and this party and this government will have no truck with those who subscribe to it.
Our focus is the opposite – on taking our trading and investing relationship with Israel to the next level. That is why one of the first places Mark Garnier visited as a minister in the Department for International Trade was Israel.
It’s why other ministers plan to visit in the New Year. We have the captains of British business and industry here in the audience, from a range of sectors, who will be vital to that effort. I can assure them, and everyone here, that the UK is striving to be the world’s foremost advocate of free trade, working with a range of partners such as India, Norway and New Zealand to achieve that. I am looking forward to adding Israel to the list – once again, working together to achieve our aims.
Second, we both take our global obligations seriously.
As I have said, Israel does a huge amount for the rest of the world. I think of the injured Syrians appearing at night at the Israeli border and being taken in and given treatment in hospital. I think of the Israeli field hospital, which has saved lives from Nepal to Haiti, recently being rated the best in history by the World Health Organisation. And I think of the project “Save a Child’s Heart”, which, as you saw in that video, conducts heart operations for children who would never be able to afford the treatment.
This is Israel at its best.
And there was one man who did so much to inspire this spirit of service, a man whose death we mourn this year: Shimon Peres.
Britain is proud to meet its moral obligations too, fulfilling our commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of our national income on aid.
Lives are being saved right now because of it. But part of that duty is making sure the funds go to the right places. Let me be clear: no British taxpayers’ money will be used to make payments to terrorists or their families.
It is right that Priti Patel has called for an examination of aid spending in the Occupied Palestinian Territories to ensure that every penny is spent in the right places and in the right way. And she is looking at options for the UK to support co-existence projects in the region – something I know so many people in this room have called for. We are determined to get the right help to those who need it most – and I pay tribute to Priti for leading that work.
When talking about global obligations, we must be honest with our friends, like Israel, because that is what true friendship is about. That is why we have been clear about building new, illegal settlements: it is wrong; it is not conducive to peace; and it must stop.
Third, both our countries are working to build fair, tolerant and meritocratic societies.
Indeed, that is the driving mission of the government I lead: to build a country that works for everyone, not just a privileged few. As I have said, Israel guarantees the rights of people of all religions, races and sexualities, and it wants to enable everyone to flourish.
Our aim in Britain is the same: to create a better, fairer society, helping everyone to reach as far as their talents will allow.
That is why we should be so proud of the contribution Britain’s Jewish communities make to our country. From business to the arts, public services to education, that contribution is exemplary.
In order to help people of all backgrounds reach their potential, we need to remove the barriers that stand in their way – and that includes bigotry, discrimination and hatred.
Let me be clear: it is unacceptable that there is antisemitism in this country. It is even worse that incidents are reportedly on the rise. And it is disgusting that these twisted views are being found in British politics.
Of course, I am talking mainly about the Labour Party and their hard-left allies
In fact, I understand this lunch has a lot to live up to after the extraordinary scenes at the Labour Friends of Israel event.
It began, unusually, with Tom Watson giving a full-throated rendition of Am Yisrael Chai.
The audience joined in as his baritone voice carried across the hall. “Am Yisrael Chai – the people of Israel live.” It is a sentiment that everybody in this room wholeheartedly agrees with.
But let me say this: no amount of karaoke can make up for turning a blind eye to antisemitism. No matter what Labour say – or sing – they cannot ignore what has been happening in their party.
Antisemitism should have no place in politics and no place in this country. And I am proud to lead a party that takes the firmest stand against it. As a government we are making a real difference.
Indeed, when I was Home Secretary we took what I believe was an important step in gauging a truer picture of the problem, requiring all police forces to record religious hate crimes separately, by faith.
And I made sure we kept extremism – including the sort that peddles antisemitic vitriol – out of our country.
That is why I said no to so-called comedians like Dieudonné coming to Britain.
It’s why [when Home Secretary] I stopped Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Pastor Terry Jones coming too – since Islamophobia comes from the same wellspring of hatred. [Geller and Spencer react here and here]
[And see Marvellous Melanie here]
It is why I kicked out Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada as well.
And it is why I brought together internet companies and government to tear down the poisonous propaganda that infects minds online.
Today I want to announce how we are going even further.
In response to the work of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, Britain will be adopting a formal definition of antisemitism.
Just last week, we were at the forefront to try to ensure that the definition was adopted across the continent too, at the summit of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
The result was 56 countries in favour. One country opposed it: Russia. But, as I said, we will adopt it here in the UK.
That means there will be one definition of antisemitism – in essence, language or behaviour that displays hatred towards Jews because they are Jews – and anyone guilty of that will be called out on it.
The Times, 3 November
And we have to thank someone who has worked tooth and nail to get that agreed. He’s our Parliamentary chairman; he’s my Post-Holocaust Issues Envoy; and he’s a stalwart of our party: Sir Eric Pickles. And let us pay tribute to Sajid Javid too, for all his work in this ground-breaking step towards eradicating antisemitism.
Of course, as the people of Israel know, there is no better way of stopping the wrongs of the past being repeated than remembering where hatred can lead. I have visited Yad Vashem. I remember standing in the Hall of Names – gazing up at all those victims’ pictures – and then looking down into the abyss and thinking of the millions more who were murdered.
It is an experience which is unforgettable – the closest thing we have to conveying what happened and why we must never repeat it.
That is why I am continuing David Cameron’s vision to build a National Memorial to the Holocaust next to Parliament, together with an accompanying educational centre, which will include the first-hand testimony of Britain’s Holocaust survivors.
The design competition for the memorial and centre has had almost 100 entries from teams stretching across 26 different countries.
I look forward to unveiling the short-listed designs next month when we mark Holocaust Memorial Day. For we must honour our promise to Britain’s Holocaust survivors; we must never forget the Holocaust; and we must teach every generation to fight hatred and prejudice in all its forms.
When we talk about our countries achieving our aims together, that isn’t just for the good of Israel and Britain; it’s for the good of the world. When our scientists come together, they are working to cure diseases that affect millions of people. When we work together on our mutual security at the highest level, it makes the world safer.
When we increase trade and investment with one another, it brings more opportunities and prosperity to the wider world. It is that collaboration that this organisation, CFI, so wonderfully celebrates and builds upon.
I want to end by wishing you well for something else Britain and Israel will be shortly collaborating on. For Christmas and Chanukah fall at the same time this year. So as we light up our trees and menorahs; sing Silent Night and Ma’oz Tsur; cook the turkey and the latkes, let us look to 2017 with gratitude and optimism. So Happy Christmas, Happy Chanukah – and a Happy New Year to you all.'
Egyptian researcher Ragheb El-Sergany said that Europe became acquainted with science and with moral values only through the Muslims. According to El-Sergany, a professor in the Faculty of Medicine of Cairo University, it was the Muslims who brought the notion of cleanliness to Europe, where people used to wash themselves only twice a year, he said, adding that the bidet is evidence of this. The interview with El-Segany was broadcast on Hamas's Al-Aqsa TV on November 24.
"Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) is a global, peaceful movement led by Palestinian civil society that seeks to put pressure on Israel to honour its obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law as demanded by numerous UN resolutions, in particular to end the occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territories, stop systemic discrimination against Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel itself, and permit the return of Palestinian refugees.
Modeled on the Anti-Apartheid Movement that mobilized civil society against apartheid in South Africa, the BDS movement has become a powerful and effective global movement in the advocacy of measures aimed at pressurizing Israel to comply with international law, and at persuading other states and business enterprises to withhold all support for Israel’s violations of international law.
The mobilization of civil society in the interest of human rights, such as the campaign against apartheid in South Africa and the Civil Rights movement in the United States, has not been obstructed by foreign governments. The effectiveness of BDS, however, has prompted not only Israel but also some other states to adopt measures to suppress this movement.
France, the United Kingdom, Canada and certain state legislatures in the United States, have adopted laws and taken executive action to suppress, outlaw and in some instances, criminalize the advocacy of BDS. Such measures aim to punish individuals, companies and private and public institutions that adopt ethically and legally responsible business, investment and procurement decisions.
Other States, notably Sweden, the Netherlands and Ireland, have taken the position that, while they do not endorse a boycott of Israel, the advocacy of BDS is a lawful exercise of freedom of expression, a deeply cherished freedom enshrined in national law and international human rights conventions. Reputable human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and Human Rights Watch, have likewise taken the position that individuals, associations, public and private institutions, local governments and businesses are entitled to advocate and implement BDS in the exercise of the fundamental right of freedom of expression.
States and organizations that view BDS as a lawful exercise of freedom of expression are correct. Whether one approves of the aims or methods of BDS is not the issue. The issue is whether in order to protect Israel an exception is to be made to the freedom of expression that occupies a central and pivotal place among fundamental human rights. States that outlaw BDS are undermining this basic human right and threatening the credibility of human rights by exempting a particular state from the advocacy of peaceful measures designed to achieve its compliance with international law."More here (note the photo, in which a couple of familiar faces appear.)
 |
| http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38281950 |
'On December 9, for the first time in Dutch history, a court criminalized freedom of expression: The truly heroic Dutch Member of Parliament, Geert Wilders, was found guilty of the "crime" of "hate speech."
The death sentence against Salman Rushdie in 1989 by Iran's supreme leader looked unreal. The West did not take it seriously. Since then, however, this fatwa has been assimilated to such an extent that today's threats to free speech come from ourselves. It is now the West that put on trial writers and journalists.
The Red Brigades, the Communist terror group which devastated Italy in the 1970s, coined a slogan: "Strike one to educate one hundred." If you target one, you get collective intimidation. This is exactly the effect of these political trials about Islam.
"Hate speech" has become a political weapon to dispatch whoever may not agree with you. It is not the right of a democracy to quibble about the content of articles or cartoons. In the West, we paid a high price for the freedom to write them and and read them. It is not up to those who govern to grant the right of thought and speech.
In Europe now, the same iron curtain as in the Soviet era is descending.' [Emphasis added]Douglas Murray here
"Yet ISIS hangs on. Is it because it concentrated its most seasoned personnel in Mosul proper? Is it because the remaining fighters have their backs to the wall and battle here with furious desperation? Or is it that the coalition – with the cold weather setting in, with the rain and low, cloudy skies interfering with airstrikes – is getting weary?
Whatever the explanation, I return home with a deep sense of unease. Between Al-Zohur and Al-Qadisiyyah, a handful of fanatics manages to hold off an Iraqi counterterrorism unit. A little to the west, in Mishraq, a single sniper holed up alone in a mosque stalls the coalition’s advance. One senses that the battle for Mosul, which began with a flourish, could bog down.
Is it possible that we might become resigned to the idea of a strange war in which 4,000 cornered fighters stop an ultra-powerful coalition? For the children of Mosul, held hostage and on the verge of famine, that possibility would be catastrophic. And, in the capitals of the West where populations already live in fear of the next terrorist attack, it would be an admission of weakness that could only embolden aspiring jihadists whose hearts beat to the rhythm of the supposedly great feats of their big brothers in the “caliphate” of Iraq and Syria.
The fire must be stamped out. And very soon. To bring this about, one looks to Barack Obama, who might prove willing to quicken the pace so as to end his second term with a victory for civilization over the pseudo-state that presently threatens every real state in the world."The chances of President Obama rising to the occasion seem very remote.
