"When the Discussion Opened to the Floor, a pro-Israeli Commentator Spoke ..."

As I noted last week, anti-Israel events are sprouting thick and fast in the countdown to 2 November and the centenary of the Balfour Declaration, with Israel-denouncing Christians doing their share of the participating.

One such event that caught my eye was that held on 7 October  at the British Library.  Sponsored by the anti-Israel Middle East Monitor, it was entitled "Palestine, Britain and the Balfour Declaration 100 Years on".

Professor Avi Shlaim, Emeritus Professor of International Relations at Oxford University, was the keynote speaker, and you can read about the rest of the panelists, and their highly biased offerings, here, where there is also a video and several photos of the event. Begins the account:

 "The grey weather did not deter the hundreds of attendees who arrived early on Saturday morning at the British Library in London to attend MEMO’s conference to commemorate 100 years since the Balfour Declaration. A heavily subscribed event, the conference took a detailed look at Britain’s role in the creation of Israel, past and present, showcasing an alternative narrative to the celebrations promised by British Prime Minister Theresa May.

Attendees were able to purchase books on the Palestinian issue, including those shortlisted for the Palestine Book Awards 2017 and indulge in refreshments before being ushered into the auditorium. They were welcomed by Dr Daud Abdullah, the Director of MEMO, who expressed the importance of recognising the Balfour Declaration for what is was."

Professor Penny Green of Queen Mary’s University of London, chaired the first session, journalist Peter Oborne (notorious for his obsession with Britain's so-called "Israel Lobby") the second, and Corbynista ex-Labour cabinet minister Clare Short [read me here] the third.

"Zionism was a settler colonial movement and the state of Israel its progeny, is a settler colonial state," 

declares that account, inter alia,in effect summarising the conference's thrust.

Note this paragraph:

"Journalist David Cronin [associate editor of the Electronic Intifada, folks], looked at strategies used to oppose the Israeli occupation, namely the use of boycotts. He pointed out that Balfour had an aversion to boycotts, namely because of the powerful symbolic nature that withholding payment presented. He advocated that the international community and Palestinians should harness the power of boycotts to bring about a change in Israel."

And these (emphasis added):

"Dr Jacob Cohen [praised by no less an antisemite than Gilad Atzmon here], who joined the Zionist movement at the age of 16 before leaving it four years later, also praised how the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement had expanded its international influence and hoped that the global community would continue such long-term campaigns. He was heckled during his speech when he accused of Israel of perpetuating conflict in order to receive foreign aid and weapons investment, an argument the majority of the audience applauded.

When the discussion opened to the floor, a pro-Israeli commentator spoke in defence of Israel, alleging that it had made peace with Arab countries, retreated from Gaza and was prepared to sacrifice it’s land for peace. Other questioners spoke positively of the support for the Palestine movement and encouraged all listeners to transform their attendance into activism.

As the attendees filed out of the auditorium, many expressed their gratitude to MEMO for hosting such a comprehensive event that had invited speakers from all over the world, to discuss the origins of an enduring conflict that has affected millions of people."

There he sits, if I'm not mistaken, in the centre of this photo of the audience, that same "pro-Israel commentator", I'll wager, namely the intrepid Jonathan Hoffman (good onya, sir!):

A shot of the event by a certain clerical anti-Israel activist:

 A shot of Mr Hoffman at the conference by Sizer here

(Plenty of antisemitic posts below the line on the account I've linked to show some of the supporters of the event for what they are.)

Incidentally, just when I thought that theological Christian antisemitism was sooooooo last millennium:

Our old friend makes a despicable analogy:

Meanwhile, more mischief here

Oh dear! I do hope that next guest didn't catch our old friend's, um, anti-Zionism!

"We Are Speaking Of A Network": A Malicious Game of Join The Dots

The following piece (entitled "The Cold War On The Truth") by that stalwart British champion of Israel Jonathan Hoffman (widely praised by those who despair of the lily-livered approach that characterises too much of the Anglo-Jewish "leadership" for his leonine courage or bulldog tenacity - take your pick!) is cross-posted, with his permission, from the Jewish Chronicle blogs.

Writes Jonathan Hoffman:

'The MEMO [Middle East Monitor] meeting in the House of Commons on Tuesday night ("The Cold War On British Muslims") has been well covered by Tom Wilson on Harry’s Place and by Richard Millett.

I was there too and found the meeting profoundly depressing and not only because Parliament played host to such an anti-intellectual event. The fact is that there are reasons for British Muslims to be under closer surveillance by the security services than Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians or Plymouth Brethren. Namely, the July 2005 bombings that were detonated by British Muslims; the "underpants bomber" Abdulmutallab who was President of UCL [University College London] Islamic Society; the failed nightclub bomb in Haymarket in June 2007; the failed plot to blow up airliners in August 2006; and many other similar incidents and arrests.

But instead of squarely facing up to the issues of extremism all we got was conspiracy theorising and scapegoating. First Dr Daud Abdullah, the director of MEMO, said darkly "we are speaking of a network".

And who is that network? Why, two think tanks: Policy Exchange and the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC). They according to Abdullah were responsible for increasing the pressure on Muslims, in particular for the government’s reassessment of the "Prevent" programme which was said to have increased surveillance of Muslims.

See here

(In fact the reassessment is supposed to address the situation whereby "Prevent" was giving a platform to extremists in the mistaken view that militant Islamists were an antidote to Al Qaeda (in reality they are a conveyer belt to Al Qaeda)).

And then came the bizarre "join the dots" Danse Macabre. Professor David Miller and two colleagues spoke about their study The Cold War On Brisih Muslims which was launched at the meeting. The Report looked at the funding of Policy Exchange and the CSC. Both draw on a wide range of funders. Policy Exchange is funded inter alia by the Peter Cruddas Foundation, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Lord Ashcroft and Richard Briance. The CSC is financed by the John Templeton Foundation, the Nigel Vinson Charitable Trust and the New Heritage Foundation.

But if you had been at the presentation you would not have realised that the range of funders for these two thinktanks was so broad. You would think that they were funded entirely by pro-Israel Jewish businessmen. Thus we got from Tom Mills only a cursory reference to the Peter Cruddas Foundation (the largest funder of Policy Exchange). The only funders Mills seemed to be interested in were those with an Israel connection. So we were treated to a forensic dissection of the Israel- and Jewish Community-related philanthropy of the Charles Wolfson Family Trust, the Rubin Foundation, the Stanley Kalms Foundation and the Traditional Alternatives Foundation.

Obvious takeaway message: Muslims are being victimised by certain think tanks – in particular by the policies they recommend. Those think tanks are funded by rich Jewish businessmen who also fund Israel-related causes. So the sources of the victimisation of Muslims are pro-Israel rich Jewish businessmen.

If the possible social consequences of indoctrinating young Muslims with this drivel was not so tragic, this malicious "join the dots" parlour game played out in the Palace of Westminster would be laughable.

But as it is, it is an utter disgrace - and to have a Professor at a UK University associate himself with it and preside over such a presentation is unspeakable.'