Eretz Israel is our unforgettable historic homeland...The Jews who will it shall achieve their State...And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind. (Theodor Herzl, DerJudenstaat, 1896)

We offer peace and amity to all the neighbouring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East.
(From Proclamation of the State of Israel, 5 Iyar 5708; 14 May 1948)

With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law, a flourishing market economy producing technological innovation to the benefit of the wider world, and a population as educated and cultured as anywhere in Europe or North America, Israel is a normal Western country with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations.... For the global jihad, Israel may be the first objective. But it will not be the last. (Friends of Israel Initiative)
Showing posts with label Royal Institute of British Architects. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Royal Institute of British Architects. Show all posts

Sunday, 7 December 2014

Anglo-Jewish Ostrich Leaders Attempt To Muzzle Israeli Islam Expert Mordechai Kedar

As reader Ian points out in a comment on my previous blog, there has been good news coming out of the UK this week: the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), has rescinded its controversial decision to join the accursed BDS movement, a movement of which, incidentally, a reviewer of the important new book The Case Against Academic Boycotts of Israel writes inter alia:
'.... [T]he BDS agenda is at heart not just pro-Palestinian but anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli, if not actively anti-Semitic. One of the convictions shared by several contributors is that many people sign on to the BDS movement without realizing that it is committed, not to a peaceful two-state solution, but to the end of Israel as a Jewish state. The official BDS movement website (bdsmovement.net) features the unimpeachable slogan “Freedom Justice Equality,” but when you get to its actual demands, they turn out to be as follows:
1. Ending [Israel’s] occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194
Most Americans (and most Israelis) would agree to the second item, and many to the first; but the third, read correctly, means putting an end to Israel as a Jewish state. This is a demand that virtually no Israeli Jews, even the most liberal, would accede to, as the BDS movement knows full well. To include this core demand, then, means that BDS is not about resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but prolonging it, and taking sides in it. It follows that any boycott adopted on these terms can never be withdrawn as long as the Jewish state continues to exist.' (Read more here)
To quote Dan Leon, one of the architects who comments below the line here:
"I am very pleased that the RIBA Council came to this conclusion today. 
The issues associated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are very important indeed and need to be discuss and debated with a view to forging a true and equitable peace for all parties, based on mutual understanding and mutual respect - but the RIBA is not the correct forum for such a debate. It was confirmed as such, being outside the RIBA's remit, and the RIBA have correctly regularised the matter.
For our Institute to seek the exclusion of another country's professional body would have been wholly wrong and counter productive to this end. It would have been negative, and silence any opportunity for engagement and exchange.
It is not necessary to drag up all the arguments again here, but legal opinion confirmed the March motion on Israel as 'discriminatory'. How could that remain on RIBA policy?"
 Elder of Ziyon has a most interesting piece on  the RIBA fracas here

More welcome news this week are tweets by UKIP leader Nigel Farage, still riding the crest of a wave which seems set to drench Tories in next year's May General Election, has been bold enough to declare on Twitter:


And as reported in the Jewish Chronicle, Nigel Farage
'has blamed Muslims for what he called “a sharp rise in antisemitism” in Britain and Europe.
 Speaking during his weekly phone-in show on London’s LBC Radio, Mr Farage told a caller from Highgate: “I have detected quite a sharp rise in antisemitism, not just in this country, but across the rest of Europe too.
“What’s fuelling it is that there are many more Muslim voices, and some of those Muslim voices are deeply, deeply critical of Israel. In fact, some of them even question the right of Israel to exist as a nation.” .... [Emphasis added]
Mr Farage also noted: “It’s quite interesting because there aren’t actually that many Jews in the country - there’s only a few hundred thousand.
“It just shows you what an extraordinary group of people they are, the success they’ve achieved....'
It seems that Farage has dipped his toe where certain elements within the British Board of Deputies fear to tread.

For it's also reported in the Jewish Chronicle, the distinguished and forthright Israeli Professor Mordechai Kedar, an expert on Arab culture and on Islam, who will be addressing the Zionist Federation's Israel Advocacy Conference as well as the meeting illustrated at left, is persona non grata in some quarters:
'The Zionist Federation this week cancelled appearances at three Jewish schools by an outspoken Israeli academic following concerns about his links to an anti-Islamist activist banned from Britain.
Dr Mordechai Kedar, an expert on Israeli Arabs who regularly appears to defend Israel on Arabic stations such as Al Jazeera, was due to begin a speaking tour on Wednesday night.
But ZF chairman Paul Charney said that he had removed the schools from the tour after the intervention of the Board of Deputies.
Dr Kedar, who lectures at Bar-Ilan University, has spoken at events organised by Stop the Islamisation of Nations, founded by the Jewish American Pamela Geller, who was banned from Britain last year in a move supported by the Board of Deputies."
Two of the synagogues at which Professor Kedar (including the Spanish and Portuguses Synaggue in Lauderdale Road) was due to speak have also, it seems, disinvited him.


The case against Professor Kedar addressing synagogues and schools was made in the Jewish Chronicle here by Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, who wrote in part:
'.... In 2012 Dr Kedar was announced as a director of "Stop Islamisation of Nations" (SION). Speakers at SION's conference that year included Tommy Robinson, then a leader of the English Defence League. In 2013, SION's founder Pamela Geller was banned from entering Britain. SION advocated the "immediate halt of immigration by Muslims" into Europe as well as legislation to ban foreign funding of mosques and of departments of Islamic Studies departments in our universities along with a range of further legal restrictions.
From a Manhattan platform of "Stop Islamisation of Nations" beside the EDL, Dr Kedar
mocked multiculturalism:"… [Muslim immigrants into Europe] are multiplying - - somebody said "rats" … and there is [sic] 18 wives and all that …"
This is typical of Dr Kedar's language. On Aljazeera, he taunted his Arab interviewer saying his ancestors had buried theirs daughters alive. This summer, he said during an Israeli Broadcasting Authority interview "the only thing that deters a suicide bomber. If he knows that when he pulls the trigger, or blows himself up, his sister will be raped. That’s it. "
Under attack, he later explained he had been analysing and not advocating. This is not evident from the transcript....'
 It isn't? As I wrote, soon after Kedar made that statement, here:
'[T]wisting the truth comes second-nature to those who hate Israel and seek its destruction.
Take, for instance, what the prominent Israeli scholar Professor Mordechai Kedar, of Bar-Ilan University's Department of Arabic, said early this month on Israeli radio's Hakol Diburim (“It’s All Talk”) following the news that the three kidnapped Israeli teenagers had been murdered :
 “The only thing that can deter terrorists, like those who kidnapped the children and killed them, is the knowledge that their sister or their mother will be raped.
You have to understand the culture in which we live.  The only thing that deters [Hamas leaders] is a threat to the connection between their heads and their shoulders.... Terrorists like those who kidnapped the children and killed them — the only thing that deters them is if they know that their sister or their mother will be raped in the event that they are caught. What can you do, that’s the culture in which we live...
 I’m not talking about what we should or shouldn’t do. I’m talking about the facts. The only thing that deters a suicide bomber is the knowledge that if he pulls the trigger or blows himself up, his sister will be raped. That’s all. That’s the only thing that will bring him back home, in order to preserve his sister’s honor.”
 It is extremely doubtful that the professor was recommending that Israel should resort to such base conduct; as an expert in Arab and Islamic culture he was explaining how Israel's Islamic enemies view the world, and by implication how impotent Israel is given their outlook.'
Mr Pinto-Duschinsky is, of course, entitled to his views.  But equally Professor Kedar is entitled to his, based on long familiarity with Arab culture and with Islam, and to voice them, for, as the rabbi of Hampstead Garden Suburb Synagogue, at which Kedar won't now be speaking, is quoted as saying:
"We probably would have had him and let him explain his comments."
As Paul Charney, chairman of the Zionist Federation, argues:
'What’s worse than a call for a boycott of an Israeli academic?
A call for a boycott of an Israeli academic from within our community.
At the Zionist Federation, we are committed to bringing over expert speakers to educate and enthuse our audiences. We don’t necessarily agree with all their views; we can’t, since our speakers cover the political and religious spectrums, reflecting the diverse backgrounds they come from. But we do think they should all be heard.
Apparently not everyone thinks this way. There has been a concerted effort to smear the reputation of renowned Professor Mordechai (Moti) Kedar prior to his arrival in the UK.
 Dr Kedar’s 25 years in military intelligence and academia makes him an expert in the Islamic and Arabic worlds, and his “crime” is to talk about the disaster that these twin spheres have wreaked in the Middle East.
But a few days after Israel commemorated the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the region, and now when Christians commiserate with their co-religionists facing the same fate, we’re not supposed to talk about this.
For all his forthright views, Moti is in high demand as a commentator across global media – including such lion dens as Al Jazeera Arabic. The Arab world, therefore, is apparently more tolerant of dissenting views than some sections of our community. These self-appointed guardians believe Jewish students must be protected from his views – views that Moti’s own Arab students queue up to hear.
In a country where people will happily condemn Israel in the most disgusting terms, but won’t speak out against Isis because it’s “Islamophobic,” we’re suddenly being asked to fight with one hand tied behind our backs - in case we cause offence.
But if there’s one thing we can learn from Moti, it’s that when it comes to the Middle East, you can’t afford to bury your head in the sand.'
 Update: Unflinching British blogger Edgar Davidson:

Wednesday, 4 June 2014

RIBA's BDS Decision Won't Be Overturned, Report States

According to a report on 30 May in the British  Architects' Journal (AJ), the the Israeli Association of United Architects (IAUA) has claimed that Stephen Hodder, president of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), does not support RIBA's recent motion to suspend Israel from the International Architects Union (UIA):
"The IAUA and RIBA have been at loggerheads following RIBA Council’s decision in March to support ex-RIBA president Angela Brady’s call for the suspension of Israel from the UIA in protest at architects who accept commissions in the Occupied Territories.
Earlier this month [May] Hodder met with Yitzhak Lipovetsky-Lir, former president of the IAUA and its international ambassador, at Portland Place in an effort to smooth over relations between the two bodies.
After the meeting, which was also attended by RIBA international vice president Peter Oborn, Lipovetsky-Lir said: ‘He [Hodder] and vice president Oborn said they are not supporting the motion; absolutely.’
‘I felt they were caught by surprise by the way the council voted,’ he added.
The latest disclosure follows claims made by Lipovetsky-Lir, prior to his recent head-to-head with Hodder, in which he told the AJ that the UIA had already decided to ignore the RIBA motion ....
Referring to the recent meeting with Hodder, Lipovetsky said that the RIBA president had revealed the institute’s council would be holding a meeting on the 19 June and that the issue ‘would be on the agenda’...."
That the motion was based on unsound principles (or perhaps I should say "constructed on shaky foundations") has been argued ably by CiF Watch here

However, it's reported here today that Mr Hodder has said that the RIBA Council meeting to be held this month
'will not overturn the motion passed earlier this year which called for Israel to be suspended from the International Architects Union (UIA).
The next meeting will be on June 19 by which the response from the UIA is expected to have been formally made.
Hodder has put the topic on the meeting’s agenda but said this had only been done because “people will want to talk about it and we’re expecting the UIA response to come in”.
And he added: “The motion can’t be overturned. There was a motion, it was passed, it’s been actioned. To me, that’s the end of the matter. It becomes RIBA policy.” ....
Hodder added: “We can’t reverse the motion, whatever the Jewish Chronicle [see here] says.”....'
Abe Hayeem, an anti-Israel Jewish activist of Iraqi background who is a RIBA Council member and who worked with Angela Brady on the motion (he is the subject of this post on the Point of No Return blog), is quoted as saying:

“RIBA very clearly took this democratic decision at committee – a fair and equitable debate.
How is it going to be overturned it? It’s nonsense. Once a democratic decision is taken, that stands. It’s like a general election; not everyone is in favour of the result but you can’t have a petition saying ‘we don’t agree, let’s do it again’.

Wednesday, 26 March 2014

"Why Have The RIBA Voted To Focus On Israel As The Greatest Sinners In The World?": Prominent Architects Blast RIBA

Educated at Magdalene College, Cambridge, Stephen Games is an architect and founder of the New Premises think tank.  He has served as deputy editor of the organ of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), has made documentaries for BBC Radio 3, has written for The Independent, The Guardian, and the Los Angeles Times.  He edited the radio talks of celebrated British architect Nikolaus Pevsner and has edited several anthologies of poetry by John Betjeman.

Now, Mr Games has slammed RIBA's Council's support for Angela Brady's recent anti-Israel motion urging suspension of the Israeli Association of United Architects (IAUA) from the International Union of Architects (UIA) (see my post here), in a letter to the president of RIBA, Stephen Hodder:
"I am not a member of any interest group within the RIBA but was nonetheless disappointed to learn of Council’s decision to call for the Israeli architects’ body to be suspended from the International Union of Architects. I had no previous knowledge that this was coming up for a vote, I have not seen it reported in the RIBAJ, and I have not had any documentation about it, otherwise I would have protested earlier.
I object to the vote for five reasons:
1.0  The vote was biased
1.1  Council’s decision is wrong and misconceived. I completely accept that the principle of Israel’s building on land won by Israel when resisting efforts by combined Arab forces to destroy it in 1967 is contentious, politically motivated and merits questioning. It is designed to provide housing for Israelis and to redefine future borders. It will however either cease when an agreement is reached between Israel and the Palestinian Authority or will continue legitimately, either within a newly drawn Israel or a newly drawn Palestinian state. 
1.2  The fact that no such agreement has yet been reached reflects the fact that terms have not yet been drawn up that satisfy both sides. Council’s decision implicitly means that the RIBA blames Israel alone for the fact that an agreement has not yet been reached.
1.3  For the RIBA to blame one side for censure is inappropriate. The RIBA is not a political body, it has no special insight into the dispute, nor is there anything in its constitution that should lead it to be partisan. The RIBA’s proper role is to preserve neutrality. To do otherwise is to act outside its mandate as a royal body. 
2.0  The vote was intrusive and mischievous
2.1  The decision suggests that the argument about Israeli building needs to be specially highlighted. It does not. There is already vocal opposition within Israel itself to “settlement building”. Significant numbers of IAUA members are themselves opposed to such building and do not need or wish to be removed from international platforms such as the International Union. They themselves see this as unhelpful and unfriendly action by foreign busy-bodies, designed not to ameliorate conditions but to demonise one side and one side alone in the dispute.
2.2  Votes such as this do not resolve problems. They drive the opposed parties further apart.
3.0  The vote was unfair
3.1  In voting for the Israeli Association of United Architects to be suspended, Council is taking action that it has taken against no other country. The meaning of this is that the RIBA finds Israel uniquely reprehensible in the world, or more reprehensible than any other country, in terms of human rights abuse. This flies in the face of all evidence. In the most recent (2011) Observer human rights index, Israel did not appear in even the top 20 of human rights abusers, which were listed as (in order):
1. Congo   2. Rwanda   3. Burundi   4. Algeria   5. Sierra Leone  
6. Egypt   7. North Korea   8. Sudan   9. Indonesia   10. Yugoslavia  
11. Pakistan   12. China   13. Libya   14. Burma   15. Iraq  
16. Afghanistan   17. Iran   18. Yemen   19. Chad  20.  Congo (Republic).
3.2  In Iraq, gays are rounded up by police, thrown into prison and tortured; Israel, by contrast, serves as a haven for gays in the Middle East, even mounting an annual Gay Pride march, an event unthinkable elsewhere in the region.
3.3  Israel is a country of political and religious pluralism. Freedom of expression and worship is welcomed. Israeli Arabs, both Christian and Muslim, are a full part of Israeli society, and can and do serve as parliamentarians in the Israeli Knesset. In no Arab country, and in few Muslim countries, is the presence of Israelis or Jews even tolerated.
3.4  Israel’s architectural body is itself made up of Israeli Arabs as well as others. Nowhere does such reciprocity exist in Arab or Muslim countries.
3.5  If the vote against Israel is to stand, it must logically be followed by similar calls for architects in countries beyond the Middle East to be banned.
4.0  The vote was reductive
4.1  If Council wishes to support the aspirations of the Palestinians, it has an obligation not to do so at Israel’s expense. Politics should not be a zero-sum game: the RIBA should recognise that both Israelis and Palestinians deserve to end up with better outcomes. In Council’s vote, however, support for Palestinians was expressed in language defined entirely by vitriolic negativity towards Israel. This is utterly inappropriate and gives rise to reasonable speculation that the vote was as much about hostility to Israel as about support for Palestinians.
4.2  As the aftermath of the Arab springs has shown, Middle Eastern politics is far more complex than the simplistic “Palestinians-good/Israel-bad” formula that supporters of the vote in Council represented. The reductivism that Council has voted for is shameful in its effort to resort to pre-Arab Spring blindness about long-standing Middle East rivalries and hostilities, of which hatred of Israel is neither the biggest nor the most entrenched.
4.3  If Council truly wished to have a say only about the Middle East, it should be supporting all people in the region who are truly suffering victimisation and oppression. If the vote in Council is allowed to stand, it must therefore be followed by a huge programme of similar and more appropriate calls for suspension—especially against Egypt, Syria, Libya, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran—and especially against other countries whose treatment of Palestinians is much more reprehensible than that of Israel, but whose actions are deliberately ignored and veiled by obsessive opponents of Israel who wish only to use the Palestinian cause to damage Israel.
5.0  The vote disgraces the RIBA
5.1  For the reasons given, by allowing the vote against Israel to stand, the RIBA risks emerging not as a body that supports Palestinians but as a body with an in-built and unprincipled prejudice against Israel and legitimate Jewish aspiration.
5.2  For more than a thousand years, the Christian Church attempted to eradicate Judaism, either by mass killing or mass conversion. Were it the case that the majority of Council members came from Christian backgrounds, some observers might conclude that the vote continued a long-standing cultural prejudice against Jews within our society in general and within the RIBA in particular. 
5.2  The campaign to boycott Israel is also bound up with a much more insidious pan-Arab and pan-Muslim campaign to delegitimise Israel and eradicate it as a state. Thus, a millennium of opposition to Jews being Jews could be seen to be joining forces with a century-long campaign to prevent Israel being Israel.
5.3  In voting for Israel’s suspension, the RIBA could be seen as siding with the most vicious campaigners against not just boycott and divestment but against Israel’s legitimacy and its survival as a state.
Conclusion
No one could want to belong to a body that can be characterised as anti-semitic, nor is it appropriate that an institutionally anti-semitic body should retain its royal charter. 
In view of the above, I urge the RIBA to reverse its decision as soon as possible. If it does not, there will inevitably be a campaign calling for the removal of the royal charter, and this will involve much unnecessary expenditure of time and effort all round.
I am copying this letter to the press."
  Mr Games told the Architects' Journal:
"To demonise Israel at the expense of all other parties lacks a necessary even handedness and it ill behoves a statutory royal body to behave in this way.
If RIBA means to stand by this decision, it should either now call for masses of bans against other countries or renounce its royal charter.... No one could want to belong to a body that can be characterised as antisemitic, nor is it appropriate that an institutionally antisemitic body should retain its royal charter."
And Dan Leon of Constructive Dialogue, who was the first signatory to the email sent to members of the RIBA Council before the vote, urging them not to support Angela Brady's motion, is quoted by the same journal as saying, very pertinently:
'To single out Israel can only be seen as discriminatory and prejudiced.
Reviewing the other members of the UAI, I note Syria and North Korea are there - I trust there will be a follow up motion for the RIBA Council to condemn these countries too, along with Russia, Turkey, and China.
I would like to add that the motion notes the UIA as “international guardian of professional and ethical standards in our profession”. If they fulfil that role have they sanctioned architects in North Korea and Syria who have worked for their despotic regimes? Do they now intend to? Why have the RIBA voted to focus on Israel as the greatest sinners in the world?' [Emphasis added]

Thursday, 20 March 2014

British Architects Make A BDS Move (updated; & further updated)

Former Royal Institute of British Architects president Angela Brady is to table has tabled the following motion at RIBA Council on 19 March (I guess the vote is taking place about now the vote has taken place, and it's not good news; here in Australia we are eleven hours ahead of Britain, and I'll update this post if I hear how the vote goes: UPDATE: RIBA Council voted to support suspension of the Israeli Association of United Architects by 23:16:10.  I assume the latter figure means abstentions):
"The Israeli Association of United Architects (IAUA) has paid no regard to the UIA Resolution 13 of 2005. The RIAS calls on the UIA, as the international guardian of professional and ethical standards in our profession, to take appropriate action. The UIA membership of the Israeli Association of United Architects should be suspended until these illegal projects end, and international law, the UIA Accords and Resolution 13 are observed."
In response, opponents of the move within the profession have sent the following email to the RIBA Council:
"Angela Brady’s motion to council against the IAUA is misguided and one-sided. 
While it is legitimate to criticise Israeli Government policy, it is dishonourable to single out Israeli Architects. 
There are architects in many parts of the world whom find themselves in conflict areas but are welcome in the IAU, making this motion discriminatory. 
A call to exclude the IAUA from the IAU would be a counter-productive move that would reinforce prejudices and encourage conflict, rather than supporting the very professionals that are best placed in the region to promote mutual understanding. 
Our energy should rather be focused on positive work that construction professionals can do to advance peace and coexistence. Many Israeli architects have used their experiences and knowledge to create projects that help the architectural community across the world, and we, as members of the RIBA, would like to see our international union building bridges/helping our fellow workers, not abandoning them. 
It is imperative not to transport the conflict in the Middle East into the architectural profession but rather use the profession and resources available to encourage dialogue and cooperation, especially during a time of peace talks.
Furthermore, the international committee has already stated that ‘it is beyond the role of the RIBA to push the IAU for a sanction against Israel’s architectural community.’...."
Read more here (and please alert me in a comment if you hear more details of how the vote went, with a link if possible).

Further update, from the report here:
'Former RIBA president Angela Brady’s motion, calling for the suspension of Israeli professional body from the International Architects Union (IAU), has been approved
The motion against the Israeli Association of United Architects (IAUA), which was tabled at RIBA Council yesterday (19 March), was carried by 23 votes in favour, with 16 against and 10 abstentions.
The move had already received the backing of the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland (RIAS) last week, but had come under fire from members from Constructive Dialogue who claimed it was ‘misguided and one-sided’ ....
Brady commented: ‘It’s a great day for RIBA ethics in architecture. This was a focused motion at a key time -when the world wants this illegal building on occupied land by Israeli in Palestine to stop now - as it contravenes international law and Cameron, Obama and many others including all UN state this. 
‘We have added our voice in a strong way. This was a sensitive debate for justice and to add positive value.
 ‘This is not a boycott this is the affirmation that in terms of the UIA code of ethics and professionalism, architects should not practice in occupied territory.‘We as architects need to stand up for what is right. This will open the way for other similar issues to come forward.’""
Incidentally, I hear on the grape vine that the BDSers are hoping that the professional body of British town planners will emulate the architects...

See also my post of 26 March here